What I find hilarious is the circular arguments that many theists use (and the theists that sneak onto this site, too).
Many religious (of various if not all of the mainstream religions) people tend to throw known history in sciences such as geology, geography, archaeology, and biology.... Namely the history of evolution.
They aim to prove those of us who don't believe in their fiction wrong, but when they ask for proof to our claims they ignore the evidence presented. As frustrating as it can be to argue a 'la kindergarten style (and therefore it's not very much worth the effort) it is also highly amusing.
Evolution, as many christians know it for example... Is NOT the same evolution that science and reality hold to be true... And based off of the twisted version they'd heard, all they can manage to say is 'nuh-uh!' basically...
What strategies do you use for people who wish to have one-way arguments or debates? Have you ever turned someone around on that very issue?
Intensely amusing also is the lack of insight on many arguments brought against atheism: the worst argument you can use against someone who does not believe in god(s) is by throwing in a god/gods of the gaps.
It won't be long before even the most stubborn zealots realize that they have no ground to stand on.
If there was a god who needed a mortal to defend him/it, then it/him would be a puny, insignificant god. Yet many zealots will not listen to evidence, won't hear out the other side, and of course won't absorb what we say to them.
Personal evidence is NEVER sufficient proof of anything.... If I told any of you that I met Elvis yesterday and he changed my life.... You'd know I was probably hallucinating. And no matter how sure I may be that I met Elvis, my personal experience is not sufficient evidence for anyone to believe that I met Elvis. Despite this, many religious people spout nonsense like "I found glob when I was watching the TV yesterday, and now I know glob's salvation."
Interesting, to say the least. Felt I should share, perhaps bring up some of these zealots to provide decent examples.
I believe in the human race's ability to think ethically and not kill each other for fun, I believe in the scientific method's ability, though flawed at times, to search for and log the truth as tested and verified by scientific peers.
Why vent here? Where else can we? So please, come on in. Share your views, and let us all bring up some interesting and idiotic circular arguments such as religious moderate apologist views.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The truth is the LAST thing a theist wants to hear, because it makes a complete ass out of all that they WANT to believe. You don't need God to teach you morality, and kindness. No amount of evidence produced by science, or anything else will ever change a theists mind...they have this crazy superstition that if they don't do this, or don't believe that, that they will be punished in some way. They are basically " covering their bases." But if this God is so loving, and welcoming to everybody, and anybody...then what the hell are the theists so AFRAID of??!!
Exactly!
Not only that, but if there is a 'better life' after death, death is planned etc..... Why are theists so afraid of death at all?
These types of debates are terrible! We need to make a term for people that deeply unreasonable, please suggest a term in my new forum subject. Religious people are notorious word-spinners, That's one of the few things they nearly beat us on.
These types of debates are terrible! We need to make a term for people that deeply unreasonable, please suggest a term in my new forum subject. Religious people are notorious word-spinners, That's one of the few things they nearly beat us on.
Not entirely sure if you're saying I don't speak well, or if you're saying that this post was good.
But indeed, word-spinning is one skill I will give creationists... They may be irrational, but they are still clever at times.
Common, guys, you are no better than theists are in debating reasonably.
I almost never involve myself in a discussion with a theist because there is no point in doing so, I am not interested in change the mind of a theist (although I am fighting to get the theist’s children know of my view on the subject) when there are so many agnostics around.
Shall we make an experiment to find out how reasonable you are?
Well, the ark story is a fictional story created by theologians all over the earth in order to provide reasonable explanation to the people who already believed that the World Flood killed most people on earth, as per their oral traditions.
The Flood Myth, however, is based on real events: The sea level (all oceans on earth) have risen by 100 meters during the last 14,000 years (140 meters during the last 20,000 years) and according to the scientists:
Quote
Nic Flemming, Senior Scientist at the Southampton Oceanography Centre wrote: All scientists and archaeologists who have studied this problem have concluded that the Flood Myth does refer to the cumulative memory of the post-glacial sea level rise…
His article can be found here:
http://www.grahamhancock.com/archive/underworld/underworld2.php?p=4
Unquote
Yet, most of you refuse to admit that the Bible is right as regards the world flood and your arguments are no better than the theistic arguments that you make fun of.
Link to Graham Hancock page. I lol'ed.
@ Nyarlathotep
“Link to Graham Hancock page. I lol'ed.”
Oceanographer Nic Flemming did not agree with Hancock’s theory but he could not disagree with the geological data involved. The two men had an exchange and the passage I quoted above is from a reply by Flemming which appears in Hancock’s page, the link for which I provided.
As you now realize, the only laughable thing here is your thoughtless reaction... typical of an ignorant agnostic.
14,000 years is not significant evidence to support a flood story.... Not to mention there is no existing geographical evidence to support the 'catastrophic flood' that would have happened as recorded in the fictional work 'the bible'.
Now, to someone who survived a tropical storm on a coastline, a tsunami or something similar... It may seem 'world-wide' because of their ignorance in meteorological phenomena. But that doesn't mean because one or even a hundred thousand ancient people experienced a flood that it was indeed 'worldwide'.
Not to mention that the US sailing ship, Thomas W. Lawson was ripped apart in bad weather due to its length (the wood could not support the 7-mast schooner due to its extreme length, it twisted and broke up killing all but 2 aboard)... And the 'ark' was supposedly much larger than this ship, and made of wood!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Lawson_(ship)
It's not wise to dare compare historic evidence to fictional evidence, that's where rationality dies.
I could say that WW2 ended because Frodo finally threw the one ring into the volcano (The Return of the King by Tolkien was written around that time), but that wouldn't make any sense.
And if I did ever say that with conviction, I'd hope someone would correct me!
"Yet, most of you refuse to admit that the Bible is right as regards the world flood and your arguments are no better than the theistic arguments that you make fun of."
Most of us do not consider other possible floods when considering the validity of the Bible flood version.
If you want to claim that UFO exists you do not claim first that aliens exist and abduct people.
The bible is wrong, simply because it's claim is ridiculous. It does not matter if in the past there was really a type of flood or not, because that is NOT the claim of the bible.
The kind of flood described in the bible is unrealistic and thus it will get what it deserves;
A good dose of ridicule.
Well put.
An actual flood that does not not match the biblical flood is simply irrelevant.
Sea level changes happen over centuries. We have first-hand knowledge of sea level changes because sea levels are in fact currently changing. No real mystery there. The account of a great flood inundating all of civilization seems to be void of any evidence, however, and there would be evidence. These are two considerably different events and as such I refuse to believe the bible is even half-correct, because it isn't. The fact that the stories in the bible may be based on previous stories of sea level changes doesn't mean they have any bearing on reality.
But then, I don't know what you're trying to say half the time Dimitrios.
@ Kataclismic
“The fact that the stories in the bible may be based on previous stories of sea level changes doesn't mean they have any bearing on reality.”
The stories in the Bible may be based on reality but… that doesn't mean they have any bearing on reality!!!
The World Flood happened and is still happening. The oceans can go up for another 10 meters but once it is written in the Bible you refuse to accept it as real, just because it is in the Bible. That is just ridiculous.
Kataclismic said:
“But then, I don't know what you're trying to say half the time Dimitrios.”
I have been straightforward and honest. What I am trying to say is that Agnosticism is the philosophy of the ignorant.
Dimitrios,
I think it has a lot to do with perception sir. My perception of Agnostic is synonymous with "I don't know" so your comment here:
"What I am trying to say is that Agnosticism is the philosophy of the ignorant."
is a bit like saying to me "you don't know because you admit you don't know" and therefore makes little sense. In my mind the idea of being agnostic is to admit ignorance. You are ignorant of what will happen when you die just as much as I am but rather than admit you don't know you seem to prefer to argue points which you cannot prove. This is a waste of time, among other resources.
My perception is that a story written about a worldwide flood that happened within a single generation being based on the fact that ocean levels have been changing over millenniums doesn't actually provide evidence that there was any sort of worldwide flood in the first place. If you think somehow that it does provide evidence of something then your perception of 'evidence' and mine are worlds apart. But again, that's just my perception. Call me ignorant if you must as I have already admitted that I am in-fact ignorant and your observation to that affect matters little.
An example of the B.S arguments I get from theists. "If my god isn't real, why do so many people believe in him!?"
"If god didn't create us, who did?" "You don't have proof to your science!"
To those last two I always say "Did you ever go to a public school?"
Exactly. Argumentum ad Populum is a bad method for discovering the truth... Though theists don't realize this. Nazis could have used the same logic to justify Hitler: "If he's so bad... Why does he have so many followers? Surely if he was bad he wouldn't have them!"
But change 'the fuhrer' to 'god' and suddenly the argument works? Not. lol
And we've gotta be careful man, some public schools now have mandatory 'intelligent design' added into the curriculum! Or in the case of my wife, some people go to alternative schools (her christian indoctrination building near her high school) to 'correct' their education....
What an insane time we live in, Austin. I sincerely hope people begin to see the truth!
Huh, I think you just gave me a great counter-argument. "Nazis used the same logic, if Hitler is so bad, why does he have so many followers! Surely he must have been good. Just replace Nazi/Hitler with god and you have your argument in a nutshell."
Thanks for the idea. Nordic! That is such a perfect counter-argument.
Absolutely! Glad to help!
Sorry I didn't see this earlier lol
Ok.. Some how we got on the subject of the biblical flood. I want to answer a question in the orginal statement:
"What strategies do you use for people who wish to have one-way arguments or debates? Have you ever turned someone around on that very issue?"
Yes I turn people around on issues all the time. The best method is the Socratic argument. Rather than verbalizing points, ask questions that make both parties think critically. In turn your opponent will begin to feel doubt about their view. Instead of hounding the credibility of their point maybe ask, "why do you think so many people hold the belief in X?" A question like that is in directive. You are not targeting the individual but, letting them reflect on those who hold the same belief. It's always nice to follow up or start with, "I too once held that belief." This creates a connection and shows them that their view can be persuaded with the right evidence.
Now you guys can get back to that global flood that seemed to miss Egypt's 5th dynasty.
A very good point!