# The Happy Heretic wants to debate a Christian **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2003, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003 "2003-06-11T00:48:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/121 "2003-06-27T22:16:50Z")
> [@](#): > > There is evidence Priests sexually molested children so I’m way out of line with my suggestion that there’s probably more we don’t even know about it based on the rape model. Gee, Tom. I’m becoming embarassed for you. Just how narrow-minded can you be? Dishonesty is not a good technique to employ in debate. I did not claim that there were no more pedophiles than had been discovered. I addressed your implication that there had to be more pedophiles in the RCC than in other groups, based on your completely inaccurate supposition that the numbers were derived from “questionnaires” and that the RCC practice of celibacy _must_ be creating more situations. You have provided nothing more than your poorly supported opinion regarding the _relative numbers_ between the RCC and other groups and I challenged that specific error. As to your other claims: mating for life does occur in nature, but not in species in which the male and female are clearly of different relative sizes. Since human males are, on average, larger than females and primates in which the same condition appears follow the polygynous/harem model, your claim is irrelevant. You continue to insist that celibacy is “against nature” when you have no evidence (or badly misinterpreted evidence) to support your predisposed opinion. Since the polygynous/harem model (for which humans seem intended by “nature”) is subject to disruption any time that a younger male can successfully challenge the alpha male, there is no “natural” analog to marriage that involves a _legal_ commitment. You are imposing your preconceived beliefs on the world and failing to even understand your claims. There is nothing “objective” in your presentation, only opinion badly dressed in misunderstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/122 "2003-06-27T23:00:55Z")
Further, a huge number of the species thought to be archetypically monogamous are actually, when subjected to genetic studies, cheaters. I mean, _swans_ cheat. Swans! ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/123 "2003-06-27T23:03:22Z")
I never trusted them. ---
**Author:** ![king\_of\_spain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7cd45c/32.png) [@king\_of\_spain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/king_of_spain)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/124 "2003-06-27T23:40:44Z")
I’ve been told scientists doubt there’s _any_ truly, absolutely monogamous species. And that given an attractive opportunity to cheat, “monogamous” animals from just about any species will tend to cheat at more or less the same kind of rate humans do. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/125 "2003-06-28T03:14:16Z")
DanielWithrow quoted Matthew 7:5: > [@](#): > > “You hypocrite! First cast out the beam from your own eye; and then you shall see clear enough to take out the straw from your brother’s eye.” Am I the only one who automatically thinks of Cyclops from the _X-Men_ when he hears people talking about casting out beams from their eyes? ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/126 "2003-06-28T12:38:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*DanielWithrow quoted Matthew 7:5: > > Am I the only one who automatically thinks of Cyclops from the _X-Men_ when he hears people talking about casting out beams from their eyes? \*\* I was a comic-book fanatic for years adn still remain peripherally interested.I never could understand why Cyclops was saddled with that name!?He has two eyes!Granted artists have always rendered his optic beams as a single broad beam but still… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/127 "2003-06-30T09:18:41Z")
> [@](#): > > From: “Judith Hayes” > **Fair enough, but lets be honest here; I think the real problem is that you would like me to be dogmatic, close-minded and beligerent, so that you can point out at length how wrong it is to be dogmatic, close-minded and beligerent. Hardly a situation in which there is any possibility that I could prevail.** > To be a real Christian, you must accept Christian dogma, which means being dogmatic. You must close your mind to the possibility that Christianity is no more valid that Hinduism or Islam. There is no getting around it. There is no need to be beligerent, though most Christians get that way when you ask such basic questions as, “How do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?” I haven’t met a Christian yet that doesn’t hate that question. But when you think about it, since Christians base their whole lives on that Bible, shoudn’t they know WHY? > > If you don’t accept the most basic Christian tenets as being absolutely true, not possibly true, then you are not a Christian. > > **What you describe as doubt and nonchalance is nothing more or less than my dogged attempt to keep an open mind and to think carefully about what I allow myself to believe.** > I believe you should think for yourself and believe what you choose. But I am talking about Christianity, not freethought! Here’s a suggestion. Please ask any Christian minister if you have the OPTION of accepting the facts that (a) Jesus is the Savior of World; (b) that humans have souls that can go to heaven; © that the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and if so, can you still call yourself a Christian? Ask him how he knows the Bible is the Word of God, while the Koran is not? Would you do that? If he tells you to stop talking to “Satan’s slave” or wicked idolaters like me, I think you might really want to use your “open mind.” If you are not allowed to EXAMINE your beliefs, why not? It’s a good question. But most clergy discourage any examination, and ask you to accept whatever they tell you on FAITH. > > This is what all religions do, and this is what I’m trying to get at. My original challenge, if you recall, was to Christians. I asked them to explain how they know about the Bible, heaven, God and souls, and how they know they are right while Muslims (as just one example) are wrong. It’s a reasonable question. After all, it’s Christians, not me, who are making the extraordinary claims about invisible souls, an invisible God and an invisible heaven. These are powerful claims! So, since I find such claims unconvincing, I am asking Christians to explain why THEY find them convincing. I still don’t know why you do. > > **I can see how that would pose a serious difficulty to someone attempting to be a Muslim and a Christian simultaneously, fortunately though, not many people attempt this.** > Are you joking with me? I thought we were going to keep this serious and try to stay focused. What on earth do you mean by “someone attempting to be a Muslim and a Christian simultaneously?” Who could that ever be? It is IMPOSSIBLE to be both, a child could understand that, and I’m starting to wonder if you just don’t want to face my simple, unambiguous questions. > > A. Jesus is the Savior of the World. > B. Jesus is NOT the Savior of the World. > > Choose one and explain why. What could be simpler? > > \*\*My point is that it is all subjective; \*\* > That is MY point! All major religions are purely subjective, with no rational foundation, just subjective intuition. So why put yourself through the heart-wrenching process of worrying about sin, hell, heaven and all the rest, if it isn’t true? Don’t you have to be certain that it’s true before putting yourself through those hoops? If you like church for the general comfort level and camaraderie, no problem. But then please just say so. I was addressing faithful, unambiguous Christians. Your puzzling positions makes me wonder if you really are a Christian. Would you ask your minister the above questions? I think it would help us both! > > Judith > [@](#): > > From: “Mange Tout” > > \*\*To be a real Christian, you must accept Christian dogma, which means being dogmatic. You must close your mind to the possibility that Christianity is no more valid that Hinduism or Islam. There is no getting around it. There is no need to be beligerent, though most Christians get that way when you ask such basic questions as, “How do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?” I haven’t met a Christian yet that doesn’t hate that question. But when you think about it, since Christians base their whole lives on that Bible, shoudn’t they know WHY? > > If you don’t accept the most basic Christian tenets as being absolutely true, not possibly true, then you are not a Christian.\*\* > I think you could be right that we’re wasting our time here; What I’d like to do is challenge your definition of what is a ‘true’ Christian; you seem to have uncritically accepted the extreme fundamentalist version. > > **I believe you should think for yourself and believe what you choose. But I am talking about Christianity, not freethought! Here’s a suggestion. Please ask any Christian minister if you have the OPTION of accepting the facts that (a) Jesus is the Savior of World; (b) that humans have souls that can go to heaven; © that the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and if so, can you still call yourself a Christian? Ask him how he knows the Bible is the Word of God, while the Koran is not? Would you do that?** > Yes, of course I will do that > > **If he tells you to stop talking to “Satan’s slave” or wicked idolaters like me, I think you might really want to use your “open mind.” If you are not allowed to EXAMINE your beliefs, why not? It’s a good question. But most clergy discourage any examination, and ask you to accept whatever they tell you on FAITH.** > I thought we were going to keep this discussion calm and rational. > > **This is what all religions do, and this is what I’m trying to get at. My original challenge, if you recall, was to Christians. I asked them to explain how they know about the Bible, heaven, God and souls, and how they know they are right while Muslims (as just one example) are wrong. It’s a reasonable question. After all, it’s Christians, not me, who are making the extraordinary claims about invisible souls, an invisible God and an invisible heaven. These are powerful claims! So, since I find such claims unconvincing, I am asking Christians to explain why THEY find them convincing. I still don’t know why you do.** > I honestly don’t think you’re imposing fair conditions on the debate; I won’t deny that there are people as dogmatic and close-minded as you describe, but these properties are by no means universal in the Church; what I have tried to demonstrate is that I honestly believe it is possible to hold a position of faith without needing your brain scooped out; there’s no way for me to satisfy your criteria because they are essentially the same set espoused by the folks at the extreme furthest from yourself. > I inhabit your excluded middle. > > \*\*Are you joking with me? I thought we were going to keep this serious and try to stay focused. What on earth do you mean by “someone attempting to be a Muslim and a Christian simultaneously?” Who could that ever be? It is IMPOSSIBLE to be both, a child could understand that, and I’m starting to wonder if you just don’t want to face my simple, unambiguous questions. > > A. Jesus is the Savior of the World. > B. Jesus is NOT the Savior of the World. > > Choose one and explain why. What could be simpler?\*\* > Sure, for myself, A is true and B is false, for my Muslim next-door-neighbours, A is false and B is true. What could be simpler? Of course it isn’t possible (quantum mechanics aside) for someone to accept A and B as both being simultaneously true and false, but as I said, nobody tries to. I’m not trying to avoid your questions, I simply don’t feel that all questions can be treated as boolean. > > **That is MY point! All major religions are purely subjective, with no rational foundation, just subjective intuition. So why put yourself through the heart-wrenching process of worrying about sin, hell, heaven and all the rest, if it isn’t true?** > Well, if nothing else, it relieves the monotony of existence, but I have experienced what I believe to be interaction with God and I feel the need to fit these experiences into some kind of meaningful framework. > Of course it could all just be an elaborate, compelling delusion, how would I be able to tell? Is this chocolate ice cream I’m eating or is it merely something that looks, tastes, smells, feels and nourishes exactly like chocolate ice cream? > > **Don’t you have to be certain that it’s true before putting yourself through those hoops? If you like church for the general comfort level and camaraderie, no problem. But then please just say so. I was addressing faithful, unambiguous Christians. Your puzzling positions makes me wonder if you really are a Christian.** > I think I’ll have to concede that by (what I understand to be) your definition of ‘Christian’, no, I’m not. Quite amusing really; I’ve been told this before, just never by an atheist. > > **Would you ask your minister the above questions? I think it would help us both!** > Sure, I’ll have a chat with him. > > Seriously though Judith, is there any point in continuing? I don’t meet your definition of ‘True Christian’ and I’m clearly not going to convince you to broaden it. > > Regards > > Mike ---
**Author:** ![FisherQueen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@FisherQueen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FisherQueen)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/128 "2003-06-30T10:38:14Z")
That’s sort of funny, I guess, in a sad way. She really is having trouble coping with the idea that some Christians aren’t fundamentalists, can she? What a shame. After all, she’s pointed out herself some of the flaws in fundamentalism. Does she think it takes an atheist to notice them? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/129 "2003-06-30T12:04:51Z")
It is terribly frustrating, but if nothing else, it has given me a good idea for a sketch (I write a little comedy); (In embryo) J: Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? M: No, not really. J: Well you should, no, you MUST! M: Ummmm… O…K… the Bible is inerrant. J: No it isn’t; how can you be so stupid?! M: OK, it isn’t. J: Yes it is, it HAS to be. Really! You should know that. M: But… ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/130 "2003-06-30T16:45:38Z")
Oh, come now. Doesn’t anyone here read Graham Greene? “I hate you, God, because you don’t exist.” I wouldn’t be surprised if deep down she does believe, and it pisses her off. People who are really convinced in their atheism have no need to be so bitter. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/131 "2003-06-30T17:35:11Z")
Hey, I’m an atheist _and_ I’m bitter (about most things really) – are you saying I’m a closet theist? Damn you, **furt**. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/132 "2003-06-30T18:38:37Z")
**The Great Unwashed:** As any Hollywood movie or TV show will tell you, all atheists are really closet theists who “lost faith” at some point because their mother died or they didn’t get a tricycle for Christmas. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/133 "2003-06-30T18:57:28Z")
You got it all wrong, **Tracer**. I got the tricycle. _But it was the wrong brand_. DAMN YOU, GOD!!! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/134 "2003-07-01T12:10:44Z")
My tricycle died. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/135 "2003-07-01T19:02:19Z")
Well, now that July has rolled around, The Happy Heretic has posted her own rendition of what transpired in her debate(s): [http://www.thehappyheretic.com/current.htm](http://www.thehappyheretic.com/current.htm) To preserve the anonymity of the debaters, she refers to Mangetout as “Bill”. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/136 "2003-07-01T20:31:49Z")
I don`t think “Bill” is Mangetout. "According to Bill, any religion preaching compassion, wisdom and forgiveness is a true religion. That of course would include Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. As for my question, “What proof do you have that human beings have a soul?” he responded that he didn’t understand the question. He asked if I was referring to “individual awareness” which he assumed I had also. As for, “How do you know that there is a life after death?” he said there was no proof either way, and likened it to the question of whether there was life on other planets. Well, so much for defending Christian doctrine. I told him as politely as I could that the human soul and life after death are the twin concepts underpinning all of Christianity, and that this discussion would go nowhere. Thanks anyway. He wrote right back with another lengthy tome, equally as vague, and I finally had to tell him to please just go away. I didn’t have time for this. So much for Bill. " In fact I don`t think she refers to the replies from Mangetout at all. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/137 "2003-07-01T22:07:59Z")
Nope, she doesn’t seem to have mentioned me at all, what a laugh. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/138 "2003-07-01T23:59:23Z")
Not trying to put you down **Mangetout** , but if Judith paraphrases, really, _really_ badly, it could be you. Why am I suddenly thinking of Camelot? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/139 "2003-07-02T05:05:53Z")
I don’t think Tracer was misinterpreting me, but I feel compelled to add: people who are convinced in their Theism have no need to be as bitter as many fundies are. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/140 "2003-07-02T05:27:16Z")
Hmmm … was Madalyn Murray O’Hair brought up in a religious household? She certainly seemed as bitter as Judith Hayes is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003.md?page=8)