Apples and Oranges

[wtfbbq]

I've seen a lot of Atheists trying to argue with Theists lately and their arguments tend to not really do much rather than to make both sides feel better about themselves, hate the fellow they're talking to, and generally not get anything useful done. To explain my irritation, I'm going to tell a story about Ted and Bob. Ted and bob both live in Happyland. One day, Ted's explaining to Bob Ted's worldview.

---

Ted: So there's this invisible dragon that flies around, protects us from other evil invisible dragons, really likes oranges, and, if we're don't properly prepare our own oranges, eats us after we're dead.

Bob: That's... interesting. What's this invisible dragon's name?

Ted: His name's Dragon.

Bob: I see. And how do you know about Dragon?

Ted: Well, there's this ancient book that we have on Dragon. And it tells us all about how to prepare our oranges. You see, you have to peel the skin off and then there's all sorts of ways you can cut up the insides.

Bob: Peeling skin off a fruit? Cutting a fruit? That's inhumane; the only way I eat my apples is by biting it. If I cut my fruit, I could get hurt and that's terrible.

Ted: Well, Dragon wants us to cut our oranges.

Bob: Uh huh, but I eat my apples every day without Dragon coming and doing anything to me. This Dragon thing is a load of bull, I can't understand how anyone believes this stuff. How can you honestly say that you believe in this thing that would allow you to hurt yourself?

Ted: What do you mean. How else are you supposed to get to the inside of an orange? And Dragon tells us how to do that.

Bob: Well, you just aren't thinking critically. I eat my apples just fine without worrying about Dragon.

Ted: Well, in the end, Dragon will judge you.

---

2 questions: Does this make sense to anyone, and does it generally portray what a lot of people see in atheist/theist interaction?

*edit: I'm interested how the responses of the two relate to what the other is saying, not the actual ridiculousness of any claims

[Minimalist]

Done better here.

[Faith No More]

I think this is a better example of what I see in the interaction.

Ted: A bearded man in the sky is repsonsible for everything.

Bob: What is your proof?

Ted: What is your proof that he isn't?

Bob: That's not how making a claim such as yours worsk.

Ted: Oh, you can't disprove it? I win.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Some differences result from linguistics. Aside from normal differences in how each of us use specific terms, theists tend to be seeped like teabags in ‘churchspeak’. (Now there’s some low-hanging fruit.)

[Faith No More]

The thing is, Chad, is that not only is low-hanging fruit easy to tear down, it is also a lot of fun.

[Cyberman]

Speaking of linguistics, I saw the conjunction of "teabags" and "low-hanging fruit" and found myself in unfamiliar, yet strangely compelling, territory.

[fr0d0]

Also...

Ted: A bearded man in the sky is repsonsible for nothing.

Bob: What is your proof?

Ted: What is your proof that he is?

Bob: That's not how making a claim such as yours works.

Ted: Oh, you can't prove it? I win.


But mostly...

Bob: <any question>

A) Ted: piss take; insult

B) Ted: change the subject <do A>

[wtfbbq]

Some differences result from linguistics. Aside from normal differences in how each of us use specific terms, theists tend to be seeped like teabags in ‘churchspeak’. (Now there’s some low-hanging fruit.)

This is a somewhat unsettling response to me, as I did not mean to bring in linguistic differences. Ted and Bob were meant to be obviously talking about different fruits, and arguing over the how and why the fruits are to be used without clarifying the issue over whether they're discussing the same fruit.

[fr0d0]

This is a somewhat unsettling response to me, as I did not mean to bring in linguistic differences. Ted and Bob were meant to be obviously talking about different fruits, and arguing over the how and why the fruits are to be used without clarifying the issue over whether they're discussing the same fruit.

So you're talking meaningless tradition?

[wtfbbq]

This is a somewhat unsettling response to me, as I did not mean to bring in linguistic differences. Ted and Bob were meant to be obviously talking about different fruits, and arguing over the how and why the fruits are to be used without clarifying the issue over whether they're discussing the same fruit.

So you're talking meaningless tradition?

Uh... I guess I have to go reword this a lot because that's certainly not where I was trying to go.