In my first year as an atheist…well I always feel the need to debate. I don’t know…must be an ego trip or something?
That was a long time ago.
Do these debates really have some use?
In an article in a certain Freethought magazine, Prof. Richard Dawkins in an interview said something about why he rebuffs to debate Creationists. You may say that it’s spinelessness in the part of the evolutionist…Hmmmm I may even think that in my early years on atheism. But now I understand his stand.
Enter Theodore Geisel, also known as Dr. Seuss. When I was a tot, I don’t have copies of Dr. Seuss books like Cat in the Hat, Green Eggs and Ham and Fox in a Sock. I only saw copies of these books in my Aunt’s house. My cousins have these books (Unfortunately, my cousin never learned anything from them – Alas! But that’s another story.) In any case, I started to understand Dr.Seuss in a later age. I thought Dr. Seuss’s stories were just nattering for little children created to sound like nursery rhymes. But inside those rhymes are gold mines of ethical issues of moral standards like tolerance, anti-discrimination and a lot more…better than what the Bible can offer.
Each story can be use to illustrate a certain aspect in one’s life. In this particular scenario, I will use the story of the Zax.
According to Dr. Seuss’s story, in the prairie of Prax resides the Zax. One is a North-going Zax and the other one is a South-going Zax. As both Zaxs walk, they soon, as expected, collide with to each other. The North-going Zax won’t budge since well…he can’t go east or west. Neither does the South-Going Zax. So they stand there at a standstill and bragging to each other that both will not move an inch for 59 years, or even if the world stand still. Well fortunately, the world didn’t stand still…only the two stubborn Zaxs.
The story illustrates a common scene between an atheist and a Christian.
I consider that believers will be as obdurate as the atheist. Both will not budge on their valued point of view. So why waste time of debate? As an atheist I only articulate the alternatives other than supernatural explanations. I will answer questions in an atheist’s opinion…but that’s it. I think that is more fruitful, compare to a volley of endless arguments.
To bicker against faith is fruitless.
I’m not saying that it’s wrong to enter on debate. But hey! Before you enter such inane squabbles, maybe it’s wiser to check the other party first. Make an effort to see if your rival will recognize your reasons. Try talking to a rock; do you think such endeavor is evocative?
Try this as a case in point:
Christian: Everything has a cause, so God is the First Cause.
Atheist: How do you know that God is the First Cause?
Christian: Because the Bible said so in Genesis 1:1
Atheist: How do you know that the Bible is telling the truth?
Christian: Because God inspired the Bible and Jesus is the way, the truth and the light.
Now base on the example above…does it make any sense? Did the Christian clarify why God became the First Cause? If an atheist asks him why, Christians often shift the dialogue to another topic.
Yet that’s how Christian vs. atheist discussions always ends up.
Also, I notice that god believers will not recognize any explanations other what they read in the Bible and what they want to accept as true to protect their faith. I knew this man in Luneta who was too mulish to understand that a rainbow is produce when sun light passes through rain drops and as these water acts as a prism, they break the white light to bring out the colorful spectrum that creates the rainbow. No siree! He trusted what the Bible says about rainbows. He believed that the rainbow is God’s sign as a promise that he will never again obliterate humanity by a flood.
Try explaining to him the scientific cause of a rainbow and he will just laugh or worst, he’ll start name-calling. That’s because they believed that the Bible is the only source of facts…even scientific or historical data. Yet a book that says mental illnesses are cause by demonic spirits, well… anything and everything is possible. I suppose that’s why a lot of Bible-believers are too daunted with science
There is also this guy, who blows his own horn about his grasp with the Bible yet up till now doesn’t accept the definition of matter. Science defines matter as anything that occupies space and has mass. He on the other hand, describes matter as everything that occupies space and rejected the word “mass” in the definition because he wants God to be composed of matter…to make the concept of god believable. Well as they say, try putting water inside a close jar whose lid will not open and what will you achieve?
Lately I notice that Christians are now entering this site…maybe to have some discussions and debate about…the Christian belief system. I promised myself not to get occupied to this kind of futility. To personally posts comments just to engage or to answer rubbish is not worth my time.
Prof. Dawkins have said his reasons why it’s not worth anything to answer Creationists challenge. Maybe it’s also time for us freethinkers to think about what Prof. Dawkins have said. What’s new anyway? Christians are still singing the same old tune.