So close to finishing my new theme layout... hopefully that'll be completed soon and won't cause any major disruptions to the site.
Added as a new member to the blogroll: AiGBusted -- which is not about the company, but Answers in Genesis. The blog is focused on debunking creationism as a whole and Answers in Genesis in particular.
I commented briefly on the Vox Day and Common Sense atheism debate -- mostly analyzed the argument put forth by VD. Roughly: Christianity's conception of evil, pain, suffering, injustice in the world is better than any other on offer. Therefore, one ought to be a Christian.
The argument is essentially one premise and a conclusion. Two obvious methods of attack: contest the premise, or contest that the conclusion follows from the premise. My vote is to choose the second method -- it does no harm to accept the premise even if you do not agree with it, the conclusion does not follow regardless.
---------
Also, a friend of mine got in a discussion with a street preacher last night (and I wasn't there). He picked up a large ( 9in by 20 in) paper photocopy of a US $100 bill with a message on the back from Way of the Master (Ray Comfort) on the back.
I also have recently found some youtube videos of "open air preaching" -- and I think I'm going to have to try and write up how I think it's best to handle the street-preacher situation.
I'm talking about what to do when you get this kind of standard street preaching:
Notice that the username is "RationalResponder" -- One of the most frequent objections that I hear to engaging in religious debates is something along the lines: "You can't argue with reason against a position that isn't based on reason." Or some similar wording.
I understand the point that's being made, but the main issue I have with that is: the people who you think are being 'irrational' -- and they may well be -- do not think that they are being irrational.
They will argue that they are being rational, and they often think they are being rational. This is a good thing; a person who shares rationality as a value has definite potential.
Think of it this way: if a Christian is offended by reading, 'Christians are irrational' -- that leads to common ground that being rational is a good thing. If you think they are being irrational, point to where and what; he will have to try and respond how those beliefs/actions are rational. You both have a specific point to argue over; and you both agree on the values behind it.
{ 2 comments }
This preacher must be getting lessons from the Way of the Master. Old, tired, and easily debunked arguments.
The last street preacher who accosted me, I tried to politely say I didn't want to have a conversation and tried to ignore him. Honestly. However, when he started yelling at the crowd that I was a "dope fiend" (I'm not, and I suppose that was the worst thing he could think of to say), I asked him sotto voce if he really wanted to go there. He smiled and repeated his accusation even louder, so I replied with my own shouting to the crowd, "This man tried to rape my son! He's a pedophile who follows boys into bathrooms!" Then I wished him a nice day and left. I haven't seen him out on the street since. He had no point to make with anyone; he was just trying to be offensive. I took the bait and gave him a taste of his own.
Comments on this entry are closed.