The inherent dangers of “God discussions”
I’d missed this exchange on religion. I think it’s great that many atheists have the energy to argue with people who have the IQ’s of ripe melons- but I don’t recommend it. What I see happen, invariably, is that no matter how much evidence is provided that religion is manure- they still ‘believe’. When people’s world view doesn’t put a value on evidence, rather the way they process information is based on feeling or tradition, then we’re setting ourselves up for very unpleasant discussions.
The religious mind is trained into defective thinking methods. We have to keep in mind that although they often hide behind vague notions of the possibility a god exists- that doesn’t come close to describing all the other wholly unsupported beliefs they readily subscribe to. They need no evidence to believe in a virgin birth, in resurrection, in transubstantiation (aka cannibalism)- no evidence whatsoever. Their desire for evidence only magically appears once something calls their static belief system/tradition into question. This is how you get idiots questioning evolution. I believe someone in the discussion mentioned above says ‘there are holes in evolution’. That made me laugh. Evolution is the most well documented theory of all history. We have incomparably more evidence of evolution than we do to prove Zombie Jesus ever existed at all. In fact there’s really no credible evidence to support ZJ existed- and yet they’re not interested in that. It doesn’t matter to them. If that doesn’t matter to them, then evidence doesn’t actually matter to them, and if evidence doesn’t matter, the discussion will end where it began.