How to Defend myself?

[Yami_Ichi]

If your friends are the ones who are fighting with you over religion, they don't seem like the best of friends to have to me.

Most of my friends are christians and I am okay with that. I respect their views and they respect mine. We do talk about religion, and I do tell them why I do not believe what they do, but we do not get into arguments about it. The most they will do is try to understand, and I don't mind telling them at all. I know they won't turn it into something.

About the bible english projects, it's common. I have read the bible and it is a wonderful piece of literature, I just don't see it as holy. At my school we have a bible literature class. They go through the bible and try to better understand it; it can actual;y be quite interesting.

You should also be proud of yourself. I mean, you are surrounded my christians and you are one of the rare people who have managed to keep your own mind, and not let them brainwash you into believing what they do. That's awesome.

This is where a christian would insert, pray!!! Haha, but not me. I am just going to tell you that you should do your best not to let it get to you. When your friends start getting into a heated debate with you, tell them that you have explained it before. Tell them what you feel, that you feel they are harrassing you. You could find out who your real friends are through this.

 

[Xanthir]

Other people in this thread have offered up some great advice. The first thing I'd emphasize is, try not to fight with your friends. Having atheist friends is great, but having friends of any stripe is the most important thing. Don't argue, but explain to them how you feel. If they're cool with it, great. Good christian friends will back you up when you attacked by other bigots.

However, they may not let you get away with it. As well, you may get into arguments with people who *aren't* your friends. When this happens, you need ammo. As others have said, the best defense is a good offense. There are *so* many directions that they can attack from, and unless you are very well read you won't be able to defend yourself properly. Remember, a debate is as much about appearance as it is about substance. You have to look good if you want to convince anyone.

So, find their weak points first. Determine what sort of christian they are. If they're a literalist, this is easy. There is something you can attack on nearly every page of the bible. Focus on stuff that seems to have import in today's culture. You may actually be attacked *because* of some cultural talking point - make sure you know your stuff on the bible to throw it back at them. Unfortunately, I don't have links to give to you on this, but believe me, there is *plenty* of material available in their Bible that will show them up as idiots. The vast majority of biblical literalists don't even know the damn book they're supposedly living out of. A single deft phrase can sometimes rip all the air out of their sails. Memorize verse numbers, if possible.

If they're not a literalist, then probe and find out exactly what they're attacking you on. Try to undercut them on the same topic. A common theme these days is science. Here, you really do need to study a bit. You can always find absolutely excellent resources at Talk Origins. It's an entire site devoted to storing some of the best material from the talk.origins Usenet group. One particular page that you should study very well is the Index of Creationist Claims. Creationism (or ID - same thing) is rampant these days, and many people are given talking points that can really confuse you if you aren't prepared for them. Read the stuff at that link - there's a lot of claims, but each one is fairly short. After a bit, you'll be able to immediately counter anything they say.

If you really want practice in defending yourself, head on over to a blog that gets a lot of flak, like Pharyngula. The good Dr. PZ Myers is a biology researcher and excellent blogger, and he loves tearing apart creationist claims, as do his readers. Read that regularly, and you'll see first-hand how to counter a creationist.

Another resource you may want to look at (and this is good against *all* magical thinkers, not just religious ones) is the Doggerel Index. Again, this spotlights some of the patterns you'll see used in 'arguments' against magical thinkers, and how to counter them. This is *extra* useful if you're debating online - just link directly to the doggerel you need when pointing out how empty someone's argument is. Experienced trolls might employ multiple doggerel in a single post - point it out! Remember, ridicule is an excellent tool. It might not convince the person you're arguing with, but it *will* convince people who are watching on the sidelines, as long as it is done right. "You're stupid!" is bad. "You're stupid when you say this particular thing, and here's why!" is good.

Woo, long post. Hope this helped.  

[Lethkhar]

Yami_Ichi

If your friends are the ones who are fighting with you over religion, they don't seem like the best of friends to have to me.

Most of my friends are christians and I am okay with that. I respect their views and they respect mine. We do talk about religion, and I do tell them why I do not believe what they do, but we do not get into arguments about it. The most they will do is try to understand, and I don't mind telling them at all. I know they won't turn it into something.

About the bible english projects, it's common. I have read the bible and it is a wonderful piece of literature, I just don't see it as holy. At my school we have a bible literature class. They go through the bible and try to better understand it; it can actual;y be quite interesting.

You should also be proud of yourself. I mean, you are surrounded my christians and you are one of the rare people who have managed to keep your own mind, and not let them brainwash you into believing what they do. That's awesome.

This is where a christian would insert, pray!!! Haha, but not me. I am just going to tell you that you should do your best not to let it get to you. When your friends start getting into a heated debate with you, tell them that you have explained it before. Tell them what you feel, that you feel they are harrassing you. You could find out who your real friends are through this.

Personally, I thought the Bible was rather boring, and pretty gory.

I mean, I knew it was going to be bad, but I thought that was, like, later in the book. First few pages, God's raining fire and brimstone upon two cities of people.  

[Kiron]

Yeah Evolution is where you will be most likley attacked, so just memorise this

Quote:

Evolution has never been observed
Biologists observe evolution occurring all the time, as they define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.[17]

Another example is the evolution of Ensatina Salamanders in the Western United States. One ancestral species in Oregon spread southward and populated the San Joaquin Valley. Once the salamanders had spread south and converged into one area, two non-interbreeding species had emerged. In other words, adaptations to a changing environment as they spread south resulted in enough variation to prevent interbreeding and therefore creating, by definition, two separate species.[18]

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution has not been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What has not been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.[19]

Evolution has been observed at a microscopic level as many bacteria species have become immune to certain antibiotics that have worked on them in the past. At the same time bacteria of the same species with no immunity are killed by the antibiotics but the immune ones remain to reproduce. This is an example of both evolution and natural selection.

[edit]
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics
This statement of an alleged violation shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."[20] In and of itself, this statement does not appear to have aught to do with evolution. However, the confusion arises when the second law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the second law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too.

Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.[21]

[edit]
There are no transitional fossils
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it is from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendant lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendants, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendants evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since The Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record.[22] Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist.[23] In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism, with Gould having stated, "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."[24]

[edit]
Random chance
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer does not comprehend evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

Finally, one should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.[25]

[edit]
Many scientists view intelligent design as a viable scientific theory
While the above argument has been offered as a means to establish intelligent design as science, it is clearly untrue.

An overwhelming majority[26] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science[27]. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[28]

In fact the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) stated the following in its Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory:

Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;

Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;

Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;

Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.[29]

Additionally, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers called on all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory. In fact, the opening sentence of their resolution was, "Intelligent design is not science".[30]

Finally, a parody by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) of creationist lists of scientists who "doubt evolution", Project Steve, was created and named in honor of the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. The NCSE's list only contains scientists named Stephen or variations thereof (Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.), thus representing about 1% of the total population. Despite this restriction, it is longer and contains more eminent scientists than any creationist list, including Stephen Hawking as well as both Nobel Prize winning Steves in science, Steven Chu and Steven Weinberg. There are 696 Steves as of 30 January 2006, while the DI poll has 481 signatures.

Written out in layman' s term' s and easy to memorise.

and as said before, just quickly go throughout this site www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html and memorise the argument' s they have already used, chances are they will use them again and you can tear them apart.

Also they will often say that you are making stuff up, so it' s good to carry some print out' s around in a folder, if they say it is satanic propoganda (as I was told in RE at school) just say they are idiotic dipshit' s and leave the room, often I get arguement' s that say Since it' s from the internet it' s fake .... just say, "the internet is updated quicker and more often' s than encyclopedia' s thus is often more accurate then physical litrature and book' s can old false information as well that spout it as truth, just look at the bible"  

[Dathu]

I can't really say if there is a right or wrong way to defend yourself, so all I can offer is my opinion, but rather than post it all, here's the link to my journal entry where I posted it.

Journal Entry  

[Yami_Ichi]

Lethkhar

Yami_Ichi

If your friends are the ones who are fighting with you over religion, they don't seem like the best of friends to have to me.

Most of my friends are christians and I am okay with that. I respect their views and they respect mine. We do talk about religion, and I do tell them why I do not believe what they do, but we do not get into arguments about it. The most they will do is try to understand, and I don't mind telling them at all. I know they won't turn it into something.

About the bible english projects, it's common. I have read the bible and it is a wonderful piece of literature, I just don't see it as holy. At my school we have a bible literature class. They go through the bible and try to better understand it; it can actual;y be quite interesting.

You should also be proud of yourself. I mean, you are surrounded my christians and you are one of the rare people who have managed to keep your own mind, and not let them brainwash you into believing what they do. That's awesome.

This is where a christian would insert, pray!!! Haha, but not me. I am just going to tell you that you should do your best not to let it get to you. When your friends start getting into a heated debate with you, tell them that you have explained it before. Tell them what you feel, that you feel they are harrassing you. You could find out who your real friends are through this.

Personally, I thought the Bible was rather boring, and pretty gory.

I mean, I knew it was going to be bad, but I thought that was, like, later in the book. First few pages, God's raining fire and brimstone upon two cities of people.

I find it interesting, but all I count it as is a book. Something you read to pass time, not something you worship.
Ah... Sodom and Gammora [however you spell it.]. That was kind of interesting. I still like Revelation; ZE END OF ZE WORLD. >.<

 

[=X-Sparker + AquaKiller=]

A lot of people here have mentioned reading more
about evolution and arming yourself with that to argue.

But personally I think that since they aren't listening to you
once you bring up the word "evolution",
there's no use trying to argue against them using evolution.

Rather, you should read and study the bible. Many
prominent figures have said that reading and studying
the bible CORRECTLY is the surest path to
atheism.

Now, if you use the bible against them, they can't ignore
you and say it's nonsense now can they?

 

[Jason the Samurai Knight]

It's very simple. First off. As them would "God" kill kids for calling someone "baldy". Or would god tell you to kill an entire city men women children even the toddlers and infants. Could go on but won't. They will say no most likely and then tell them their god did and make sure they got a bible or if you want to plan it have one yourself, and show them 2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT and so on. They will most likely stop bugging you. 3nodding Trust me it works for me. Or you hear them say something dumb to protect their beliefs since some people sometimes can't listen to reason.  

[Ayumila]

Kiron

Offense is the greatest Defense wink

Only in America, everwhere else it' s quite the opposite.

Actually, I live in Scotland and I am throughly discriminated against. A lot of people at my old school (I left High School to go to college) were religious and I had people, friends even(!), call me a "soulless individual" for being an atheist. And why is it that ever time I get into an argument with a religious person their answer is "Free will" and "God will see you get punished for asking that".
WTF is that? Seriously?!  

[Colm-kun]

Ayumila

Kiron

Offense is the greatest Defense wink

Only in America, everwhere else it' s quite the opposite.

Actually, I live in Scotland and I am throughly discriminated against. A lot of people at my old school (I left High School to go to college) were religious and I had people, friends even(!), call me a "soulless individual" for being an atheist. And why is it that ever time I get into an argument with a religious person their answer is "Free will" and "God will see you get punished for asking that".
WTF is that? Seriously?!

That just shows how big an a*****e God is! 4laugh  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

Ayumila

Kiron

Offense is the greatest Defense wink

Only in America, everwhere else it' s quite the opposite.

Actually, I live in Scotland and I am throughly discriminated against. A lot of people at my old school (I left High School to go to college) were religious and I had people, friends even(!), call me a "soulless individual" for being an atheist. And why is it that ever time I get into an argument with a religious person their answer is "Free will" and "God will see you get punished for asking that".
WTF is that? Seriously?!

Certain religious groups keep their followers in line by feeding them these bullshit statements. If they're afraid to question the claims of their faith, then they're more likely to remain Good Little Christian Boys and Girls.

 

[Yevn]

I was in the same situation once I defended against a full group attack. listen closely to what they say read the bible and the god delusion then their contradictions would be easy to spot and counter. I always think of a real time strategy game often I scout them out defend then counter do the same against an attack you win.

P.S. Scouting refers to each religions holy book. Defend refers to their comment. Counter refers to commenting the flaws in their statement.  

[Rey96950]

personally a good defense doesnt have to be bible smarts or evolution smarts either, you just need to learn to ingore the idiots, or be patient, and calm, everyone i know could make up their own anti god argument, but you need to learn to counter, not attack, by then we seem like hopeless indivduals crying out for recognition, so we let them come to us, but feel free to atack every now and then to remind them of what is and isnt, we are who we are, and we have the right to decide waht we want, they cant control that...sorry for my bad english though, darn keyboard kinda slow...oh and one more thing

go right up to anyone who calls you a soulless individual, and slap them, calling a person soulless is stupid, you cant see a soul so it doesnt exist right? so what, i cant see god, god doesnt exist, never saw jesus so he doesnt exist, never saw my grandma, so she doesnt exist, yeah funny responses...sorry im ranting again, and i think i mixed up my argument here a bit, sorry, i let my mind wander, ciao!  

[Gun Culture]

Don't bring it up. i usually just ignore it when people do that. My English teacher told us not to say a song we wouldn't tell our pastor or preacher, and me and this other kid said we don't go to church, and she's hated us ever since. Oddly I can't stand any of the other atheists at my school.  

[Piroki-chan23]

Just as said before, arm yourself with knolage. A good defense is a good offence.
Here's a nuke to add to your arsonel "I never treat you like this for being a Christian", it's perfect logic!
I was in almost the same situation as you before only in Arkansas (a major red-neck state with problems in education) and then I moved to West Virginia (basicly the same only with more forests). Even a teacher told me that judgement day was comming and that I needed to belive in God for when it comes! I'm still in that school with the ignorant teacher and I did not cave in! They even used peer pressure to make me pray for the foot ball team!
Just hang in there, you'll make it. I did.