Comments
Trackbacks
-
[...] same point is made in a video I found at Unreasonable Faith. The speaker says: When debating or reaching out to a Christian, debunking the Bible itself should [...]
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
Yup. Generally solid advice.
Is it just me, or does DF’s avatar look a heck of a lot like the guy in this video?
It’s just you. And it’s not me.
Haha, I know, and apparently it is just me. Still, I got a kick out of it.
You’ll know it’s me when it starts out “LIVE, from LAS VEGAS, IIIIIIT’SSSSSSSS…
DANIEL FREAKING FLORIEN!!!”
[cue women screaming and fainting]
What? Delusions of grandeur, you say? ;)
That’s probably the most level-headed approach I’ve heard.
Debating with fundagelicals that disregard science is pointless, IMO.
^ +1, but I insist on trying anyway for some reason – I must be a masochist.
We don’t disregard science, we disagree with scientists conclusions and interpretations of the evidence, while pointing out that their conclusions are actually their presuppositions.
Such as?
Riiiiggggtttttt…..
So when I did my master’s thesis on which genes are involved in learning and memory, forming a hypothesis based on prior research in the area and applying it to determine NEW information that I wasn’t sure about, I was concluding from my premises???
Say what?
And yours aren’t?
Ahhhhhahahahahahahahahahahaha! Scientists posit a hypothesis, check and measure, and change conclusions depending on…… facts. Something in which you are not interested,
black pot.
No, you just cherry pick, quote mine and when in a pinch, outright lie in order to convince the ignorant that there is a real debate between your magic book and real science.
Seems its just a idiot trying to drum up hits and sales for a failed forum. If the forum is anything to judge by a failed business.
Now tell me that “Radioactive Dating” is inaccurate and somehow false! Oh! And explain the great flood and how it’s signs are visible everywhere (I love this one).
Clearly Objectivitees does not disregard all science. It seems he is well versed in necromancy.
Argue like the religious do. If they say they are going to hate the sin, love the sinner, then take them at their word, even after they use the argument that you have no morals. Don’t use scientific fact; argue about fiction instead. If they can’t handle your argument, that’s your fault, not theirs.
Yeah, I’m gonna do that.
I’m all for being civil and not engaging in ad hominems, but why should we neglect our best arguments?
“Hate the sin, love the sinner”
Is any other such blatant lie repeated more often with more false sincerity, I wonder?
I’m not a racist, some of my best friends are black, but …
With all due respect to the right honourable gentlemen …
We should debate fiction because like he said, the Bible trumps any scientist or scientific theory. Until you show them that the bible cannot be trusted, there’s no conversation going to happen on science, politics, etc.
Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
ROFL!
I agree. lol!
I don’t know, understanding that evolution is simple, plausible, reasonable, logical — that there is indeed a mechanism for getting complexity from simplicity — was one of the larger catapult-shots to my wall of faith. Sticking to criticism of the Bible may be the best strategy for some people, but I suspect there isn’t a One Best Way. Anti-superstition is good, but so is pro-reason. Perhaps it depends how scientifically-minded the audience is to begin with.
Perhaps it depends how scientifically-minded the audience is to begin with.
This. For people already somewhat inclined to trust what science has demonstrated, go for the evolution jugular. However, for those who do not, it really is generally pointless to bring the science.
I disagree with the common sentiment in this thread – I think this guy’s advice is good in regards to the people he’s talking about. Before accepting a different view of how the world works, religious people will need to come to the conclusion on their own that the one their current view isn’t very plausible.
If someone were to come tell me that the heliocentric model of the solar system is incorrect, it doesn’t matter how much evidence they throw my way for alternate possibilities – the first thing they have to do is give me reasons where the heliocentric model fails. Otherwise, I’ll be thinking, “Sure, great, whatever, but I already have a perfectly good model that I’m sure is right.” It’s only after I’ve rejected the current model that I’ll be open to hearing evidence for a new one.
Dan,
I hope you’re not going to try to hum the geocentrism tune. We’ve pretty much all walked out of that show a long time ago. Heliocentrism for me … until something better comes along.
Point well taken, though, about shredding the misconception before suggesting a replacement.
Generally good advise. Sometimes, though, I think the objective when arguing with believers is political, especially where women’s rights (pro-choice v. pro-life), sex education (birth control v. abstinence only), gay rights (same sex marriage) and similar issues are concerned.
Frankly, I never really cared what religious people believed until they became involved in issues that concerned me or my friends. I never took issue when viewing the ten commandments on a wall somewhere, and I could care less if someone celebrates CHRISTMAS (versus the ‘holidays’) or doesn’t celebrate Halloween. Why should I?
Still, when some fundie tries to tell me that I should say “Merry Christmas,” or that I should honor heterosexuals for whatever reason, I call bullshit.
And no, no scientist ever converted me to atheism. I did that all on my little lonesome. I used my head and thought about what made sense to me.
If I could take your point a step further, I also don’t have a goal to gain more minds to atheism. That’s a very fundie way of looking at the world. When I debate people it’s about respect and getting them to stop spreading stupid ideas. To provoke their own search. I don’t care what they choose to believe. I care about how they treat and view me. Believe what you will, but recognize that Satan is not the source of my understanding of the world.
Very well said,I like his thoughts and approach as well as his grounded in reality and experience descriptions of discussions with those of faith,and his alluding to 2 of the 3 things you never talk about in a bar politics and religion.
Danial, You are a man after my own heart. There is way to much shrillness on both side of this argument. Please take a look at my post http://2bites.com/2009/12/08/railing-against-religion/, when you get a chance; you’re definitely going onto my blogroll.
Sincerely, Rushhumble
Taking religion at bars is fun. Even more fun, having a stripper give me a lap dance as she is encouraging me to go back to church.
While his advice is solid and correct one thing however I personally found a little bewildering.
Did he change from a Christian Ministry to an atheist one? I don’t want – and never thought of it – convert someone into an Atheist. That this seems to be his goal is a bit odd (imho).
Other than that – good approach. Aside from the fact that a regular John Doe is on thin ice, when trying to argue scientifically – the in-depth knowledge simply isn’t there and I for my part would be busted when really challenged. So challenging them on their own playground is something that sure hits harder than anything else you might bring to the table.
I don’t really think about converting others to atheism either, but in a way, in a discussion or debate, as it happens to come up now and again, the goal is not to yell and scream and “agree to disagree” or maybe even dissolve the friendship, if there was one. The words and arguments you use should not make him think he’s winning the argument or that it’s just a matter of opinion. I think politics, on the other hand, is a matter of opinion, which is why not to bring it up unless you’d rather discuss politics – many people’s politics are influenced by their religious beliefs or lack of them, however, so moving that out of the way first may have a healthier resolution on the political discussions, at least you know you’re on the same level coming from two different sides, instead of on different planets.
The ultimate “goal” then, is to set them to think about what they already think is true. It’s a debate tool. I am ill-equipped to get into this type of argument as I haven’t read the bible, nor any literature really from either side. I think about it a great deal. I don’t know how an atheist can convert to a religion, unless they just never really thought about it and want the companionship. I have made every effort short of reading the bible (I get the gist) to feel there might be a god – any possible god fails to be plausible. I have opened my mind and “heart” to it, questioned, and not taken my atheism for granted, and god still doesn’t exist. No explanation is satisfactory to me.
The religious may be set up to think an atheist is X, all of science is a less plausible story made up than what they know is true. We came from monkeys? As if at any time, a human could be born to a pair of monkeys. Why are there still monkeys? You know, stuff like that. Science sounds to them like the biblical story of god sounds to us, and I’m not buying that no matter what good news they have, so it’s hard to explain to people that far behind how scientists actually know this stuff. And by hard, I mean quite impossible and frustrating to try. It won’t make them think later, and it will make them think atheists are impossible to talk any sense to as well.
This god vs. no god debate doesn’t come up much at all for me, but if it does, you should try to win and not just be the loudest, I guess he’s saying. I don’t advocate conversion or atheistic “ministry,” like “witnessing” or handing out pamphlets to people who don’t give a crap. It is good if you wanted to start your own blog or make some youtube videos, or even write a book someday if you are really on top of your stuff. Seekers need references and communities and discussions; atheists need them too, so it’s helping to deconvert the deconverting or reinforcing the already atheists and skeptics who are looking for it. People need to be armed for discussion when it does arise, so this guy’s video is not endorsing conversion via ministry, it’s just trying to meet a certain goal – creating doubt. Reducing the bad reputation atheists have is another goal. Allowing closet atheists to feel comfortable and confident by setting an example they can sociably follow is another goal, and speaking out as one more atheist voice so people don’t think we’re rare, angry loner types with “god issues” is another goal. I really doubt debating Christians like this guy says or some other way will deconvert a giant lot of them, but if it has a possibility of steering them to think, that’s a good thing.
Daniel, isn’t it a stretch to say that “atheism has opened my mind to…” Since the only thing atheism is a void of a belief and nothing more. I agree with you that not having religion in your life really opens your mind and allows you to see all the tricks and the mental games religious people play. Like the armless and legless Christian that came to speak at Adventure Christian Church here in Rocklin, CA. He claimed that we are all broken, sinners and need to re-establish our trust in god and give more time, energy and money to the cause. What a load of shit, and I only attended the event to watch this guy and see what he was really pedaling. (I was right).
I don’t know exactly what you would call it, but I don’t think it was atheism that allowed you to see more and do more, I think it was just being a good moral person. But to make the claim that it was atheism that did it, I think is wrong…but then again maybe it’s time to give more meaning to the term “atheism” and use a capital A now.
Since religious people need to cling or congregate with something, if they do begin to question their religion, see it for all of it’s man made flaws…then perhaps it’s time that the word/term Atheism is re-defined. Perhaps a church or reason and skepticism is a good idea? Some people actually need to be told how to be rational and moral without referencing a book.
Regardless, thanks for the video and keep up the good work. As a fellow atheist…or As a fellow Atheist, I learn more and more every day and what is funny is I refer to the bible more and more and know more than many Christians I speak with all the time.
There’s a log in the road. Remove the log, and the way becomes clear.
Why is it that when someone mentions Christianity and does not believe in evolution that people automaticly assume that being a Christian you cannot accept science? There are many prominent scientists, some living and some dead who were devout Christians, Isaac Newton, who studied physics, among them.
Science and the bible work very well together. Disease and germs , disinfecting wounds and isolating the infected, laws of sanitation and diet are found in the bible. The bible is not just some idiotic book of magic. Besides, when people state that the God of the bible is some dimwit who should come down and fix all the evil in the world, they ignore the fact that the book of magic prescribes preventative measrues for keeping evil from happening in the first place, but due to the attitudeds of human beings and their nature, those measures are ignored. People murder, abuse drugs, abuse sex, abuse each other, poluute their environment, then whine because no one cleans up after them without asking any questions. The problem is with humanity.
Go and read your own book and then come back and talk to us, okay? IT’s pretty obvious that you lack even a basic grasp of its contents, especially compared to a lot of bible scholars who frequent this site. The bible was written by bronze-age nomads. It is a book of myths, not science.
That little response is proof already that it is you who doesnt know what you are talking about. But that’s not unusual.
Let’s take a specific example from the most basic of biblical ideologies, the ten commandments, shall we?
Thou shalt not commit adultery. Ok Custy, since you took it upon yourself to insult me right off the bat, do some thinking. That is a very basic command, very specific, simply says to keep sex inside marital bounds. Look around you. What do you see? Abortion clinics for all the unwanted babies in the world, (wholesale murder) welfare and child support programs for promiscuous couples who werent planning on conceiving. Do you have any idea of the damage done to modern homes and families when people use the modern mentality of “have sex with whoever you want”? Since you are so much smarter than I am obviously you should be able to come up with many more problems than I did. You are a tax payer, I assume, which means you pay for plenty of this yourself.
Human beings are also commanded not to murder (conveniently ignored if you want an abortion). Yet we have a criminal justice system for the tens of thousands of murderers per state, massive law enforcement agencies, etc. This is basic nuts and bolts stuff. If you are going to attack me at least base it on something.
If you call pro-choice people “murderers” one more time, I’m going to ask Custador to banhammer you.
You won’t have to ask.
Told you that you wouldn’t have to ask.
Calling Pro Choice people “Murderers” is about as accurate as calling Pro Lifers “Rapists”.
How much do you pray for things to change and they never do?
“Why is it that when someone mentions Christianity and does not believe in evolution that people automaticly assume that being a Christian you cannot accept science?”
Because Evolution is scientifically accurate – if you cannot believe in it, that is the definition of not being able to accept science. You might as well refuse to accept lightbulbs and tell us that light comes from faries trapped in glass bubbles. This is simply special pleading, demanding to have your cake and eat it too by being allowed to ignore science when it doesn’t suit your faith but not allowing anyone else to point out that you clearly cannot accept science.
“Science and the bible work very well together. Disease and germs , disinfecting wounds and isolating the infected, laws of sanitation and diet are found in the bible.”
Please explain where germs appear in the bible, why the bible suggests isolating people infected with diseases that aren’t actually contagious and what danger is posed by wearing a cloak woven of more than one type of fibre.
“Besides, when people state that the God of the bible is some dimwit who should come down and fix all the evil in the world, they ignore the fact that the book of magic prescribes preventative measrues for keeping evil from happening in the first place,”
Please explain what a newborn infant has done wrong that it should be born with a genetic abnormality that will forever impact its life. Also, please explain what dimwit invented evil, Satan and fallible humans.
“The problem is with humanity.”
Please explain what humanity has done that directly causes earthquakes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions – or do you mean that god gets annoyed and throws natural disasters at us? I really don’t see how, for example, abusing drugs (who invented those, by the way?) can be appropriately responded to by leveling a town with an earthquake.
“That is a very basic command, very specific, simply says to keep sex inside marital bounds.”
But if you are able to do so, making another man’s fiance/wife pregnant without sex is acceptable? And which marriage are you referring to? The one man, one woman version that is based on love? The one man, one woman version that is based on land? The one man, ten women version that is based on some parts of the bible? One of the countless other renditions of marriage that human cultures have come up with over thousands of years? And why is how to organise your marriage so important it makes the top ten list but not owning slaves, for example, does not even merit a mention?
“Human beings are also commanded not to murder”
Except when they are commanded to dash babies heads against rocks and slay entire towns, cities and even ethnicities.
“If you are going to attack me at least base it on something.”
How about your ignorance of your own faith or your faith’s barbarism? They are things to attack you based on. Or you being foolish enough to making sweeping statements about abortion being murder of unwanted babies by promiscuous women when there are an enormous variety of reasons for it happening, such as to save the mother’s life or to allow her to continue feeding her current children.
Could you post some sources for me to look at that prove that evolution is scientifically accurate?
Could you not just use google as you’re an inquisitive person?
Well seeing as he has a lot of this information already I would like to see the sources he does have.
@Inquisitive Person
Talk Origins handy and easy-to-use FAQ is an excellent starting resource. Poke around there a bit, and we’ll have scratched the surface.
Gene, are you even aware that rates of sexually transmitted infection, unwed and underage pregnancy are higher among Christians who practice abstinance before marriage only sexual indoctrination than in any other demographic in the USA? Seriously. I’ve had somewhere around twenty sexual partners in my life and I’ve never had an STI or an unwanted pregnancy. The same is true for the pretty much all of my friends. The only exceptions are Christian and virgin or Christian and extremely sexually dysfunctional. Now, you may not like that little fact to intrude upon the bubble of delusion in which you’ve decided that a simple (and enjoyable) biological function is somehow evil, but it happens to be true. Sex is extremely enjoyable and if you’re educated about it, carries very little risk.
The rules in the book come from a time when we didn’t really have much in the way of preventing or aborting pregnancies or preventing or curing STDs. It was fundamental that you not slut around or else you’d be saddled with a dude you didn’t like very much and/or his children, and no one to take care of all of you (because you weren’t allowed to work, and being single with children, no such things as daycares – only orphanages), rather than wait for a dude you barely liked even a little better, and only because of his prospects, who had the “god-given” right to rape you if he wanted sex and beat you if you aren’t keeping his house how he likes it.
EFF THAT!
rAmen, y’all! Testify!
Is now when we have the drug-fuelled, baby-oil soaked atheistic sex orgy to celebrate? If so, do I need to bring my own babies to eat?
Any problems we still have in our society are basically caused by people who think the old rules still apply and form policies which suppress and victimize people who are adjusted to modern thinking and modern solutions to human problems. To me, this is like taking the culture from a backwards time in a backwards land and imposing it on everyone instead of adapting. It is culture shock. It is seeing tools as the problem instead of the solution. Adoration of an invisible deity and preserving this backward time and the laws that may have made sense therein is to fail as a human being, not succeed.
Semi-relevant exercise – imagine any present culture of the earth that you feel so foreign to where you live now, and imagine that people from that country automatically had the ability to impose their laws and culture on you now without any basis of reason. Wouldn’t you ask “what the hell?” That’s how atheists feel about the imposition of biblical/religious laws. That book refers to a completely different culture than we have, it’s irrelevant, but without basis of reason, assumes it has some theistic power to control us. This “god” person is an unreasonable excuse, without proof, you say it is “nuts and bolts” uh.. Gene, it’s not obvious to me what is the problem except the cause of the problem seems to be excessive use of backwards laws from a backwards time to control present populations. They suffer when you do that, and the problems you see come effectively after you attempt to control them from developing modern solutions.
Terrific insight Kodie! I had never thought to equate my fear of religious oppression with culture shock, but it makes perfect sense. Well done.
:D
It just came to me. All the problems of the world these people list do exist in some sense (others exaggerated) are filtered through some idea that what god wants is more important, and these people are messing up the system of an ancient order that no longer applies. That’s causing the problems actually. They keep worrying about other people’s agendas tumbling their little world apart, they should start with the common cause of theirs – they really need to start coming up with evidence that we should live in backwards times with backwards rules or STFU.
It’s B.Y.O.B Custy.
I agree the problem is with humanity. The reason god doesn’t come down and fix things is a very easy excuse, one that doesn’t even need to be added to why are humans so cruel to each other, or selfish. It’s very easy to say god punished Adam and Eve in a story that pretends to explain, then why he won’t clean it up. If you take god out of the story entirely, it doesn’t really change anything. If you add god back into the story, it’s just an excuse, a magical being who can do whatever he wants but chooses not to, because of a mysterious plan of discipline to see if we’ll line up ourselves. See, he doesn’t have to do anything, and that explains his apparent lack of existence with a mysterious reason he has for not interfering in the least. What does god even do.
The bible was written by people with a rudimentary understanding of science, so it addresses the subject of course, but it is not in agreement with science because anyone who believes an ancient understanding trumps a modern one is more interested in “the word” as written by god and not their logical senses. This “word” was written by people who had very little to go on, they put down to the best of their ability at the time, what seemed to explain what they saw. We’re more educated now, no real use for that nonsense except as a curiosity.
That’s like asking “why is it that when you tell somebody you rob banks for a living people automaticly assume you’re a criminal?”
“I once wondered why certain things in my life wee the way they were …”
How very interesting …
Abstinence only works if you abstain. Your reading comprehension fails immediately.
I am sick to death of listening to you “problems of the world today” people, complaining that all the troubles come from living away from ancient laws. Some laws still apply, but only if you take the problem itself and apply it if it makes sense, or adapt the law or the solution to how we live today. You do not take a rational approach. The most rational thing you describe is “cause and effect” – you kept your pants on, you did not have unwanted children. You cannot tell everyone that it is more moral to do it that way. The reason Christians in abstinence only programs have more unwanted pregnancies and STDs than the rest of the population (the “problem-causers” as you see them) is because you’re afraid to come with us into the modern world and allow them to learn about birth control. People used to marry young because that’s when you want to have sex. It no longer makes sense to marry as a teenager. It no longer makes sense to wait until you are married at 25 or 30 or even older not to have any sex at all. Abstinence is only one solution that only works only if you keep your pants on and don’t have sex because you’re frightened of being modern, you’re frightened of god, you’re frightened you are doing something with your body an invisible deity controls what you do and punishes you.
Prove this exists if you want those old-fashioned non-applicable laws to apply to everyone else. The problems you perceive are only caused by insisting we live 2-3000 years ago.
“I am sick to death of listening to you “problems of the world today” people, complaining that all the troubles come from living away from ancient laws.”
Gene’s just grouchy as he didn’t get to have sex before he was married …
p.s. Anyone know god’s law on oral sex?
See, and who is he grouchy with? His problems are caused by exactly what I said. And he taught his sons the same, did he chaperone them on dates and make for 100% certain they didn’t have sex before marriage? And if they did wait, they have the same warped values as their old man, and sexually repressed, messed up, sanctimonious as him, and/or married young, to whom, it doesn’t matter as much as that they did wait.
And Gene thinks just because he raised his own kids, he can tell the rest of us how to do it “right.” Abstinence-only programs cause more unwanted pregnancies and STDs than birth control education and self-esteem. Those abstinence-only programs use a lot of misinformation and diminish the esteem of young women, to fear and not explore healthy adolescent urges out of fear, does not educate them how to handle it. You want to talk about what causes the problems of the world, Gene. Backwards thinking in a modern world.
That would be alarming, but it’s your unproven way of seeing things that causes you to see it that way.
Where did anyone say anything like that? Do you think god is the only reason we don’t kill people just because we don’t like them? Do you think god is the only thing keeping your neighbor from killing you instead of calling you filthy names from his own myopic perceptions of how the world should be (and how different it actually is, and how he is upset about it?)
Seriously, what does “god” have to do with this? You have a lot of warped ideas and I am wondering why you think an irrational belief in old laws (and how they work) apply to modern society. Your problem is you don’t know how things work. We apply a law, whether it makes sense or not, we get bad results. We look at the problem and apply the law that makes sense (which may or may not be in the bible), we get adequate results.
The problem is your laws don’t work by magic. The problems of the world are caused by a conflict between applying old laws without considering how they will actually solve the problem. Just because a law that makes any sense at all is in the bible doesn’t mean we just throw it away. We see if it still makes sense to apply it, because it doesn’t work by magically pleasing god. That’s not how it works.
“Gene’sd just grouchy because he didn’t get sex before marriage.” How funny. I knew I’d get a chuckle out of this.
The thing is, I’ve had the pleasure of chatting it up with a few non believers and it generally is the same thing: they bash me for the way I think and the way I have done things and they ridicule me about it, always saying how the bible is old news, stupid and should be used for cig paper.
What’s funny, for those of you who have sent me tons of e mails, I was with a church many years ago and I actually dumped religion entirely. I started thinking like you.
Over the next few years I simply investigated it from the outside and while I am not a minister or even a regular church goer, I simply asked if what I was reading in it made any sense. At the nuts and bolts logic level I concluded that it was pure logic and that the reason most people had the problems they did was because of what is displayed in my e mail, the “bible is bull” mentality. I’m not sorry for the things I did the way I did them. It paid off, and while you bash me, I dont face the problems alot of people do, including my step daughter who said the exact same things many of you have. She is curently saddled with two kids and a welfare existence and her two bit husband is only happy with his little pipe in his mouth. Her life is a wreck and she ued to beg me for help till I got tired of giving her chances to straighten out which she rejected.
The problem is not taking responsibility for making wrong decisions.
“… and her two bit husband is only happy with his little pipe in his mouth.”
Shouldn’t that be her mouth?
We’re not sending you emails. We’re posting on a blog and you are having the messages forwarded to your email address.
Silly modern technology, how about using thing called a “reply” button.
Perhaps something like birth control education would help. Is your step-daughter “saddled” with 2 kids because abortion would have made god angry and you called her a murderer? Maybe she made the decision on her own. What she doesn’t need is you judging her for not respecting your bible to make her life right. I don’t think you know how to fix someone’s life or help a loved one, but it’s not telling them to get right with Jesus. “Chances to straighten out” which she rejected?
You, tired? I don’t really understand the point of your story. Responsibility matters but not the way you think it does, “magically”.
No, she is “saddled with two kids” because she wasn’t taught about birth control in her sexless-ed class.
BAM.
Seriously, Gene, if you want to stop getting emails, I’m sure there’s an option you can check/uncheck to subscribe/unsubscribe like the rest of us.
Your kid being a loser has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with education.
Considering the site Gene linked to on her name earlier is christiangoth.com, I sincerely doubt that she is old enough to have a step-daughter who has two kids of her own. Unless she’s either a fifty year old goth or being extremely dishonest about the no sex before marriage thing.
LOL! That’s some bizarre sh*t, all right!
Perhaps Gene is one of these people who is a grandma at 32.
I went out with a guy maybe 15 years ago whose mom might like that stuff if she wasn’t an atheist. She was a little more of a headbanger than a goth, but it’s not impossible. What is hypocritical is that these goths, and Gene, want particular understanding for the way they want to be, i.e. goth. His neighbor called him/her (? Gene is usually a guy’s name) a satanist, they’re so misunderstood, because they’re christians who want to be goths and nobody understands that.
Gene’s just being a hypocrite. I wouldn’t say they are 15-20 or whenever people go through their goth stage. Why are you even here, Gene? Need to pick on someone because your neighbor doesn’t like the way you dress?
I’m interested in how you decided that abortion is murder of a human being in the same way that killing your neighbour is murder. I don’t believe the idea is biblical, seeing as what little mention there is of loss of a pregnancy in the Bible does not support the idea that a foetus is of the same status as a person after birth, and in certain situations actually mandates abortion. Exodus 21:22 specifically says that no crime except possibly a property crime worthy of a fine has been committed if a woman has a miscarriage due to being hit, unless the woman herself is seriously injured. The test for infidelity of a wife in Numbers 5 is supposed to induce miscarriages if the wife has been unfaithful – in other words, official abortion administered by the priest. I realise that Psalm 139 refers to God knowing David (or the author, who may have been someone else) before he was born, but Psalms is a collection of poetry which also refers to horses shouting “Aha!” at the sound of war trumpets – in other words, some poetic licence is very clearly present.
This is not to say that I wish to go out, get pregnant and have an abortion for the fun of it – I can’t imagine anyone who would. I’m just unclear as to what the basis is for saying that abortion is equivalent to murder.
I’d like to ask one question, before getting on with life and not really expecting an answer: You atheists never got past the first few of the ten commandments that I mentioned with regard to their basic logic before you essentially ripped my views apart (not that I cared to begin with).
According to you abortion is okay, it is not murder (I see it the opposite), according to you (asnd this makes me laugh) open sexuality is okay as long as you use proper education and do it in a safe manner so as to avoid bad consequences, according to you the bible is a bunch of old outdated nonsense. I believe the opposite of all those things and from where I’m standing it has worked well since I dont have to address the same problems others do.
Most of society thinks like you people do and aggrees with your ideologies, and when I look at welfare, poverty, broken homes and marriages, the billions in profits brought in by the drug trade, pornography, and the triumph of criminality in society, one parent homes and parentless, unwanted kids, all based on the idea that these rules are bullcrap, I have to ask, How’s that workin for ya???? Seems to me your humanist viewpoints are the mother of all flops and you are too blind to see it and too stubborn to admit it.
Go for it.
If you mean that we didn’t try to disagree with “Don’t murder” and “Don’t steal,” no, we don’t. Pretty much nobody does. But I do still disagree even with those two with respect to their absoluteness and definitions (the Hebrew definition of “murder” was very different from the modern one).
I respect the view that abortion is wrong (though I disagree with it), indeed, many atheists do, but calling it “murder” is rather extreme.
Yeah, see, everybody has sex. And everybody knows that. Being “open” about this is not like revealing some great secret. Why should it be shameful? The only reason you think this is a “sin” is because your book says so.
It is. It claims things like the Earth being just 6,000 years old, heaven being just “above” the sky (which is made of water), leprosy being highly contagious, rabbits chewing cud, and an enormous variety of other wrong facts that were reasonable a really long time ago. Thus, it is outdated nonsense.
I haven’t committed any crimes nor gotten anybody pregnant either if that’s what you are referring to. Did you know atheists commit fewer crimes than Christians? It’s true.
Most of society thinks like you people do and aggrees with your ideologies, I wish this were true, but it clearly is not, at least with respect to religion. But for most of the other things you’ve discussed, you might be right in the generalities.
It’s working pretty well, thank you very much.
1. Welfare is a good thing. We do not have a welfare state, but we are still helping the needy. I see this as good.
2. Poverty is a relative term. I agree that there is a tremendous problem with poverty globally, and even in the U.S. But keep in mind that in the least religious countries, there is the best distribution of wealth.
3. I would claim that broken homes and marriages are more often caused by unwanted or early weddings, not open sexuality. That is, it is actually the sexual oppression forcing people into these marriages that is the underlying problem.
4. The drug trade is obviously black market because drugs are illegal, not because drugs are inherently evil. The same thing happened to an even greater extent with alcohol during prohibition. Thus again, the law is causing, not fixing, the problem.
5. Pornography is pretty fun, you should check it out some time.
6. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say “the triumph of criminality in society.” Crime rates have gone down overall over several decades, especially violent crime. It isn’t “triumphing” at all.
7. Single parents are most often single because the father abandoned the child. This usually happens due to an unwanted pregnancy. And unwanted pregnancies are much higher in areas where sex-ed is poor or non-existent or is dominated by “abstinence-only” education.
8. There are not more orphans now than there ever have been before, and usually children are orphaned due to the death of their parent(s), so I don’t see the relevance here.
So it would seem none of these “problems” were “based on the idea that these rules are bullcrap.” Rather, the opposite is often true.
It seems to me you do not even attempt to research anything you believe, say, or type, not even your core values, and would rather get angry at people who disagree with you. You have yet to present a shred of evidence in any of your insulting and absurd posts, and have contributed absolutely nothing in the way of serious discussion. I sincerely hope that if you do not change your methods and attitude, you get banned. Or maybe you already have been.
Ugh, looks like I opened an extra <blockquote> before “and when I look at . . . .” Can a mod fix this please? My post looks all ugly now.
Thank you anon.
“Most of society thinks like you people do and agrees with your ideologies, and when I look at welfare, poverty, broken homes and marriages, the billions in profits brought in by the drug trade, pornography, and the triumph of criminality in society, one parent homes and parentless, unwanted kids, all based on the idea that these rules are bullcrap, I have to ask, How’s that workin for ya???? Seems to me your humanist viewpoints are the mother of all flops and you are too blind to see it and too stubborn to admit it.”
Really???? Most of society thinks like me? Is that why non-believers/ skeptics are only 15% of the population while 75% are Christians?
Furthermore, all these “ills” that you claim are non-believers’ faults are really not. You need to read up on the demographics of religious people and skeptics. In general, skeptics are less violent, more educated, and even have lower divorce rates than religious people. Take the log out of your own eye before you worry about my splinter.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Gene, I don’t understand why you’ve even bothered to comment. Nothing you’ve ranted makes any sense. Are you attempting to convert atheists? Your general demeanor isn’t doing much for you. Are you just blowing off steam at the Big Bad Atheists? You should probably save the energy and, oh, I dunno, put it into something a bit more constructive than being an Internet Grouch. Also, you display a stunning ignorance of your own religion, not to mention a stunning ignorance of what’s really going on in American culture–you sound more like a Bill O’Reilly parrot instead of a thinking individual.
Basically, what’s your point?
You are very well-spoken. Thank you for making this video.
I agree that atheists should respect all people, but not their beliefs. I think the crux of the problem with religion is that it is simply off the table for open discourse. Anything is open for debate, expect for ones faith.
It’s sad to see that this dogmatic stone-age virus of a belief system (religion), is still permeating in the modern age. I’m excited that the trend is reversing and that more are becoming atheists.
I will not debate Jesus Christ. It is like casting pearls before swine. I will stand on my faith and you will fall on your religion, yes I said religion. You worship yourselves. You have fallen for the same trick that caused the fall in the first place. You have made yourself god.
“I will not debate Jesus Christ.”
You actually know where he is? Please give us an address. You may not want to debate him, but some of us have some pretty importnat question for him.
‘You actually know where he is? Please give us an address’.
God come to you disguised as…your life.
*God comes to you disguised as your life.
Translation, I know my belief is bullsh*t so I will just close my eyes, shut my ears and sing at the top of my voice “LALALALA can’t hear you”.
I agree. Jesus is a lousy debater. Fictional characters usually are.
Stevie … may I call you Stevie. Really just feck off and do something useful with your life – maybe donate an organ or five?
You can stand on your faith, I will stand on my facts and we’ll see who has the more stable ground.
You won’t debate about Jesus because you know damn well there is nothing to debate.
You have zero evidence, zero rationality, and zero logic to point to your beliefs. You believe what you believe based on the fallacy of authority (either the bible’s or your pastor’s).
You accept authority as a reasonable supposition of faith when it is not.
There’s nothing to debate. You are illogical and a debate is a waste of time.