A Sample Twitter Discussion with 'New Atheists'

angelicdoctor · **Posted:** Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:05 pm

They are out there. Lurking in the shadows. Waiting. Hoping for a chance to get the better of the unsuspecting Christian. Ready to jump out and rip you to shreds intellectually speaking. Or maybe just to give one a good laugh as was the case in my most recent discussion in Twitter concerning the Galileo incident and Contraception. Enjoy!

Initially it all began when I posted a link to a blog post from Mark Shea. Be warned! If you dare post anything disparaging non-belief, they immediately come out of the shadows!

All names have been changed to protect the ignorant.

Quote:

Rich'N'Stuck Really? When has an atheist threatened to kill you if you didn't stop believing? RT @mecath: Scratch an Atheist, Find a Funda..

MeCatholic "My vas pokhoronim!” <--Transliterated as 'We will bury you!'

Rich'N'Stuck ‏ Sorry, not interested in the vas deferens of pokemon. <---Obviously, he didn't get the reference. :)!

(now he CC's some other atheist, we'll call him Noah Little)

Rich'N'Stuck By his own blog he shows that he replied with an ad hominem attack on the atheist's reading comprehension.

MeCatholic ‏ Non sequitir.

Rich'N'Stuck Right, so not a fundamentalist. Thanks for playing.

Noah Little So the atheist asked you if you don't think OT morality was bad and you reply with ad hominem and he's now a fundy.

Noah LittleWhere in your blog do you indicate the atheist brought up Hitler and said OT is ok with holocaust?

(Here he mistakes my blog for Mark's. Still I did have a conversation recently with an atheist on the matter so I continued)

MeCatholic ‏ The atheist I asked held to the so-called OT morality finding nothing wrong with Hitler's killing of Jews. So, a fundie.

Noah Little Did this fundie atheist ever personally endorse killing Jews? Because then I would agree he's a fundie.

MeCatholic Yes. He had the honesty to follow his thought to its logical conclusions.

(Am I making some headway?)

Noah Little Actually, I retract my prev statement of the atheist being fundie if he endorses holocaust because...Fundamentalist means taking a position to an extreme. Extreme atheism would not call for the deaths of ppl. He might be a fundie in a antisemitic sense, but not as an atheist.

(Apparently not! HAHAHA!)

MeCatholic Except that the holocaust also included non-Jews. My atheist friend had problems with neither. He had the honesty to follow his thought to its logical conclusions.

(That was a cold moment for me. This friend of mine was nonchalant about the holocaust. We haven't spoken since except in a professional capacity.)

Noah Little I can't speak for him although your interpretation of his words seems highly dubious.

(But, of course! So, let's change the subject!)

Noah Little So what do you think of the OT? Is it not to be taken literally?

MeCatholic Literal? Yes. Literlalistic? No, cf. Dei Verbum and Verbum Domini. The Bible is a collection of wide & varied works.

(Here's the part where the atheist tries to show his ignorance of bible hermeneutics. 'Claiming to be wise...')

Noah Little Literal interpretation means in the strictest sense without allegory or metaphor. That's what you believe?

MeCatholic It depends. Again, cf. Dei Verbum and Verbum Domini.

Noah Little I didn't grow up Catholic. Spare me the word of God vs. word of the lord bs. We're talking your own beliefs not RCC.

(In my experience, atheists of this sort haaaaate to have their fragile intellect criticized. He obviously lumps 'RCCs' with Christian fundamentalists, et al. So sad.)

MeCatholic You misunderstand. I was referring to the letters written by council and pope on biblical interpretation.

Noah Little In other words, you reserve the right to pick and choose which passage is literal and which is not?

MeCatholic So long as I deviate not from the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter, then yes. For instance, each and every word of Genesis need not be taken literally. But those facts which are fundamental in Christianity are to be held.

Noah Little Can you give me an example of passages in OT fundamental to Christianity besides prophecy?

MeCatholic "In the beginning God created heaven, and earth." Please explain your understanding of prophecy.

Noah Little Sorry, I didn't word that well. I retract that question.

(Retreat! We can't talk about this part! Well, because, we can't! :))

Noah Little So because the Church agrees that Evolution is scientific fact, you agree. But if it reversed it's position, you would too?

(Ah, yes. Good 'ol evolution!)

MeCatholic The Church is not opposed to certain evolution theories. However, if a particular one appears to conflict, the Church will inform.

Noah Little That doesn't make sense. there is only one theory of evolution and it completely conflicts with Genesis creation.

(What?! Are you kidding me? He is not aware of more than one theory?! HAHAHA! What does he do? Yep. Change the subject! Let's talk sex.)

Noah Little How does the church interpret what is fundamental to Xianity in the OT? How is gay sex for example in opposition to Xianity?

(Now, I am not even stepping down the path to this rabbit hole...)

MeCatholic see further Catechism of Catholic Church...

(No response this time. Go figure. I was being baited.)

Noah Little Btw, when was it the Church got around to apologizing to the 17th C scientist? Oh yeah, 1992! Your church apologized and pardoned him, didn't it? Geocentricity was the view of the church. Heliocentricity was heresy.

(Oh, goody! Galileo!)

MeCatholic you misunderstand the Galileo incident. Scientist tries his hand at theology and is found wanting.

Noah Little BTW, RCC always opposes science when it conflicts until they can't anymore. Geocentricity, anyone? The church declared heliocentricity as heresy before Galileo made his observation and denied reality for many years after.

MeCatholic The Galileo incident would take more explanation than Twitter has the capacity. Please visit http://bit.ly/I2zEBm for more.

(I point him to a Catholic answers tract which goes to more detail than the limits of Twitter would allow.)

Noah Little :), a Catholic apologist blog? Seriously? Point blank, Galileo, Copernicus showed heliocentricity which refuted the bible.

MeCatholic Typical. Expend as little effort as possible to learning the Catholic side of the matter. You are not interested in dialogue.

Noah Little RCC issued an apology. Usually an apology is an acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

MeCatholic Certainly. But again, it does not then follow that Catholicism is a false religion as you seem to imply.

Noah Little And my point was that RCC called heliocentricity heresy. Independent of whatever Galileo did, they refuted science.

MeCatholic Well then, that does it! Bling! I'm an atheist now. In a tribunal heliocentrism was condemned. Granted. Infallibility of the Pope and the Church remained unscathed.

Noah Little All religion is false, but that's not my point in this. Point is, the church refutes science until it no longer can't.

MeCatholic wow. Two generalizations in one tweet. Congrats.

Noah Little Nah, first one is opinion, second is history. Ex: why does the RCC still insist condoms are bad?

(Let us not bother dealing with the logical fallacy, let's (wait for it...) change the subject!)

MeCatholic At least you're honest concerning your first answer. Condoms, in and of themselves are not 'bad'. It is in how they are used.

Noah Little Doesn't the Church officially forbid all forms of contraception?

MeCatholic If there is a deliberate attempt to suppress the procreative part of the sexual act, then yes, cf. Humanae Vitae & natural law.

Noah Little Deliberate attempt to suppress procreation? Wouldn't that include abstinence? You saying we're required to have sex?

MeCatholic You're joking, right? :).

Noah Little A man can't masturbate because he's spilling seed. When a woman menstruates she's losing a valuable ova.

MeCatholic HAHAHAHA! You're killin' me! ROTFL!!!

(enter another dim, a cheerleader for Noah, Sly)

Sly Lazy Don't confuse the poor guy. I'm sure he's a virgin!

(I'm the one confused? I'm the one with 8 children! :) Oh, and abstinence = contraception? Masturbation = Menstruation? Really? HAHA!)

MeCatholic BWAHAHAHA! The irony! Oh, heavens! The irony!!!

Oh, boy...I had to end it there. I've wasted enough time and cast enough pearls, so to speak.

Be careful out there, folks. They're everywhere in the Interwebz.

ellietrish · **Posted:** Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:03 pm

I thoroughly enjoyed that! You zinged those fallacies so smooooothly. I'm very impressed. :clap:

Pro Ecclesia Dei · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:56 am

In fairness to Khrushchev "we will bury you" is an inaccurate translation (not translitteration, the Russian on the left is the translitteration from Cyrilic to Latin characters). It is an idiomatic expression that means we will out last you. Something like "We will still be around for your burial" or simply "We will outlast you" Мы вас похороним. Indeed, Khrushchev was explicitly saying, "we don't need to beat you in war. History is on our side. No matter how it plays out, communism is inevitable" It is the Marxist-Hegelian dialetic. Indeed, he was trying to pain the USSR as not aggressive. The mistranslation, besides ignoring an idiom, also completely ignored the context of the remark.

Not that the USSR was as peaceful as he claimed, but since he was claiming that, it would be a bizarre slip to make such a blatant threat

angelicdoctor · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:47 am

ellietrish wrote:

I thoroughly enjoyed that! You zinged those fallacies so smooooothly. I'm very impressed. :clap:

Thanks! If there was any good done, I credit it all to Jesus. All my failures belong solely to me.

Malleus Haereticorum, thanks for the clarification on the language. I freely admit my lack of knowledge concerning the use of the Russian native tongue. My point was to respond to RichNStuck concerning being threatened by an atheist using a well known phrase used in recent history which, right, wrong or indifferent, has taken on a certain connotation in the American mind.

Signum Crucis · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:32 am

Try debating Ann Rice and her horde on contraception and homosexuality on Facebook. Now that was festive!

angelicdoctor · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:41 am

Signum Crucis wrote:

Try debating Ann Rice and her horde on contraception and homosexuality on Facebook. Now that was festive!

Wow. You have my respect, dear woman! I used to frequent an RPG gaming forum (gee, I know you are shocked) and once became embroiled in a similar conversation concerning homo sex. I know, what does this have to do with rolling D20s to kill the dragon?

I've not been back to that now defunct forum. The strange thing I noted was that the main cheerleader for homo sex there went by the handle of 'Origen'.

Signum Crucis · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:16 am

angelicdoctor wrote:

Signum Crucis wrote:

Try debating Ann Rice and her horde on contraception and homosexuality on Facebook. Now that was festive!

Wow. You have my respect, dear woman!

I was doing okay, but getting piled on, when several DCF ladies joined me in the fray and we pretty much rendered them speechless. What was funny was that many of them claimed to be Christians, but did not realize (or maybe they just didn't care) that Ann Rice had recently embraced atheism.

angelicdoctor · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:27 am

Signum Crucis wrote:

angelicdoctor wrote:

Signum Crucis wrote:

Try debating Ann Rice and her horde on contraception and homosexuality on Facebook. Now that was festive!

Wow. You have my respect, dear woman!

I was doing okay, but getting piled on, when several DCF ladies joined me in the fray and we pretty much rendered them speechless. What was funny was that many of them claimed to be Christians, but did not realize (or maybe they just didn't care) that Ann Rice had recently embraced atheism.

Oh, that's rich!

Doom · **Posted:** Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:07 pm

Your interlocutors are most politely described as 'imbeciles'.

dschiff · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:17 am

Doom wrote:

Your interlocutors are most politely described as 'imbeciles'.

That's actually not polite at all. As a Christian, you can do better than that, right?

Doom · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:21 am

dschiff wrote:

Doom wrote:

Your interlocutors are most politely described as 'imbeciles'.

That's actually not polite at all. As a Christian, you can do better than that, right?

Facts matter dude, and what i said is true....but if you don't the word 'imbecile' replace it with 'ignorant', whatever the meaning is the same....

An imbecile is a person lacking in knowledge and that is what the individuals in that exchange have, a lack of knowledge....I mean honestly...not recognizing what the references to 'Dei Verbum' and 'Verbum Domini' were about...that's ignorant....

dschiff · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:51 am

Doom wrote:

dschiff wrote:

Doom wrote:

Your interlocutors are most politely described as 'imbeciles'.

That's actually not polite at all. As a Christian, you can do better than that, right?

Facts matter dude, and what i said is true....but if you don't the word 'imbecile' replace it with 'ignorant', whatever the meaning is the same....

An imbecile is a person lacking in knowledge and that is what the individuals in that exchange have, a lack of knowledge....I mean honestly...not recognizing what the references to 'Dei Verbum' and 'Verbum Domini' were about...that's ignorant....

I wouldn't say lacking the knowledge of two latin phrases is a sign of imbecility. And the move over to ignorance is quite a leap. I can find two phrases in Greek, Hebrew and Swahili that both of us do not understand. That does not make us imbeciles.

It sounds like you're lashing out against the atheist because of a brash conversation. While I appreciate your need to lash out, I think the use of imbecility is a low blow, for someone who is literate, educated, and clearly interested in learning. In context of those atheists who think all god-believers are deluded and stupid, isn't it Christian (or I would say, simply moral) to rise above this language and try to help out, rather than detract from one another?

angelicdoctor · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:05 pm

In my experience in conversing with atheists of this type, calling them 'imbeciles' is extremely polite considering the vitriol that I typically receive from them in return. I would have rather they would have chosen such a polite adjective in describing yours truly. In mine and other Christians' dialogue with 'non-believers' it has also been my experience that it is the Christian who is more likely to respond in kindness, patience and virtue. I wished I could write the same for those with whom the Christian debates. Just last week I had an atheist respond to my request to pray for him with the following:

Quote:

Science rules
Science rules
Science rules
Science rules
Science rules
Science rules
Science rules
Science rules
Science rules
Science rules

Was he joking? Perhaps, however, the humor escaped me.

Tired · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:48 pm

I often find atheists to be as ignorant(or actually more so - just with a bit more attitude) as the rest of the masses. I often wonder what ever happened to people using their brains? Perhaps education in the US has been dumbed down beyond even my pessimistic opinion of it over the last 25 years...

Jon Snow · **Posted:** Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:19 pm

Most atheists when they've found their new-found 'faith' are just as zealous and foolish as a protestant evangelical who had just "accepted Jesus". They're full of spit and vinegar and they have a bunch of rehearsed lines to approach people with yet they don't realize that those rehearsed lines are simply regurgitations of old lines that were used hundreds of years ago by pagans and other opponents of Christianity.

Knowing what I know now I was very foolish and ignorant as an atheist. And I must have really looked the part.

The great thing about the Church is that when you're approached with the "new" arguments-which are the old arguments-you can always go back to the old rebuttals(which were as sound then as they are now).

And to the atheist its something they've never before heard much less considered.

I love the Church!

beng · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:08 pm

dschiff wrote:

In context of those atheists who think all god-believers are deluded and stupid, isn't it Christian (or I would say, simply moral) to rise above this language and try to help out, rather than detract from one another?

No, we should ridicule them to no end and show them how inferior they are.

If we "play nice," knowing their fundamentalist nature, they would walk over us and become even more convinced of their own superiority over us. In the end, it would not help them one bit (but ridiculing them and showing how inferior they are will [help them]).

angelicdoctor · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:54 pm

beng wrote:

dschiff wrote:

In context of those atheists who think all god-believers are deluded and stupid, isn't it Christian (or I would say, simply moral) to rise above this language and try to help out, rather than detract from one another?

No, we should ridicule them to no end and show them how inferior they are.

If we "play nice," knowing their fundamentalist nature, they would walk over us and become even more convinced of their own superiority over us. In the end, it would not help them one bit (but ridiculing them and showing how inferior they are will [help them]).

To that, I should like to refer to 'The Bard', when taunted by such as they...ahem..."Tis such fools as you that makes the world full of ill-favor'd children.", "To say nothing, to do nothing, to know nothing, and to have nothing, is to be a great part of your title, which is within a very little of nothing.", and "You are one that converses more with the buttock of the night than with the forehead of the morning."

Ah, yes. Shakespeare is the answer to almost any situation.

beng · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:50 pm

angelicdoctor wrote:

beng wrote:

dschiff wrote:

In context of those atheists who think all god-believers are deluded and stupid, isn't it Christian (or I would say, simply moral) to rise above this language and try to help out, rather than detract from one another?

No, we should ridicule them to no end and show them how inferior they are.

If we "play nice," knowing their fundamentalist nature, they would walk over us and become even more convinced of their own superiority over us. In the end, it would not help them one bit (but ridiculing them and showing how inferior they are will [help them]).

To that, I should like to refer to 'The Bard', when taunted by such as they...ahem..."Tis such fools as you that makes the world full of ill-favor'd children.", "To say nothing, to do nothing, to know nothing, and to have nothing, is to be a great part of your title, which is within a very little of nothing.", and "You are one that converses more with the buttock of the night than with the forehead of the morning."

Ah, yes. Shakespeare is the answer to almost any situation.

Is that a critic or a compliment to my statement?

Do explain, so I could reply accordingly.

dschiff · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:51 pm

angelicdoctor wrote:

In my experience in conversing with atheists of this type, calling them 'imbeciles' is extremely polite considering the vitriol that I typically receive from them in return. I would have rather they would have chosen such a polite adjective in describing yours truly. In mine and other Christians' dialogue with 'non-believers' it has also been my experience that it is the Christian who is more likely to respond in kindness, patience and virtue.

This doesn't strike me as polite at all. The example you described as vitriol - "science rules" repeatedly - strikes me as something a teenager is doing. Moreover, this is nothing compared to the vitriol atheists receive on a regular basis: that we are evil, sinners, deserve to die, that we worship ourselves, are not real citizens, should leave the country, deserve to be tortured for eternity, etc. I challenge you to find a site where thousands of atheists are calling for the death and expulsion of Christians.
Here's an example of Christians doing so in 2011: http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/fox-new ... d-atheist/

And I suppose, in my experience, some Christians overgeneralize and are hostile, while others are polite and cooperative and accepting of atheists. You seem to be in the former group.

student wrote:

I often find atheists to be as ignorant(or actually more so - just with a bit more attitude) as the rest of the masses. I often wonder what ever happened to people using their brains? Perhaps education in the US has been dumbed down beyond even my pessimistic opinion of it over the last 25 years...

Your personal experience doesn't impress me here, and your statement is somewhat offensive. If you're aware, atheists actually perform higher in religious knowledge tests than every religion. Catholics come in somewhere after Jews and Mormons and atheists (and even Protestants!). So maybe you should consult the facts before making a prejudicial claim, especially when the shoe is on the other foot. The correlation between education and religiosity is clear - the more educated one is, the less religious. The same applies on a national level, with the exception of the United States (the only wealthy, literate country where belief in evolution is as low as 40%). Rather than education going down, it seems the internet and a decreased amount of hostility and prejudice has allowed atheism to become more public. Rest be assured, the philosophers, writers, and scientists who come to atheism are using their brain. Hence the National Academy of Science, the most elite body of scientists in the U.S. is 90% non-theist.

Mithrandir: There are indeed some atheists who are zealous, rude and mock people. They tend to be teenagers. Also, atheists who are just reactionary and are "angry at God" are different from examined atheists who have found the religious arguments and evidential sources severely lacking. Again, atheists perform higher on religious knowledge polls, so it's unclear why you think atheists are atheists on account of less religious knowledge. Also, I'm not sure what arguments you're referring to that atheists have missed. Care to share?

Beng: You've undermined your credibility and humanity by deciding to ridicule people and call them inferior. This ignores the accidental nature of our birth circumstances, not to mention just being rude. Did you decide to be born in a Christian, rather than Muslim country? Did atheists decide to not find the Bible compelling? Do they deserve ridicule? I urge you revise your attitude in a more constructive and open-minded way. Calling your opponents 'fools' is not something a decent person does.

dschiff · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:45 pm

Another reply, to the original post. Please correct me if I misunderstood you. Perhaps you agree with the point I will make below.

You said: "MeCatholic The atheist I asked held to the so-called OT morality finding nothing wrong with Hitler's killing of Jews. So, a fundie."

As in, a fundamentalist atheist is somehow a moral nihilist and/or moral relativist and/or doesn't condemn genocide.

This is deeply flawed and offensive in several ways.
A 'fundamentalist' atheist is a gnostic atheist, a strong atheist who 'knows' there is no God. Most examined atheists are agnostic atheists, such as myself. Moreover, a fundamentalist atheist would accept atheism as a truth no matter what. Even if clear evidence of God were demonstrated, they would continue to reject God. Now before you claim it is clear, observe that the majority of the world disagrees with your religion and that there are hundreds of millions of atheists. So I'm talking clear on the level of evolution. If you accept a 6-day creation despite knowledge of evolution, because you maintain that the bible must be fundamentally true, you are a fundamentalist.

So, not only are you unlikely to find a gnostic atheist, you are incredibly unlikely to find a fundamentalist atheist. Fundamentalism is the opposite of rationalism and evidentialism, which lead many to atheism. If you have found such a person, he is an extreme exception and not connected with any of the main movements, thinkers or writers in the atheist movement. A fundamentalist atheist would say "I will not believe in any gods, no matter what, even if God presents himself in front of me." The character is ludicrous, irrational, and unrepresentative.

Next, your suggestion that a fundamentalist atheist is a moral nihilist is also a non-sequitur. A fundamentalist materialist may be a nihilist - but he might not be. An atheist could believe in object morality, subjective morality, or no morality. Being an atheist fundamentalist would not entail any of these specifically.

This is a horrendous prejudice that, without God, atheists think nothing is good or bad and thus support genocide. If you want to accuse moral relativists, do so, but do not conflate atheists with relativists. There is a whole body of literature on different positions in moral philosophy, subjectivism, emotivism, expressivism, other verisons of non-cognitivism, quasi-realism, and so on. Most atheists, as well as the atheist movement, do not endorse relativism. They certainly don't endorse genocide.

I would claim, rather, that atheists choose to do good for better reasons than religion often does. We don't have heaven or hell. We don't have commandments. We are good simply because we choose to be. Because we care about others. Acting good for goodness sake and not for good is the essence of morality.

Diminishing the rational humanity and love that moral atheists all over the world feel to some straw man version of fundamentalist atheism conflated with moral relativism is extremely inaccurate regarding real demographics and the beliefs of real people, and promotes one of the most harmful prejudices rbound against atheists.

A Sample Twitter Discussion with 'New Atheists'

Who is online