How Dawkins made me a better person

Dear Mr Den,It is of course obvious that what you have written is not true. And you might pause to wonder why it is that the most hateful and vitriolic thing you can think to say against atheism is something that you've made up in your head.And I wonder at your reason for expending so much time and trouble on composing such an obvious falsehood. Various possibilities occur to me.(1) That you actually hope to deceive someone into believing that this story is true. In that case, you would be a liar and a fool.(2) That you do not hope or expect to deceive anyone; but that this is merely a crude attempt at satire.I believe or at least hope the latter case to be more likely.In that case, we have various further sub-cases to consider.For the meaning of your clumsy satire would be the foulest of fundamentalist lies --- that atheists are incapable of that most basic and universal of human emotions, love of one's neighbor.So either:(2a) You know that this is false, and are therefore a liar.(2b) You do not know that this is false, but believe it because you have been driven insane with hatred for those of your neighbors who do not share your doctrines.(2c) You do not know that this is false, but are so young, so gullible, and so pitifully ignorant of the world you live in that you have been deceived by some authority figure into believing that it is true.For your sake, I hope the latter is the case.In any case, whether you are a liar, a fool, insane, or merely vastly ignorant, I hope that you will one day improve in morality, in wisdom, in sanity, or in knowledge (depending on your particular deficit).I will add one thing. Surely an evangelical Christian such as yourself must have as the dearest wish of your heart to convert even one non-believer to your religion, thus saving a soul from Hell. Is not an evangelist one who wishes to bring the gospel, were if possible, to all humankind in particular and in general? Yet of course ravings such as yours must necessarily give atheists the lowest and most contemptuous picture of Christianity. If you really intend to send this letter to Professor Dawkins, it is not beyond conjecture that he will quote from it at length in one of his future books, as demonstrating the utter degradation to which religion can reduce a man.Your brother in being human,Dr Adequate.

But of course it does not. Because you made it up. It exposes the wickedness and folly of the imaginary atheists who live in your head, about whom you like to fantasize because you can't find any real flaws in the real atheists who live in the real world that you actually inhabit.You may have intended it as a satire on atheism, but what it actually does is expose to everyone just how filthy and degraded a Christian's mind may become once he is truly enslaved to his dogma. You intended to invent an atheist boogeyman --- what you have achieved is to display the real, true, non-imaginary evangelical boogeyman in all his disgusting glory.You fantasize that atheists are like the imaginary person whom you invented in your head. Whereas I know that there is at least one Christian who is just like you.It's you.

Well, it's weird, isn't it?Out of every Christian who thinks he has a mission to talk to atheists, 90% of them will start off by explaining to atheists that they're all hateful wicked people who like to eat babies, spit out their bones, and then dance on their graves. Or something of the sort.And the result of this is, of course, that atheists think: "Oh, look, Christianity drives people insane".Really, after reading Den's filth, I've had to wash my mind out by thinking over and over again of all the Christians I've met who were good and decent people. Den offers a great temptation to every atheist to look at the depth of Den's degradation and say: "Ah, yes, that is Christianity".The only way he could have done worse for Christianity on the internet is if he could have found some way to burn people at the stake using standard TCP/IP.

But you are, in fact, religious. It's not a "label" that anyone's sticking on you, you do in fact have a religion. Saying so is not a prejudice, it's a fact. Or flows into the hands of religious institutions. If I don't want to contribute to buying some televangelist his own private jet, does that make me a bad person?I give to charity in order to feed the hungry and heal the sick. Is that OK with you? You know, saying something in a sarcastic tone doesn't make it untrue. Yes, it is that simple. Yes, let us provide medicine to the sick and food to the hungry. And let us do so in such a way that not one single cent of our money goes towards supporting Pat Robertson's multimillionaire playboy lifestyle.

Why?I enjoy mocking people like this, so I'm going to mock him. Do you object?It harms nothing except his pride.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, so they do.It is quite probable than our new friend "Den" will feel that somehow, according to some gibberish hermeneutics that he just made up in his head, he has won.But in fact he lost when he posted his OP. And anyone else reading this thread will know this, unimpeded by his pride, folly, stupidity, or other mental deficiencies.

I'm in agreement with Dr. Sing. Who is advising being nice to people.I think I read about this in the Book of Revelation. It was somewhere between the rain of blood and the plague of giant locusts.THE END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND!!!

Why, in your fantasy world, would people not just help others through secular charities?Can we really imagine even one person saying to himself: "Well, an earthquake has hit Haiti ... so I would donate money ... except that there's no charity I can donate to that make belief in gibberish part of its official policy ... so I guess I'll just keep my money in my pocket, and screw the earthquake victims".Your ideas make no sense. Look at it this way. 30% (let's say) of cars in Las Vegas are white. If you made a law forbidding the manufacture of white cars, would that mean that Las Vegas would have 30% less drivers? No, it wouldn't. Las Vegas would still have exactly as many drivers, they'd just be driving different colored cars. Because people drive because they want to reach their destination; the color of the car they're driving is incidental.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Or to put it another way: So why are you against secularism? Do you want people to die? Are you some sort of monster?

Oh, I don't even remember the thing that you're so profusely apologizing for.But whatever it was, we're OK, and it was nice of you to apologize.