See: http://gusonthought.blogspot.com/2010/03/non-believers-blame-god.html (I intend to have it finished shortly, since it’s a simple copy, paste, and edit of what I *was* going to post here.)

Non-belief, doubts, and skepticism are not “hate” but they also do not equal derision of other’s central beliefs. The sidetracks, biased words and even the projection of phantom arguments into mine where they did not exist, very much indicate that you have at least a dislike for God and religion. Pardon me if I used the word “hate” to describe your disdain, dislike, umbrage at mentions, aversion, disparagement …..(oops dropped my thesaurus) of that which I hold in the highest regard. When I teach my children you call it indoctrinating. When I pray to the God who created science you say I am being mystical and superstitious. When I follow a prophet you link it to rape and pillaging. You also imply that religious people are not free thinkers.

I find it astounding that you do not see how unreasonable your arguments are. Is it unclear to you how many times you have used language, in your arguments above, that is derisive to my core beliefs versus how I have not attacked your core beliefs but rather asked questions about them, wanting to know how you reconcile inalienable rights without a belief in God? I myself as a non free thinker already know how I would say that I had inalienable rights even if I had no belief in God. I wanted to know if you had thought about it, and if not, triggering thought is always nice. Do you not see that I made a post saying that there are set inalienable rights that cannot be changed and I set forth a good way to test what is a right and your reply was to say that parents can either indoctrinate children with religion or let them be free thinkers? Do you not see how it is unrelated to the topic and how it seems to have been injected by “a supreme emotional flaw in your attachment to these dogmatic ideas you embrace”? You then implied that I was advocating theocracy. Then you stated that my core beliefs have nothing to back them up when in fact they do but they are things that you personally don’t care about. You then injected the strange notion that I said that non-believers are all immoral, rapist cannibals. Then “ignorant and silly” even though it had an LOL it was still said and is still a form of ad hominem even if you laugh out loud. Then we can go to the improper diagnosis of borderline personality disorder which is much more extreme than just believing in right and wrong. Using your application we can say that a mathematician who is sure of his answers has it. How can you not see whose arguments have been more reasonable and free of logical fallacies?

I might go with the original hypothesis that you only see single words that I have written.

Seriously though. It is astounding that you consider your counter-argument to be reasonable. I’m not an anti-theist any more than you are an atheist. Non-belief, doubts, and skepticism are not “hate”. That fact that you perceive them as such exposes a supreme emotional flaw in your attachment to these dogmatic ideas you embrace.

Just remember: Atheism is to religion what non-stamp collecting is to a hobby, or what a shaved head is to hair coloring.

As far as your other arguments, I appreciate the time you spent thinking about them and writing them, but that’s as it goes.

It is also my contention that we cannot observe “that order does indeed come from chaos” because chaos and randomness do not exist. The eye that you are reading with was formed from elements that seem chaotic to us but in reality are very much not. Everything that exists physically was given laws to follow and to be constrained by. The higher the ability to disobey such laws the higher the reward for still following them anyway. Whatever system used to bring things into physical existence be it evolution or MaryPoppinsolution, it has order and laws given.

It seems you still misunderstand right and left wings. You may have meant creationists, which in my view are separate from intelligent design people. Regardless of that I have never seen any propaganda that says that evolution is disorganized.

Also if you understood evolution as well as you think you did you would know that we are not risen apes as apes and humans have common ancestry under evolution, and do not share a common line beyond that previously existing species. Evolution does not hold that man came from apes.

I prefer the term ‘baby gods’ to ‘fallen angels’ since technically the fallen angels are the other 1/3 who didn’t make the same choice you did. ‘Risen apes’ makes it all worthless and ignores my future as a being beyond the dimensions that we currently understand.

I guess you have decided that your rights are not inalienable as they can be changed or removed by people (unless you only meant they decide right and wrong and not ‘rights’). I prefer to go with the founders and believe that I and my progeny have the same rights that can never be taken away.

Freebie: Cicero

Things are very black and white. Should I kill someone? No, clear as day. Each scenario has a subset with an equally black and white correct answer. Can I kill someone who is attacking me relentlessly? Yes, plain as the nose on my face. Every generic situation and its more specific subsets has a correct answer.

The issue about going back to Old Testament times is completely relevant. If God has to exist to make some kind of arbitrary human ethical code, then his nonexistence would imply your chaos. That seems to be your point. Yet we can observe in everything from crystals to the very eyes you read this text with that order does indeed come from chaos. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, and the evolution of human civilization from the barbarity of Moses, David, Caesar, Hitler, and etc. to a more “perfect union”.

Evolution, contrary to right-wing (and/or) religious propaganda is quite orderly and very, very capable of managing reasonable systems of human conduct. As sentient beings, we have the added ability to choose to go above and beyond the character of mere apes. But even if we act as mere apes, we would still have a mostly pleasant society.

So your nutshell answer is: Evolution. If you understood it as well as you understand your belief system, you also know that there is no apparent need for any kind of Creator to step in and fix the process (indeed, we can see where said Creator has NOT stepped in to do anything in the process–the formation of the retina being a prime example).

That being said, I think it’s fine that you think there needs to be a Creator to have morality and there needs to be such a thing to help evolution along. That’s great. I think it devalues what it means to be human, making us fallen angels instead of risen apes, but that is a choice you have made. It reflects your reality and it fits your worldview.