This is my first serious post on this site, so bare with me if I happen to not quite match up with this sites standards due to a lack grammar or general knowledge.
Of course it is important being able to argue about scientific matters, evolution, big bang theory and other theories. Often I have to realize theists tend to not care about what science tells them but rather what they have been indoctrinated to believe over decades.
Having no real arguments many theists quickly turn a scientific conversation into a discussion about personal believe.
Since none of us is actually able to prove the non-existence of a god, a different approach would be to prove that there is no need for a god based on two things.
1. Question their character for feeling the need to follow simple rules, like not killing or showing respect to other people(which religious people hardly do anyways), only because they fear the wrath of their god. Should morals really be based on fear or rather on respect and common sense?
2. One very interesting question I picked up somewhere in the vast of the internet. If a tribesman lived his life in peace, with respect for others and followed every rule a religion has framed, will this person go to hell simply due to the fact that he never worshiped the theists god? This should also work if you replace the Tribesman with an infant which makes it even more personal for most people.
As this is obviously no Step-by-Step tutorial how to argue with someone I still hope this provides some help or maybe just a little poke to the brain to give some new ideas.
Me being a very funny guy I will end this post with a hilarious joke.
Two hydrogen atoms walk into a bar.
One orders a beer, the other one orders a soda.
So in terms of the tribesman, it is my understanding that on the day of days, even that tribesman will be told the truth and given the chance.
My whole response is, and if I'm wrong, if I go and meet god, I will still give him the finger because he is one immoral and sadistic fuck.
Hello, I am new to this website, so I hope I am doing this properly.
1:"Morals" based on fear are not really "morals". That is like a man saving a woman because he knows she is carrying a-lot of money (and he is looking for a reward). Morals exist as intent, not as actions, because two people performing the same action can have different motives powering their behavior. So someone doing anything out of fear, is not doing it because of their morals, but because of their cowardice.
2:I have encountered this second question a-lot. Theist will often reply to this scenario by saying "everyone, (no matter what) is always given the opportunity to accept Jesus (replace "Jesus" with what-ever other deity you want)" They never explain how an isolated tribesman would get a chance to accept their religion, they will simply state that this will some-how occur (like it's a law of physics). As for the infant, they often say that they are "innocent" and will not be judged by their deity.
This type of theist response have no evidence or reasoning to back them (they are speculation), so they are reletively worthless. If you push this point onto their response to these scenarios, they will most likely become angered (signaling to you, that you have won the discussion). I would not push this too much though, because no matter what, the theist mind will (most-likely) not accept your view point, no matter what.
Yes welcome to TA, and thanks for the response. Also very practical advice. I recall once trying to tell a fundamentalist xtian the jayzus was a jew and the woman had to be restrained by her associates from coming over the table at me. It had not seemed like that intense of a discussion and I had merely mentioned that in passing. It is amazing to me how ignorant many theists are about their beliefs.
I'm new here as well, but you seem to be doing it just right.