The Christian Faith Makes a Person Stupid: Another Case in Point.

Read what Alan said in defense of the Old Testament commands concerning rape. This is absolutely stupid.

We were discussing these two passages from the Bible:

Deuteronomy 22:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Okay so far? Now along comes Alan who writes:
In some cultures today, once a virgin has been raped, she is shunned by society and remains unmarried all of her days. She pines away as an “untouchable”. This is really sad. In such societies, I would love to see action taken against such damnable perpetrators by having them pay money to the father and require at least an offer of marriage and make the law stick such that he can’t divorce her later. Wait a minute… isn’t this what the Biblical law provides?
This is an utterly stupid analogy. There is no thought in this analogy at all, NONE! Alan is trying to equate what some cultures do today with the command of a perfectly good God regarding such matters. Again, did Yahweh shape the culture of the Israelites or not with his commands? If not, why not? If so, why wouldn't he have commanded them not to shun women who have been raped in the first place, idiot?

But we're not done yet. Next Alan writes this gem:
If a law forces rapists to marry their victims, then perhaps the number of rapes will decline to near zero.
Hmmmm. Let's pick our wives this way okay? Whom would I choose to marry? Just rape her. This is fucking nonsense. ;-)
What’s more, if the law requires rapists to pay fifty shekels of silver to the father, this could indeed equate to the death penalty if the rapist hasn’t saved toward his bride’s future. Thus, we have narrowed down the field of rapists who marry their victims to only those who have saved for their “brides” future.
Oh, the debtor’s prison, right? Let's have a show of hands in this economy whether people would prefer this barbaric practice? Alan wants to turn back the clock. He wants to live in the ancient world with Madelein Flannagan who likes being treated as women were treated in the Bible. How can I shock these idiots into their senses here? I just don't know, but with every utterly stupid comment they write it makes me more passionate than ever to keep them from getting more control of America. I will stand in the way of these barbaric people who must defend the Biblical ethics in order to continue believing in the barbaric Bible.

But Alan isn't done yet:
If the girl happens to be ugly, he is required to marry her anyway. Again, this stipulation will help narrow the field further since potential rapists will be motivated to think before acting.
Naw. Only pretty women will fear being raped, that's all. But then these women might be forced into marrying some ugly bastard like Alan too, which Alan seems not to care for at all. Such idiocy I don't have the words.

Here's Alan again:
Thirdly, if one “selects” his wife through means of rape, then he’ll never be able to divorce her even if “she” turns out to be a transvestite.
What? Why do I waste my time here?

Alan again:
The law is putting so many roadblocks into the potential rapist’s path, and causing him to think, I would guess most potential rapists would opt for the easier path of waiting for a willing partner.
Here is exhibit "B" of just what it takes to defend Christianity (Madeleine was exhibit "A"). One must defend the indefensible. This is why I say believers are ignorant. Although some of them are also unintelligent, like Alan.

Alan's conclusion :
Thus, such a society could easily exceed the American society in quality by many fold. In America, if a woman is raped, often the rapist is nurtured in a prison and the possible resulting child is killed. Why not kill the rapist and let the child live? Often, another woman is victimized as soon as the rapist is released.
So here he is comparing what a perfectly good God commanded with what we do as an American society. Right. There should be no comparison at all if a perfectly good God is behind the laws in the Bible. What Alan wants is for rapists to be killed, for women not to have the right to choose, and for criminals to be flogged, put on chain gangs, or tarred and feathered. Those days are past and for good reasons. It’s just a good thing Alan was not framed for a crime, or a black man facing a white jury, or a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy. Alan, you are stupid! Oh, but what I really mean is that your faith makes you stupid.

Kinda reminds me of that commerical where an egg represents your brain. It's cracked open and thrown into a frying pan then we hear the words: "This is your brain on drugs." Well likewise, here's exhibit "B" of what the Christian drug does to your brains too!

To read what Alan said in the context of exhibit "A" here's the link.

43 comments:

Erp said...

Peru actually permitted a raper to marry his victim (if unmarried) and thereby avoid conviction up until 1997. This marriage also prevented prosecution of others in case of a group rape of the victim.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iwraw/publications/countries/peru.htm

Author said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OMFG, What a moron!. Sorry, but had to be said. That guy should be removed from the gene pool.

Geonite said...

"Hmmmm. Let's pick our wives this way okay? Whom would I choose to marry? Just rape her. This is fucking nonsense. ;-)"

What Christians miss here is that the woman cannot be forced to marry the man who raped her. He can be forced to marry her if she wants him. Under no circumstances can she be forced to marry him.

Anthony said...

I could be wrong here but isn't rape about power and not really about sex?

Rev. Ouabache said...

Just... wow. Your God scares me, Alan. Good thing He isn't real.

Corky said...

Geonite said...

What Christians miss here is that the woman cannot be forced to marry the man who raped her. He can be forced to marry her if she wants him. Under no circumstances can she be forced to marry him.
-------------------------------
Where does it say that?

Eternal Truths said...

Wow, I just had a long discussion on this passage with Christian professors today. They cannot account for why God would prescribe the behavior outlined in Deut. 22:13-30. They claimed that God changes with the culture, but somehow the bible is still inerrant. I argued that humans create God and religions to explain the unknown, which makes a lot more sense. I agree that the Christian faith makes person blind to the truth that God is a moral monster in the OT and is created by humanity.

Allie said...

Okay, it's stupid. But you've given me a great idea for my blog:

"Atheism Makes A Person Evil and Dangerous"
- Stalin
- Hitler
- Mao
- Pol Pot
- Milosevic
- ETC.

Or, perhaps, that's being a bit unfair on atheists?

toomanytribbles said...

'What? Why do I waste my time here?'

well, why?

Bluemongoose said...

Why do you assume the old covenant is for all peoples to follow at all times in history? Haven't any of you read the new covenant?

Alan said...

Having re-read my defense of a woman marrying her rapist seemed wholly repugnant, but is it any wonder? We are starting with something ugly to begin with. How does one undo a rape? There is something conspicuously missing in John Loftus' criticism of my "marrying a rapist" post: He never articulated a law that would better serve rape victims and rapists. Until then, he remains as a bystander on a home construction site. He criticizes the carpenters at every nail driven but he himself has never touched a hammer. I've heard stories from rape victims in America and their outcomes are equally or more horrific than the outcomes that occurred under Judeo law. So John, please shower us with your knowledge on how to deal with this evil. Put up or shut up.

cypressgreen said...

Anthony is correct. Let me quote from elsewhare: "Rapists choose their victims for their vulnerability and accessibility, without regard to physical appearance or reputation. Many individuals believe that rape is done for sexual pleasure. This, however, is not usually the motive. Rapists commit rapes just for the "power trip."
Rape is a physical attack, not a sexual one. Rape crisis counselors and researchers define rape as, 'an act of violence in which sex is used as a weapon.' "

cypressgreen said...

@Bluemongoose: if the old testament laws are irrelevant, why do christians keep it in their 'holy book'? And why do so many christians quote from it?

goprairie said...

Christianity sets women up as second class citizens from the start and never does anything to fix that. No matter how many women ministers there are or how many women leading buidling committees and Bible studies, within Christianity lurks that defective core thinking. That core defective thinking is what leads people like Alan to not be able to se a rape from a women's perspective and to even imagine that a woman would be served bymarrying a rapist.Many branches of fundamentalism still prescribe a woman submitting to her husband in all decision makiing. Other demonionations harbor ideas of women as less than men but are nto as bold as to openly state it. For that defective thinking that places women under men, Christianity is evil, harmful, defective.

Robert said...

I would submit some of these quotes to Fundies Say the Darndest Things.

John W. Loftus said...

Alan, I mean idiot, one can indeed say that a house is not built correctly without knowing how to build one. Sheesh. People do this all of the time. Again, all of the time.

But, hey, since I'm dealing with someone who cannot tie his own shoes let's try this law: "Thou shalt not treat women as inferior persons, nor shall you rape them or force them to marry a man they do not want to marry."

What grade in school are you in? This is not a place for people who are as ignorant as you are. Go away, finish grade school, then High School, then take a few college classes and then come back.

You are stupid, oh, but what I mean is that your faith makes you stupid.

exrelayman said...

Of course an all powerful god could have made us say 60% more likely not to have the desire to rape. Or could have made a perfect first covenant so that no second covenant was necessary. Or wouldn't have to demand blood atonement before he could forgive. The inability of fundamental Christians to see such is a testimony in itself as to how powerful early conditioning is.

It isn't that I am demanding a god be as I desire. It is that I am demanding 1) Some sensible evidence beyond hearsay testimony or specious abstract arguments as to the existence of a god, and 2) that god as presented make some kind of sense to all people everywhere, just as all people everywhere can agree about arithmetic and physics. A god that has fine tuned the universe so that at least 2/3rds of us go to hell doesn't seem sensible or credible to me.

Bluemongoose said...

So, John, what say you if I turn it around: "The atheism dogma makes a person stupid"?

Bluemongoose said...

Howdy, Cypressgreen, mind you, I'm speaking of old "covenant" laws that can be found in the Old Testament. Old covenant laws were a particular set of rules made only for the Hebrews/Jewish people for a certain time period. For ex., purity laws, kosher laws, etc. People who aren't familiar with the distinction frequently assume these laws are for all peoples all throughout time.

Bluemongoose said...

Goprairie, your beginning sentence is evidence you haven't done much research on this. In the new covenant, treatment of women is specifically defined. We are even given a model for how this is to occur: Jesus' treatment of His beloved bride, the church. Remember, Christ is the male entity and His bride is the female counterpart.

John W. Loftus said...

Bluemongoose, Atheists do not have a corner on rationality, but faith blinds many more people in my opinion. So it's not the atheist dogma itself that does this to atheists like it is with believers.

Bluemongoose said...

Hey, John! Notice how you said, "in my opinion". You're implying that you're some sort of moral standard with which others should use as a measurement. However, if we trully are devoted to the relativism school of thought, why should your humble opinion matter to the next person?

Chuck O'Connor said...

Allie,

I see by your profile you are 22 years old so I might cut you some slack but, your utter ignorance of history or ideology is pathetic. I would advise you to not blog on the following lest you further the case that Christians are stupid:

"Atheism Makes A Person Evil and Dangerous"
- Stalin (Studied to be priest)
- Hitler (Raised Catholic and began his career in the German Christian Movement; emblazoned SS uniforms with "God with Us")
- Mao (The State Religion of Communism has more in line with the pre-suppositional beliefs of Christianity and does not proceed from rules of skepticism)
- Pol Pot (Leveraged Animus superstitions and Cambodian tribal faiths to align his ideas with the people's party. His brand of Communism was mixed with superstition to the point where the Viet Cong did not consider him Communist.)
- Milosevic (And why did Mr. Milosevic leveraged Catholic superstition to motivate ethnic cleansing against Muslim Serbs

None of the cases you cite were without adherence to pre-suppositional beliefs opposed to skeptical analysis. As such, they all are much more in line with Christianity than they are with Atheism.


- ETC.

goprairie said...

bluefool, i do not NEED to do much research on this. any child who reads genesis about how god made the perfect world and eve screwed it up and god condemned women to suffer forever for it has that stuck in their head that women are to blame for bad stuff. any child who goes about calling the all powerful god by male pronouns is going to have some gender bias.
i could go thru the bible book by book, verse by verse, and find hundreds maybe thousands of examples of where women are put down, and you might be able to find one or two where women are exhalted. there are plenty of articles online about whether christianity is sexist so go ahead and read both sides of it. the bible gives plenty of justification for gender bias against women for those who seek it, and reading that must have an influence on the thinking of christians. no matter how genuinely modern christians try to explain it away or undo it, it is pretty hard to unteach a concept like that.
aside from the bible, let's look at how christianity is practiced. fundmentalists today preach that in a marriage, women are to be subservient to men. the catholic church won't allow women to be preists. there are more sects that limit what women can do to be less than what men can do than there are sects that promote equality. why? because their bible sets the up to think that way.

goprairie said...

"We are even given a model for how this is to occur: Jesus' treatment of His beloved bride, the church. Remember, Christ is the male entity and His bride is the female counterpart."
This proves my point. Jesus is the 'god', the 'head', and the church is the common people, the subservient. Jesus setting up this relationship of a god to his followers is inherently hierarchical. So that Jesus chose a groom and bride, husband and wife, paradigm for the relationship of god to church body provides ample basis for Christiains to view women as lesser in status, as subservient, as lesser in value. Sure, he loves his bride the church, but he is still god over her. Had Jesus meant to set up an equal sort of relationship, he would perhaps have chosen brotherhood as the relationship analog. He intends church to be sub- to god as he views woman sub- to man.
And Christian thinking cannot help but be influenced by that. Christianity of all forms perpetuates gender bias, as does the source of it all, the Bible.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Blue,

Dogma implies an organized and sytematic philosophy. What is the atheist dogma? Seeing that atheists can be capitalist, libertarian, communist, fascist, rationalists, pragmatists, skeptics or even transcendentalists and other philosophies I fail to see how ascertaining disbelief in theism provides a unified dogma.

Again you are idiotic, empty, arrogant rhetoric groping for an idea.

What do you believe? Let us in on that? Or are you afraid that it can't stand up to scrutiny.

Once again, you are an idiot.

Allie said...

Chuck O'Connor -
First of all, if you'd read the end of my comment, you'd know that I explicitly pointed out that what I had just said was unfair to atheists. The point being that John Loftus has no right to say that the Christian faith makes a person stupid.
Secondly, the irony of your telling me that I am completely ignorant of history is amusing. I am writing my thesis on Stalin's Russia. I find it even more amusing that you think that because Stalin once went to train as a priest (and then dropped out and became an atheist, much like John Loftus or some of the other people on this site), he was therefore somehow not an atheist - if that is what you were trying to say, because it wasn't all that clear.

Chuck O'Connor said...

No Allie,

I am saying that your ability to make the leap that atheism leads to Stalinism is stupid. Stalin's training as a priest probably has more to do with him developing a socio-political system ruled by autocratic procedure than his willingness to dismiss with a biblical god. Stalinism and Catholocism are eerily similar in their presuppositions and corrections.

If you are a scholar than you know that correlation does not mean causation. Simply because there is a correlation of atheism within Stalin's political regime and Mao's political regime one should not conclude that it is the cause of their political regimes.

If atheism drove tyrannical mass-murder and unjustified pre-suppositional myth (both inherent in Maoism and Stalinism) then someone like Carl Sagan would have been a homicidal maniac.

All atheism states is a disbelief in theism.

You can't equate political systems that hurt people as caused by atheism simply because you want to earn tit for tat points.

An atheist can indict a Christian however as holding bigoted views due to their stance on gay marriage. The appeal to biblical authority a Christian takes obviates the 14th amdendment and equal rights. It is an inherently bigoted world-view leading to a caste system predicated on superstitious righteousness.

Ideas matter. A disbelief in god is not equal to a presuppositional belief that claims truth which in turn limits individual freedom.

Allie said...

Chuck, I will say it again, more explicitly - I agree with you! It is a stupid argument, saying that Atheism leads to Stalinism! I would have thought that my statement at the end of my comment - "Or, perhaps, that's being a bit unfair on atheists?" - made that clear. All I'm saying is that if it is unfair and untrue to say that Stalin/Hitler/etc prove atheism wrong, it is also untrue to say that Alan's stupid argument proves Christianity wrong or Christians stupid. Go ahead and criticise Alan's argument all you like; in fact, I'll join in. Just don't tell me that because Alan happened to make a weak argument, other Christians are to answer for that.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Allie,

What proves Christianity wrong is not Alan's argument but the pain-staking need to prove the concept of propitiation true.

At the heart of Christianity is a superstition that is illogical and ignorant.

That is what makes Christianity stupid.

And those who glorify it as profound are illogical.

Bluemongoose said...

What's happening, Chuck?

So I guess dogma really shouldn't apply to Christianity either, you know, since there are Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Weslyans, Nazarenes, etc.

Name calling. Again, you're trying to woefully make up for the fact that you're losing debates with me.

I am a Christian. I appreciate your concern about the scrutiny issue.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Blue,

I'm not name calling I am using the art of description to label your character based on your actions and arguments. You are a devotee of useless superstition and work really hard to convince everyone it is true. I don't know your exact psychological motivation for it but it seems like a well honed delusion. Calling you an idiot is a generous position on my part. Really, what you seem to be is mentally ill.

And yes, the many denominations of Christianity are just further proof that absolute truth claims in the name of Jesus are false.

Now, assert what you believe and see if it stands scrutiny.

I also see that you have changed your blogger status from public to private. I wonder if that is because you are afraid of further scrutiny.

You are an idiot. No name calling, just a description.

Have a nice day Blue

Allie said...

Chuck,
Except that that's not actually what we were discussing, was it? Can you just accept my point and move on?
Sheesh, I've had enough of this blog. I thought it would be interesting to read but it's just angry BAM BAM BAM cannot-allow-anyone-to-think-anything-different-to-atheism-without-calling-them-stupid. If this is how you PERSUADE people, you're not going to win all that many converts.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Allie,

I am not looking to win converts. I am looking to expose those who claim morality because they adhere to superstition.

I could care less if you agree with me or not.

I'm not looking for converts. I'm practicing honesty in the face of delusional and superstitious people who would like to elevate their imaginary friend as a moral judge.

You might want to step outside of your own psychological motivation and come to the understanding that not everyone seeking truth need do it for the sake of converts. That is the premise of faith-based truths because they need the power of the mob to ensure their superstition will not be eradicated by reason.

And yes, we are arguing the concept of propitiation ultimately because without it there is no Christianity to feel enobled by.

Geonite said...

Corky,

Read the original.

Allie said...

My use of the word "converts" in relation to those who frequent this blog who are anti-Christianity is more in the sense of "converting from". Why create this blog if John Loftus doesn't want to convert me FROM Christianity?
Anyway - that's my last comment on here for a while, I think.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Allie,

I sense in your comment, "Why create this blog if John Loftus doesn't want to convert me FROM Christianity?" the narcissim at the heart of religious belief.

Believers feel they believe and in so doing feel that belief is an absolute truth.

John created this blog to oppose evangelical Christianity. The leaders of religion who benefit from converting you will probably argue that an atheist like John (or me) who oppose your belief as self-centered superstition is looking to convert you away from Christianity but, in reality, we could care less about you. We care about exposing the dishonesty your church leaders present as truth for the sake of real truth.

Making an ideological debate about your feelings exposes the weakness of your belief.

Gandolf said...

Bluemongoose said..."Hey, John! Notice how you said, "in my opinion". You're implying that you're some sort of moral standard with which others should use as a measurement. However, if we trully are devoted to the relativism school of thought, why should your humble opinion matter to the next person?"

Hey goose,open yer eyes and relax yer saviour of Jesus at all cost mentality for just a moment or two.I suggest you are only serving to prove the point at the moment that faith tends to make a person bloody stupid.

Who here is actually trying to suggest an opinion is actually any more than just that, an opinion?.Who`s suggesting any bodys humble opinion should absolutely need to actually matter to the next person?.

I suggest its just you stuck fast in your faith rut and not being ready to even consider any other options or possibilities,which in turn is making you totally oblivious to what John is actually saying here.

Peoples opinions or suggestions etc do not always need to = Moral standards.

Suggestions and opinions along with our experiences etc maybe do help in the final formation of our morals.


Hell your brain is that clouded by the supposed ever present need of some god to provide moralities etc,you cant even consider simple possibilities that just maybe humans can think or even possess a simple opinion or suggestion on their own any more.

And if faith belief was left quietly to blossom away unquestioned in this world with idiots like yourself at the helm,i suggest it could actually even become a sad reality in the end.

Bluemongoose said...

Chuck:

Name calling. Ha! You're funny. We are sure to have many great debates -- once you get off the potty chair. You atheists are famous for your "slight of hand" when it ocmes to issues regarding interpretation. So riddle me this: Do you like to be called an idiot? If not, then show some of that atheist spirit and treat others as you would like to be treated.

Supersititions & delusions. Again, your opinion. Just merely stating a fact isn't enough to make it into truth. You give nothing to back it up except adding further declarative statements about what you believe my mental state to be. You like to throw around a lot of adjectives. Are you overcompensating for something?

Many denominations. Proof of falsehood, or proof you don't understand? You make the latter look to be correct, as you continually fail to follow up your comments w/any proof -- other than more of your adjectives. Uh-oh.

I've already asserted what I believe, but in your relativistic world, why do you care what anyone believes other than yourself?

Blogger status. Sorry to bust your bubble, but I never set up any blogger status to give away any kind of identity. Either you aren't being forthright about what you've seen on the blog identities or someone has fed you misinformation.

No name calling -- again. Ah, can't you do better than that? You keep beating a dead horse w/your hollow statements that everyone else here can see straight through I guess you're the last to know that your juvenile behavior is boring and not helping you. Next time, try to do some homework so you can validly debate at the grown-up table.

Gandolf said...

Bluemongoose said..."So riddle me this: Do you like to be called an idiot?"

Well dang it! im really only likely to ever bother to really go letting it really (effect me)that much,if there might really possibly be at least some small amount of truth in the matter.

When i grew up and became an adult i got over my childishness of worrying to much specially about things said about me that were totally untrue.

Bluemongoose said...

Chuck:

Name calling. So now it's an interpretation issue, right? You keep making my arguments for me.

Absolute truths. So why would we assume the truth about Jesus rests on the fact that there are many human instituted denominations? Do we assume who you are based on how your parents act?

Asserting what I believe. Why are you pushing this issue? In your relativistic society, why should what I believe matter to you?

Blogger status. I've previously commented to you about any alleged personal blogger descriptions you mentioned referencing me.

Descriptions. I could describe you as a pink elephant. Is my description correct because I made a declarative statement?

Bluemongoose said...

Gandolf:

Ah, ye olde, "If only Christians would just throw off the shackles of Christianity, then they'd be thinking clearly" argument. But, Gandolf, I could switch it around on you. Why don't you cast off your atheist shackles and open your eyes? I could also switch around your statement about being bloody stupid. In the end, in your relativistic world, it's all up for interpretation and you can't deinitively state one way or the other who's right or wrong b/c in this context there is no right or wrong. And you de facto are once again a slave to your atheism.

Who here is trying to suggest an opinion is more than an opinion? You are. By saying, "faith tends to make a person bloody stupid," you are de facto saying what I bring to the table is wrong and your opinion is more than just your opinion -- it's the correct one.

Perhaps you are stuck to your atheism faith rut and are not ready to consider any other options? What if the problem wasn't that people can think on their own, but rather the problem was this: With so many interpretations and every one of those is equal, how do we know which one is correct?

What if people's opinions/suggestions never lead to moral standards?

Your use of the word "maybe" suggests you're not sure where the foundations of morals come from. So how can you definitively say I'm wrong if you don't know the answer?

Reality. Why do you imply that personal perceptions have anything to do with reality? After all, I can have the personal perception that gravity doesn't exist, but does the mere act of making that statement actually make it true?

Gandolf said...

Late reply had not seen the wisdom of Blue had returned.

Bluemongoose said...You are. By saying, "faith tends to make a person bloody stupid," you are de facto saying what I bring to the table is wrong and your opinion is more than just your opinion -- it's the correct one.

Ohhhhhhh i see now, my word is simply to be taken as well just...Total authority!

Any opinions are simply obsolete.I/we cant have a opinion of blue seeming to act like a idiot anymore,if thats how it seems to be looking to me and others.No opinions are no longer in use in this world according to the faithful type thinking of blue.

Goose you are still playing games with words and its only making you look more and more like a idiot.And you then drag your lip along the ground like a baby when people say exactly what they think of it.

Blue said"What if people's opinions/suggestions never lead to moral standards?

Your use of the word "maybe" suggests you're not sure where the foundations of morals come from. So how can you definitively say I'm wrong if you don't know the answer?"

Ohhhh so me leaving room for possibilities and maybe not being quite completely sure is some crime??.Sheeze no wonder some faith folks are often seen as ignorant and stupid.And no wonder they now find themselves having such a hard time with needing to try to make every thing in the bible seem truthful and not really stupid.

Blue said "Reality. Why do you imply that personal perceptions have anything to do with reality? After all, I can have the personal perception that gravity doesn't exist, but does the mere act of making that statement actually make it true?"

Well Blue if you think about it thats what im actually trying to explain here, personal perceptions or opinions etc are not always the end of the debate of matters.They can be right wrong and even part right or wrong etc.
But its what humans have always used to help in forming ideas etc.Some of these opinions do lead on further to where some maybe become almost unquestionable in the end,like swallowing a bottle of arsenic has maybe become highly unlikely to ever be seen as being beneficial to somebodies health.

We call it common sense Blue.Something it seems you still maybe dont quite get the grasp of yet.

Blue said "Ah, ye olde, "If only Christians would just throw off the shackles of Christianity, then they'd be thinking clearly" argument. But, Gandolf, I could switch it around on you. Why don't you cast off your atheist shackles and open your eyes? I could also switch around your statement about being bloody stupid"

Well Blue you are welcome to,opinions are allowed im suggesting.But it helps somewhat if the opinion seems to have some real basis.Try it out on me if you wish but im picking you calling me an idiot will only really effect me a whole lot if its obviously very true.Which might be the problem you are finding so hard to deal with.

But i can promise you personally im not afraid to be wrong at times and im not the type to crave for perfection.Unlike you i will admit it without use of never ending word games, that in the end only serve to show me up as being more of a idiot.