Basically the way I saw it is that I coulda typed up alla dem words that David Wong did but, y'know, David Wong already did it and I'm not made of time.

I mean, I firmly fall down on the same side of the creationist divide that Liz does, but then again evangelical atheism is one of my biggest pet peeves 'cause it seems a whole lot like being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

You calling God a ghost says a lot about your argument in turn.

I feel that the question of whether God exists is too massive and multifaceted to fully prove empirically one way or another to all people everywhere, so we don't bother with it.

The origin of the Earth as explained by Creationism, however, IS something that can be empirically proven false and thus for the sake of making the friend more informed, should be done. This can be done without bothering to try and force her to abandon her faith in God; if she does so, that's her prerogative. However, Oester shouldn't try to force her choice there one way or another.

But most of the words David Wong typed were dumb!

Like, his comparison between Stalin and Mao's murders and like the crusades or whatever thing religion is responsible for as a parallel doesn't work for the same reason that we don't just say every sociopath killer was a sociopath killer based on their religion (or lack thereof) but do for SOME because some are and some aren't.

Mao and Stalin never used Atheism as the reason for their genocides, and their genocides were not a corruption of any belief system, other than Communism, if we want to call that a belief system. The crusades, witch trials, various terrorist activities by christians and muslim alike, etc. etc. all ARE a corruption of a religious belief system.

And I mean, that's just in his first section.

I do, however, fully agree with you here.

I didn't actually call God a ghost.

"Same deal." Means I am comparing belief in ghosts to a belief in religion, which actually isn't too unfair since both believe that when people die their spirit leaves their body. People who tell ghost stories believe it goes and does ghost things, which can take many forms, and people who belief in most religions belief it goes to some sort of afterlife. In fact, I'd go so far to say that if you think believing in ghosts is so unfair a comparison to religion, it's because you yourself have a really dismissive viewpoint of those who believe in ghosts. I'd say that's pretty hypocritical.

I think there's technically more evidence for ghosts than God, to be fair.

A reminder to keep this conversation at roughly this level of civility, for the future.

Things are going okay right now, like, nobody's in trouble, but just a head's up that this is still a thing.

Literary device.

The point was that he thinks he's right, so he thinks it's okay for him to try and knock down her belief system. But he's not automatically right because he doesn't agree with her. In fact, I think that mindset is a little disgusting, coming at it from a different angle: because you don't conform to my ideal standard, my beliefs, my wants, I'm going to try to change you. I think what I take issue with the most is that in the OP, he mentioned that it was for a beer, so I'm thinking he's trying to knock down this girls faith over a bar bet.

I agree with Shy here.

But what a person believes regarding the soul's fate after death is a separate topic from what a person believes regarding God as an entity. A person does not need to believe in one to believe in the other. For example, Buddhism's concept of reincarnation can exist entirely without a belief in a deity figure or figure. Additionally, a theistic religion may not believe in some aspects regarding the soul's behavior after death like ghosts; in Islam, the soul is judged and sent to either Paradise or Hell at the moment of death, so there are no opportunities for it to become an earthbound ghost.

No, I don't (generally) look down on people who believe in ghosts. It was mostly my fault for not recognizing how you were using that metaphor. Thank you for explaining it.

Well yeah, most religions basically require a belief in what are essentially ghosts in addition to a lot of other stuff.

And like, I'm not saying going out of your way to stomp on somebody's belief system is a thing you need to do, but I also don't think it's "just as bad" as trying to do the same from the position of religion. I'm not going to pretend I'm familiar with Oster's circumstances enough to offer any meaningful commentary, but I just think Seil's "both are equally bad" post was dumb.

As a Christian, I am opposed to the idea of converting someone away from creationistic ideas but it's not my place to try and stop you (I know how those debates go). I will point out however that from a non-religious standpoint, trying to further a relationship with the mindset of "She's wrong and I need to tell her she's wrong" is inconsiderate of the other person, because even if you feel that you have overwhelming evidence that you're right it doesn't mean that she will be receptive to debating in the "Why you're wrong" manner.

Discuss both your views with each other, that way it's actually possible to get anywhere with that without damaging your relation, and you may gain more insight than you had before.