Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

Nowhere on the Godless Americans Political Action Committee's website (http://www.godlessamericans.org/) can I find anything about wanting to "make homosexuality the norm, advance a culture of vulgarity and kill all babies of inconvenience." Gee, ya think maybe BushCountry.org (http://www.bushcountry.org/) isn't the best place to get a fair representation of what atheists really want?

And as for the rest of your post, I'm really confused. There were so many quotes and not enough commentary that I really don't understand what point you're trying to make. Atheists = Communists = John Kerry = no understanding of the war on terror? (Sorry if that's not what you're trying to say. But that was what I was guessing you were trying to say. I'm not sure though...)

I hope my updated commentary can make a little more sense of my muddled thoughts and conclusions.

O.K. Now that I've read the commentary and other posts of yours, I see that we take completely different views of the world. So I won't rant too much here since this is your blog and all, but I will respond to this post (at least, the atheist stuff) since I did ask for more explanation.

So here goes.

I hadn't understood (1) what you were trying to say by posting that quote about atheists from BushCountry.org: (http://www.bushcountry.org/news/jul_news_pages/g_071604_miles_atheist_endorse_kerry_edwards.htm), and (2) why you would choose BushCountry.org as your source of information about why the atheists endorse a Kerry-Edwards ticket.

Reading your commentary (thanks for including that!), it sounds to me like your reason for (1) is that you essentially agree with the quote, and that you believe that atheists want to "make homosexuality the norm, advance a culture of vulgarity and kill all babies of inconvenience". You have to know this isn't true. You might think that non-believers morality is "based on personal decisions and personal views of morality", which *is* certainly true for many (but not all) people.

But you can't tell me that atheists actually want to:

- make homosexuality the norm (though equal rights is certainly important),
- advance a culture of vulgarity (I have no idea what is even meant by that), and
- kill all babies of inconvience (come on now, this is obviously not an atheist agenda).

As for (2), as you know since you linked to it yourself, the atheists referred to in the quote above actually have their own website (http://godlessamericans.org/), where you can check to see if they really believe the things they are cited as believing. After poking around the site for a while, I have to tell you, I couldn't find support for those "issues" anywhere. So that was why I asked if BushCountry.org is really the best place to be getting your information about what atheists want.

As for your statement that "a secular humanist must test truth for themselves and reach their own conclusions," I already disagree. Looking for "objective truth" via the scientific method isn't the same thing as coming to your own conclusion.

As for this search putting "the value of the individual over the value of truth itself", I also have to disagree. Or at least, express my confusion about how looking for objective truth actually involves means placing a higher value on the individual instead of truth. Isn't truth the endpoint? It certainly makes the individual play an important role. But it doesn't make the individual the basis on which truth stands. According to the website you have cited, "Secular humanists look to the *methodology of science* as the most reliable source of information about what is factual or true about the universe we all share."

And finally, with regards to this statement, "additionally, if you are in a constant search for objective truth, you will never be satisfied with any truth that is found," I actually have to agree to some extent. (Yep, really!) But, I don't know if it's exactly right to say that you'll never be satisfied, because there are things that are pretty much accepted to be true. But you're right (if this is what you were thinking) that you're never 100% satisfied, since the scientific method of understanding the world involves testing everything and understand that accepting any results involves some level of doubt (e.g., setting your .05 statistical confidence interval).

One thing I have to say though, in closing, is that I appreciate that you're always willing to explain your views. I really appreciate that. Even if I do disagree with a bunch of them. But I'll keep reading anyway...

Homosexuals already have equal rights as anyone is an American citizen has equal protections under the Constitution. To put forth an agenda that seeks to give special privileges for someone’s sexual perversion and redefining marriage to be inclusive of this, is not an agenda based on equal rights. Thus the agenda is seeking to make homosexuality a normal or natural activity in life, which it most certainly is not. This is not to say that homosexuals should be demeaned or hated, but their activity should no sooner be accepted than a professing Christian looking at porn.

See their slant here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Awww.godlessamericans.org+GAMPAC+on+homosexual

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Awww.godlessamericans.org+GAMPAC+on+gay

When you advance a culture of abortion on-demand and believe that a woman’s right to choose out weighs a child’s right to life, then it most certainly is a worldview of convenience versus inconvenience. Simply put, abortion on-demand is when you make it as easy as going to the dentist to get your teeth cleaned. I don’t think anyone would object to a person’s right to choose to have clean teeth, but a person’s right to end another life is highly objectionable behavior, no matter what your moral compass is based upon.

See their slant here:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=site:www%2Egodlessamericans%2Eorg+GAMPAC+on+abortion

Please explain how using the scientific method of seeking “objective truth” through trial/error experimentation is not the reaching of a conclusion independent of the variables laid out by the experimenter.

I would agree that truth is the endpoint and the innate desire of all people to seek and find. Also I would agree that truth does not require the individual to stand on its own. However, it is this hugely important role of the individual and the value that one puts on that person which taints the view of truth. You require that person to exist to discover truth, so you may see it and understand it. I require nothing but God to be who he is to stand on his truth. A secular humanist looking to the scientific methodology brings the ideas of “arguing to” and “arguing from” the existence of God back into play. I think we can agree that the scientific method has its limits and cannot explain everything in the world around us. Since I argue from the existence of God, I see these limits and imperfections and do not put my full faith (basing of worldview assumptions) on that method. While you argue to the existence of God, and place your faith (worldview assumptions) in that method, so you conclude that the God does not exist because the scientific method cannot prove it.

By the very admittance of the limitations on this method, one can raise the issue of doubt by relying upon this method solely to view the world. You obviously have reached that conclusion with the mention of the statistical confidence interval. Furthermore, you bring yourself full circle with defining the scientific method as “understanding the world [by] … testing everything”. This relates directly to your contentions on objective truth by taking the objectivity out of it completely because of the presuppositions of the tester in a limited methodology.

I value your readership and hope you realize that my intention is never to belittle or offend. I humbly appreciate and respect your point of view, even as I seek to disprove it. Ultimately, my hope is that you will see the transcendent power of Jesus Christ in my life.