More Obstinate Buffoonery - Denial of Fideism

I noted earlier how obstinate religious people can be in sticking to their beliefs despite any logic or evidence you may present to them that would refute those beliefs.  This is the true nature of their faith, no matter how much they may protest that faith is based on reason.  They don't acknowledge the doctrine of fideism, but they live it to the hilt.

This was the topic of one of earlier posts.  But now we have seen (here) one of the most obstinate among them (let's call him Bob) demonstrating his own stubborn refusal to listen to what has been explained to him already (over and over again):

There are just too many rock-bottom fundamentally different understandings about what the word entails for Christians and atheists to carry on a coherent dialog on the subject. For instance:

Christians honor freedom of expression. Atheists regard any deviation from political correctness to be "hatred" and "bigotry".

Christians believe that murder is murder. Atheists think it's all a matter of who you regard as being human. They find it easy to simply define the act out of existence.

Christians understand what the term marriage means. Atheists believe you can define it whatever way you wish. No wait, I take that back!!! You're only allowed to define it their way. If you have any other definition, then you're a hater and a bigot.

Christians believe it is objectively immoral to "take the Name of the Lord in vain". Atheists believe it is their duty to mock and ridicule the sacred ("sky pixie", anyone? or "flying spaghetti monster"?)

I could go on, but from the above it is clear that the two partners in any dialog will first have to recognize that they're not speaking the same language.

The first thing to note about this is that he starts out by saying that Christians and atheists can't carry on a coherent dialog because of differences in the way they understand words.  He ends his spiel by saying that dialog is possible if they recognize these differences in understanding.  So he's taking both sides.  You can't talk to them, and at the same time, you can if you overcome differences in understanding.  More on that later.  But it's clear that he doesn't listen to himself, let alone listening to and understanding what any atheist might say to him.

But let's have a little fun with this.

>Christians honor freedom of expression. Atheists regard any deviation from political correctness to be "hatred" and "bigotry".
Bigotry is still bigotry, no matter how you try to spin it.  Wiley says it well:

(images from here and here.)

>Christians believe that murder is murder. Atheists think it's all a matter of who you regard as being human. They find it easy to simply define the act out of existence.
Murder is murder, and it is defined as the unlawful killing of a person.  We disagree on what a person is.  But it is the Christians of recent times who have tried to redefine personhood.  The law has always defined personhood as beginning at birth (or later).  Before birth, it's a fetus, not a person.  Even the bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old. 

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. - Leviticus 27:6

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. - Numbers 3:15-16

What these hypocrites have attempted to do is define the word 'fetus' out of existence.

>Christians understand what the term marriage means. Atheists believe you can define it whatever way you wish. No wait, I take that back!!! You're only allowed to define it their way. If you have any other definition, then you're a hater and a bigot.
Hold on there.  Who wants to allow only their definition of marriage?  'Tisn't me.

>Christians believe it is objectively immoral to "take the Name of the Lord in vain". Atheists believe it is their duty to mock and ridicule the sacred ("sky pixie", anyone? or "flying spaghetti monster"?)
I have called it "Mr. Wonderful".  And it's not mocking the sacred.  It's mocking the superstition.  There's nothing sacred in superstitious belief.

>but from the above it is clear that the two partners in any dialog will first have to recognize that they're not speaking the same language.
Well, hallelujah!.  This is exactly what I tried to point out to Bob some time ago.  This is the very same thread (well worth reading in its entirety) that he cites to show that his definition of faith is the only one that counts:  "Faith. It’s our word and our definition. It belongs to us, and we need to debunk (oh, what a useful word!) any and all attempts to hijack it for whatever purposes."  Oh, the hypocrisy - the obstinate refusal to listen - even to himself.

Maybe if he listened to himself a little more (not to mention others), he could begin to see that there may be reasons to doubt the faith that he so obstinately clings to.