Atheist Nexus Logo

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?

 

 

Views: 126

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think that:

It is impossible to debate a person who will not handicap himself with a knowledge of the facts.
-- Unknown

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.

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:

  • "The church is sensitive?!?" How sensitive have they been to the sensibilities of those who have been molested and raped by priests? And for that matter, have they answered to civil authority for their crimes?
  • Those priests are the pope's responsibility, and if the buck doesn't stop at Vatican City, where DOES it stop?
  • Evolution works from a purely practical standpoint as a model of the development of life on this planet, and even the RC church acknowledges that. Organizations such as The Discovery Institute and Creation Ministries, International support creationism and ID because their agenda is essentially to supplant the teaching of evolution with ID. They tried that in Dover, PA and fell on their faces.
  • Lincoln and the abolitionists were anti-slavery 150 years ago. Did that particular "anti" make THEM wrong?



These are just a few points, but again, I'm not convinced your audience has any interest in facts.

[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.

 

Eric

Some people are so deluded-religious people are especially so.

Intellectually feeble, and I gain no pleasure in pointing out the obvious:

<Edit: Not entirely true, this throw-down goes great with my morning coffee.>

 

"Anti-Theists are biased, and therefore are wrong."

"Anti-Pedophiles are biased, and therefore are wrong."

"Anti-Nazis are biased, and therefore are wrong."

"Anti-Atheists are biased, and therefore are wrong."

"Anti-Tooth-Faeries are biased, and therefore are wrong."

etc, etc...

 

Besides for applying incorrect deductive logic, and incorrect word usage, this individual has displayed astonishingly perfect spherical and ironical reasoning. A bias is an unfair assumption about something, so unless this person went on to list exactly how Hitchens and Dawkins have been, in any way, unfair or nonfactual about a particular subject - they have only proven themselves to be an incarnate definition of biased.

 

If you don't value your time, and correspond with this person again, take any sentence and apply different scenarios to it. Ex: Murder is sensitive, therefore we should respect it. Seriously? Also, the words "evidence" and "pope" don't belong in the same universe.

 

This is what (s)he meant to say:

 

"I will label everyone that disagrees with my statements as 'biased,' not only because I'm scared shitless of being embarrassed and having my kindergarten logic held to the fire, but because I'm (here it comes...) biased, and simply cannot back up any of my unfair assumptions with fact or reason. You don't agree with my biased assertions, therefore you are wrong."

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service