By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - I told some bible thumping Christians that I was an Atheist today, to get them to **** off!

GameOver22 said:
KungKras said:
GameOver22 said:
KungKras said:
Jumpin said:

The current major atheist movement led by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennet.

Mostly on the sale of aggressive attacks on straw men they built to represent the viewpoints of religions. 

Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet and Harris use strawmen? When? Of course you can back that statement up by pointing out the arguments and explaining how and why they are strawmen.

Oh, and when they try to defend scientific integrity in schoolbooks, is that being agressive too?

In terms of Dawkins......have you read the God Delusion? The book is full of nothing but straw. Just for one....his discussion of the trinity. I mean, he could have just read C.S. Lewis for a better representation, and its not like C.S. Lewis even offers the best defense of the trinity.

I've only seen their live debates, so I can't comment on the books. What does he write about the trinity that is so wrong?

I've never watched Dawkins debate. Just to give you an idea....in the God Delusion, Dawkins essentially argues that he won't take part in debates because religious believers are too stupid.....guess he changed tact on this one. Its been a while since I read it (and I don't have the book on me), but if I remember correctly, he argues that the trinity is non-sense because, in the Bible, God talks to Jesus. Dawkins asks how can God talk to himself given that Jesus is God. I think he then argues that this means the story of Jesus talking to God is either a lie or means Jesus is crazy.

In contrast, C.S. Lewis argues that the trinity is better conceptualized as each part of the trinity (Father, son, holy spirit) manifested in a different dimension. Once again, I don't have the book in front of me, but the argument is essentially that God and Jesus are the same person, but they are existing in separate realities. I'm probably not doing the argument justice, but think about yourself in the future travelling back in time and talking to your present self....you could still say you talked to yourself, and you wouldn't be crazy or lying.

Point is, there are much better arguments for the trinity than the one espoused by Dawkins, hence, why people consider it a straw man argument. I'm not saying Lewis is right, but its definitely a better argument than the one presented by Dawkins.

I don't remember that particular argument in the book but his theological points tend to need extra work. And I think his comment about debates was directed to some of the more extreme examples where random people are self-proffessed experts and epitomise confirmation bias. He's had debates and televised conversations with actual religious leaders/scholars and it's all been quite amicable.



Around the Network

I would expect them to be out in full force now since the great "christian leader" Romney is not president. The religious nut jobs have come out the woodwork since. Preaching end of day prophecies and proclaiming Obama as some sort of anti-christ. Its weird though since the election is over its kind of too late for all that, they should have been out spreading their message beforehand!



Scoobes said:

I don't remember that particular argument in the book but his theological points tend to need extra work. And I think his comment about debates was directed to some of the more extreme examples where random people are self-proffessed experts and epitomise confirmation bias. He's had debates and televised conversations with actual religious leaders/scholars and it's all been quite amicable.

Yeah, that's my general point. Its not that difficult to do some research on the argument, especially when you're writing a book on the subject. Maybe he's tightened his arguments a bit since then, but my general impression when reading the book, was that he took some fundamenalists arguments, argued against these, and then claimed he had proof that God was highly improbable. Now his argument against a complex God is better formulated although I think he still misses the mark on a couple of points and could have done a good bit more research.

As far as the debate comments, I think you're right. I read the book two or three years ago, and I'm trying to recall it off the top of my head. To me, the only notable part of the book is his argument against a complex God, so I've forgotten most of the other stuff. : )

Edit: Oh! I do remeber one part of the book that made me laugh. He claims early on that he's going to provide an inductive argument for the non-existence of God. Then, he proceeds to argue that omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible.......which would deductively proof that God does not exist. I remember thinking....well, if that's true, what's the point of the rest of the book?



There is not much difference between a religion and a cult. A religion is just bigger and more organised than a cult. Followers of religions and cults are brainwashed by the leader(s) who preach to them.



Marks said:
I find bible thumping Christians and atheists equally annoying. Why do Christians have to annoy and try to convert people all the time? And also why can't Atheists just relax and not spend all their time disproving religion?

Just for the record I believe in God but don't follow a religion. I guess I'm a Deist or something similar.


The atheists who can't relax are mostly people who are worried that fundamental christians and other zealots want to sabotage the educational system, juxtapose religion with science as if religion was a branch of science on it's own and use bronze age books filled with superstitious hear-say to shit on centuries of hard work and thoroughly documented scientific theories and basis.

Jumpin; just to be clear, you do realise that Hitchens isn't leading any kind of movement since he died of cancer nearly a year ago, right? As for Dawkins, he is speaking out about the things I mentioned above and does not approve of fundamentalism of any kind. He sees an attempt to halt scientific progress and the imminent and ongoing segregation of the world with intolerance and hate through religious zealous behavior and he fears the ultimate consequences.

Religion is philosophy and has nothing to do with science and thus should not attempt to perform a coup and shove science as a whole to the side and out of our schools.

And, to anyone who suggests that Dawkins has poor arguments and debative skills, I refuse to believe that you have seen a single one of his debates. Furthermore, if you want to see silly circle arguments, logical fault, lack of basic reasoning skills, utter contempt for progress and history and lack of insight into the world at large, watch creationists and other fanatics debate. Its incredible to think that I breathe the same air as some of these people. Its unfathomable, even, that we are composed of the same basic materials.



Around the Network

It is a perdicament that as a Christian you're supposed to share your faith, but when people blurt it out as a conversation starter or randomly in the middle of a conversation it can be uncomfortable. Some ppl just aren't socially inclined either, which just makes it worse.

I think their intentions are always good, though; it's their approach that's the problem.

Btw, I didn't even realize there were other Christians on this site.



Pjams said:
My go to is tell them Crom is my god and he stands strong upon his mountain. They usually find this confusing and leave. But telling them to go fuck themselves works just as well, if not a bit more crass. (This method is equally effective against other solicitors and morons, not just christians)

ask them if they want to know the riddle of steel



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

BasilZero said:

Forgot to add...she asked me if I would be willing to believe in Christ and this was after I told her I was Christian....only in America....


LMAO



What I'd do is act like an atheist, then find out where THEY live, and constantly bombard THEIR asses about MY belief system, or lack there of lol.



pitzy272 said:
It is a perdicament that as a Christian you're supposed to share your faith,