When watching debates and interviews with atheists i always agree with them. However they tend to say that if you believe in god(s) you are stupid or that religion is "idiotic". Now i certainly agree that religion can be harmful, religious institutions are not always a force for good. But telling someone of faith so bluntly that they are wrong and in such a harsh way, surely that would only distance them from the idea of becoming non-religious or atheist. There are intelligent people who are theist and everyone has had moments in their life were an all knowing, kindly and loving god looks quite appeasing. Maybe instead of insulting them we should show that we understand where they are coming from and that we see their point, and slip in words like "however you must admit that..." or "the evidence is overwhelming..." so that it doesn't seem as though we see ourselves as being on some sort of higher ground. Then maybe they would be more comfortable and more open to new ways of thinking and ideas rather then being angry and constantly being on the defense or attacking.

Views: 826

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The reason their brain goes dormant "when religion is around" is because religion works on an emotional level.  So, religious people tend to learn that any time their emotions come into play, they get to make emotional decisions and then they need to ignore any evidence to the contrary and exploit any evidence (even if it is supposition, and even if they have to twist it around so it's no longer even true) in support of their deluded hypothesis.  They are otherwise "smart" because when emotions are not involved, they can think logically.  But any time emotions are involved, that logical thought process goes right out the window.
I think YEC's are stupid.  But all Christians?  No I don't think so.  Some of them are brilliant but never question their upbringing and justify their beliefs with stupid rationalizations ... like John Lennox.  He really is a sad case. An Oxford mathematician you can find debating Dawkins , Hitchens and Shermer on the existence of God.  There are many others like him as well.
Creationists just annoy me.

Not all YECs are stupid, some are very intelligent!


I dont like John Lennox, he is a bad theologian...


But Dawkins and Hitchens are weak debaters! They are not philosophers! William Craig refutes more of their arguments in a single sentence...



William Craig?  LoL.  You're a funny man Adam.  =)

As in William Lane Craig ?? You gotta joking Adam.

Yes, when it comes to philosophy; he can refute Dawkins, Hitchens etc.

I am not a fan of Lennox his theology is horrible and understanding of Genesis is so psudeo-academical he should be ashamed of what he believes.

Dr Craig is a good philosopher.  

I can't tell if any of them are intelligent for certain because, if they have any intelligence, their insanity masks it.
The problem William lane Craig has got is that he's lost before he even opens his mouth.Bullshit just doesn't stand up.
William Craig is an excellent example of a Christian who is obviously not stupid, but instead is ignorant and wrong. His 'refutations' of Dawkins and Hitchens are based solely on persuasion and not on reason. You are right, he is an excellent debater who is adept at slipping logical fallacies into the debate that often go undetected by the casual listener. Craig is a good debater, but he is a poor philosopher. This stems from the fact that his most fundamental premises are wrong. He clings to these mistakes they lead him to reject fundamental knowledge about how the universe works, and leave him in a state of profound ignorance. Dawkins and Hitchens are far better philosophers, even though their degrees are technically in other subjects. Did you know that every PHD is in fact a philosopher, that it actually stands for 'Doctorate of Philosophy'?

[...] Did you know that every PHD is in fact a philosopher, that it actually stands for 'Doctorate of Philosophy .


talk about weak argument! the reason they're named that way is because any form of research used to be called philosophy, it had nothing to do with today's limited definition of philosophy!

I don't think this is true at all.  I see people with degrees as someone who is able to do homework and remember a bunch of facts and pass some tests.  It says nothing as to if they are intelligent or not.  You also don't need to be a scientist or have a degree to understand what empiricism is.  And why are you calling his followers 'pseudo-atheists'?  I'm a bit confused with about every point you made in your post.  Is it just me?


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service