Why Atheists can't debate Creationism

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Why Atheists can't debate Creationism

Why do Atheists always fail in debates with Creationists?

Simple...

Atheists always fail in debates with Creationists because God is not on their side...

THAT IS...Atheists always fail in debates with Creationists because such a debate requires the Atheist accept AS LEGITIMATE the Creationist's claim that god
exists, ... after all, debating Creationism requires the Atheist to accept the existence of god, otherwise SUCH A DEBATE WOULD NOT BE DEBATEABLE!

Simply put, when counting integers in ascending order, one precedes two; where 1=the acceptance of the existence of god, and 2=Creationism is founded on that precept.

The Atheist who does this accepts to debate people whom can make ANY CLAIM they choose to... or did that escape your attention?

THERE IS ONLY one issue, and it's not debateable...

The existed of gods...

The burden of proof is upon the shoulders of the Creationist, and requires NOTHING of the AtheistEXCEPT to point out where the Creationist has NO UNDERSTANDING of the Scientific Method, AND their failure to provide empirical evidence which can be tested by the Scientific Method.

End of story...debating Creationism is ONLY possible when the Atheist fails to understand how to count to two, AND IN DOING SO, the Atheist will always "loose" to the Creationists arguments.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Atheists  always fail in a

Atheists  always fail in a debate with Creationists because...

 

there is only so many facepalms one can commit too, before being forced into the emergency room of a hospital for treatment...

 

See! i can troll gooder!

What Would Kharn Do?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Actually, Doomy, treat2 has

Actually, Doomy, treat2 has a valid point.

You could rephrase it in several ways, my favorite bing "Evidence, logic, and reason are beside the point. Ccreationism is a moral issue held by people who think morality is handed down by a law-giver who is simultaniously unkowable and clear in its intent."

How that for fried frontal lobes?

A more colorful summation: "No matter how clever your strategem, or how extensive your experience, playing chess against a macaque only results in broken peices, a wrecked board, and feces being thrown at you."

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Why do Atheists

treat2 wrote:
Why do Atheists always fail in debates with Creationists?

We don't. Me for example. I've never lost a debate with a creationist. I've won them all.

treat2 wrote:
Simple... Atheists always fail in debates with Creationists because God is not on their side...

On the off chance a god is relevant, I am one. If one isn't relevant, then it doesn't matter. Having an invisible friend on ones side doesn't help one in any way.

treat2 wrote:
THAT IS...Atheists always fail in debates with Creationists because such a debate requires the Atheist accept AS LEGITIMATE the Creationist's claim that god exists, ... after all, debating Creationism requires the Atheist to accept the existence of god, otherwise SUCH A DEBATE WOULD NOT BE DEBATEABLE!

By this logic, a creationist auto-fails every time he or she decides to defend creationism. In order to have a debate, there must be an opposing viewpoint. In order to discuss that viewpoint, the creationist must accept the lack of existance of god in the oppositions arguments. This road works both ways.

treat2 wrote:
Simply put, when counting integers in ascending order, one precedes two; where 1=the acceptance of the existence of god, and 2=Creationism is founded on that precept. The Atheist who does this accepts to debate people whom can make ANY CLAIM they choose to... or did that escape your attention? THERE IS ONLY one issue, and it's not debateable... The existed of gods... The burden of proof is upon the shoulders of the Creationist, and requires NOTHING of the AtheistEXCEPT to point out where the Creationist has NO UNDERSTANDING of the Scientific Method, AND their failure to provide empirical evidence which can be tested by the Scientific Method. End of story...debating Creationism is ONLY possible when the Atheist fails to understand how to count to two, AND IN DOING SO, the Atheist will always "loose" to the Creationists arguments.

That would be accurate enough if the creationist had any idea of its reality. They however do not, so we humour them as much as possible in order to communicate with them. If we stick with the simple incoherancy of god and supernaturalism, as well as the scientific method, then many of these theists will never be challenged in their brainwashing.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I'm not really fond of the

 I'm not really fond of the word "fail" in this context.  I mean, to extend the macaque analogy, if I say, "I'm going to play chess with a macaque," and then the macaque breaks pieces, flings poo, and overturns the board, has anyone actually played chess?

So a more accurate way to say it would be this:

Atheists cannot debate Creationists because Creationists do not debate.

Before you get upset with that statement, think about the monkey and the chessboard again.  Suppose you give the monkey (whom I'll call Ray Comfort, or simply Ray, henceforth) a high colonic and teach him to gently pick up pieces from the board and set them back down again.  Once Ray had learned to do this, you could begin playing a proper game of chess, perhaps by moving the queen's pawn forward two spaces -- a legal and very basic move.  If Ray then picked up his queen and set it down next to your pawn, would he be playing chess?  NO!  He'd be moving chess pieces around haphazardly while you tried in vain to engage him in a game of chess.

That's what happens when Creationists debate.  They say things like, "I'm going to prove that God exists without using the Bible.  Now, if everyone will please turn in your Bibles to Psalm 23..."

One other thing.  Occasionally a Creationist will abide by the rules of debate and engage in a serious debate with an evolutionist.  When that happens, the evolutionist, unless he is a complete incompetent, will always win -- if the measure of a win is presenting a better case and refuting the opposition.  If the debate is decided by a show of hands from the audience, it depends on whether the audience is made up of Creationist or evolutionist sympathizers.   Of course, such a show of hands is utterly meaningless if our goal is to learn whether or not evolution or creation is true.  It only tells us which of two humans an audience believes more.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
You can't debate religious

You can't debate religious people as they will use concepts like

'how i feel'

'can you believe?'

'there would be no point if'

'faith'

'reason is not everything'

Just taking the first one I couldnt give a toss how someone feels about anything in a debate, the minute they start going on about how they feel or even what they have been told the argument is over

 

I do have conerns about their feelings in same scenarios outside for a debate  for example I wouldnt go a a funeral and start  telling them their relative was not in heaven but was worm food


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Me: Pawn to e4. Creationist:

Me: Pawn to e4.

Creationist: Uno! Haha, I got you. Take that back and draw some cards.

Creationist #2: Pshaw, your pawn has no chance against my lvl 46 wizard!

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


aeginotu
aeginotu's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2009-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Atheists always fail

Quote:
Atheists always fail in debates with Creationists because such a debate requires the Atheist accept AS LEGITIMATE the Creationist's claim that god exists

I don't think there are any major organized Creationist groups left(luckily). At least, they've changed names to Intelligent Design Proponents. ID-proponents do not specifically state that the ID'er is a (G/g)od or gods, but it is heavily implied. It is then less important as it would be informal debate or formal debate not for legal decision.

Quote:
THERE IS ONLY one issue, and it's not debateable... The existed of gods... The burden of proof is upon the shoulders of the Creationist, and requires NOTHING of the Atheist. EXCEPT to point out where the Creationist has NO UNDERSTANDING of the Scientific Method, AND their failure to provide empirical evidence which can be tested by the Scientific Method. End of story...debating Creationism is ONLY possible when the Atheist fails to understand how to count to two, AND IN DOING SO, the Atheist will always lose to the Creationists arguments.

You're right, if you debate a creationist you have no way of winning. They have their beliefs and aren't going to be bothered by 'scientific evidence', or reason. They turn from reason to emotion, to 'common sense', to reason et cetera. I've personally debated a Creationist(not ID-proponent), who attacked geology saying that it wasn't a sure thing, and then tried to use the same geological findings as arguments for a flood. This man comfortably hid in the tiny probabilities that all of science was wrong. As Robert Anton Wilson would say, "what the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves."
Luckily, creationism has lost its legal battle and so has intelligent design. The only place for these groups to try to argue would be to again change names, and this time secularize it even further. Making a possible victory less and less meaningful.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
A few years ago while I

A few years ago while I lived in the US, and much against my own better judgement, I was asked to debate this subject with a self-avowed "intelligent designer" who was on a publicity visit to the town before an audience largely made up of his fans. It was a generally civilized affair - at least on stage - and we followed a strict format in which we both set forward our independent pre-prepared arguments and then engaged in a set number of retorts to each other's points.

 

It wasn't a debate of course. Our views never even came close to touching, therefore disallowing tangential reference by either side and making our rebuttals of each other's stances simply opportunities for much whooping, clapping, hissing and booing from the audience and little else.

 

Then came the surprise. The final segment of the debate was an opportunity for the audience to ask questions of each of us which were theoretically designed to get us to elucidate more fully on topics germaine to the discussion which the audience felt they required in order to reach a personal verdict. An adjudicator would ensure that the questions were relevant, non-repetitious and shared equally between the protagonists.

 

That didn't happen. All the questions were directed to me. Some had been prepared beforehand (you know - "Yes, but how absolutely sure can anyone be that geological dating is accurate?", "The eye - explain the eye!" etc) but others were genuine requests to explain terms like "biostratigraphic evidence", "radiometric white noise samples" and so on, as well as to expound on one of my principal points of difference with the creationist - that science illustrating the irrelevance of god to the process of evolution is not an attack on religious belief except to those whose belief has stopped them from understanding that process. It is simply a statement of fact with demonstrable and neutral proofs to back it up. Offence must be taken, in other words, and isn't being given. Moreover, religious adherence to creationist belief must counter every proof to be as valid scientifically and fails woefully to do so. The few attempts my opponent made, all easily rebutted, demonstrated this admirably. It is as incompatible with reason as a persistence in believing that the sun is hauled across the heavens by Helios, the easy rebuttal of which is not intended to make out that all Helios-worshippers are evil, but that they are simply factually in error.

 

I lost the debate on a show of hands by a factor of 10 to 1. But I received a small string of people (maybe 7 or 8 ) afterwards who thanked me for helping them realise how foolish they had been and how much they needed to read more. My opponent was visibly infuriated by this (despite his standing ovation and a few hundred who lined up to buy his book and shake his hand afterwards). All pretence at being civil on his part ended abruptly at that point. That in itself told me what was really going on in that "debate", and how in fact it was I who had "won".

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Whether a person wins or

Whether a person wins or loses a debate is dependant on quite a few factors. Are the debators 100% certain of their opinion or are they open to the idea the other side might be right? Why is the debate taking place in the first place? Who is judging the winner or loser? Is it someone unbiased and drawing a conclusion based purely on the merits of the arguement put forward or are they already convinced of one side's point of view before it even starts?

So let's then put this into context of Atheist vs Creationist.

I think it's fair to say in most cases both sides are 100% convinced they are right. If so, and they are having the discussion for personal gratification, they aren't debating. They're having a pissing competition. If they are doing it in front of an audience, they might be debating but I'd suggest that over 90% of those in watching already know what they believe and no amount of debating will change that. This majority aren't able to make a judgment on whether anyone won or lost.

The less than 10% left are the only ones able to determine whether anybody won or lost the debate.

Nordmann wrote:

I lost the debate on a show of hands by a factor of 10 to 1. But I received a small string of people (maybe 7 or 8 ) afterwards who thanked me for helping them realise how foolish they had been and how much they needed to read more.

Nordmann didn't lose anything, he was ambushed. The result was already predetermined. The 7-8 who thanked you afterwards were probably the only people in the audience who entered with an open mind as saw it as a debate, not as an opportunity to kick an Atheist or a Creationist.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Well, I suppose my point was

Well, I suppose my point was also how one adjudges victory and defeat in these situations as well. My aim was to appeal to reason, and if I failed to make the slightest impact on either my opponent's argument or our audience's views then I would simply have put it down to just what you said - closed minds all round.

 

However my opponent had different expectations. Anything less than retaining his full followship represented disaster to him, and I knew why. Underneath all the rhetoric with these people is a nagging certainty that they are wrong - and the longer they find they have to invent and contort logic to defend their position the further they plunge into that scizophrenic state of being further entrenched in one's views while simultaneously seeing them destroyed through logic over and over again. It is an embittering process, and this bitterness is expressed when anything - and I mean anything - reminds them of their resultant insecurity and the tenuous hold they retain over their logical faculties the more they invest in their abilitiy to persuade. The few waverers who advertised they had been influenced by my argument represented to him the uncomfortable prospect that even his ability to persuade was lacking. He left the hall a defeated individual, and he knew it, no matter how many shook his hand afterwards.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

treat2 wrote:
Why do Atheists always fail in debates with Creationists? Simple... Atheists always fail in debates with Creationists because God is not on their side... THAT IS...Atheists always fail in debates with Creationists because such a debate requires the Atheist accept AS LEGITIMATE the Creationist's claim that god exists, ... after all, debating Creationism requires the Atheist to accept the existence of god, otherwise SUCH A DEBATE WOULD NOT BE DEBATEABLE! Simply put, when counting integers in ascending order, one precedes two; where 1=the acceptance of the existence of god, and 2=Creationism is founded on that precept. The Atheist who does this accepts to debate people whom can make ANY CLAIM they choose to... or did that escape your attention? THERE IS ONLY one issue, and it's not debateable... The existed of gods... The burden of proof is upon the shoulders of the Creationist, and requires NOTHING of the AtheistEXCEPT to point out where the Creationist has NO UNDERSTANDING of the Scientific Method, AND their failure to provide empirical evidence which can be tested by the Scientific Method. End of story...debating Creationism is ONLY possible when the Atheist fails to understand how to count to two, AND IN DOING SO, the Atheist will always "loose" to the Creationists arguments.

Your post is unclear. You do not appear to understand the difference between the fact of evolution and the theories of evolution. No one questions the facts. There is a difference in theories to explain it. Creation as an explanation was in fact discarded and Genesis considered a god-centered explanation around the 6th c. AD and likely earlier.

That the older forms were different and if old enough entirely different was learned from late 17th and 18th c. public works projects like canals. It was geologists who pushed back the age of the world even for cosmologists.

Those were facts. The question was simply how to explain the facts. So far Darwin's has been the most successful. Creationism is not a theory but an (ignorant) attack upon Darwin.

But still the creationist movement began with the Christian Fundamentals movement (to unite all Christians around a core set of fundamentals) in the US shortly after WWI. It was really an attack upon education in general and started attacking Christian colleges for teaching things contrary to Christian Fundamentals. They had their heads handed to them.

So they moved their attention to grade schools. It is a long story but they sort of fell into being anti-evolution and it took on a life of its own and is all that is left directly traceable to the original movement.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:But I

Nordmann wrote:

But I received a small string of people (maybe 7 or 8 ) afterwards who thanked me for helping them realise how foolish they had been and how much they needed to read more.

That's a huge win, let's be honest. I usually don't expect anyone (even the undecided) to attend a debate and really be swayed by the end, so I think you did phenomenally well.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
An interesting variety of

An interesting variety of views. That's not to say that any of them altered my own view as to how logically proceed with debating Creaationists / ID'ers.

My point in sum was that there's a procedure to follow when debating. Accepting a debate which begins with an illogical and unfounded precept is in itself illogical and immediately puts the Atheist in the position of "defense."
That's not where a debate in which the acceptance of god(s) can logically begin, particularly when debating or discussing a matter of science.

Given the acceptance of an unfounded statement as the basis of an argument, eg. creationism automatically dooms the Atheist to failure. That's simply because the Atheist does not insist that the Theist provide empirical evidence of the existence of god(s) upon which the Theist claim of Creationism is based.

In a nutshell, that is simply why O'Reilly was able to tear
Dawkins to shreads. Check it out on utube, and listen closely to hear the exact point at which Dawkins automatically put his foot in his mouth.

Enuf said... comments were appreciated.


Madmax958
Posts: 35
Joined: 2009-04-28
User is offlineOffline
More like Theists are at 3

Treat2, you recently replied to a post of mine in a different thread without really hearing out my argument in full but I will repeat it more thoroughly here and I recommend you give it a full chance before assuming you know what I am arguing for.

The numbers analogy is a very nice way of visualizing this but I am confident that even if we concede 1: the existence of a creator, we can still debate them quite reasonably. The problem I have with your numbers example is that you say the theist is at 2, but I say that most theists are at 3, or even 4, 5, 6, 7 or however far you have to actually go from just the belief in a creator to the terribly flawed religions of the world. Many theists believe directly in religions like christianity and other anthropocentric ideas. For the sake of this argument I will say that 1 is the existence of a creator, 3 is the belief in a religion such as christianity, and 2 is that this creator gives a shit about us. Even if we concede 1 to a theist, we can still argue how the entire universe as we know it conflicts with 2. Black holes, asteroids, the complete insignificance of us compared to the massive cosmological formations, life only existing in relatively rare places within this universe. See, the theistic argument is so weak that even if we concede 1, there are still ways to argue against all the other jumps of irrationality it takes to get to organized religion.

I did just realize that most people called creationists believe that some creator, created life, but that is just a silly notion . Anyways, I still like the idea of conceding a creator of the universe and it still being highly improbable that theists are right.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Madmax958 wrote:...we

Madmax958 wrote:
...we concede 1: the existence of a creator, we can still debate them quite reasonably...

Madmax,

I'm an Atheist. I do not concede, assume, or "accept on faith" "the existence of a creator" (i.e. "God(s)")

Again, ... the Theist made the claim oof exiistenceand it is their buurden to prove.

It is NOT my obligation tto "concede" to unfounded claims of Theists, regardless of whether the subject is their claim of existence of gods OR
their variety of Creationist
claims.

Creationists base their claims upon a deity that can do anything no matter how stupid the claim they make.

There is no way to debate stupid claims of Creatioists once you accept that gods exist, simply because gods can doo anything, no matter how idiotic the claim.

I didn't read either post in full because you obviously do not understand what I posted,
and what I posted CLEARLY states EXACTLY what I just said again.

Once again, ... I refuse to discuss this subject further when the discussion results in a circular debate. It is pointless to discuss or debate this further.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Madmax958 - I understand

Madmax958 - I understand exactly the point you made and agree completely with your approach, though I admit it is wasted when your interlocutor has no respect for logic anyway. In my own experience however such an argument as you propose is one of the more effective available to a rational person in convincing otherwise intelligent people that the logical flaw in their delusion is serious enough to warrant a total rethink of everything they have presumed in relation to their religious faith.

 

Don't mind treat2 - his admission that he doesn't read the full text of comments which he chooses all the same to criticise dismissively simply points to the fact that ignorance and bad manners are by no means the preserve of the theist. He seems to have begun already to lose whatever audience he had first attracted so it seems his own posts will shortly receive the same treatment as he dishes out to others though, from what I have read on these threads, with politer rebuttals than he is capable of himself.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann, what's it like to

Nordmann, what's it like to be Borg?


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I haven't a clue, though I'd

I haven't a clue, though I'd wager it beats being an infantile dipstick with the social intelligence of a mollusk and the intellect of its mother .

 

Then again, what do I know about that? You tell me.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:I haven't a

Nordmann wrote:

I haven't a clue, though I'd wager it beats being an infantile dipstick with the social intelligence of a mollusk and the intellect of its mother .

 

Then again, what do I know about that? You tell me.

What I can tell you is you're
another spamming Borg, buzzing around your hive, with nothing of interest to say except to your hive.

That frontal lobotomy you underwent is certainly proving to be a source of amusement to yourself. I'm enjoying it too!


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
And here was me thinking you

And here was me thinking you were capable of telling me something which might contradict my assessment of you.

 

But then I'm rarely wrong when identifying dipsticks, thicks and the mentally deficient - can't see why I was hopeful in this case. Must be just my good nature.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: The burden of

treat2 wrote:
The burden of proof is upon the shoulders of the Creationist, and requires NOTHING of the AtheistEXCEPT to point out where the Creationist has NO UNDERSTANDING of the Scientific Method, AND their failure to provide empirical evidence which can be tested by the Scientific Method. End of story.

Well. That about sums it up, huh.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Yup! One more thread

Yup!

One more thread spammed to shit by brain dead Atheists here.

And yeah, that's a correct
summary. Period.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:One more thread

Quote:

One more thread spammed to shit by brain dead Atheists here.

 

You do yourself a disservice, though your modesty is refreshing. Your brain isn't dead, just struggling with attacks of hubris which impede communication. It's debilitating, but not terminal.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Quote:One

Nordmann wrote:

Quote:

One more thread spammed to shit by brain dead Atheists here.

 

You do yourself a disservice, though your modesty is refreshing. Your brain isn't dead, just struggling with attacks of hubris which impede communication. It's debilitating, but not terminal.

 

1st, it's a 2-ways street.
2nd, I post plenty of serious posts
3rd, I'm NOT part of your Hive
4th, There's pleny that can be done on the other side of the street.

Do yourself a favor, and think what that would be. It's pretty damn obvious.

5th, do yourself a favor and
lighten up. You'll live longer.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Wow, thanks! But I really

Wow, thanks! But I really didn't need such rapid confirmation I was right.

 

You're overflowing with altruistic tendencies today. Have a nap or something. I'm sure it will pass.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


militantatheist
Superfan
militantatheist's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-01
User is offlineOffline
At one point, in high

At one point, in high school, there was a Teens for Christ rep who heard about my atheism. He heard this, because my friend was big into Jesus, and he wanted to see my ass handed to me.

 

We got into a debate about many things, Jesus' existance, creation event, young earth vs old universe, etc. But the one that sticks out in my mind was him trying to prove the flood.

 

He told me, that there existed, on the great pyramids, water damage. This was his 'winning argument,' I shit you not.

 

The amazing concept that it RAINS in the desert! And that it has rained quite often from here all the way back to the construction of the pyramids!

 

Four of his flock stopped going to TFC after I mentioned that rain-water is how cacti survive.

 

Edit: This thread is a lot more fun when read backwards.


Liam
Liam's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
 Why do we waste our time

 Why do we waste our time with these arguments.  I'm not attacking what is being said here at all.  This topic just made me think in the broader sense of things.  I'm also speaking to myself here and sharing my own thoughts about personal direction and use of my time and resources.

Non-theists are not the ones with something to prove.  Being apologists only takes valuable time away from affecting real change in society, government, education etc.  Religion is so illogical that it's teachings and tenets and beliefs are best ignored.  The religious, on the other hand, as opposed to religion, need to be watched and stopped.  As with a thief, you don't worry about what kind of gun they have, or how it works, or who invented it... you simply stop the thief and take steps to protect yourself from thieves.  Perhaps I could have come up with a better analogy, lol, but I hope my intended point is made.  We get so caught up in debating tennets of religion that we end up doing the religious a service by allowing ourselves to be distracted.

Religion is not just a theory to be disproved but a social and political force to be stopped.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Liam wrote:...Non-theists

Liam wrote:
...Non-theists are not the ones with something to prove. ... ...

Well done! You got/get it.

They shoulder having the burden of proving their claims, not Atheists.

Atheists are in no way obligated to accept any hypothetical scenarios they suggest. And as Dawkins so foolishly showed when debating Bill O. on Faux News, when doing so, he and Atheists EASILY can be made to appear as if they are idiots.

What has been shown by Dawkins to clearly idiotic, is to accept any unproven religious garbage and then having accepted it, deny it in a debate. You automatically loose, as gods can do ANYTHING AND the Theist debater can make ANY CLAIM and attribute the truth of it to gods which the Atheist has foolishly accepted and therefore can not deny.


GrateGato
Posts: 1
Joined: 2009-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Creationists don't need a

Creationists don't need a debate. They need a legitimate education and a brain in reasonable working condition.