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 Jim DePaulo on April 25, 2010 at 9:31am

That still leaves the question, that Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province so there was no reason to comply with a Roman directive. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, there is no record of a ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 25, 2010 at 10:14am

That's just the point. The census story (which is in Matt and Luke, if I'm not mistaken) is completely made up, not just because we have no record of it, but also because Galilee wouldn't have been part of imperial territory, and because no census involved someone returning to "the place of birth of their ancestors", as Joseph and Mary have to do.
It's a badly made-up story designed to get the Messiah from Nazareth to Bethlehem so Jesus can conform with the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.

The real question is: why do the gospel authors bother with the story in the first place? Why do they say that Jesus' parents were from Nazareth? Why didn't they just say Mary and Joseph were from Bethlehem and have Jesus born right there?
Probably because it was well known that this wasn't the case, and so they had to construct an elaborate and awkward justification how Jesus could at the same time be from Nazareth (which was well known, apparently) yet also be born in Bethlehem.

That's exactly one of the strongest elements for the authenticity of Nazareth: the embaressment of Christians.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Abnormal on April 23, 2010 at 8:10pm

I'd argue that Mao, Stalin, and Hitler committed the atrocities they committed in the name of their countries. It was not in the name of Christianity or atheism. The Great Leap Forward, Great Purge, Third Reich were all acts that cost many people their lives but they weren't linked to any theosophic ideas or any atheistic ideas.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JD on April 23, 2010 at 9:33pm

Don't forget about the implied ad baculum (Argument from Force) when he says that God will "judge you". That's yet another logical fallacy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fan of OHair on April 24, 2010 at 5:26pm

Stalin and Mao or any a-hole killing machine did not have to contend w/the internet

meaning subject matter in debate becomes too historical rather than 2010 baby!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 25, 2010 at 8:29am

Sam Harris - but Hitchens too, in a way - has a great come-back to the whole "communism and nazism murdered many people", basically pointing out that the problem in these societies was not their lack of religion, but that their political beliefs were too much like religions. People were expected to have unquestioning faith in their leader, they were lulled into sleep with promises of utopia, they announced miracles, etcetera.

It really turns everything around.

As for Hitler, his religious beliefs are the subject of much debate. We have good evidence to suggest that he was not a Christian, though he did pretend to be one in public. We also have good evidence to suggest that he was not an atheist however: during his whole life he mentioned concepts like "the holy providence" and we have no reason to assume that this was an act. He was a theist of some kind.
In addition, when he explains his ideas about genetics (and the superiority of the Aryan race) in Mein Kampf, he does not mention evolution for a second (which in itself doesn't mean anything) but he does mention Biblical terminology like "kinds". His race philosophy was very much influenced by this (Biblical) creationism. In short Hitler seems to have believed in a theist God who was responsible for our creation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Manuel Santamaria on April 25, 2010 at 5:04pm

Thanks so much for your responses! I have learned many new things about the subject and have also seen some of my own thoughts echoed on the discussion.
I am about to make a summary of your responses and add some of my own comments to send to him. Does anyone would mind if i quote your statements or would like to remain anonymous? Please let me know.