This is so clever, I have to share it with you. We all need to keep copies of this to hand to those pesky christians trying to convert us to their cult: The Christian Proselytizer Questionnaire:

If you’re reading this paper, it means I’ve given it to you because you were proselytizing to me and you are a Christian. I’m giving you this paper to save us both some time; you see, I’m not a Christian, although I used to be. I’m a secular humanist, and I became one for both logical and emotive reasons.

Since I’ve been a Christian, I do know quite a bit about the religion, although I might not know much about your particular sect. (I use the word sect instead of the word denomination because I think it unfair that Christians get denominations, which is a nice-sounding word, while everyone else gets sects, which is an evil-sounding word.) I became a non-Christian because I didn’t like what I knew about the Christian religion. If you want to even begin attempting to convert me, you have to settle those problems. Specifically, you have to answer the questions below. Answers to each question should be typed or neatly handwritten on a separate sheet (or sheets) of paper, and no answer should exceed 100 words. This is because one of the reasons I left Christianity is that it was so complex, and I’ve found that the simplest answer to a question is usually the right one. Quotes from scripture count for bonus points as long as you can refute other quotes from scripture that contradict the passage that you are quoting. If you return this paper to me personally, or if you mail it to me, and if I think that your answers justify my return to Christianity, then I will get in touch with you. Read more…

Show Bookmarks

Hide Bookmarks

I don’t normally argue the ‘finer’ points of the bible because I’m an atheist; god doesn’t exist, therefore the bible is simply a poorly written book from the Iron Ages. Its only value to me is perhaps a bit of history, but it isn’t even very good with that, because it’s been translated and copied so many times.

That being said, I do have a couple of bibles. Mainly I use the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible when I need one now, though. The thing about being a skeptic/atheist, you have to know more than the “true believer”.

Here are 50 inconsistencies in the old testament that you can keep in your back pocket for arguments.

1. Man was created equal, male and female. Gen.1:27.
   Woman was created as a companion to the man only after he rejected the animals. Gen.2:18-24.
2. Man was created after the plants. Gen.1:12, 26.
   Man was created before the plants. Gen.2:5-9.
3. The birds were created out of the water. Gen.1:20.
   The birds were created out of the land. Gen.2:19.
4. The animals were created before man. Gen.1:24-26.
   The animals were created after man. Gen.2:19.
5. On the first day, God created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:3-5.
   On the fourth day, God again created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:14-18.
6. God encouraged reproduction. Gen.1:28.
   He said it was an unclean process. Lev.12:1-8 (Note that bearing a daughter is more unclean than bearing a son).
7. God was pleased with his creation. Gen.1:31.
   God was not pleased with his creation. Gen.6:6. Read more…
   Show Bookmarks
   
   

   

   Hide Bookmarks

From NewsBiscuit

via RichardDawkins.net Read more…

Creationism

Part 1

Read more…

This is Part 1 in a series I introduced yesterday about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy a day (approximately). There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

Our first Logical Fallacy is the Straw Man Argument. This is a great one to start with on our journey because it’s quite common and easy to spot.

A straw man: a dummy stuffed with straw. It’s too weak to fight back.

Arguing against a position specifically created to be easy to argue against, rather than the position held by someone who opposes that point of view.

So, when you state your position, your opponent replies not to what you said, but to a distorted and exaggerated caricature of what you said, that is obviously harder to defend.

Example: You state your argument: People who commit minor offenses should be let out of jail sooner.
Opponent replies: Emptying out all the jails would create havoc in society.

While that may be true, it isn’t what you suggested. It’s irrelevant. Your opponent didn’t refute your point, he invented a different point that is easier to argue against. The opponent can take satisfaction in having a point that no reasonable person could argue with. He appears to have successfully defeated your argument when in fact he simply dodged it. Read more…