I know this might not come as a shock to many here but, I thought I would share it anyway. I have been operating as an Atheist with the understanding that ALL people have the ability to drop the shackles of their belief system. I thought they where just misguided. I felt if a person was provided enough evidence to totally dismantle their belief in a positive discussion with NO aggression they would drop it and start thinking for themselves. Well.....I was wrong.

I actually have a court date now because of it. The guy actually tried to beat me up after I proved him wrong on every point he tried to make and he was unable to answer even ONE of my questions. They funny thing is that it was almost 4 hours later when he attempted to assault me. I'm not mad at the guy I just really don't understand.

I didn't even ask for the debate. I was at work. He came to me asking questions about god, satan, ghosts, even aliens. I simply answered them. While the conversation was taking place every other employee including management got involved and started asking me questions. Mind you, I live in the bible belt. For someone to say the things I am saying is unheard of.

He was not the only one to try to "stump the Atheist." The others asked questions as well. After the conversation was over two people had changed their minds! YAY ATHEISM!! I think about 8 have really strong doubts about their religion but aren't ready to take that leap. But the one guy just walked off quietly. Didn't say a word about it the rest of the day. He talked to me like normal for the rest of the work day.

When we got off he waited for me in the parking lot. He approached me and asked if I thought it was funny to bring his coworkers to hell with me. I was about to respond when he swung at me. I was trained by the military so the altercation didn't last long. I called an ambulance to come pick him up and stayed to speak to the police department. Now I'm going to court. WTF?!?!?!? lol Oh well, I live by a saying I learned in the Army. Stand for something or fall for anything.

The Update for easier reading.....



Ok so here's what happened. I know I kinda spoiled it but, I knew a lot of you where on the edge of you seat trying wanting to know how the courts would deal with it. Basically the judge told him "EVEN THOUGH this man doesn't believe in Christ he was able to act with more morality than you are even capable of understanding. You are a menace and uncontrollable. Your actions have put a bad name not only on yourself but, on all people who believe as you do. You ought to be ashamed and I hope when you go to your probation violation hearing the state picks this case up and runs with it to the fullest extent of the law."

You like that? "EVEN THOUGH"?? As if we are incapable of being moral by the "Christian" standard. In my opinion he acted better than Christians did during the Inquisition. He addressed me "Mr. 'A' (I don't wanna use my real last name) I apologize for this inconvenience and the court will not take any more of your time. You are free to leave unless you have anything to add?" So I calmly said "Your honor, the only thing that I would ask is that you put yourself in his position. The man lost his job, the use of his arm, his pride, and now quite possibly his freedom. I understand he broke the law...however I broke his arm. I know this is not a carnal society as in the days of the Inquisition (yes I said it) but I feel like he has had his punishment. The only thing I would like to stress to this court is that we Atheists DO have morality however, to our advantage, it's NOT God given. Therefore we can and DO alter it to fit the situation. This man only acted as every Christian in the past acted when their beliefs where put through the scrutiny of science. I don't fault him. I fault society. That is all I have to say."

At this, the judge recommended some ridiculously large amount of community service and that he write a formal apology which I declined to accept. I signed a form before I left the court that said he apologized and left it at that.

Now Bring on the Church debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The later update.....


First and foremost I wanna thank EVERYONE for the support. You guys are still AMAZING!!!!!!!

I spoke with the pastor today. He claims that it's just standard b.s. He said that we wants an open format and to allow audience questions. I asked him what kind of "standard" b.s. he was referring to. His response was "oh, you know things like no cussing and the like." I told him we could just go on good faith that I would refrain from things like that to which he said "I thought Atheists had NO faith?" Good point. He laughed and I told him that he would have to make sure to give me this arrangement no later than Wednesday seeing as he wants me at church on Sunday. He agreed that he would have it done earlier than that. I asked him who I would be debating and he said that he had MANY volunteers but, was "told by God" he should be the one to do it......the phrase "Why hast thou forsaken me?" came to mind but, I resisted the urge.

Views: 351

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

>>The bible in fact is very much in favor of beating your children.

Correct:

Proverbs 13:24 – “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.”


Proverbs 23:13-14

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."
Gotta love the child abusers
I've had devout theists debate the finer points of whether or nor 'rod' in hebrew really meant 'a whip' and this would make it okay and not a totally abhorrent form of capital punishment / abuse of a child by a senior authority figure with a weapon etc...


I'd say the predominant emotion was one a hatred.
Agreed...i wonder if they had smaller "areas"....you know? The whole napoleon complex?
The thing that amazes me - still - is that if you can marshal your facts and stand your ground and point out to them what they are defending is child abuse, they look at you aghast, deny point blank that hitting a child with an object is abuse, and then resort to arguing that scripture obligates no such thing but parents according to scripture have a moral duty to bring their children up well (by whipping them???)


Head --> Wall , and repeat....
>>i wonder if they had smaller "areas".

frontal cortex's you mean? ;-)

I suppose it's possible. 8-) Take a tape measure with you on Sunday, say you are conducting an anthropological study in Phrenology and measure all their heads.
LMAO
lol yes well that is why I have been trying to show these people what is in their book. I actually carry a kjv and niv just to show it to them so they can read it themselves. When I get the anger response I KNOW I got to them. So I back off. I let them sulk in the reality that is life and wait for them to come back to me. They almost always do eventually. This time more open minded and ready to listen. Nobody did it with me. It really upset me. I wished someone ANYONE would have told me....I felt like such a douche. So now I'm trying to show others so they don't feel that way
Actually, there is a good apologetic to this verse. The 'rod' can be a sheperd's rod, meaning that if you don't guide your children, you spoil them. I've heard that point argued before, and of course I don't think that's what the verse actually means, but it defeats the 'the bible tells you to beat your children argument' if you use that verse.
Proverbs 23:13-14

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

This is a much better verse to use :)
I have had this argument before with an educated thiest. His explanation was archipelago. Before the flood the continents where all one. This was how Noah got 2 of every animal ON the boat.

I query the definition of "educated" in the case. Sounds like someone who read a book without engaging the pink wobbly thing in their skulls. Also it was 2, but sometimes it was 7. another example of read the bible. That however, doesn't solve the problem. True it gets round having to cross oceans but how did for instance the tree-dwelling sloth of africa, make it in time to not get wet swinging through the world spanning forests? or account for archipelegos which are clearly volcanic and emerge from the sea floor - nothing whatsoever to do with continents (and also as it happens unhelpfully often a long way from the mainland?)

Now it just so happens that at some point in the distant past, all the continents were joined up (and probably one day will be again) but millions and millions of years ago - South Africa used to be at the South Pole - there's geological evidence of massive glaciation for example. But the length of time continental drift takes means he probably doesn't accept millions and millions as being when the flood happened so he can't on the one hand make an appeal to science if that's was the game, (science agrees with me) and cherry pick a detail like that to bolster his case.

His explanation for how they got to certain continents after the flood was humans traveling the ocean carried them there.

Was he serious? Humans carried all the species of fruit fly to the different Hawaiian islands, organised the saddle back turtles on the cactus covered volcano in Galapagos? That's an appeal to design and human agency.

In certain instances the animals where unable to live in certain regions and died off. In others they survived and multiplied.
but lemme guess survived just enough to adapt and evolve better than the other guy was theortica non grata?


He also pointed to the MANY other stories of the great flood in other cultures. There really are alot of them. I had to give him that.
I'd have had him at that point, stepping outside of scripture to try to justify it. *deep breath* the cad. ;-)

The tales of floods in other cultures is quite true, The epics of Gilgamesh of Babylonia for example, and the commonality is interesting ad suggestive that some water-related catastrophe was at least currency in the fiction authors of the day but doesn't mean it actually happened and certainly not as described (the act of vengeful god and the big boat) why does that make his story more plausible?

There's some speculation, that the expansion of the Black Sea may have been responsible but that's a naturalistic explanation for a local event, not a global flood by a supernatural entity however you dress it up.


Of course the evidence points the opposite direction when you look at carbon dating, tree rings, ice/glaciers, the Earth's layers, fossils, etc etc BUT he was able to give an explanation that kept him happy.

A convenient fiction. That's the point about evidence and science in particular - it is not our best shield to continue believing whatever we like but our best defence against believing whatever we like. Evidence challenges what we believe, and has to be considered in it's totality, not because we happen to like one bit and can shoe-horn it into our pre-existent beliefs that's lazy at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.


There are all sorts of other questions that he was not able to answer. Like if the animals where transported by ship then why did one half of the world not know about the other half till 1492? He replied the Vikings knew long before Columbus but I couldn't see a Viking taking Koala's to Australia personally. Also the morality of it was a no comment.

Re: Vikings and Columbus. I call: Argument by Non Sequitur.
Ballsy. Stupid by Ballsy. What has THAT got to do with anything related to biological diversity?
LOL you sound like me going after their ass! I love this shit! Yeah I made some of those points as well. Not all but some. You sound like you really get in to this yourself!

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service