Arguing With the Churched; Gays: Nature or Nurture?

The following are transcripts of an argument I had on one of the right-wing sites I read occasionally.  Enjoy...

(Original Post)
This is ridiculous. Homosexuality is probably a mild mental illness akin to bipolar disorder, thus not the fault of the homosexual. The fact is that they cannot control to whom they are attracted; no choice is made in this regard. I personally find same-sex attraction gross, but that's because I was not born with that predilection. Most gays probably feel the same way about heterosexuality. These people have no say in the matter of what they are attracted to; it is as innate as handedness. Think about attraction in your own life: when did you "choose" to be attracted to women? I know I never did. I've been attracted to women my entire life. I can't imagine being sexually attracted to men; such a concept is alien to me because I was born that way. I suspect if you examine your own life, you likely never chose to be straight either; you just are.

That's exactly the point. Straight people don't choose. Every single homosexual person I know consciously made the choice to be gay. Some wanted the attention, some wanted to be different, and a couple of the lesbians I know swore off men after they were cheated on a couple times. I could care less what somebody chooses to do, or who, for that matter. I do take issue when you lie about it in order to make yourself feel better about it. If you truly believe that there's nothing wrong with it, then why does it need to be justified by such a cheap statement as "I was born this way!"?

Well, they edited out my earlier post. Suffice it to say that your personal interactions would be laughed at by most gays. The gays I have known would say just the opposite, that they never made any choice.

"I do take issue when you lie about it in order to make yourself feel better about it." I am not gay, therefore I have no reason to need to "feel better about it." You do not accept that gays cannot help themselves, but that does not make their assertions "lies."

"If you truly believe that there's nothing wrong with it, then why does it need to be justified by such a cheap statement as "I was born this way!"?" I don't know. Most likely because if they cannot help themselves because they were born with those predilections, then it is not fair for society to pass judgment, since there was no decision made. It's not like gays are hurting anyone; if you don't like homosexual behavior, then choose not to engage in it, ya dig? No one is forcing you to engage in sodomy with men. They just want to be left alone, for the most part. Moreover, it's not a "cheap statement" if it's true.

You are engaging in a common logical fallacy in your assertion. I'll spell it out simply. Poison kills people. That man is dead. Therefore, that man must have drank poison. You see, just because you can't comprehend the choices made by others, doesn't mean that the choice wasn't made. I also never claimed that 100% of the homosexual people hiding behind the mantra of being born that way are lying; I know for a fact that there are legitimate cases of people being born with sexual identity issues. But to falsely assert that because a minutely small number of people were born with an sexual identity issue that all homosexuals therefore suffer from the same is absurd. You are absolutely entitled to believe whatever you like. Me; I'll follow the empirical evidence that I have been presented with.

Well, moderator deleted my reply again. Suffice it to say the science is not on your side: http://www.viewzone.com/homose...

You do realize that there are a million "scientific" studies that show every single possible view point, right? You can't possibly be so naive and childish as to think that goggling one study makes you correct. If you really want to learn something, try looking up the studies on homosexuality in identical twins. Since you are now quoting science, please do at least attempt to be scientific about it. Do not look for the evidence that supports your position; rather, keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence for the most fitting outcome. If it still leads to to believe that homosexuality is completely out of the control of the individual homosexual, so be it. At least you will have taken an objective look.

Actually, I've read numerous articles from both sides. I only posted one here because it references several different studies (15, to be exact). Moreover, I spent the brunt of my adult life as a Christian, and I read a multitude of articles that present your side of this argument. I always read both sides of an issue (which can be a bad habit, because it can lead you to the other side when the evidence is overwhelmingly against your position), I've read the articles regarding twins; did you know that identical twins can be different-handed? Nice "well-poisoning" attempt though...

You've just inadvertently given everyone the skinny on you; you're adverse to accepting evidence. It is quite apparent in your statement "which can be a bad habit, because it can lead you to the other side when the evidence is overwhelmingly against your position." Thanks for queuing people in on the fact that you will ignore evidence to support your position.

I guess you've never ready any Swift. Sarcasm is a waste of effort with people who lack the comprehension. I was referring to the fact that it was this predilection that had led me away from my former beliefs, and implying that such a habit might do the same for you. FYI -- the word you were looking for was "cueing," not "queuing;" the former refers to prompting or reminding, the latter refers to waiting in line.

Nice attempt to deflect on a simple grammatical error. I also find it funny that the one that writes the following sentence complains about grammar:

"Most likely because if they cannot help themselves because they were born with those predilections, then it is not fair for society to pass judgment, since there was no decision made."

The truth is out there for people to see.

I wasn't trying to deflect. You used the wrong word, and it made you look silly. You confused the two words; this is not a "grammatical error," but a mistake made in ignorance or confusion. My irregular sentence was a direct response to a question. It makes perfect sense when posted with the question it was meant to answer. Do you want to continue to chase this red herring, or do you want to admit that you screwed up and move on?

If you want a red herring, look no further than your own posts. I already admitted that I used the wrong word; you are the one that keeps brining it up in order to further deflect. Isn't it funny how my error is something I'm supposed to "admit to.. and move on" yet yours is somehow acceptable? A little bit of a double standard, huh? But you know what? I couldn't possible care less about simple grammatical or word-choice issues that distract from the point of a debate, unlike you.

No, you didn't before now. My sentence was a bit of a run-on, but it was not otherwise wrong; i.e., it was not an "error." Do go on though. Were I in your shoes, I'd probably rather chase red herrings too.

You: If you truly believe that there's nothing wrong with it, then why does it need to be justified by such a cheap statement as "I was born this way!"?

My reply: Most likely because if they cannot help themselves because they were born with those predilections, then it is not fair for society to pass judgment, since there was no decision made.

Context...

It's cute that you think context excuses multiple uses of the word "because" in a sentence that you have already admitted is formed incorrectly. As I mentioned before, I looked past this to focus on the point of the debate rather than throw out red herrings. It was you that originally engaged in petty squabble in order to deflect. I nearly brought in your grammatical issues to demonstrate to you how childish your deflection was.

Because you'd rather continue to harp on the repetitive use of the word "because" as a literary device to establish connections, because you'd rather continue to chase squirrels, because you can't support your original thesis, because you're "in over your head." Please continue, because this is getting entertaining, because although I used a long chain of the word "because," at least I didn't use the wrong word. At least I am not losing the original argument, which--by continuing to harp on my perceived "error"--you are tacitly admitting you have already done.

Yes, sir, Mr. Word Nazi. I bow to your supremacy and grovel in your greatness as I'm sure you've never misspelled a word. I'm completely bored of this petty squabble you keep perpetuating (although I understand as it is your only win thus far), and wish to return to the topic at hand. You did bring up a valid point; twins can, in very rare cases, be differently handed. However, are you aware that this occurrence is a statistical anomaly? Are you also aware that in the studies regarding sexuality in identical twins, those that ended up with different sexual orientations are also a statistical anomaly? Therefore, would it not be fair to say that is it statistically impossible for every single homosexual to have been "born" that way and that none made an active choice?

At least you have some semblance of a sense of humor. You're right, I can be pretty OCD about language, even to the point where I go back and correct my own errors and typos.

Given that homosexuals themselves only account for about 3-6% of the population, I would say that it itself is a statistical anomaly. Perhaps some people have a more ambiguous sexuality and "choose" to be homosexual, but that would still require an innate same-sex attraction. I would tend to think that the majority of homosexuals do not fall into this group. There are instances of institutionalized men engaging in homosexual behavior (e.g. male prison populations), but most of these men revert to heterosexuality if they leave prison; however, I wonder how much of this is attributable to establishing a pecking order (like dogs in a pack mounting each other), rather than any same-sex desire on the part of the prisoners. Besides, let's face it: most prisoners are in prison because something in their psyches is already not working properly; is there any real surprise that men separated from society would be inclined to engage in aberrant behavior?

That is indeed my point. I'm not claiming that 100% of all homosexuals made an active choice. There are those that were born with chromosomes miswired, if you will. I do not attempt to lay claim that they, in any way, made a choice. However, it is improbable to assume that all, let alone a majority, of the 3-6% figure fall into this category. Scientifically examining the cases of the twins that are different handed, or differently sexually charged would undoubtedly show that different experiences of those individuals influenced the outcome of their life. For instance, it is well documented that twins, especially identical twins, strive for distinguishing separation from their sibling. These desires start at a very young age, and can no doubt influence the directions later in life. It is within this very principal that my primary argument lies; if homosexuality is supposed to be culturally acceptable, which I have no qualms about, then why do all, or at least a statistical majority, hide behind the mantra of being born that way. The common gay slogan is to be "proud." So why is is then that so many of them refuse to be proud and simply admit that they made the choice because it fit who they were/are? Personally, I believe they would garner a lot more respect from people, me included, but don't "come out of the closet" with this reality for purely political reasoning.

Oh, I think the "pride" movements are irritating. I never understood how @ssless chaps, peni$ balloons, and bare-chested women chanting slogans was was supposed to convey "pride." Nevertheless, I think that you're splitting hairs a bit here. If I understand you correctly, you're implying that although they are wired to be attracted to their own gender, they still have to choose to follow through with it, thus it's still a choice? I don't believe the "we were born this way" mantra to be a cheap bromide. I think they say that because 1. for the most part it's true, and 2. if they cannot help to whom they are attracted, then it is not fair to treat them differently. If gays are born attracted to their own gender, and blacks are born with dark skin, then it's not just to treat either group differently based on congenital differences. If it's merely a choice, then any criticism of a lifestyle that so contravenes biological common sense and is so rife with health issues is completely just. If they are indeed born with these predilections, then it is immoral to deny them and treat them as second-class citizens. I think the science favors the "born that way" theory. If the hypothalamus of gay males is reduced to the size of that of a female, then that not only explains their attraction, but their effeminate manner as well. You strike me as a smart guy. Think on it.

Sorry for the delay; I'm working 17 hour days for a product deployment, so I don't have a lot of free time at the moment.

While the size of the hypothalamus seems like an intriguing study, the interpretation is merely speculative without either a) having images showing those relative sizes for those individuals at birth with a control group (which would basically be included by means of the general percentages of gay/straight individuals), or b) related studies that show that hemispherical sizes are not influenced by external factors.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is immoral and unjust to treat somebody different for things that are out of their control like skin color or genetics. I've also clearly stated that I couldn't possibly care less if someone is gay.

My issue lies with the phrase "we were born this way." As I've posed before; why is it necessary to hide behind this if society as a whole is supposed to be accepting of homosexuality? If there is nothing morally wrong with being gay, why does it need to be justified with a statement like "I can't help being gay" or "I was born this way?" Your past attempt to answer this was merely begging the question.

Not sure what the question being begged is supposed to be. Nevertheless, setting science aside for a second, I believe them when they say were born that way because I could never make that decision; I find male genitalia (other than my own, of course) rather disgusting. I do not understand how someone could make a choice to engage in homosexual behavior unless they already had the innate proclivity. Homosexuals are more mainstream now because it is more widely accepted that they are born that way. If they were merely making a choice, then homosexuality probably not have garnered the public support it has now. Either the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are lying about why they are homosexual, or else they are indeed born with an innate attraction to their own gender.

So, you don't believe it was a choice simply because you don't understand someone making it? Do you then not believe in the findings of rocket science because you do not understand it? Do you not believe that space is a vacuum because you cannot comprehend how something that vast could have no forces of gravitational pull? Do you not believe that anyone exists because we couldn't possibly comprehend how our complex circulatory or nervous systems were constructed? My point being; the simple fact that one does not personally understand something, does not invalidate it.

You've also inadvertently proven my point from an earlier post; the "we were born this way" mantra is, for the most part, political with your statement "Homosexuals are more mainstream now because it is more widely accepted that they are born that way." Aside from the few that were miswired, the rest use it as a way to garner further public support. But, if there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, why do they need that mantra?

“My point being; the simple fact that one does not personally understand something, does not invalidate it.”
>The science of space or the human body can be taught and comprehended. Attraction cannot be taught. Attraction and tastes are largely innate. True, they may evolve somewhat over time, but at their core, our tastes remain pretty congruent throughout our lives. I cannot be taught to like escargot; I find the very act of eating a snail to be repugnant. I can be taught the math necessary to comprehend rocket propulsion, but I cannot be taught to like escargot. I cannot understand why someone would like escargot. In the same vein, I cannot understand why a man would be attracted to other men. (FYI, I have a pretty good understanding of astrophysics, thank-you.)

“But, if there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, why do they need that mantra?”
>You’re confusing cause and effect. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality precisely because they are born that way. It is the fact that the evidence favors that homosexuals are born gay that has pushed society towards acceptance. Perhaps my previous statement was not as clear as it should have been. “Born that way” is not simply some cheap slogan created post hoc; “born that way” is the reason homosexuality has become acceptable. The overwhelming majority say they were born that way, and science generally supports that position. The only people disputing this claim are those with a religious agenda; those with an axe to grind because the Bible/qu’ran/Torah says it is a “sin.” If it is “sin,” then it means these people are choosing to “defy God.” If they are born that way, then God is pretty messed up. I digress. So, either there’s a conspiracy among homosexuals to lie, and science is helping with the cover up, or (as Occam’s razor would imply) things are as they seem, and they are born that way.

Isn't this the very type of red herring we were stuck on earlier? I asked a simple question based on your statement that being gay could not be a choice because you don't understand it, and rather than answer the simple question you chose to attempt to distract from the argument based on perceived discrepancies in my analogy. After going around and around, with me pointing out that there are indeed legitimate cases of miswired individuals and asking you to set aside those statistical anomalies in order to examine the rest of the homosexual populous, you consistently return to the cases of the anomalies, or use logical fallacies in order to distract from the question at hand. Unless you are willing to work within the simple rules of civilized debate, I'm done wasting my time.

I answered your question. That you dislike or disagree with my response does not mean you have proven it wrong. In fact, I believe your choice of analogy was intended to be an underhanded slight, hence the clumsiness of the analogy. Nevertheless, I disproved your analogy because it was poorly chosen. Show me where my supposed "logical fallacies" are. What logical fallacy have I committed? Prove it, or shut-up and go back to your project. Moreover, you introduced the poor analogy in order to support your thesis, not me, so if there is blame to be lain anywhere regarding "red herrings," you'd better drop the sanctimony and check your own doorstep. Furthermore, the scientific assumption these days (whether you like it or not--go to the APA website if you disagree) is that it is indeed a congenital condition, so the onus is upon you to prove it is a choice, not upon me to prove that it is not. Regardless of your snotty demeanor in your last reply, I wish you well. As I said before, you strike me as a smart guy. Don't let getting your @$$ handed to you deter you from further researching this topic. Peace -- infidel

Well, I think I won fairly handily, what do you think? 

*Author's note: I have modified my opinion of the causes of homosexuality after this exercise.  Initially, I confess I held on to the belief that it was caused by a minor mental illness.  I never accepted the "81 Words" thesis, because I felt it was a political manifesto and not a statement based on science.  Simply put: the leader of the APA was himself gay, therefore his opinion on the matter was biased.  Although I still do not like the way the "81 Words" thesis changed the catalog of recognized mental illnesses, I accept that I was incorrect about homosexuality's cause.  Now that there is solid science to back up the assertions of "81 Words," I can accept it at face value.

The Difference Between The Religious and The Non-Religious

"What will you do if evolution is disproven?" says the usually misinformed religious person to the typical person of no faith. 

So what?  This is the nature of science.  Science requires no belief on the part of those who accept its virtues; science merely requires a basic understanding of reality and the ability to experience with one's own senses.  Put simply, if evolution is ever disproved, then most non-religious people will simply move onto the next accepted theory.  If the next great discovery in science uncovers incontrovertible evidence of creation by deity tomorrow, then the majority of atheists are intellectually honest enough to pursue that thread wherever it leads, even if it leads -- ironically -- to religious belief.

In stark contrast, despite the fact that most tenets of religion have not stood up well to scrutiny, religious believers remain as faithful as ever.   It seems that each successive scientific discovery extends the cloud of doubt over religion, yet religious faith remains as strong as ever.  In fact, the religious take that faith as "the evidence of things unseen;" i.e., the belief in a phenomenon in the face of overwhelming evidence against a phenomenon is taken as "evidence" of that phenomenon!  With reasoning like this, Santa Claus would be as real as the parents who are actually responsible for providing children with Christmas presents every year!

Yes, there are questionable hypotheses out there regarding the genesis (sorry) of the universe, but they are just that, hypotheses, "what-ifs," thought experiments.  Some are cockamamie (like panspermia), others are mathematically viable (string theory, multiple universes), and others have been largely disproven (accordion theory), but that is the nature of science.  Science is not an end-result; science is a journey of truth.  Religion, on the other hand, is a collection of ancient mythologies posing as the end truth of all things.  The scientist says he does not know enough; the religionist says he knows all he needs to know.  Which are you?

Random Musings: Substitute Mythology, Gripes, Niggles, Complaints...

I have been busy lately, and so I have not been spending much time on the esoteric or abstract; reality has been dominating much of my thought process.  I have been trying to get a job, and to that end I have been boning up on my IT skills and working on certifications, both of which require a great deal of focus and energy.  Nevertheless, here are a few of the things that have been niggling at me lately.

How is it that otherwise intelligent people can invest so much energy believing the demonstrably false?  To a certain extent I understand religious people; it's hard not to believe that which has been pressed upon one since birth.  What I don't understand is people who believe in the occult.  How can one reject religion, only to choose to believe the outright asinine?  To paraphrase the clever T-shirt meme, "I reject your mythology and substitute my own."

No amount of staring at the sun will bring one wisdom (in fact, it will more than likely result in one's eventual blindness), no more than chanting can open up Nirvana.  I have a friend who left Christianity because he is gay, and Christianity rejects homosexuality, but he substituted it with New Age nonsense.  He's a bright guy, and a much better writer than I am by far!  Why would he then replace one religion with another, instead of merely seeking scientific fact?  There is zero scientific evidence for an "astral" plane, or "ascended masters" or any of the other tenets of Unitarian/New Age gobbledygook.  It just seems to me that rejecting one set of religious beliefs, only to replace them with another, is a bit disingenuous.  Either religion is true, or it is not.  Our ability to pick and choose does not confer reality upon our chosen beliefs, and since all religions are mutually exclusive, the odds are not any better for the religious than they are for those of us who are not religious.  As for me, I choose to believe in that which I can experience or understand with my own cognition.

Individual fates are no more tied to the millions-of-years-old lights we see in the skies at night, than the tides are connected to the menu at Taco Bell; there is simply no causal correlation to be made.  The only causal connections between different objects in the universe are those of a deterministic nature (more on this in previous posts).  The light from stars that are millions (perhaps even billions) of light years away has zero bearing on how individuals will shape their lives.  In some cases, these stars may not even exist any longer, but we're seeing the light (and will continue to do so for many millennia) because the light from the end of these stars' lives has not yet reached us, and will not until our own sun begins to die.  Believing that one can interpret the events of others' lives based on the position of the stars (which isn't really accurate, since these stars are currently light-years away from the positions they are observed in), is naïve and silly.  The burden of proof for such beliefs is on the believers, and since horoscopes from different astrologers are usually completely different and often contradictory, as a casual observer I would say that this burden has not been carried.

When I was Christian, I simply found such beliefs as astrology or New Ageism to be "evil," because they removed focus from the power of god (actually, we believed it was "Satan" trying to distract men from god's power), or some such B.S..  Now I recognize them as being nothing more than mental masturbation.  Generally speaking, I think if you have to apologize for a certain belief, then there is a high probability that belief is false; this occurred to me after years as a Christian, and so it stands to reason -- at least in my opinion -- that the same metric can be applied to any set of dubious or questionable beliefs.

There is so much in the universe to be explored, investigated, and understood.  Why do people spend so much time and energy chasing specters?  Dark energy, dark matter, Higgs-bosons, black holes, the curvature of space-time, string theory, multiple parallel universes -- with so many questions yet to be answered, why do we waste our time with metaphysical bullshit?  How much energy, intellect, and time is wasted pursuing that which does absolutely nothing to improve the human condition?

Atheist Holidays

"Why do atheists need holiday symbols anyway?"  The quick answer is that we don't (at least I don't think so).  I think that sort of symbolism is largely the province of the religious, so using "me too" symbols during the holidays is a bit intellectually dishonest, not to mention just plain absurd.  Along this same line are those atheists who think creating an atheist church is a good idea.  I know that I don't speak for all atheists, by any stretch, and considering that I have only been such for about a year, it would be pretty arrogant on my part; however, I think it's safe to say that most of us who take a more scientific viewpoint of atheism are irritated by attempts to turn a mere rejection of deity into a pseudo-religion of some sort.  It's hard enough to refute the pervading canard that atheism is a religion when the USC has apparently ruled it as such (in actuality, the USC ruled atheism a religion so that atheists could be afforded the same protections as the religious, not because atheism expresses any tenets of religious belief).

Corollary to the previous paragraph's point, I get annoyed by those who think that I, as an atheist, should not celebrate any "Christian" holidays.  Rejecting the Christian religion and its god does not mean that I do not agree with the overarching themes of family togetherness and the spirit of giving.  Being an atheist does not mean that I am a nihilist.  As a human being, I appreciate the opportunity to spend time with my family and friends, give them gifts, and eat good food with them.  I no more need to believe in a god to participate in the holidays than a dog needs a shovel to bury a bone.  Christmas is nothing more than an amalgamation of various European winter solstice holidays, but with a thin veneer of Christianity, so most Christians also reject most of the "religious meaning" of Christmas--they just pretend that there was never any other significance other than that assigned by them.

Merry Christmas and all that...

Hiatus

To my loyal followers (that means me, mostly), I have been on vacation and have been neglecting my blog as a result.  I intent to dream up some new material here within the next day or so, but my efforts must mostly be directed at procuring new employment. Not only have I lost my zest for the place in which I am working and the company for which I am working, I have only six more months before my employment ends here.  Nevertheless, fear not, as I will return with something new for my readers posthaste.

Authentically Fake

Since I've come out of the proverbial atheist closet, it seems my encounters with the churched have increased in both intensity and vitriol towards me.  Of course, this means I tend to see more logical fallacies directed at me.  The first is inevitably the straw man fallacy, followed by the no true Scotsman fallacy, then followed up by poisoning the well fallacy.

"Well, since you're an anti-God, America-hating liberal..."

or something similar is how most of these straw men are built.  I find this hilarious, since nowhere have I expressed values or beliefs that coalesce with the progressives of today.  Even more entertaining is the proposition that I am an "Obama-lover;" admitting my lack of belief to myself did not mean that I lost my scruples.  I still think the progressive agenda is largely misguided, since progress for its own sake makes no sense, not to mention that it begs the question, "Progress towards what?"  While admittedly, I do agree with the progressives on many things, e.g. the rights of gays, drug legalization, I disagree vehemently with the progressives on matters such as guns and fiscal policy.  Without taking too wide a deviation into politics, suffice it to say that social policy is almost never overturned once introduced into American society, so I see little merit in fighting those battles; in contrast, fiscal policy is a never-ending war--one that progressives lose fairly consistently (meaning their fiscal policy always results in chaos, collapse, or catastrophe when implemented).

"You were never a true Christian"

After establishing my non-progressive bona fides and my identity as a former Christian, I'm told that I was never a Christian.  I grew up in the church, gave when I could, sang in the choir, sought God, and prayed regularly.  "That's the problem," they tell me, "you spent too much time going through the motions, and not enough time communing with Jesus."  To that I say "hogwash;" if one does not pursue the requirements of Christianity, how can one call one's self "Christian?"  As far as the esoteric aspects of being Christian are concerned, I would spend hours praying and trying to feel Jesus, trying to communicate with God.  Perhaps I was merely going through the motions, but then I believe that's all any Christians are doing; it's a grand masquerade whereby all of the "saved" wear these façades of faith.  It's The Emperor Has No Clothes, only it's the entire congregation pretending to be clothed in absolute faith, and no one can risk exposing that none of the others really has faith at all, lest their own pretenses be exposed.  That's not to say that many aren't sincere in their desire to believe, it's just that most of Christianity is a giant dick-measuring contest, substituting pretenses of "faith" for penises.  I learned the lingo, I lived the li(f)e, and I aspired towards the "faith of a mustard seed" (perhaps that's why the author of the Gospels set the bar so low, because human intelligence contravenes blind faith), so to assert that I was not sincere in my former religion is to be intellectually dishonest.  I always wanted to serve God and live like Jesus; in fact, I was outright jealous of those people for whom faith came so easily.  I lamented that I had no (sorry) "coming to Jesus" story of my own, no poignant anecdote to share with others why I believed.  Suffice it to say, I indeed may not have been a "true" Christian, but then neither were any of the others, nor are any so-called "Christians" of today; in this case, I believe there are no true Scotsmen.

"You think you are smarter than God."  

Yes, that's it.  You've nailed it.  You've caught me.  I believe I am smarter than an entity that I do not believe exists (non-sequitur much?).  Don't get me wrong, most of the time I feel like a fairly bright guy, but intelligence has little to do with my release of my religious beliefs, at least not the way Christians assert it.  Christians assert or insinuate that my disbelief in religion is due to a "haughty hubris" that believe I am smarter than God, and by making this accusation they can dismiss my argument (ergo the well-poisoning...also another straw man).  While I do believe that those of higher intelligence tend to be more likely to be or become non-religious, it has nothing to do with believing one's self to be "smarter than God," it has to do with the fact that smarter people tend to be more curious, and curious people ask questions that transcend the ability of the Bible and church leaders to answer; in other words, it's not "I am sooo smart, and smart people don't believe in God, therefore I cannot believe in God," but that the inherent curiosity of those with above-average intelligence leads them down roads which draw them away from religious belief.  It's not that there aren't brilliant religious people, just that brilliance among the non-believing is more common.  

Arguing With Christians

Well, it seems I am locking horns more and more with the faithful.  What's interesting is that the moment they discover I am an atheist, the gloves come off.  I've rarely experienced a more judgmental group of people than the sharers of my former faith.  "You just weren't a true Christian,"enter the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.  It seems they have difficulty accepting that I could ever leave Christianity.  It makes me glad that Christianity carries no death penalty for apostasy à la islam.

Another interesting facet of these arguments is that Christians almost without exception assume that I am a big-time liberal democrat.  It's funny, because although I do agree with a few of the democrats' views on the social issues, I disagree with them vehemently on most issues, particularly those pertaining to the role of government--e.g. gun rights, welfare, affirmative action, and budgets.  Nevertheless, straw men are particularly easy to deconstruct, so keep on preaching, Christians!  On an almost daily basis, you reinforce why I am no longer Christian.