OK, let’s see what I can do here. (And believe me, this is NOT easy.)
WhiteNight said that I had a hole in my “atheism=arrogance” argument 'round about here:
WhiteNight asserts:
(and then confesses to a very odd eggplant fetish :))
True enough,as afar as it goes, but an eggplant doesn’t have any power over you. As a more accurate example, try this:
For a child to say he doesn’t need a parent is for that child to say he is as capable as his parents. This (ideally) occurs when the child reaches a maturity level roughly equal to the parents (18, 20, after college, whatever). Now it’s true that as a child matures, his parents will allow more and more liberty. At almost any age, there will be some things that a kid can do without a parent’s help and supervision. But until he reaches the point of majority (ostensibly a point of equal capability for responsibility), the child will continue to need a parent. For a kid to say at age 11 (for example)that he doesn’t need a parent at all is silly and foolishly arrogant.
By Christian definition, God is everyone’s parent, and mankind can NEVER reach His level of maturity and responsibility. Therefore we will ALWAYS need Him, therefore to say we don’t is arrogance. QED, and neener-neener.
Now, then. Spiritus also saw a problem:
True. It is the Christian viewpoint that everyone needs God. But I can’t imagine an atheist saying “There is no God, it’s all a sham, but you need Him anyway.” Certainly, some might say that people might need faith–fine and good. But are you, as a non-believer in God, going to tell me that anyone needs an imaginary deity?
How about this, then: “For an atheist to say that there is no god is to say that God is meaningless and nonexistent. And if God is irrelevant, one must then believe oneself to be “too good” for God. Ergo, arrogant.*”
Any holes in that one?
-andros-
(man, this is fun, but I don’t know how long I can keep it up)