deconversionmovement

Fine, I'll Dumb It Down

Or: But I’m Not an Anti-Theist!

There’s a lot of fun stuff to write about the Tumblr Social Justice crowd, but one of the silliest is their label problem. Namely, changing what they ask to be called by (pronouns, disability labels, etc) at the drop of a hat.

Their latest way of verbally toying with the sensible people is a particularly annoying method, intended to and successful at shutting down debate. When encountered by an anti-SJ blogger, scream “But I’m not a Social Justice blog!”

While queuing up 93 posts on trans-ethnicity.

The thing is, labels are here for a reason. We have groups of things that are good and groups of things that are bad. SJA’s are considered bad for many reasons, by many people. And while I’m not going to make an argument for what I think about them, the fact is, if your label is something bad, you need to explain why that’s an unfair perception.

Not childishly jump ship and pretend you never belonged.

And that brings us to anti-theism. Or is it New Atheism? Anti-religion? Not anti-theistic but anti-Christianity? Anti-theist with a token religion?

The other thing with labels; sometimes they're interchangeable.

Keep reading

thenewenlightenmentage  asked:

Sheesh, you try so hard to offend people...lol. It's petty and pathetic. My skin is thicker than your skull. You've failed, once again, to offend me. Read a book. David Attenborough talks about parasitoids that feast on the eyeballs of children. Would a perfectly good god and a perfect god guide a process leading to that? And that's just one example. See, you have to offend and throw fits because you're too stupid to actually refute the facts. Evolution is not a perfect process. Period.

deconversionmovement (that’s who this is)

Here’s the thread that this is coming from

Strawman. I thought you were supposed to be some Intellectual giant

I never said it was.  I said that you can’t judge a whole buy limited understanding of its parts.  Sheesh you keep beating the same dead man of straw.  Evolution is one tiny cog in a giant machine.  You keep clinging to that one little cog with all your might, trying to force it to prove you right.

Let’s try another analogy.  Evolution can be likened to one line of code in a vast program.  You are looking at one line of code and declaring it imperfect.  You can’t even see the rest of the program nor do you know what it does, yet your arrogance causes you to run your mouth and declare that since the one line of could appears to have flaws from your extremely limited view…..that the entire program must be flawed, and thus there must be no code writer.

You tried to argue that Christian scientists are in the grips of cognitive dissonance because evolution is an imperfect process. That was the foundation of your argument, that being that we observe imperfections in our surroundings that do not jive with the idea of a perfect creator deity.

What I have done three times now is show that you are clinging, as I said, to one tiny cog in a massive whole.  To one small line of code in a program you cannot see….in order to prove this alleged cognitive dissonance.

You can’t win this.  Your proclamations of imperfection are formed from a position of extremely limited perception. 

Saying you can see one line of code is giving you too much credit.  You are more like a flee standing on a paper the code is written on declaring that a single zero typed on it ( 0 ) is not perfectly round.

On Obfuscation: Compatibility

1. capable of existing or living together in harmony: the most compatible married couple I know

Consider compatibility in its most frequent social usage, a relationship. Everyone knows the popular saying “opposites attract”, and compatibility, for that reason, says nothing about the similarity of the two compared objects.

Religion and science indeed have little in common, as their methods of obtaining knowledge are completely different. Faith compared to empirical evidence and falsifiability, etc, etc. But that does not rule them out of compatibility as established in the primary definition above. As long as religion does not openly oppose the knowledge found by science, they can ‘live together in harmony’.

Yet even when religion can be shown to coexist with religion, such as when liberal theology is applied, anti-theists tell us religion and science are incompatible!

This is not, I believe, direct lying, but obfuscation. Anti-theists are using another definition on a technicality.

3. consistent; congruous (often followed by with ): His claims are not compatible with the facts.

Because the methods of science and religion differ, the two are indeed not consistent. On this definition, one can complain that religion and science are incompatible. And one would be right.

But one would also be missing the point. No one’s saying religion and science have to be a consistent method, no one is asking for them to be congruous. People like myself are merely saying “Look, these two aren’t at war with each other!”

Anti-theists rely on the obfuscation created by this selective defining to create an illusion of just that - war. The anti-theistic myth cannot play out without the illusion of combat, and more importantly, of religion as the aggressor.

The anti-theist must rely on these mind games because there is nothing to back up their claims about faith. There is no combat. Just harmony.

See through the obfuscation. Wave the white flags.

It surprises me not in the LEAST that nonplussed is tops.  She is pure awesomeness.  :)  Reasons-Greetings is also wonderful, brand new to Tumblr, and well worth a follow.  ~ Steve

Tumblr Crushes: