Fed up with "faithbook" posts

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I don't usually reply to posts pushing religion on facebook, but this morning I just couldn't leave it alone, for some reason.

In my feed was a post I've seen dozens of times before, and I'm sure you all have, too. This one:

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned
to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike
up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total
stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God,
or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask
you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same
stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns
out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence,
thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." To which
the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss
God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know shit?"

And then she went back to reading her book.

The "atheist" in the story is presented as a smug prick pushing his "faith" on anybody he can find, but who actually doesn't have a clue about anything - traits more often displayed by theists IRL. I could have gone down the road of attacking the belief in a god the post is pushing, but instead I decided to have a go at the little girl's question. Here's my reply:

The smug little bitch ... sorry, the little girl ... is wrong. Deer don't eat grass. they eat leaves, nuts, acorns, buds and twigs. And horses and cows have different digestive systems. A horse has one stomach. A cow has four, and rechews the cud it's already eaten and processed in one or more of its stomachs. So of course their shit will be different.

I thnk I did a good job of demonstrating that the little girl is full of what she's talking about. At the same time I think my reply highlights how theists use arguments based on false premises to further their agenda. But maybe I was too subtle with that; no replies as yet.

Any thoughts?

 

[Brian63]

While I am sympathetic to the intention of your post, I think you would have been better off making a rebuttal focused on the theological aspects of the story, rather than those minor scientific details of it. Theists of various flavors who see your response would think you just overlooked the point of it. I do not think it will do as much to garner sympathy for the atheist angle to it and explained our perspective as well, as if the response was focused more on why we atheists disagree with the underlying theology and philosophy behind it.

Brian

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's worse it that it paints atheists as the type of people who'd talk to the person in the seat next to them on a plane. That's just hate speech.

What happened to the more friendly aspertions like we're all Hitler and minor insults like that?

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I considered going down the theology route, Brian, but my thinking was that that might be seen as an "attack" on their beliefs and only serve to alienate them from the start. So I decided to take on the aspect of the "shit" question, more as an opening gambit than anything else, just to get the conversation started. Then maybe the talk could slide into the theology thing later, I thought. Not so much to "garner sympathy for the atheist angle" as to show them why I think using fallacious arguments is a bad thing. As I said, though, no response as yet, so maybe you're right and I should have had a go at the underlying beliefs. If nothing else, it would probably have garnered more of a response. All negative, of course, but you have to start somewhere.

 

[Nira]

I considered going down the theology route, Brian, but my thinking was that that might be seen as an "attack" on their beliefs

The post is an attack on atheists, not really something I appreciate on Facebook. In the same vane I do not put posts putting Christians down on my facebook wall either.

I guess I'm rather passive aggressive if my first thought were to write that as an answer?

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

Huh.
Last time i sat next to an unaccompanied minor, the only thing we talked about was why the flight attendant got upset every time i talked to the unaccompanied minor.


And i have more sympathy for the girl, actually, as i keep trying to read my books on airplanes and keep getting interrupted by either people who are afraid to fly and want distraction, people who are new to the area we're headed towards and want to know where to get laid, and people who read my book covers and assume they know enough about me to save me from damnation. That, or they see my bookmark and decide i need saved.

Never had an atheist bother me for the sake of atheism.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I considered going down the theology route, Brian, but my thinking was that that might be seen as an "attack" on their beliefs

The post is an attack on atheists, not really something I appreciate on Facebook. In the same vane I do not put posts putting Christians down on my facebook wall either.

I guess I'm rather passive aggressive if my first thought were to write that as an answer?

Right, it is an attack on atheists, or at least on atheism. But that doesn't mean I should reply in kind. I don't appreciate those kind s of posts either, but I usually just ignore them. Today, though, I just thought, "enough" and decided to reply for once. What I didn't (and don't) want to do is write something just as snarky as the OP and piss them off like they would have pissed me off if I was that bothered about it (over the years, I've kinda got used to that sort of bullshit). They say you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so telling somebody straight away that they believe nonsense isn't likely to get them thinking much.

I don't know if I'd call your thought "passive-agressive", more bluntly honest. Nothing wrong with that, but it depends what you're trying to achieve by it, I suppose.

 

[bilby]

Facebook to Ban Atheism from their Social Network over Cyber Bullying

 

[Nira]

I don't know if I'd call your thought "passive-agressive", more bluntly honest. Nothing wrong with that, but it depends what you're trying to achieve by it, I suppose.

At first it would to just express my opinion. I don't appreciate such posts on my wall, I refrain from making them.

The other, unintended but still, thing that it convay is "you bad, I'm good". But said in a nice (passive aggressive) way. And as it's portrayed as a joke, you would just end up as the one circling around his own bellybutton with no humor.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Facebook to Ban Atheism from their Social Network over Cyber Bullying

For a minute there, that had me fooled. It was only when I got to the list of banned words and phrases that I was sure it was satire.

 

[Rhea]

I expect your post went over their head. Sadly.

I'd have been inclined to write, "Irony thick enough for a cow to need all four stomachs to digest. I like how you posted something which forced religion into a conversation - that was about how rude it is to force lack-of-religion into a conversation. Funny! Well done!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Atheist pondered a second, then opened the emergency exit and pushed the girl out. "Where is your god now?" he said smugly.

I mean, if we are going to make atheists look bad, lets go the extra mile.

or

He smiles and responds, Well you must really know about religion because you know so much about shit.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I expect your post went over their head. Sadly.

I think you're probably right. Still no response to it, a day later. Not even one telling me I'm going to hell. On the plus side, nobody's unfriended me, either. Yet.

 

[Underseer]

I don't usually reply to posts pushing religion on facebook, but this morning I just couldn't leave it alone, for some reason.

In my feed was a post I've seen dozens of times before, and I'm sure you all have, too. This one:



The "atheist" in the story is presented as a smug prick pushing his "faith" on anybody he can find, but who actually doesn't have a clue about anything - traits more often displayed by theists IRL. I could have gone down the road of attacking the belief in a god the post is pushing, but instead I decided to have a go at the little girl's question. Here's my reply:

The smug little bitch ... sorry, the little girl ... is wrong. Deer don't eat grass. they eat leaves, nuts, acorns, buds and twigs. And horses and cows have different digestive systems. A horse has one stomach. A cow has four, and rechews the cud it's already eaten and processed in one or more of its stomachs. So of course their shit will be different.

I thnk I did a good job of demonstrating that the little girl is full of what she's talking about. At the same time I think my reply highlights how theists use arguments based on false premises to further their agenda. But maybe I was too subtle with that; no replies as yet.

Any thoughts?

Any time they post stories like that, show them this:

 

[jab]

I don't usually reply to posts pushing religion on facebook, but this morning I just couldn't leave it alone, for some reason.

In my feed was a post I've seen dozens of times before, and I'm sure you all have, too. This one:



The "atheist" in the story is presented as a smug prick pushing his "faith" on anybody he can find, but who actually doesn't have a clue about anything - traits more often displayed by theists IRL. I could have gone down the road of attacking the belief in a god the post is pushing, but instead I decided to have a go at the little girl's question. Here's my reply:

The smug little bitch ... sorry, the little girl ... is wrong. Deer don't eat grass. they eat leaves, nuts, acorns, buds and twigs. And horses and cows have different digestive systems. A horse has one stomach. A cow has four, and rechews the cud it's already eaten and processed in one or more of its stomachs. So of course their shit will be different.

I thnk I did a good job of demonstrating that the little girl is full of what she's talking about. At the same time I think my reply highlights how theists use arguments based on false premises to further their agenda. But maybe I was too subtle with that; no replies as yet.

Any thoughts?

Wait, when did it become okay in Christian circles for a good little girl to use the word "shit", particularly in a pejorative sense?

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't usually reply to posts pushing religion on facebook, but this morning I just couldn't leave it alone, for some reason.

In my feed was a post I've seen dozens of times before, and I'm sure you all have, too. This one:



The "atheist" in the story is presented as a smug prick pushing his "faith" on anybody he can find, but who actually doesn't have a clue about anything - traits more often displayed by theists IRL. I could have gone down the road of attacking the belief in a god the post is pushing, but instead I decided to have a go at the little girl's question. Here's my reply:



I thnk I did a good job of demonstrating that the little girl is full of what she's talking about. At the same time I think my reply highlights how theists use arguments based on false premises to further their agenda. But maybe I was too subtle with that; no replies as yet.

Any thoughts?

Wait, when did it become okay in Christian circles for a good little girl to use the word "shit", particularly in a pejorative sense?

Those overly sensitive to curse words probably use 'crap' instead.

 

[Underseer]

Horse poopie.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Like the OP, I will only respond to a religious post when it insults atheism. But I go straight to the heart of the matter because 1) it's an easy beat down; and 2) it prevents them from posting further bullshit because they've been beaten down; and 3) I believe that if my beliefs are being insulted and unfailingly misrepresented, then I have an obligation to set that person straight. And I will risk being "unfriended" over it.