So today I had the utmost displeasure of debating with someone with theistic views (although they claimed not to be a theist) about why people believe in "God". There was a forum on this on another site I frequent. This was their response to the question of why people believe in "God".

"People believe because they feel it in their 'soul', God is a part of everyone. People who say they do not believe in God are denying their own feelings and will always relate back to God when they die. Even Darwin did it. Because God has always been here, from the very start of everything which we cannot comprehend. 

God is in everyone from the start. Meaning, from the moment you or anyone was born they already have the feeling in their soul. Not sure if you have the same thing or not, but even before I read the bible and researched in to God I felt something that I could not explain, something that caused me to look up at the sky and think. Yes, you can argue and say this is something else that I experienced. But as I said, I cannot explain it. And no, I was not taking anything, ill or all the other scientific explanations. 

What I am saying that there might not need to be proof for God to exist, I know, it sounds absurd. If he does exist then he or it will beyond any of our comprehension, as they say, people fear what they do not understand, and human beings hate to be controlled and looked down upon. This is why they call God evil and so on. And yes, I know that others think that is not the only reason why they think God is evil. I like to see two sides of the coin. Personally I think the whole world is stuck in too deep about the whole topic and need to calm their tits. 

More like religious extremists think inside the box. Religious people vary greatly, some I would say, as a religious person myself are suck up their own ass while some are extremely opened minded. 

Yes, some of that is flawed, but I cannot her to argue, I’ve had enough of that simple minded bullshit in my life. I just want to see what other people say. 

Also, fuck facts. Think outside the box."

I went on to explain to them that just because someone "feels" something, doesn't mean it should automatically be attributed to a god or supernatural being - and that a lot of what we feel and see is a result of more physiological processes than anything. Also that many people aren't "denying" feelings if they aren't currently having them. Additionally, I suggested that if religious extremists are adhering to the fundamentals of a certain religion, then maybe there is something that has to be addressed within the religion itself.

As you could probably imagine, this did not go over well and I got attacked by the poster and their "friend" over a ridiculous amount of back & forth that I'm ashamed I got so interested in being involved in. *rolls eyes extremely hard*

Anyway, what I came to ask is - what would your response be to this poster?

Views: 2556

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Just how impossible does something have to be before you won't believe it?

It has never been proven that Zeus doesn't exist, but he has few followers now.

I like that!

-- Sir Arthur C. Clarke --

The poster makes a classic argument from ignorance , and an extremely poor one at that. He or she has also put anyone who responds to their touchy freely drivel , on notice that facts are worthless to them . ( As the great Christopher Hitchens observed, "Religion exists because our prefrontal lobes are too small , and our adrenal glands too big ". ) This poster will believe in whatever delusion he or she wishes , and refuses outright to be disabused from it . Best not to engage , this person is looking to proselytize , not debate .

Yeah, pretty much a waste of time trying to reason with them. The irony of it is, *I* was the one that was called ignorant, stupid, and unable to weigh two sides of an argument even though I mentioned and elaborated on my understanding of why people believe in gods. SMH.

That's because when someone, very common with theists, is losing an argument, they rely on the tried and true debate tactic of insulting your opponent. It causes you to either falter in your argument, get sidetracked, or get annoyed and give up.

Thus declaring themselves the winners. Because, as you know, a winner in a debate is decided by who stops talking first, and who shouts louder.

Oliver Sacks has made something of a side career out of researching this:

Thanks, I'll check it out!

Easy.... They need someone to blame but themselves, also need an excuse for violence. 

I would start with the matter of fact statements all over and say, "You can state whatever random declarations you like, but give me a reason they are true."


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service