Thursday, January 9, 2014

Three days later, debate resurrected

As I mentioned a few posts ago, after almost a month of debating a theist via email, we decided to call it quits. Then, three days later, not unlike the fictional account of Jesus, our debate was resurrected. It started as a semi-harmless question about a creator and whether I believed in one, which I thought was preposterous on so many levels. How can you debate someone on a subject for three straight weeks and not know where they stand?

If the question was the only subject of the email it might not have escalated, but this theist had to throw in a handful of unsubstantiated drivel, almost begging me to react to it. Basically she flip-flopped on her stance yet again on evolution, thanking me for calling her attention to it and saying she believes more than ever in a creator. This is proof to me she is too far gone and nothing short of a thump on the head will ever jar her from her indoctrination.

When I say "escalate" I mean our conversation was littered with sarcasm from me and accusations from her. I was called a militant atheist and then her condescension set in, saying she tried, as in "I tried to have a rational discussion with you but you obviously can't have one without getting angry."

When it comes to religion I don't think I she could be rational if Socrates were in her living room and slapped her with his sandal. Christians will resort to this ad hominem attack when they have no answer to what you set forth. They will claim you are angry with god and religion instead of facing the facts, that their god is man-made and their religion is false. And when they call you militant, what they are really saying is you know your shit and I can't pull my shit around you. Funny how when someone confidently refutes theist arguments and uses ridicule for ridiculous statements we are called militant, but when theists use circular logic, unending proselytizing and irrational faith they aren't called militant theists.

The argument this theist made in favor of a creator was based on the complexity and beauty of DNA and how Prof. Antony Flew changed his worldview from an atheist to a deist because of this stance on DNA. I quickly pointed out for every beautiful and complex thing in the world I can point out something horrific and simple. DNA's mutation and lack of perfection is one of the major reasons we have evolution, that and natural selection. My debater held up Flew as if that's some enlightened reason for believing in a deity. I asked her if I gave her a long list of clergy that became atheist would that mean anything to her? And being a Christian theist I reminded her that even if he was a deist he is currently burning in her god's hell because he absolutely denied being a theist and found the whole all-knowing-god concept ridiculous. She then said something so vile about birth defects and homosexuals that I can't even post it here. So sad.

Ultimately we again agreed we couldn't debate anymore, and I must admit I do miss it because I found it entertaining, stimulating and disturbing all at the same time. Sometimes I wish we were strangers so it wouldn't matter if we pissed each other off and I could continue to flex my brain.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. point out with a photo of harlequins ichthyosis & the mutation on the ABCA12 gene effects - use the nastiest photo & Feel sickened that such a creator can design such a mess. Obviously a creator would be fired for negligence if existed. If the creator does exist then He is not fit to worship - I'd rather rebel in hell bathed in an impenetrable armour & weapons of logic and reason.