Autocorrect 2.0 #fundie #dunning-kruger

Autocorrect 2.0 #fundie #dunning-kruger twitter.com

Atheist: Christianity is irrational.

Christian: Why?

A: You believe in the resurrection.

C: Is that a problem?

A: Yes! No one has ever observed a resurrection.

C: I see. So, you have a problem with the idea of an intelligent God restoring life from non-life?

A: Of course!
C: I see. Question: Don't you believe that unintelligent processes created life from non-life?

A: Yes. It's called abiogenesis.

C: Yes, and have you ever observed it?

A: Well, no.

C: And you have no empirical evidence for it, right?

A: Well, no.

C: But you think it's rational?

A: Yes.

Atheism is the ultimate form of cognitive dissonance.

10 comments

I wasn't 100% the second tag fits but thought it did. But OP doesn't understand science

A: Question: Don't you believe that a living deity created life from non-life?

C: Yes. It's called Genesis.

A: Yes, and have you ever observed it?

C: Well, no.

A: And you have no empirical evidence for it, right?

C: Well, no.

A: And you believe that either said deity is not alive, thus creating life from nothing, or is alive, and thus itself came from nothing?

C: Yes.

A: But you think it's irrational that life can come from non-life?

C: Yes.

Creationism is the ultimate form of cognitive dissonance.

“Atheist: Christianity is irrational.
Christian: Why?”
So far, so good.

“A: You believe in the resurrection.
C: Is that a problem?”
Not the biggest problem i see with the Christain story, but okay.

“A: Yes! No one has ever observed a resurrection.
I would surely point out the magic resurrection. Not advanced medical science.

“C: I see. So, you have a problem with the idea of an intelligent God restoring life from non-life?
A: Of course!”
I have a problem with God MAGICALLY restoring the dead to life, yes.

“C: I see. Question: Don't you believe that unintelligent processes created life from non-life?”
Non-magical processes. Not comparable to Goddidit.

“A: Yes. It's called abiogenesis.
C: Yes, and have you ever observed it?”
Don’t have to, if you understand science.

“C: And you have no empirical evidence for it, right?”
This is not true.

“C: But you think it's rational?
A: Yes.”
Yes, it depends on a number of understood qualities of chemistry, and not magic.

“Atheism is the ultimate form of cognitive dissonance.”
Okay, try it again, but with an ACTUAL atheist, not your strawman. G’head. Tell us what happens!

As far as we know, abiogenesis created very simple prokaryotes that are not comparable to today’s lifeforms in terms of complexity. Sure, a hypothetical intelligent God could resurrect a dead person in the blink of an eye (I’m referring to Lazarus here), but that would be far more complex than what abiogenesis managed over hundreds of millions of years.

The Atheist should’ve gone with this as his answer at the beginning:

“CHRISTIANITY: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...”

It would’ve made for a much more interesting exchange, if nothing else. Slipshod strawmen are rarely, if ever, interesting.

No I haven’t observed abiogenesis, but it is impossible not to observe the result - life. Life had to come from somewhere.

Even if it came from a god, the god had to originate from somewhere.

Also, please add #pratt tag.

Oversimplification and distortion for oversimplified and distorted minds.

Let’s say, for the sake of an argument, that this is how anything works or how anyone thinks.

That certainly makes this an unusual position, in that it appears to put Theism and Atheism on equal footing, and no good reason to choose between them - absent any other context or reasoning, anyway. But as this person doesn’t seem to be an agnostic, the deeper, unspoken argument here seems to be “the theist knows they have faith, while the atheist has equal faith but incorrectly believes they do not, therefore the atheist is wrong, therefore God exists.” Which would be a non-sequitur and probably an equivocation¹ as well. Or alternately, they might not really be thinking and just be unconsciously considering Christianity to be a privileged default position.

¹Specifically, treating “wrong” in the sense of “wrong about this one thing” as if it meant “wrong about everything”.

Put that strawman back. The Iron Maiden album cover needs it more than you.

I have a problem with the idea of an intelligent God, full stop. I have never observed it, nor is there any empirical evidence for it.

Prove your particular god exists, then we'll talk.

Autocorrect 2.0 #fundie #dunning-kruger twitter.com

10 comments

Confused?