Should I listen to this guy's advice?

[dtq123]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxP4gI-qNhc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEm2mqt1nwU

Yes, I googled it. It didn't work

[Munch]

Don't set up a false false dichotomy involving evolution? So don't flat out put on the table the fact of what makes creationists dumb fucks because they might feel sensitive to reality?

That is literally throwing out the baby with the bath water, as your having to cast off what creationists don't want to hear, because it is the thing that breaks anything they have to say about it.

We will never find a middle ground with creationists for that reason.

[Aletheia]

It makes sense to take into consideration their level of education and try to avoid catch-phrases they've been trained to avoid. Evolution isn't about Darwin - it's about how populations of organisms can change in subsequent generations due to selective pressures. It's like encouraging someone to eat food they normally would be against trying. You break evolution down for them via your arguments while avoiding the terms "Darwin," and "evolution." I've helped to tutor many people who needed to understand biology in order to meet their prerequisites in school. Christians understand family structures and descent with modification in this scope. When you're able to show creatures with various transitional forms of the organs (like kidneys, circulatory system, brain, eyes, etc) then they find it harder to believe everything just poofed into existence. Most of the Christians passed the class with the idea that God started the evolution process knowing it would one day lead to man. It's still misinterpreted, but they did accept evolution as being true.

So, yeah, I do agree with his approach. Remove the words they've been trained to be afraid of and you'll be able to talk about the concept, more or less unimpeded.

[Munch]

So, yeah, I do agree with his approach. Remove the words they've been trained to be afraid of and you'll be able to talk about the concept, more or less unimpeded.

Although unless they are engaged on it, we can't tell their level of denial and/or stupidity when it comes evolution unless you dig at them on it first.

[Brian37]

I personally hate all the elaborate crap theists throw around trying to suck you into details when it ultimately still amounts to religion is man made and gods are products of human imagination.

My best advice is to look at the bigger picture. Evolution. Our modern knowledge of the world as compared to a majority of our species existence being in scientific ignorance, our pattern seeking in antiquity, and even pre-written history, lead us to gap fill, and that is how religion starts and god claims start.

It does have the evolutionary benefit of creating groups and survival through gaining resources and opportunity to offspring, but it is still a placebo. Just like the ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years but that did not make their polytheistic god's real.

I have been online 14 years and have seen the same tactics in trying to attack science. And when the theists cant win doing that they try to co opt science. But this isn't just Christians doing this. I have run into Jews and Muslims and Hindus and even a Rastafarian over the years.

It is our species clinging to social norms because of our pattern seeking and our species failure to understand that our perceptions of reality can be notoriously flawed. It is also a projection of our species narcissism and fear of being finite. The word for projecting our human qualities on the world around us is "anthropomorphism".

So the "should I debate" this way or that way. Who cares, it still amounts to defending a comic book and defending a fictional invisible sky hero.

[Moralnihilist]

This is why you don't bother debating them. It doesn't matter what evidence you bring to the table. By arguing with them you are arguing against one of their deepest held beliefs, something that if it were to change they would be lost and confused and their world would crumble. Its a waste of breath.

[Solitary]

I agree, but it's still fun to see how they support their beliefs. 

[Munch]

This is why you don't bother debating them. It doesn't matter what evidence you bring to the table. By arguing with them you are arguing against one of their deepest held beliefs, something that if it were to change they would be lost and confused and their world would crumble. Its a waste of breath.

Exactly. If you imagine the core of a person being the structure that holds them up, take then the fundamental beliefs of a theist to that of an atheist.

The theists support structure is held up on weak material that has to be constantly remade and adapted, while the theist still believes it's just as strong as always, his contractor (the priest or religious leader) saying it's all good when he's the one who sold him the cheap material.

Meanwhile the atheists supports had him look into the building materials being used, realised how weak it was, and used something that has been proven to support itself by evidence. It isn't as flowery or been given an "eternal support" promise like the theist was told it would for his, instead it's just been given an honest recommendation for how long it will be.

This is why people like Ken ham are so stuck in their ignorance, because they lack the capacity to look into the foundation of their own beliefs, fearing it might me as weak as others say.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

It's the quiet ones you have to watch out for. So if some crazy fuck with a butcher knife walks in and screams, "I'LL KILL THE FIRST MOTHER FUCKER WHO DISAGREES WITH CREATIONISM!" ignore him and worry about the quiet one in the corner reading his bible..