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

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

 

Latest Activity

Joan Denoo replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
39 minutes ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
1 hour ago
Grinning Cat replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
1 hour ago
Luara replied to Daniel W's discussion Are same sex marriages more stable than so-called traditional marriages? in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
1 hour ago
sk8eycat replied to Joan Denoo's discussion The Bible is not Great by Soren Sagan in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
2 hours ago
Joan Denoo replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina on "Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative" in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
2 hours ago
Luara replied to Daniel W's discussion Are same sex marriages more stable than so-called traditional marriages? in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
2 hours ago
sk8eycat replied to Joan Denoo's discussion The Bible is not Great by Soren Sagan in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
2 hours ago
Joan Denoo replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina on "Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative" in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
2 hours ago
Tom Sarbeck commented on Loren Miller's blog post Is god good?
2 hours ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to jay H's discussion What the freakin hell is wrong with this country???
3 hours ago
Jason Blair replied to Daniel W's discussion Are same sex marriages more stable than so-called traditional marriages? in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
3 hours ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service