Every once in a while, I log on to Omegle.com to see if I can chat with theists or deists. I admit that most times I go on there just to screw with them or to look for a debate, and nine times out of 10 they just disconnect from the conversation when I tell them I'm an atheist. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes to me. Their faith is so fragile they can't even have a completely anonymous electronic conversation with someone who doesn't believe in their god.
But, I don't reveal that I'm an atheist immediately. I usually let the conversation exchange pleasantries and see where it leads. If they're a "good" Christian then they try to proselytize me, or sometimes they have questions. But the other night, without even typing a word yet, my dialogue partner opened with this gem, and remember, we don't know each other and haven't even said hello yet:
HIM: I strongly dislike Atheists out of principle.
Now, this person has already told me so much about himself. He's a bigot, and his principles are grotesquely out of whack. Why open a conversation like that? And by admitting he doesn't like atheists on principle, means he's narrow-minded and brainwashed.
So I decided to play along to get a juicy conversation going.
ME: I feel sorry for theists because they are brainwashed.
HIM: Oh boy
ME: Yep, you hit the jackpot, let's roll.
HIM: What makes you say that? And keep in mind, I have the authority to ask so, since all of civilization has been begotten from adherence to religions of all denominations, and that is irrefutable.
ME: All of civilization, really? While all civilizations have/had religion, I would argue agriculture and evolution were just as responsible for civility and advancement. Ever heard of burden of proof?
HIM: Have you never taken any history class? Paganism in Rome? Holy Roman Catholic Church for over a millennium in Europe? I'm not verifying God, I'm justifying the improvement religion has had on modern civilization, and its precursors.
ME: You're defending an argument that wasn't there. You said you can't stand atheists. What does that have to do with the influence of religion?
HIM: And, explain your reasoning on subjective morality, since that is the modus operandi of Atheists.
ME: While I didn't mention anything about my stance on morality, I'd like to point out you've made some fallacies here. First, you're deflecting the initial points we've discussed and introducing a new argument, which is called a Red Herring. You're also asserting all atheists' MO is rooted in subjective morality, which is another fallacy called Begging the Question. And finally, objective morality is a fallacy, too. Even if there were a god, his morality would still be subjective. And religion has done more harm than good.
HIM: What supporting statements do you have to verify the latter statement? I'll assume you'll say the Dark Ages were the spawn of "papal oppression" when, in fact, many historians completely dismiss this opinion.
ME: No, I'm more educated than that. And again, you're assuming things without fact. Even if you cast aside the Crusades and your papal oppression, you're still left with 9/11, 7/7, childhood genital mutilation, suicide bombings, ethnic cleansing, Protestant-Catholic wars, gay bashing, female oppression, etc. It's pathetic and ignorance at its highest level, all in the name of an imaginary man-made sky king.
AT THIS POINT, IT'S PAINFULLY OBVIOUS HE IS ONLY CHOOSING TO ADDRESS WHAT HE FEELS LIKE ANSWERING, LIKE A TYPICAL CHERRY-PICKING CHRISTIAN. I'LL CONTINUE THIS IN A SERIES OF POSTS.