post
"No, you're dumb. I refuse to elaborate" is my go-to when someone tries to impose their faith onto me now.
If they really insist and I want to lose some time, I tell them I believe Goku is god and make them dismount my argument. Then I use their own points to dismount their god and they usually get pissed because "it's not the same thing".
The universe was created when Goku wished for it with the dragon balls. The sole purpose of the universe is to create a champion strong enough to give Goku a decent fight.
goku was of course created by the flying spaghetti monster, glory to his noodlyness
Nu-uh. The flying spaghetti monster was created by someone's wish to the dragon balls. They wished for a being capable of defeating goku in a martial arts tournament but the combat was deemed too dangerous for the universe's existence so it never happened. Now both exist, aware of each other, and keeping their distance to each other (although having a healthy friendship through mail) so they keep the universe whole.
Schisms already smh
Whoa whoa, are you Church of Son Goku Rules Sloppy Pasta Drools Kame House Collective of Season 3, Church of Son Goku Rules Sloppy Pasta Drools Kame House Collective of Season 4?
Think long and hard about your answer, my precious sibling in the capsule of love and strength, and/or you pathetic smoking pile of ash!
This is heresy of the highest order, may your noodles be overcooked and your sauces watery.
Calling a monkey King figure a god isn't as outlandish as you may think.
What reddit atheists and online atheists in general dont understand is that you simply cannot win an argument with someone who isnt willing to listen to reason and doesnt want to argue on the basis of actual facts. Its like trying to win an argument against a reactionary, you can try as hard as you want but at the end of the day they're just gonna respond with "nuh uh" because they arent interested in a genuine discussion.
I'm not necessarily trying to convince them, though. I might be trying to convince somebody else who might come along and read the debate we're having. My opinion has been swayed on numerous issues by arguments I read on reddit and other websites which I took no part in. In fact, it's easier to sway third parties, because they don't have to worry about their ego the way an interlocutor does.
Yeah, that's why I sometimes in engage in online discussion when I don't want to because I can see that if it's only a certain type of comment then people reading could think there's a consensus.
Overall, I honestly think engaging in the atheism discussion was important because it allowed me to learn about religion more and what they believe in ... and in contrastI don't believe in it at all. It also made me discover parts I do like about religion like community and such.
If I'm being honest, I've never argued much about religion because I've long known that you can't reason about it. Religion not being real is a basic truth to me, just like free will not existing or absolute certainly being impossible. The fact that "God" is fake is less interesting to me than how and why people believe in him.
the key is neither the marketplace for ideas nor debate are good models for accomplishing anything productive. they do not encourage people to come to them ready to listen, but instead create an arena of professional wrestling in the format of "discussion."
a better model is the idea that you have a big pot of soup. your soup is your idea. you invite people to add ingredients to the soup. as a group, any time someone brings a new ingredient to the soup (a new mode of promoting and participating with the idea) you have the opportunity to integrate that ingredient or to say it doesn't go with the rest of what's already in the soup.
your goal, with your idea soup, is to invite as many people as you can to add ingredients so that your pot of soup is as big as possible and can feed as many people as possible. that means when you reject ingredients, you have to explain clearly why those ingredients don't belong with the rest of the soup
Pour hot soup on stupid people, got it.
That would never work, because everyone likes different soup...
which is why there is no One True Soup. you will learn what other soup pots have good people and good ingredients. you'll leave your soup pot from time to time to hang out at another soup pot and maybe get ideas for your soup. the only soup pots you don't visit are the ones surrounded by nazis. like you shouldn't eat at Richard Dawkins or JK Rowlings' soup pots
I liked the bit in the 3001 space Odyssey (the one where they unfreeze Frank and his lack of a foreskin gets him ghosted)
"Nowadays everyone's either a deist or a theist. The theists believe there's at least one god and the deists believe there's less than or exactly one god."
I was speaking with someone about how at around age 40 to 50 you stop caring so much. Let them be "right". It doesn't affect me.
Also, I hope my dad enjoyed it. He deserved some good sex.
- Do not engage with someone unwilling to have a good faith convo. Most folks unfortunately, don't even know what good faith arguments mean.
- Arguing with a bad faith counterpart makes sense when you want to explore your own beliefs further by probing them from different angles, when you're simply having fun using your brain, and when you want to leave your argument for a third party observing the conversation.
Attempting to convince someone else directly is quite impossible online in my experience. Simply because people generally aren't here to have good faith convos.
Leaving a convo/not replying to a rebuttal is NOT conceding your point.
The annoying thing about reddit/lemmy atheists is all they talk about is church and god.
It's why despite being definitionally anti-theist, I almost never talk about it. I didn't even intend for this post to be about religion, but about moving past the urge to be an annoying debate lord. Once you realize that the winning strategy for debates is to have a troll mindset, you waste a lot less time on fruitless conversations.
A troll doesn’t win the debate, trolls kill debates
On the other hand sometimes killing a "debate" is the best outcome.
How many times has some far right chud dropped of the radar after being absolutely humiliated?
"best outcome" yes, but not a "winning strategy"
A debate is really just a show where the people you're trying to win over are the audience, not the other person. The way to win such a verbal fisticuffs is to make your opponent look like a fool while making yourself look good. Trolls specialize in getting under people's skin, which allows them to shape the conversation in predictable ways. Giving your opponent the rope to hang themselves on is the winning strategy in online debates, not having a better argument than them.
Sure but you cant win a debate with someone who has the power of blind faith and confirmation bias, they will never question their beliefs and look for ways to justify them.
No, the annoying thing is that they all talk about religion as if all religion is evangelical Christianity. They think that it makes them look impartial or something, but it just makes them look ignorant.
Yeah, never liked the online communities. Like, they're good when people can ask there for advice, in case they're stuck in some ultra-religious family or village. But most of the time, they just devolve into anti-theism, because "religion bad" is sure to get you upvotes...
It's really easy to pump up Islamophobia, too. All you have to do is ask them why they never attack Islam, and imply it's because they're afraid. When Gaza was in the news, I would see a spike in anti-Muslim posts in the atheism subreddits. It's embarrassing how long it took me to realize that the anti-Muslim stuff wasn't there to attack ISIS or al-Qaeda. It was there to justify what was happening in Gaza.
There was even an atheist group I was a part of that had several speakers come to tell us about how horrible Muslims were, how they abused women, etc. Oh, and then we had a Jewish lady come and talk to us about how open-minded and rational Judaism is.
I love it when they consider themselves instantly smarter than anyone else solely because they're an atheist. I love it when they call themselves free thinkers yet they all share the same 7 talking points as to why. And they lose their shit if you challenge any of them.
I’ve found that distancing yourself from the debate emotionally and being playful about it (like in op pic) works best. If you feel like there’s a lot riding on it, you’ll lose yourself in the debate.
If you approach it like it doesn’t matter (because guess what, in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn’t) you’re free as a bird to make a case and move on.
Go ahead, do tell me where they at tho
I prefer to cultivate an actively painful to read style and just inflict that on them you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themsrlvesinto
You say this, but have you gone through 20 Lemmy accounts for this? Lemmy ain't as open as y'all think.


top 67 comments