The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Discussion with a theist - I need your opinion

Here is an exchange I am having over in facebook. Please read it and tell me what you think is happening here. I will give background information on how this started later.

Manuel A. Santamaria

Bill O'Reilly SCARED by Richard Dawkins

Liked on www.youtube.com

http://www.comedyjesus.com - Have you ever seen Bill O'Reilly so scared to give an educated guest time to speak? Watch as he barely gives the space or time to let Dawkins really speak. Watch as he makes a joke
when there's a question he can'...

Sun at 6:35pm via YouTube • Comment • Like

Jerome Garrett

LOL feel free to watch the clip again and see that Dawkins can't tell you where anything came from, can't deny a "God" entity exists, and most of all agrees that the two largest mass murderers in the modern era were both athiests.

Yesterday at 1:31pm •

Manuel A. Santamaria

That they were both atheist is a matter of record. The question is, did they do what they did in the name of atheism?

In addition, any scientist worth its salt would never agree to anything 100% as there is always the possibility that, with new evidence, things can be demonstrably different.

With that said, Dawkins tries to explain that if there is anything that can be called "god"it must have appeared by natural means.

When I take into consideration other comments you have made about this type of subjects, specifically to some of my posts, I can not ignore the fact that you may not be as versed as you think for this to be a constructive conversation. Mostly I have read ad hominems and insinuations of a superiority complex that are lost between the lines of your comments; current one excluded. I am not a critical thinking scholar, but even I can see that you may need to brush up your skills in the subject. While you are at it, make sure you understand what science is and what scientists do, and maybe do a little self reflecting on how the religious and political environment you were raised
have shaped your views.

Most of your counterpoints could have come from any fundamentalist or extreme right group I have ever heard, which makes me think that your "opinions" are nothing more than the regurgitation of the stuff you have been spoon fed.

Yesterday at 5:55pm •

Jerome Garrett

First off, both Stalin and Mao did not murder in the name of atheism but they certainly accomplished these horrific acts stemming from their religious belief in the lack of a superior being that will keep them accountable... and will you as well.

Second, the argument speaking of that "god" must have appeared by natural means is perhaps the worst peice of science, which you highly tout, that you could utilize. I see you've gone to great length to try to show your superiority in this matter but I need to remind you want science
is. Science is the observation of repeatable events. I've never seen my God created, and I never will. He existed before the beginning and will exist into the oblivion. There is absolutely no science that you can show me AT ALL that this statement is not true... Because it would not be science, because you cannot repeat it. You chose to put your faith in the lack of god. Since you cann't prove a negative and would be naive to try I'll assume you agree....
Since you're so good at science - or perhaps you haven't read the book of using logic.

I realize that you believe that you are enlightened; however, you cannot give explanation to the easiest of questions. "Where did we come from?" Dawkins said in this very video clip. "We're
working on it." We split atoms in less than 7 years from conception to
Japan. Every evolutionist in the world that want to discount the creation of
this universe cannot answer the question - including you.... See More

So keep reading your book, they aren't helpipng you answer the easy stuff. It's always nice to try to demean your opponent while not actually debating the topics. I've read plenty of book too, but my
understanding doesn't just come from books and very little comes from my
"regurgitation of the stuff (I) have been spoon fed." Most of it came
from intense debate will atheists like you - in graduate school.

11 hours ago •

This will be my response:

Jerome, I am in no way interested in a pissing match with you over the internet.I mentioned twice before that you concentrate in ad hominen attacks and you respond like you do not know what that means. I have been very mindful of my words so I do not commit the same fallacy. I really think you need to do some self searching.I am willing to show any disinterested party our exchanges and let them verify that it is you who has committed the faults you project on me. As a matter of fact, I have evidence that your post visible here is not the first draft you published. In the first version you get downright personal with someone you've only met for a few hours.

Tags: Debate, attacks, discussion, logic

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Garrick McElroy on April 20, 2010 at 9:30pm

Mention the devoutly catholic Hitler! Mention Hitler! HITLER! Ignore Godwin's Law! MENTION HITLER!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Manuel Santamaria on April 20, 2010 at 11:03pm

The main problem we are having is that this guy won't stop attacking me personally. I have responded to another discussion without any ad hominems, just directly to his logic. I don't think that anything good would come of this exchange unless I share it with the community.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim DePaulo on April 23, 2010 at 5:29pm

I would guess that Hitler was as much a Catholic as I am, in that my Italian grandmother rushed me off to the local parish and had me dunked and baptised Catholic when I was a couple of days old - which was the last official encounter I had with the church. As for his cocaine use so what? Pablo Escobar used coke but that hardly excuses or diminishes his crimes - wealth and power were the reasons for his criminality, cocaine was an indulgence.
However, Hitler did build the Reich like a religious cult with powerful pagan imagery and cult like allegiance. The mass ritual rallies and exaulting of Hitler's persona were acts of worship.
Regardless of his Catholicism, His regime had all the hallmarks of a religious cult and he directed his internal propaganda to the populations religious mindset.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on April 21, 2010 at 4:01am

Useful tips on discussing with theists here.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Turkia on April 21, 2010 at 4:50am

1. Dawkins has nothing to prove (or disprove), it's the man who believes in invisible men who has the burden of proof.
2. Of course science says 'we're working on it'. That's how science is done. Religion says 'god did it' and then fights science every step of the way until it's proven.
3. Things that can be observed and tested prove themselves, it's not a matter of faith. You put your faith in your invisible man and other religions choose theirs, none of you shall ever see your god, you're correct there.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on April 21, 2010 at 5:10am

Both Stalin and Mao were cults of personality, not that much different from the carpenter of Galilee, and both treated their ideology as absolute and inviolable, like said carpenter's followers. Indeed, Mao had his "Little Red Book," which was THE REFERENCE for behavior and conduct. In all three cases, the leadership is autocratic and absolute - variations on a theme are NOT permitted.

Try THAT on for size; see how it fits.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Anker on April 21, 2010 at 1:19pm

Most serial killers are atheists in a very loose sense of the word. >.> They are often unable to understand very abstract complex concepts like religion. Heck, most of them have trouble understanding that other people are alive and can feel pain. Mass murderers aren't quite the same, but many of history's worst mass murders were done in the name of religion.

Mao and Stalin were not the only major mass murderers in modern times, the focus on them is purely for a strawman attack on atheism. They were atheists and bad people, therefore, all atheists are bad people. Then if we do a similar thing about how Christianity is bad - they're not real Christians or not representative of us at all. >.X Fact is, people who crave power will gain it through whatever means necessary. If they need to manipulate religion, they will do so. Look at so many famous evangelists. Betcha half of them don't believe the crap they spew for your money. Mao and Stalin simply reversed it. Instead of using religion to control people directly, they did so indirectly. They attacked religion to create the mass fear needed to control people.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kiru on April 22, 2010 at 6:34pm

Sounds like you have an idiot on your hands. Simply because they have no god they murder as a result of having no god? Certainly hope he's not a therapist.

People like him have no concept of reality. They'll twist the facts to make blue seem more purple. These are mindless followers who hear others talk and quote endlessly, and to fill in the unquoting space they show further ignorance as they try to explain what they've quoted. That whole Mao and Stalin thing I have heard endlessly. It's dumb.

Here's a great argument to use... Judges 11:30-39. A man sacrifices his own daughter to that heartless god of theirs. It's not the Abraham story that gets quoted. In this one, he doesn't intervene. The daughter dies.

Here's a good one. Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, the biblical tail has to be greatly exaggerated. They will try pushing the idea that he is mentioned by many sources. Ask them to give these sources. Every single one was born decades after the supposed crucifixion. They speak of believers in him. Of all the historians there at that time, none mentions a riot in the temple (comparable to a riot in the Vatican of today). None mentions a resurrection or trying to get rid of Christians until decades later. So now get him to provide evidence that he existed. Or I could take him off your hands. I have loads of ammo to use on him, and lately I've been getting bored from all the essays I have to write to finish this darn college degree.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim DePaulo on April 24, 2010 at 6:30pm

As the "Holy" book tells us,
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
(Luke1.26,27)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
(Luke 2.3,4)
The story is nonsense on several levels, first of all, there is no record that the city of Nazareth existed until well into the 2nd century CE. Next is the fact that Galilee was not a Roman province and would have no reason to respond to a Roman census. And finally, there is no record of Augustus or any emperor conducting a census (the Romans taxed property not individuals). So except for those minor issues the story seems acceptable to the deluded.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Anker on April 24, 2010 at 7:54pm

Nor would it make sense to force everyone to retreat to their original cities rather than remaining in the current city.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim DePaulo on April 24, 2010 at 8:39pm

The actual distortion was the reference to Jeebus as "Jesus the Nazarene", which was interpreted as "from Nazareth".
But in fact, the Nazarenes were a break off sect of the Essenes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 25, 2010 at 8:19am

That's highly, highly debatable. Don't pretend like the debate on this is settled or that this is "a fact": it's very much an open question. We have some evidence that there was a a sect that called themselves the Nazarenes (though Jesus had no apparent connection with them), but then again we have some good indications that Jesus did indeed come from Nazareth (the main piece of evidence is how hard the gospel writers try to pretend otherwise: it's hard to believe that they would engage in such awkward reconstructions of evidence to get Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem, if it wasn't well known that he was indeed from Nazareth).

As I said, highly debatable. But IMHO, I think it's rather unlikely.