The best way to refute fundamentalists

[Solitary]

Santorini is one place I would still like to visit.  The eruption and tsunami are quite real ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laD6CWwILUA ... the earlier destruction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbVXEBNbHFU ... the later destruction

Dimly remembered horrors ... put into a fictional narrative by early Judeans.  Just as the Noah story is a conflation of E Turkey legend and Sumerian legend.

There is evidence that the earliest disaster, which was the starving of the first stone-age civilization in Turkey, before agriculture was even invented ... is shadowed in Genesis.  Agriculture developed in the Fertile Crescent, after recovery from the great drought that stopped that first civilization at Gobekli Tepe.

Thank you Baruch! Having wanted to be an archaeologist when younger this was fascinating to watch for me. Very interesting. Now we know why so many ancient myths from the Middle East talk about a great flood.

[Solitary]

Time and space are the same thing, this fact was observed and agreed on decades ago. If you are going to assert to a group of atheists that anybody created anything, then you need to defer to defer to the evidence on that...what, don't have any? Why am I not surprised?

So when I look at my watch I'm seeing what space it is? It is true that there is space-time, and any dimension of space can be used as  time mathematically, it doesn't mean space and time are the same thing, only that they are aspects of each other, as far as I know. It's very easy to think the world of mathematics is the same as the world we live in because it describes the world we live in so well, but are they really the  same world? This is a good topic to discuss.

[Baruch]

Pythagoras would say that the world is made up of numbers.  Being the inverse-Pythagoras, I would say that the numbers are made up by beings in the world.  Though theorems have their own independent formality, like chess gambits.  But there are no chess gambits, without chess players.

Space and time are the same, like an anchovy and a pizza are the same ... they are both made up of atoms.  And in fact the best thing of all is to combine them, space-time and anchovy pizza ;-)

[peacewithoutgod]

So when I look at my watch I'm seeing what space it is? It is true that there is space-time, and any dimension of space can be used as  time mathematically, it doesn't mean space and time are the same thing, only that they are aspects of each other, as far as I know. It's very easy to think the world of mathematics is the same as the world we live in because it describes the world we live in so well, but are they really the  same world? This is a good topic to discuss.

Keep thinking. As John Steinbeck said of good and evil, it's all part of the same thing. Just as all of the sciences are part of what happens under the laws of physics.

In the beginning there was physics. Chemistry, geology, and biology were nonexistent at the Big Bang, they all arose from the same...as did time and space, which mathematics describe.

[Termin]

Pythagoras would say that the world is made up of numbers.  Being the inverse-Pythagoras, I would say that the numbers are made up by beings in the world.  Though theorems have their own independent formality, like chess gambits.  But there are no chess gambits, without chess players.

Space and time are the same, like an anchovy and a pizza are the same ... they are both made up of atoms.  And in fact the best thing of all is to combine them, space-time and anchovy pizza ;-)

  He could still be correct, the world is made up of numbers, the problem however, is maybe we are using the wrong ones.

[Baruch]

If the numbers in my bank account are bigger than the numbers in your bank account, then priceless!  Like Animal Farm ... all numbers are created equal, but some are more equal than others ;-)

[Munch]

If the numbers in my bank account are bigger than the numbers in your bank account, then priceless!  Like Animal Farm ... all numbers are created equal, but some are more equal than others ;-)

That book/movie makes me glad for bacon.

[peacewithoutgod]

If we could make bacon of the Wall Street pigs, would one of them survive by reinventing himself as the Napoleon to lead and usurp our revolution?

[Baruch]

Your revolution was a controlled psyop, and won't be televised (because of low ratings with the target audience).

[peacewithoutgod]

Your revolution was a controlled psyop, and won't be televised (because of low ratings with the target audience).

Baruch, it wasn't intended to be taken seriously, but once in awhile my thoughts do concern those outside of atheism - which is in fact how I came to doubt the validity of any and all arguments in support of religious ideas.

On making bacon out of Wall Street pigs, I hope that is only taken figuratively, but do you really think the viewing public would not have interest in that?

[Baruch]

I recognize sarcasm, and respond sometimes with dead-pan ;-)  Don't take me seriously either ;-))

[widdershins]

It has been my experience that the best way to refute a fundamentalist is not to.  Just laugh and walk away.  There is no amount of fact, no matter how vast, which can overcome blind faith (the polite word for being too lazy to look at facts in the first place).  The only thing you'll accomplish is making them think you're in league with the devil.  You can easily win every argument, but they'll never know you won.  The more sense you make, the angrier they'll get at you, the more you'll alienate them.  The only possible way to refute them, which may or may not work, is to ask them to explain why you should believe and politely explain to them why that's not a reason to believe.  I'm assuming if that ever works at all it will take months or years before they'll actually realize that they really have no reason to believe, but I've not actually seen it, or anything else ever work.

One thing is for sure, outright telling them why they're wrong only pisses them off.  The more right you are, the more pissed they'll get.  Reality is a state they have to reach on their own and there's not a whole lot you can do to help them there.  At least, that has been my experience.

[Mike Cl]

It has been my experience that the best way to refute a fundamentalist is not to.  Just laugh and walk away.  There is no amount of fact, no matter how vast, which can overcome blind faith (the polite word for being too lazy to look at facts in the first place).  The only thing you'll accomplish is making them think you're in league with the devil.  You can easily win every argument, but they'll never know you won.  The more sense you make, the angrier they'll get at you, the more you'll alienate them.  The only possible way to refute them, which may or may not work, is to ask them to explain why you should believe and politely explain to them why that's not a reason to believe.  I'm assuming if that ever works at all it will take months or years before they'll actually realize that they really have no reason to believe, but I've not actually seen it, or anything else ever work.

One thing is for sure, outright telling them why they're wrong only pisses them off.  They more right you are, the more pissed they'll get.  Reality is a state they have to reach on their own and there's not a whole lot you can do to help them there.  At least, that has been my experience.

That is my experience with this type of person as well.

[Munch]

Although this really belongs in the Judaism section, I feel its relevant to yet another look into the insanity of fundamentalists. Given this happened several years ago, its still a funny story. My aunt sent a facebook post about this letter when it was sent, to a Dr Laura on her religious radio talk show.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/03/25/850561/-An-Open-Letter-to-Dr-Laura-Schlesinger

In her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger (a popular conservative radio talk show host in the USA) said that homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, and was attributed to a James M. Kauffman, Ed. D.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… end of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness â€" Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord â€" Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination â€" Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed. D.
Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

This is one of the best things when it comes to breaking down any religous argument, on just the pure level of batshit cherry picking they do with there own cult, deciding what must be upheld (killing homosexuals) and what can be glossed over, saying 'your taking it out of context' (wearing mixed fabrics, working weekends, eating shellfish, owning slaves)