I wrote the following on that blog web site in response to an entry that exposed the ridiculous assertion that Satan helped a turtle survive s fire...
There are plenty of religious people who do not think, yet this does not make all faith based people into idiots. Let each fool independently stand alone. I have a solid belief and faith in God as a Christian and yet I continuously seek the truth-it is a journey. The murder of Thomas Aikenhead, as well as other evil actions in history (e.g. the Murder of Michael Servetus) condemns the perpetrators, not the ignorant. But the ignorant, without effort to seek facts nor truth, are personally accountable for their ignorance. Albeit, no one can know everything, but by speaking boldly and sarcastically about such evils and the ignorance that perpetuate such actions dangerously put you in a similar - although different basis – position. Just be careful that you, your readers, other contributors, and those who strongly hold to an agnostic or atheistic approach to life don’t turn into the evil and ignorance you so strongly oppose…. After all, we are all only human beings.
There are many web sites and blog spots that promote free thinking. Here are just a few: These sites attempt to promote thinking that is not being "compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma." (from Wikipedia). Yet, there is an inherent prejudice in this approach which does not make it completely free; an anti-religious bias that assumes anything that can not be fully comprehended by the human mind should be ignored, rejected, or marginalized when attempting to think through or consider an idea. To not have your ideas or thoughts be compromised is one thing. However, if you spend any time examining such web sites or books based on this framework or world view, you will quickly discover a strong anti-faith bias - especially faith that claims to be based on some type of absolute fact or truth.
As I attempted to explain in my quote above, sarcasm, ad hominem attacks, and general condemnation of others should not be done based on the ignorance or obvious atrocities of a few or of even one. I propose honest and straight forward presentations with declarative propositions that either stand of fall on their own merit, evidence, and reasonableness. We may ultimately differ, but (1) let's be honest about why we choose the philosophical view have and (2) let's make our arguments be based on honest observations. What we can not prove (i.e. God) should not be categorically dismissed just because you can not produce an experiment in a lab. Try measuring love or quantifying hate - where do you begin?
