It is also important to note that from the non Christian worldview, it is also inconsistent for the atheist to reason that he should not argue with Christians.
What we’re arguing here is not that he is inconsistent in arguing simply because he doesn’t believe, but rather that he cannot account for the argument taking place from his own standing point.
Likewise, his decision not to debate the Christian is inconsistent, because his worldview still doesn’t account for his reasoning.
48 comments
So basically you're saying that ...
A. There are two possible courses of action, X and Y
I find this to be a rather inconsistent argument right there!
(Gabriel LaVedier)
*shrugs* Maybe they're Schrödinger's Verses.
Do as I say, not as I do, and never analyze either too closely because I'm always right and you're a moron.
Yeah, real consistent there.
Standard presup boilerplate "non-believers have nothing to base their worldview upon" statement. I guess when you can't justify the existence of the Godbeing you really, really wish to be true, it's time to circle the wagons and declare everyone not in your tribe an enemy.
Let's see if I can get this right.
The atheist should argue with Christians.
Seriously. What?
On the ther hand, the Christian Theist is justified in either the decision to present an argument against non-belief, or to decide not to present such an argument, because he has a worldview which can account for either decision:
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
Are you trying to bork my brain or something?
"...but rather that he cannot account for the argument taking place from his own standing point."
There is plenty of evidence in your own Bible to support the premise that Jehovamagod is as made up as Santa Claus. This evidence is of course subject to interpretation, and the usual excuses provided by the delusional believer. Unscrupulous people and pathological liars perpetuate this belief system for personal enrichment for which they are also occasionally in denial. This is a sick system perpetuating the human equivalent of a computer virus, and it retards the advancement of the entire Human Race.
I find that to be sufficient motivation for argument without even using the words, "superstitious nonsense."
In other words, you will not shovel your bullshit unchallenged, no matter how much that annoys you.
You were saying? Feel free to insert smug platitude instead of direct rebuttal. We're all quite used to that.
I've read this over and over again, and it never ceases to not make sense.
Also I'm not surprised that the bible can't go *one verse* without contradicting itself.
LAchlan
I is it just me or does this actually make no sense whatsoever?
What I think he thinks he's trying to say is this:
Because a Christian theist has a worldview which can account for either choosing to debate or choosing not to debate, he can justify either choice.
An atheist, on the other hand (supposedly) does not have a worldview which can account for either debating or not debating.
Those are his conclusions, at least. How he got to them, I have no idea.
> #1513683
No, I think it should be parsed as "Don't answer to the fools, instead, be dicks toward them." Or at least that's how fundies heavily imply it should be parsed as.
Why an atheist would argue with a theist:
Theistic beliefs and principles are a major component of western, especially U.S., culture. Many feel that they intrude in places they shouldn't, such as educational syllabi, obtaining certain medical procedures, marriage, etc. Atheists wish to eliminate this intrusion, and some feel that undermining theists' arguments will help accomplish that goal. Convincing more theists to become atheists would also swing power to the atheists' side over time.
Why an atheist wouldn't argue with a theist:
I don't think I'm ever going to convince person X that their belief is misguided. What they do in their own time, if it's not harming someone physically or emotionally, and is not infringing on anyone else's rights, is not really my business.
I don't see how either scenario is inconsistent with a disbelief in a deity.
A fool, someone who thinks an invisible hairless sky ape wants him to act like a senseless jerk, blusters desperately on the internet hoping to convince himself that he isn't a fool. Ends up looking like a numpty. From that we can infer that the numpty's stupidity is caused by indoctrination and gullibility.
It is also important to note that from the Christian worldview, it is possible, through miraculous divine intervention, to be struck squarely by a piano falling from great height and come to no harm. It is also possible to drink poison or be shot in the face by a shotgun and suffer no ill effect.
Oh wait, that's a cartoon... Oh wait! ....
"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know." - Groucho Marx
So when an atheist refuses to argue against Christians because they see the futility of arguing against fallacious and strawman arguments, they're just chickening out, but when Christians refuse to argue against atheists because they can't refute their arguments, then that's their prerogative?
From personal experience, I know that most of the time trying to argue with a fundie Christian (or any stripe of Fundie, to be honest) is a complete waste of time since the Fundie just doesn't fucking listen...
Ooops... I just accounted for the fucking reasoning.
Weeell.., I think most atheists, who entertain an argument with an chrissy, will be content with 'accounting for the argument taking place' along the lines of: "Look, what you're saying is totally unsubstantiated and you're not providing a shred of evidence for it. I'm suggesting you're wrong"
But surely if I am always acting inconsistently, then I am being consistently inconsistent?
But if I am consistent in my inconsistency, then my inconsistency is not consistent, therefore even my inconsistency is inconsistent. Making me consistently inconsistent again.
so what is this all encompassing atheist worldview that applies to all all non-Christians?
what I'm wondering here is if you can use syntax correctly to get a point across.
on the other hand, declaring that you don't need to justify your beliefs just because you think your opponent can't win is a dumb way of being a coward.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
