A few days ago at school, a teacher casually asked us whether we believe in ghosts. I said I don't, and joked that if ghosts exist, there'd be ghosts of dinosaurs, trilobites, ants and cats everywhere, filling the atmosphere.
''No, I believe only humans have souls.'' A guy--let's call him Sean--quickly responded to that. I asked him to explain why.
''So you think there's no difference between humans and animals?'' he asked.
I said that there's no essential difference indeed, since all life on Earth are related. Sean then argued that being able to speak is why we have souls while animals don't.
Hearing this, the teacher inquires about our religious beliefs. Sean identified himself as a Christian, while I as an atheist. The topic of the debate now shifts from ''do ghosts exist'' to ''does God exists''.
He started by asking ''so how do you think the universe came to be''. After explaining the Big Bang to him, he argued that the Big Bang didn't happen because you can't see it. ''Well, you can't see bacteria and atoms either.'' said I.
''But the Big Bang took place way before humans existed,'' he said.
"By that logic,'' I replied, ''a policeman shouldn't investigate anything that took place before his birth.''
''Well then how did the Big Bang happen in the first place?'' he asked.
''Science don't know it yet,'' I said, ''but scientists do researches on stuff and finds out answers. On the other hand, religion makes up stuff and pretends it already knows the answers.''
Sean continued to argue by bringing out Intelligent Design. ''But look at how complex life and the universe is,'' he said, ''it couldn't just...happen! It needs a creator!''
''So who or what created the creator?'' I cried. He replied that ''the creator exists beyond space and time and thus doesn't need to be created''. Exactly the bullshit I was expecting.
To explain him the concept of the burden of proof, I brought out the ''Russell's teapot'' analogy. Then his response to that shocked me. ''How can you compare God with a teapot?'' he literally said.
Wait, huh?!
OK...maybe that was too hard for him. I then introduced him the famous ''dragon in my garage'' analogy by Carl Sagan, hoping he could understand. Again, he said ''how can you compare God with a dragon?''.
(I wanted to bring out the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well, but decided not to.)
I then just straight-up told him that you need evidence for your claims. But he just keeps giggling and interrupts me with questions like ''isn't life meaningless without an afterlife''. I said that I don't care if there's an afterlife, I care about making my present life the best it can be.
And then class was about to start, so he just texted me a link and wanted me to read it. Later at home I clicked on the link, and it's an article from a religious website, and it was the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life.
To sum up the article he gave me, well…I swear…it LITERALLY states that:
1. Atheism and Evolution are immoral and will lead to the demise of humanity.
2. Evidence for God is not required because God is undetectable.
3. You can't prove God doesn't exist, hah!
4. Flying saucers are real and they come from another dimension.
5. Some Japanese soldiers during WWII failed to demolish a temple. Miracle!
6. There are people around the world with super powers. Miracle!
7. The same side of the Moon always face the Earth. Miracle!
8. Earth is in the habitable zone of the Sun. Miracle!
9. The Sun undergoes nuclear fusion. Miracle!
10. Near-death experiences are evidence for an afterlife.
11. Paranormal events are evidence for ghosts.
12. Many scientists believed in God, including Einstein and Newton.
13. Atheism is the reason why Chinese people are rude.
(Here’s the link by the way: http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/17/7/19/n9430518.htm. I know it’s not in English, but you can use google translate. Trust me, it didn't change much.)
Cringing all the way through, I couldn't believe that any author could be this stupid. I texted him several wikipedia pages about logical fallacies. And he replied.
''God has nothing to do with logic and rationality,'' he replied, ''it's about personal experience!''
That dispelled all my further thoughts to save him from his insanity. I've had decided to end the conversation by not replying.
I've seen creationists failing miserably at trying to use logic. But I've had never met someone who boldly claimed that ''logic ain't required''!
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.
*rolling eyes and face palm overload.*
hahaha....this is funny, thanks for sharing it...i love it, so true..i can really relate.
i can imagine your face when you read that ''it's about personal experience!'' and ''logic ain't required''
ahahahah...hahahaha....
you should move this to debate forum
(edited, added something)
hahahaha...he also texted that our ''spiritual eyes'' has not opened yet
hmm...i wonder if his are open on weekends
"I've seen creationists failing miserably at trying to use logic. But I've had never met someone who boldly claimed that ''logic ain't required''!"
Great story, the quote above is probably the only argument a theist can use in defence of their 'faith' (delusion) . Any other argument is doomed to fail.
Yeah, indeed! The basis of all theist arguments are ''God created everything, period'', which defies logic.
Sean is an idiot
Hope Sean realizes that too
Describes Sean perfectly. Now THAT'S a miracle :)
''How can you compare God with a teapot?''.......
I used to think "Russell's Tea-pot " was just an analogy ......
But then ,a few years ago...I found this.....
"Woman jailed for 'worshipping tea pot'"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580705/Woman-jailed-for-wors...
Maybe if that teapot magically pours out water, people will believe in her
@Rushing
*chuckling*... Good story. A little long, but worth it. Very amusing. FINALLY! Somebody was actually honest enough to come out and say it: "Logic is not an option for believers." Still laughing about that one. *chuckling*
Didn't see it coming lol
Besides teapots are useful.
Indeed. For example: floating in space.
@Rushing Re: Teapot uses - "Indeed. For example: floating in space."
Aw, shit, dude! You literally got me laughing with that one. Glad I wasn't drinking/eating anything when I read that! LMAO
''How can you compare God with a teapot?!''
Simple. They both have the same IQ.
rmfr
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
It's about burden of proof, not comparing "God" to a teapot; (see) . .
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/38828-if-i-were-to-suggest-that-between...
Mutorc.
Teapots are teapots. God's a despot.
Thanks MutorcS, I was wondering when someone was going to make that vital point clearly and specifically.
OP: 'How can God be compared to a teapot?' No comparison was ever made but the confusion of mind is all too typical. Remember school exam papers and "read the question" is how I would have responded.
And I shall never forget the one professor I had who made an exam that was about 50 pages long. The very first thing you would read was, "Please read this entire examination before actually beginning."
I did. Guess what the last thing you would read was?
"If you have followed the directions properly and read this entire exam, then please sign your name on the first page and turn in the exam."
Almost embarrassingly (only because I got up and turned it in), I was the only who followed the directions.
It was hilarious talking to the other students about it.
rmfr
I've just spotted the ananym Hairy Scrotum, but what the hell is rmfr?!
I enjoyed Arakish's anecdote but returning to Russell's Teapot.. I understand why a religionist, might ask what the parallel is between God and a Teapot. That's why I tend to use witches and fairies as analogies or parallels. Nobody ever supposed Russell's Teapot existed whereas there is still belief in witches (in Africa, for example). I prefer to say that it is just as unreasonable to ask someone to disprove a god as to disprove any other superstition, such as witches or fairies. "Tell me how you disprove witches and fairies and I'll use your methodology to disprove god" is the usual response, I think.
rmfr is my initials. It is kind of my way of proving it is me making the post. If someone cracks my account, they probably will not know about me putting my initials at the bottom of my posts. Thus, y'all can kind of know I did not make a post that they may make.
rmfr
@ Rushing or Dragging
No one can compare God with a teapot. That would be absurd. However; comparing god to a magical, invisible, flying, omnipotent, omnipresent, personal savior, teapot, with a soul, that responds to prayer and influences life here on earth would be completely appropriate.
I did one of these in the other forum. You are allowing this guy to jump all over the place and you do not have an understanding of the "Big Bang." FACT: the universe is expanding.
If you say there is a first cause, a non-expanding expander, you must prove it. If you can not prove it, all you are doing is proposing an "Expander of the Gaps" argument. A vomiting sick bunny rabbit or a rock that suddenly had a fart is as good an explanation as God without any facts or evidence.
What do "souls" have to do with a non-expanding expander. I thought we were talking about a first cause. Do you have evidence or not?
DO NOT LET TOPICS SHIFT UNTIL SOMEONE ADMITS DEFEAT.
@ Ghosts or Souls? Somehow the two topics are confounded. Take them one at a time.
Can you show me a Ghost? What actual evidence do we have for ghosts beyond some people claiming to have seen them.
Can you show me a Soul? What are you actually talking about?
@ "So you think there is no difference between humans and animals"
Huh? No. I did not say that. I asked you to explain to me what you meant by Ghost, Soul.
@ being able to speak is why you have a soul?
Most animals speak and communicate to one another. Dolphins, elephants, whales, Gorillas, and more. How is speaking an attribute of a soul? Or are you saying speaking is a soul?
@ so how do you think the universe came to be'
I have no idea and neither do you. What does that have to do with souls or ghosts? Did you give up trying to prove a soul exists?
You are jumping all over the place with this guy as he tries argument after argument. Don't let him do that. Hold his feet to the fire on a single topic until defeat is actually admitted. Do not move off the argument until someone gives in.
If you are the one that gives in, just admit it and then log back in here and ask what you should have said or what others think of the argument. Souls, ghosts, and God are all non-falsifiable assertions and as such they can not be proved. The fact that you feel stumped simply means that the person making the argument has been allowed to move into an area about which you know nothing about. i.e. Souls are real because are actually beings living in a quantum universe and a soul is just contact with one of our other selves as quantum beings. (I just made that up but it sounds like something a religious nut would say.)
The difference to me is that I have more faith that the teapot will whistle when the water reaches a boil. It is man made, but having saw with my own eyes that this happens and I expect it to unless the teapot has become dysfunctional, much like a deity that cannot be seen or heard.
I simply have no faith in something that has been explained away as the most powerful thing in the universe, yet zero evidence, no proof, stories passed along for centuries and this deity as the very least , (if it existed) would be the most complacent being in history.
I don't have faith in faith, and I don't believe in belief!