A moment ago I was discussing Anti Religion with a person on the internet. He claimed that people like Dawkins and Hitchens are very biased in the anti religious position and therefore they are wrong. He claimed that I know nothing of Science because I am an Anti Theists. He said that religion is sensitive therefore should we respect it. I said that people like the pope and mother teresa are two horrible know religious people, but then he of course claimed that every one is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. He refused to look at videos with Dawkins and Hitchens because they seemed biased and extreme. I said that they were not extremists and that they were nothing close to religious extremists, but he said that they were.
He said that the case against the pope was based on no evidence and the pope is not guilty until proven guilty in the court of law. He said that we should all be neutral against religion because as I said, religion is sensitive, and that to be anti religion is wrong. He also said that I should stop listening on men like Hitchens and Dawkins. He said that I was preaching Anti Theism (which I was not) like religious people preach things.
I do not get how someone can accuse Hitchens and Dawkins for being extreme and wrong in their arguments because almost everything "anti" is wrong.
I also said that evolution is a fact and he just responded "NO!" and that it was not a fact because the scientists of the world has not come together and decided that it is a fact.
(I have tried to summarize what I could remember but this was some of the things he said.)
I was dumbfounded of what he said and the fact that he accused me of being arrogant and ignorant for being against religion was just disgusting. I find his statements incrediibly moronic. The only position is not neutral if you are a scientist, as far as I see it, every Scientists should be offended by the fact that religions spew out statements about the Cosmos that is far from true.
What do you think?
I think that:
It is impossible to debate a person who will not handicap himself with a knowledge of the facts.
He doesn't want a discussion. He wants to cut off discussion and have himself declared the winner without a contest. Your time is better spent elsewhere.
Don't debate with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Not guilty unless proven so in a court of law? HE sounds like the atheist! Wouldn't a Christian believe that GOD decides guilt? I mean if I kill an innocent person in a dark ally and don't get caught, then I a NOT GUILTY?
I have no idea. He said that you should not attack religion, but instead he attacked me and said that "I do not understand Science" and that Anti Theism goes against Science (I can't remember why.) He calls himself an atheist, but he doesn't seem to have the qualities an atheist should have. He seems to be neutral on everything, until a higher authority finds something or someone to be guilty of something, then he agrees. This goes against one of the most important principles of life; Questioning things.
To not create an opinion unless someone higher than you has decided what the person in question or the thing in question is guilty or not, is plain moronic and quite frankly, pathetic.
To be a scientist is to be skeptical, and should it be any great surprise that great current-day scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Kraus are atheists with that as consideration?
Atheists question the existence of god because of the yawning lack of evidence for any such entity. Anti-theists oppose religion because the promotion of religion fails to respect individual rights and the integrity of governments, particularly in the case of movements such as dominionism and the New Apostolic Reformation. They cannot live and let live, but intend to superimpose their will and belief across the nation with no regard for alternative points of view.
If that is their idea of sensitivity, it is warped in the extreme.
Ah, well ... considering you're stuck with a few points to argue, let's take a swing at 'em:
These are just a few points, but again, I'm not convinced your audience has any interest in facts.
I told him about the cases of child rapes that the pope has hidden and defended. But as I remembered it, he said the same "Proven guilty until court"- thing.
He probably thinks that I'm against religion because of some personal reason, I am not. I am against it because I see the dangers and harms it causes to the world, and it is also my moral obligation to help humanity evolve into a better future, where Science and reason is the main core of humanity's hear.
Exactly, he said that he believes in evolution, but we cannot call it fact, because all the Scientists has not come together to decide if it is fact, or not. And then he said the obvious "Evolution is a theory".
He brought something up about anti-aids being good because we know for a fact that aids is bad. But as far as I see it, Anti-Theism is good because it goes against the immoral system we call religion.
This is a quote that I find very accurate, by Hitchens : We (Atheists) do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
I will not speak to this man again, I am tired of speaking with either deluded religious people or with inaccurate, arrogant douche bags. Instead I will focus on speaking with my comrades, here on the atheist and anti theist forum.
[chuckle] Gravity is a theory, too ... so's the germ theory of disease. Somehow, I'm a touch dubious that either of those is going to be seriously challenged any time in the near future!
I agree with you that further argument is a waste of time, though. The sad majority of the time, such arguments are just that and little more.
Jimmy, as an old man once told me, "Never argue with a fool. People looking in on it may not be able to tell the difference."
You really shouldn't try to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Ask him what is his evidence that you are biased and not correct in your assessment and conclusion about religion. Tell him that your opinion like those of all atheists is based on the evidence of wrongdoing of religion now and for thousands of years whereas his view is based on denial of this evidence plus bigotry toward people who don't believe in absurd dogma. Tell him that he is just making a baseless, self-righteous and false accusation which is one of the things religion has done for thousands of years.
We just take their shit when they dump it on us. We should make them pay big time for their bullshit accusations - hey that's the way they got to burn 200,000 witches.
What he said was that I am biased (also Dawkins and Hitchens) because we are anti religious, at least that was what he implied. I don't get the point with "You don't know anything about Science" when I know a lot about Science and I know that Science supports free inquiry, open mindedness, free thinking, reason, questioning and so on.
Basically he meant that even though there's a lot of evidence that supports evolution, you can't claim that it is fact until some higher authority has said so. When a deluded religious person speaks this nonsense I just laugh and think how stupid can a person be. But when someone who claims that he's an atheist and that he believes in Science, acts like this, than it is pretty disturbing. But then again, I think that he is 15 years old or 16 when I think about it.
I won't waste my time talking to people like that, that attacks you and uses filthy slander of anti theism.