Chelmsford Cancer Charity Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Which should it be Atheists vs Theists or Theists vs Atheists ?
15 Answers
There is a difference because it is the first one in each case which leads the attack and the second one, the defendant is presumed innocent and doesn't have to prove anything if they choose not to .
Leading Atheists like Richard Dawkins never really attack they ignore what's in the Bible but instead explain as a separate issue how they see the world . Darwin did the same.
We all know in a court of law the first and major part of a barristers technique is to discredit the opposition but I've never heard a leading Atheist do that.
e.g The biblical story of the Creation and Noah's Flood is so full of nonsense that today it would be laughed out of court. Any atheist could take it apart bit by bit but they don't . They seem to think common sense , logic, and science will be enough . It's not where blind faith is concerned . You have to discredit the myths first then prove your case.
Leading Atheists like Richard Dawkins never really attack they ignore what's in the Bible but instead explain as a separate issue how they see the world . Darwin did the same.
We all know in a court of law the first and major part of a barristers technique is to discredit the opposition but I've never heard a leading Atheist do that.
e.g The biblical story of the Creation and Noah's Flood is so full of nonsense that today it would be laughed out of court. Any atheist could take it apart bit by bit but they don't . They seem to think common sense , logic, and science will be enough . It's not where blind faith is concerned . You have to discredit the myths first then prove your case.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Which should it be Atheists vs Theists or Theists vs Atheists ?//
Neither. Any criticism should be aimed squarely at the opposing philosophy - not at the person holding that philosophy - and therefore Atheism versus Theism (or vice versa) should be the basis of any such debate or hypotheical court hearing. Unfortunately, faced with reasoned dissection of the myth, the religious find it impossible to defend their position, which is why we never see a rational argument from any of them on here.
Incidentally, Richard Dawkins doesn’t ignore the bible, neither does Sam Harris - and Christopher Hitchens certainly didn’t.
Neither. Any criticism should be aimed squarely at the opposing philosophy - not at the person holding that philosophy - and therefore Atheism versus Theism (or vice versa) should be the basis of any such debate or hypotheical court hearing. Unfortunately, faced with reasoned dissection of the myth, the religious find it impossible to defend their position, which is why we never see a rational argument from any of them on here.
Incidentally, Richard Dawkins doesn’t ignore the bible, neither does Sam Harris - and Christopher Hitchens certainly didn’t.
Modeller, its not really an argument to be won per se, is it?
I have always said I will turn to religion when a big hand appears from the sky and writes the name of a religion on the ground, until then nothing could make me walk the religious path.
The only thing I and other Athiests can do is make a critical and hopefully reasoned argument and hope that an epiphany strikes :-)
The rise in attacks rather than argument from religion, is that they see it all sliding away and it isn't any argument by us thats doing it. Its self education the vistas for even the most blinkered streach around the planet and sooner or later logic has to kick in.
It isn't a coincidence that the religious stranglehold remains in, with one or two exception, places where technology is poor.
I have always said I will turn to religion when a big hand appears from the sky and writes the name of a religion on the ground, until then nothing could make me walk the religious path.
The only thing I and other Athiests can do is make a critical and hopefully reasoned argument and hope that an epiphany strikes :-)
The rise in attacks rather than argument from religion, is that they see it all sliding away and it isn't any argument by us thats doing it. Its self education the vistas for even the most blinkered streach around the planet and sooner or later logic has to kick in.
It isn't a coincidence that the religious stranglehold remains in, with one or two exception, places where technology is poor.
I enjoyed the video Naomi but he looked at it in a scientific way and didn't debunk the story at ground level , which is required when talking to the joe public.
e.g.
1. To hold 2 of all the animals in the world would require thousands of ships and he built one.
2. How did they separate all the predators from their prey.
3. Where did they store the thousands of tons of food and water.
4. How did Noah and his family have time to feed and water thousands of animals every day.
5. What goes in must come out, so how would that tiny family dispose of several thousand tons of dung each day.
6. Zoos all over the world employs thousands of employees Noah managed with 6.
7. The world was covered to a depth of over 6 miles in order to cover every mountain top.
8 . It remained like that for almost a year killing every living thing plants and animals.
9. At the end of that a dove was released and came back carrying an olive branch . Now that was some miracle . An olive tree that had been growing under 6 miles of water for 12 months.
10 . They landed on top of Mount Ararat and all the animals were released into a dead world, nothing was living, nothing to eat, only that subterranean olive tree.. Not even a blade of grass .
A talk like that would illustrate the farce far more than all that talk on marsupials . Half the population wouldn't even know what they were.
e.g.
1. To hold 2 of all the animals in the world would require thousands of ships and he built one.
2. How did they separate all the predators from their prey.
3. Where did they store the thousands of tons of food and water.
4. How did Noah and his family have time to feed and water thousands of animals every day.
5. What goes in must come out, so how would that tiny family dispose of several thousand tons of dung each day.
6. Zoos all over the world employs thousands of employees Noah managed with 6.
7. The world was covered to a depth of over 6 miles in order to cover every mountain top.
8 . It remained like that for almost a year killing every living thing plants and animals.
9. At the end of that a dove was released and came back carrying an olive branch . Now that was some miracle . An olive tree that had been growing under 6 miles of water for 12 months.
10 . They landed on top of Mount Ararat and all the animals were released into a dead world, nothing was living, nothing to eat, only that subterranean olive tree.. Not even a blade of grass .
A talk like that would illustrate the farce far more than all that talk on marsupials . Half the population wouldn't even know what they were.
Modeller, I know what you're saying, and I agree your questions are very relevant, but I didn't think that was beyond 'Joe Public'. Perhaps I give him more credit than he warrants. Maybe you'll get some feedback on them here, although I suspect the faithful - if they respond at all - will come up with answers similar to that given by OG. What other answer can they give to such rational questions?
#Hello Modeller - do you still hate me ? ;-) #
Never did, only your inability to use English . Glad to see you back .
Naomi your video illustrates my point instead of him taking apart the whole silly story, as a barrister would , he talks about what happened to the ecological distribution of some least known animals afterwards.
Wildwood The problem facing theists is the moment they accept one myth as nonsense it puts all the rest into doubt.
Never did, only your inability to use English . Glad to see you back .
Naomi your video illustrates my point instead of him taking apart the whole silly story, as a barrister would , he talks about what happened to the ecological distribution of some least known animals afterwards.
Wildwood The problem facing theists is the moment they accept one myth as nonsense it puts all the rest into doubt.
1 to 15 of 15
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.