No, I haven't gone completely mad.


I've been reading Dale Carnegie's seminal work, "How to convince your publisher that a really long title is a good idea, honestly"


OK, jokes aside - the summary is here on Wikipedia and makes for interesting reading:


Crucially, Carneigie (through his own, painful experience over a quote from Shakespeare wrongly attributed to the Bile) observes that you should never correct someone else's argument - even when they are painfully and obviously wrong.


Literal creationists (call them what we will) have suffered a terrible education - and a dishonest one, in our view. Yes, they are wrong, but telling them as much only actually strengthens their belief in their own error!


To make it doubly hard for us, if this obstacle wasn't enough, the truth is perhaps the most painful of all. They have been told that they will live forever, ya-de-ya and we're telling them:


a) They do not matter one iota in the grand scheme of things

b) No ethereal being gives a fuck - because the ethereal being is a figment of their imagination.

c) They are animals - little different from the apes in the zoo.

d) They are going to die - quite soon in real terms and for most of them, a in very short time, there will be nothing left save for the replicated strands of a complex chemical and perhaps a few memories.


So, the reason for this discussion is to find other ways - perhaps based on Carnegie's advice (it's good, but you should read the book) - of convincing these poor, terrified creatures that:

a) Life is actually worth something;

b) Science is like a fractal - the deeper you look, the more you see.

c) Death is part of a natural order and they have nothing to fear, save for the fear of death itself. The will live on in the memories of the people they touch (in a good way).

Tags: creation, creationsm, death, life, psychology

Views: 337

Replies to This Discussion

1. debating creationists (for the most part) is not to convince them but to inform the people watching/listening/reading.
1a. kent hovind is best ignored but his ignorance helps push any people who are on the fence.
1b. people who are as bad as hovind though need to be dealt with carefully; so only people who are good at debating creationists
1c. i have won several unofficial debates and they need to be handled VERY CAREFULLY.

2a. this does an amazing job at deconstructing creation movements
2b. tells why in a clear and concise manner why ID is BS using primary and secondary causation to answer why methodological naturalism is required

3. your a,b,c,d are poor arguments against creationism because those are atheistic positions not scientific positions (by necessity science cannot address primary causation as mentioned in 2b)
3a. creationism is not to hard to get around as it is used to back up their believe in god
Evid3nc3 has put it best in my opinion setting up a web where all nodes are only there to prop up the main believe in god.
if i didn't write it clear enough you can scientifically prove evolution to the creationists satisfaction and that will not affect their believe in god. William lane Craig put it bluntly that even if someone took him back in time and he watch jesus' body rot he would still believe

for the last part i think most christians accept a,c

i hope this added to the conversation
Have you ever seen the YT channel called FinallyFreeFromFaith? He was heavy into the God scene for awhile. He said the proper way to debate a Christian is to debunk the Bible. It's a pretty good video, and he has some other good ones, too.
Alas, I can sort of see the point there.  Winning a logical debate with a Christian won't do shit if your goal is to convince them.


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service