|
Post by shelly87 on Apr 28, 2009 15:39:11 GMT -5
Okay so I was walking through campus today with my newspaper as I had some time to kill before class. I notice there is a group of fundies near the mall "preaching" (really one of them was just yelling at a girl asking whether she's ever lied -"well that makes you a liar"). So I go up to support her and I debate with them for awhile. It goes nowhere because they have justifications and rationalizations for all the inaccuracies and atrocities in the bible that I bring up...After 10 minutes I start to walk away, but one of them hands me a tract called "The Atheist Test" Now I'm agnostic because I believe I can't disprove the evidence of god anymore than they can prove evidence of his existence, but I digress. The tract is all about setting up straw mans about the big bang and evolution (they equate the two) in order to tear them down and supposedly convert the individual. But on the third page there is a little note about "The banana - the atheist's nightmare." It talks about how it "is shaped for the human hand, has outward indicators of inward contents, is shaped for the human mouth, is pleasing to taste buds." It's supposed to be an argument for design. So I turn around and show him the page, and I say "you know, if you want to convert intelligent people, you really shouldn't use examples like this because the banana we know today is really a product of breeding." I try and explain how bananas originally weren't yellow and so on...go here if you want a simple summary: homecooking.about.com/od/foodhistory/a/bananahistory.htm When I say that, he responds to me "We don't want intelligent people, we want sinners"
I just chuckled a bit, and we talked for a little while longer, I told him I used to be a christian, and he told me that was impossible, saying that if I was, I could never believe differently now... But yeah, his quote made me really realize that they don't want to convert the most intelligent people, they want gullible ones who are moved by fear tactics and warnings of fire and brimstone. Sorry this was so long, but yeah I'm still exasperated. I feel a little vindicated though because 10 min later when I got to class someone told me they got arrested (apparently for harassing someone from in the military)!
|
|
Zabimaru
Full Member
Always amused and bemused
Posts: 241
|
Post by Zabimaru on Apr 28, 2009 15:48:56 GMT -5
Why do they keep bringing up that damn banana? I thought it was just Ray Comfort who was stupid enough to do it, but I've seen plenty of people repeat that stupid argument.
I've written a piece once about how silly the argument is, both because of the reason you mention (bananas weren't all that nice to eat when they were first found) but also because it's such a lousy argument for the Christian god.
Since there are lots of stuff that is good for us that is very difficult to eat, like coconuts and pineapples, it seems to me that the banana argument is not an argument for an all-powerful god that created everything. If god had created bananas to be easy for us to eat, he would probably have done the same with other stuff, but apparently he didn't. So, if anything it is an argument for a specific banana god. And I'm pretty sure that they don't believe in that.
But the "We don't want intelligent people"-line is a classic. It's as good an explanation as any for why they use such silly arguments.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 28, 2009 15:51:16 GMT -5
I read a really long argument against evolution that was written in 1925. Some of the arguments I could see being used back then, because people just didn't know. The problem is that they're still using the same damn arguments even though they've been debunked for 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by shelly87 on Apr 28, 2009 15:53:29 GMT -5
Well the tract was adapted from Ray Comfort's book "God doesn't believe in Atheists" and published by living waters publications. I think hes one of the few idiots who uses this argument, I just don't understand why Christians have latched on to it.
If anything the banana is evidence for natural selection, since the first yellow banana was a mutation that survived primarily because people liked its sweetness and it was abundantly cultivated by them.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 28, 2009 16:40:28 GMT -5
When I say that, he responds to me "We don't want intelligent people, we want sinners"
Hmmmm, has he tried the Republican conventions? Someone should point out to him if he's that desperate for a mindless bimbo hosebeast (if such a thing exists) - converting her wouldn't be in his best interests...
|
|
shrike
Junior Member
Polyamorous Atheist
Posts: 56
|
Post by shrike on Apr 28, 2009 16:52:22 GMT -5
Well the tract was adapted from Ray Comfort's book "God doesn't believe in Atheists" and published by living waters publications. I think hes one of the few idiots who uses this argument, I just don't understand why Christians have latched on to it. To my knowledge, he doesn't even use it anymore. Last I heard, he had conceded that one.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 29, 2009 9:03:07 GMT -5
So intelligent people aren't sinners?
A couple of Christians have gone so far as to tell me that intellectuals are on the wrong path, because Heaven can't be found through intellect. Seems odd that the people who seek to better mankind are wrong, but it sounds like a similar idea.
|
|
|
Post by captainhooker on Apr 29, 2009 10:42:51 GMT -5
If god had created bananas to be easy for us to eat, he would probably have done the same with other stuff, but apparently he didn't. God should've made a rib-eye tree.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 29, 2009 13:48:57 GMT -5
So intelligent people aren't sinners? A couple of Christians have gone so far as to tell me that intellectuals are on the wrong path, because Heaven can't be found through intellect. Seems odd that the people who seek to better mankind are wrong, but it sounds like a similar idea. Being intelligent is the biggest sin of all. Doing things under your own reasoning takes all the power away from those who get to tell you what to do otherwise. Seems like Paul even mentions something like "Beware of the Epicureans & Stoics!!" in the New Testament.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 30, 2009 9:09:41 GMT -5
So intelligent people aren't sinners? A couple of Christians have gone so far as to tell me that intellectuals are on the wrong path, because Heaven can't be found through intellect. Seems odd that the people who seek to better mankind are wrong, but it sounds like a similar idea. Being intelligent is the biggest sin of all. Doing things under your own reasoning takes all the power away from those who get to tell you what to do otherwise. Seems like Paul even mentions something like "Beware of the Epicureans & Stoics!!" in the New Testament. Why should I trust you? You're too verbose!
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 30, 2009 9:10:55 GMT -5
Well the tract was adapted from Ray Comfort's book "God doesn't believe in Atheists" and published by living waters publications. I think hes one of the few idiots who uses this argument, I just don't understand why Christians have latched on to it. To my knowledge, he doesn't even use it anymore. Last I heard, he had conceded that one. He conceded it, then tried to act like it really wasn't something he said seriously, then went back to it a month later. Fundies can't help themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Green-Eyed Lilo on Apr 30, 2009 9:24:48 GMT -5
That was just plain awesome! I hope other people on your campus heard that, and it was very good of you to support that girl. Plus, you get a little practice for debating with fundies with a bit more reason.
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Apr 30, 2009 9:52:10 GMT -5
Being intelligent is the biggest sin of all. Doing things under your own reasoning takes all the power away from those who get to tell you what to do otherwise. Seems like Paul even mentions something like "Beware of the Epicureans & Stoics!!" in the New Testament. Why should I trust you? You're too verbose! His sesquipedalian verbatim is patently condemning the FSTDT populace in its totality.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 30, 2009 10:56:27 GMT -5
I read a really long argument against evolution that was written in 1925. Some of the arguments I could see being used back then, because people just didn't know. The problem is that they're still using the same damn arguments even though they've been debunked for 50 years. I had a similar experience my first year of college when a philosophy professor assigned a book called "Abusing Science" by Philip Kitcher that was published in 1980 or so. Much to my perplexity, the creationist arguments inside were in many cases EXACTLY what they were then and are today. I assume that a large number of them go back even farther than that, especially considering a few of the sources he cites for examples were themselves published in the 1960s. Why should I trust you? You're too verbose! His sesquipedalian verbatim is patently condemning the FSTDT populace in its totality. That's HER. But she's one of those high forehead librul professor types. What can you expect?
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Apr 30, 2009 15:32:55 GMT -5
How did I miss that?
Seriously, I'm not on top of the game lately.
|
|