The Church of Atheism

[Ben Banana]

Woah, those are some intense questions. Maybe you should ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

I need some advice.

I really don't know. I have no experience with it. See, this is crazy. Religious advice sucks. So my advice is (I'm just trying): Ask your girlfriend for the advice. Is she worried about it? I really don't understand how religious figures can't feel guilt for themselves spreading nonsense, or at least things they're best not to have word on.

 

Also, don't fear a resolute argument. Fear persistent arguments. You'll need to think on that.

 

Also, how should I respond to persistent Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses? I've tried being nice, but then they just come back.

Well, you can try to be bluntly honest to them. That doesn't have anything to do with how nice you are. You can't "wave them off" in a nice way. You should try to reason them out in a nice way. Trap them (as long as you can) for the sake of your reason as they sought to trap you for the sake of their bullshit. That'll be fun. Then offer cookies (i.e. ask them to make cookies to "emulate the charity of Christ").

 

Is there a way to make them feel like they have been rude to me?

Be honest to them.

 

 

 

(And remember, this is just a game!) Also, I think there's been some interesting points brought up in this 'game' (considering the entire topic). Is anyone interested in actually discussing these things?

Edited January 5, 2013 by Ben Banana

[MonDie]

Woah, those are some intense questions. Maybe you should ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

I already asked him. He said, "I didn't boil for your sins to hear this crap all day!"

 

 

Is anyone interested in actually discussing these things?

 

It would be interesting to hear some special insight, but I don't expect anyone to have better answers than I.

 

 

Trap them (as long as you can) for the sake of your reason as they sought to trap you for the sake of their bullshit. That'll be fun. Then offer cookies

 

You see, I've tried this, but it doesn't work. This Mormom was telling me the Bible has made a bunch of prophecies that are coming true. I responded, "Actually, The Bible got a lot of things wrong." He just ignored that. Maybe I should have been more assertive in making my point.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Ben Banana]

This Mormom was telling me the Bible has made a bunch of prophecies that are coming true.

 

It would have been easier to say that even the things it didn't prophesy (the historic accounts) have been demonstrated to be complete rubbish. I mean, do you even need a demonstration? No. "Yeah, that's right. Jesus walked on water... I'm willing to believe that because I'm willing to believe he's a deity with such power... because... uhm... the Bible ought to be true... because uhm... It's historically correct."

 

All you need to win is the religious text itself.

[John Cuthber]

Also, how should I respond to persistent Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses? I've tried being nice, but then they just come back. Must I engage them in arguments about the existence of gods, or should I be rude until they leave me alone? Is there a way to make them feel like they have been rude to me?

Tell them you are a devout Catholic: that usually gets rid of them.

 

OK, it's dishonest, but they keep trying to convince you that the book full of errors is the word of God, so they were the first to start saying things that are not true.

[MonDie]

Or I could wear this t-shirt.

 

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/46659333/raptor-rodeo-jesus_tshirt

 

It would have been easier to say that even the things it didn't prophesy (the historic accounts) have been demonstrated to be complete rubbish. I mean, do you even need a demonstration? No. "Yeah, that's right. Jesus walked on water... I'm willing to believe that because I'm willing to believe he's a deity with such power... because... uhm... the Bible ought to be true... because uhm... It's historically correct."

All you need to win is the religious text itself.

I think the bigger issue is that he didn't care for my criticisms. All he cared about was converting me. He seemed very convinced that he was telling the truth.

This might have been an issue of assertiveness. I was sort of shell-shocked by it, but I won't be next time. They come to convert me, so I will try to convert them equally, even if their children are present (the Jehova's Witnesses).

Edited January 6, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Ben Banana]

I think the bigger issue is that he didn't care for my criticisms. All he cared about was converting me. He seemed very convinced that he was telling the truth.

This might have been an issue of assertiveness. I was sort of shell-shocked by it, but I won't be next time. They come to convert me, so I will try to convert them equally, even if their children are present (the Jehova's Witnesses).

 

Ok then... If you want to reason, I guess it's better to not discuss the religious text. They don't understand it. You should critically reason about their contract with absurdity. First you need to shift their honesty from being as *an anonymously faithful servant to God* to a more personal attitude. If you fail to succeed in that, then call them trespassers and get rid of them. I'm pretty sure, that's all you can do.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Ben Banana

[MonDie]

First you need to shift their honesty from being as *an anonymously faithful servant to God* to a more personal attitude.

 

I don't understand. Like, question their personal integrity? e.g. "If you only have faith, why are you acting like you have authority? You could be spreading misinformation." I could do that after shaking their beliefs a bit.

[Ben Banana]

Like, question their personal integrity?

 

No, it's more like getting a salesman to stop throwing their pitch. You can't talk to them as missionaries, you have to talk to them as people. Otherwise, they're comparable to military soldiers. When people "kill in the act of war," someone somewhere is trying to pretend that it is not considered human murder. Regardless of arbitrary legal evaluations, it is murder. This kind of deceptive and self validating hierarchy of power is pretty much the best dilution of evil ever conceived. General says, "but I didn't kill anyone, it was my soldiers." Soldiers say, "but I was merely told to kill for the patriotic sake of my nation. It was a collective intention, as designated by our commanders."

 

(Note: Yes. I'm a pacifist, but I don't hold anything against soldiers in particular just as much as I don't hold anything against missionaries. The above analogy was merely an example. I will be happy to find people demonstrating personal evaluations of their positions in such mechanisms more profoundly. I understand that they may be considered necessary, although I disagree. I find the resolutive prospects of violence to be an addictive drug; however, often it is challenging and difficult to prevail otherwise.)

 

Neither should you make this a matter of authority. The point is to recognize that this hierarchical conversion machine exists. Avoid arguing about whether the hierarchy exists for efficiency or whether it is relevant. You need to discuss the missionaries themselves, their life and their perception of the missionary activity they are participating in. Don't question these aspects on their behalf, you need to be critical of them and be inquistive about their influence to you. I'm pretty sure by then they'll want to run out of your home to "stop wasting their time." Utilize their memorized pitches in your intended discussion and draw your points from anything they say.

 

I don't see how you can have a reasonable dialogue otherwise.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Ben Banana

[imatfaal]

 

No, it's more like getting a salesman to stop throwing their pitch. You can't talk to them as missionaries, you have to talk to them as people. Otherwise, they're comparable to military soldiers. When people "kill in the act of war," someone somewhere is trying to pretend that it is not considered human murder. Regardless of arbitrary legal evaluations, it is murder. This kind of deceptive and self validating hierarchy of power is pretty much the best dilution of evil ever conceived. General says, "but I didn't kill anyone, it was my soldiers." Soldiers say, "but I was merely told to kill for the patriotic sake of my nation. It was a collective intention, as designated by our commanders."

 

.../snipped

 

This is fallacious - you yourself are using an "arbitrary legal definition" and there is no way we can claim any definition is not arbitrary; homicide is the act of killing a human but murder has legal, moral, and ethical connotations that cannot be claimed as absolute by anyone. the most pertinent definition is that of the winners of any armed conflict - and in the case of most modern jurisdictions there are circumstances in which homicide during war would be judged as murder and others in which it would not. In the above you have set up a re-definition that precludes any argument; no true scotsman...

[MonDie]

Neither should you make this a matter of authority. The point is to recognize that this hierarchical conversion machine exists. Avoid arguing about whether the hierarchy exists for efficiency or whether it is relevant. You need to discuss the missionaries themselves, their life and their perception of the missionary activity they are participating in. Don't question these aspects on their behalf, you need to be critical of them and be inquistive about their influence to you. I'm pretty sure by then they'll want to run out of your home to "stop wasting their time." Utilize their memorized pitches in your intended discussion and draw your points from anything they say.

I don't see how you can have a reasonable dialogue otherwise.

Could you give examples of things I could say to accomplish this? I'm still not clear on what you're saying.

By the way, I'm glad to know my children are in good hands with you, Father Banana.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Ben Banana]

This is fallacious - you yourself are using an "arbitrary legal definition" and there is no way we can claim any definition is not arbitrary; homicide is the act of killing a human ... In the above you have set up a re-definition that precludes any argument; no true scotsman...

 

It's all homicide. In that case, I don't care whether you call it murder or not.

 

 

but murder has legal, moral, and ethical connotations that cannot be claimed as absolute by anyone. the most pertinent definition is that of the winners of any armed conflict - and in the case of most modern jurisdictions there are circumstances in which homicide during war would be judged as murder and others in which it would not

 

Then, the word "murder" is the problem. That's really my point. So beside semantics, your statements seem to support mine. Is that correct?

 

Also, the context of my point is initiation, rationalization and excuse (i.e. becoming desensitized to homicide), not judgement. I don't see how your attention to my "fallacy" is relevant. Thanks for clarifying semantics anyway. Also, my controversial analogy was intended to develop the sense of how mormon missionaries are clearly decieved by a mechanism which virtually behaves like a draft -- in other words, it is not exactly mandatory like a draft, but it... is. Well, this probably deserves some explanation, especially for those who are not familiar with the attitude of their ideology (I'm an "ex-Mormon"). Uh, unfortunately I don't feel comfortable talking about this. It's pretty unfortunate though... maybe you can find some stories about it somewhere else online. It's also sad how plainly obvious it can be, yet many these guys are in the position where they can not see it. It's a freaking disgusting and a horrifically depressing machine. It's so sick. I might be more open to some PM discussions...

 

 

Father Banana (the imaginary character that I invented) is openly gay, which is why I trust him with my (imaginary) children more than I would if Father Banana were an anti-gay preist...

 

Are you just pointing out the irony? I hope so, haha.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Ben Banana

[Marshalscienceguy]

I thought Atheism was going against this type of thing. Wouldn't making a church for Atheism make them like any other religion? Sounds ironic.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[iNow]

Just an idea... It helps to read some of the previous posts (not just the thread title) prior to adding a new post of your own.