I was not aware that I was. You are not a captive audience, so you are free to cease reading at any time.

My conversion story is public. As you might surmise from my familiarity with RCC dogma, I was raised Catholic. Many a year was wasted in that church. Indeed, I was considering graduate work to begin a life of ministry when I came to my senses.

You could always ask the SSPX how a difference in theology is viewed from the hierarchy. Or the various groups ordaining women. Or the syncretistic religions of the southern hemisphere. I could go on. The RCC has never been friendly to anything they viewed as heretical or heterodox.

This strikes me as odd. Why would I not read the bible when I was Catholic? The basic thought is not to say that I followed it like a curriculum, but rather that I am more than passingly familiar with the contents, which is something you will notice a lot of Christians assume is not true when speaking with non-believers.

Of course, many times. One does not engage in Catholic apologetics without having one on hand.

I don't hate Catholics. I don't hate many people at all(and none of those few for reasons relating to their religion). I do, however, hate the systems of beliefs which you are a part of, and which enslave so many people.

Try it on as a mental challenge. Envision the worst litany of atrocities that you can stomach. Now, envision a belief system which celebrates those acts. I can tell you right now, it's trivial to imagine such a system and to declare that my beliefs are better. Unless you are a bona fide sociopath, I would wager that it would be trivial for you as well. And there is a reason for that. Our morality is not a purely relative construct. Rather, it is based on biology at its deepest root, and our basic social interactions at a more intelligible level. That's why most religions have similar in-group dynamics. These are human morals, not religious, atheist or otherwise. And while there is a wide latitude in moral reasoning, aside from sociopathic outliers, there are general boundaries. Whale, prairie dogs, wolves and chimpanzees(to name a few random species which popped into my head) all have their respective social structures and, likewise, the respective intergroup behavior processes we call morality in humans.

I am always willing to listen, when approached in a truly neutral way.

See, this is where you still lose me. Would you consider Hitler's beliefs to be as valid as yours? Would you consider a belief that it is OK to rape women to be as valid as those that you hold? If so, I seriously suggest that you revisit your beliefs.

I don't understand the term "more evolved" in this context. I do believe that my current beliefs are more correct than my former beliefs. And I do believe that theistic beliefs are largely harmful both to the person holding them and to the general public. But the term "elitist" implies much more than that. Specifically, it implies a whole class structure which is simply nonexistent. I may be a venomous asshole, but I am an egalitarian venomous asshole.

The offense was mild, and I have already brushed it off.

No, I quite understand the difference(and I may well be old enough to be your father), and if we were debating over wine in my living room face to face, the social niceties would be enforced. While we might claw at our respective beliefs, we could do so civilly(as indeed I do with many of my religious friends). However, we are not in my living room, and the social niceties are far more "relaxed" here. Without biological cues, it is impossible to read intent and correct for poorly chosen wording. And if you take a glance at the 0 and -1 rated comments on this thread alone, you will see why I don't bother to assume good intent any longer.

I have debated what you presented.

I was not confused. I find moral relativism to be a muddled mode of thought in general. In this case, you were expressing solidarity with Circlewell at the same time that you were implicitly undermining his beliefs as well. If you had been aiming for clarity, you could have said something succinct like:

As a henotheistic moral relativist, I view both theistic and atheistic beliefs as equally valid, and decry the general lack of decorum in slashdot debates.

The excessive verbiage and poorly chosen wording made it sound very rambling and condescending.

And I would be happy to hear them, but I can't think of a much worse place than slashdot to do that. If you have a blog, feel free to post a link.

I frankly have no interest in what you do or do not believe. However, you claim allegiance to an organization which emphatically does care what you believe, and indeed builds a profession of belief into their primary ritual, the Mass. It is also a requirement for participation in the Eucharist to agree with their doctrine and dogma. If you are cool with lying to them, so be it.

Do you find it to be some amazing revelation that most people are hypocrites when it comes to their religion? I do not.

This is false. We do not all worship anything, unless you water down the meaning of the word "worship" until it is utterly useless.

Your relativism is amusing, but superficial. I bet it would be trivial to get you to act as though your beliefs were better. This is also another break between you and your church. They most certainly do claim that their beliefs are superior to all others, going so far as to claim that a deity is actively protecting them from teaching error.

A laudable goal. Perhaps you would be more successful if you didn't engage in polysyllabic patronizing commentary on random blogs.

Given the condescending tone of your initial post, is it any surprise that I replied in the same vein?

And yet you diminish both of our beliefs(and your own, not to mention the church you profess to be a member of) by ignoring the very real differences in both how they are derived and how grounded they are in any form of logic or empiricism.

I am no respecter of beliefs or ideas. They are all fodder for dissection and attack. If you can't handle that, then why do you even make the pretense of doing post-graduate work? Do you not have to defend your ideas?

Ah, I see, and apologize for my off the cuff response. That, indeed, is a good idea :)

If I were postulating the existence of invisible monsters running the universe, I, too, would be compelled to actually present evidence before expecting someone to take me seriously. Apparently, bronze age blood gods are exempt from this policy in some minds. I also note that you didn't bother to defend some of the disgusting acts your god commanded and condoned. Unsurprising in the least.

Really? Irrefutable, eh? I have gone out and found some commentary and reviews on it already, and irrefutable is not the word I would use for what I'm seeing. So, let's set it up where you have to put your money where your mouth is. If I get it from the library, and I spend the time to write up another refutation, you will videotape yourself going in front of your congregation and publicly repudiating your religion and god, and place this video on youtube with enough information to verify that it is valid. Deal?

Really? You are convinced by Lisle's, shall we say, invalid(or I can go ahead and call it willfully stupid) use of "laws of information science?" That explains a lot about you. Same deal as the other book. I can give you a taste, though. The statement "There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter" is a factually incorrect assertion. Even ignoring the biological events which he is directly referencing and which are the clearest counter-arguments to this nonsense(see Lenski's experiments for example), we have information being generated AND encoded from strictly physical processes, like geology. Of course, when your central assumption is that life is impossible without voodoo magic spirits, it becomes imperative that you ignore such things.

Ah, I see. You think perhaps that I was not at one point a theist, and that I am somehow woefully ignorant of the inane ramblings that pass as intellectual discourse in the Creationist movement(yes, I know the movement in which your books are commonly used). How trite. Does it not occur to you that I have already been exposed to your nonsense, and in fact, a lot stronger versions of it than can be found in the books you've linked, and found it all wanting?

You don't need a "pro-atheism" book. You just need to remove your blinders and think. No book can teach you to do that.

LOL. I can build up my entire worldview without appealing to a peek-a-boo playing deity. It doesn't require "feelings" to examine the universe. It doesn't require "feelings" to note that theistic claims ALWAYS fail. Again, this speaks volumes about your worldview.

Of course. It's the same reason I fail to see or feel the presence of Set or Marduk.

If the LACK of evidence is what convinces you of the existence of a god, then you are more serious problems than I suspected.

What gaps? Oh, you are under the infantile assumptions that a) the fossil record is the only evidence of the evolution of life and, b) the fact that we don't have a fossil representation of EVERY form of life is in any way a detriment to understanding evolution, or that such a thing is even claimed by any paleontologist. See, this is where you will need serious remedial courses in basic biology, chemistry and geology to even begin to have an intelligent conversation.

Wow. A person who is unaware of the fact that the universe behaves in certain patterns that we like to label "laws of nature."

Pour enough energy on naturally occurring protein strands(with their replicative properties), and over time you will get pattern storage. Hell, a 1st year programming student could demonstrate this with a random() function in an hour. Try it yourself, if you don't lack ability in that area as well.

I also wasn't there when your dad had sex with your mom, but I have no doubts that they did, in fact, do that, at least once. I could be wrong(artificial insemination and all), but that's the most likely scenario. See how we can work back from the current universe to build up our understanding of the history of these types of processes? You should try to engage in that more.

LOL, I am witness to the results, and I can follow the chain of evidence back, none of which relies on the intervention of a Canaanite blood god.

I'm sorry, what makes you think that I believe in the antagonist of your fairy tale just because I don't believe in the protagonist?

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. - Numbers 31:17-18

Unless you think the taking virgin slaves for concubines is somehow consensual sex, then, yes, that's rape.

I have no clue what you are talking about here. Please clarify.

I concede the point, if it is put this way: when faced with a monolithic, religious cultural force like Christianity, it is prudent to know their source books in order to attack them more successfully.

First, it's childish to expect everyone to be scared of your invisible boogeyman and his threats of eternal damnation. I'm no more worried that I am pissing off your god than I am that I am pissing off Allah, Apollo, Zeus, Odin or Thor. When you finally understand why you aren't scared of those other gods, maybe you'll get an inkling of why we react this way.

Second, it's childish to embrace such nonsense without evidence, and your emotions do not count as evidence. If you want to be taken seriously, then make serious claims, and back it up with serious data. Pointing to your holy book and pleading that the "good" being depicted inside has a plan to torture me forever is, shall we say, less than convincing.

So, you are a Roman Catholic henotheist? Given that the RC conception of god is unary(at least by their own definition, the illogical nature of the trinity aside), this renders your self-identification just as muddled as the rest of your post. Did you really waste the last five years on crap like this?

No need to go to the source, since it was extensively quoted in the very ideas you mention.

Why did you put christian in quotes? And who cares what they say? I don't need to read the Qur'an to reject fatwas. I don't need to read the bible to reject the latest junk from the 700 Club or Rick Santorum.

Like what?

I think your succinct distillation is far superior to the original.

Dude, have you not read it? There is PLENTY in there to support those politics. Do you not remember the bit in the beginning, for example, where that loving god sent his chosen people on a rape, pillage and murder rampage through the "promised land?"

But, then, I suppose that the fact that I knew that supports your view, doesn't it? I would say that there is one good reason to read the bible: to be able to expose it for the steaming pile of evil it really is.

Been there, done that, done with that. Read the bible cover to cover, can still outquote most of my "devout" family and friends, still a pile of nonsense.

Which laws still apply?

If my daughter is raped, do I still sell her to her rapist?

If my kid is rebellious, do I still get to kill him?

If I wife doesn't bleed like a virgin on our wedding night, do I still get to kill her?

If my kid turns out gay, and I catch him with his boyfriend, am I still obligated to kill both of them?

Shall I keep going? This is your bible, not mine. This is codified barbarism. It is institutionalized hatred and murder. This is the foundation stone that the rest of your religion is built directly upon. The god in those books is a bloodthirsty monster. The New Testament builds on that, adding infinite punishments for those who don't believe. It's all infantile prattling, and I have a hard time taking anyone who finds deep meaning in it seriously. Grow up, and quit your whining. If you are right, you will be even more exalted in your childish "heaven" due to our criticism while we burn forever, so what are you whining about anyway?