Posted tagged ‘atheism’

Critical Thinking

May 18, 2009

I’ve been out of the battle of worldviews for awhile, but I just couldn’t resist after reading this gem. 

In fact, I have no idea why I was reading “Proud Atheists” again.  Truth be told I don’t find Mark to be intelligent and unique.  He’s just very good at condescending sarcasm and ignorant sensationalism which fills his blog stats.  Indeed, I wouldn’t even be writing this here if I was able to comment on his site (that’s right, I asked him a few tough questions and he banned me back in January). 

OK on to the point.  Mark wrote a post called Let’s Set the Record Straight, and I couldn’t help but smile triumphantly.  The purpose of the post was to . . . set the record straight . . . about how he feels about his atheism.  Some of the points aren’t worth discussing, but others are very telling. 

Part of this first point reads:

 I do not believe in gods, devils, demons, spirits, ghosts, souls, angels or any other being that controls humans.

This begs the question of free will.  Since God doesn’t exist then man is nothing but biochemistry (to say otherwise is just plain ignorance of biochemistry).  So instead of God “controlling us”, as Mark puts it, it is DNA and the chemical interactions controlled by that DNA that controls us.  Mark would call it “What I decided to do at the time” or “I do what I think is right”, but it’s all the same, brain activity controlled by biochemical interactions. 

So, Mark is right, he doesn’t believe in a being that controls humans, and neither do I (for if God really controlled us than atheism wouldn’t exist), but he believes in a worldview that makes the idea of “free will” nothing more than a created self-delusion.  Just as Mark sees those who believe in a deity as delusional, Mark has deluded himself that he has “free will” absent of God.   

Mark’s second point is:

As an atheist, I do not accept prayers, spells, curses, invitations to your theistic site for debate, scriptures, books, videos and other “God” media as proof of “existence of God”. Although you may find them inspirational, they are man made and only support a belief, not proof.

OK, so Mark has proof, while Christians only believe.  Got it.  Also, Mark will not engage in any debate and will not read any evidence for Christianity or against atheism.  Got it.  Take note of these two, they’ll become important in about two seconds.

He continues on with:

It is not my responsibility as an atheist to provide proof for my non-belief in your God or gods. However, if you claim to believe that elves and other supernatural phenomena exist, the burden of proof is on you. Without proof, you will be deemed as deluded in my view.

Wait. wait…wait.  I thought Mark had all the proof and us Christians didn’t?  I find it pretty selfish of Mark to keep all this “proof” to himself.  So, Mark won’t discuss any evidence for any opposite position and he won’t provide any evidence for his position.  Now that’s what I call a rational worldview!

I am not obligated to respect your religion, as most religions do not respect atheism or critical thought for that matter.

If “critical thought” is refusing to discuss an issue and provide evidence for your own opinion then I’ve been doing it all wrong!

Now you see why reading this had me all smiles.  No matter how loud or often Mark calls Christians irrational, his own words betray that he is just as dogmatic as any true believer that I know.

Advertisements

Apparently, Only Atheists Can Argue Theology

March 9, 2009

Awhile ago I saw a post over at Daniel Florien’s Unreasonable Faith that caught my eye.  Daniel was responding to a video of a creation vs. evolution discussion when he made a few interesting comments.

Apparently the proponent of creation admitted to having presupposed beliefs (presuppositions).  These beliefs are admittedly unscientific.  This is how Daniel summarizes his presuppositions:

(1) God exists, (2) that this God is the Christian God, (3) that this God wrote a book, and (4) that book is the Protestant Bible as we have it today.

Whatever discrepancies we can find in Daniel’s summary we’ll ignore because they are besides the point.  The point is Daniel’s reaction to these presuppositions.

Nothing big there — just everyday presuppositions that we all have. Completely rational starting points of a scientific worldview. Ugh.

I believe some explanation may be due here.  What Daniel is saying that the Christian presuppositions are not conducive to a scientific worldview, therefore they are invalid.  A scientific worldview, the worldview that Daniel holds to, is superior because it is scientific and the Christian worldview is inferior because it is not based upon science.  Would we all agree that this is Daniel’s position?

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the Christian argument is a theological one.  That is, the Christian presuppositions are about what God would do and did do (created the world, wrote a book).  That’s what makes a belief in the Bible unscientific, because it’s about what God did, which, although it may be observable, is unrepeatable by science. 

Negative Theology

To the atheist, the fact that Christians make theological arguments at all disqualifies them from any rational discussion.  After all, the only thing that can be verified is science, right?

Unfortunately, at the end of his article, Daniel inadvertently gives the atheistic “Secrets to Denying God” away.

Just after he finishes chastising the Christian for making a theological argument, Daniel says:

I thought Peter Atkins makes a great point that if evolution is true and God exists, he chose a “particularly nasty” way of going about creating the world.

Oh the hypocrisy!  That God created the world in a “nasty” way is a theological argument as well!  It’s just a negative one.   In fact, the belief that Daniel is displaying is that “If God created the world, then He did a nasty job of it, therefore it’s unlikely that God created the world”.  That’s the definition of negative theology!

But does Daniel chastise Peter Atkins for making a theological argument just as the Christian did?  Of course not. 

Is Atkins theological argument rejected because it is unscientific, just as the Christians’ theological arguments are?  Of course not.

To science, what’s the difference between Atkin’s theological position, and the Christian one?  None except that Daniel agrees with Atkins.

It’s a perfect tactic.  It allows the atheist to make all the negative theological arguments they want, while rejecting any Christian rebuttal on the basis it is “unscientific”, denying the whole time that their original argument was unscientific theology as well.

Apparently, only atheists can make theological arguments.

Atheists Only Use Science? Don’t Fool Yourself

February 24, 2009

Every Christian who is interested in argument should learn from this example. Atheists and other non-Christians argue in this way all the time, and if we want to be effective in answering them, we must be able to spot it in action.

What I’m talking about is the hypocritical and contradictory arguments used in defense of atheism, and in offense against Christianity.

I was talking with a commenter called “RJ”, and our conversation hit a few different topics from morality, to Bible, to science.  RJ is a cordial, intelligent fellow who recognized that we are at a fundamental impasse in our conversation due to how differently we view things.  However, what RJ doesn’t realize is how contradictory the very structure of his arguments are to his stated positions.

Remember, the point here isn’t that RJ is wrong (it’s obvious that I think he is) and that I’m right (again, obviously I think I am).  The point is that RJ’s arguments are contradictory and hypocritical in their very structure, and the proving of this has nothing to do with our mutually opposite opinions.

RJ’s Standard of Belief

It’s a popular position among atheists to claim that only they have science on their side.  Truly, they believe they are the only ones who use science, especially in comparison to us crazy Young Earth Creationists.

RJ makes this point very clearly.  We were discussing a particular passage of Scripture.  When I explained my view, RJ rejected my explanation based upon the fact that he could not empirically verify my explanation:

That’s interesting. Show me your evidence to support your assertion that “this is no broad commandment from god”? Can you produce falsifiable evidence to support this claim? You’re issuing a conclusion based on what?

The point RJ is making is that since I cannot provide scientific (observable and testable) evidence for my claim about what Scripture is and is not saying, therefore my statement holds no water.

RJ goes on:

The problem here is that you are claiming absolute knowledge of the meanings of scripture.

The implication is that since reading and interpreting Scripture is not a scientific endeavor, then it is inherently flawed and untrustworthy.  RJ is pointing out the inherently unscientific nature of my Christianity which stands in stark contrast to his scientific position.  In fact, RJ makes this point more blatantly:

Ignorance of science, and knowledge in general, is a tactic used by all religions. The less the flock knows, the easier it is to convince, convert and control.

and . . .

If you argue for creation, then we reach an impasse. You rely on “faith”, a rationalization, blind to fact, and posited from a “backed into a corner” mentality.

and . . .

The ONLY way that a creator can make sense to the believer is if they ignore evidence and embrace “faith”.

The part that RJ explicitly left out, but is no less obvious, is that RJ doesn’t rely on faith, and his “no faith needed” belief system is superior because it is supported by science.

The Atheistic Hypocrisy

RJ does us all a favor and defines what he means by faith for us. 

Faith: Belief that is not based on proof

By proof he means logical proof or scientific evidence.  In fact, that is how the American Heritage Dictionary defines “faith”.

RJ’s standard of belief is scientific evidence, and RJ’s reason for rejecting my argument is that it’s based on “belief that is not based on logical proof or scientific evidence”.  That means any theological or metaphysical position that I have is inferior to his scientific position.

This is where RJ’s hypocrisy comes in.  And the worst part is, he is blind to it. 

Regarding Christianity in general, RJ says:

“Which one of the 33,800+ denominations is the right one?” You fail to address this question, BECAUSE in your mind, YOUR VERSION is the right one.

RJ’s position here is that in order for God to be a viable option, there must a be a clear “right one”.  Right or wrong, this is a theological argument. 

More importantly, it is a theological argument in support of RJ’s atheism, an atheism that is supposed to be “all science” and “no faith”.  That there must be a single “right” version for Christianity to be viable certainly falls into the category of a belief unsupported by logical proof or scientific evidence.

The hypocrisy of RJ’s position is much greater than this, however.  He says:

The problem here is that you are claiming absolute knowledge of the meanings of scripture. . .you are doing EXACTLY what EVERY believer does to RATIONALIZE your position.

RJ’s powerful argument against Christianity, that since no interpretation of Scripture is right, therefore Christianity can’t be right, is a theological and metaphysical argument.  Certainly no scientific experiment told RJ that there is no correct interpretation of Scripture.  Ironically and hypocritically RJ doesn’t allow any metaphysical or theological rebuttals because he pretends and deludes himself that he only believes what can be empirically verified. 

Since science didn’t tell RJ that there isn’t a correct interpretation of Scripture, where did he get the idea?  The idea falls directly into the definition of something that RJ takes on faith.

This hypocrisy is no where more blatant than in this statement:

You apparently don’t follow science. This is where we can easily reach an impasse.

As I’ve shown, our impasse is not due to the fact that I don’t follow science, but from RJ’s willful self-delusion that he does. 

The Atheist Paints Himself into a Corner

Let’s revisit the standard that RJ sets before himself in order to believe.  Remember that “Belief without logical proof or scientific evidence” also known as “faith” is bad.  Since this is RJ’s standard, all of the statements made above must be thrown out of RJ’s belief system.  In fact, anything that doesn’t meet strict empirical standards (observation, testing, and falsifiability) can’t be included either. 

Don’t let the atheist switch between demanding empirical evidence and yet using theological and/or metaphysical arguments.  It’s hypocrisy and should be pointed out as such.

A Self-Reflective View of Science, Theology and Metaphysics

Throughout the entirety of our conversation, RJ never stopped using metaphysical and theological arguments.  Of course, doing so isn’t bad, as I do it all the time as well.  But holding your opponents to a standard of belief (only science!) that you don’t hold yourself to is hypocritical and contradictory.  Defining “faith” as something that is inherently negative and yet ignoring the plethora of beliefs you hold to that have no “logical proof or scientific evidence” is just plain blind. 

What RJ, and the rest of atheism, needs to realize is that they use negative theological and metaphysical arguments all the time, and it is only bad if you deny doing it.

Let me ask you a question atheist:  Which is more rational?  Those that recognize the metaphysical and theological structure/substance of their arguments, or those that make those same metaphysical and theological type arguments but are ignorant that they do so?

Morality

February 19, 2009

The other day, I posted a video that dramatized a moral question aimed at stumping the secularist.  The idea behind the video was that since behavior is dictated by DNA, how can we call behavior moral or immoral?  The video, called “Cruel Logic” puts the question in the context of a secularist sociology professor being kidnapped, tied up, tortured (with only a stun gun, and only twice, and quickly, it’s not that bad) and asked the question, “Why shouldn’t I kill you?”

So, that’s what I did, I asked the secularists why I shouldn’t kill them, give me one good reason to act morally if my DNA is the thing deciding my actions, honestly hoping to get a few answers.  I definitely got a few answers. 

Although the answer came from several different people, and were put in a few different ways, they all said the same basic thing.  That I shouldn’t kill them because I’ll be punished by the majority of society.  First of all . . .

That’s Not An Answer To the Question

That answer falls apart when you consider that no murderer plans on getting caught.  Consequences don’t matter if no one ever knows what you did.  So future consequences are not a present deterrent to someone who thinks they won’t get caught. 

However, there is a deeper problem with this answer.  The implicit suggestion, which was made explicit by some of the commenters, is that morality is given to us by other people.  Our morality is decided upon by the other people in the society that we live in, and given to us as we grow up.  Put another way, morality is a social construction.

We’ve decided, as a society, upon what is moral and what is immoral.  Similarly, as an American society, we’ve decided that capitalism is a good thing.  Sure, there are some dissenting opinions (*cough* Obama *cough*), but in general we’ve decided that capitalism is the best choice given the other options.  Within your own family, perhaps you’ve been taught that tattoos are “bad”, this is a social construction on a smaller scale. 

The problem is . . .

We Don’t Treat Morality this Way

Social constructions are up for debate.  In our capitalism example, capitalism has a very diverse spectrum.  There on many differing valid opinions regarding capitalism and it is being used in just as many different ways in 1st-2nd world countries.  It’s pros and cons are up for debate and neither side is considered irrational as long as their reasoning is sound.

Now, if the immorality of murder was just as socially constructed as capitalism, then there would be a debate about the merits of murder.  There would be many valid dissenting opinions.  After all, social construction is just the same as saying “many people have the same opinion” or “The majority of society has decided that ____”.  A strict capitalism opinion can be just as rationally valid as a more liberal capitalism opinion.  Is that how we treat murder?  Is there a dissenting, valid opinion about whether or not murder is wrong?  Or do we have discussions about how wrong murder is?  Of course not.

The point is, if the immorality of murder was socially constructed by the opinions of billions of people, then there would be many differing opinions on murder.  And yet, that’s not the case at all is it?  The universal consensus is that murder is just plain wrong, no matter what argument is put forth.  Murder is treated and explained as a universal, absolute evil.  The secularist can argue all they want that it’s a social construction, but that’s just not how human beings act.  It doesn’t explain the obvious universal consensus that murder is wrong; a consensus that is acted upon in every culture, in every part of the world on a daily basis. 

However, if there is a universal morality Giver, then that makes sense of our human experience.  The observation that every single culture in the history of the world believes that murder is wrong is not explainable as a social construct and is only explainable by a God who gave us “murder is wrong” at birth.

I Know What You’re Going to Say

Every secularist reading this is going to point out the cultures that act badly.

“Well, the Muslim extremists think that murder is OK”

See, that’s where you’re wrong.  We’re talking about the word “murder”, not the word “jihad”, “kill”, or “war”, we’re talking about murder.  Even amongst Muslim extremists killing their own is not OK.  Even among those who kill, murder is wrong.  Even among the cannibals of the African rain forest, killing their own, murder, is wrong. 

How can their be such differing opinions on the issues of social constructions like religion and economics, yet an absolute universal law on murder in another social construction, morality?  Such universality renders the social construction explanation of morality void of real world logic.  It becomes a “just so” story that secularists have no evidence for.

Why Shouldn’t I Kill You?

February 17, 2009

That is, if my actions are determined solely by the chemical interactions in my brain, which is in turn determined by DNA, then isn’t any action I perform completely a-moral?  It isn’t right or wrong, it’s just what my DNA has me do. 

This video is a great presentation of this argument in action, and it’s potential implications.

I first saw this video over on 4Simpsons, and Neil has some interesting points on the subject.

As for me, I want to stick to the question of the video and see if anyone can answer it.  I’m honestly curious to see if there is an answer that is consistent with the atheist worldview.

So, tell me, why shouldn’t I kill you?

Faith vs. Science

February 11, 2009

This was sent to me by one of my friends.  This is conversation was reported to have actually taken place.  Whether that is true or not, I think it’s a great illustration of the epistemological and metaphysical problems atheists have.

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, ‘Let me explain the problem science has with religion.’

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?’

‘Yes sir,’ the student says.

‘So you believe in God?’

‘Absolutely.’

‘Is God good?’

‘Sure! God’s good.’

‘Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?’

‘Yes.’

‘Are you good or evil?’

‘The Bible says I’m evil.’

The professor grins knowingly.  ‘Aha! The Bible!’   He considers for a moment.  ‘Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?’

‘Yes sir, I would.’ ‘So you’re good…!’

‘I wouldn’t say that.’

‘But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.’

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. ‘He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?’

The student remains silent.

‘No, you can’t, can you?’ the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

‘Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?’

‘Er…yes,’ the student says.

‘Is Satan good?’

The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. ‘No.’

‘Then where does Satan come from?’

The student falters. ‘From God’

‘That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?’

‘Yes, sir.’

‘Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?’

‘Yes.’

‘So who created evil?’ The professor continued, ‘If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.’

Again, the student has no answer.

‘Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?’

The student squirms on his feet. ‘Yes.’

‘So who created them?’

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. ‘Who created them?’

There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. ‘Tell me,’ he continues onto another student. ‘Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?’

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. ‘Yes, professor, I do.’

The old man stops pacing. ‘Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?’

‘No sir. I’ve never seen Him.’

‘Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?’

‘No, sir, I have not.’

‘Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?’

‘No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.’

‘Yet you still believe in him?’

‘Yes.’

‘According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?’

‘Nothing,’ the student replies. ‘I only have my faith.’

‘Yes, faith,’ the professor repeats. ‘And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.’

At the back of the room another student stands quietly for a moment before asking a question of his own.

‘Professor, is there such thing as heat? ‘

‘Yes,’ the professor replies. ‘There’s heat.’

‘And is there such a thing as cold?’

‘Yes, son, there’s cold too.’

‘No sir, there isn’t.’

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.

‘You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.  Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.’

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

‘What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?’

‘Yes,’ the professor replies without hesitation. ‘What is night if it isn’t darkness?’

‘You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.  In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?’

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.

‘So what point are you making, young man?’

‘Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.’

The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. ‘Flawed? Can you explain how?’

‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains. ‘You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.’  Science uses electricity and magnetism, but we have never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.’

‘Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey??’

‘If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.’

‘Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?’

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

‘To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.’

The student looks around the room. ‘Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?’

The class breaks out into laughter.

‘Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.’

‘So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the professor answers. ‘I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.’

‘Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,’ the student continues. ‘Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?’

Now uncertain, the professor responds, ‘Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.’

To this the student replied, ‘Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’

The professor sat down.

To that I say; amen brother.

Comments Deleted and Banned from “Proud Atheists”

January 26, 2009

I’m posting this just so we can have on record yet another intellectually dishonest atheist. 

Mark, over at Proud Atheists, posted some statistics on Christians and atheists in jail.  Trying to make the point that since there are hardly any atheists in jail, therefore religion is bad. 

Of course, the statistic that Mark is purposefully ignoring is that there are hardly any atheists in America!

I pointed this out to him when I said:

Unfortunately, the most recent (2001) ARIS poll shows that only .4% of the US population positively professes atheism while a 2005 Gallup poll shows that only 5% say they don’t believe in God (that includes agnostics btw). It’s convenient of you to use the low population of atheists in prisons but ignore the very low population of atheists in America. Twisting stats just because it suits your argument…tsk tsk Mark.

He responded with:

The keyphrase is “open atheists”.

A new survey in the U.S. shows that the number of 18-25 year olds who are atheist, agnostic or nonreligious has increased from 11 percent in 1986 to 20 percent today.

http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=281&article=0

A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica finds that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world’s population, and atheists about 2.3%. This figure does not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Demographic

So, not only does he confirm my statistic in his second citation (2.3%), he completely goes off the deep end with his first citation.  I informed of this:

Mark

This is getting ridiculous. I give you statistics from a Gallup poll and the ARIS report and you give me Pew Research Center from a Humanist website about 18-25 year olds? Since when were we talking about 18-25 year olds?

But I know what you did, you found the highest percentage you could, regardless of reliability and relevance and cited it. Are you even attempting to be honest?

Now, this is where Mark get’s REALLY shady, he responded with:

Polls from 2001?? That’s back when people loved GW Bush. I wouldn’t bet on 8 year old polls no matter who conducted them. Things have changed quite a lot since then. And since when aren’t 18 – 25 year olds relevant?? They pay taxes too!

Like I said, no matter what stats I introduce,you would discredit them.

In the original discussion, that comment ended with the phrase, “And never question my honesty”. 

I wrote two more comments.  One that was devoted to Mark’s intellectual dishonesty in moving goalposts with the 18-25 year old demographic (something that was never in the original article or discussion) and his verbal threat of “Never question my honesty”.

The other comment was to point out the irrationality of Marks’, “You wouldn’t believe me if I told you anyway!” argument, and that if a Christian used that argument, Mark would be all over him like white on rice, but it’s ok if Mark uses it, well, because he’s Mark. 

Both comments, and his threat, were deleted and when I attempted to comment and address his blogging dishonesty, I found that I was banned. 

Mark, the ultimate irony is that you berate Christians for being brainwashed and lacking all logic.  Well, the only one deleting comments, and banning people, who are merely using argument to disagree with you, is not the Christian.