Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I posted what Luther wanted done to the Jews. However, he first approached the Jews to get them to accept his new religion. When they didn't he wanted them destroyed. That's been the pattern of many Christian missionaries. "Become Christians or we'll destroy you".

The history of missionaries is more than you telling others about your religion. It is a story of blood and violence. With the exception of Ireland Christianity spread in Europe through violence.

You didn't know about Luther, and you probably don't know how Christianity has been spread. Christian missionaries have been associated with gunboats and political power. Go and learn.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/12/07/out-of-china-barbarians/

It is an ugly history. In my opinion you are the face of evil.

I am not telling you to shut up I am telling you to go and learn.

AJ,
I get that your default attitude is that it (whatever it is) is either black or white,atheist or theist. Many people in this age, and I suspect many in previous ages, are disturbed by the notion that we just don't know and aren't prepared to accept that.

There is either a God or there isn't.
There is either DM or there isn't.
We are destroying the word through CO2 or we aren't.

For such people, and you are certainly in the majority here, 'I don't know' isn't acceptable.

So thinking goes that we are all either theists (believe in the supernatural) OR we are atheist (not believe). They refuse to accept grey just as you've refused to accept that I choose not to choose.

I don't believe there's a deity. I don't believe there's not a deity. I know that technically the former makes me an atheist but the word carries connotations that I reject.

I do lean toward there being a higher intelligence. If I weigh everything in favour of the deity and everything against the deity, the scales lean slightly more to the former. But not enough to make it definitive. Whatismore, belief is not wholly an intellectual exercise and as I said I don't have emotional belief either way.

I'm perfectly comfortable with 'I don't know' on a range of issues. In this age, popular conceit is that we know enough to know how everything works but I suspect that our decedents will look back with derision at some of what we thought we knew just as we do to our ancestors.

"which even Blind Freddy could see are in no way analogous (e.g. dark matter)".

I have a feeling you know quite a bit about blind Freddy :) .
But, and clearly you can't get this, I'm not comparing the deity to DM, I'm comparing the belief in the deity to the belief in DM. Perhaps the subtlety is too subtle.

/cont
"self-described ‘agnostics’ will reserve a disproportionate amount of their criticism for atheists"

For some atheists. NNS' first post said he knew God and hoped others would also know that joy. I have no problem with the atheist who responds.."Thanks but no thanks" and moves on. But there is a class of atheist who wants to belittle the theist and prove their intellectual superiority to those they see as ignorant. They see themselves as intelligent and educated and someone holding different views is, to their thinking, ignorant and stupid. Its those atheists I have no time for and will disproportionately criticise.

" mental gymnastics you are willing to engage in to defend the possibility that this deity may be in at least some sense omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent"

You missed the point. I was trying to get you to see that your definition of benevolent isn't the only possible definition and that the deity may not see it the way you decide it should. And therefore saying the deity isn't benevolent isn't valid in its own terms.

"all suggest that you already believe this deity exists.".

I say I neither believe not disbelieve. You decree that you know my beliefs better than I. Why would anyone call you arrogant?

No, it’s not a black and white attitude, mhaze.

<<I get that your default attitude is that it … is either black or white,atheist or theist.>>

Theism and atheism are a legitimate dichotomy. (i.e. ‘theist’ and ‘not theist’). Here, I’ve created a sophisticated Venn diagram for people who don’t understand this:

http://imgur.com/LBo0WK3

<<Many people in this age … are disturbed by the notion that we just don't know ...>>

Yeah, but now you’re talking about knowledge. Theism and atheism don’t address knowledge. They are positions with regards to belief. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)

<<There is either a God or there isn't.>>

Correct.

<<There is either DM or there isn't.>>

Correct, but this dichotomy is not what your terrible analogy utilised.

<<We are destroying the word through CO2 or we aren't.>>

Hmmm, no, too loaded. It would be better worded as, “The CO2 we produce is either contributing to climate change or it is not.”

<<For such people, and you are certainly in the majority here, 'I don't know' isn't acceptable.>>

Firstly, you’re confusing knowledge with belief again. At no point have I made a claim to knowledge here.

Secondly, and to the contrary, I am someone who has always advocated for ‘I don’t know’ as a more honest answer to making stuff up, when theists mistakenly suggest that their made-up answers are of any value:

“… sceptics are content with, “I don’t know”, as an indefinite answer. Which is a lot more honest than just making stuff up.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#323958)

<<So thinking goes that we are all either theists (believe in the supernatural) OR we are atheist (not believe).>>

Correct. Now you’re talking about belief.

<<They refuse to accept grey just as you've refused to accept that I choose not to choose.>>

Then that would make you an atheist, because you would not be a theist.

<<I know that technically the former makes me an atheist …>>

Thank you!

<<… but the word carries connotations that I reject.>>

And it is your prerogative to choose not to refer to yourself as an atheist. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Continued…

…Continued

I, on the other, accept the label because it is the only way we can rid disbelief and the label ‘atheist’ of the unfair connotations that theists and McCarthyists have deliberately and maliciously attached to it.

<<If I weigh everything in favour of the deity and everything against the deity, the scales lean slightly more to the former.>>

Interesting. What exactly is it that you’re weighing then?

<<I'm perfectly comfortable with 'I don't know' on a range of issues. In this age, popular conceit is that we know enough to know how everything works …>>

Sure, but now you’re talking about knowledge again.

<<But, and clearly you can't get this, I'm not comparing the deity to DM, I'm comparing the belief in the deity to the belief in DM.>>

This makes no difference. Your analogy is still invalid because there are good reasons to believe dark matter exists. Not only is there evidence for it, but no appeals to the supernatural are needed to explain it.

<<… there is a class of atheist who wants to belittle the theist and prove their intellectual superiority to those they see as ignorant.>>

Indeed, and you are right to want to criticise such people.

<<I was trying to get you to see that your definition of benevolent isn't the only possible definition and that the deity may not see it the way you decide it should.>>

I know. What you still don’t seem to realise is that it made no difference to my point. Therefore, your attempts came across as defensive as they were utterly irrelevant to anything.

<<I say I neither believe [nor] disbelieve.>>

That’s impossible. You’re talking about two logical absolutes.

Athieism:
“Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.”

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

Disbelief:
“Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.”

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disbelief

<<You decree that you know my beliefs better than I.>>

At not point have I suggested that I do. You are making this up.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/how-should-atheism-be-taught/551885/