David Mathews

Hello John,

What's the relevance of this issue to the question of God's existence or nonexistence?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Jobar

Ah, Helen, would that all theists were so able as you to understand and defend atheism and naturalism!

David, consider this- is your faith strong enough to accept that your God has put not a single proof of his existence in the physical universe- that those of us who pragmatically deny him have all the evidence our way, and there is not one positive statement you can make about his existence save that you *believe* he exists?

And RW- many moons ago there was a thread in MD concerning what we wanted done with our bodies after we die. I said that I hoped that before I died, the capacity of infosystems and the ability to scan human thought patterns would allow my consciousness to be stored in a computer, so that even though my 'original' consciousness died with my body, 'I' would stand a fair chance of seeing what other stars- perhaps other galaxies- may hold. Yet, if these advances are too late, and I am not stored- still I shall face my end with as much grace and equanimity as I can. I have lived in a time of purely naturalistic miracles, in a place and time which make my life far richer than the pharoahs of Egypt could even dream. Why should I feel more is required? I don't deny I would jump at the chance of being downloaded- but if I am not, well, gladly shall I live, and eventually shall I die, and I will not complain either way!

rainbow walking

Hello Rainbow,

Hi David,

David: Are you suggesting that atheists do not fear death or attempt to alleviate it in any way?

Rw: No David, how did you arrive at that question from what I said? I specifically stated that ALL men are laboring under the subliminal influence of the fear of death. Every un-pleasant attitude man exhibits from impatience to impetuousness to cruelty to arrogance to cowardice can be traced back to its presence on the edge of our awareness. Most people, when faced with a decision about some possible deadly circumstance in their life will attempt to avoid death by some means or another. Most people aren’t aware of the more subtle effects of death hovering just beyond their mental awareness though. Why do you think leisure activities that engross us in their fantasies are such powerful attractions, activities like spectator sports, movies, books, and just about everything else you can think of? Because they take us out of the reality of our own lives and provide us a few hours of respite from the underlying nagging influence of our mortality. Although we’ve devised many sophisticated methods of concealing this from ourselves the effect, like gravity, never lifts its weight from our sub-conscious minds. Henry Thoreau, author of Walden, stated it thusly, “men live their lives in quiet desperation.”

rw: I was, justifiably so, expecting some form of argument or syllogism from you that would demonstrate the necessity but none has been presented so I am wondering if perhaps you have nothing to offer.

David: I don't feel any special obligation to form my beliefs into syllogisms.

Rw: Then you shouldn’t refer to philosophical necessities in your responses until you are prepared to offer something more than bare assertions alluding to philosophy as your support.

David: Do you form your own opinions and beliefs into syllogisms?

Rw: I can but thus far it hasn’t been necessary. I’ve been more than thorough in explaining, defining and supporting my assertions.

rw: Dulling ones intellect on the narcotic of theism has produced nothing but multitudes of sheep bleating all the way to the grave. Theism is a blind alley and holds no promise for the future of mankind. Men have managed to climb up out of the pit of mysticism in spite of its debilitating effects, usually men who were prone, due to sociological reasons, to be lass dogmatic and more open to reason. Theism is notorious for resisting advances of science when they threatened some aspect of what the theist considered his deity’s domain. Science does not intentionally threaten theism, it just follows the evidence where it leads.

David: Your presentation of atheism as an advance over mysticism and primitivism suggests that atheism does provide emotional and psychological benefits. You take some pride in your atheism and believe that atheism sets you apart from the masses of humanity.

Rw: David, nothing in the above paragraph speaks towards atheism. You continue to equivocate science with atheism. Read the paragraph again and stop substituting atheism for science. As to your last statement: I take some comfort and am encouraged by what my fellow man has accomplished via science and technology. I believe these accomplishments will continue and grow in proportion to their dialectical opposition to theism.

Rw: Atheism offers no explanation for anything David, it simply expresses a lack of belief in the explanations you offer.

David: There seems an inconsistency between your description of atheism as an advance and your denial of any positive content to atheism. I suppose that this is one of atheism's paradoxes.

Rw: The advances I’ve alluded to historically, David, were primarily in the realm of science and philosophy and have of themselves led away from theism. Those advances are not a description of atheism but do, in some ways, represent the strengthening, positive characteristics of atheism. Men do not set out to disprove theism David, they simply follow the evidence of nature where ever it leads. So far it has not led us to your god.

rw: What, exactly do you find “appealing” about theistic explanations for the origins? That they come pre-packaged with a hand-me-down purpose that allows you to pretend the ticking of your biological clock will not stop at the grave? Do you have any evidence for any of these claims to support their appeal? Do you have a philosophical argument outside of your wishing them to be necessary?

David: The theistic explanation is appealing because it actually is an attempt to explain the origin, meaning and purpose of the Universe and human life.

Rw: No one is denying that it is an “attempt” to explain origins. The question revolves around its truthfulness and accuracy. Anyone can launch an attempt at explanation but only after such attempt has been demonstrated to be accurate or true does it deserve our consideration as factual. That is why you are constantly being barraged with requests for ‘evidence”. Any attempt, in order to respond to its critics, must be supported with more than just your say-so. String theory and multi-verses are also attempts at explanation but they don’t have the same appeal do they? Could this be because they aren’t tied in with certain other comforting dogmas like eternal life?

David: The atheistic explanation is unappealing because it cannot explain any of these things and even denies any meaning or purpose to the Universe and human life.

Rw: Science holds itself to more exacting standards because every attempt is open to peer review and critical examination, unlike theism that is only open to interpretation without critical examination of the presuppositions. However, in spite of your claims here, I don’t see how you can find theism’s explanations any more appealing than natural ones since your basic view was, how did you put it, “words are just words.” It looks as if words that don’t align with your beliefs are just words while words that appear to support your beliefs are perfectly meaningful. As to “purpose”, the universe needs no purpose. It exists as a brute fact. It is only humanity that requires purpose. Unfortunately all humans have not the stomach for subscribing their own unique independent purpose for their own unique life, so they must subscribe to something they presume to be much bigger or somehow more legitimate than anything they, themselves, could create. Mankind has only one purpose for its existence and that is to live. Once mankind realizes it has only one major obstacle to that purpose it will unite as it finds its greater purpose in that unity. And that unity will be necessary to remove the obstacle to life. I am willing to wager a small portion of my life David, that your belief in the inevitability of death is GREATER than your belief in god. And I will double that bet that if you were to lose the belief in the inevitability of death, the incomprehensible god would lose his stronghold over your life! I am convinced that if I can articulate an argument capable of overcoming your conviction that death is and always will be an inevitability, theism will lose its appeal to you once and forever, as it will for all of mankind. Make no mistake about it David, I intend to sever the artery of theism and drain its life’s blood out upon the earth as a final sacrifice to the worship of death.

David: For the last four billions years organisms have lived and died. I suppose that means that death is inevitable. Why does death trouble you so much?

Rw: The only organism I’m concerned about is the human one. For thousands of years men died of Smallpox also. I suppose that means that death by Smallpox is inevitable? Nope! Men of science and medicine have eliminated that one horribly scarred face of death as a threat to humanity. There’s absolutely no reason why the rest of death’s faces can’t be exposed and ushered from our presence one by one. Death troubles me because I’m not afraid to admit I want to live a long life. It troubles me even more because I seem to exist in the midst of meeklings who embrace fantasies that excuse them from the struggle against this monster. Fantasies based on accepting it as a natural inevitability. Fantasies that encourage men to go quietly into the night without a whimper.

rw: You think this impossible? Of course you do. Nothing is impossible to mankind. Nothing. Would it that men could see that death is their common enemy and not other men; that we could stop manufacturing weapons of death and start manufacturing weapons against it; but not until we stop manufacturing justifications to accept it as inevitable.

David: Mankind will never defeat death. You might as well accept death as inevitable because you will certainly die.

Rw: Yes David, I personally will most certainly die because the defeat of death is still a future phenomenon that will likely take longer than my meager lifespan to accomplish. But my voice, words and ideas will live on. Unlike you, I’m totally free of the narcotic effect of religion and theistic fantasies that thrive on man’s meek acceptance of your addiction to death. So I propose to trumpet the battle cry as loudly and as often as I can until death silences my voice. I will expose any and every shabby excuse men have concocted to cower and seek safety in fantasies. Afraid of death? Hell yes I fear it, and so does every other sane person honest enough to admit it. But I’m not going to run from it David into the waiting arms of theism or any other sedative men have found to alleviate or distract them from its inevitability. I’ll take my stand in the face of my own death and admit my fear but not cave in to it and run into your box canyon. If all I can accomplish is to encourage a few to stand with me and they a few more, soon enough man will arise to give voice to his desire to live and his inalienable right to live as long as his intellect will allow. My goal is to derive a philosophy based on humanities desire to live, the greatest hindrance to that desire, and the means of accomplishing that desire. I propose to unplug as many people as I can from the matrix of your fatalistic futility and prevent them from becoming human batteries to feed and house your preachers and their assistants. I propose to rob your theism of its appeal, strip it of its lifeline based on death, and incorporate its greatest attribute, evangelism, into a plan of action designed to replace your preachers with people who actually love life, who will do more than stand in hospital rooms and offer words of comfort and lies of deceit to those who’ve been spoon fed these lies all their lives. I believe in humanity and nothing more. Nothing more is needed. But first humanity must be awakened from the deep hypnotic effects of theism and politics and economics into the bright crisp morning air of a hope based on the subjugation of a real enemy. Your supernatural demons and devils are just additional ingredients in your sleeping potion. Men can’t fight what they can’t see and even less what doesn’t even exist. No one can deny the existence of death. Why they have not yet seen it as their greatest enemy I will address in the philosophy of life.

Rw: Just as I suspected. You have not the courage to assign your own purpose to your life and attain that purpose from reality. The purpose of life is to live, is it not? Then why embrace a dogma that teaches and encourages men to live a specific way and then die.

David: What is the purpose and meaning of life within the context of atheistic naturalism? If that purpose is "to live" it appears so vague as to lack meaning altogether.

Rw: What additional meaning do you require or expect? “To Live” is a tall enough order without encumbering oneself with the additional baggage of irrational edifices created in the antiquities by men less capable of living than you are. Why do you seek a meaning outside of yourself? Because you have embraced the mis-guided belief in the inevitability of death and hence, see no durability in any meaning you might ascribe to your own life? You can make the meaning of your own life durable and meaningful by contributing something towards the awakening of humanity to the battle against our common foe. Or you can bury your brain in the clouds beyond reality.

rw: When men come to realize that they truly want to live and extend their lives indefinitely, that’s when methodological naturalism will come into its own and provide the method of achieving that one noble purpose. It is already making tremendous strides in medicine, genetics, physics and psychology; the major areas that will be crucial to win the war against death, but once the seed of indefinite life takes root in man’s intellect as a doable goal then, and only then, will it become a unified force. This will only happen when man realizes that he is truly in a battle for survival. Man has always made his greatest strides during war and this is a war that man has not yet agreed to fully participate in. He has too many distracting opiates to dull his senses; distractions like religion and politics and economics. What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his LIFE?

David: You appear a utopian if you actually believe that mankind will conquer death.

Rw: I am a humanist.

David: Consider the horrors of success: Perpetual, eternal, meaningless, dull and utterly valueless life.

Rw: Oh ye of little faith. It is because man values his life that he will enjoin the enemy. This value will not cease once victory has been won. Do you hold your material possessions in such disregard after you’ve labored to purchase them and have actually paid them off? If you labor 30 years to purchase a home does it then become dull and utterly valueless? Can you not see how you think death gives value to life? Death takes away life, devaluates it, renders it impotent and futile. But it also gives man a common cause and in the conscious determined pursuit of that common cause will man find peace and purpose and happiness and meaning. That is the greatest expression of the purpose of life defined as “to live”!

David: I suspect that people who find that sort of eternal life will consider it some sort of hell.

Rw: And your suspicions are grounded in fantasy like the rest of your worldview. There is no hell except that created by the daily weight and burden of our own mortality.

David: Throughout human history, humans have recognized the distinction between purely natural phenomena and supernatural acts. The boundary between the two has always been a matter of dispute, but humans have always known that natural events had natural causes.

Rw: For a thousand years, commonly known as the dark ages, (and with good reason) the church blurred this distinction with a stranglehold on education and thus kept the masses of its laity in ignorance. It wasn’t until one of its own, Luther, nailed his thesis to the church doors and began the splintering that has developed into a thousand different sects, did the dispute over that distinction come into focus. I intend to finish what Luther started by nailing my thesis to its black heart. The advent of the printing press also contributed greatly to my arrival.

David: I suppose that God's signature would not be recognizable by humans even if were found in the Cosmic Background Radiation or in the subatomic particles.

Rw: Isn’t it strange that many of your deity’s constituents claim to see its handiwork in every blade of grass? Hallucination?

Rw: Metaphysical naturalism is an ideological derivative of methodological naturalism. “Atheistic naturalism” is an unfamiliar term.

David: Call it what you will.

Rw: I strive for precision because words have and convey specific meaning. I’ve noticed that people besought with fantastical imaginations tend not to pay much homage to detail or precision. It’s another symptom of the addiction.

rw: Are you saying that science is bankrupt? That it has no advantage over make believe mystical sophistry?

David: Science is not atheism.

Rw: Are you sure? On several occasions above I could have sworn you were not so sure as you seemed to be equivocating the two terms.

David: God doesn't perform miracles for me, and He would do so for you either.

Rw: Oh, I’m quite certain you are correct in this analysis even if you stopped short of offering an explanation as to why YOU think this to be so.

rw: Curiously, men who didn’t embrace this teleological explanation and managed to make some scientific headway, found their theories being heavily resisted by the clergy and the laity almost to the point of death and beyond. Is this your idea of a non-exclusionary theism?

David: Those first scientists who did suffer persecution for their radical new ideas were Theists. They believed in God, loved the Bible and were all very religious.

Rw: The first scientists knew nothing of your particular version as they lived during an era when pantheistic gods were predominant long before Judaism or Christianity ever took over the helm.

Rw: Under the narcotic effect of theism uncertainty has a different definition. With the imagined assurance of eternal life uncertainty is just a test to mature one in their faith, that is to say, to further intoxicate them with the doctrines that embrace death as the ticket to greater rewards than life.

David: Your description of religion as a narcotic and an intoxicant is not an accurate representation of what religion is or what religion does.

Rw: Prove it!

David: The profound and difficult questions which you are bringing up were under consideration by religious people for thousands of years prior to the advent of philosphical atheism.

Rw: No doubt and as long as they remained under the hypnotic spell of religious ether not one of them were about to rock the boat and make any profound declarations even if they happened to awaken from their comatose state long enough to think of one.

Rw: Let’s test this, shall we. Imagine for a moment (this shouldn’t be too daunting of a task for a theist) that a natural explanation exists for the origins of the universe and life. How would that affect your worldview?

David: That would not affect my world view in the least. God's acts might appear naturalistic to humans because the supernatural element in the creation does not have to reveal itself to human scientific investigation.

Rw: In other words you’ve already prepared yourself an alibi for the eventuality of a scientific resolution to the question of origins. Godunnit in such a way as to make it appear natural.

Rw: It is a mistake on your part to enter this conflict David. Your cautious theism will not protect you from the germination of the seeds being planted in your mind. They will eventually blossom into full-fledged questions whose answers will awaken you one day to the discovery that you have grown a brain. The questions this conflict engenders will counter-act the sedative of theism and you will awaken. You will be forced to flee, and confront your cowardice, or embrace the change. You have joined this fray because you fear that you may be wrong about your assumptions and are seeking to vindicate your doubts. You will find no vindication here David because I am intentionally sowing in the furrows of your un-belief. You are not my adversary but you are not yet my ally. We share a common enemy who dwells among us and hides behind a thousand faces. My comrades here also do not yet realize how fully under the sway of theistic dogma, perpetrated over tens of thousands of years, they still are.

David: You are describing atheism as a glorious thing, an honorable thing, as progress over primitivism and mysticism. I can't help but suppose that these thoughts do provide emotional and psychological benefits to you and other atheists.

Rw: What you can’t help David, is being forced into the most contorted mental positions imaginable in defense of the indefensible. That is why you labor so valiantly to remain non-committed to any expression of a particular doctrine or dogma. Your brand of cautious theism is not new here. It’s amusing watching you gingerly tip-toe over the landmines of every doctrinal issue that develops around your assertions. I have the psychological edge because I have no halo to balance, while yours incidentally, is beginning to slip precariously down around your neck. I have the emotional stability of complete sobriety, the moral high ground of expressly stating my motives and the intellectual integrity of supporting my every assertion. I also have the added advantage of having been a licensed minister for many years and therefore acutely familiar with all the biblical doctrines and precepts you so adeptly juggle in your efforts to evangelize yourself into heaven. Yes, I would say my position is quite progressive and bears upon me no dishonor.

Rw: Then what purpose does your faith serve?

David: Faith is context.

Rw. Oh, to be sure, you have those two little “words are just words” and “non-obligatory” reset buttons at your disposal whenever my “words” bring into sharp focus the pixels of contrast to bear on the proselytizing motives lurking beneath the context of your “words”. But, not to worry, I won’t tell anyone if you don’t.


Rw: But this is quite different from your previous claim that god dictated your attitudes. How are you responsible for attitudes dictated by another? You can take no credit for attitudes that reflect good character but you get all the blame for attitudes that do not. Does this seem fair or just to you?

David: It is fair.

Rw: Please explain.

David: Miracles are rare occurrences even in the Bible. The majority of Israelites, Jews and Christians never saw any miracle. The reason why miracles seem so common in the Bible is because the passage of time is compressed within the Scriptures and events which impacted one individual are recorded while the lives and deaths of tens of thousands of others went unrecorded.

Rw: None of which have been substantiated as anything more than man’s wish fulfillment. Why would a just and loving deity heal a few and leave tens of thousands to perish?

rw: Its mention of medicine and physicians is all in the negative, such as the woman with an issue of blood for twelve years the doctors couldn’t cure.

David; Medicine at that time deserved criticism. Until recent centuries medicine was very dangerous, killing lives as often as it saved lives.

Rw: Care to support this claim with specific examples?

David: If the Bible was going to be a book of medical science and medical procedures it would have grown to the size of the great medical libraries that you will find at the best universities.

Rw: Then an omniscient deity couldn’t have inspired a compressed version?

David: If the Bible answered all of man's problems it would fill a million volumes.

Rw: But I thought it has been touted as the answer to all of man’s problems?

David: God didn't have to solve the problems that He has already man's intellect to solve.

Rw: To be sure. Since man has the burden of solving his own problems without anticipating any help from your deity why does man need your deity?

Anunnaki

I just want to say that RW`s posts kick serious butt!

Ex-theists often seem to be the best atheist debaters. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

David Mathews

Hello Rainbow Walking,

David: When you say "dialectical opposition to theism" I don't have the least idea what you are talking about. Could you elucidate?

David: I don't see these advances as "leading away from theism" because -- if you have noticed -- the present world is filled with billions of theists, decidedly more theists than atheists.

When you say "Those advances are not a description of atheism but do, in some ways, represent the strengthening, positive characteristics of atheism" you seem to be speaking about atheism is some mystical manner. Atheism has not, and can not, do any of those things which you are attributing to it.

David: In the final analysis string theory and multi-verses are speculative, yet not necessarily atheistic. Atheism offers nothing in response to the mystery of existence.

David: Theism's explanation is more appealing because in reality there are no natural explanations for the origin of the Universe.

David: You are mistaken: Humans have no purpose. All human life is meaningless, all human accomplishments are forgotten.

David: Your description of death appears -- how shall I say it? -- a bit mystical. As to the bet: I don't "believe" in death, I am acquianted with death.

David: "I will never die" appears like a fantasy on your own part.

[ David: You are seriously mistaken: Not only are you going to die, but your "voice, words and ideas" are going to be neglected and forgotten. Nothing you are doing is going to mean anything at all to the people who live after you.


David: I feel very sad for you if your fear of death dominates your life. You might as well live while you live and die when you die.

David: You do know that some religions embrace death?

David: What have you contributed to this struggle against death? I would think that if you were really devoted to this struggle, you would make yourself into a medical research scientists rather than spending your time complaining about theism.

David: What is a humanist?

David: The majority of humans do not view death as devalueing life. Death actually grants a little urgency to life as we struggle to accomplish whatever we want to accomplish within the little time we have.

David: Associating your efforts with Martin Luther's seems odd because Luther was most decidedly a religious theist.

David: The whole universe testifies of God, though not in any empirical objective manner.

David: Science is not atheism. I am certain.

David: If you want to look back that far in history, I think it important to note that those first scientists were theists.

David: There are approximately 4 billion religious poeple on this globe.

David: Do you know how many millions of pages religious people have written about these questions? You seem to have divorced yourself altogether from religious thought and then you pretend as if it doesn't exist.

David; Yes.


David: Praise yourself, if you will. You must be someone great in your own mind.

David: Because God did not heal those people for the sake of healing. He healed them to reassure people of His existence and concern for humanity, or as a means of setting the prophet apart from the people.

David: Are you unfamiliar with the history of medicine?

David: The Bible never makes that claim.

David: Without my deity mankind would not exist.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Ted Hoffman

Rw: It is a mistake on your part to enter this conflict David. Your cautious theism will not protect you from the germination of the seeds being planted in your mind. They will eventually blossom into full-fledged questions whose answers will awaken you one day to the discovery that you have grown a brain. The questions this conflict engenders will counter-act the sedative of theism and you will awaken. You will be forced to flee, and confront your cowardice, or embrace the change. You have joined this fray because you fear that you may be wrong about your assumptions and are seeking to vindicate your doubts. You will find no vindication here David because I am intentionally sowing in the furrows of your un-belief.
And the longer David hangs around these boards, the less he sleeps and the closer he approaches that AWAKENING.
My comrades here also do not yet realize how fully under the sway of theistic dogma, perpetrated over tens of thousands of years, they still are.
Now you need to explain this RW.

David: Faith does not bring stability into my mind about anything, that is why I follow the sciences, history, archaeology, and that is also why I have read the religious writings and scriptures of many different religions.
Rw: Then what purpose does your faith serve?
David: Faith is context.

This I see all the time. When in dire straits, kneel down and ask for Gods help.
Poor God!

Rw: But this is quite different from your previous claim that god dictated your attitudes. How are you responsible for attitudes dictated by another? You can take no credit for attitudes that reflect good character but you get all the blame for attitudes that do not. Does this seem fair or just to you?
David: It is fair.

Reminds me of abused wives who still claim that their husbands love them.
Intransigence and deep denial blots out any capacity to reason and gain a meaningful perspective. Its a perfectly understandable situation with victims in this particular level of therapy.
Keep sowing those seeds Rw! I am confident that he will come around soon enough. Recovery cannot be easy when it took a lifetime to indoctrinate.

Answerer

[quote]Originally posted by David Mathews:
<strong>Hello Answerer,

Sorry David, but it is plain obvious that you are not answering my questions instead you are giving me some philosophical talks. Well, I ask that question not because I'm afraid of death(anyway I see death as a natural process and nothing to be feared of), rather I'm curious about the unjust nature of God, punishing us for something that we have not done. So, back to the question:
Why do God make all future generations of humankind mortal for sins that was commited by Adam and Eve and got nothing to do with them at all?

HelenM

I doubt you'll get the answers you're looking for from David since he doesn't seem to believe in the Bible that literally to address questions based on a literal interpretation of it.

love
Helen

rainbow walking

rw: You raise some excellent points Helen and continually surprise me with your insight and wisdom. One thing worth considering; you siad:

Do people give equal weight to when things go as they expect God would have them go, as they do to when things do not work out as they expected, in deciding what they believe about God?

rw: One of the major and earliest criticisms that arose from skeptical examination revolves around this very issue. No one seems to agree on just what precisely this gods true purpose and intent really is. Several textual statements indicate he did so for his pleasure. One then wonders what pleasure could be derived from...well you know the rest of the story.

Thanx for your input. It is highly appreciated and respected from this atheist's perspective.

HelenM

Originally posted by rainbow walking:

rw: You raise some excellent points Helen and continually surprise me with your insight and wisdom.

Thanks, rw

One thing worth considering; you said:

Quote:

Do people give equal weight to when things go as they expect God would have them go, as they do to when things do not work out as they expected, in deciding what they believe about God?

rw: One of the major and earliest criticisms that arose from skeptical examination revolves around this very issue. No one seems to agree on just what precisely this gods true purpose and intent really is. Several textual statements indicate he did so for his pleasure. One then wonders what pleasure could be derived from...well you know the rest of the story.

One thing I've realized is that two people, considering the same person or same text, can come to very different conclusions depending about him/her/the passage, depending whether they want to give the person/story the 'benefit of the doubt' or not.

So it's very unlikely that people who look at a text thinking God [if He even exists] is abhorrent, will come away finding God vindicated, because they will selectively notice what supports their own a priori beliefs about God. And Christians doing the same, will selectively notice what vindicates God in their eyes.

Christians have worked very very hard to read difficult passages and find God's grace in them, suffice it to say.

And those with no such need or agenda - or who have the opposite agenda perhaps - will read the same text and wonder how Christians managed to find a needle of grace in a haystack of reasons why God is cruel and unjust and unreasonable (say).

But...we see what we want to see. That's how we are and I think it's best to be honest about it rather than pretending we have an objectivity which we really don't possess, often, when we read things or assess people.

Thanx for your input. It is highly appreciated and respected from this atheist's perspective.

You're welcome. I appreciate your posts too! It's very interesting to me to read what caused you to leave Christianity, fwiw. I certainly understand many of your objections to it.

love
Helen