Why so defensive?

This is probably going to seem a little out of place here, as I usually only post news and shorter bits, but I have been reading a lot of atheist and anti-Christian Web sites lately which have prompted me to at least comment on a few things.

Infidel Guy is certainly not the worst offender (in fact, hardly at all), but I will use it here to illustrate my first point. A lot of anti-Christian Web sites claim to be run by "rational" and "freethinking" individuals. The subtitle of the Infidel Guy Web site is "Rational radio and Debate - Critically examining what you believe to be true!". There exists a mentality, "If you don't agree with me, you are not rational; you are not a freethinker," on most of these sites which seems to be exactly what bothers them about Christians. Is there a reason I cannot be freethinking incorrect thoughts? Isn't that the point of free thought? As in free speech, there are going to be people using -- abusing? -- their freedom to do things others believe to be false, misled, and otherwise mind-boggling. But isn't that the point of freedom? If someone else is not free to think (or not think, I suppose), then doesn't that mean that neither am I? My freedom to believe in Christianity goes hand in hand with anyone else's freedom to not believe it.

Christianity is BULLSHIT! has its own share of flaws. The site's author states: "I do not think that religion is bullshit. I KNOW that religion is bullshit, and I can easily prove it." Now isn't that exactly what you complain that we Christians are doing? We could call it fundamentalist atheism: "Nothing you can do or say can make me think another way!" That's what got us into trouble in the first place, silly. You and the Infidel Guy need to have a chat about freethinking and what it means to use logic and reason. If you will never change your opinions, that means they are based on blind faith or you think that at this moment in time you know everything there is to know. You would then be omniscient. However, that is impossible according to nearly every anti-Christian Web site online.

Included on the same site are numerous ad hominem arguments. Why do atheists feel it necessary to resort to name-calling. Even the title of the site is inflammatory. Does not reason stand on its own? (And what's with all the exclamation points?)

You will notice that I keep calling these sites "anti-Christian" when in fact they claim to be rational, reasonable, and freethinking. In the end, they all seem to have the same agenda of hating Christianity. It almost seems as though they do not care what anyone believes as long as it is has nothing to do with Christianity. What about a search for truth wherever that search leads us? If truth is in an apple pie, then that is where I am looking. Truth should be the goal of everyone, not bashing and belittling a specific faith or person. How is that forward thinking? Where is the progress?

The whole show is rather hypocritical, accusing Christians of the very things in which they take part: name-calling, illogic, hatred, one-sidedness, and even hypocrisy itself. A list of logical fallacies is a handy reference for catching the rest. Use it. Love it.

And just so you don't think I am doing that which I accuse many of them, I will offer the other side of the coin. However, the only site that seems to get it right (of the ones that I have seen) is The Secular Web. So far I haven't seen any personal attacks. Direct assaults on Christianity are not to be found. (Of course, they can disagree with Christianity without making it their object of attack. It makes sense that metaphysical naturalists would naturally have some differences with Christians. No pun intended.) The site works because they have their own agenda and are proud to proclaim it. It keeps them busy enough to not have time for petty mudslinging. The site is all the more credible because of it. Bravo!

Don't forget that the list of logical fallacies can be used against this site, too. Please do! I like to know when I am wrong.