Joshua Ryan Dellinger: Blackmailing, dishonesty, and stalking (what else ya got?)

High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger: Blackmailing, dishonesty, and stalking (what else ya got?)

Joshua Ryan Dellinger is a blackmailer a liar and a stalker? A Christian defender who claims to agree with RRS? A philosophy student that's a product of a Christian Southern education?

If you're a Christian who's happy to see Joshua Ryan Dillinger willing to do whatever it takes, including lie, to stand up for Jesus, you should also know that Joshua has attacked Republicans for attacking gay marriage. (story here)


Over the last 24 hours, Kelly, myself, and all of you have been under threat from Joshua Ryan Dellinger a soon to be graduate of UNCC who has said...

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I am documenting every last letter I send (one daily until you either formally decline for legitimate reasons - i.e., you're scared - or until we have secured an agreement) and will continue to post public exposes of your lack of fortitude. I consider your lack of response (and complete lack of rationality) to be one of the more blatant though still mildly entertaining ironies your organization has provided me.

So here it is, the public response on behalf of our radio show. I will waste 30 minutes of my time succumbing to your blackmail threat, you win, harraser. In order to do so I will be posting Kelly's response to you so as to save me time. Kelly wasted 30 minutes last night responding to you, and I refuse to double up with more wasted time over a simple blackmail threat. The following is the private message she sent to you through, I am posting the content of your letter only because it's so similar to what you posted in public and because you've threatened us.

[edit in after the fact, I did in fact waste about an hour on this. Consider your blackmail/ultimatum effective, ya fucking asshole!]

Before I go on, you should know that if you had actual stones you and your powerful would arrange a text debate here with the community in which some of the radio co-hosts would be likely to weigh in. We'd probably even give you a thread to just go crazy in without rules, seeing as how there's no fucking way you'd be able to function within the rules. Or better yet, you and your team would just start a thread in athest vs theist like the rest of the people with a fucking clue.


Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Let me begin by saying I don't expect you to respond. RRS has a way of disregarding its more equipped and capable challengers. I have written before only to be flatly overlooked. This fact signifies only cowardice on the part of RRS. Taking someone like Dawkins (who has perpetually declined to debate more intelligent adversaries) as an exemplar, I don't suppose I should be surprised."

Kelly says...

Well, I have no idea who you are, and who exactly has disregarded you, but I am certainly not personally responsible for that. I do not intend to defend Dawkins, but just since I'm here, you're not accurately representing his position. He does take debates (although I don't feel it is his strong suit), just not with creationists. Frankly, it is intellectually vacuous and doesn't deserve his time.


Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"I have observed the RRS for some time, taking note of the various fallacies that are routinely decried and then mercenarily employed."

Kelly says...

Such as?

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"My question is this: do you really want to help others be freed from the grip of religion? If so, it would seem that you (and others) should be a leading example. As such, you are constrained to operate solely within the strictures of logical, coherent, legitimate argumentation. I do not see this taking place, and this is most likely why RRS is the laughing stock of most erudite circles. Yes, you have Dennett and Dawkins. Neither are taken very seriously by even budding students of philosophy and/or anthropology."

Kelly says...

Yes; and no, I'm not. I'm constrained to operate solely in the way that I determine, and you are free to criticize it as you see fit. I know many in the "erudite" circles who respect us and realize that our purpose is not necessarily the same as theirs, and that our audience is not the same, either. It takes all types to appeal to a varied populace.
As far as Dennett and Dawkins, they are widely regarded as excellent in their respective fields except in religious circles, so I'm assuming that by "budding students of philosophy and/or anthropology" you mean dilettantes who don't know their names.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"If you wanted to appeal through authority or popularity to young, impressionable types, why not employ the assistance of Quentin Smith? Quite simply put, I believe he would remain parsecs away from this site and all its stated goals, most chiefly owing to the extremely poor argumentation (rank ad hominems abounding) and sub-par presentation."

Kelly says...

I have no idea who that is, either. I cannot make any statement on your opinion of his potential reaction to us as a group. I also would like to remind you that an insult is not necessarily an ad hom. I can critique an argument and then insult somebody as long as the insult isn't taking the place of a valid counterpoint. In case you need an example:
1: Yahweh exists.
2: Prove it. I have seen no evidence and besides, he's logically incoherent.
1: I just know it. I've seen people change and I feel him in my heart.
2: That's not evidence. You're a moron. (not an ad hom--just an insult)

1. Yahweh exists.
2. Well, you're a moron. (ad hom)

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Would you engage in argumentation with William Lane Craig? No, I do not think so."

Kelly says...

I certainly would. He refuses to debate anybody without a doctorate. Bitch at him.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Browbeating teenagers and lesser minds into conformity with your own agendas is not only vile - it is the very practice which you deprecate."

Kelly says...

Well, that's not what we do, so I don't get your point. I have no "agenda" and I can't "indoctrinate" somebody into not believing in god. I can't scare them with the fear of hell and eternal punishment or a sadistic voyeur watching my every move. Not the same.
I also think that men like Ergun Caner and Matt Slick would find it amusing that they are considered either teenagers or our mental inferiors.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"I would presume that since you are so secure in your current belief that you have answered all the questions that standardly assail the theologian, the philosopher, and the armchair enquirer. I include among these all cosmological arguments, all crucial matters of epistemology and metaphysics, and a comprehensive certainty concerning the methods of science. Your positivist positions notwithstanding, I ask you: what is your response to the Kalam cosmological argument? If you are unfamiliar with this, I should say I am shocked. One who not only eschews a particular position but vehemently seeks its destruction should certainly be expected to be familiar with it."

Kelly says...

I have no belief, but anyway...I have answered all the questions that pertain to the necessity of belief in a god that I have encountered to my satisfaction. Does that mean I know everything or think that I do? No. That is patently ridiculous. Nevertheless, one is forced to make a decision based on the evidence that one has at the time, and if one is honest, one will remain open to new evidence as it appears.

The Kalaam cosmological argument is just a sophisticated reworking of parts of Aquinas' cosmological argument. It is practically the same, just clothed in jargon and terminology designed to impress people who don't know better. His whole impossibility of an actual infinity is the best thing he has going, but that is not from a mathematical standpoint--it is solely because we have trouble wrapping our minds around that concept.

BTW, you can save the arrogance for somebody else. The first rebuttal I ever wrote was 4 years ago in response to my former pastor and largely dealing with that argument. I wrote about ten pages on it.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"I do agree with the RRS position...I should clarify: I simply do not agree with the adolescent and laughable methods which - you should and most likely do know - are completely and rightfully ignored in academic circles. No self-respecting scientist (who at best can provide explanations and descriptions) would ever pretend to the position of prescriptive moral arguments (I suppose you've solved Hume's is-ought problem as well?)."

Kelly says...

We don't need to convince those in academia--they already know. We are aiming for a different target. The fact that we are the number one atheist website in the world seems to indicate that we've hit it.
Also, point me to one instance of me personally employing the naturalistic fallacy or using a prescriptive moral argument.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"If you and your ilk can maturely and intrepidly accept a mutually beneficial, constructive, and - yes, even necessary - discourse, I invite you cordially to attend several online discussions on the existence of God, the role of religion, and the issue of Islam. Be warned: we are not simple Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort types."

Kelly says...

I have no time, nor the desire, to do so. You have not fooled me into believing that you are an atheist, or even close to one, so your attempt at subterfuge has failed.

Just FYI--I find Islam to be a disgusting barbaric religion that is ATM an even bigger threat than christianity.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"If you accept our challenge (re: if your positions are developed, defensible, and justified) then I expect your rational (toss in mature as well) response. If not, then I am sorry to say I am not the least bit surprised. Dawkins et al have misrepresented doxastic beliefs concerning religion as merely the outmoded and irrational trademark of the uncritical and credulous masses. Pity that intellectualism (I am being quite generous with the term) of today has become alienated from its better half - integrity."

Kelly says...

I am not a participant in your pedantic nonsense peppered with rhetoric, therefore I will neither be participating or forfeiting. You can take your proposition, complete with its condescending and self-aggrandizing nonsense to somebody else. Perhaps they have nothing better to do.


NOTICE: This communication may not be reprinted unless in its entirety.
Creative Commons License Non-Commercial Non-derivative Attribution



Through the last two years I have grown numb to theistic argument with people who I know to be dishonest and seem to embrace the character of the conman. I will take public debates from conmen, like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron because they are very visible. The name Joshua Ryan Dellinger doesn't come to mind when I think of conmen worthy of wasting time on. At this point, our radio show has not held a recorded interview since September of '07. None have been recorded with atheists or theists, and this is due to a sound problem we can't seem to resolve.

We've been too busy on other areas of importance to even focus on it, so put that in your pipe and smoke it a bit when you go slander our name and tell others we refused to debate you. As for this refusal... to be honest, if we had recording capability we may have accepted, Kelly loves ripping the heads off of people like you... me personally I'm tired of your ilk. The dishonesty, arrogance, and ignorance seethes off of your post. The holier than thou attitude, the whining about the rules you think we break on our forum as you systematically break almost all of them. (sock-puppet on an anonymous name, not debating the points merely launcing an attack to debate points, trolling, bullying (blackmailer!), and the slander/libel is bound to come if you haven't already crossed that line. I'd rather know nothing about you until we get on the phone, and find out who you are in real time... if I knew ahead of time (and in this case, I do) I would want to cancel you in my area and anywhere in my vicinity.

At this point for me personally, I am interested in talking to theists I know nothing about, or at least don't dislike yet. (I know too much about you already, that I already want to spit on your face, and I don't like that feeling, nor do I seek to purposefully subject myself to it). Or I like speaking to people who seem to have a modicum of personal honesty, the type of person that can say "hey, you're right about that."

Those theists are hard to come by, but the conversations are more enjoyable, I don't feel like smashing my face into a brick when they're over, and there's a chance I might actually smile. When the show is back to recording interviews, I will continue to seek those people out. Don't worry though, don't burn your bridge, and count yourself out... Rook and Kelly love picking on know it alls who don't know it all. You have a chance with them, calling me out (on your crimes) will only make me give them a weird look when they ask me to book you. The blackmail/ultimatum will only make Rook and Kelly want to smash your face with a brick, so flip the attitude, and maybe you'll have a chance, twerp.







This comment left in a thread about our appearance on Tombcast Podcast:

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:


I understand that you do not debate within e-mail correspondence. I also understand that
1. Slander/Libel [You bordered on this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
2. Clear intent to not argue a position, but to merely attack a person [You bordered on this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
3. Trolling [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
4. Abuse [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
5. Bullying [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]

[you also posted twice under two different names:sockpuppet against rules]
are categorically disallowed. I am attempting to inquire, then, in exactly what form you will allow an official debate between you, other colleagues of your choosing, myself, and one friend. I have written many times to no avail, and am beginning to wonder if the RRS is actually capable of responding to those who have more to do than merely stroke your egos. This is no vicious attack - this is a serious challenge.

Sincerely (again),

Joshua Ryan Dellinger

P.S. Additionally, let me add that I believe the RRS to be guilty of every last practice they forbid. Such tyranny should not be. PLEASE NOTE that I am not baiting you - I am simply supplying criticism (mild at that) and one again inviting you, as a worthy opponent, to a more challenging debate. I am no teenager nor philosophical freshman.[You're only four years older than a philosophical freshman fwiw, but that has absolutely nothing to do with why you've turned us off so much, you do act like a child. But so do many Pastors.] Please accept and retain your honor. [Dipshit, a debate with you is not what retains our honor, now how bout proving you're worth any honor at all, and start posting in our atheist vs theist section, within the rules?

Let's assume for a minute that we do break all of the above rules. You realize that there are dozens of others who also break all of those rules? That to be hypocrites we'd have to ban the others but leave ourselves? Since Kelly, Rook, Hamby, and I have taken more control over who gets banned only one person has been banned. One person, spamming off topic views named Euthymius was recently banned, and that's the only one I know of in a month or so. He was previously banned under a different name, a major no-no.


This comment left in a thread about my suit with Uri Geller:


Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Submitted by Is This One Free? (not verified) on February 17, 2008 - 6:59pm.

Dear "Sapient"

Arrogant? Most assuredly. "Wise"? Perhaps "sophomoric" is more apt. But lest I dip into the "anals" (your word for annals, I believe? Please don't try to pass it off as a witty intention) of all ad hominems, and thus reduce myself to the RRS level, I would like to formally apprise you of both my identity and my offer.

I have written several times to both you and Kelly. Each time I have congenially extended a challenge to you and her. This would consist in a mannerly and mature debate on the existence of God[start acting mature, and then I might believe that] (proofs for the necessary existence of a creator being), the role of religion in society today, and other topics which we may or may not address given your consent and preferences.

I am well aware of the practices and methodologies of the RRS. [But not well aware enough to know that we haven't recorded a show for 5 months, and mention it in almost every webcam appearance we make. You also aren't familiar enough to know that the proper way to attain this debate would be to take it to our community and provide such good argumentation that our community would force us to have you on our show or face their own wrath/suspicions.] They include not only genetic fallacies, misattribution of causality, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, ad hominems, ad populums, appeals to authority (and even a few argumentum ad baculi), and a dozen other faulty and ignoble acts. [for the record... comedy isn't a logical fallacy. Jon Stewart is not ad hom-ing Bush. Our ridicule and humor at your imaginary friend's expense doesn't = fallacy] I agree with your critics who claim that you are "philosophical dilettantes". I have witnessed nothing worth commendation nor even toleration[Mindcore: your turn] , yet I have tallied a grand litany of offenses.

You should know that I am not a religious person[right, you're a "Christian" we've heard that one before]. I agree that religion is, overall, deleterious in effect. However, I am most certainly a principles debater who will not stoop to the contemptible methods that you and your associates seem to espouse. Therefore recognize, if you will, that I am not merely some "religious quack"[you're right, I'd say you're about par for the course. Falwell and Phelps, those are quacks. You're more of the typical "I know I'm right, and everyone else is being rude and using logical fallacies" type.] seeking your destruction, but rather a concerned logician who is appalled by the rank poorness of your arguments. [a logician who claims to be well aware of how we work yet hasn't the slightest clue that we aren't recording shows right now and haven't for 5 months.... some logician]

You, Dawkins, et al have made theistic beliefs the province of fools, backwards bumpkins, and the undereducated. This shameful misrepresentation is a foul vice on your part, and worthy of nothing but execration. Should you accept an actual challenge - that is - a debate with others who are not only your equals [there isn't a theist in the world that enters the scale of equal to us in the logic category, sorry]but quite possibly your logical superiors, perhaps you may earn something of a position of respect. As of yet, you have only earned laughable scorn.

I do, therefore, officially invite you (once again) to a constructive debate to be held between your crowd (specifically, you and whomever you choose) and my own. I think you'll find that we are not easy victories such as Ray Comfort and a handful of laypersons. We are, rather, philosophy students of diligent study, and just the sort to dispatch your pitifully irrational positions. [You're invited to have that debate on our Atheist Vs. Theist forum, but I won't be holding your hand like I am now.]

You should know that RRS is not the venerable social liberator you may hold it to be, but is rather scoffed at and derided (and the butt of several jokes within intellectual circles) by those actually disciplined in logic and argumentation.[Let's hear who they are and what their arguments are, ad hom, I mean Joshua Ryan Dillinger] You are not philosophers, mind you, nor admirable positivists. You are sophists, pseudo-intellectual bullies, and self-glorifying, swaggering blowhards.

Please do accept the challenge. I am documenting every last letter I send (one daily until you either formally decline for legitimate reasons - i.e., you're scared - or until we have secured an agreement) and will continue to post public exposes of your lack of fortitude. I consider your lack of response (and complete lack of rationality) to be one of the more blatant though still mildly entertaining ironies your organization has provided me.[emphasis on blackmail paragraph is mine]


Joshua Ryan Dellinger

P.S. If you do in fact wish to condemn amenable adolescents' souls to immortal hellfire or, alternatively, instantly liberate their consciousnesses for the rest of their physical persistence, you might first do a little research into exactly what "blasphemy" consists of. Here, I'll spare you the effort:[Thanks Pastor]

Jesus mentions a sin that is unforgivable in Matt. 12:31-32 and calls it blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. But what exactly is this unforgivable sin? For that, we need to look at the context.

Matt. 12:22-32 says, "Then there was brought to Him a demon-possessed man who was blind and dumb, and He healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. 23And all the multitudes were amazed, and began to say, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?" 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons." 25And knowing their thoughts He said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself shall not stand. 26"And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? 27"And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Consequently they shall be your judges. 28"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29"Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come," (All Scripture quotes are from the NASB).

Let me review this section briefly. In verse 22, Jesus healed a blind and dumb man. The Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of "Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons" (v. 24). Jesus responds by saying that a kingdom divided will fall (vv. 25-28) and how the devil must first be bound before you can plunder his house (v. 29). In verses 31-32, He states that blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.
By simply looking at the context it becomes apparent that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is saying that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil. This is unforgivable. But why? We can find a clue by looking at when Jesus began His ministry.

Jesus stated that His baptism was to "fulfill all righteousness," (Matt. 3:15). The word "fulfill" should cause us to think of the Old Testament. Basically, Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the Old Testament requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:21; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest. According to the Old Testament, in order for a priest to be consecrated as a priest, He had to be washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:15) and anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16). Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old - (Num. 4:3).

The oil is representative of the Holy Spirit who descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Matt. 3:16). It was after His baptism that He began His ministry and started performing miracles. He did His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit who had come upon Him at His baptism. The Pharisees - who knew that Jesus' miracles validated His words and ministry (see John 11:45-48) - were attempting to discredit Jesus' Messiahship by saying that His works were by the devil and not by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, they were blaspheming the Holy Spirit by whom Jesus performed His miracles. This is unforgivable because it struck at the very heart of the redemptive work of God in Christ. It struck at the very nature of Jesus’ ministry of redemption, testimony, and teaching. Jesus was ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit Himself, fulfilling the divine plan of God to provide a sacrifice for our sins (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The Pharisees were attributing this to demonic activity. This is a great blasphemy.

As for your very typical Christian attack on the Blasphemy Challenge... how ironic considering you did one of those typical dishonest Christian tactics of pretending to be on our side. As if we're fucking morons and are going to change everything about who we are because some Christian infiltrates, tells us to be nice to Christians, and pretends to be on our side the whole time. We're not idiots Joshua, find an idiot to debate, seems more your size.

Here was your quote ""I do agree with the RRS position...I should clarify: I simply do not agree with the adolescent and laughable methods which - you should and most likely do know - are completely and rightfully ignored in academic circles."

Agree with the RRS position, yet have picked apart the bible exactly as a Pastor would? Interesting.

Here is a response video on that issue for you to pray on, I mean think on... I mean prey on.


nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline

HisWillness wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
I too am a pacifist, and have been highly trained in the art of shooting strangers by our most excellent US Army. I'd be a vegetarian, too, except God's creatures sure are tasty. So I reckon I am a bit of a hypocrite that way.

But the creatures *are* tasty. I don't see how that makes you a hypocrite. Maybe if you told other people that they shouldn't eat the creatures while you were eating them, that might be hypocritical.

So we're all "trained" are we? That's a bizarre coincidence.

What's your training? Military? Martial? Fencing? (I'm also not-so-highly trained at fencing. So if someone comes at me with a pointy stick, I can fend them off with another pointy stick of equal or greater length. It's a bit specialized that way.)

The hypocricy is really just that I have a certain amount of respect for vegitarians. Like the whole Christianity thing, it provides a modicum of comfort. However, I can't subscribe to the idea itself. It's as I said in another thread, I really do feel guilty when I shoot a deer or other tasty animal. A friend of mine told me, "The Tlingits give the deer water to help it on its way to the afterlife." So I started doing that. Not because I felt the deer was going to an afterlife, but because I had to do something. It's completely irrational, but it helps. Not the deer, of course. Just me. It helps me.

I haven't killed a deer in several years. Now that I am in Ohio, there's no need to stock up with fresh meat. I think people (including me now) are safely removed from their meat, though. They don't have to kill the cow they grill. They don't have to strip the meat from the bones, knowing it was a living animal whose death is their responsibility. Would I kill a cow for food? Absolutely. I have these nice teeth designed for inefficiently rending flesh. It's part of my evolved nature, and part of the natural order. (I'm not sure if Smith & Wesson or KC Masterpiece BBQ Sauce is part of the natural order, but I'll use whatever tool is at hand.)

Anyway, that's a complete diversion from anything we were discussing. Sorry about that. Not so sorry I'm not going to click "Post Comment," though.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers

atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 Before I answer, I'm going

 Before I answer, I'm going to move this conversation to a new topic. phillipnicew was telling us about revelation, and that seemed to be the focus of all of this. I'll move it to Atheists vs. Theists with the title "Revelation - calling phillipnicew"

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence

nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline

phillipnicew wrote: is more of an indicator of truthful revelation. Consistency is but one of a multitude of indicators that are very related with each other. There are a great deal of aspects that set Christianity apart. First, consider the hopelessness in Buddhism, wherein Buddha's final words included, "Work out your own salvations with diligence" or of Islam who pray so much daily that they may be forgiven by a most holy god who has been sinned against or in the preposterous all-encompassing Hinduism, where Hindus are free to worship as they see fit, even through atheism. Let us observe Christianity as the one faith where salvation had come to us in the form of the eternal King borne upon a feeding trough and later crucified under Pilate, who also intercedes for us to the most holy God, who also is the only way. Secondly, among the world faiths, we see Christianity as that which is not a faith dependent upon inheritance or cultural identity as one may say of Hinduism or Chinese ancestor worship, but of a unique requirement of personal dedication or faith in the one, Jesus Christ.

I believe Buddhism is more honest about salvation. Although there are theistic versions of Buddhism, the essence of non-theistic Buddhism is merely a method of working out a life free of self-induced pain. Of the beliefs mentioned, it is the most internally-consistent, partly because it has very little in the actual "belief" realm. If you accept Buddhism without the reincarnation and karma aspects (which many Buddhists do), then you really only have a way of life.

So really, it isn't even in the same class as Hinduism or Christianity.

As a masochist, I don't mind the self-induced pain. There's a lot of material stuff in the universe which I want. I can haz cheezeburger?


Truth often does make sense. Agreed, faith is not simple, but it is not always as easy as being that you are unable to believe. I remember reading something in the historical record written by Luke the physician and companion of Paul after his conversion on the road to Damascus, where Paul is standing before King Agrippa  and Agrippa expresses the same sentiment:

"Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

To which Paul says:

"Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

O! How joyous would it be indeed that you would come swiftly to Christ, but short time or long - I pray God that not only you but all who read these words may become what I am, except for the ridicule.

I believe I'm constitutionally incapable of accepting any kind of truth in the Bible. I have even begun to doubt its moral truths in these last several years, in that its morality is founded on divine revelation, rather than any kind of honest goodness and fairness as a basis for morality.

Quoting the Bible to help support the Bible is lost on me, I'm afraid. I do appreciate the sentiment, though. I understand you only wish to share the joy you have in God.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers