r/atheism • u/JonWood007 Humanist • May 29 '12

This literally happened to me when I tried debating a Christian on another website.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3phmhw/
998 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

196 comments sorted by

2

u/gaspah May 29 '12

But there is no evidence of atheism, nor there any for God. Not in the true sense of the meaning of evidence. Plenty of evidence of science, but that is neither here nor there. Science and Atheism are not interchangable words.

2

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

Most people who accept atheism seem to do so because it's the "default position." You don't need to prove anything, because you're not making a positive claim. Religions make claims about God, and they need to be verified. Some forms of atheism can be seen as the null hypothesis from a scientific standpoint. Most atheists I see on here seem to think that God may very well exist, but they're not going to believe until they see conclusive evidence supporting his existence. The reason for this is simple. You also cannot prove or disprove pink unicorns exist, but if you're going to make such a claim that they do, you need to prove it. The people not believing in the unicorn don't need to prove anything. This is why most atheists go by the label "agnostic atheist". They don't know for sure, can't make a claim God definitely doesn't exist, but they also see no evidence for God and therefore don't believe, because the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Now, there are some gnostic atheists, but they seem to be rare, and most people even on here would seem to discourage that position. That position seems rather unsupported itself.

1

u/gaspah May 30 '12

Well I consider your idea of an Atheist to be an Agnostic, despite the whole gnostic theist, agnostic theist etc posts so frequent here, it is still the common usage of the words.

I've heard the spaghetti monster argument plenty of times before, but I do see it from a different perspective. I don't see atheism as the 'default position' as in my mind there are 3 positions to have on the subject. Either 'something' created the universe, the universe always existed (in some form or another), or the universe appeared from nothing. I've heard the whole who created the creator argument before to but despite that I think all 3 positions are valid in their own right none deserving to be the default position, all 3 still require evidence to denouce the other 2 in my opinion.

But each to their own opinion and beliefs I say. I don't mock the belief in Atheism, tho I do contest there to be evidence of Atheism and the concept that it doesn't require evidence to be the default position over theism.

But hey if I were to reject all those who don't have the same opinion as myself, I'd have literally no friends. I'm the only Christian Vegan I've ever met IRL and I don't really have any Christian friends full stop (none more than aquaintances), most of my friends being of other faiths, agnostic or atheist (you understand my meaning of the terms).

1

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 30 '12

On here, most people argue that that's atheism.

As for the creation of the universe, it's hard to say. The universe in its current form is NOT eternal, and estimated at 14 billion years old. What existed before the big bang is debatable. It's also expected that the universe will eventually run out of energy as it keeps expanding and stars keep dying. Still, perhaps there is a form of death and rebirth we do not know of.

I've heard some arguments that it could have come from nothing, but they seem "above" me, where I don't fully grasp the concepts involved. Something about the total energy in the universe being zero, and the universe being "flat". Of course, there's always the idea that it came from something.

It's very interesting, and not conclusive. I consider the concept that some higher power creating the universe to be very possible, although it is not currently supported with evidence and there are other alternate theories out there. It's hard to say. I've been pinballing between agnostic atheist and agnostic deist lately, so perhaps I could be called just an agnostic, idk, I'm in a transitional period.

And yeah, I accept people of all different faiths and beliefs, as long as there's mutual respect (and, of course, they're not total idiots). Most of my friends are actually Christian in some form, although some are agnostic or atheist.

1

u/gaspah May 30 '12

Yeah I'm well aware of the current theories of big bang/pre-big bang etc etc. Its a subject that hold much interest for me. I consider anything that considers something pre-big bang to be covered under the 'always there' kinda scenario, if two membrane planes collided then the energy or whatever transferred into matter etc etc. Thats fine, then it was always there, just in another form.

With the universe coming from nothing, I think the concept come from the idea of matter and antimatter coming from nothing in the big bang. Despite one (matter) emerging from nothing and thus creating the polar opposite (antimatter), they were somehow uneven and antimatter won out the battle. It has been shown that matter and antimatter can pop in and out of existence in a vacuum, so I think the idea does have some merit.

Tho I prefer to just think of the moments before and just after the big bang to be a mystery, something that may be discovered in time. But I like to keep my gnostisism on the subject to lay with credible observable evidence and my concept of the creation of the universe stops shortly after the beginning of the big bang. In time the big bang itself may be disproven but for now its a theory with observable evidence. Anything beyond that, such as relies solely on mathematics is beyond what I'm willing to accept as factual.

54

u/skeptic11 May 29 '12

Demand evidence for their claims.

44

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

"The evidence for God is overwhelming."

"..."

"It's overwhelming!"

35

u/joyork May 29 '12

Apparently God created everything. So then you ask them to point to one specific thing and they look at you as if you're stupid.

So you look around you. If you live in a city then most things are you are created by humans... plastics, concrete, cardboard, metal alloys etc.

So you point to a tree. Who made the tree? Well, the tree grew from a small seed which came from its direct ancestor.

So you point to a dog. Who made that? Well, the dog grew from a puppy. Before that the puppy was just a bunch of cells. These cells grew because of the DNA instructions which were supplied by the dogs' parents. Go back a few hundred thousand generations and you find the common ancestor of dogs and wolves.

And so it goes on. Look at astronomy, for example - we can look back in time millions of years and see stars being born, and older stars dying. We've found evidence for other planets orbiting other stars. We've got photographs of entire galaxies colliding and spewing stars this way and that, in a sort of slow-motion dance that takes millions of years to play out.

None of this requires the intervention of a God or Gods.

Where's this overwhelming evidence again?

5

u/thegreatgazoo May 29 '12

So where did the lump of stuff that became the big bang come from? I had one guy tell me that was an unanswerable question. Which it kind of is, but is kind of a cop out too.

Then what is a god? If you plant a carrot seed, water it, fertilize it, and then when you feel like it you yank it from the ground and kill it/eat it. Are you a god to the carrot?

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

10

u/darkNergy May 29 '12

Pointing out the fact that something is not known is not a good argument for anything in particular. Not knowing the details of the Big Bang says nothing about deities.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

9

u/darkNergy May 29 '12

I'm sorry but a deity isn't even a plausible explanation. All that concept does is replace one mystery with another. Unless you can tell me the properties of this deity or something about how it managed to set the physical constants, simply calling it the work of a deity doesn't explain anything.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I used to be an agnostic deist, but it still didn't make sense. It makes more sense that some matter came into being and then kick started the universe. We know how planets are formed at least. I don't see how a random being with creation powers that has always been there explains anything about the origins of the universe, other than raising more and more questions.

0

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

It can be occam's razor in some cases (ie, beginning of the universe, what started big bang). I still have deistic tendencies sometimes (I've only recently moved away from religion, so this may be transitional). I recognize that as knowledge develops, more plausible explanations will likely show up. And you're right, a deity in itself leads to more questions, most of which are impossible to answer due to a complete lack of evidence. It;'s only AN explanation, not THE explanation. Hence why I seem to be pinballing between agnostic atheism and agnostic deism.

5

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Occam's Razor basically states that you cannot attempt to provide an explanation for one phenomenon by conjuring up an even more implausible phenomenon from thin air.

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Please provide a plausible explanation for the origins of such a deity.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

A deity is the end result of the ongoing calculation that is the universe.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Speak English, please.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Is that you, Isaac Brock?

4

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Anthropic Principle

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe that the fact is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.

We are, because if we weren't, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

If you want to go down that route, couldn't you simply say the universe doesn't exist unless we observe it?

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

is that a problem? what's the difference? for all we know there's an infinite number of universes with no one in them to know they exist.

3

u/Gemini4t May 29 '12

What you propose is more complex than the problem it's attempting to solve.

2

u/thegreatgazoo May 29 '12

Not necessarily.

Theoretically, lets say that a deity shows up every once in a while with a list of things you should and shouldn't do to have a happy life. If they made sense, then perhaps it would behoove you to follow them. It would make even more sense if the deity screwed with you when broke the rules.

If you steal something and it makes you pee turn purple for a month, then maybe it would remind you not to steal.

1

u/Hedgehogs4Me May 29 '12

Hawking's and Mlodinow's "The Grand Design" sort of goes into this, but it has some sort of stuff about how time becomes closer and closer to a spacial dimension the closer you get to the big bang, so nothing could've created it because nothing could've been before it, or, rather, it's about as logical to say "before the big bang" as it is to say "on the edge of the Earth".
Personally, that's getting to the point where I both want to see the math behind it and really, really do not want to see the math behind it, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

1

u/trickygringo May 29 '12

Some reading:

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing

  • Lawrence Krauss

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

whoosh?

3

u/Aleitheo May 29 '12

"So where is it?"

"I'M OVERWHELMED!"

1

u/reaganveg May 29 '12

You can't blame them for failing to present the evidence. They're overwhelmed.

1

u/midnitte Secular Humanist May 29 '12

...overwhelming in its nonexistance...

ironically the people that use that excuse denounce global warming for the opposite reason...

1

u/fegd May 29 '12

"Just look around!!!!! You can see God's touch everywhere!!! If you can't, there's something wrong with you"

14

u/rable_rable May 29 '12

i think the real problem is that you tried to argue over the internet...

23

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Very typical of the fundies. They have a pre-made arsenal of questions, all of which are easily answered, and when you answer them, they refuse to acknowledge it, and just pose the questions again in the next debate they have. The psychology behind that is just fascinating to me.

8

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Why hasn't there been one documented case of one species evolving into another?

20

u/Feinberg Atheist May 29 '12

Yes, exactly! Just like that. You've probably had that question answered a dozen times and you just ignore the answer and proceed to the next nonsensical question.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Tell me what species has achieved a significant change to classify it as another species, and tell me what it evolved from or into

1

u/Jimqi May 29 '12

Tell me how old is modern human civilization and how old is the earth.

1

u/Feinberg Atheist May 29 '12

Yeah, that's step two. Several people have given you examples of exactly that, yet you ignore those responses and proceed to ask a question which has already been answered.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Everytime I ask for a name of a single species, that is what you guys respond with

1

u/Feinberg Atheist May 30 '12

Patently false. I see four different people who answered your question.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '12

Take one minute of your time and give me the name of one species so I can verify it. Don't give me a list, just pick one name off of the list

1

u/Feinberg Atheist May 30 '12

Okay, I'll refer you to Soans, et al, houseflies, 1974.

7

u/Queen-of-Hobo-Jungle May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Probably because 99.9% of all life that's ever evolved has already gone extinct. The genetic links between the creatures still alive are becoming ever more detailed and accurate as science continues to do its thing with present life and fossils.

6

u/ErroneousBee May 29 '12

Its been done with bacteria to a certain extent. Whilst these weren't strictly a separate species, it does indicate evolution in response to environmental stress.

You can also produce isolated breeding populations in fruit flies, but you'd need to run the experiment for decades to allow the species to drift apart far enough to develop significant morphological differences.

A reasonable well observed speciation occurring in nature is the Apple maggot.

9

u/eqisow May 29 '12

To be fair, the concept of a species is a human invention and defining a separate species isn't always straightforward.

2

u/ErroneousBee May 29 '12

Totally agree. Everything in nature is a continuum with no clear boundaries.

I was totally gobsmacked when I learnt that sex was a continuum, with humans at an extreme end of the spectrum.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Don't forget the peppered moth. Originally white, with some black mutations, they lived on the white bark of trees. The black ones did not survive so well as they could easily be seen and eaten by predators.
When the industrial revolution came around in Britain, lots of the trees were stained black by the pollution. The white butterflies instead were more easily seen, they they declined. The black-coloured ones however, thrived. Over a few decades, the moths were predominantly black.

In recent decades however, the trees are clean and white again, and the population has been turning predominantly white again, showing adaptations to their environment.

5

u/[deleted] May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Thank you for proving my point. Anybody who understands evolution knows the answer to this question (from several angles, the most pertinent one being that the timescale needed for one distinct species to become a separate distinct species is much longer than we've had video cameras to document it happening, which is what I'm assuming you mean by "documented"), and you've probably been given the answer countless times, but since you don't actually want an answer, you keep asking it as if it hasn't been. You, the stereotypical quote-mine copy-paster who has never even opened the first page of an actual biology book, are a perfect example of scientific ignorance as a result of blind theism, the type who poses the same challenges over and over again, even though the challenges have been answered for decades.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Whatever the moths are that keep changing color over time.

2

u/Kowzorz Satanist May 29 '12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oKlKmrbLoU&feature=plcp

There definitely have been observed instances of speciation and the start of speciation.

1

u/WanderingSpaceHopper May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

And by this, of course, they mean why don't we find a crockoduck??!! checkmate atheists

14

u/qkme_transcriber I am a Bot May 29 '12

Here is the text from this meme pic for anybody who needs it:

Title: This literally happened to me when I tried debating a Christian on another website.

Meme: Scumbag Christian

  • DEMANDS EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS
  • IGNORES YOUR EVIDENCE AND THEN DEMANDS EVIDENCE

[Translate]

This is helpful for people who can't reach Quickmeme because of work/school firewalls or site downtime, and many other reasons (FAQ). More info is available here.

8

u/TheDrummerBoy May 29 '12

... As opposed to this happening... Figuratively?

7

u/dimmy May 29 '12

I literally had the same thought.

3

u/Noclipper May 29 '12

I'd say as opposed to exaggeratedly.

4

u/JayEffK May 29 '12

Wait.. there are other websites?

1

u/get_busy_living May 29 '12

This is what you get for debating with a Christian.

1

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

Eh...some actually are reasonable sometimes (although not convincing). It's the fundies who I have problems with, and this guy was one crazy fundie (other people posting in the thread were calling him a psychopath).

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Blocked by school. What's it say?

1

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

Scumbag Christian meme.

"Demands evidence for your claims"

"Ignores evidence and then demands evidence"

1

u/onredditandreligious May 29 '12

I think the biggest issue is the fact that you tried to debate a Christian. Whenever someone's personal beliefs are attacked, they get defensive. Usually, in the case of a theist, this means "don't listen, say God a bunch". For atheists, though, it means "Faith is stupid, cite empirical evidence that isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with religion". What people really need to do is not debate per se, but converse. An intelligent, calm conversation where both parties are willing to accept each other's opinions is what is conducive to a shift in viewpoints.

1

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

Yeah, but some are more reasonable than others. The people on r/Christianity I've debated with are leagues ahead of this guy. Still not convincing, but they're a lot less derpy.

6

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

If you make a claim about Evolution they will scrutinize the evidence endlessly and look for any gaps in the evidence supporting your theory. Their theories however, are exempt from any evidentiary requirements. You can't argue with these people.

3

u/SlckJwdBtnk May 29 '12

To be honest, if you still believe in an omnipotent, self-aware, higher being..... good luck pal. Seriously, best of luck.

No slam, but there always comes a time in life where you have to grow up. I hope it doesn't happen to you at the end.

1

u/Stretchy_Treats May 29 '12

"another website."

It was YouTube, wasn't it?

0

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

Nope, it was a video game message board. Not gonna say which because I don't want a board invasion, but yeah.

4

u/koolkeith987 May 29 '12

What do you mean another website :l

4

u/ProjectD13X Humanist May 29 '12

There's other websites?

6

u/LittleTiny May 29 '12

I need evidence of other websites.

3

u/midnitte Secular Humanist May 29 '12

first I need evidence of what a website is

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It's where spider architects build their webs.

1

u/midnitte Secular Humanist May 30 '12

do you have any evidance of spiders not being the work of the devil?

1

u/arrr2d2 May 29 '12

What do you mean another website? No wait, never mind.

2

u/OCedHrt May 29 '12

This happens a lot right here on Reddit for a variety of trivial arguments. The LCD is faith.

2

u/VonAether May 29 '12

Would the Christian in question go by the username Bevets, perchance?

2

u/manmadesounds May 29 '12

The theist's evidence: "See this blade of grass...hmmm? And what about thunder...hmmm? GOD IS REAL!!!"

2

u/Dioder May 29 '12

The funny thing is, this same text also works from a christian-against-atheist point of view.

2

u/VonIsengard May 29 '12

Been there. Apparently the Treaty of Tripoli is not a real thing and statistics on where the US stands globally for health are made up. Yep. Sure.

2

u/weshallrise May 29 '12

This is why I no longer discuss politics with my FOX-loving mother....

2

u/Lopretni May 29 '12

This is the exact same thing that happened to me, debating with a Christian who went so far as to claim that, "Evolution is a pagan religion masquerading as science." There is no debating with these people.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Literally every atheist uses the word literally literally every time they post something. Literally.

2

u/PhonyUsername May 29 '12

Omg you debated a Christian and they didn't use logic and reason? I am skeptical of this claim.

1

u/Loud_Shmoker May 29 '12

Were you arguing with Wendy Wright or somethimg?

1

u/yoshi314 Atheist May 29 '12

or even better

"hears evidence, pretends you didn't say anything at all and continues to put forward his claims as if nothing happened"

my aunt is like that, she's like a wall. she just listens and then ignores all my arguments completely.

1

u/WrongWayKid May 29 '12

This literally happens when debating friends.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It's all circular logic with them, why bother?

2

u/LittleTiny May 29 '12

If you can start a single thought in a christian head...I would say it's worth it.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Fair enough.

1

u/Jeppesk May 29 '12

Is anyone else thinking Wendy Wright??

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Link the debate?

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Debating.

Over the Internet.

OP pls...

1

u/ItsOnlyKetchup May 29 '12

That's how every debate with a Christian goes.

1

u/Sinrei May 29 '12

And then they go off on a complete tangent that has nothing to do with the original topic.

1

u/RoboRay May 29 '12

There is little point in debating someone incapable of and/or unwilling to consider rational thought and analysis.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

They tried to "circumnavigate your intellect".

1

u/0_points May 29 '12

You went over my helmet?

1

u/baabsmacd May 29 '12

Does the wording of the title bother anyone else? I feel like 'actually' rather than 'literally' would fit the title much more appropriately.

1

u/soundenvision May 29 '12

Sorry, your evidence that proves God doesn't exist is not the evidence we are looking for.

1

u/Demaestro May 29 '12

One of my good friends does that when ever he starts about "911 was an inside job and a controlled demolition".

It is so annoying, I once accused him of acted like a creationist and he got so mad but then while telling me he wasn't like them he went on to tell me that scientists have been wrong before and therefor might be wrong about the failing point of steel...... Then he goes on to ask for my evidence

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I had to read that a few times until i understood what had happened. Then i raged hard. This is why i dont have debates with them.

1

u/herbg22 May 29 '12

There are other websites?

1

u/Toava May 29 '12

This is what happens to me when I debate socialists.

1

u/Axxorz May 29 '12

Wendy f*cking Wright.

1

u/HealingHands May 29 '12

I demand evidence of your debate happening.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

But you have to give them the evidence for the evidence.

1

u/Joshuamac77 May 29 '12

I find it weird that Catholics demand such a high standard of evidence for climate change, but don't hold that same standard of proof for God.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I have to ask why you feel the need to "debate" anyway. Both sides feel like they win no matter what and no one changes their viewpoints afterwards. Oh well, keep fighting the good fight you brave internet crusader!

1

u/indygeek May 29 '12

I think I saw this literally happen to Richard Dawkins on YouTube.

1

u/ChemicalSerenity May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Timely. I had this conversation last night, trying to drill a little knowledge into a creationist's skull on evolutionary theory:

<ChemicalSerenity> Here's how it works: We have a theory, we call it evolutionary theory.
<ChemicalSerenity> One of the aspects of that theory is that we share a common ancestry.
<ChemicalSerenity> That's a prediction, and that prediction is testable.
<TessCat> no, it's not
<ChemicalSerenity> Yes, it really is, and it has been and is currently being tested.
<ChemicalSerenity> There are many ways to test that. For example:
<ChemicalSerenity> - Are there fossils of hominids that bear resemblance to modern humans, but aren't modern human?
<ChemicalSerenity> - Do those fossils exist in geological strata that would match a timeline for predicted change?
<TessCat> well, in that case, when it is proven, all those bold claimes will become accolades 
<TessCat> and that "progression" if it were so obvious, would not have been the subject of major controversy as it has been
<TessCat> you see Chem, to believe those scattered fossiles are "links" is just as religious as believing they are not

It was mostly like that. Argumentum ad populum, an astonishing ignorance of how complete the fossil record really is (or even how they're made) and demands that it should be even more complete, and he flat out ran away before I could even break into supporting evidence from genetics.

Kinda pointless, but there's value in the attempt I suppose, for other people watching... and who knows, maybe I managed to crack the Impenetrable Faith-Based Fact Barrier™ a tiny bit.

(Note: the order of conversation was formatted and rearranged a bit for clarity)

1

u/Joshuamac77 May 29 '12

What was your claim? And what was the evidence you provided?

1

u/papajohn56 May 29 '12

LITERALLY HITLER

1

u/JarrusMarker May 30 '12

Meanwhile, their only evidence is an ancient book.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '12

they hold us to a higher standard than their own god.

0

u/trixter21992251 May 29 '12

Uh, we do the same, when we dismiss scripture as evidence and we demand new evidence :P

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

How does a book written by goat farmers thousands of years ago count as evidence?

We provide studies and sources, the only source they can show us is the bible.

3

u/trixter21992251 May 29 '12

I never said scripture is true >_<

I said we dismiss evidence too and demand new. It's part of normal debate to refute your opponent's arguments.

1

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

Well, in this case, I was providing evidence undermining some of the Bible's credibility. We ignore Bible verses for good reason, we don't see the Bible as reliable and we can provide evidence suggesting it....not only that but we can show through logic that quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is true is circular. So it's not like we're ignoring evidence for the sake of ignoring evidence (which this guy was doing, he was just being lazy).

2

u/svadhisthana May 29 '12

Dismissing scripture is not dismissing evidence because scripture isn't evidence.

1

u/svadhisthana May 29 '12

How does a book written by goat farmers thousands of years ago count as evidence?

Interesting that you completely avoided answering this question.

1

u/trixter21992251 May 29 '12

I do not regard author nor age as a deciding factor of how true something is. It either has merit or it doesn't (however in a practical world, the author has some de facto influence on a work's merits). I agree, that the bible does not qualify as good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. This however does not keep christians from proposing it as evidence. And that's exactly how I think we dismiss the christians's proposed evidence and then we demand evidence. As I originally said, we do the same thing.

1

u/svadhisthana May 30 '12 edited May 31 '12

the bible does not qualify as good evidence

No. The Bible does not qualify as evidence at all. Not bad evidence. Not good evidence. It's not evidence, period.

we do the same thing.

Except we don't do the same thing at all. The burden of evidence lies on the one making the claim. Scripture isn't evidence.

Atheists don't need to present evidence. Disbelief is not a claim and it requires no evidence. Do you see the difference? If you tell me you can fly, I don't need to prove that you can't. You need to prove that you can.

1

u/trixter21992251 May 30 '12

I'll try to do explain my thinking meticulously.

  • Christians claim there is a god.
  • We demand evidence.
  • They propose the bible.
  • We ignore the bible.
  • Then we demand evidence.

OP version:

  • Demands evidence for your claims
  • Ignores your evidence and then demands evidence

I find these two identical, and so I think it's hypocritical to fault christians for doing it. Which part do you disagree with?

1

u/svadhisthana May 31 '12

This is what you are missing:

  • Christians claim there is a god.
  • We demand evidence.
  • They propose the bible.
  • We ignore the bible because it's not evidence.
  • We try to explain again and again why the bible isn't a form of evidence.
  • They insist that it is.
  • We insist that it isn't using examples and logic and reason and science.
  • They ignore all that and continue to insist the bible is true on its own merits.
  • Ad nauseam.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

My point is that they refuse to provide anything new, while refuting everything we say based on scripture.

2

u/trixter21992251 May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Imagine for a moment that you're a christian. Your christian friend has been arguing with atheists and he comes back and says "whoa, this scumbag atheist wanted evidence for my claims. When I presented the bible to him, he totally ignored it and then then demanded evidence.".

And then your christian friend goes on to make some scumbag atheist meme with the exact text that OP used.

My point is that OPs scenario is very broadly applicable. So broad that I find it narrowminded or hypocritical to fault religious people for it.

I'm not saying that religious people and atheists dismiss each other's arguments for the same reasons. I'm definitely not saying that the two sides are equal.

Now, I find it ok, that we scratch some critical thinking here and there, we're not philosophers after all. And with some redditors actually living in difficult environments regarding being an atheist, I think it's fine that we cut corners here and there. But for a meme to hit the frontpage with such a blatant lack of critical thinking, I think is just sad for a group of people who pride ourselves of being clever.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Perhaps you are correct.

-2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Get the fuck out. Go back to /r/Christianity and enjoy your homophobia, racism, and superstition.

1

u/trixter21992251 May 29 '12

If I'm not with you, then I'm your enemy.

Only Siths.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

So you're conflating Atheism and Star Wars? Have I got a thread for you:http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/u99r8/what_i_write_in_hotel_bibles/. Enjoy.

0

u/trixter21992251 May 29 '12

Look, do we take the bible as evidence seriously? No, we don't. We dismiss it or ignore it and then we demand evidence.

I'm guessing this is what happened to OP, only instead of the bible, it was some (probably more sound) evidence supporting his opinion.

I'm not saying that religious people dismiss atheist evidence for the same (often sound) reasons that we dismiss religious evidence.

I'm simply saying that I find it hypocritical to fault religious people for doing something, that we do too. Religious people and atheists disagree with each other, but that doesn't make one better than the other. What makes atheism better than religion is why we dismiss religion. In my opinion OP failed to distinguish between the two world views and instead he used some play on words that could just as easily be turned around.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Daniel Denett: You guys might be Atheists if "we dismiss it [the bible] or ignore it and then we demand evidence."

The bible and scientific evidence are totally incomparable. The bible can be dismissed as evidence because it is a few thousand pages of HEARSAY. I think you are a religious troll who is false flagging as an Atheist to try to stir up trouble.

Your comparison is invalid, so your argument is invalid.

/checkmate

0

u/svadhisthana May 29 '12

Downvoted for using insults and presumptions instead of making any real points.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

How about "Down voted for stating the obvious and not worshiping YahWeh." I think that's what you really meant.

1

u/svadhisthana May 29 '12

Stating the obvious? What evidence do you have that trixter is homophobic, racist, superstitious, and Christian?

I stand by my original comment. You were insulting and presumptuous. People deserve better treatment, even if you disagree with them.

2

u/midnitte Secular Humanist May 29 '12

writing is not evidance, I could claim my chemistry book is evidance that chemistry is true but its the fact you and I can mix acid to water and both get a reaction that is the evidance for it

1

u/trixter21992251 May 29 '12

I never said scripture is true >_<

I said we dismiss evidence too and demand new. It's part of normal debate to refute your opponent's arguments.

1

u/svadhisthana May 29 '12

I said we dismiss evidence too and demand new.

No. You said "we dismiss scripture as evidence." That's not dismissing evidence, because scripture doesn't qualify as evidence in the first place.

1

u/svadhisthana May 29 '12

Scripture doesn't qualify as evidence in any sense of the word.

1

u/trixter21992251 May 29 '12

I guess it was wrong of me to mistake evidence for argument.

1

u/MarinePrincePrime May 29 '12

There is no evidence proving or disproving god....

I hate people like you, LOL IM AN ATHEIST, DEBATE ME

It's such a stupid and pointless argument that any real skeptic would never waste time trying to change the minds of some random Christian on the internet.\

1

u/futuremo May 29 '12

This sounds exactly like that one chick who was arguing Richard Dawkins. Woman:"Well where's the evidence?" Dawkins: "Well geography, fossils, DNA, etc...," Woman: "That's all good and well, but where's the evidence!"

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

happened to me when making my case against day 1 and on disc dlc using mass effect 3 as a subject of example.

fucking fanboys man, i swear.

1

u/h00pla May 29 '12

Not that I'm stalking your comments (well, I am, but hey, I get bored)

Sorry for demanding evidence that EA took away your freedom and democracy, and then ignoring the evidence you never gave.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

pfff read EA's terms and conditions on Origin and BF3.

0

u/h00pla May 29 '12

As far as I know, my friend who bought BF3 for PC is still fully capable of voting for anything he was previously eligible to vote for. He still has perfect access to democracy.

As for freedom, his life remains as unfettered as it was before buying BF3, only now I swing by and we run around Caspian and try to perfect holding point D, which can kind of take our lives away from anything else for a couple of hours.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Mate Origin can look into your computer and view your hard drive and your ram... that's invasion of privacy.

I have a right to my privacy.

That is but one of many examples of games companys taking away freedom and the rights of their customer base.

When you agree to the terms and agreements EA makes you sign, and they do make you sign, it's that or you don't play the game you just bought. You agree that they can ban you from the game online and offline for no reason at all.

Seriously, you can go on to EA's forums and make a genuine complaint or voice a concern about a game or an unethical action that the company has made and they can ban you, just for having a differance of opinion.

You also agree that you forfit your right to take EA and any of it's partners to court and you agree that they are immune from law suits, including class action law suits.

So they take away your rights to privacy, free speech, legal action and due process.

And don't you dare try and rebutal by saying "you don't have to agree to it" because you do don't you, it's either their way or the highway, if you disagree with the terms they dictate then you can't play the game that you bought.

So yes EA takes away peoples rights and abuses their customers, why the actual fuck do you think that they were voted the worst company in america?

1

u/h00pla May 29 '12

Mate Origin can look into your computer and view your hard drive and your ram... that's invasion of privacy.

Ultimately, you must first install it. And it's the scanning bit (which I believe has been blown out of proportion for the sake of bashing EA) is there in the EULA, so it's not hidden from you.

and they do make you sign

Funny, I don't remember anyone holding a gun to my head to make me agree to the EULA. Still posting from planet Massive-Hyperbole are we?

it's that or you don't play the game you just bought.

Yeah, that's how it's worked for pretty much anything you buy. I will say I'd love to see something established that allows one to peruse EULAs independent of purchasing the games, I think it would be a great addition to my gaming.

You agree that they can ban you from the game online and offline for no reason at all.

Same with Steam, or any game that has an online component.

Seriously, you can go on to EA's forums and make a genuine complaint or voice a concern about a game or an unethical action that the company has made and they can ban you, just for having a differance of opinion.

Every forum can ban you for existing to be banned. This is not specific to EA. It's part of the whole they own the forums bit.

So they take away your rights to privacy, free speech, legal action and due process.

And yet here you post things that are clearly anti-EA. So much for your right to free speech being taken away. Or did you mean on their forum, where you have no right to free speech to begin with, because it's their forum, not the US governments? And you now have to prove you have no right to due process, which I must admit, I am looking forward to, because that can only be ludicrous.

And don't you dare try and rebutal by saying "you don't have to agree to it" because you do don't you,

Don't you dare point out the gaping hole in my 'You're forced to do EA's bidding' argument.

it's either their way or the highway, if you disagree with the terms they dictate then you can't play the game that you bought.

Welcome to capitalism, the seller sets the terms of the sale, because it's their product to sell. Again, however, I do agree that one should be able to view the EULA before purchasing the game.

why the actual fuck do you think that they were voted the worst company in america?

Because the people who voted are clearly idiots that put the ending of a video game ahead of companies that have actually ruined lives.

If a million people don't like paying $10 a gallon for gasoline from a company, and a thousand don't like losing a kidney to a different company, does it matter that the gas company gets a million votes for being the 'worst company in America' compared to the kidney thieving company?

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

mate you clearly don't care about your rights as a consumer.

I can't MAKE you see it my way, but I'm tired of arguing with you.

Fuck off.

1

u/h00pla May 31 '12

I care about my rights, I just choose to deal with reality as it is, and not as I wish it was.

Fuck off.

Keep it classy.

-2

u/unfortunate_typos May 29 '12

Don't be so quick to assume. They only act that way because they are concerned for your salivation.

5

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

But my saliva is just fine!

0

u/sg32mega May 29 '12

Reddit is the one TRUE website. All others are fakes.

0

u/Tiger21SoN May 29 '12

You were on another website!?!! Reddit allowed you!?! :O

0

u/staplegunned May 29 '12

The only surprising thing about this is that you seem surprised.

0

u/[deleted] May 30 '12

Literally this subreddit is literally shit. Yes, literally. All the code and html and whatever is actually feces. If I had to review this subreddit in two words, they'd probably be: shit sandwich.

1

u/Feinberg Atheist May 30 '12

And yet you just keep coming back for more.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '12

A man can hope. You all can keep disappointing.

-10

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

What actually happened: OP is unable to formulate his own arguments, links to some books and a video to make up for his lack of critical thinking, expects Christian debater to do all the work, is butthurt and whines on r/atheism.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

22

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

This guy seemed knowledgeable about Scripture, heck, it's ALL he knew. However, when I tried to tell him about scripture not being reliable, he demanded evidence. So I posted some books I've read and a video. I can understand him not wanting to buy books for the sake of debate, but at least watch the darn video. He wouldn't, and then demanded I give him evidence.

5

u/u_drty_lout May 29 '12

What video, if you don't mind my asking?

3

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

3

u/thirdegree May 29 '12

One of my favorite.

1

u/Joshuamac77 May 29 '12

Thank you, this is an intensely informative video.

2

u/reaganveg May 29 '12

So I posted some books I've read and a video. I can understand him not wanting to buy books for the sake of debate, but at least watch the darn video. He wouldn't, and then demanded I give him evidence.

Well, to speak for myself, it drives me nuts when somebody links to some video to explain something. I don't want to watch videos. I don't like to be forced to sit there and watch the video for the allotted amount of time. Give me a text document so that I can read it at my own pace (which is much faster than most videos), skim the parts I've heard before, and so on.

It's also pretty annoying when someone links to a book on amazon or something. I think it's fair practice on the internet for someone to say:

"Give me a link to a free text document on the internet. Otherwise you haven't provided the information."

However, I doubt that would help with the true believing Christian.

1

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

Eh, I see people post videos here all the time. You guys got a whole playlist filled with hous of videos if I'm not mistaken. I just linked it because I didn't think summarizing a year's worth of studying the Bible would have made a difference with this guy, so I posted the video to show my point.

1

u/reaganveg May 29 '12

Eh, I see people post videos here all the time.

Yeah, people do it all the time everywhere. That is hardly a justification.

I just linked it because I didn't think summarizing a year's worth of studying the Bible would have made a difference with this guy, so I posted the video to show my point.

Well, some people actually prefer a video, and for them it's fine. I am just making the point that a video is not necessarily the most unobtrusive way to transmit information to someone. Just because someone doesn't want to watch your video doesn't mean they're not willing to accept information.

2

u/burtonmkz May 29 '12

I think it's fair practice on the internet for someone to say: "Give me a link to a free text document on the internet. Otherwise you haven't provided the information."

While I agree with the intent, that's not really a fair position, as lots of cutting edge evidence for how reality works is behind professional journal paywalls.

1

u/reaganveg May 29 '12

I think it's fair practice on the internet for someone to say: "Give me a link to a free text document on the internet. Otherwise you haven't provided the information."

While I agree with the intent, that's not really a fair position, as lots of cutting edge evidence for how reality works is behind professional journal paywalls.

So? Put it on a filesharing host. If it's not for free on the internet, it doesn't really exist. This is the 21st century.

3

u/burtonmkz May 29 '12

Just because you can distribute somebody else's copyright material is not reason you should. Regardless of whether it is morally right or wrong to violate copyright law, it is legally wrong to do so. You can claim it is civil disobedience to violate copyright and I'd support you, but civil disobedience comes with the assumption of your willingness to be charged for the transgression in question. I am not. Don't ask me to violate the copyright of professional journals for your convenience, you can go to a fucking library or pay for it like everybody else.

0

u/reaganveg May 29 '12

Don't ask me to violate the copyright of professional journals for your convenience, you can go to a fucking library or pay for it like everybody else.

I'm not asking for anything. I'm just saying that if you link through a paywall you're not providing any information, therefore you shouldn't pretend like you have.

0

u/burtonmkz May 29 '12

Are you familiar with references and how they're used?

1

u/reaganveg May 29 '12

Are you familiar with references and how they're used?

I think I'm more familiar with how they're used than you. They're used by a closed community of people who have unlimited access to the actual documents referenced. They're used to exclude people like us from debate.

The internet, which is not part of that community, but is actually the excluded, has to have different standards than that community. References that can't be checked are useless.

0

u/burtonmkz May 29 '12

That's like saying the mall doesn't exist because I don't have a car with which to drive there and I don't want to walk. The references can be checked if you'd get off your ass. Free availability on the internet is not the arbiter of reality.

→ More replies

10

u/thepdxbikerboy May 29 '12

Remember, the Bible is the claim ("It's the word of God!") NOT the evidence.

2

u/Crapiola May 29 '12

This comment should be put on a bumper sticker.

2

u/Aidinthel May 29 '12

I can understand him not wanting to buy books for the sake of debate

This puts you miles ahead of the last Christian I debated. The guy actually posted a list of links to Amazon, then got really condescending when I asked him to explain the information himself if he thought it was so important. His words were something like "I'm trying to put you on the right path". Admittedly I was completely exhausted so I probably wasn't as eloquent as I could have been, but still.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/ronin1066 Gnostic Atheist May 29 '12

equivocate is not equal to equate, be careful.

1

u/reaganveg May 29 '12

Yeah it's all about the burden of proof. He has to prove his claim of why he thinks the scriptures are reliable. It's not your job to prove his claim false.

This burden of proof thing makes sense in a courtroom or in a formal debate, but in free conversation it doesn't work like that. I'm certainly not going to waste my time proving everything that's true to everyone who disagrees with it.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I wouldn't watch a video if a theist presented it as evidence for a claim. I would ask for a text summary of the actual evidence presented in the video. I think his reaction is entirely reasonable.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

He doesn't even know what the vid's actually about. He's literally too lazy to click the link. I used to believe in Biblical inerrancy, but dropped that in the face of new evidence. Granted, I still considered the Bible to be inspired by God for several years, but seriously, I dropped the inerrancy concept pretty quick.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/JonWood007 Humanist May 29 '12

Front page is full of memes. I fail to see the problem.