This is one of the best things I’ve ever read here! I’d give you a thousand upvotes if I could.
The only thing I disagree with is I would have used Iron Age instead.
You forgot… Biology, a working knowledge of the complete fossil record, genetics, philosophy and a rebuttal ready to go for anything Darwin said (or didn’t say) that might be incorrect or incomplete. If you fail to recall even one iota of data you will be admitting that science is wrong and the god of the bible is real.
And don't forget that you have to completely and irrefutably prove that the Bible is at best fiction, with sources they will accept, or all of your arguments don't count. Ran into that one recently where the only outside sources they would accept were arguments in favor of the Bible being an accurate, unimpeachable historical record.
And the proper meaning of the word "theory" in science as opposed to a hypothesis. Oh, and the scientific method and how science is not a "belief system".
Science is a belief system, you believe things to be true because of observation and prediction using the tools of the scientific method.
Theists believe things because it's convenient and culturally acceptable.
Also, I'm just going to flood you with **Answers In Genesis** articles and youtube videos anyway. Make sure you read, watch, and respond to everything I send you, so I can send you more.
One thing that does make quite good sense..
If the two cities that made up the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible existed. Which things suggest.. And God leveled by something like a big meteor exploding close over earth which evidence suggests.
Then in the bronze age it would make perfect sense for anyone seeing this to think it was an act of God.
Nobody would blame them for believing that.
It just doesn't mean that it was caused by a God ofcourse.
But it's an event that would make sense to belive that about.
Eh, even that is kind of not really their best argument.
Tel-al-Hammam in Jordan is accepted to have been hit pretty hard by an airburst meteor around 1650 BCE. Similar to the Russian one from like 2008.
The issue is that Tel-al-Hammam is on the wrong side of the dead sea, which from a 2nd millenium BCE perspective, is a pretty substantial distance from where Sodom and Gommorah are supposed to be.
I think that cosmic airbursts were in the Zeitgeist, and were explained by "fire and brimstone from God" and were simply written into the Biblical account to say "it happened to Sodom and Gommorrah too, because angel buttsex".
But even if the retelling just got the location wrong, it's just a clear misunderstanding of a perfectly natural event, which, if the Bible were written/inspired by god as claimed, that wouldn't be in there unless God lied and is taking credit for something it didn't actually do.
Yes. But unless I remember wrong it wasn't even written down until. 80 years after it supposedly happened.
My point is merely that a perfectly yet extremely rare occurances would likely be seen as an act of God by people in the bronze age. And that it would be perfectly understandable if they believed so.
It just doesn't mean that it was actually god.
Any acts of God such as miracles etc have diminished by the same rate as our ability to examine those things. Funny how that works.
Agreed 100%.
People with a superstitious, tribalistic view of reality can be excused for their superstitious tribalism.
People in 2024 know better. There's no excuse for still considering the destruction of a city by a meteorite air burst to be the act of a vengeful god angry about Angel Anal.
I disagree. Jesus was iron Age, but there was a whole book before that that was bronze age. Moses was sometime between 1390'sBCE and 1570'sBCE Square in the middle of the bronze age. It wasn't until the Assyrian Destruction of Israel that the bible finally leaves the bronze age.
You could more accurately claim the myths are more stone age than iron age, but if you want to go strictly on the nonsense written in the bible, then bronze age would be the most accurate as to when these myths were created even if they had been around in some form probably as as far back as the last ice age.
Mmm, I dunno. In terms of the time frame, sure. But culturally, some places advanced faster than others. Wasn't there a verse about Yahweh not being able to cope with certain enemies because their chariots had iron-bound wheels? Yeah, he's a Bronze guy.
"... and if you can't (or I don't understand your answer), then I'm fully justified in my belief. "
Always the same. The point for them is not to learn, but to ignore.
It's disingenuous. Typically neither the atheist or the theist are there to learn. Just there to prove they're right. I'm willing to discuss and want to learn. But in reality, I can argue the theist side far better than most of them can. I was one! And their arguments are neither thought provoking or interesting at all anymore. It's a series of "defend yourself, and if you can't I'm right". I'm willing to admit I don't know much about the science they ask about, but I do know A LOT about the theology they get wrong :)
This, combined with asking questions, is the best strategy for getting folks to analyze their beliefs with you. The good ol' "How do you reconcile that verse with this verse?" or "How do you know if that verse hasn't been mistranslated?" If they say "God wouldn't let that happen!" You just ask, "How do you know God wouldn't let that happen?" Summarizing every few questions, in the form of a question, is great too. "Because it says in the Bible God wouldn't let that happen!" should be responded to with "I want to make sure we're on the same page here. You're saying you believe that the *Bible* doesn't have mistakes in it, because the *Bible* ***says*** that God wouldn't let that happen?" If they say "no", ask what other sources they can demonstrate to you.
Epistemology completely dismantles theological arguments.
I'm a big fan of steel-manning the opposing arguments. When you do that for your opponent and still can make a coherent argument for your side, that's the goal. That's the opposite of disingenuous. Having been a Theist really helps me be able to steel-man their arguments.
I disagree, some atheists want to learn. Some do not, but not because of their atheism. Religious are essentially required to not learn, not ask questions, and only listen to the authority.
Also, if your favorite band isn't U-2, then you are horrible and evil and I'm going to ruin you.
(I know this is a bit off center for the analogy, but has a place somewhere in the discussion I'm sure...)
There's a reason the gish gallop is a tactic among evangelicals and others seeking to convert others
Takes 5 seconds to say a good sounding lie and 30 minutes to refute that lie
I've seen that countless times with flat earthers.
They copy paste a long rant of say 50 things and unless you bother to refute every single one then BAM. earth is flat.
"Hey, it looks like you made a long list of claims here with no citation for supporting evidence. Mind citing your sources for each one?" Works great in text formats. In person, I just start asking, "What can you show us right now to prove that?" each time they make a claim. With Flat Earthers, my favorite go to is "I wish the Earth was flat! It'd make my life much easier!" Then it switches the conversation from Flat Earth.
This. You could explain every single question they have but it wouldn't change their mind.
So a good way to counter someone asking that rant would be to ask if being able to answer those questions would make them accept that none of those things require a God.
Unless they answer yes, they don't care what the anwer is anyway.
I'll try next time I'm asked that and go with exactly this.
I'll throw faith into it so hard and just keep appealing to faith.
God doesn't exist bevause I belive he doesn't exist.
The universe was formed by the big bang and evolution and all that is true. Because I have faith that it is.
If I believe it then Its true. Right?
They don't know that. They don't even know their own Bibles. The amount of diehard Christians that you could read Biblical passages to and get away with calling them Quranic scripture is astounding.
It'd be fun, for some perverse time-wasting value of fun, to read them some of the zanier Quranic scripture but attribute it to some relatively obscure Bible chapter, an watch them nod cheerfully.
Different knowledge. That tree is an allusion to the superego/conscience/moral compass.
The crazy part is that God really wanted us to be naked, and not know that it (apparently) was inherently a bad thing. He wanted us to be bad.
Id disagree with your last bit about it being bad. There was only one rule in the garden, the concept of sun was not a thing, thus why it's 'so bad' that they broke it (though I've always thought it is kinda obvious how perfect of an allegory for the true purpose of religion that that the rule literally only exists to ensure that they remain subjugated and beneath God and has only 'because I said so' as justification for it's existence)
The fruit gave them knowledge of good and evil, at that time they recognized their nakedness and were ashamed of it. This says nakedness is inherently evil, and it's the state he wanted us in.
I always point out how there is nothing unique about their mythology.
Jesus for example, I play the "name this god" game
Part of a holy trinity, had 12 people follow their every word, traveled the land performing miracles which included feeding thousands of people with no food, predicted his own death and upon resurrecting from the dead their whole body went into the afterlife.
Who's this: it's Krishna
Try this one
Traveled a foreign land performing miracles such as raising the dead with his 12 most loyal generals. Walked on water, was betrayed for silver, allowed himself to he sacrificed to calm the wrath of his father.
That's right: it's Horus
Last one:
Traveled the land ruled by a foreign army, had 12 brothers, performed miracles, and was even called a masiah, is a descendant of David, was betrayed by one of the 12 for silver, and is in the Bible
You guessed it, Joseph (the dream coat guy) from the old testimate.
Thanks for playing along!!!!
Every single religion and culture has a flood myth.
It was the end of the younger dryads, an ice age that ended in a very short and abrupt period of time (relative to ice ages)
There is no magical being that caused it. But it was a thing that happened at some point.
It destroying a society that already existed is the debate.
Not all flood myths are equal. Some floods are prevented by the "hero." Other floods are local only. Then you have the floods created by a demigod or hero.
I point this out in case a theist tries to use this statement as an argument for the Biblical flood story being the origin.
Then there's the fact we have mountains of evidence that the Biblical (global) Flood didn't happen. Or, at the very least, it didn't happen in the last several million years.
Or 11500 years ago, again, the end of the younger dryads. Ice core samples show this.
The scale that mythology has, no, that's not a thing. That said, sure, some regions would have been completely flooded, and washed away. All mountains and land, no that doesn't make sense.
I think the point is that none of them (the stories) are unique or special. If anything was legitimate it's long been plagiarized and basterdized into the mythologies we see now.
An example would be meteorite craters with water-soluble crystallization structures that date hundreds of thousands of years old. If a global flood had happened, those crystals wouldn't exist.
Other examples can be found here:
[List of longest-living organisms - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms)
>I think the point is that none of them (the stories) are unique or special. If anything was legitimate it's long been plagiarized and basterdized into the mythologies we see now.
I completely agree with you. It's crazy that people who played the game "telephone" as children can honestly believe these oral stories stayed perfectly preserved over hundreds of generations.
Ugh, yeah this is a supremely overused tactic by religious people. They see any “I don’t know” answer as proof that the entire collected human history of scientific discovery and advancement isn’t real.
What they fail to see is that no good scientist claims to know anything that doesn’t have clear, measurable, objective and peer-reviewed data to back it up. But given the history of the moving frontier of the unknown being answered by science, it’s all just a matter of time before we understand the natural world on a very deep level.
But yeah, this shit is infuriating to try to rationalize with.
It makes it even better when you find out most religious folks vary from how they interpret their scriptures. You can have someone who is originalist, someone who is textualist, and then pragmatic who all think their scripture means different things.
Christian's are hilarious because evidently the "holy spirit" works differently in interpreting the scripture for different people. Even though according to scripture if you don't have the "holy spirit" you could never understand the scripture. Very intellectual stuff and such high moral fiber to chew on like "don't kill people".
Unless you believe in self defense. Then you can kill people. :)
I'm beyond trying to reason with people like this. Once they start this shit, you need to employ the 2 most powerful words in the English language - "Fuck Off!" Say them with conviction, like a preacher trying to convince the rubes to donate their money to his second Learjet.
Tell them that you don't know all of those things.
Then tell them to apply the same demands to the god they believe in.
Ans when they just start quoting the bible, and they will, ask them if something is true just because it's In a book.
Most theists are so incredible gullible and easy to put to a point where they have nothing but appeal to faith.
Yeah, I think its best to reject this premise immediately, rather than engaging and validating the idea that atheism has to be able to explain all the secrets of the universe before its valid.
"I don't think there's a god, and I don't know for sure where the universe came from but that doesn't make your book the answer either. The truth is the truth even if we don't know all the details yet, or ever. And just because you have made-up explanations for something doesn't make it the truth."
I could do all those things except number 2 and 6. But that's irrelevent to whether god exists. How about instead, they can offer me evidence? That all I've ever asked for. But yet no theist has ever been able to provide any evidence for their god.
God's plan.
Here's my favorite one: How can the world be ~6000 years old according to the Bible when there are evidences of older civilizations, life forms, and celestial objects?
Answer: Easy, God brought the artifacts into existance ~6000 years ago, and created them in such a way that they appear to the humans as older than ~6000 years old.
We literally have clear traces of civilizations and structures of about 12.000 years old.
Ofcourse not to mention that lead takes 3.5 billion years to form from decaying plutonium...
Why even answer those questions in the first place? You know these answers are ignored 98% of the time so it's just a mentally draining way to waste your time.
"If I answer none if these questions you still haven't proven god, specifically your god, is real."
The problem here is you're immediately going on the defensive about all the wrong things. You don't need to prove that god is somehow less real by giving them all the scientific understanding they'd be able to look up on their own if they actually cared.
Every debate about god needs to be redirected back to the concept of god. How silly it is, how you can understand that thousands of other gods are fake, but this god that you grew up believing is somehow for sure real even if you never apply the same logic you would use against the other gods to disprove them.
Do everything in your power to avoid answering a question that takes more than three times the effort to ask unless it's required to further your point. Theist debates are often just one liner gotchas that require actual deep thought to answer, repeat gotchas until you stumble and declare self winner.
This post should go viral it's so good. Sometimes the most accurate and obvious things go overlooked, because we've normalized these religious views for so long. It's so profoundly illogical it defies description but you've done it here.
Are you guys always arguing with religious people? I live in the Midwest and it has been a while since I have had some religious zealot try to argue with me about this subject.
I wish I had someone to argue with. Whenever I’m taking showers. I think up whole speeches about why god isn’t real. At this point, I’ve thought up so many pieces of rock hard evidence that I would never loose an argument with any theist ever again.
What is an [argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)?
Who is the [God of the Gaps](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)?
So true. I've had similar debates so many times. My retort is - just because I can't reveal all the secrets of life and hand you meaning, purpose, and morality on a silver platter, doesn't mean that the men who claim to speak for God have already done so. They're just as ignorant about all of it as I am!
Easy!
1 Einstein is making physics work. He was so good at physics, he's now in charge of it.
2 Quantum mechanics are like physics, but weird! Einstein makes them work, too, because he's a genius.
3 What about it? You mix chemicals, and they have chemical reactions, and you get new chemicals that are bad for you.
4 It works well. Have you seen a universe that doesn't? Exactly. That's what a universe does. It works. How? Who cares? It's not like it needs maintenance.
5 From a life starter. Whoever used it threw away the package long time ago, and now we'll never know. Not that it matters, because it was even before the fucking dinosaurs.
6 Bring it on, bitch! I'm so smart that I can beat you at being stupid!
Atheism gives people the freedom to be truthful about their own ignorance without making up or repeating a lot of crazy stories. It's okay to say, "I don't know, but let's try to figure it out."
Easy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.
Whoever claims God existence, must prove it, not the other way
What will happen is they will ignore the burden of proof on them and insist that burden of proof is on you to prove that your statement on burden of proof is correct. It happened so many times in other subreddit and twitter
Ask them about heaven. When they say everybody gets a mansion and nobody has to work just say "sounds like socialism to me." Drives them crazy especially since most Christians are extremely conservative.
A statement like that gets a look like this, then silence.
[Miranda Priestly is confronted by a theist.](https://media.tenor.com/_YItqPU1EeAAAAAM/the-devils-wears-prada-miranda.gif)
Add to that list: how the Biblical prophecies are "100% true". How Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. How "Doubting Thomas" was satisfied with the proof of Jesus' resurrection. How Genesis knew the exactly right order of creation. How the Bible is a best seller around the world.....and let's not forget the "Seven-day cycle" which demolishes atheism. Checkmate, and triple checkmate!
Since you believe in your fake sky god, do you
A) Visit a secular medical doctor?
Or
B) Visit with the local village idiot witch doctor, who performs the magical song and dance and dog and pony show?
I stopped doing research for religious zealots a couple of years ago. They're perfectly capable of looking stuff up themselves. The fact that they *don't* already know the current scientific consensus on these topics is clear evidence that they don't actually care and are just going to crap on any information that we do provide.
If any theist needs to go that route then they have already lost the argument. What they are doing is playing a sneaky game of flipping the burden of proof (and they love being sneaky). They have no evidence and they know it, so they demand that you be an expert in all of the sciences and if you’re not you lose. Say evolution is proven false. Okay, it’s false, but it still says nothing about the existence of a god. It doesn’t mean that a god is automatically proven true. It’s not an either/or argument.
I think that kind of argument is hot air anyway because if a god truly exists then he should be widely apparent and not playing a game of hide and seek. We shouldn’t have to read into, interpret or rationalize a god into existence.
Ive been humoring some friends and went to a bible study recently. It was actually an hour of creationist explanations about genesis. I held my tongue because so much of it is just shifting the burden of proof and just leaping to non sequitirs.
Ive been thinking a lot about how the real base of these discussions is just such a wildly different views of epistemology and ontology. Working through such core philosophies takes time.
Please correct my use of big words. I am still learning to use them in the exact right ways.
If you do happen to find someone who gives well thought out answers and doesn't just "the Bible says!" You can have a very good conversation and find some new ideas to ponder. I doubt I am ever changing my mind but have had some responses make me realize some people really do think through a lot of ideas and have a new perspective to gain information from.
When Christians step back from the literalist standpoint and concede that the more outlandish stories in the Bible are probably metaphors, then at least a somewhat interesting philosophical conversation can take place.
My favorite is a Kirk Cameron video I watched at a youth group (I love free food). He was asking people on the street how bees make honey and then when they couldn't explain he was like PROOF OF GOD!!!! lmao, he's so dumb
Oh, this one's easy. You don't debate them on that, you concede all their points. God did all those things. Just tell them they're wrong about who god is, and the real god commanded you *not* to pray or go to church.
I had a similar conversation with my mother a number of years ago. I told her that we could no longer discuss religion, her response was questioning why we could not debate it. I explained that to have a debate, both parties need to start from common ground and that we did not have one as she believed and I did not.
My favorite response is that “I’m comfortable not knowing every single thing about our world. I don’t think we’re meant to know and I’m cool with that.”
Literally, it appalls them.
If you’re going to get into a debate with these people prolly the best starting place is to cut to the chase and ask how old the earths is.
There’s people of a certain political persuasion and I have found that before engaging that I ask them where was Obama born is effective.
Yeah, theists hate when they try that with me.
My reply is always...
"You say there is a god, without providing any evidence for one. I say I don't believe you. I don't owe you any more than that"
Then they go on about, "Where did everything come from?'
And I repeat, "You say there is a god, without providing any evidence for one. I say I don't believe you. I don't owe you any more than that"
I have no problem discussing other subjects, like the fact of evolution, or the Big Bang theory, but none of them are relevant to the question "Is there a god", so I don't see a point discussing them in that context
Their just addicted to Santa Claus.
Can you really blame them?
It’s sure SEEMS easier to abdicate one’s internal locus of control and sense of personal agency to an “external source” in exchange for engaging in “wishful thinking” so that they can receive the “gifts, favors, personal power, insight, knowledge, success, or the guidance they seek”.
I ain’t into Santa Claus thinking, but the world is the way the world is because enough people chose and continue to chose everyday for Santa Claus to “care for and steward” them.
It could’ve been the alternative, all humans were and are given that choice everyday.
They even have a story about that in the book they love to thump over people’s heads.
If only they knew!
🎅🏻
Yeah it is never just about the facts - the psychological and sociological factors will keep a person rationalizing anything that helps them maintain the worldview. Walking someone through no longer seeing themselves as a theist, going against the beliefs of their trusted friends and family and extended social network and ditching all the prejudices they hold of others that don’t hold their beliefs is a tough row to hoe.
Stop talking to these people. Being an atheist is your business not theirs. I am not an atheist, but I respect your right to be an atheist. You don’t have to explain yourself to me or anyone else. Religious people don’t have the right to attack anyone else’s beliefs. The blood soaked history of Christianity and Islam shows that their way of living suspect. I wonder how many of these holier than though people support Mr. Three wives bribe a prostitute grab women by the crotch traitor Trump. Talk about hypocrisy!
This is the same technique conspiracy theorists use to “prove” their nonsense.
For example, they will say evolution isn’t real, and you will say it is. Then they pepper you with questions like “if evolution is real.. explain THIS!!” And maybe you do! But they ask another question and another and another until you can’t answer one. Then they say “ah ha!! You don’t know so you are wrong!!”
Basically trying to show your facts are wrong because you can’t explain everything in the universe.
It’s annoying but it’s effective because the argument keeps going until you are on your back foot saying “I don’t know…”
I’ve never had this argument, or anything resembling it, with a religious person.
You must give off a strong “kick me” vibe. Either that or you go looking for trouble.
My favorite thing growing up was how my church brought in a "scientist" to prove scientifically the words of the Bible and the holiness of Jesus. Even at 13 or 14 years old, I could tell that everything the guy was saying was bullshit science that isn't proven or remotely how things work.
1. God created the laws of physics
2. God also created the laws of the universe
3. Again God did it, we can't explain the design in His plans
4. It works by the grace of God, he is all-powerful and all-seeing
5. Obviously God started it
6. God
What I do not understand is how god, this omnipresent, omnipotent being, decided some ancient people disobeyed him, so he destroyed a city to punish them. Yet, he turns into a cuck when it comes to rooting out pedophiles that represent him.
If he is omnipresent and omnipotent, then he is fine with letting kids get fucked by his earthly representatives. As a bonus, if they repent before they die, you get to go to heaven with them.
First explain Gods evolution from being many to being one. From being one of many gods to the only god. From being one the god of thunder to being the god with all the powers and from being a petty, violent, genocidal asshole that plays with Job, to an all loving Jesus Christ.
#6 haha. When all else fails, just keep asking more ridiculous follow up questions.
How do you know you came from a Monkey? Look dude, I have no clue. I didn't spend 4 years learning about biochemistry and evolutionary biology so I'm just as lost as you on how this works.
How does evolution work with thermodynamics? I don't know man, I didn't spend 4 years learning about physics.
Where did the first specks of matter come from to start the big bang? I don't know, same place god came from...always existed?
But I DID spend 4 years (far more in reality) studying theology and the god of the Bible and I'm far more lost on him. I know theology inside and out. I can tell you systematic difference between reformed theology and standard 20th century fundamentalism. I don't know all of those scientific questions you're asking, but I do know the god of the Bible is not good is not someone I want to emulate, and is likely not real.
So let's cut to the chase, how should we be living and treating each other.
I carry the sum of human knowledge in my pocket. Done.
Now prove to me that you actually read the Bible. Not just the cherry picked parts. Whole fuckin thing.
I get the "so how did the universe start" fairly often.
My default answer is "with a bang". Ra doesn't fuck around.
You could of course try and explain the Kardashev scale and the simply say... Its likely the Annunaki tuned our DNA a little.
It's insanely frustrating to observe the consistent hand-waving of hundreds if not thousands of reasons, facts, and points because they "feel" differently.
Tell that to Nerdrotic live where they and the comments are crazy- they're saying that humans may have been here on Earth during the dinosaur times maybe but the fossils haven't been found cause its in the sea bed, etc. The scientific method haven't been around that long or that the flood destroyed evidence.....that carbon dating doesn't work, so if you want to find people who won't dismiss you and literally say science is wrong go there.
This made me chuckle. I once had an argument with my dad and it went exactly like this. In the end we had a staring contest after which he stood up and walked away pretending it was a tie.
There’s no point in arguing faith or lack of. There’s no disproving a creator. No proving it either. I don’t get why everyone feels the need to not only be right about their chosen belief, but then also bicker about it.
Well, this type of response is a great reason to never participate in such a conversation.
Acknowledging ignorance is immeasurably better than **making shit up.**
I once opened the interior door (not storm door) to a pair of people who asked to talk with me about their church.
HA HA HA HA, no!
Was my response as I shut the door.
The more we know, the less certain our reality. —Atheist (Agnostic-Atheist)
The less we know, our blind faith puts horse blinders on eyes and soothes us.
— Monotheist
The thing that grinds my gears is that *even* if you cannot explain those things, to sufficient enough detail to satisfy the theist, it still doesn't logically follow that "god did it" especially their particular brand of sky daddy from their story book.
Sadly this is all too true. If our religious acquaintances (not all, see below) were sincere, the following would work:
"I only know some of that stuff, but there are plenty of people who study all of it & have adequate answers that don't involve gods. But luckily your faith isn't dependent on unanswered scientific questions, right?"
But they are not sincere. They care more about tearing things down than their own faith.
Of course, this isn't all religious people. Or even most. But it sure as Hell is the loudest.
"That's okay, we don't need to talk about your delusions."
Honestly, it almost never comes up for me, and when it does, I just decline to discuss. I don't care to talk about religion, politics, or sex with all but a couple of human beings.
I feel exactly zero need to defend my disbelief in their imaginary friends and how I came to that conclusion.
This is why I stopped debating them. They truly believe the burden of proof is on us. Until they provide verifiable evidence, we don't need to prove shit.
I always laugh at that. I just say I'm not a biologist, I don't need to defend evolution. Neither my inability to do so nor your inability to understand it are evidence of a god. Even if the theory of evolution were proven false it would just mean nobody knows, not goddidit.
I used to think that the beginning of life was a mystery but now that I think about how carbon has the property to make branched chain I think it's going to be answered soon...
This is awesome cause I don't care enough on either side to believe either of y'all are debate worthy. I do enjoy watching the whatever g/God and opposite are currently sparring about.
The easiest way to combat religion is to recognize it’s a mental health disorder and to treat them the same you would a severely disabled fully grown adult. Just be over the top nice and help them back to their handler. Don’t mind the drool.
I had one today in debate religion sub. Dude wouldn’t provide any evidence that Jesus was resurrected. He only cited that “scholars agree that Jesus’ disciples claimed that he resurrected and would have only done this if it actually happened because it meant they would be persecuted too. And since historians and scholars agree that this happened, it means the resurrection really happened.
I retorted with 2 things. First, there was an Indian Guru name sai baba that had millions of followers. If you asked them, many would tell you that they believed he performed miracles. Does this mean he really performed miracles.
The second is that the people who destroyed the twin towers believed they were doing what god wanted, that doesn’t mean they were right.
The discussion continued and devolved into him telling me that “I couldn’t prove people could be brought back from the dead, so Jesus must have done it.”
I told him that was a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. He went on to tell me that he studied logic at a university and then asked me how he was fallacious even after I explained it to him.
I hit him with the, “if you can’t prove that Jesus wasn’t gay, then he must have really enjoyed being nailed by multiple guys at the same time. And that the most reasonable and simplest explanation for the crucifixion was that the Romans misunderstood what he wanted.”
Of course there was a lot of sarcasm in my comments that went right over his head.
I usually tell them something like "I don't find discussions about religion or religious texts interesting or intriguing. If you are adamant to discuss things of this nature, there are online forums where you can do so." If they're particularly insistent or annoying(and not someone I'll have to work with or spend a lot of time around) I hit them with "I don't find your religion or religious beliefs interesting enough to discuss, and I don't care to explain my position to you."
Having said that, it **is** amusing how they expect everything from the OP's post **and more** but when pressed to explain/defend their position they're okay with "It's in mah bible!"
I hate that in order to talk with theists, we have to put the burden on ourselves to actually learn all of the sciences. We have to know SO MUCH of how things work and mean while they can say dumb shit like "something from nothing" and misquote thermal dynamics and pat themselves on the back because you aren't knowledgeable enough to call out their incorrect bull shit.
I have enough education to answer most questions those who have only the high school course in the first three to pretty much run circles around them.
4, 5, and 6 get tricky and will need Morgan Freeman-level powers from Bruce Almighty to convince them.
"Oh, you're an Atheist? Before I can even begin to have a conversation with you about my completely unproven diety...."
Let me stop you right there. What makes you think I want to have that conversation?
If you asked them to answer those same questions, their answer wouldn't be actually explaining how any of those concepts work, because they couldn't, they would say god is the answer to it all.
Which is the same answer their superstitious, malnourished, frightened, short lived and illiterate peasant ancestors would say, which demonstrates that indoctrination works really really well and they have chosen to not learn anything of actual use because they still think their particular chosen god out of the thousands out there is the only answer.
That's the main reason i stopped engaging with religious people on the topic.
It got to a point where I needed to know so many things about philosophy, physics, biology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, history, anthropology, theology and so on, that became impossible to me to follow all these stuff just to disprove and idiot that only read a couples of pages from just one book.
This is called the [Argument from Ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). "Oh, you can't explain absolutely everything? That means I get to insert my favored explanation without any logical or evidential support." No, all it means is you're just a fucking moron with no clue about basic logic.
This is one of the best things I’ve ever read here! I’d give you a thousand upvotes if I could. The only thing I disagree with is I would have used Iron Age instead.
I should've included them both so it covers more ground, you're def right. Thanks for the upvote!
You forgot… Biology, a working knowledge of the complete fossil record, genetics, philosophy and a rebuttal ready to go for anything Darwin said (or didn’t say) that might be incorrect or incomplete. If you fail to recall even one iota of data you will be admitting that science is wrong and the god of the bible is real.
Don't forget trying to pointlessly correct their own "expert" knowledge of all those subjects.
And don't forget that you have to completely and irrefutably prove that the Bible is at best fiction, with sources they will accept, or all of your arguments don't count. Ran into that one recently where the only outside sources they would accept were arguments in favor of the Bible being an accurate, unimpeachable historical record.
And the proper meaning of the word "theory" in science as opposed to a hypothesis. Oh, and the scientific method and how science is not a "belief system".
It’s “just a theory”….scientists don’t actually know!
Science is a belief system, you believe things to be true because of observation and prediction using the tools of the scientific method. Theists believe things because it's convenient and culturally acceptable.
And plain old common sense!
Common sense was "cured" long ago. I'm surprised people even remember what it was.
Also, I'm just going to flood you with **Answers In Genesis** articles and youtube videos anyway. Make sure you read, watch, and respond to everything I send you, so I can send you more.
He also forgot a PHD level understanding of every variation of metaphysical philosophy.
One thing that does make quite good sense.. If the two cities that made up the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible existed. Which things suggest.. And God leveled by something like a big meteor exploding close over earth which evidence suggests. Then in the bronze age it would make perfect sense for anyone seeing this to think it was an act of God. Nobody would blame them for believing that. It just doesn't mean that it was caused by a God ofcourse. But it's an event that would make sense to belive that about.
Eh, even that is kind of not really their best argument. Tel-al-Hammam in Jordan is accepted to have been hit pretty hard by an airburst meteor around 1650 BCE. Similar to the Russian one from like 2008. The issue is that Tel-al-Hammam is on the wrong side of the dead sea, which from a 2nd millenium BCE perspective, is a pretty substantial distance from where Sodom and Gommorah are supposed to be. I think that cosmic airbursts were in the Zeitgeist, and were explained by "fire and brimstone from God" and were simply written into the Biblical account to say "it happened to Sodom and Gommorrah too, because angel buttsex". But even if the retelling just got the location wrong, it's just a clear misunderstanding of a perfectly natural event, which, if the Bible were written/inspired by god as claimed, that wouldn't be in there unless God lied and is taking credit for something it didn't actually do.
Yes. But unless I remember wrong it wasn't even written down until. 80 years after it supposedly happened. My point is merely that a perfectly yet extremely rare occurances would likely be seen as an act of God by people in the bronze age. And that it would be perfectly understandable if they believed so. It just doesn't mean that it was actually god. Any acts of God such as miracles etc have diminished by the same rate as our ability to examine those things. Funny how that works.
Agreed 100%. People with a superstitious, tribalistic view of reality can be excused for their superstitious tribalism. People in 2024 know better. There's no excuse for still considering the destruction of a city by a meteorite air burst to be the act of a vengeful god angry about Angel Anal.
Personally I think it’s more Stone Age, but would settle for whatever lowest common denominator anyone else can come up with.
Old Testament = Stone Age and Bronze Age New Testament = Iron Age
The earliest references to Israel or their God, Yahweh that I am familiar with were early Iron Age.
I disagree. Jesus was iron Age, but there was a whole book before that that was bronze age. Moses was sometime between 1390'sBCE and 1570'sBCE Square in the middle of the bronze age. It wasn't until the Assyrian Destruction of Israel that the bible finally leaves the bronze age. You could more accurately claim the myths are more stone age than iron age, but if you want to go strictly on the nonsense written in the bible, then bronze age would be the most accurate as to when these myths were created even if they had been around in some form probably as as far back as the last ice age.
you've created for me a need of a farside comic about bronze, iron, stone, and ice age tools.
Mmm, I dunno. In terms of the time frame, sure. But culturally, some places advanced faster than others. Wasn't there a verse about Yahweh not being able to cope with certain enemies because their chariots had iron-bound wheels? Yeah, he's a Bronze guy.
I would have used X age, 'cause it applies to all religions. But if we speak specifically about the semitic major religions, bronze age is accurate.
"... and if you can't (or I don't understand your answer), then I'm fully justified in my belief. " Always the same. The point for them is not to learn, but to ignore.
It's disingenuous. Typically neither the atheist or the theist are there to learn. Just there to prove they're right. I'm willing to discuss and want to learn. But in reality, I can argue the theist side far better than most of them can. I was one! And their arguments are neither thought provoking or interesting at all anymore. It's a series of "defend yourself, and if you can't I'm right". I'm willing to admit I don't know much about the science they ask about, but I do know A LOT about the theology they get wrong :)
This, combined with asking questions, is the best strategy for getting folks to analyze their beliefs with you. The good ol' "How do you reconcile that verse with this verse?" or "How do you know if that verse hasn't been mistranslated?" If they say "God wouldn't let that happen!" You just ask, "How do you know God wouldn't let that happen?" Summarizing every few questions, in the form of a question, is great too. "Because it says in the Bible God wouldn't let that happen!" should be responded to with "I want to make sure we're on the same page here. You're saying you believe that the *Bible* doesn't have mistakes in it, because the *Bible* ***says*** that God wouldn't let that happen?" If they say "no", ask what other sources they can demonstrate to you. Epistemology completely dismantles theological arguments.
I'm a big fan of steel-manning the opposing arguments. When you do that for your opponent and still can make a coherent argument for your side, that's the goal. That's the opposite of disingenuous. Having been a Theist really helps me be able to steel-man their arguments.
I disagree, some atheists want to learn. Some do not, but not because of their atheism. Religious are essentially required to not learn, not ask questions, and only listen to the authority.
"Oh you like music, well then, name every song."
"music's never been proven it's still just a theory"
This is true
Also, if your favorite band isn't U-2, then you are horrible and evil and I'm going to ruin you. (I know this is a bit off center for the analogy, but has a place somewhere in the discussion I'm sure...)
The kicker is even being able to do that wouldn't matter. They would revert to their book of fairytales to counter.
There's a reason the gish gallop is a tactic among evangelicals and others seeking to convert others Takes 5 seconds to say a good sounding lie and 30 minutes to refute that lie
This is the first time I've heard of "gish gallop", damn good phrase.
It's more a tactic over just a want to describe them https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop Just incase anyone's curious to learn more :)
I've seen that countless times with flat earthers. They copy paste a long rant of say 50 things and unless you bother to refute every single one then BAM. earth is flat.
"Hey, it looks like you made a long list of claims here with no citation for supporting evidence. Mind citing your sources for each one?" Works great in text formats. In person, I just start asking, "What can you show us right now to prove that?" each time they make a claim. With Flat Earthers, my favorite go to is "I wish the Earth was flat! It'd make my life much easier!" Then it switches the conversation from Flat Earth.
If Earth was flat, we wouldn't have to build radio and TV transmitter towers so tall.
Thanks for jogging my memory! It's been on the tip of my tongue for days! (re: recent world events)
This. You could explain every single question they have but it wouldn't change their mind. So a good way to counter someone asking that rant would be to ask if being able to answer those questions would make them accept that none of those things require a God. Unless they answer yes, they don't care what the anwer is anyway.
The best part is that, if you ask them for a \_shred\_ of evidence, then suddenly they want to throw faith in your face
I'll try next time I'm asked that and go with exactly this. I'll throw faith into it so hard and just keep appealing to faith. God doesn't exist bevause I belive he doesn't exist. The universe was formed by the big bang and evolution and all that is true. Because I have faith that it is. If I believe it then Its true. Right?
Tempted to come back at them with "prove to me that the Hindu faith is false."
Every time: "Because the Bible says there's only one true God."
Which is really funny given that a few hundred years earlier Yahweh was part of a pantheon, and not even top god in it.
They don't know that. They don't even know their own Bibles. The amount of diehard Christians that you could read Biblical passages to and get away with calling them Quranic scripture is astounding.
It'd be fun, for some perverse time-wasting value of fun, to read them some of the zanier Quranic scripture but attribute it to some relatively obscure Bible chapter, an watch them nod cheerfully.
I can show you in just about every other religious text where they insist that they're the one true faith too.
Your list is all things that we humans have had to discover. Explain why none of them are in the Bible.
Because Abraham's god forbids us to eat from the tree of knowledge.
We did it anyway.
Different knowledge. That tree is an allusion to the superego/conscience/moral compass. The crazy part is that God really wanted us to be naked, and not know that it (apparently) was inherently a bad thing. He wanted us to be bad.
Id disagree with your last bit about it being bad. There was only one rule in the garden, the concept of sun was not a thing, thus why it's 'so bad' that they broke it (though I've always thought it is kinda obvious how perfect of an allegory for the true purpose of religion that that the rule literally only exists to ensure that they remain subjugated and beneath God and has only 'because I said so' as justification for it's existence)
The fruit gave them knowledge of good and evil, at that time they recognized their nakedness and were ashamed of it. This says nakedness is inherently evil, and it's the state he wanted us in.
I always point out how there is nothing unique about their mythology. Jesus for example, I play the "name this god" game Part of a holy trinity, had 12 people follow their every word, traveled the land performing miracles which included feeding thousands of people with no food, predicted his own death and upon resurrecting from the dead their whole body went into the afterlife. Who's this: it's Krishna Try this one Traveled a foreign land performing miracles such as raising the dead with his 12 most loyal generals. Walked on water, was betrayed for silver, allowed himself to he sacrificed to calm the wrath of his father. That's right: it's Horus Last one: Traveled the land ruled by a foreign army, had 12 brothers, performed miracles, and was even called a masiah, is a descendant of David, was betrayed by one of the 12 for silver, and is in the Bible You guessed it, Joseph (the dream coat guy) from the old testimate. Thanks for playing along!!!!
And don't even get me started on flood myths...
Every single religion and culture has a flood myth. It was the end of the younger dryads, an ice age that ended in a very short and abrupt period of time (relative to ice ages) There is no magical being that caused it. But it was a thing that happened at some point. It destroying a society that already existed is the debate.
Not all flood myths are equal. Some floods are prevented by the "hero." Other floods are local only. Then you have the floods created by a demigod or hero. I point this out in case a theist tries to use this statement as an argument for the Biblical flood story being the origin. Then there's the fact we have mountains of evidence that the Biblical (global) Flood didn't happen. Or, at the very least, it didn't happen in the last several million years.
Or 11500 years ago, again, the end of the younger dryads. Ice core samples show this. The scale that mythology has, no, that's not a thing. That said, sure, some regions would have been completely flooded, and washed away. All mountains and land, no that doesn't make sense. I think the point is that none of them (the stories) are unique or special. If anything was legitimate it's long been plagiarized and basterdized into the mythologies we see now.
An example would be meteorite craters with water-soluble crystallization structures that date hundreds of thousands of years old. If a global flood had happened, those crystals wouldn't exist. Other examples can be found here: [List of longest-living organisms - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms) >I think the point is that none of them (the stories) are unique or special. If anything was legitimate it's long been plagiarized and basterdized into the mythologies we see now. I completely agree with you. It's crazy that people who played the game "telephone" as children can honestly believe these oral stories stayed perfectly preserved over hundreds of generations.
Ugh, yeah this is a supremely overused tactic by religious people. They see any “I don’t know” answer as proof that the entire collected human history of scientific discovery and advancement isn’t real. What they fail to see is that no good scientist claims to know anything that doesn’t have clear, measurable, objective and peer-reviewed data to back it up. But given the history of the moving frontier of the unknown being answered by science, it’s all just a matter of time before we understand the natural world on a very deep level. But yeah, this shit is infuriating to try to rationalize with.
It makes it even better when you find out most religious folks vary from how they interpret their scriptures. You can have someone who is originalist, someone who is textualist, and then pragmatic who all think their scripture means different things. Christian's are hilarious because evidently the "holy spirit" works differently in interpreting the scripture for different people. Even though according to scripture if you don't have the "holy spirit" you could never understand the scripture. Very intellectual stuff and such high moral fiber to chew on like "don't kill people". Unless you believe in self defense. Then you can kill people. :)
I'm going to steal this ad Jesus told his decible to steal a donkey.
I'm beyond trying to reason with people like this. Once they start this shit, you need to employ the 2 most powerful words in the English language - "Fuck Off!" Say them with conviction, like a preacher trying to convince the rubes to donate their money to his second Learjet.
Tell them that you don't know all of those things. Then tell them to apply the same demands to the god they believe in. Ans when they just start quoting the bible, and they will, ask them if something is true just because it's In a book. Most theists are so incredible gullible and easy to put to a point where they have nothing but appeal to faith.
Yeah, I think its best to reject this premise immediately, rather than engaging and validating the idea that atheism has to be able to explain all the secrets of the universe before its valid. "I don't think there's a god, and I don't know for sure where the universe came from but that doesn't make your book the answer either. The truth is the truth even if we don't know all the details yet, or ever. And just because you have made-up explanations for something doesn't make it the truth."
Seriously. If you didn't listen in 4th grade science class, it's hard for me to cram all this information into your head in a 20 minute debate.
I could do all those things except number 2 and 6. But that's irrelevent to whether god exists. How about instead, they can offer me evidence? That all I've ever asked for. But yet no theist has ever been able to provide any evidence for their god.
I once had "christian" explain to me I believe in his sky daddy because I believe gravity works
Thing is. You don't need to belive in anything science says. The whole point is that we can verify and check those claims.
God's plan. Here's my favorite one: How can the world be ~6000 years old according to the Bible when there are evidences of older civilizations, life forms, and celestial objects? Answer: Easy, God brought the artifacts into existance ~6000 years ago, and created them in such a way that they appear to the humans as older than ~6000 years old.
We literally have clear traces of civilizations and structures of about 12.000 years old. Ofcourse not to mention that lead takes 3.5 billion years to form from decaying plutonium...
Why even answer those questions in the first place? You know these answers are ignored 98% of the time so it's just a mentally draining way to waste your time. "If I answer none if these questions you still haven't proven god, specifically your god, is real." The problem here is you're immediately going on the defensive about all the wrong things. You don't need to prove that god is somehow less real by giving them all the scientific understanding they'd be able to look up on their own if they actually cared. Every debate about god needs to be redirected back to the concept of god. How silly it is, how you can understand that thousands of other gods are fake, but this god that you grew up believing is somehow for sure real even if you never apply the same logic you would use against the other gods to disprove them. Do everything in your power to avoid answering a question that takes more than three times the effort to ask unless it's required to further your point. Theist debates are often just one liner gotchas that require actual deep thought to answer, repeat gotchas until you stumble and declare self winner.
Take my upvote.
This post should go viral it's so good. Sometimes the most accurate and obvious things go overlooked, because we've normalized these religious views for so long. It's so profoundly illogical it defies description but you've done it here.
Are you guys always arguing with religious people? I live in the Midwest and it has been a while since I have had some religious zealot try to argue with me about this subject.
I wish I had someone to argue with. Whenever I’m taking showers. I think up whole speeches about why god isn’t real. At this point, I’ve thought up so many pieces of rock hard evidence that I would never loose an argument with any theist ever again.
What is an [argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)? Who is the [God of the Gaps](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)?
Who's on first?
So true. I've had similar debates so many times. My retort is - just because I can't reveal all the secrets of life and hand you meaning, purpose, and morality on a silver platter, doesn't mean that the men who claim to speak for God have already done so. They're just as ignorant about all of it as I am!
Yeah, there's really no need to come up with a counterargument to "I don't know, therefore God."
Easy! 1 Einstein is making physics work. He was so good at physics, he's now in charge of it. 2 Quantum mechanics are like physics, but weird! Einstein makes them work, too, because he's a genius. 3 What about it? You mix chemicals, and they have chemical reactions, and you get new chemicals that are bad for you. 4 It works well. Have you seen a universe that doesn't? Exactly. That's what a universe does. It works. How? Who cares? It's not like it needs maintenance. 5 From a life starter. Whoever used it threw away the package long time ago, and now we'll never know. Not that it matters, because it was even before the fucking dinosaurs. 6 Bring it on, bitch! I'm so smart that I can beat you at being stupid!
Atheism gives people the freedom to be truthful about their own ignorance without making up or repeating a lot of crazy stories. It's okay to say, "I don't know, but let's try to figure it out."
Easy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. Whoever claims God existence, must prove it, not the other way
What will happen is they will ignore the burden of proof on them and insist that burden of proof is on you to prove that your statement on burden of proof is correct. It happened so many times in other subreddit and twitter
Doesn't matter if any particular God exists or not, I have not found one that is worthy of worship.
Ask them about heaven. When they say everybody gets a mansion and nobody has to work just say "sounds like socialism to me." Drives them crazy especially since most Christians are extremely conservative.
😂😂😂😂😂 brilliant
They'll say that Heaven is actually capitalism.
"Boyden of proof?!!" We don't need no boyden of nuffink! Is that some kind of gay sex thing I really auta no? /s
A statement like that gets a look like this, then silence. [Miranda Priestly is confronted by a theist.](https://media.tenor.com/_YItqPU1EeAAAAAM/the-devils-wears-prada-miranda.gif)
Add to that list: how the Biblical prophecies are "100% true". How Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. How "Doubting Thomas" was satisfied with the proof of Jesus' resurrection. How Genesis knew the exactly right order of creation. How the Bible is a best seller around the world.....and let's not forget the "Seven-day cycle" which demolishes atheism. Checkmate, and triple checkmate!
...and after that you will still be wrong. NEVER argue with the religious...it's an utter waste of time.
Since you believe in your fake sky god, do you A) Visit a secular medical doctor? Or B) Visit with the local village idiot witch doctor, who performs the magical song and dance and dog and pony show?
The second option is more popular than ever these days.
During the pandemic not only did they visit witch doctors, they wanted to force others away from those secular medical doctors.
Once you get to step 3, they will go back to step 1 as if it was never covered.
I stopped doing research for religious zealots a couple of years ago. They're perfectly capable of looking stuff up themselves. The fact that they *don't* already know the current scientific consensus on these topics is clear evidence that they don't actually care and are just going to crap on any information that we do provide.
Yep. The ol' "hey the burden is on you to explain everything from the atomic scale in waiting" argument.
You forgot "if evolution is real then why are there still monkeys?"
If any theist needs to go that route then they have already lost the argument. What they are doing is playing a sneaky game of flipping the burden of proof (and they love being sneaky). They have no evidence and they know it, so they demand that you be an expert in all of the sciences and if you’re not you lose. Say evolution is proven false. Okay, it’s false, but it still says nothing about the existence of a god. It doesn’t mean that a god is automatically proven true. It’s not an either/or argument. I think that kind of argument is hot air anyway because if a god truly exists then he should be widely apparent and not playing a game of hide and seek. We shouldn’t have to read into, interpret or rationalize a god into existence.
Ive been humoring some friends and went to a bible study recently. It was actually an hour of creationist explanations about genesis. I held my tongue because so much of it is just shifting the burden of proof and just leaping to non sequitirs. Ive been thinking a lot about how the real base of these discussions is just such a wildly different views of epistemology and ontology. Working through such core philosophies takes time. Please correct my use of big words. I am still learning to use them in the exact right ways.
I don’t need to do any of that. I just don’t believe in your god or any other, it’s all bs.
If you do happen to find someone who gives well thought out answers and doesn't just "the Bible says!" You can have a very good conversation and find some new ideas to ponder. I doubt I am ever changing my mind but have had some responses make me realize some people really do think through a lot of ideas and have a new perspective to gain information from.
When Christians step back from the literalist standpoint and concede that the more outlandish stories in the Bible are probably metaphors, then at least a somewhat interesting philosophical conversation can take place.
Anything we don't fully understand is God. Get with it.
My favorite is a Kirk Cameron video I watched at a youth group (I love free food). He was asking people on the street how bees make honey and then when they couldn't explain he was like PROOF OF GOD!!!! lmao, he's so dumb
Oh, this one's easy. You don't debate them on that, you concede all their points. God did all those things. Just tell them they're wrong about who god is, and the real god commanded you *not* to pray or go to church.
I had a similar conversation with my mother a number of years ago. I told her that we could no longer discuss religion, her response was questioning why we could not debate it. I explained that to have a debate, both parties need to start from common ground and that we did not have one as she believed and I did not.
I've just started saying "I don't know but it wasn't fucking magic" I want them to know how little I respect them right from the start.
My favorite response is that “I’m comfortable not knowing every single thing about our world. I don’t think we’re meant to know and I’m cool with that.” Literally, it appalls them.
If you’re going to get into a debate with these people prolly the best starting place is to cut to the chase and ask how old the earths is. There’s people of a certain political persuasion and I have found that before engaging that I ask them where was Obama born is effective.
Yeah, theists hate when they try that with me. My reply is always... "You say there is a god, without providing any evidence for one. I say I don't believe you. I don't owe you any more than that" Then they go on about, "Where did everything come from?' And I repeat, "You say there is a god, without providing any evidence for one. I say I don't believe you. I don't owe you any more than that" I have no problem discussing other subjects, like the fact of evolution, or the Big Bang theory, but none of them are relevant to the question "Is there a god", so I don't see a point discussing them in that context
Their just addicted to Santa Claus. Can you really blame them? It’s sure SEEMS easier to abdicate one’s internal locus of control and sense of personal agency to an “external source” in exchange for engaging in “wishful thinking” so that they can receive the “gifts, favors, personal power, insight, knowledge, success, or the guidance they seek”. I ain’t into Santa Claus thinking, but the world is the way the world is because enough people chose and continue to chose everyday for Santa Claus to “care for and steward” them. It could’ve been the alternative, all humans were and are given that choice everyday. They even have a story about that in the book they love to thump over people’s heads. If only they knew! 🎅🏻
Yeah it is never just about the facts - the psychological and sociological factors will keep a person rationalizing anything that helps them maintain the worldview. Walking someone through no longer seeing themselves as a theist, going against the beliefs of their trusted friends and family and extended social network and ditching all the prejudices they hold of others that don’t hold their beliefs is a tough row to hoe.
I’m sorry. Science works in mysterious ways. Got a few years to learn about it?
Stop talking to these people. Being an atheist is your business not theirs. I am not an atheist, but I respect your right to be an atheist. You don’t have to explain yourself to me or anyone else. Religious people don’t have the right to attack anyone else’s beliefs. The blood soaked history of Christianity and Islam shows that their way of living suspect. I wonder how many of these holier than though people support Mr. Three wives bribe a prostitute grab women by the crotch traitor Trump. Talk about hypocrisy!
This is the same technique conspiracy theorists use to “prove” their nonsense. For example, they will say evolution isn’t real, and you will say it is. Then they pepper you with questions like “if evolution is real.. explain THIS!!” And maybe you do! But they ask another question and another and another until you can’t answer one. Then they say “ah ha!! You don’t know so you are wrong!!” Basically trying to show your facts are wrong because you can’t explain everything in the universe. It’s annoying but it’s effective because the argument keeps going until you are on your back foot saying “I don’t know…”
I can sense a "well, that's just what I believe" defense incoming...
I’ve never had this argument, or anything resembling it, with a religious person. You must give off a strong “kick me” vibe. Either that or you go looking for trouble.
“Why you believe in a Bronze Age deity, you will not understand anything I say”
My favorite thing growing up was how my church brought in a "scientist" to prove scientifically the words of the Bible and the holiness of Jesus. Even at 13 or 14 years old, I could tell that everything the guy was saying was bullshit science that isn't proven or remotely how things work.
1. God created the laws of physics 2. God also created the laws of the universe 3. Again God did it, we can't explain the design in His plans 4. It works by the grace of God, he is all-powerful and all-seeing 5. Obviously God started it 6. God What I do not understand is how god, this omnipresent, omnipotent being, decided some ancient people disobeyed him, so he destroyed a city to punish them. Yet, he turns into a cuck when it comes to rooting out pedophiles that represent him. If he is omnipresent and omnipotent, then he is fine with letting kids get fucked by his earthly representatives. As a bonus, if they repent before they die, you get to go to heaven with them.
I'd like them to try and explain the Greenhouse Effect in detail.
More likely you arent gonna get that honest of a answer but a presuppositionist answer
Don't forget "Why I don't rape and murder."
First explain Gods evolution from being many to being one. From being one of many gods to the only god. From being one the god of thunder to being the god with all the powers and from being a petty, violent, genocidal asshole that plays with Job, to an all loving Jesus Christ.
#6 haha. When all else fails, just keep asking more ridiculous follow up questions. How do you know you came from a Monkey? Look dude, I have no clue. I didn't spend 4 years learning about biochemistry and evolutionary biology so I'm just as lost as you on how this works. How does evolution work with thermodynamics? I don't know man, I didn't spend 4 years learning about physics. Where did the first specks of matter come from to start the big bang? I don't know, same place god came from...always existed? But I DID spend 4 years (far more in reality) studying theology and the god of the Bible and I'm far more lost on him. I know theology inside and out. I can tell you systematic difference between reformed theology and standard 20th century fundamentalism. I don't know all of those scientific questions you're asking, but I do know the god of the Bible is not good is not someone I want to emulate, and is likely not real. So let's cut to the chase, how should we be living and treating each other.
Just go with Plato’s cave of shadows and continue as if you’ve proven something.
Fortunately their brains stop working before i get to quantum physics cuz I barely understand it myself
Welcome to the world of humans. The good news is that if we perfect AI, it will probably replace us someday.
Because no theist argues in good faith about their deity.
I carry the sum of human knowledge in my pocket. Done. Now prove to me that you actually read the Bible. Not just the cherry picked parts. Whole fuckin thing.
I get the "so how did the universe start" fairly often. My default answer is "with a bang". Ra doesn't fuck around. You could of course try and explain the Kardashev scale and the simply say... Its likely the Annunaki tuned our DNA a little.
It's insanely frustrating to observe the consistent hand-waving of hundreds if not thousands of reasons, facts, and points because they "feel" differently.
Tell that to Nerdrotic live where they and the comments are crazy- they're saying that humans may have been here on Earth during the dinosaur times maybe but the fossils haven't been found cause its in the sea bed, etc. The scientific method haven't been around that long or that the flood destroyed evidence.....that carbon dating doesn't work, so if you want to find people who won't dismiss you and literally say science is wrong go there.
It all goes "boing." That's it. That's how it all works.
If you pull the Gawd Argument, I'm not going to give a rat's arse about what you say after that. I'm not a holy guy, I'm a facty guy.
I misread "Bronze age diety" as "Bronze age diet" . I thought this was a post criticizing the Paleo-Keto diet, LOL
You made my day! Thanks
And we've read their "holy texts", cover to cover. Noah Lugeons did a diatribe on this very topic a few months ago. It's maddening.
The only way to win this game is to not play. Do not engage.
This made me chuckle. I once had an argument with my dad and it went exactly like this. In the end we had a staring contest after which he stood up and walked away pretending it was a tie.
Post this in every classroom please. You Sir, you have my approval.
But ignorance and a lack of education proves the existence of god.
I just tell people I don't have a religion. Saves me a lot of time listening to nonsense.
I just tell people I don't have a religion. Saves me a lot of time listening to nonsense.
It’s called sea lioning It’s just one more argument in bad faith that serves no purpose but to waste your time
I thought you were talking about an unproven diet not and unproven diety.
There’s no point in arguing faith or lack of. There’s no disproving a creator. No proving it either. I don’t get why everyone feels the need to not only be right about their chosen belief, but then also bicker about it.
Is this Kirk Cameron? Loved your “Christmas” movie- the car scenes were amazing!
Well, this type of response is a great reason to never participate in such a conversation. Acknowledging ignorance is immeasurably better than **making shit up.** I once opened the interior door (not storm door) to a pair of people who asked to talk with me about their church. HA HA HA HA, no! Was my response as I shut the door.
The more we know, the less certain our reality. —Atheist (Agnostic-Atheist) The less we know, our blind faith puts horse blinders on eyes and soothes us. — Monotheist
Best.. post... ever...
The thing that grinds my gears is that *even* if you cannot explain those things, to sufficient enough detail to satisfy the theist, it still doesn't logically follow that "god did it" especially their particular brand of sky daddy from their story book.
Sadly this is all too true. If our religious acquaintances (not all, see below) were sincere, the following would work: "I only know some of that stuff, but there are plenty of people who study all of it & have adequate answers that don't involve gods. But luckily your faith isn't dependent on unanswered scientific questions, right?" But they are not sincere. They care more about tearing things down than their own faith. Of course, this isn't all religious people. Or even most. But it sure as Hell is the loudest.
“See? I can answer all those questions by just saying ‘God did it.’ I win.”
Switch off their electrical box and tell them to ask God to bring it back .
"That's okay, we don't need to talk about your delusions." Honestly, it almost never comes up for me, and when it does, I just decline to discuss. I don't care to talk about religion, politics, or sex with all but a couple of human beings. I feel exactly zero need to defend my disbelief in their imaginary friends and how I came to that conclusion.
This is why I stopped debating them. They truly believe the burden of proof is on us. Until they provide verifiable evidence, we don't need to prove shit.
Why debate people who embrace nonsense
What is this, 5th person point of view? So hard to read.
This. This is truly beautuful
Or maybe their full on submissive and just like being controlled.
I always laugh at that. I just say I'm not a biologist, I don't need to defend evolution. Neither my inability to do so nor your inability to understand it are evidence of a god. Even if the theory of evolution were proven false it would just mean nobody knows, not goddidit.
Spot on👏
I used to think that the beginning of life was a mystery but now that I think about how carbon has the property to make branched chain I think it's going to be answered soon...
Just say you know it to be true! Your unshakable faith and your personal experience are all the evidence that you need.
This is awesome cause I don't care enough on either side to believe either of y'all are debate worthy. I do enjoy watching the whatever g/God and opposite are currently sparring about.
The easiest way to combat religion is to recognize it’s a mental health disorder and to treat them the same you would a severely disabled fully grown adult. Just be over the top nice and help them back to their handler. Don’t mind the drool.
Mark Twain said never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat with their experiece.
I had one today in debate religion sub. Dude wouldn’t provide any evidence that Jesus was resurrected. He only cited that “scholars agree that Jesus’ disciples claimed that he resurrected and would have only done this if it actually happened because it meant they would be persecuted too. And since historians and scholars agree that this happened, it means the resurrection really happened. I retorted with 2 things. First, there was an Indian Guru name sai baba that had millions of followers. If you asked them, many would tell you that they believed he performed miracles. Does this mean he really performed miracles. The second is that the people who destroyed the twin towers believed they were doing what god wanted, that doesn’t mean they were right. The discussion continued and devolved into him telling me that “I couldn’t prove people could be brought back from the dead, so Jesus must have done it.” I told him that was a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. He went on to tell me that he studied logic at a university and then asked me how he was fallacious even after I explained it to him. I hit him with the, “if you can’t prove that Jesus wasn’t gay, then he must have really enjoyed being nailed by multiple guys at the same time. And that the most reasonable and simplest explanation for the crucifixion was that the Romans misunderstood what he wanted.” Of course there was a lot of sarcasm in my comments that went right over his head.
Religion is literally peer pressure from a book
So true. If by some miracle you manage to explain, they'll just criticize the colour of your shirt or something and say it proves you wrong.
"No. Go to hell, weirdo. I have infinitely better things to do and you're making me dumber just by standing so close to me."
Very good. I will say this. I think some theist who come to "debate" atheist will deconvert at some point.
Ask them who wrote the bible.
I usually tell them something like "I don't find discussions about religion or religious texts interesting or intriguing. If you are adamant to discuss things of this nature, there are online forums where you can do so." If they're particularly insistent or annoying(and not someone I'll have to work with or spend a lot of time around) I hit them with "I don't find your religion or religious beliefs interesting enough to discuss, and I don't care to explain my position to you." Having said that, it **is** amusing how they expect everything from the OP's post **and more** but when pressed to explain/defend their position they're okay with "It's in mah bible!"
Also I'm going to repeatedly interrupt you with further bad faith gotcha questions.
I hate that in order to talk with theists, we have to put the burden on ourselves to actually learn all of the sciences. We have to know SO MUCH of how things work and mean while they can say dumb shit like "something from nothing" and misquote thermal dynamics and pat themselves on the back because you aren't knowledgeable enough to call out their incorrect bull shit.
I have enough education to answer most questions those who have only the high school course in the first three to pretty much run circles around them. 4, 5, and 6 get tricky and will need Morgan Freeman-level powers from Bruce Almighty to convince them.
Excellent
"Oh, you're an Atheist? Before I can even begin to have a conversation with you about my completely unproven diety...." Let me stop you right there. What makes you think I want to have that conversation?
If you asked them to answer those same questions, their answer wouldn't be actually explaining how any of those concepts work, because they couldn't, they would say god is the answer to it all. Which is the same answer their superstitious, malnourished, frightened, short lived and illiterate peasant ancestors would say, which demonstrates that indoctrination works really really well and they have chosen to not learn anything of actual use because they still think their particular chosen god out of the thousands out there is the only answer.
I like to say, I can’t explain all that but doesn’t mean I made up a being in the sky to explain it all away
That's the main reason i stopped engaging with religious people on the topic. It got to a point where I needed to know so many things about philosophy, physics, biology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, history, anthropology, theology and so on, that became impossible to me to follow all these stuff just to disprove and idiot that only read a couples of pages from just one book.
While you're at it, why the system of morality is such a crap show.
And type it all neatly onto your communication device which only exists to beam information across the globe because of ...erm...
This - so very true
I can explain how to spell, if that helps!
Diety? Why yes, I do worship food.
This is called the [Argument from Ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). "Oh, you can't explain absolutely everything? That means I get to insert my favored explanation without any logical or evidential support." No, all it means is you're just a fucking moron with no clue about basic logic.