Thursday, 4 December 2008

Atheist how to guide

If youve not seen this then it is a quite helpful resource. Its basically a how to guide on debunking christianity. If youre new to debating xians then simply follow the guide and youll be winning debates straigt away.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe you should do a poll.

How many readers of you blog are:

Christian
Deist
Agnostic
Atheist
etc.

I do not think you have many fledgling atheists stopping by your blog for how to tips.

I think the majority of your readers are Christians who only visit to help you see the foolishness of your arguments.

As for winning debates I do not recall you actually winning any. I recall you claiming you won, but I do not think anyone has believed or verified that claim except Fifi.

Mike is Wright said...

Having seen the problems John Loftus is having with putting polls on his blog I don't think I'll bother.

Anonymous said...

I will have to take a look at his problems. They should be good for a laugh. You already have a poll on your blog, albeit illogical. Why not put an actual poll up where you can learn the actual demographics of your readers. The poll you currently have is a poll in name only. Your poll's goal is not to gather information it is merely your attempt to make a backhanded slap at Christians. Your continual childish behavior will not garner you any friends. I think it is a testament to the Christians who visit your blog that they have not abused you more than they have.

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

Sorry none of this helps debunk Christianity:

"Ask Christians to explain how it is we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Christians believe that God created Adam from dust and then created Eve from Adam's rib. According to Christians, the two of them hooked up and had two kids: both male. So, unless Eve was doing it with Cain or Able (or both of them), which breaks at least two commandments, there wasn't any procreatin' going on in the Garden of Eden. Ergo, we are not all descendants of Adam and Eve, and this debunks a central tenet of Christianity."

A little reading would have helped a lot here:

"adam lived 800 years after the birth of seth and he FATHER SONS AND DAUGHTERS"-Genesis 5:4(emphasis mine)

according to tradition cain and seth married their sisters. This wasnt a sin at the time because Adam and Eve were created perfect and incest didnt creat all the problems it does today.

But even if the tradidtion is wrong, it still doesnt debunk Christianity since belief in a literal Adam and Eve is not a cfentral tenet of Christianity. There are Christians who dont take the first few chapeters of Genesis literally.

"Take a homological approach to debunking Christianity. Homological theory states that related organisms will share similarities. Archaeologists, biologists and genome scientists have all proven that humans share homologous traits with chimpanzees. So yes, we are all descendants of fruit-eating bipeds. Just not Adam and Eve. "

Or we look similar because God created us that way. I have nothing against evolution, but I do have a serious problem with bad arguments.

"Use semantics to debunk Christianity. Merriam-Webster defines "faith" as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. "

Too bad teh Bible doesnt define it that way.

"Ask the Christians you know to prove God exists. When you use semantics to debunk Christianity, don't try to argue that Christ didn't exist. Biblical archaeologists and historians have pretty much sewn that one up. Christ was, it seems, real. But was he the son of God? Does God even exist? Ask your Christian friends to prove either is true. Doing so is empirically impossible. "

I'm glad to hear that he doesnt accept the Christ-myth. ALthough I'd say its possible to prove both of those. Though I dont really feel like posting the arguments for Gods existance or Jesus's ressurection here.

"Play the history card to debunk Christianity. There is ample evidence that many Christian holidays, especially Christmas, began as secular or pagan celebrations of everything from winter solstice to Saturn. The Bible never cites the actual date of Christ's birth. In fact, in the early days of Christianity, Christ's birth wasn't even celebrated. It wasn't until the fourth century that early Christian leaders decided to observe Christ's birth, and they chose December 25 to coincide with the culmination of winter solstice celebrations and the pagan celebration called Saturnalia. December 25 is the arbitrary date of Christ's birth."

This all true, but it debunks Christianity....how?

CodewordConduit said...

Imagine growing up in Adam and Eve's family.

Adam: Son, meet your baby sister.

Seth: Wow she's so small and tiny. I'm going to protect her, and help her to learn and grow.

Adam: Yes son, you will. And then one day you will fuck her.

Eve: (nods)

So apparently man in God's image screws his family. God's such a perv. No wonder all the evidence points to Jesus being a paedophile. And if anyone defends his actions, I'd say it pretty much proves that they're a secret paedophile.

Seriously though, if it's just genetics that means you can't screw your brother or sister, would it technically be okay for a Christian man to marry his sterile sister and have loads of sex with her?

Seeing as incest isn't a sin, except for the fact that it causes birth defects.

No possibility of birth defects = no sin.

johnny said...

CodewordConduit said, Seriously though, if it's just genetics that means you can't screw your brother or sister, would it technically be okay for a Christian man to marry his sterile sister and have loads of sex with her?

Seeing as incest isn't a sin, except for the fact that it causes birth defects.

No possibility of birth defects = no sin."


If you had taken the time to read Sir-Think-A-Lot's post more carefully, you might have noticed that he said "This wasnt a sin at the time because Adam and Eve were created perfect and incest didnt creat all the problems it does today."

The commandments against sexual immorality had not yet been given at that time.

johnny

CodewordConduit said...

Johnny, thank you, I can read.

"The commandments against sexual immorality had not yet been given at that time."

This is a poor argument.

God flooded the Earth after women started sleeping with the Nephilim. (This was not the only sin, but it was clearly marked as being "sinful behaviour".) (Gen 6:1-4)

One would think that if a world was sinful enough to allow women to bear the children of demons, it would probably be sinful enough to allow for birth defects.

Later we see Sodom and Gommorah purged for their iniquities. (Gen 19)

Onan is struck down dead for coitus interruptus, and in doing so refusing to provide his brother's widow with a child. (Gen 38:8-10)

I think you will agree that these are all noted circumstances of some sort of "sexual sin", before the Law clearly defined "sexual sin".

We find that in Genesis; sexual relations with fallen angels, homosexuality and coitus interruptus are punishable by death.

If, as you seem to be arguing, the Law did not exist to define sexual sin; what justification did God have for punishing people?

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

"God flooded the Earth after women started sleeping with the Nephilim. (This was not the only sin, but it was clearly marked as being "sinful behaviour".) (Gen 6:1-4)

One would think that if a world was sinful enough to allow women to bear the children of demons, it would probably be sinful enough to allow for birth defects."

True enough about the women sleeping with deamons. However I would point out that the issue wasnt how sinful the world is, but the decay of our dna as we generations passed from Adam and Eve(who were created perfect).

"Later we see Sodom and Gommorah purged for their iniquities. (Gen 19)"

Although(as skeptics are quick to point out) Sodom and Gommorah's sins wernt limited to homosexuality, or even sexual sin in general. Although it was almost certainly one of the things they were punished for.

"Onan is struck down dead for coitus interruptus, and in doing so refusing to provide his brother's widow with a child. (Gen 38:8-10)"

er I'm not sure if this qualifies as sexual sin. since the issue isnt who Onan is having sex with, but the fact that he's refusing to do his duty for his recently departed brother in law and helping him carry his name into the next generation. I think we'd have seen him punished the same if he'd simply refused to have sex with her.

CodewordConduit said...

The point I was making was that certain behaviours were deemed unacceptable to God before the historical period in which Leviticus was penned.

Therefore to say that incest was acceptable because we are only told in Leviticus that it's wrong is a weak argument.

Incest was taboo throughout (post-flood) Genesis. When Lot's daughters slept with him, they plotted to get him drunk first. The scripture also points out that Lot was not aware of it happening. Abraham twice lied and said that Sarah was his sister, not his wife, in order to protect himself from Abimelech and (much earlier) the Pharoah. If incest was commonplace - or not taboo - then Abraham's ruse would have made very little sense.

Saying "she is my sister" clearly meant "she is not my wife".

I think that "DNA decay" is a postulation at best and a vague theological guessing game at worst. Unless I am wrong and there is some sort of evidence for DNA decay out there?

CodewordConduit said...

Coitus interruptus is treated as a sexual sin by the Catholic Church. So yes, it can be classified as a sexual sin.

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

Not being Catholic, I couldnt care less how the Vatican treats issues.

CodewordConduit said...

Then we share some common ground.

I just went a little further and rejected all of the other denominations.

How you feel about Catholics is how I feel about all faith.

But we're in agreement that Catholics are wrong... aces!

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

Is this another variation of the 'we're both athiests I just disbelieve in one more god than you?'

Anonymous said...

why does it seem like every female atheist I have ever encountered or even heard of was an incredibly shallow thinker?

CodewordConduit said...

@ Sir Think a Lot.

No not at all.

Just an idle observation.

CodewordConduit said...

@ Mr Anonymous

You tell me. They're your thoughts, in your head. What a strange question to ask.

Feel free by the way to actually contribute to the discussion. With your thoughts on display, we will at least have a reliable yardstick by which to measure your cognitive process which leads to your

"female atheists are shallow thinkers"

proposition.

Anonymous said...

Just recounting my past experiences

and your response to sir-think-alot IS a "one less God than you" response. How the hell did Richard Dawkins manage to make that phrase so popular? maybe because its all of the sudden sexy to be a pseudo-skeptic

CodewordConduit said...

"Just recounting my past experiences

and your response to sir-think-alot IS a "one less God than you" response. How the hell did Richard Dawkins manage to make that phrase so popular? maybe because its all of the sudden sexy to be a pseudo-skeptic"

Yes. Let's examine the facts.

Sir Think a Lot - believes in 1 God

I beleive in - zero gods

The statement is mathematically true. Observe:

1-1=0

Your criticism of this very simple mathematical sum baffles me.

Richard Dawkins made the phrase popular because he has access to a wide audience, many of whom agreed that 1-1=0

If you think that pseudo-skepticism is sexy, that's your thing mate.

Seing as maths makes you unexplainably angry, and fake skeptics turn you on for some reason; I am inclined to think that your definition of "shallow" is equally bizarre and of no consequence to anyone but yourself.

Chaotic Void said...

*Yawn* Mikey, this sort of thing is getting kinda boring...

At least that nutcase Graeme_Jones2 had an original argument. Your arguments are the same old rancid crap vomited up and whipped into a casserole then served with slightly chilled piss-poor writing skills.

[And if you aren't a parody, you really should set up a poll like the first guy said.]

CodewordConduit said...

Mike's stuff is hilarious. You leave him be sonny jim :)

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

"@ Sir Think a Lot.

No not at all.

Just an idle observation."

Good cause I was gonna have to smack you around for pulling THAT canard again.

"Yes. Let's examine the facts.

Sir Think a Lot - believes in 1 God

I beleive in - zero gods

The statement is mathematically true. Observe:

1-1=0

Your criticism of this very simple mathematical sum baffles me.

Richard Dawkins made the phrase popular because he has access to a wide audience, many of whom agreed that 1-1=0

If you think that pseudo-skepticism is sexy, that's your thing mate."

Yes and you've just completely ignored the point Dawkins was trying to make.

Actually scratch that, he didnt have a point. Rather he was trying to win a cheap semantic victory for atheism, which isnt even a victroy at all.

CodewordConduit said...

Sir Think a Lot:

Okay I'm not going to defend it, I didn't even see a point in the observation, certainly not an argument. It doesn't exactly challenge anything.

Explain DNA decay.

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

"Okay I'm not going to defend it, I didn't even see a point in the observation, certainly not an argument. It doesn't exactly challenge anything."

Then why'd you make it?

CodewordConduit said...

As a lighthearted attempt to establish some common ground;

"Oh our opinions and worldviews are very different, but as is the case with many, our complete disregard of the superstitious nonesense that is the Catholic faith has united us briefly, for one glorious moment in time."

Forget about it OK?

johnny said...

CodewordConduit,

I've given your post to me some thought. I have to admit that to a point, you had me stumped. But if we back up a bit further, we are told that Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The only way incest would have been evil, before there was a command against it, would have been from evil intent. We are told that in the days of Noah (before the flood), they had been marrying and giving in marriage. Marriage is not evil, but the action can be wrong because of wrongful intent.
Depending on intention, rightful actions can be for the wrong reasons, and wrongful actions can be done with the best of intentions.

Also, your first post had mentioned a question regarding Christian's and sterile siblings..
At this point it would be wrong because it is after a Command against close relations, and against adultery (and since it is illegal in the U.S., and i assume the U.K., to marry one's sibling, any sex between the two would be against both Commands).

johnny