Anybody else get this?

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Does anybody else find that sometimes the unintended 'reverse psychology' of Christian arguments can be more dissuasive than the work of the finest atheist thinkers?

A couple of examples: ‘You’ve heard about Jesus now, so gotcha! You have no excuse!’ and the common ‘God does not send anybody to hell; people choose to go there’ claim.

Also, the sanitisation of hell, with 'separation from God' type arguments.

These sort of things seem to be better at dissuading me from buying into it all and I wondered if it was the same for others?

[tirtlegrrl]

Yup. Also, apologetics that try and make it less horrible that God ordered the genocide of an entire culture because of the sins of their distant ancestors.

Although to be honest I prefer the type of believer that acknowledges that said problems exist and wrestles with them, to the kind that just denies them ("The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"). How the former can continue to believe while being ashamed of and needing to whitewash aspects of said belief is beyond me though.

[darkumbra]

Nothing more effective than a 'true believer' for turning a thinker into an atheist.

[Kiwi]

I'm bumping into this "bible said it, that settles it" thing a lot lately. I find it interesting that some Christians will apply critical thinking and research to all manner of things that they are passionate about - should I buy a Honda or a Toyota, should I eat butter or margarine, should I immunise my kids, should I invest in forestry or managed funds - but when it comes to thinking about the bible the shutters come down. "You just gotta accept it."

[NH Baritone]

The consistency of these arguments strongly suggests the speakers are simply regurgitating the I'll-conceived sermonettes of their favorite Christian authority figures.

Atheists are not immune, however, to similar quote harvesting. Atheists "simply believe in one god fewer than Christians." Or "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color." Or "Jesus had a really bad weekend for your sins." Or "According to Leviticus, wearing mixed fabrics is as much an abomination to God as homosexuality."

I think it is safe to assume that when a discussion has deteriorated to this level of drivel, the participants are simply screaming, "Victory!" loudly in order to drown out their opponents ideas.

[tirtlegrrl]

nhb wrote: The consistency of these arguments strongly suggests the speakers are simply regurgitating the I'll-conceived sermonettes of their favorite Christian authority figures.

Oh. My. Word. I swear if I come across "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord," one more time I'm going to go to my local Borders and stomp all the C.S. Lewis books into mush.

Atheists are not immune, however, to similar quote harvesting. Atheists "simply believe in one god fewer than Christians." Or "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color." Or "Jesus had a really bad weekend for your sins." Or "According to Leviticus, wearing mixed fabrics is as much an abomination to God as homosexuality."

I think it is safe to assume that when a discussion has deteriorated to this level of drivel, the participants are simply screaming, "Victory!" loudly in order to drown out their opponents ideas.

I know, and I was so disappointed to discover that atheists can be just as sheeplike as any other group. The first time I heard each of the quotes above I was like "booyah!" and then I discovered said quotes being flung around indiscriminately. Rats.

[NH Baritone]

The consistency of these arguments strongly suggests the speakers are simply regurgitating the I'll*-conceived sermonettes of their favorite Christian authority figures.

Atheists are not immune, however, to similar quote harvesting. Atheists "simply believe in one god fewer than Christians." Or "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color." Or "Jesus had a really bad weekend for your sins." Or "According to Leviticus, wearing mixed fabrics is as much an abomination to God as homosexuality."

I think it is safe to assume that when a discussion has deteriorated to this level of drivel, the participants are simply screaming, "Victory!" loudly in order to drown out their opponents ideas.

* When you notice such odd misspellings in my posts, it's a sure sign that I posted using my iPhone. Great device, but the oblivious dictatorship of the auto-correct feature, which is designed to disguise the user's stupidity, often adds even more to it.

[tirtlegrrl]

NH Baritone wrote:
* When you notice such odd misspellings in my posts, it's a sure sign that I posted using my iPhone.

Ooh! Does it prevent people from using an apostrophe to form the plural? "Apple's" "iphone's" etc.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Yup. Also, apologetics that try and make it less horrible that God ordered the genocide of an entire culture because of the sins of their distant ancestors.

Yes, that's another one, I notice it is sometimes argued that it was the savagery of the time as opposed to modern civilisation, but that doesn't work for me as God himself is meant to be constant.

The sort of arguments which cause me to smell a rat are emotional entrapment and doublethink.

(BTW I didn't realise that you are meant to use an apostrophe to form the plural, correct apostrophe use is something I find hard to understand.)

[NH Baritone]

OK, a quick class from grammar gay guy:

"It's" only serves as a contraction of "it is." You may never use "it's" to indicate possession.

"Its" (no apostrophe) is the possessive form of "it" (akin to "his" or "her").

The plural of "it" is "they."

Although there are some fringey outliers, most editors consider it incorrect to EVER use an apostrophe when forming a simple plural. So the correct way to show the plural iPhone is "iPhones," and the possessive is "iPhone's battery."

[tirtlegrrl]

(BTW I didn't realise that you are meant to use an apostrophe to form the plural...

No no no that's exactly what you're NOT supposed to do...see the brilliant post above this one. What I mean is that autocorrect programs such as the one on the iphone are not good at distinguishing between different words all spelled correctly, e.g. "they're," "their, "there" and correcting the word based on the context. So would the iphone be able to correct the sentence: "I bought two apple's today"--assuming that the writer meant to use the plural of apple, and not the possessive?

[NH Baritone]

(BTW I didn't realise that you are meant to use an apostrophe to form the plural...

No no no that's exactly what you're NOT supposed to do...see the brilliant post above this one. What I mean is that autocorrect programs such as the one on the iphone are not good at distinguishing between different words all spelled correctly, e.g. "they're," "their, "there" and correcting the word based on the context. So would the iphone be able to correct the sentence: "I bought two apple's today"--assuming that the writer meant to use the plural of apple, and not the possessive?

Unlike most word processing programs, the iPhone's auto-correct feature fixes only spelling. And it only offers one correction choice when it senses an error.

Therefore it does not detect an incorrect usage. And due to its unsophisticated list of options, the phone may insert an incorrect word, even if you've entered the correct one.

[Keep The Reason]

Does anybody else find that sometimes the unintended 'reverse psychology' of Christian arguments can be more dissuasive than the work of the finest atheist thinkers?

A couple of examples: ‘You’ve heard about Jesus now, so gotcha! You have no excuse!’ and the common ‘God does not send anybody to hell; people choose to go there’ claim.

Also, the sanitisation of hell, with 'separation from God' type arguments.

These sort of things seem to be better at dissuading me from buying into it all and I wondered if it was the same for others?

Very often I find that the theistic arguments are far more rife with a hierarchy of problems than is anything I could ever argue. Invariably, theistic arguments conclude with the theist saying, "Okay, from this point on, everything I say is a requirement is not a requirement because it's about god."

The unique thing about the atheistic perspective is that we don't have any competitive ideology to promote. Theists will often insist the non-theistic worldview is also a promoting of "x" worldview, but I think consistently people who argue from a materialist mindset are primarily just deconstructing theistic assertions and arguments, or discussing scientific paradigms -- which are not ideologies (the Theory of Evolution is not an ideology, it's a scientific Theory.)

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Thanks for the replies and NHB for explanation. I think I get it. One last thing - apostrophe after ‘s’ means more than one owner, right? E.g. dogs’ bones = more than one dog? Sorry for OT.

[NH Baritone]

Thanks for the replies and NHB for explanation. I think I get it. One last thing - apostrophe after ‘s’ means more than one owner, right? E.g. dogs’ bones = more than one dog? Sorry for OT.

Yes, that's exactly the formating for plurals ending in "s." If the plural does not end in "s," then it's apostrophe "s" again, e.g., "children's pony."

However, here's a bit of a wrinkle in the rule: If the noun ends in "s," you have a choice. You can follow the traditional (apostrophe "s") rule, e.g., "Chris's iPod," or you can proceed in the same manner as if the word were plural ("s" apostrophe), e.g. "Chris' iPod." Most American editors prefer the latter. Oddly, this does not usually affect pronunciation, which either way would sound like, "Chrisses iPod."

Isn't English fun?!?!