Steely Dan - Kid Charlemagne

I'm a big fan of people who think that stories in the Bible which are clearly (because of what we now know) are made up crap (Jonah in the Whale, Noah and the Ark) they become stories written in metaphor. But the rest of the book isn't a made up story based on what people in ancient times believed because they didn't know any better its all freakin true..its convienient I think.

People hang on to the belief in the made up book because they feel stupid for believing such rubbish to begin with and in truth aren't given any choice but to believe in it by their parents..so the Bible and or God is a forced belief based on the refusal to feel stupid..or because they fear death. If you've lived a good life and you believe in the bible and followed its teachings what on earth is there to fear???? SHouldn't you all be welcoming death and hoping it comes soon???? But it seems not. The need to redefine death and give it another meaning other then life is over and that all she wrote, the fat lady sung and you are out of here...keeps on trucking mindlessly despite it being clearly a silly idea not based in proof but the hope you are more important then you really are.

I find your militantly atheistic approach to religion is equally questionable.

Yup.

When ya got two extremes shouting extreme stuff at you, (on this particular issue, Biblical literalist zealotry on one side and militant atheism/anti-religious-ism on the other) you can just about bet your last dollar the actual truth is right about in the middle of what the two extremes are trying to beat you over the head with.

Either that arc was friggin super duper huge, or there's a bit of metaphor there. Personally I believe there was a arc and a flood, but all species is obviously a bit in question.

I find it ironic that when ever the atheist presents his/her point, that atheist is accused of militant evangelism. Just because it is unpopular does not mean it is militant. But, usually that which is seen as going against the grain of the mainstream is seen as radical.

There's nothing anti-religious to the atheist argument; it's all how you perceive it. I may think that religion stifles the intellect, but unlike those who believe they have a monopoly on truth, I'm not going to fight and kill in order to convert. By your definition of 'militant atheism', I could easily present a case that your expressing of an opinion is just as 'militant', myt.

And even if it were militant, your argument against it doesn't discredit it's validity anyway and should be rendered irrelevant to the debate; while you can complain about the tone of the argument, you still never rebut any of Gagetory's premises or conclusions. Just saying that it is extreme and that the truth is 'somewhere in the middle' isn't saying anything at all; you're practicing what we call 'middle ground fallacy' - assuming that an argument is true not due to adequate substantiation but merely on the premise that it is the 'middle argument' in between two perceived extremes.

You act as if we don't know each other and haven't been posting here for a while. What is there to add to the debate. If you don't think either side is "right" you really don't have anything to say other than what Myt did.

There may be nothing anti-religious to some athiest argument, but there is a serious anti-religious bent to Gadgetory's arguments.

You have much more to add. Rebuttals to specific arguments would be a good starting point.

The middle isn't right just because it is in the middle; there has to be adequate substantiation in its own right, independently as an argument.

I agree. But does that make his arguments necessarily incorrect? Such a tone may have been a strategic political mistake on Gagetory's part (if he's trying to persuade someone), but it doesn't make his actual arguments any less valid.

He didn't give any particular "middle". He said "the answer is right about in the middle". We can all agree that both ends are extreme, so I don't see where Myt was that far off. There is no defendable "right" in this argument, but we can be pretty sure that extremes probably are pretty much wrong. And somewhere in the middle, there is a "truth" of some sort.