Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguing With a Man Saying He's a Poached Egg

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose. Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist. Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that. In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.

Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?

I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do. In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real. The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development; the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.
Skeptical1
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 9:53:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose. Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist. Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that. In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.

Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?

I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do. In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real. The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development; the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.

Nice theory. However, experience shows that many people don't outgrow the myth of fundamentalist religion, unlike the myth of Santa Claus. Secondly, people don't generally seek to dictate what others may or may not do, to persecute them, and to legislate to take away the freedoms of others based on their belief in Santa Claus. Apart from those issues, you are correct in that the mythologies are quite similar.
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 10:39:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

If there were several billion adherents of a religion centred on Hercules then there woud be people here disputing the possibility of a historical Hercules. It would not be absurd.

However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose.

So, you think ignoring a problem is better than confronting it? Appeasement seems to have worked well in the past. Not.

Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist.

There are no churches to Santa Claus and religious TV and radio programs and other constant reinforcements 365 days a year from adults in relation to Santa Claus. It's only once a year and since the parents don't really believe in Santa Claus, the child soon catches on if they have a modicum of intelligence. In fact they are often subtly encouraged to outgrow the belief. As a contrast, a child who questions the religion of their parents is quickly slapped down. Those are the key differences and why your analogy fails badly.

Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that.

Jesus violated the laws of nature too. It doesn't seem to deter Christians. Lol.

In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.

Why adult to child? On this forum, in relation to religion, it is adult to adult. Would an adult to adult argument over the existence of Santa Claus be immature? There are people here who argue about an 8,000 year old Earth, something almost as inane as the existence of an old man at the North Pole. Others deny climate change. There are even some who reject Moon landings and argue for a flat Earth. Is it really immature to help people overcome their delusions?

Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?

It wouldn't necessarily be immature. It depends who they are arguing with and why.

I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do.

See above. Unless you are equating relioginists with children who will eventually outgrow their beliefs (when?) then your analogy is ridiculous.

In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real.

Your point being? Atheists are adolescents and younger children are religionists? Lol.

The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development;

Thank you. According to your "argument" above it makes atheists more mature. We appreciate the compliment.

... the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.

What is the alternative? Being ahead is better though. Yeah?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 10:57:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Nice theory. However, experience shows that many people don't outgrow the myth of fundamentalist religion, unlike the myth of Santa Claus.

OK?

Secondly, people don't generally seek to dictate what others may or may not do, to persecute them, and to legislate to take away the freedoms of others based on their belief in Santa Claus. Apart from those issues, you are correct in that the mythologies are quite similar.

If an individual, who is not a religious fundamentalist, upholds the separation of church and state, should religious fundamentalists attack his, or her, ideology or merely advocate for one's own?

The issue is not religious freedom but defending the Constitution. In the United States, we have protected rights as long as they don't infringe on the protected rights of others. Focusing on the beliefs of others is misguided; defending the Constitution isn't.
Skeptical1
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 11:46:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 10:57:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Nice theory. However, experience shows that many people don't outgrow the myth of fundamentalist religion, unlike the myth of Santa Claus.

OK?

Secondly, people don't generally seek to dictate what others may or may not do, to persecute them, and to legislate to take away the freedoms of others based on their belief in Santa Claus. Apart from those issues, you are correct in that the mythologies are quite similar.

If an individual, who is not a religious fundamentalist, upholds the separation of church and state, should religious fundamentalists attack his, or her, ideology or merely advocate for one's own?

The issue is not religious freedom but defending the Constitution. In the United States, we have protected rights as long as they don't infringe on the protected rights of others. Focusing on the beliefs of others is misguided; defending the Constitution isn't.

I'm not in the United States, so I can better comment on the situation in my own country. Even though non-belief is widespread in this country, there are still regular cases of religious fundamentalists seeking to dictate the way everyone else may live. This includes church groups continuing to oppose euthanasia - for everyone, not just those whose faith holds that it is a "sin".

A year or two ago, our federal government combined with the government of the state in which I live (both under the leadership of fundamentalist Christian individuals) to sack hundreds of professionally trained social workers and psychologists in schools and replace them with church-trained "chaplains" - this was in publicly funded state-run schools, not private church-run institutions.

In the US, I believe there are states that are teaching of creationism as an "alternative" to evolution in science class.

In South Carolina, where there is a push for the reintroduction of mandatory prayer in schools, the following are apparently common:

in-class daily prayer led by teachers;
the distribution of Bibles to students;
prayer and scriptural readings at graduation ceremonies, athletic events, awards ceremonies, and other school activities;
school-day assemblies featuring prayer, preaching, and other religious content;
coach-organized and coach-led prayer at football practices;
school officials leading and participating in student religious clubs; and
school involvement in the planning, and promotion of, religious baccalaureate services.

As I understand it, these are currently violations against the US constitution, and the principle of the separation of church and state established by your founding fathers.

With rare exception, religions will seek to assert their dominance at the expense of all others, and for this reason it is incumbent upon those who don't want to see superstition and dogmatism ruling the world to oppose it.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 1:32:38 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose. Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist. Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that. In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.

Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?

I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do. In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real. The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development; the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.

Because if your "myth" is true, it means they need to pay attention.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 3:27:50 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
If there were several billion adherents of a religion centred on Hercules then there woud be people here disputing the possibility of a historical Hercules. It would not be absurd.

I agree completely, but my point has nothing to do with the number of religious adherents but the maturity of those who argue with them.

So, you think ignoring a problem is better than confronting it? Appeasement seems to have worked well in the past. Not.

Why is other people disagreeing with you a problem?

There are no churches to Santa Claus and religious TV and radio programs and other constant reinforcements 365 days a year from adults in relation to Santa Claus. It's only once a year and since the parents don't really believe in Santa Claus, the child soon catches on if they have a modicum of intelligence. In fact they are often subtly encouraged to outgrow the belief. As a contrast, a child who questions the religion of their parents is quickly slapped down. Those are the key differences and why your analogy fails badly.

Telling me one myth is treated differently than the other is not explaining the reason for the difference in treatment.

The religious fundamentalist has the understanding of a child in taking that which is obviously myth literally, and the critic is not too far advanced in arguing with the religious fundamentalist. For me, arguing over the reality of myth is silly.

Jesus violated the laws of nature too. It doesn't seem to deter Christians. Lol.

I know. That's the reason I call it myth.

Why adult to child? On this forum, in relation to religion, it is adult to adult. Would an adult to adult argument over the existence of Santa Claus be immature?

No. It would be absurd.

There are people here who argue about an 8,000 year old Earth, something almost as inane as the existence of an old man at the North Pole. Others deny climate change. There are even some who reject Moon landings and argue for a flat Earth. Is it really immature to help people overcome their delusions?

It's absurd to treat myth as though it were falsifiable.

See above. Unless you are equating relioginists with children who will eventually outgrow their beliefs (when?) then your analogy is ridiculous.

Religious fundamentalists outgrow their beliefs all the time. I was once a religious fundamentalist. A high proportion of atheists were once religious fundamentalists. I go to a very liberal church full of people who were once religious fundamentalists.

Your point being? Atheists are adolescents and younger children are religionists? Lol.

No. My point is religious fundamentalists are as psychologically developed as children, and people who argue with them over the reality of myth are as psychologically developed as adolescents.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 4:08:36 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

Not all beliefs acted upon have the same effect, no one is killing gays or flying planes into buildings based on a theological frame work that Zesus/Hercs desires it.

But I would add, Zeus creates the lighting, TEACH THE CONTROVERSY !!!
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 5:14:14 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.
This is because there is not a religion (at least not a major/recognized religion) that states such events occurred.
However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose. Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist. Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that. In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.
That is because we eventually learn that our parents are the ones putting the presents under the tree. We have real proof that Santa Clause does not exist. Unfortunately, there is no real proof against the existence of God. There is evidence, and there are many reasons that people believe that God does not exist, but there is no proof one way or the other.
Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?
Because, again, there are no major/recognized religions that claim Hercules existed, and there is real proof that Santa does not exist.
I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do. In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real. The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development; the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.
I do not make it my mission to convince someone that their religion is false. Although I would rejoice at real proof against the existence of God, I do not care what others believe. I debate religion for the challenge. Also, it is just an interesting topic. To try and convert a religious person (or an atheist, for that matter) is idiotic for two reasons. One, they are set in their ways. It is practically impossible to change someone's beliefs. People need to discover their beliefs for themselves. Unfortunately, in many religions, this is not allowed, as you are indoctrinated extremely early in life. Two, there is zero proof one way or the other. You cannot prove that God does not exist, and you cannot prove that he does.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 9:17:25 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 3:27:50 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If there were several billion adherents of a religion centred on Hercules then there woud be people here disputing the possibility of a historical Hercules. It would not be absurd.

I agree completely, but my point has nothing to do with the number of religious adherents but the maturity of those who argue with them.

You raised the analogy with Hercules and I'm pointing out how your analogy fails. The question of maturity is not relevant to the failure of your analogy and your assertion that arguing against Hercules would be absurd.

So, you think ignoring a problem is better than confronting it? Appeasement seems to have worked well in the past. Not.

Why is other people disagreeing with you a problem?

It can be. They are brainwashing their children. They continually try to change the science curriculum in schools. They demonise gay people. They bomb abortion clinics. They refuse to provide basic services to same-sex couples. Need I go on?

How does that quote go: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

There are no churches to Santa Claus and religious TV and radio programs and other constant reinforcements 365 days a year from adults in relation to Santa Claus. It's only once a year and since the parents don't really believe in Santa Claus, the child soon catches on if they have a modicum of intelligence. In fact they are often subtly encouraged to outgrow the belief. As a contrast, a child who questions the religion of their parents is quickly slapped down. Those are the key differences and why your analogy fails badly.

Telling me one myth is treated differently than the other is not explaining the reason for the difference in treatment.

It is exactly explaining it. You can't use an analogy when it has almost nothing in common with the original scenario. Why keep using analogies anyway? You only need to do so when you want to simplify something complex down to its essential elements. There is nothing overly complex about non-believers arguing with deluded fundamentalists and the reasons why they do it.

The religious fundamentalist has the understanding of a child in taking that which is obviously myth literally, and the critic is not too far advanced in arguing with the religious fundamentalist. For me, arguing over the reality of myth is silly.

Unfortunately the fundamentalists (who you are talking down to) don't accept the reality of their myths. That is the problem. You have yet to offer an alternative. Should we just abandon them to their delusions? They, unlike children with Santa, don't grow out of them you know.

Jesus violated the laws of nature too. It doesn't seem to deter Christians. Lol.

I know. That's the reason I call it myth.

You miss the point. You suggested that children eventually realize Santa is a myth because he would violate the laws of nature. I pointed out that Jesus also violates the laws of nature. Therefore your simplistic view that this is the reason for loss of belief in a myth is obviously flawed since theists usually never come to that realization. Yeah?

Why adult to child? On this forum, in relation to religion, it is adult to adult. Would an adult to adult argument over the existence of Santa Claus be immature?

No. It would be absurd.

You can only say that because Santa Clausism is not a world-wide adult belief system with several billion adherents. If it were, it would not be absurd. Your attempted comparison of adult religious belief with very young children's belief in a present giver at Christmas is what is absurd.

There are people here who argue about an 8,000 year old Earth, something almost as inane as the existence of an old man at the North Pole. Others deny climate change. There are even some who reject Moon landings and argue for a flat Earth. Is it really immature to help people overcome their delusions?

It's absurd to treat myth as though it were falsifiable.

What? How else do you expose myths?

See above. Unless you are equating relioginists with children who will eventually outgrow their beliefs (when?) then your analogy is ridiculous.

Religious fundamentalists outgrow their beliefs all the time.

No they don't. It's rare.

I was once a religious fundamentalist.

And did you deconvert entirely on your own, or was it perhaps hearing contrary arguments which swayed you?

A high proportion of atheists were once religious fundamentalists.

I don't think so. Source please.

I go to a very liberal church full of people who were once religious fundamentalists.

I'll take your word for it.

Your point being? Atheists are adolescents and younger children are religionists? Lol.

No. My point is religious fundamentalists are as psychologically developed as children, and people who argue with them over the reality of myth are as psychologically developed as adolescents.

And you are as psychologically developed as an adult, right? Lol.

This kind of rhetoric is just opinion and does not warrant a response.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 10:36:49 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose. Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist. Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that. In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.

Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?

I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do. In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real. The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development; the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.

If you look close enough you will find that most children outgrow their belief in God also. When they get to the rebellious stage of questioning their world they soon come to realise the folly of such an absurd belief.

Exceptions to this rule are where children grow up in strict, fundamentalist cultures.

The more that belief is shoved down children's throats the more they will rebel later on in life, and for good reason.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 1:50:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Not all beliefs acted upon have the same effect, no one is killing gays or flying planes into buildings based on a theological frame work that Zesus/Hercs desires it.

Should we outlaw certain beliefs or certain actions? If we chose to legislate each other's beliefs, how could we possibly decide which beliefs caused which actions. If an atheist broke the law, could theists conclude it was his, or her, disbelief in God which propelled one to commit the crime? Should we return to a more primitive time in jurisprudence, a time in which we legislated not only actions but also beliefs? Should we outlaw Islam even though the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not condone acts of violence?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 4:18:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

This is because there is not a religion (at least not a major/recognized religion) that states such events occurred.

No, but religious fundamentalism teaches supernatural events have actually occurred.

That is because we eventually learn that our parents are the ones putting the presents under the tree. We have real proof that Santa Clause does not exist. Unfortunately, there is no real proof against the existence of God. There is evidence, and there are many reasons that people believe that God does not exist, but there is no proof one way or the other.

Does this mean you think the belief in Santa is falsifiable?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 6:42:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
You raised the analogy with Hercules and I'm pointing out how your analogy fails. The question of maturity is not relevant to the failure of your analogy and your assertion that arguing against Hercules would be absurd.

Are you implying since classical myth is extinct it is somehow less objective than contemporary myth? The age of a myth should have no bearing on its lack of objectivity. You are arguing over the verifiability of things which cannot be verified. That's like arguing over the dryness of water or the visibility of that which cannot be seen. To argue over the truth of myth or the reality of imaginary things is just as absurd.

It can be. They are brainwashing their children. They continually try to change the science curriculum in schools. They demonise gay people. They bomb abortion clinics. They refuse to provide basic services to same-sex couples. Need I go on?

How does that quote go: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

That is the reason we have the separation of church and state to protect a secular society from an overbearing church. If religious fundamentalists attempt to legislate their religious beliefs, you argue the Constitution not anyone's particular religious beliefs. Like you, they have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe. However, also like you, they have no protected right under the Constitution to infringe on anyone else's protected rights.

There is nothing overly complex about non-believers arguing with deluded fundamentalists and the reasons why they do it.

I agree.

It's absurd to treat myth as though it were falsifiable.

What? How else do you expose myths?

Can you disprove the existence of God? If so, tell me in which time and place God is said to exist but is not found.

I was once a religious fundamentalist.

And did you deconvert entirely on your own, or was it perhaps hearing contrary arguments which swayed you?

Hearing something doesn't sway anyone's views; believing something does.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 6:53:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 4:18:42 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

This is because there is not a religion (at least not a major/recognized religion) that states such events occurred.

No, but religious fundamentalism teaches supernatural events have actually occurred.
I know, but there are not a lot of people that believe that Greek mythology is fact, so there isn't much reason to dispute it.
That is because we eventually learn that our parents are the ones putting the presents under the tree. We have real proof that Santa Clause does not exist. Unfortunately, there is no real proof against the existence of God. There is evidence, and there are many reasons that people believe that God does not exist, but there is no proof one way or the other.

Does this mean you think the belief in Santa is falsifiable?
Yes.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 8:03:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I know, but there are not a lot of people that believe that Greek mythology is fact, so there isn't much reason to dispute it.

I think you've completely missed the point of the OP; no one is arguing over a belief in Greek mythology; the point I'm trying to make is arguing over the reality of mythical events is absurd, regardless of the myth in question.

Does this mean you think the belief in Santa is falsifiable?

Yes.

So, you believe a belief in Santa Claus is a matter of objectivity? What objectively qualifies Santa Claus for verification?
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 8:05:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 8:03:11 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I know, but there are not a lot of people that believe that Greek mythology is fact, so there isn't much reason to dispute it.

I think you've completely missed the point of the OP; no one is arguing over a belief in Greek mythology; the point I'm trying to make is arguing over the reality of mythical events is absurd, regardless of the myth in question.

Does this mean you think the belief in Santa is falsifiable?

Yes.

So, you believe a belief in Santa Claus is a matter of objectivity? What objectively qualifies Santa Claus for verification?

OK, you lost me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 8:41:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose. Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist. Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that. In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.

Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?

I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do. In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real. The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development; the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.

I agree.

It is a sign of mental and emotional retardation that an adult would continue to believe in the factuality of a religious mythology that proclaims miraculous events that defy the known laws of physics.

It is also assign of similar mental and emotional retardation that an adult would argue and debate with them in an attempt to convince them otherwise. Especially with the idea that all there is to religion is the wrongful acceptance of such mythic factuality.

But such willful ignorance is the responsibility of the ignoramus. And there is little anyone else can do to improve or alter their choices.
Skeptical1
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 9:33:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 8:41:46 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose. Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist. Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that. In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.

Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?

I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do. In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real. The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development; the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.

I agree.

It is a sign of mental and emotional retardation that an adult would continue to believe in the factuality of a religious mythology that proclaims miraculous events that defy the known laws of physics.

It is also assign of similar mental and emotional retardation that an adult would argue and debate with them in an attempt to convince them otherwise. Especially with the idea that all there is to religion is the wrongful acceptance of such mythic factuality.

But such willful ignorance is the responsibility of the ignoramus. And there is little anyone else can do to improve or alter their choices.

I'm not certain that picking a spot in the middle and calling anyone who takes either side of the religion/anti-religion debate mentally and emotionally retarded and ignoramuses is necessarily a sign of advanced emotional maturity either.

Religious types have their reasons for their outspoken ways (misguided as they may be). So too do those who forcefully speak out against it. I've outlined a couple of those in a previous post.

Personally, I don't waste any time trying to convince my friends who may have religious beliefs to abandon them - as has been pointed out, it's rather pointless. But participating in public discussions, or voicing one's objections to views or decisions which impact negatively on society at large is a different thing altogether, in my opinion.

As for what religion offers other than twisted and confused morality based on crazy stories, I don't know. To the extent that there is anything much good to be found in any religion, I think it is found when you remove the religious bits.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 9:34:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose. Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist. Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that. In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.

Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?

I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do. In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real. The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development; the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.

The simple fact is that there are people in power who justify their decisions using the myths of their religion. There are lawmakers who cite the story of Noah, and their god's promise to never flood the earth again, as an argument against climate change in general.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Or simply citing the ark story in some fallacious argument against man's role in climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com...

As another poster mentioned, these myths are used to justify bigotry and hatred for the LGBT community. They're used to justify child abuse. They're used to justify the oppression of women. For some reason, you seem to think that the number of believers is irrelevant to whether arguing against said belief is immature. Well that's just wrong. When confronted with dangerously stupid ideas, held by people in power, those of us who don't want to be ruled by idiocy have to get down to their level and try to drag them back to reality.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 10:03:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
So, you believe a belief in Santa Claus is a matter of objectivity? What objectively qualifies Santa Claus for verification?

OK, you lost me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Do you think a belief in Santa Clause is based on facts or one's imagination?

If it's based on one's imagination, how do you verify it?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 10:19:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 8:41:46 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose. Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist. Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that. In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.

Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?

I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do. In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real. The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development; the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.

I agree.

It is a sign of mental and emotional retardation that an adult would continue to believe in the factuality of a religious mythology that proclaims miraculous events that defy the known laws of physics.

It is also assign of similar mental and emotional retardation that an adult would argue and debate with them in an attempt to convince them otherwise. Especially with the idea that all there is to religion is the wrongful acceptance of such mythic factuality.

But such willful ignorance is the responsibility of the ignoramus. And there is little anyone else can do to improve or alter their choices.

It's very rare for me to see eye to eye with anyone on this forum.

I think most people, on here, have a lot of religious hang-ups and have no way to deal with them except through anger.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 10:55:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 9:46:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It amazes me the ways in which in one breath the critic can criticize a religion and, then, in the selfsame breath call it nothing more than myth. If the critic truly believes the religion is nothing more than myth, why does he, or she, treat this myth any different than any other myth? For instance, considering classical myth, no one questions the labors of Hercules; I have yet to hear anyone disputing the possibility of Hercules slaying the Hydra or cleaning the Augean stables. To do so would be absurd.

However, I strongly believe as the critic criticises the religious fundamentalist he, or she, lends legitimacy to the very thing the critic claims to oppose. Let's take for example the belief in Santa Claus. As a child develops, the child naturally outgrows a belief in Santa Claus; no one has to convince the child Santa does not exist. Santa's incompatibility with the laws of Nature are very apt to accomplish that. In fact, any adult who would argue with a child over the existence of Santa Claus would most likely be seen as the one who's being immature.

Why would a person who argues over the labors of Hercules or an adult who argues over the existence of Santa Claus be seen as absurd or immature?

I believe the reason for this is it betrays one's stage of psychological development. If we consider the case of the child's belief in Santa Claus, this is made obvious. Adults, for the most part, do not argue with children over the existence of Santa Claus for they know children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus; however adolescents do. In fact, adolescent children take great pride in telling younger children Santa is not real. The critic who makes it his, or her, mission to convince religious fundamentalists their religion is nothing more than myth betrays his, or her, psychological development; the religious fundamentalist may have the understanding of a child, but the critic is not too far ahead.
The problem with claiming something is analogous and therefore just as much a myth as something else is you've created a position in which you have to prove the analogy valid. Historical evidence proves Jesus the man lived. The only thing now is whether you're capable of comprehending the "actions" of Jesus as mythical and beyond reality or simply an addition to a known person for whatever reason you think was the motivation. After all claiming that a religion was their motivation you would have to be able to read there minds and prove intent, hint...you can't.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 1:41:32 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
The simple fact is that there are people in power who justify their decisions using the myths of their religion. There are lawmakers who cite the story of Noah, and their god's promise to never flood the earth again, as an argument against climate change in general.

Does this mean we should outlaw religious fundamentalism?

As another poster mentioned, these myths are used to justify bigotry and hatred for the LGBT community. They're used to justify child abuse. They're used to justify the oppression of women. For some reason, you seem to think that the number of believers is irrelevant to whether arguing against said belief is immature. Well that's just wrong. When confronted with dangerously stupid ideas, held by people in power, those of us who don't want to be ruled by idiocy have to get down to their level and try to drag them back to reality.

Would you argue with a man who says he is a poached egg? If educated people believe in things which contradict their education, what purpose does it serve to argue with them? We're not talking about people who have never been taught the laws of physics; we're talking about people who know the laws of physics and, in spite of that, continue to believe things which contradict them.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 2:08:44 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
The problem with claiming something is analogous and therefore just as much a myth as something else is you've created a position in which you have to prove the analogy valid. Historical evidence proves Jesus the man lived. The only thing now is whether you're capable of comprehending the "actions" of Jesus as mythical and beyond reality or simply an addition to a known person for whatever reason you think was the motivation. After all claiming that a religion was their motivation you would have to be able to read there minds and prove intent, hint...you can't.

Even though I believe the scant and dubious evidence is a far cry from proving the historicity of a man named Jesus, by whom Christianity was supposedly founded, no one's talking about a historical jesus but a mythical christ. Even if there was a historical founder of Christianity called Jesus, his natural life has been completely confounded and obscured by the supernatural myth of Christianity. The analogy is not of fact to myth but rather myth to myth.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 2:29:43 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 10:03:36 PM, s-anthony wrote:
So, you believe a belief in Santa Claus is a matter of objectivity? What objectively qualifies Santa Claus for verification?

OK, you lost me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Do you think a belief in Santa Clause is based on facts or one's imagination?

If it's based on one's imagination, how do you verify it?

Belief in Santa Clause is based on what your parents tell you, which you take as fact, as small children are very impressionable. This is one area in which belief in Santa Clause and religion are similar. In many religions, you are indoctrinated at a very young age, and that is all you believe, as small children are impressionable. The only reason that children stop believing in Santa Clause is that it is easy to prove that Santa does not exist.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 4:21:29 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 1:41:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The simple fact is that there are people in power who justify their decisions using the myths of their religion. There are lawmakers who cite the story of Noah, and their god's promise to never flood the earth again, as an argument against climate change in general.

Does this mean we should outlaw religious fundamentalism?

No, and I think it's strange that you would ask that question.

As another poster mentioned, these myths are used to justify bigotry and hatred for the LGBT community. They're used to justify child abuse. They're used to justify the oppression of women. For some reason, you seem to think that the number of believers is irrelevant to whether arguing against said belief is immature. Well that's just wrong. When confronted with dangerously stupid ideas, held by people in power, those of us who don't want to be ruled by idiocy have to get down to their level and try to drag them back to reality.

Would you argue with a man who says he is a poached egg? If educated people believe in things which contradict their education, what purpose does it serve to argue with them? We're not talking about people who have never been taught the laws of physics; we're talking about people who know the laws of physics and, in spite of that, continue to believe things which contradict them.

If that man was enacting laws based on his supposed poached-eggness, yes. And we aren't necessarily talking about people who have been taught physics. If they have, it seems they didn't understand or they got such a basic education that they don't see how it conflicts with their myths. Arguing with them isn't necessarily about changing their minds, though. It's also about influencing the observers who are more able to see how wrong the myths are when not directly confronted.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 6:22:33 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 2:08:44 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The problem with claiming something is analogous and therefore just as much a myth as something else is you've created a position in which you have to prove the analogy valid. Historical evidence proves Jesus the man lived. The only thing now is whether you're capable of comprehending the "actions" of Jesus as mythical and beyond reality or simply an addition to a known person for whatever reason you think was the motivation. After all claiming that a religion was their motivation you would have to be able to read there minds and prove intent, hint...you can't.

Even though I believe the scant and dubious evidence is a far cry from proving the historicity of a man named Jesus, by whom Christianity was supposedly founded, no one's talking about a historical jesus but a mythical christ. Even if there was a historical founder of Christianity called Jesus, his natural life has been completely confounded and obscured by the supernatural myth of Christianity. The analogy is not of fact to myth but rather myth to myth.
Prove Christ was mythical..
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 1:30:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Belief in Santa Clause is based on what your parents tell you, which you take as fact, as small children are very impressionable. This is one area in which belief in Santa Clause and religion are similar. In many religions, you are indoctrinated at a very young age, and that is all you believe, as small children are impressionable. The only reason that children stop believing in Santa Clause is that it is easy to prove that Santa does not exist.

I agree, but as we get older, we come to realize the reality of Santa is not compatible with the laws of Nature; and, many of us grow up to see the myth as, merely, a metaphor. As we learn supernatural phenomena are not compatible with the natural laws, a fair estimation would be all supernatural phenomena are not compatible with the natural laws; not just the ones which apply to the myth of Santa Claus.

However, even though educated people know this, some choose not to accept it. So, what's the point in arguing with them? We're not talking about people who have never experienced the natural world and have no idea virgins do not conceive and dead people do not come back from the dead. So, to argue with them over things like this, is pointless and makes you look about as foolish as they do.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 1:52:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 1:30:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Belief in Santa Clause is based on what your parents tell you, which you take as fact, as small children are very impressionable. This is one area in which belief in Santa Clause and religion are similar. In many religions, you are indoctrinated at a very young age, and that is all you believe, as small children are impressionable. The only reason that children stop believing in Santa Clause is that it is easy to prove that Santa does not exist.

I agree, but as we get older, we come to realize the reality of Santa is not compatible with the laws of Nature; and, many of us grow up to see the myth as, merely, a metaphor. As we learn supernatural phenomena are not compatible with the natural laws, a fair estimation would be all supernatural phenomena are not compatible with the natural laws; not just the ones which apply to the myth of Santa Claus.


Even though I do agree with you on the most part, I do have to point out that we learn supernatural phenomena are not compatible with the natural laws is in itself a statement with limitations as it only pertains to the laws of nature as we know them today with the science that we currently have and as such the universe will still contain revelations that we would think of as "mythical" today simply because our science has not yet progressed to explain them. You only have to look at the history of science to know that new truths are still being discovered.


However, even though educated people know this, some choose not to accept it.


And some have a good reason for not doing so as their experiences may have given them knowledge of things that can not yet be scientifically explained. Just because something is scientifically unexplainable does not make it false.


So, what's the point in arguing with them? We're not talking about people who have never experienced the natural world and have no idea virgins do not conceive and dead people do not come back from the dead. So, to argue with them over things like this, is pointless and makes you look about as foolish as they do.


Within the context of this forum, I completely agree with this. The way I see it, most people on this forum have their "position" and they will clinge to that position no matter the arguments that are given in favour or against though to be fair, I must say that the Science side at least provides arguments that are derived from scientific thinking instead of taking it from an ancient book and proclaiming it to be the absolute truth no matter how illogical it may be.