(April 18, 2011 at 12:25 pm)iamatheist Wrote: Second of all yet again I will point out this was an argument against religion.. as in any group of people united under a doctrine. I feel that the excuse that their 'religion' gives these people is one of the strongest arguments against organised religion out there.

Exactly. Christians will agree with you that people calling themselves Christian while doing horrible acts aren't really Christian. It's a fallacious argument called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but they think they can claim that all Christians are good if the Christians doing bad things aren't Christians. It doesn't matter if the bad people accept Jesus as their personal savior or not, according to Christians, people who commit atrocities or are just plain bad, nasty, rude people aren't being "real" Christians, like themselves. And if you're pointing out that Muslims like to commit acts of terrorism for their religion, Christians will point out that Christians never do anything like that. When you point out Scott Roeder, they say he's not a true Christian because Christians don't kill people. Unless it's under the death penalty, of course, but that's OK.

#1 - First I would listen to her, and take her words serious when they need to be taken serious. I would be myself and try to make her laugh and feel good about herself, especially being around me.
#2 - I would take her to some nice places and buy her some nice things. They dont have to be expensive. We could go to the park, and then maybe over to Applebees for a burger and a beer. What maters is that you are fun to be with. I cant stress on "being yourself" enough. If she doesnt like you for who you really are, then you are wasting your time. That also doesnt mean she is a bitch either, it just means you arent her type, which also means she isnt your type either.
#3 - When intimacy comes, dont try to "act the part". Just be yourself and be comfortable. Anything more is an undue stress in your life. The biggest point is to try and give her the big "O" (Orgasm). Unlike men, a womans organs are on the inside, usually making it a bit more difficult for her to acheive climax. This is going to take some homework and some extra work on your part, but it is worth it in the end. Once you have given her a few big O's she will connect emotionally to you, and give you the benefit of the doubt where other women that you havent given the big O to will not.

..and that is how I convert theists to atheists. Now my three step system was written from a heterosexual mind set, but I dont see why this system cannot be used for the gay or bi persuasion as well.

*remember* do your homework!

What I am trying to say is what I have been trying to tell the non-religious community for ten years now. It is okay to use emotional arguments. This is what the theists like. This is what the theists use. This is what the theists understand to their core beliefs. All of you "Mr.Spock" atheists (I'm not going to name names, but you know who you are) ramble on about falacies, and arguments from emotions. At the same time you point out the theists depend on arguments from emotion. When will you put the two together and realize that arguments from emotion is how to appeal to the theists? Its not just the "argument of evil". You have to give good examples of why that argument clicks, and appeal to their emotions, for such an argument to work. Sure, emotion doesnt work well in science... outside of psychology and such. Emotion was what turned me from a believer to an atheist. I saw the 9/11 attacks and had an emotional moment that changed me from a doubting Thomas to an atheist. We are all human. We ARE emotional. Welcome to this absurd Cosmos we live in. Emotion IS a factor when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the people.

The Good Reverend Wrote:<snip>I saw the 9/11 attacks and had an emotional moment that changed me<snip>

Weird, I don't find that particular day to be at all emotionally upsetting. As I recall, people were crying and in considerable distress, and I was confused as to why. No longer confused as to why, but also still not remotely upset by it.

Am I a despicable if lovable human being?

I'd like to answer that kindly but my father was inside the Pentagon at the time and we had to wait far too long to hear if he was okay as well as my great-aunt up in NY.

Also, I'd worry if the imagery of people jumping out of buildings and running away covered in dust and massive destruction didn't affect you in the least. I really hope you're joking.

(April 19, 2011 at 6:11 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'd like to answer that kindly but my father was inside the Pentagon at the time and we had to wait far too long to hear if he was okay as well as my great-aunt up in NY.

Also, I'd worry if the imagery of people jumping out of buildings and running away covered in dust and massive destruction didn't affect you in the least. I really hope you're joking.

Agreed. It was a very upsetting day for nearly all of us, I'd say. My cousin was a commander and Navy Chaplain who had been at the Pentagon earlier that morning, and was at Ronnie Raygun Airport when the plane struck the Pentagon. A week later, we received a letter from him. He had been attached to a British (SAS) special forces unit, and couldn't say where they were. All he could tell us was that they were "bugs on a wall". Reportedly, they were among the first to go into Afganistan. Frightening times, indeed.

I understand, in a way - there were some people who had neither family in those areas nor lived there themselves who become unnecessarily hysterical.

But at the same time, I would hope you understand that some of the emotional outbursts would be from empathy, and I acknowledge that a lot of it was fear.

My father framed the next day's Washington Post's front page and has it tucked away in his office. The headlines and pictures still produce a gut-wrenching reaction.

I went to a high school where about half (and that's low-balling) of our parents worked in and around DC. It was like an electrical current running through the entire building even before the vice-principle announced what had happened. I can't imagine multiplying that terror by 1000 by living in NY.

This isn't about nationalities or ideologies or religions. Purely from a human standpoint, the sight of rampant hateful destruction ought to cause at least some sort of emotional response.

(April 19, 2011 at 8:31 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I understand, in a way - there were some people who had neither family in those areas nor lived there themselves who become unnecessarily hysterical.

But at the same time, I would hope you understand that some of the emotional outbursts would be from empathy, and I acknowledge that a lot of it was fear.

My father framed the next day's Washington Post's front page and has it tucked away in his office. The headlines and pictures still produce a gut-wrenching reaction.

I went to a high school where about half (and that's low-balling) of our parents worked in and around DC. It was like an electrical current running through the entire building even before the vice-principle announced what had happened. I can't imagine multiplying that terror by 1000 by living in NY.

This isn't about nationalities or ideologies or religions. Purely from a human standpoint, the sight of rampant hateful destruction ought to cause at least some sort of emotional response.

Yeah I'd like to whole-heartedly agree with you, I'm not sure where it came into this debating whether or not 9/11 affected us.. I'm a UK citizen and my heart stopped for those involved on that day. Regardless of religion a large loss of life on that scale is an entirely human issue and "not-caring" is an entirely inhuman thought.. I hope that Aerzia has a point to be made from that post..

Reverendjeremiah, you seem to have hit the nail on the head! I wish I had the foresight to say that's why I asked the question. We seem to be caught up in factual ideas and 'proof' on either part when in reality no proof shall come. Atheism is a 'rational' standpoint (rational to the best a human can comprehend) whereas (unfortunately) the choice of belief is an emotional one
However, my point is also that it shouldn't be.. People who believe and think that they are not hurting anyone I simply point you in the direction of a couple of dawkins and hitchins speeches (Dawkins at TED on militant atheism and Hitchins when asked "why fight religion") for my argument put alot more eloquently than I could

I didn't want it to get into a debate about 9/11 - it just bothered me that Sae said something like that, is all.

Revvy does have a good point - and he always goes a step further to make people laugh, which I think would be key in getting people to loosen up and start looking around them with a more open heart and mind. Humor, if you have a sense of it, allows you to appreciate the utter absurdity.

And since Oro was sharing on another thread, I have to as well...

Lewis Black (on Islam): "You know a religion has no sense of humor, when a guy can stand up and say, ‘you know, if you commit suicide for Allah, after you die you will be met in heaven by 70 virgins,' and nobody in the room just goes, 'AHAHAHA! Son of a bitch! That was great!' They believe if they kill themselves that they will be met in Heaven by 70 some odd virgins. Imagine that kind of faith. To think that that would happen...when I haven't met one ON EARTH!"

If Black and Gervais can pass down a tradition of irreverent atheism that makes people cry they laugh so hard, something started by Carlin, I can only hope they'll convince others to reconsider too.