 |
| photo credit |
I was recently browsing twitter and stumbled across a conversation between an atheist and a Christian. At some point the Christian made the claim that Bible had been scientifically tested for accuracy. I jumped into the conversation (yeah twitter) and asked her for a reference. The atheist then replied to me and said that the Christian of course can't point me toward anything, she's just being dishonest and making stuff up. While I agree that her claim about the bible is wrong, I think he's jumping the gun by assuming that she has just made it up.
I can see a couple of possibilities, one is that the atheist is right and she has just made this up. While this is possible I doubt it is really what is going on. My guess is that she either heard it in church or read it in a book and only has a vague memory of it. The other thing is, what does "scientifically test for accuracy" mean? It sounds like she was trying to say that the bible is 100% true and that has been tested. While this is clearly false, perhaps there are aspects that have been looked into that have been shown to be accurate. What are these things specifically? If that is the case, simply asking these questions could lead to her taking a second look at the source and realize she is overplaying her hand.
In my opinion, the whole purpose of these types of conversations is to change minds. We want to show people that they have made a mistake in logic or that they have relied on incorrect information or whatever. Asserting that they are lying will just make them disengage, it will make them think you are an asshole and stop listening to anything you have to say. I think it is much better to ask them to expand on their claim, give sources or explain themselves further. Don't get me wrong, I'm not delusional, I know this has a pretty low chance of getting them to change their mind as well, but at least you are getting them to think and justify their claims. It could be a small piece of the puzzle for her or possibly for someone else watching for a change of opinion down the line. Calling her a liar just cuts things short.
[Note: after I wrote this but before it went live she tweeted back and provided a source. I haven't had the chance to take a look yet, but I'm hoping to look at it soon. Perhaps that will be what I write about for Thursday]
Often the theist isn't making things up, they are referencing something someone else made up. :-)
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely! But if you call them a liar they will never find out. Chances are they are trusting the person who made it up. If you ask them for a source and they try to go get it for you (because in their mind their preacher obviously would have such information) they might realize that their preacher made it up after all. Still a pretty low chance event though.
DeleteThere are really only two choices, the theist is either dishonest or delusional. In any case where the theist has been corrected and they either refuse to go check out the new information, or they check it out and continue to repeat the same disproven nonsense, their dishonesty is demonstrated.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that there's any real possibility of an honest theist on the Internet.
I think it's possible. Perhaps they've always trusted their preacher and have never been pressed to look into details themselves. Look at Matt Dillahunty, he started by trying to prove atheists wrong and eventually realized they had all of the good arguments. He didn't start doing that till what, his 30s?
DeleteOnce they are corrected and they just go back to their earlier talking points, then yeah unload. But before that I think it's better to try to reason with them. In my opinion the other atheist jumped the gun. On the other hand I did jump in mid conversation, perhaps I missed the first few rounds. Still, I stand by my larger point.
True, but Matt had the integrity to go look at what was being said and examine his faith. He was not a mindless fanatic like so many people online who entirely reject anything that falls outside of their beliefs out of hand because it makes them uncomfortable.
DeleteThe Internet is where religion comes to die, except for the religion of fanatics who are not interested in learning anything about the reality of their faith. Those people will go to their grave believing whatever absurd nonsense they believe because they are fundamentally incapable of expressing any doubt.
Interesting that you posted this, I have a post on the same general thing coming up next week. :)
True, I think the difficulty is telling the difference between the die hard fanatics and the people willing to examine their faith. I know for myself, I looked like a die hard from the outside because I got very defensive, but I also did ultimately examine everything. I would guess most people are just going to go to the grave with their faith, but I don't think we have a way to tell who is who.
DeleteThat's funny you are writing a similar post. I wonder if it is something we both read that sparked this, or if it was just random. It's been percolating in my mind for a little while, that twitter conversation just was a catalyst.
I too would like to see an absolute and accurate source that the Bible is 100% correct because I assume I then would be face to face with their "God" who I would have LOTS of tough questions for. I'll be curious to see what her "source" she mentioned is on Thursday Hausdorff.
ReplyDeleteTheists believe by faith alone and most never confront or question what they were told that created that faith. It didn't just come out of no where...it was taught and they chose to believe in something totally illogical...a horrific and wrathful God who picks and chooses which of "his" creations will be favored and which will be damned to eternal hell fire.
It would be great to see a good source. Honestly, my hope was that she had something with some interesting evidence for something, and just that her claim that the bible is completely true was just overblown. Unfortunately, it turned out to be pretty standard fare garbage. I'd say I was disappointed, but it's pretty much exactly what I was expecting. Oh well, I have a post on it set to go live on thursday.
DeleteI have been debunking some articles on godandscience so maybe she is getting the science (pseudo-science) there. They present science its just they are not so good at interpreting data.
ReplyDeleteI like those posts. What she provided was different, but pretty much equally bad.
DeleteI'm debating a few religotards right now and it is amazing the things that they write. This one guy blames the teaching of evolution on every problem we face today from school shootings to gay people "cohabitating". The horror! And he says the bible is 100% accurate because it says so, and the world was created 6,000 years ago but god made it look billions of years old, just to fuck with us.
ReplyDeleteThere's one thing that never gets into some religious people's heads - facts.
Those arguments make me sad, it reminds me of growing up in my parents church. Everyone there believed that stuff because they trusted the pastors.
DeleteThey leave no room for facts because they fill their minds with so much fear it makes them incapable of thinking logically about what foolishness they have been brainwashed with.
Delete