• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

I've said "great surveillance camera in the sky" but that was to make the point that fear of god is a contemptible reason to be good.

People have also confused one of my arguments with "Jesus is a myth like Santa." This often comes up when someone makes an argument ad ignorantum. They support their claim with the fact that one cannot disprove their god, and when I bring up some of the infinite number of things that cannot be proven (flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapots, unicorns) and explain that "just because these things can't be disproven doesn't make you believe in them any does it?"

But they read that and hear "You're as childish as people who believe in unicorns" rather than my point that not being able to disprove a claim is not an argument for its truth.

OK, but here's some feedback. Take it or leave it. When you point out the logical fallacy, that's all well and good, makes your point, and is not refutable. When you pepper it with things like "flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapots, unicorns" it comes across as degrading and insulting. Your message gets lost, as does your victory in the part of debate. All the other hears is that you are being insulting. I will say what I always say: PRESENTATION IS EVERYTHING. You are placing the blame, solely on the listener. You have a part in it.

Now, I recognize that the more "rabid" amongst the religious are just as degrading and insulting as I accuse rabid atheists of being. But often you are not debating the rabid. I'd say, save the aggression for them.

Just some feedback. Do as you will with it.
 
Here's the problem as I see it...and it, as usual, starts with the extremists. You have some religious extremists who proselytize and attempt to push their beliefs on everyone, claiming that what they think is "correct". This, of course, brings the extreme atheists out of the woodwork, insulting anyone who believes in GOD. Now, what this accomplishes is a few things. Firstly, both groups of extremists attack everyone on the other side of their ideology, even those, of whom are the vast majority, who couldn't give a hoot about what anyone else believes and have no desire to place their beliefs on anyone else. Secondly, these non-extremists grow tired of being needlessly attacked, by the opposing extremists, sometimes forcing them to become more aggressive in order to defend themselves against unprovoked attacks. Lastly, this causes more of a divide, all cause by extremists who, with seeming little ego strength, feel the need to push their positions on others, or feel the need to degrade others positions, when, for the most part, those that they oppose could care less about imposing their beliefs on anyone else.

I agree with this hypothesis entirely.

So, I now propose a question for atheists who seem to like to attack those of faith. I believe in GOD. I have no intention of placing my beliefs on you or anyone else. I do not want religion mixed with government in any way and will fight as strongly as you will against that happening. I am content to live my life with my beliefs and have no issue with you living yours with yours. Why do you feel the need to attack and degrade my belief system to me when I will not, in any way, attempt to place my beliefs on you?

For several reasons:
1. This is a debate forum, not a conversation forum.

2. It is difficult to criticize the arguments of the "extremists" who DO want to shove their religion down my throat, and into the science classes, without criticizing your beliefs as well, if you happened to believe what they want taught in schools.

3. I don't regard it as wrong to point out the fallacies in ones logic, but the highest form of respect. However, that is when its done in a constructive manner, and people aren't insulting each other, but generally concerned about the actions one's delusions could lead them to.

This is hard because the issue gets so heated so quickly, it rarely occurs between anonymous strangers.
 
I do not understand why some Christians consider things like "your magic man in the sky" or "Jesus is a myth like Santa" an insult.. It is true to them? I dunno. :confused:

If you are deep in your faith why would that even bother you? I am just trying to understand here. I mean I could understand if someone said I love the thought of Jesus being nailed to a Crux and things like that..

But saying that your god is just a myth is a valid argument and should not be considered an insult.. Because to some folks? That is what "your" Jesus" IS to Them.. That is their truth.. See what I mean? Jesus is a myth to a lot of people.. You really should not take that as an insult because that is their own reality.

Because it shows an absolute and utter disrespect for my views and beliefs based on nothing more than your perception of not me, but my religion.
 
I do not understand why some Christians consider things like "your magic man in the sky" or "Jesus is a myth like Santa" an insult.. It is true to them? I dunno. :confused:

If you are deep in your faith why would that even bother you? I am just trying to understand here. I mean I could understand if someone said I love the thought of Jesus being nailed to a Crux and things like that..

But saying that your god is just a myth is a valid argument and should not be considered an insult.. Because to some folks? That is what "your" Jesus" IS to Them.. That is their truth.. See what I mean? Jesus is a myth to a lot of people.. You really should not take that as an insult because that is their own reality.

When you do it, you are mocking their beliefs. It's insulting. If you believed in something, and someone insulted it, I would doubt that you would be OK with that.
 
This is a really good example from encyclopedia.com:

"Geologists believe the explosion of new species that occurred during the Cambrian period can be explained by sudden, large swings in the Earth's axis of rotation caused by the shifting of continental masses. The shifting axis may have prompted weather and other changes, which placed stress on existing species." - New theory tilts Earth on its axis. (theory explains 'Cambrian explosion') - Insight on the News | Encyclopedia.com

The evidence for this "theory" is weak at best, and yet it is still a scientific theory. This is what I mean by an educated guess. It does not make the science wrong or anything, but it is no less a guess on the part of scientists.

This debate is about "theory" and it's scientific usage, and not "evolution" so forgive the use of an example that is closely related.

I'm sorry I should have been clearer, when I said "the literature" I thought you would understand that I meant peer review science journal, rather than the often misconstrued version that the public gets from "journalists" seeking sound bites.
 
I do not understand why some Christians consider things like "your magic man in the sky" or "Jesus is a myth like Santa" an insult.. It is true to them? I dunno. :confused:

If you are deep in your faith why would that even bother you? I am just trying to understand here. I mean I could understand if someone said I love the thought of Jesus being nailed to a Crux and things like that..

But saying that your god is just a myth is a valid argument and should not be considered an insult.. Because to some folks? That is what "your" Jesus" IS to Them.. That is their truth.. See what I mean? Jesus is a myth to a lot of people.. You really should not take that as an insult because that is their own reality.

Referring to a belief as a myth may be a valid identification, but if you're equating it to childhood storybook fables thats just adding insult to injury.

What I find shocking is that believers don't realize that they're doing the same thing when they call other faiths false, or say things like "There is no god but Allah."
 
I agree with this hypothesis entirely.

Good. I figured.


For several reasons:
1. This is a debate forum, not a conversation forum.

And one does not need to debate with disregard for the other's position. Makes one seem argumentative and weakens their position.

2. It is difficult to criticize the arguments of the "extremists" who DO want to shove their religion down my throat, and into the science classes, without criticizing your beliefs as well, if you happened to believe what they want taught in schools.

But you see, I don't. Evolution should be taught in classes. That's it. I am probably one of the biggest proponents of comprehensive sex education, and anti-abstinence only education on this forum. When you attack and insult these religious extremists, who, I have little use for either, you alienate an ally: ME. I have always said that it is far more powerful from extremists to be confronted by the moderates of their own political persuasion than anyone from the opposite side. By alienating me, and others like me, you fall into the trap of the hypothesis that you agreed with me on.

3. I don't regard it as wrong to point out the fallacies in ones logic, but the highest form of respect. However, that is when its done in a constructive manner, and people aren't insulting each other, but generally concerned about the actions one's delusions could lead them to.

See. Here is where you did it. Delusions. Unnecessary. Insulting. My belief system is my own. What I do with it has no effect on you; I won't allow it to. Here, it is you who drops the constructivity of debate and become degrading.

This is hard because the issue gets so heated so quickly, it rarely occurs between anonymous strangers.

I tend to stay out of religious debates other than to do what I am doing here. Pointing out the attacking nature of the extremists of both sides and hoping for some reasonable discussion. One's beliefs are their own and without proselytizing, IMO, harm no one.
 
OK, but here's some feedback. Take it or leave it.

Ill take it.

When you point out the logical fallacy, that's all well and good, makes your point, and is not refutable. When you pepper it with things like "flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapots, unicorns" it comes across as degrading and insulting. Your message gets lost, as does your victory in the part of debate. All the other hears is that you are being insulting. I will say what I always say: PRESENTATION IS EVERYTHING. You are placing the blame, solely on the listener. You have a part in it.

I agree that a big part of communication is knowing your audience, however I will not accept undue guilt. The purpose of the flying spaghetti monster is to provide a simple example of why an argument ad ignorantiam is not convincing.

Lots of people hear what they want to hear, or have knee jerk reactions to certain notions. If a woman asks me if I find her overweight, and I say no, and she turns that into "So you think I'm too skinny?!?" That is HER FAULT and hers alone.


Now, I recognize that the more "rabid" amongst the religious are just as degrading and insulting as I accuse rabid atheists of being. But often you are not debating the rabid. I'd say, save the aggression for them.

Just some feedback. Do as you will with it.

I only get nasty in response to nasty, if you can point out a single post I've made to anyone where I was the 1st one to sling insults, and I can't find an earlier post that warranted said insult, I would gladly write them an apology and CC you on.

I've been on DP all day, and trust me I've been dealing with quite a few people who were insulting from the start.

Only one of them was willing to go back and review who "started it" (UtahBill) and since then our debate has become far less venomous.
 
For the record? I am an eclectic pagan with a fondness for various types of religion. Any and all religions fascinate me.. I think they should all be respected too..

But.. I get so sick of whiners and certain Christians trying to act as if others are trying to take over this country and their religion. First of all: this country was NOT founded on their religion. Second of all: We all have freedom of religion and should all respect each other.

I think what people get sick of is this constant Christian crap where they wish for their religion to be in our stores, our courtrooms, our schools, over our public airways, etc. This is NOT a country founded on Christianity so the holy rollers need to get used to it and learn how to deal with a country that is a melting pot of various religions.

Also Christianity is a rip off of Zoroastrism.. Zoroastrism created the first "Satan".. It just really annoys me that people blindly follow along like sheep and really know nothing about their religion and are blinded by such extreme dogma that they just are like Robots! :3oops:
 
I'm sorry I should have been clearer, when I said "the literature" I thought you would understand that I meant peer review science journal, rather than the often misconstrued version that the public gets from "journalists" seeking sound bites.

Unfortunately the average Joe does not read science journals and this is what causes the problem. 99.9% of the human race will never read a science journal. The perceptions they have are molded by things like an encyclopedia.

I also doubt the writers of an encyclopedia are all that concerned with "seeking sound bites." :lol:
 
For the record? I am an eclectic pagan with a fondness for various types of religion. Any and all religions fascinate me.. I think they should all be respected too..

You say all this, then rail against Christianity then finish off with...

Also Christianity is a rip off of Zoroastrism.. Zoroastrism created the first "Satan".. It just really annoys me that people blindly follow along like sheep and really know nothing about their religion and are blinded by such extreme dogma that they just are like Robots! :3oops:

Just a tad hypocritical don't you think?
 
Why is the double standard ok? Why should Christians be treated with kid gloves? I mean fair is fair.. Why is it they are allowed to say things like if you do not believe you are going to Hell? That is NOT an insult to me? Saying I am gonna go burn in some huge firepot and be tormented forever? I guess that is all ok.. I have never understood this.. Is it because their are more Christians and they should be allowed to all tell me I am going to hell but I best just shut up and not say a word? Glass Houses and Hypocrites come to mind. :(
 
You say all this, then rail against Christianity then finish off with...



Just a tad hypocritical don't you think?

Huh? There is nothing hypocritical about anything I said.. I speak the truth.. It is not my fault that your faith is a rip off of several others.. This is just a fact.. Sorry if you do not like my speaking facts.. I am not trying to insult ya.. Just being honest..
 
Ill take it.

Good. Always nice when someone is willing to receive a window into themselves.

I agree that a big part of communication is knowing your audience, however I will not accept undue guilt. The purpose of the flying spaghetti monster is to provide a simple example of why an argument ad ignorantiam is not convincing.

Lots of people hear what they want to hear, or have knee jerk reactions to certain notions. If a woman asks me if I find her overweight, and I say no, and she turns that into "So you think I'm too skinny?!?" That is HER FAULT and hers alone.

I agree with your example and your statement that it is her responsibility. I stated something similar on the "happy holidays" thread. However, your example does not fit the premise. This is a more accurate analogy:

Woman: Am I overweight?
You: No, and skinny people look terrible.
Woman: So you're saying I look terrible?

Your additional commentary was unnecessary, and accented a point. The insinuation was indirect but was there. You have some responsibility in this one.

I only get nasty in response to nasty, if you can point out a single post I've made to anyone where I was the 1st one to sling insults, and I can't find an earlier post that warranted said insult, I would gladly write them an apology and CC you on.

I've been on DP all day, and trust me I've been dealing with quite a few people who were insulting from the start.

Only one of them was willing to go back and review who "started it" (UtahBill) and since then our debate has become far less venomous.

Not for public consumption, and could end up threadjacking this. I'm about to log off. I'll re-look at this thread, tomorrow and see. I know you were gone for a bit, so some more extensive research may be in order.
 
And one does not need to debate with disregard for the other's position. Makes one seem argumentative and weakens their position.

I don't understand, don't you mean no regard for their feelings?

But you see, I don't. Evolution should be taught in classes. That's it. I am probably one of the biggest proponents of comprehensive sex education, and anti-abstinence only education on this forum. When you attack and insult these religious extremists, who, I have little use for either, you alienate an ally: ME.

I don't understand that. If I attack the 6000 year old earth theory, and you don't hold it, how am I alienating you? In fact you should be in the middle of it, explaining how one can be a Christian (or whatever you are) without being a biblical literalist.

I have always said that it is far more powerful from extremists to be confronted by the moderates of their own political persuasion than anyone from the opposite side.

Full agreement.

By alienating me, and others like me, you fall into the trap of the hypothesis that you agreed with me on.

Again I don't understand why you would be alienated by the debunking of someone else's mystical claim.

See. Here is where you did it. Delusions. Unnecessary. Insulting. My belief system is my own. What I do with it has no effect on you; I won't allow it to. Here, it is you who drops the constructivity of debate and become degrading.

Actually I think this is a case where you've taken something I said personally when that was not the purpose of the use.

I was not talking about your beliefs when I said "delusions," because I don't know what they are. You said you believe in a god, I don't know what you mean by that. You could be using the word the way Hawking or Einstein do, referring to the Universe. And that isn't a delusion!

When I was talking about the rare instance that people are "generally concerned about the actions one's delusions could lead them to" I literally meant that. In any instance where you fear that something someone believes, that you know is not true, will cause them to behave in a dangerous manner, to criticize that delusion is what it means to respect them.

When dealing with a stranger, such as you, who does not make truth claims about his faith for all to attempt to debate, but keeps his faith to himself and you have no reason to believe it will effect them or yourself, there is no reason to debate or even criticize that belief.

Someone has to put themselves out there to get my attention, making assertions about things they couldn't possibly know, I don't bait people who keep it private.

Now if you want to be offended because I refer to demonstrably false supernatural claims as delusions, simply because you hold supernatural beliefs of your own... I again don't understand.

It would be like if said that astrology were B/S, and a homeopathist took offense. I never said anything about your beliefs, unless I identified a fallacy that is the rationale for your belief.

Why is delusion offensive if it is an accurate identification? You don't regard the word "false" or "wrong" or "illogical" as offensive as well do you?

I tend to stay out of religious debates other than to do what I am doing here. Pointing out the attacking nature of the extremists of both sides and hoping for some reasonable discussion. One's beliefs are their own and without proselytizing, IMO, harm no one.

Don't think I haven't noticed, this is the first time you've spoken to me on religion I think.
 
Why is the double standard ok? Why should Christians be treated with kid gloves? I mean fair is fair.. Why is it they are allowed to say things like if you do not believe you are going to Hell? That is NOT an insult to me? Saying I am gonna go burn in some huge firepot and be tormented forever? I guess that is all ok.. I have never understood this.. Is it because their are more Christians and they should be allowed to all tell me I am going to hell but I best just shut up and not say a word? Glass Houses and Hypocrites come to mind. :(

No, actually the things you are saying that they say to you are NOT OK. At all. Just as your comments towards them are not. You are correct; fair is fair.
 
Unfortunately the average Joe does not read science journals and this is what causes the problem. 99.9% of the human race will never read a science journal. The perceptions they have are molded by things like an encyclopedia.

I also doubt the writers of an encyclopedia are all that concerned with "seeking sound bites." :lol:

I don't think they all are, but I know that communicating science to the public is a huge issue in the scientific community now. Every science podcast I have frequently discuss the pitfalls...

There is a man named Dr. Michael Stebbins who is currently working w/ Obama's transition staff, but before that he was doing weekly updates on science in politics and he offered alot of insigts into the inherent problems with both sides.
 
Huh? There is nothing hypocritical about anything I said.. I speak the truth.. It is not my fault that your faith is a rip off of several others.. This is just a fact.. Sorry if you do not like my speaking facts.. I am not trying to insult ya.. Just being honest..

Don't think he's a Christian...
 
Why is the double standard ok? Why should Christians be treated with kid gloves? I mean fair is fair.. Why is it they are allowed to say things like if you do not believe you are going to Hell? That is NOT an insult to me? Saying I am gonna go burn in some huge firepot and be tormented forever?

If you do not believe in the Christian concept of God, it should not really matter. People tell me if I kill someone I can go to jail and get the death penalty, I am not offended. If you told me I was going to hell to burn because I did not worship your God, most reasonable people would laugh and not be offended, I would not.

The only reason I can think that this mite offend is because you think the offending Christian may be right?

I guess that is all ok.. I have never understood this.. Is it because their are more Christians and they should be allowed to all tell me I am going to hell but I best just shut up and not say a word? Glass Houses and Hypocrites come to mind. :(

You say everyone should respect each others beliefs, then you rally against Christians and they are somehow hypocrites? :lol:
 
I don't think they all are, but I know that communicating science to the public is a huge issue in the scientific community now. Every science podcast I have frequently discuss the pitfalls...

There is a man named Dr. Michael Stebbins who is currently working w/ Obama's transition staff, but before that he was doing weekly updates on science in politics and he offered alot of insigts into the inherent problems with both sides.

In the end I don't think we disagree so much.
 
Good. Always nice when someone is willing to receive a window into themselves.

I agree with your example and your statement that it is her responsibility. I stated something similar on the "happy holidays" thread. However, your example does not fit the premise. This is a more accurate analogy:

Woman: Am I overweight?
You: No, and skinny people look terrible.
Woman: So you're saying I look terrible?

Your additional commentary was unnecessary, and accented a point. The insinuation was indirect but was there. You have some responsibility in this one.

I'm sorry but I don't think that this is analagous. I never made ANY blanket statements about believers in the supernatural, I deal with each claim on a case by case basis.

Honestly I don't understand how "delusion" can be regarded as unneccessary? Or how you could think I was calling your belief a delusion.

If I EVER do, I will be talking about it specifically, with you.

Not for public consumption, and could end up threadjacking this. I'm about to log off. I'll re-look at this thread, tomorrow and see. I know you were gone for a bit, so some more extensive research may be in order.

I actually left because of all of the nastiness around election time. You seem to find the word "delusion" insulting, I really don't. You may just be more polite than me, or perhaps I've seen far worse than "delusional" far too many times.

I used it because I regarded it as accurate, and feel that it would be no different if I said "people who believe something that is not true." I only used the word in concision, I wasn't trying to be passive aggressive or indirect.

If I meant to be insulting, you'd know it. I can think of far more colorful language... "Bull****!" being my favorite, and my favorite show about debunking false claims.
 
Last edited:
Don't think he's a Christian...

He is correct, I am very much a Christian in practice and faith. I am non-denominational but stand strong with my brothers and sisters in Christ. Until they make me mad and I kick em' to the curve...

Just kidding.

I return the respect I am given.

I am also an old earth Christian, so scientifically we are compatible.
 
He is correct, I am very much a Christian in practice and faith. I am non-denominational but stand strong with my brothers and sisters in Christ. Until they make me mad and I kick em' to the curve...

Just kidding.

I return the respect I am given.

I am also an old earth Christian, so scientifically we are compatible.

I'll go so far as to assume we agree on all things natural.
 
I don't understand, don't you mean no regard for their feelings?

Not precisely, though admittedly, I am more of a fan of civil debate than uncivil debate. No, more taking into consideration the essence of their position and attempting to understand where that comes from, rather than just arguing points in a disparaging way. Creates more of an attack-defend type of discourse, resulting in no understanding by either party. IMO, and I imagine you'll agree, the purpose of a religious debate is not to win. That is not possible. The purpose is for the other person to fully understand your position and get what you are presenting. Attacks do not accomplish that.

I don't understand that. If I attack the 6000 year old earth theory, and you don't hold it, how am I alienating you? In fact you should be in the middle of it, explaining how one can be a Christian (or whatever you are) without being a biblical literalist.

And not only would I love to, but I do, whenever I can. But not when you are degrading and mocking my beliefs with insulting comments. You will not find me coming to your aid in those circumstances.

Full agreement.

Good. :)

Again I don't understand why you would be alienated by the debunking of someone else's mystical claim.

It's not the debunking of the claim. It's the disparaging comments that go along with your debunking, as I explained above.



Actually I think this is a case where you've taken something I said personally when that was not the purpose of the use.

I was not talking about your beliefs when I said "delusions," because I don't know what they are. You said you believe in a god, I don't know what you mean by that. You could be using the word the way Hawking or Einstein do, referring to the Universe. And that isn't a delusion!

When I was talking about the rare instance that people are "generally concerned about the actions one's delusions could lead them to" I literally meant that. In any instance where you fear that something someone believes, that you know is not true, will cause them to behave in a dangerous manner, to criticize that delusion is what it means to respect them.

When dealing with a stranger, such as you, who does not make truth claims about his faith for all to attempt to debate, but keeps his faith to himself and you have no reason to believe it will effect them or yourself, there is no reason to debate or even criticize that belief.

Someone has to put themselves out there to get my attention, making assertions about things they couldn't possibly know, I don't bait people who keep it private.

Now if you want to be offended because I refer to demonstrably false supernatural claims as delusions, simply because you hold supernatural beliefs of your own... I again don't understand.

It would be like if said that astrology were B/S, and a homeopathist took offense. I never said anything about your beliefs, unless I identified a fallacy that is the rationale for your belief.

Why is delusion offensive if it is an accurate identification? You don't regard the word "false" or "wrong" or "illogical" as offensive as well do you?

I am Jewish and I believe in one God. I suppose I would be classified as a deist. That is my business and I do not impose that belief on anyone else, nor does it govern the rational decisions I must make, day to day. Using the term "delusion" denotes a psychological disorder and is insulting. My beliefs may not be provable, however, they suit me fine, they do not interfere with me making rational decisions, nor do they cause me to affect anyone else in an irrational manner. Delusions is an incorrect term and is insulting. I understand, now that this was not personal, and I appreciate your clarification.

Don't think I haven't noticed, this is the first time you've spoken to me on religion I think.

I'm pretty sure it is; I'm very laid back when it comes to religion. Whatever one believes is OK with me, as long as they neither try to force those beliefs on me, nor place them with the government.

And though we haven't debated this topic before, I have read you, extensively, over the past couple of years. Real smart guy, Good, solid debater. A little too aggressive at times.
 
Back
Top Bottom