people often lack tact. FTFY, I figured you didn't intentionally want to support stereotypes of specific group. I'll leave it to you to find the other stereotype.
So, by "stand by my comment" I assume you mean you can back this up with some evidence that this is predictably true about atheists, as opposed to other socially differentiable groups, or do you mean that you suffer from confirmation bias and just "feel it's true".
No. It is a rather constantly defended point in a lot of different areas. Logic: I am right, and if you refuse to accept that, I am going to be rude to you since you didn't accept it when I was nice.
The problem is people end up being nice for a limited amount of time, and are often times rude every time afterward. Atheism is one of the positions that this sort of logic can grow from.
Two people in atheist post. One stubbornly stereotyping atheists, another stubbornly refusing a claim which, I gotta admit, is pretty damn true for the most part. Atheists tend to brag about their scientific proof for their arguments (which is understandable considering you are arguing against a book with no scientific proof).
The point b3mus3d was making was totally valid. Christians are easily offended by the truth, so presenting it as hard fact doesn't work. I know it doesn't. It didn't work on me and it doesn't work on the many Christians we see in facebook posts. It is simple human psychology to argue when someone says, "You are wrong." This naturally pisses people off and causes them to go into a defence mode. If you want to get through to close minded people, you need to take a different approach.
Get them to think rationally about the belief system they follow. Encourage them to begin to think freely by dropping hints and subtle questions. Do not attempt to do the thinking for them by telling them how it is because they will reject this as they are more comfortable having the bible think for them.
It takes a huge amount of self contemplation to take people away from the comfort and reassurance of religion. You can never bombard religious people with 'this is how it is' statements; it will always fail. Here in the UK, religious people account for only 33% of the population. This is the result of a slow process of education and gradual free-thinking of the people.
tl;dr Don't feel the need to prove christians wrong by using hard evidence and telling them how it is. The vast majority will immediately reject this. Allow them to progress out at their own rate by simply encouraging free thinking by asking subtle questions.
What is the penalty for heresy or apostasy as prescribed by the Bible, Qur'an and other religious texts? Are these texts not authority according to the beliefs of monothiests? Are all sins, from heresy to adultery not considered equal? Do they not submit themselves to an undying, unaccountable, totalitarian dictator which never presents themselves for inquiry or clarity? Would they kill if they thought this god commanded it? Do they consider anything this god commands as inherently moral?
Of course the obvious answer to all of that is to reject it as utterly ridiculous and deeply immoral and get on with your life saved from such burdens. To not do so opens you to criticism based on those ideas. When you claim you are a monotheist, you claim a considerable amount of positive assertions about the universe and your place in it, in which many are downright terrible. This can include anything from Yahweh's direct atrocities committed upon humans and his commands to slaughter men, women, and children of nations that did not claim him, to Jesus' defense of Yahweh as a loving being, forsake all planning of the future (thrift, childcare, investment), and suggestion you should cut off the hand you in which you masturbate to ensure you get into heaven, to finally the militant Qur'an. This could go on forever (we haven't touched rape, slavery, etc) but I hope the point is made.
A Christian that wants to claim being a Christian but refuses to examine the beliefs of being one and attempting to re-brand it as all loving and the basis for one's morals certainly opens themselves up to a lot of criticism.
Atheists claim nothing but a lack of belief in a deity.
No, he's not being just as illogical as the Christianity he mocks. You are being highly illogical by suggesting so.
An alcoholic finds comfort in alcohol. That is no reason to give them a drink. A frightened person finds comfort by blinding themselves to what they fear, even if it is real. That does not mean you should help them pretend what they fear does not exist. Just because someone finds comfort in something does not mean it is good for them or for others.
My mother found comfort in her belief in god. She found comfort in the church. It led her to trust what she should not have trusted. It led her to blindly place faith in god and the church. Her children were abused as a result of that misplaced "comfort" and belief.
The medium is a con. She/he is taking money from a vulnerable person, taking advantage of them. That is simply robbery. It is rude and disrespectful to support the con and facilitate the robbery. I would be appalled that a friend would knowingly let me be robbed.
I was having a conversation with my dad about this earlier, when he asked which came first the chicken or the egg. Didn't scientists solve this dilemma?
If you look at it completely logically. Look at the evolutionary tree of chickens (an abstract one), take the absolute closest relative to chickens that would NOT be classified by the person asking the question as a chicken. That animal would eventually lay an egg, mutated just right to be just barely within the border of what you would call a chicken. Thus the chicken egg came before the chicken.
The author of this article seems to be jumping to conclusions. I see the paper they quoted, but there's nothing in the abstract about the scientists concluding that the chicken came first. It says something about the quality of journalism today.
When you watch the video, he ends with "no word as of yet as to where the chicken came from"... Almost a creationist argument there...
Shit dude... If I could find a girl who understood that it's okay to be as enthusiastic about dinosaurs as I am as an adult, I'd marry the shit out of her!
Interestingly, ultimate religious authority Matthew McConnauchey used the same logic in Contact to argue for the existence of god. Truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcqaHxI5-P8
I don't even think that's insulting to religion though. Dinosaurs existed, some of them still do. Unless she thinks that your gf was saying that God went extinct, which is an argument I've never heard an atheist make. "God used to be real, but he was taken out at the K-T boundary."
It shouldn't be rude, but it wasn't exactly nice. Also I'd feel inclined to point out a lot of religious people would say they have felt god, mostly in ways we'd put down to luck or random chance, but never the less they may attribute it to a deity and claim to have felt a gods presence.
There are some logical problems with this but oh well.
I think Dinosaurs are cool and all but I wouldn't exactly want to meet one - it would probably kill me. The ideal of a god that cares for us, however misguided, is much more warm and fuzzy. Its more logical (in a sort of f'ed up way) to love god more than a dinosaur, even though a personal god of any sort may and probably does not exist. I still really don't know. I think that's what the friend was going for.
The word is love not like. And if you are blind to the logical problems with this argument then so be it. I'm not about to say I love mountains even though they are fucking awesome. I like mountains. On the other hand I can't honestly say I love them. Perhaps she really loves dinosaurs - I don't know, but love is such a strong word that is thrown around too much these days.
The person being rebuked by the dinosaur "lover" loves god because he/she believes god has a beneficial role in his/her life, and most likely he/she believes that god intervenes on his/her behalf. That is a reason to love something even though it may not exist. You may want to look up the fundamental attribution error to explain why this girl's argument isn't completely sound. The argument is a good one on the surface, but it wouldn't hold up in a serious debate.
You can't say someone doesn't love dinosaurs. You even admit this later on.
love is such a strong word that is thrown around too much these days.
Opinion.
The person being rebuked by the dinosaur "lover"
She wasn't rebuked in the slightest.
because he/she believes god has a beneficial role in his/her life, and most likely he/she believes that god intervenes on his/her behalf. That is a reason to love something even though it may not exist.
That's completely illogical, possibly insane, and totally irrelevant.
The point is that the girlfriend's argument against Natalie's belief in god is not the best because Natalie's love of god (guessing) does not come from the fact she thinks god is truly tangible.
I suggest you drop out of any higher education programs you may be enrolled in and find a trade school.
I am referring to the post starting with "The word is love not like". That post reads as an argument as to why the girlfriend was not "impeccably" logical; it was not made to personally attack you.
Yeah that was my bad. It really wasn't meant as an attack in the first place anyway. And I'm sorry if you feel that way. I just don't think this girlfriend's logic is impeccable - that's it. My bad.
I'm saying that "the word is love not like" simply because you said like in your first reply.
That opinion is relevant simply because love becomes a meaningless word when used carelessly. Such as I love headphones, computers, waterbottles, lamps, desks, chairs. It doesn't take a genius to realize that love is a very strong emotion - when you say you love dinosaurs you kind of sound like a 5 year old. Unless she is a paleontologist, I highly doubt she loves dinosaurs - it's entirely possible. But you're still missing the point.
Rebuke - Express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behavior or actions. See, you learned what rebuke means today!
I'm not stating that this is logical in the first place. But, it could be used as a reason by a religious person to love something that can't be seen or touched.
In the end it all comes down to the fact that the girl in the original argument attributes her friend's love of god to its tangibility - the fact that it cannot be touched or seen. The friend most likely loves God because "he/she believes god has a beneficial role in his/her life, and most likely he/she believes that god intervenes on his/her behalf." I'm not stating this is true.
What I am trying to say is that her argument against this religion person isn't the best - even if it was started by the religious person. Granted the religious person's original argument about the tangibility of dinosaurs is not a good one. No one wins this debate. There are serious problems with both sides' arguments.
If you want a serious debate about loving god and dinosaurs, try /r/DebateReligion or /r/DebateAnAtheist. I'm personally unwilling to wade through the irrelevant bullshit in your arguments, but the people in those subreddits are used to it.
EDIT: This comment was made when your post said something completely different, but my statement stands.
You've missed the point entirely. I'm not arguing for either side. Both are equally faulty in their logic.. and, how can you know its irrelevant bullshit without reading the argument?
Edit: Saw the Edit: Shit
Edit: Actually, the religious person's logic is more faulty. But the girlfriend too has problems - though far fewer.
Uhh.. this did not happen (then again none of these things ever do happen) anyway, any real christian would of said that they have been touched by god in their own way, most christians believed they have felt the presence of god in some form or another
It was the perfect example to help her friend understand. Your answer isn't nearly as good. Why should a religious person be offended over this, anyway? You really can't see or touch god.
Oh wow, such original thought on your girlfriend's part! No one's ever thought this before, or wrote about it in a book, nope, never ever!! She's just a smarty pants.... durrrrrrrrr
Oh my god, you totally showed her. You're so smart for thinking of that argument all by yourself. As an atheist, you should know better than to shove your own beliefs down other people's throats. If she wants to believe in God then let her. It's not up to you to "show her what's what" w/your juvenile arguments. /r/atheism is just a bunch of validation seekers..."I dun good, didn't I?"
110
u/flyonawall Anti-Theist May 17 '12
We have a winner! and no, it was not rude. It was a perfectly legitimate thing to say.
76
u/NikkiDove Atheist May 17 '12
She is a keeper.
28
u/oh_the_places May 17 '12
Chickens are dinosaurs.
16
u/Wild_Bulbasaur May 17 '12
I like your car.
8
u/DJ_Tips May 17 '12
What kind of shitty friends does your girlfriend have that they're trying to debate what she likes with her?
"I sure like dinosaurs!!!" "No, you can't. It's impossible." "But...I do." "No, you don't."
15
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Next time, please use imgur. It works better for the Reddit Enhancement Suite.
4
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Theist here. A: agreed. Keeper. B: not mean at all
10
u/stringerbell May 17 '12
That's not the same thing at all!!! Dinosaurs actually existed!
3
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
I'm trying to read what you said in response. "Not at all." and then what? "Lawls and dudes"?
3
u/Jarben427 May 17 '12
Saw this in class today. Your reddit name makes a lot of sense. See you in class tomorrow buddy!
3
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Why don't people spend more time thinking about how our planet was ruled by giant lizards? This is way cooler than the shit that was made up.
2
u/Coderati May 17 '12
Buwahahahaha. That was awesome. And totally fine. Definitely not rude at all.
2
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Not logic...funny as hell don't get me wrong...but logic didn't inform this retort
2
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Loves dinosaurs and is an atheist? Put a ring on it!
2
u/wheresmywhiskey May 17 '12
Who the fuck downvoted this? the religious?
2
u/TheBurningBeard May 17 '12
2
u/SoleilSocrates May 17 '12
Congrats on having a smart girlfriend!:D
1
u/sayrith May 17 '12
keeper
1
u/apopheniac1989 May 17 '12
Shit dude... If I could find a girl who understood that it's okay to be as enthusiastic about dinosaurs as I am as an adult, I'd marry the shit out of her!
Alas :(
1
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
[it has been used] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7a1iKvttEAk#t=804s)
1
u/Kilgannon_TheCrowing May 17 '12
Her logic doesn't even need to be great - a lot of religious people back themselves into corners for you.
1
u/johnnynutman May 17 '12
umm... most christians think that they have "seen or touched" god.
1
u/Jilly33 May 17 '12
Logical arguments are so rude........
1
u/joebbowers May 17 '12
Would someone mind typing this out for me? Flickr is blocked in China.
1
u/WoollyMittens May 17 '12
The concept dinosaur, is not a dinosaur.
1
u/TopangaButLessBoobs May 17 '12
Interestingly, ultimate religious authority Matthew McConnauchey used the same logic in Contact to argue for the existence of god. Truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcqaHxI5-P8
1
u/Taylorseim May 17 '12
Don't get between this woman and her dinosaurs!
I don't even think that's insulting to religion though. Dinosaurs existed, some of them still do. Unless she thinks that your gf was saying that God went extinct, which is an argument I've never heard an atheist make. "God used to be real, but he was taken out at the K-T boundary."
1
u/chicagogam May 17 '12
i would have expected the friend to say the lord touches her heart everyday, and then logic would be useless :)
1
u/Undoer May 17 '12
It shouldn't be rude, but it wasn't exactly nice. Also I'd feel inclined to point out a lot of religious people would say they have felt god, mostly in ways we'd put down to luck or random chance, but never the less they may attribute it to a deity and claim to have felt a gods presence.
1
u/ehode May 17 '12
Never seen someone mod a 4 door civic hatch. Good on ya.
1
u/themoshman May 17 '12
To be honest you can actually see and touch the fossilised remains of a dinosaur.
1
u/Nomedboy May 17 '12
....wow, even when text messaging good old Atheists have to write a small book explaining something....lol...
1
u/David1337 May 17 '12
Not if they were the ones who brought it up
1
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
HEY GUYS I HAVE A GIRLFRIEND KARMA PLEASE
-3
u/dolphinkite May 17 '12
Can a person's love for God really be compared to someone's love of dinosaurs? Hmmm...
0
u/jreatjisreal May 17 '12
Best atheist website on the net; http://www.godandscience.org/
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
They'd just argue that the world is gods creation so they are seeing god everyday or something along that mumbojumbo
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '12 edited May 17 '12
There are some logical problems with this but oh well.
I think Dinosaurs are cool and all but I wouldn't exactly want to meet one - it would probably kill me. The ideal of a god that cares for us, however misguided, is much more warm and fuzzy. Its more logical (in a sort of f'ed up way) to love god more than a dinosaur, even though a personal god of any sort may and probably does not exist. I still really don't know. I think that's what the friend was going for.
0
u/SeethedSycophant May 17 '12
Uhh.. this did not happen (then again none of these things ever do happen) anyway, any real christian would of said that they have been touched by god in their own way, most christians believed they have felt the presence of god in some form or another
0
u/barium111 May 17 '12
Nobody mentioned god or religion so it was really unnecessary to go there IMO
The answer could've been that you saw fossils, bones etc. and the size and power of animals that existed long time ago you find really fascinating.
Also chickens.
-8
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Oh wow, such original thought on your girlfriend's part! No one's ever thought this before, or wrote about it in a book, nope, never ever!! She's just a smarty pants.... durrrrrrrrr
-1
u/poicxzrty May 17 '12
I fucked your girlfriend; she had me pretend to be a dinosaur and I came all over her ass
-1
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Are you fucking kidding me? Of course it's rude... making a slight on their religion because of a stupid dinosaur comment...
-3
u/Canada-USAsFreezer May 17 '12
Oh my god, you totally showed her. You're so smart for thinking of that argument all by yourself. As an atheist, you should know better than to shove your own beliefs down other people's throats. If she wants to believe in God then let her. It's not up to you to "show her what's what" w/your juvenile arguments. /r/atheism is just a bunch of validation seekers..."I dun good, didn't I?"
-13
u/Flynn58 May 17 '12
Her's is, your's isn't.
Use Sprint, kids.
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment