Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

July 11, 2002

Why Atheists and Agnostics Are So Fun to Debate.

Why Atheists are so fun to debate:

1. Since they hate the Bible, they rarely read it, and the few who have, pretty much had to force themselves to, while rolling their eyes and mumbling, "blah, blah, blah". So they know little if anything about it, yet pontificate as if they had a Doctorate in it.

2. Atheism is an absolute, chosen in order to escape absolutes. The Atheist refuses to believe in any sort of moral absolute, so grasps the absolute of "There is no God, no never, ever." This oxymoron is difficult to rationalize.

3. Since every human being has a desire for his life to have purpose, and Atheism strips any and all purpose from human existence, the Atheist must leap through all kinds of logical contortions of rationalization to try to replace that purpose with an imaginary one. All the while making fun of the religious for having an imaginary friend.

4. If Evolution isn't true, then the Atheist is left with an embarrassing planet teeming with life to explain. Therefore Evolution must be true. This leap of faith places the Atheist in the tenuous position of defending his faith, while ridiculing the faith of others. 

5. To reach the conclusion that there is no God, requires either blind faith in a haphazard assumption, or omniscience. But if the Atheist was omniscient . . . then he'd be God. Can God be an Atheist?

6. Atheists have a fondness for grabbing quotes which seem to prove their side, and posting them en masse, without bothering to verify them, so they can make the point that the religious as too quick to believe things, without verifying them.

Why Agnostics are so fun to debate.

1. See #1 above

2. Agnostics actually believe that being indecisive is an intelligent approach.

3. Since every human being has a desire for his life to have purpose, and Agnosticism tosses the existence of that desire aside as irrelevant, the Agnostic must leap through all kinds of logical contortions of rationalization to try to explain why such a deep seated, universal concept is peripheral to the origin of human kind. Their typical response is to invent an imaginary source for that concept. All the while making fun of the religious for having an imaginary friend.

4. If Evolution isn't true, then the Agnostic has a hard time pretending that he can't be sure there's a God because he has an embarrassing planet teeming with life to explain. Therefore Evolution must be true. This leap of faith places the Agnostic in the tenuous position of defending his faith, while ridiculing the faith of others. 

5. To reach the conclusion that there is no way to know if God exists, requires either blind faith in a haphazard assumption, or omniscience. But if the Agnostic was omniscient . . . then he'd be God. Can God be an Agnostic?

6. See #6 above and replace "Atheist" with "Agnostic"

But the ultimate reason both Agnostics and Atheists are so fun to debate . . .

. . .  they whine like babies when they ultimately lose.

Comments

Posted by Jack Lewis at July 11, 2002 03:19 PM