Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID

[Lestat]

Many atheists appear dumber than they are simply by partaking in debates on the silliness of religion.

It is pretty much impossible to appear intelligent when trying to convince someone that something which is silly, is in fact silly, when that someone refuses to acknowledge it's silliness.

Imagine two people standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that the wall is white. Person B says, "No it's not". Person A says, "Yes it is". Person B says, "No it's not".

Well, you get the idea.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Many atheists appear dumber than they are simply by partaking in debates on the silliness of religion.

It is pretty much impossible to appear intelligent when trying to convince someone that something which is silly, is in fact silly, when that someone refuses to acknowledge it's silliness.

Imagine two people standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that the wall is white. Person B says, "No it's not". Person A says, "Yes it is". Person B says, "No it's not".

Well, you get the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have faith that the wall is yellow.

[Peter666]

Thanks for the links.

This issue puzzles me because there are only two opinions that are clearly wrong: a literal interpretation of the Bible, and an atheistic 'something coming from nothing' evolution.

But the rest of the arguments are in middle territory subject to science that do not positively lead one to conclude the above two extremes. Why do people make such an issue of it?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Many atheists appear dumber than they are simply by partaking in debates on the silliness of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've ever felt dumber when debating religion with a religious person (although I might have appeared dumber in their eyes, but who cares).

The most I can say, is that debating religion with religious people, often makes me very bored. It is akin to talking with someone who insists on telling you his dream from last night, with great and unnecessary detail. Very tedious, and quite annoying.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine two people standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that the wall is white. Person B says, "No it's not". Person A says, "Yes it is". Person B says, "No it's not".

Well, you get the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a good analogy.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Quote:
Imagine two people standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that the wall is white. Person B says, "No it's not". Person A says, "Yes it is". Person B says, "No it's not".

Well, you get the idea.



I don't think it's a good analogy.
</font>

I just meant that when you can't get around someone's logic however faulty it may be, you've reached a dead-end.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I just meant that when you can't get around someone's logic however faulty it may be, you've reached a dead-end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I know what you meant, only I don't think there's any problem with religious people's logic. More precisely, I don't think that their logic is faulty or not-faulty. The annoying thing is the _illusion_ of a logical debate, while in fact, logic has nothing to do with all that.

Frankly, most atheists have the same problem religious people have, while discussing religion.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Yes I know what you meant, only I don't think there's any problem with religious people's logic. </font>

I guess that's where the debate starts and ends. I believe people have every right to believe what they want. Just call it what is is.... FAITH!

I guess I sound the ignorant and arragant one asking how anyone could possibly arrive at the existence of gods and magical kingdomes in the sky through any type of logical conjecture based on real world evidence conceived in reality.

See what I mean? I can't help but sound irate trying to debate silliness.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
This issue puzzles me because there are only two opinions that are clearly wrong: a literal interpretation of the Bible, and an atheistic 'something coming from nothing' evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Creatio Ex Nihilo is a Christian doctrine, not an atheist doctrine. But in any case, it has nothing to do with evolution.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I know what you meant, only I don't think there's any problem with religious people's logic. More precisely, I don't think that their logic is faulty or not-faulty. The annoying thing is the _illusion_ of a logical debate, while in fact, logic has nothing to do with all that.

Frankly, most atheists have the same problem religious people have, while discussing religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

PM &amp; Stat,

PM is exactly correct in the above quote. And it is his last sentence that I was trying to emphasized. I took PM’s original (what I understood to be) editorializing of Bluff’s post as something I had not witnessed in him before. Up until this post I have found his post to be objective (often to the point of apathetic - which I think he pretty much would agree that he is regarding the religion debate).

Stat, here is why I think your analogy is wrong (but actually correct in that it makes my point of how I see the debate here):

An analogy of how the debate should be:

Two blind people are standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that Jesus (or anyone: prophet, philosopher, certain text, one’s moral sense) told me the wall is white. Since I am blind I will go with whom/what I think may have a better grasp of the color of the wall.

Person B says I will wait until science or death can show me what color the wall is.

Person B then says - let’s talk about how you, Person A, have come to your decision.

Notice that here on the forum the discussion was not started by person A saying this is how it is let’s talk about it.

Anyone not interested in Person B’s invitation to discuss should avoid these threads.

RJT

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Anyone not interested in Person B’s invitation to discuss should avoid these threads. </font>

I'm not sure what you're saying. That non-believers should not get involved unless invited to do so?

I do see your point. These debates are almost always started by someone looking to point out the silliness of religion. Oddly enough, rarely on this forum do the religious try and push their beliefs onto anyone else. So to this extent, the atheists come off as the annoying group who is preaching a philosophy.

It's just so hard to pass up. When I see a child who can't figure out a toy, my inclination is to show him how it works. Likewise, when I see a religious person use one unproven premise to justify a second unproven premise, I want to scream!

I do think religion has been used up on here. At least I'm used up by it. I agree with another poster who said let's talk about other philosophical, science, and math related subjects. With religion, the wall is white; the wall is blue; and never the trains shall meet.