Conversing with believers: 15 things to NOT let them get away with.

Some call me a glutton for punishment, others tell me I must have been born with some type of martyr complex. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Baha'is, Mormons, New Agers, whatever, once invited I just get in there and engage in the verbal jousting.

People don't understand why, but I usually enjoy it. I like listening to people who bring different faith angles to me, even if it is just to learn a little bit more about another irrational way of thinking. Sometimes people see my engagement as an opening to get me to their brand of belief. On the contrary, I regard a chance to bring my doubt and skepticism as an opportunity to chip away at some of those 'eye of a needle' sized cracks that may be hiding somewhere in the crevices of their faith armour.

Whatever the nature of the exchange, inevitably there are some 'sleight of hand' techniques that the believer tries to slip past my logic shield. Many times I am able to spot these and deal with them before they cause trouble later on, but little morsels of irrationally get through here and there.

Whenever I leave after having discussions with believers, I do a post mortem.

'Why didn't I challenge him on that?'

'How could I let her get away with that?'

Yes, there is always something I could have said, would have said, should have said even if I have outplayed an opponent.  When I am debating with a theist I don't take comfort from a victory. The battle is primarily against myself. I am trying to just do a better job than I did last time. Learn from any mistakes until I successfully hone my craft.

Still, the idea of practising until perfect is not always enough. In a discussion you can get distracted, go down an unnecessary rabbit hole that obscures the issue, or simply succumb to raw fatigue, because theists can easily wear you down by talking around in never ending circles. Sometimes the fallacies they spout are coming at you as fast as the water that gushed from the rivers here in Calgary last week and you just can't keep up with all the nonsense.

After all the hours of talking with these believers of all stripes, I thought it was about time I produced something useful to other non believers that occasionally try to engage theists in debate. I wanted to develop a resource for those brave secular warriors who take the challenge of boldly going forth into frontiers where reason may never have gone before.

That's what this post is all about. Yes, the blog today is designed as a support for atheists.  In some ways it is a note to self, a reference document to glance at during a debate to make sure I don't miss any of the contradictory, illogical or downright silliness that may be presented when I am trying to wrap up a marathon conversation at 1:00 in the morning, or terminate a discussion over an early breakfast that has morphed into lunch.

It's by no means exhaustive, but below is a list of 15 major things that I want to urge you atheists out there to NOT let believers get away with.


15 things to NOT let them get away with

1. Don't let them get away with saying their holy book has no contradictions.

The way I intend to deal with this one in the future is to ask them if their 'holy book' has any gods in it.  If the answer is 'yes' then their claim dies right there. For gods by nature are contradictory. Once the god of the text has powers to act in nature yet can't be established by investigating nature, he is a contradiction. Once he can give you free will while still having full control of what you can do through an unalterable plan, he is a contradiction. No need for further investigation,


2. Don't let them get away with saying you haven't brought any new arguments. 

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with how long it has been tossed around. They keep bowling the same balls at us over and over again, so it is unsurprising that we play the same strokes time after time. The arguments we make are as poignant today as there were 100 or 1000 years ago.  Arguments do not have expiry dates like cartons of milk nor do they become obsolete like last years laptops or smartphones. Arguments remain valid for as long as there has been no successful defence against them.

3. Don't let them get away with making up their own definitions. 

There is nothing that theists like to play with more than definitions. It's like a slinky that they roll, twist, slide, press and pull to get whatever shape they want. Almost every word in the world of faith has an unclear definition, 'spirit', 'faith', 'worship', 'holy','transcendent', 'metaphysical', even 'God'. The definitions slip around continuously.

Consider that in Islam, a Muslim is defined as 'someone who submits to God.'  Muslims will go on to point out that we know from the bible that Jesus submitted to God. Therefore Jesus was a Muslim. QED.

Yes just like that, the Christian's saviour gets sacrificed to Islam through a definition with whom only Muslims have a personal relationship. We have to let Muslims and other religionists understand that they can't go off in the corner and make up their own definitions. If they persist we'll just join them in the game too.

Since by atheists' definition, there is no such thing as a 'true god', everyone who believes in a God is not believing in the 'true God.' Therefore all Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and other believers  are  atheists. They are all like us, non followers of the 'true God'. Wow! That was easy. I think it's time to re-evaluate  and inflate our numbers.

4. Don't let them get away with saying that the people who wrote their holy book were 'righteous' or 'noble' men or women whose word can be trusted.

This is laughable, but you wouldn't believe how many times that believers in different religions have told me this with a straight face. 'Righteous' and 'noble' people are indeed usually less trustworthy than the masses they represent. Reputations often don't reflect reality, especially when the claims come from their own followers who have something significant to gain from being loyal.

Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Hitler were well respected as 'righteous' and 'noble' by those who followed them at the time. For those on the other side, not so much. Today Mother Theresa is still regarded as a paragon of virtue and goodness by many all over the world. How much is this reputation fairly earned?

5. Don't let them get away with telling you they believe with 100% certainty even though there are things within their religion that they are not sure about.

They say that they are sure about God and then talk to you for half an hour on all the things about God they are not sure about. Contradictions anyone? Refer to item one on this list. Enough said.

6. Don't let them get away with saying they have a faith that's based on evidence and logic.

Oh boy, contradictions they keep a coming. If faith was based on evidence and logic then we wouldn't have to call it faith. To promote 'knowing by faith' as a virtue is to say that the best way to gain knowledge is through absence of knowledge. It is no less absurd than saying that you should pluck out both your eyes in order to attain 20/20 vision or that the best way to became a virtuoso violinist is to go through life making sure you never commit the 'sin' of picking up a bow or plucking on a string.

7. Don't let them get away with assuming that because you accept a claim they make for 'the sake of argument' that you are agreeing to the truth of that claim.

You always have to be careful with this one.  There are so many things wrong with theistic claims, that if you addressed every one during the course of a debate, discussions would probably end up lasting  40 days and 40 nights. So if you are to be effective you have to quickly recognise what points are critical to your objections and which are not. For the sake of argument, you go along with some assumptions because you know even if those patently false assumptions were true their argument would fall flat.

A lot of time theists don't get this and interpret your lack of argument as if it was acceptance. That's why they fool themselves into thinking that atheists en masse accept things like a historical Jesus. Many atheists do not, it's just that whether there was a 'real Jesus' or not is not central to the most important point, which is whether the miracles happened or not. We have to remind them that silence is not consent otherwise they will go away thinking we have conceded far more ground than we actually have.

8. Don't let them get away with saying you can't judge any claims made in their holy book unless you have read the entire book.


This is a classic move by theists. They try to make you feel that your atheism is not really stemming from a lack of belief in God, but rather from  problems you encountered from the specific version of God you grew up with. If only you were exposed to their faith you would be still in the fold of belief.  It is akin to telling somebody you don't like ice cream and they respond by telling you that you just haven't found the right flavour yet. Of course it always happens that they have five or six tubs of this elusive heavenly brand sitting in their refrigerator.

Well, unless you want to end up bumbling about weighing about 800 pounds, you can't spend your life going around the world tasting every ice cream until one titillates your pallet. What the people trying to sell you the faith sweetness don't understand is that it is the principle of faith you're rejecting not any individual belief system.  It wouldn't make sense to keep trying to sell ice cream to someone who has a violent reaction to having a cold tongue. Changing out chocolate for strawberry, banana or 'tootsie frootsie royale' is not going to relieve the suffering.

9. Don't let them get away with claiming that your refusal to consider living by faith is close minded.

It is not. Faith is accepting something without having a reason to do so. It is not difficult to realise that if you accept an answer before you even look at the problem you are far less likely to be right than if you actually look at the problem and work towards an answer. Refusing to accept a proposition through faith is not closed mindedness it's making a decision to actually use your mind.

10. Don't let them get away with saying that depending on reason 100% of the time is just as bad as depending on faith 100% of the time.

Is trying to be good 100% of the time the same as trying to be evil 100% of the time? Again, enough said.

11. Don't let them get away with claiming that the fact you don't reject what they are saying means you accept what they are saying.

This is the old burden of proof mixed with the argument from ignorance fallacy that believers like to exploit. Yes, there are many claims believers make in arguments that I don't outright reject. I don't reject the possibility of the supernatural or an after life, but I am extremely far away from accepting either of these propositions.

12. Don't let them get away with saying you are not like 'all the other atheists'.

This is an underhanded compliment that anybody who is part of a marginalised group can identify with.  It's the 'I Like you' but 'I still want to discriminate the group you belong to' tactic.

Many theists that I have had discussions with have complimented me on my rational discourse but try to maintain that I am some sort of anomaly among non believers.

They claim that unlike me, most of my counterparts are rabid, foaming at the mouth militants ready to pounce on theists due to some childhood trauma they endured for which they are blaming God.We have to let the theists know that for the vast majority of us atheists, reason has been the sole guide to non belief.

13. Don't let them get away with dismissing an argument as irrelevant because they don't understand it.

I often during exchanges with believers point out instances where they have used circular reasoning, tautologies, arguments from ignorance or special pleading. They look back at me blankly. It is clear they have no idea what I am talking about.

This is a frustration. Trying to argue logic without an understanding of logic, is as pointless as going into a workshop without bringing a single tool and expecting to construct a bookshelf a cupboard and a complete dining room set.

I have explained to people that they have manufactured a God whose existence is unfalsifiable and they grin from ear to ear thinking that this is a concession that their God is real. I don't have time to suspend an argument to teach the other person in the conversation the rules of logic. Training needs to be done before you run out on to the field of play.

Often theists use their lack of knowledge to their advantage, just ignoring the arguments that go over their heads. You are required to follow rules of logic in a discussion just as you need to follow the road traffic laws when you drive. In logic just like driving, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

14. Don't let them get away after you debunk a reason they believe in their God by allowing them to say 'well that's not the only reason I believe'.

This is another slippery tactic. As soon as they realize a reason for why they believe in a God doesn't hold water, they quickly shift to the next one on what is always a long list. They can always come up with another reason for believing and they never acknowledge the weakness of the one that you just knocked out of the park.

Invariably the next argument up is just as bad as its predecessor, but for them it doesn't matter, once they can keep spitting out another one and another one and another one into the debate, they think they are holding their own.

Don't let them move on without acknowledging the failure of their previous attempt. Let them know that a string of bad arguments lined up together doesn't get them anywhere. One thousand times zero is still zero.

And finally,

15. Don't let them get away without reminding them that their 'Truth' should have absolutely nothing to fear from your continuing investigation.

The one behind the wheel is all that matters: Why the moral argument for God drives me crazy

It comes with the territory. Once you become an atheist, you have to be prepared to get the arguments for why there is a God from left and right, almost on a daily basis. The theist doesn't have to use an indicator, we know the arguments that are coming just around the corner. First cause, complexity, meaning of life, Pascal's Wager along with a string of anecdotal testimonies and near death experiences in tow. Their discussions always take you down the same road. The potholes of fallacies don't matter, they just hope that one day one argument, any argument will bring you back on the highway to Christ. By and large such arguments don't bother me, I shrug my shoulders, sigh and give the defence of my position if I have the inclination, knowing that if the discussion continues there will be more roundabouts ahead than there are on the ABC Highway in Barbados. However, there is one argument that really does drive me crazy .I am sure for many atheists it is the same. It is the moral argument for God.

Here is how it goes. The theist will say that the fact that we can all recognise 'good' from 'evil'  in the world suggest that 'good' and 'evil' can be defined objectively. There are concepts that are not simply matters of taste or culture. The fact that they are not dependent on an individual human, means they must be dependent on an an individual non human. Therefore God. That's it! QED!

This argument is an extension of the Cosmological argument or the argument from origins. What it comes down to is this. We have a 'something' in the universe. That 'something' needed to be created. Therefore God created the 'something.' That 'something' can range from physical things such as universes, trees, planets, puppies, sunsets, babies and chimpanzees to abstract things like logic, love, consciousness, intelligence and yes, morality. So from an intellectual perspective the moral argument should be able to be dismissed just like any of the other , 'Who created X?' arguments. But no, this one goes much deeper than that. It hits me harder becomes implied in it, is the notion that the morality of people who don't believe in God or some supernatural agent are morally compromised in some way. That is the part that offends me.

Throughout my life, if there is one thing that I have always tried to do, it is to live to the highest moral standard possible. Back from when I was a Christian growing up in Barbados, up until today, living in Canada  where I solidly identify as an atheist. When it comes to the desire to 'do the right thing' my religion or lack thereof  plays no part now and it didn't play a role before either. I always saw my faith as incidental to my sense of morality. Christians will say it's God, atheists will say its a consequence of my evolutionary history, but whatever the reason I have always felt torn up inside when I have recognised that I have done something that has hurt another individual. I have always told people that I don't mind being called stupid even as I try to make good decisions. But being labelled as evil or unethical is something that hurts to the core.

I can hear all my Christian friends saying in chorus," No, no, you have it all wrong ! We know you are a moral person, we know you are good.What we are saying is that you don't have a basis for determining your morality!"

Borrowing morality form them

This is the point when I feel like tearing my hair out. It irks me more because when Christians say this, they say it with a tone that suggests they are being magnanimous. That we should be praising them for being so compromising, for telling us that we CAN be moral. They seem genuinely surprised when we are  unimpressed by what they perceive is a fantastic compliment.

Why are we unmoved? Let's explore this statement a bit more. ' We can be moral, but we have no basis for morality.' The implication is that they are the ones with the basis. Some say that we atheists are simply borrowing their morality from them. Suppose a white person came up to me and let me know that he has a lot of black friends and from those interactions he knows that black people can be good people, even though many of his white friends argue otherwise. What if he went on to explain that his view was that although most blacks were moral they had no basis for determining what was moral? Suppose he added that what we good black people are doing is behaving 'white like', copying the moral code of HIS people, even though most of us don't realise it. What if he continued by saying that white people that are evil are either not true white people or white people who through a conscious rejection of their race based moral code have lost their way? Should I  look at a person who suggests something as ludicrous as this as anything but a flat out racist?

I know it will be said that race and religion are too totally different things and the analogy doesn't hold. I disagree. I fail to see how a difference in opinion about what is the essence of nature has any more to do with how good a person you are, than the melanin content in your skin.

There is something even more curious about this morality argument that I am not sure even all atheists realise.  Their argument for an objective morality is based on the universal interpretation by  human beings of concepts such as 'good' and 'evil.'  In 'universal', they are including atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, every conceivable religious and non religious group. All these people's perceptions on 'good' and 'evil' are used to support their view that an objective morality exists.

Then comes the big sleight of hand in their argument. The God that is responsible for this objective morality that everybody recognises, is their God that only followers of their God recognise. It's a strange notion. It's not like the old days when a God just concentrated of taking care of his people. Their God takes it upon himself to step into everybody's territory. Their tribal God is responsible for the universal experience.  But this tribal God is not just any God. This tribal God is one who has advocated every atrocity in the book at some time or another. Genocide, infanticide and  much much more. Yes, there are many  'cides'  to God. In fact the only 'cide' that God seems to have evaded so far is 'suicide', well unless you want to count that 'hanging on the cross' weekend a couple of millennia ago.

So, naturally confused atheists ask Christians how can they claim that their God is the establisher of objective moral good, when so many of  his actions are in direct opposition to the objective morality that we humans universally recognise? The answer we get then is the real 'slap in the face.'

"You can't judge any actions of our God because you have no basis for morality! You have no licence to criticize! How can you say that even killing babies is evil?"

Apart from the obvious ad-hominem in this response, there is a bigger problem. In determining the existence of universal, objective morality they took into consideration the views of ALL humanity. The fact that OUR atheist view of morality is similar to theirs was seen as evidence in favour of 'objective morality', which was a crucial part of their argument for the existence of THEIR God. Now that they have used our moral perspective to help 'establish' their God's existence,  they want to dismiss that same moral perspective when we use it to challenge their God's morality. Effectively what they are telling us is that we can vote their God in but we can't vote him out. It's a one way democracy.We need to call them out on this inconsistency.

Debating Mistake?

In the last post I made on Imagine No Religion 2, Matt Dillahunty took me up on a comment I made where I said that even if he made a mistake in a debate he had enough consistency in how he structured his argument to not falter or get tied up. He asked me in the comments thread of that post  to point out to him if he made any mistakes during the debate in Kamloops. He playfully added that he didn't consider that consistency in making mistakes is a good thing. I smiled at this, because the comment about him making mistakes was a passing statement within a paragraph that was very complimentary of him and the work he does. Still, I suppose it is human nature to pick out any note of criticism, I am sure I would do the same. It's great however to see someone of his stature in the movement seeking constructive criticism. That is the true strength of the atheist community. In that thread I outlined one area in which we had a difference of opinion and I won't go into that here, you can look back at the comments in that thread if you wish.

However, Matt's comment did make me reflect on 'mistakes' of atheists a bit more. Not just his, but those of all of us. That's what I am getting to here. When theists tell us we can only get an understanding of morality from God, we challenge them on it and try to show them how patently false it is. In so doing  we take ourselves further and further from the person that they see as the law giver and this opens up the chance for them to claim we have no grounds to criticize them since we have gotten away from the one who makes right right. Perhaps what we need to do is just leave them with their assumption and say that we don't know where our moral instincts come from, and yes maybe their God did give us them. The point is that it doesn't matter, we have moral instincts which clearly work well enough for the majority of us not to be  mass murderers. As such, we have all rights to challenge the morality of the God that they claim set the rules.

Even if our basis for morality is borrowed, it is still every bit as valid and we have every right to use it and have confidence in it. If I am driving a car on the highway, I may claim the car is mine, someone else may claim it isn't. They may claim I borrowed it, rented it, even stole it. My parents may have handed it to me or I might have won it in a raffle.The fact is that none of that matters once I am driving it. I have the same rights and responsibilities as every other road user. You are obliged to give way to me if I have the right away,  you can't expect to run a red light to overtake me. It doesn't matter who owns the vehicle, who made it or how it got to me, it matters only who's behind the wheel. Once I have successfully passed my driver's test and have fulfilled all the legal obligations of the jurisdiction I am in, I have license.

August Berkshire- 'Does God put the moral instinct into our brain? If so, do his fingers slip during the rewiring?'

Speaking of morality and license. I have to mention August Berkshire here. He gave a memorable presentation at Imagine No Religion 2 on the topic of morality in the bible. It was one of those presentations that had the impact of making me gasp time after time. It was basically God and his criminal record  put together in Power Point. Forty two she bears led us off on what would inevitably become a very bloody parade. I don't know what it is, but there is something about seeing God's old testament tyranny on the big screen that makes it seem one thousand times worse than reading it on a lap top. After his presentation, you could be left with no other conclusion than that God is a monster. It was  the one presentation that weekend that I genuinely wished my Christian friends were there to see. For in spite of the horror presented, their was no twisting of the context of the stories to suit an agenda. It was just a retelling of what was right there in the book. It would be hard to know what they would have said in defence. He scoffed at the idea that God could be the one putting the morals in our brain. "Maybe his fingers slipped during the rewiring!" he quipped.  He ended by saying that if God existed and had the record that we read about in the bible, he should be the one praying to us for moral guidance. It was hard to disagree.

One other focus in August's presentation was the image of the photo above. The car he drives in his hometown in Minnesota proudly displaying "ATHEIST" on his license plate. He spoke of a few awkward discussions and hostile reactions at gas stations but he also spoke of the smiles and 'thumbs up' he got from many people, especially young people. It is heart warming to recognise that those of the future realise that the atheist label is one that we can display without fear wherever our travels may take us.

It is worth remembering that whatever its origin, whatever the car maker's name is, whoever is the mechanic, morality becomes our vehicle once we buy into it. We are also free to customise our plates to suit us. Once we are not breaking state laws, we have right of way. We are the one's in the driver's seat and unless you have evidence that we are not in control of our mental faculties, we have every right to be on the road and call you 'idiot' if you do foolishness and endanger others' lives. With all due respect, you are the ones that are driving under influence. You need to look at yourself in the mirror.You can't dismiss our rare view because your rear view says that our rare view can't tell you that you're wrong.

Given all that many of you believers think about us, it is a miracle that we actually still have models of morality that are allowed on the road. Especially given the fact that we, unlike you, are not eligible for 'Accident Forgiveness Insurance.'

A Praisey Mindset: The Sunday School song that starts it all

Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelujah! Praisey the Lord!

There is no way that you could have grown up going to Sunday School in the Caribbean and not know this song. I know, I know it's "Praise ye" not "Praisey" but it was years after my early Sunday School days that I understood that. So, the song will always be called 'Praisey the Lord' as far as I am concerned. You may laugh, but I used to think that Praisey was just another name for God. After all, the Lord seemed to have so many others, God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Yahweh, Yeshua, Jesus, El Shaddai, Elohim, Saviour, Prince of Peace, the Alpha and Omega, why not Praisey? It made just as much sense as the other names at the time. There was even a period when I felt I had a personal relationship with 'Praisey'. Anyway as is the case with so many things you sing at church, the  meanings of words don't matter too much. So, I never asked for clarification.

Although there were other  tunes that could liven up a Sunday morning, none is engraved in my memory as much as 'Praisey the Lord.' It was a favourite of children and teachers alike . That secret weapon that any song leader could  introduce, certain in the knowledge that it would wake everybody up and have bodies moving in the pews. Even back in those days I was not certain that  the claim that Jesus was the saviour of the world  was true, but I knew that 'Praisey the Lord' could bring salvation to any boring Sunday school class.

It's interesting to look back and try to figure out why this song was always such a hit. ' Praisey the Lord' was by no means only for children either. Indeed, I can remember this song being launched in the middle of deanery youth services and even during  traditional Sunday morning 8 o'clock mass. I think what made the song so popular was that it was more than just a song. It was a fun game as well. Children, youths, adults and seniors  all like to play and that's what made 'Praisey the Lord' a winner.

The video above gives some indication of how you do 'Praisey the Lord.' Basically, that is how it went.  The congregation was divided into two halves. Generally each of the halves was assigned a song leader. One side of the church were labelled as team 'Hallelu'  and the other as
 'Praisey.' The introduction of the song would be played and the song leader would signal to the first side and they would  stand  and sing, "Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!"  They would then sit down and the other  side would stand and respond on cue with, "Praisey the Lord!" The leader would urge them to outdo the 'Hallelu' people in terms of volume. More often that not this was achieved. After that, battle lines were drawn, it was up to the 'Halellus' to raise the bar further and try to outdo the 'Praiseys' effort. And so as the song went on it got louder and louder and often faster and faster as people got more into it.

When the pace quickened it meant that you had to be lighter on your feet too, because you found yourself often back up in the air as soon as you sat down. So, if you didn't pay attention or were slow, you could get caught out standing for the wrong part, singing at the wrong time or missing your cue entirely.  Not surprisingly, as people sang faster and louder, tone and singing in key would go out the window. By the third or fourth 'Hallelujah' people were bellowing at the top of their voices, shouting like you would at a local fish market. Probably this was the only time as children that we were allowed to shout as loudly as our lungs would permit.  Believe you me, we stretched the envelope to the max. As a five year old it was simply astonishing to think you could get to that noise level without getting even so much as  a 'Shush' or 'finger on lip' from an adult in your midst. I suppose that was close enough to heaven for us.

The song could go for several rounds as people challenged themselves to take it up a notch next time. This meant that  the tune could easily last over 20 minutes . The climax was generally a rousing long held out ' Praaaaaaaiiiiiisey the Lord!'  Everyone joined in for that, even the 'Hallelus' who would reluctantly switch sides for the finale. Inevitably there would be some 'rebel' who would start up with another "Hallelu, Hallelu"and that would mean on for another lap, and the fun would continue. It was definitely hard to stop " Praisey the Lord" once in got going.

In recent times I seem to be remembering 'Praisey' a lot. It comes back to me regularly when I get into debates or discussions about God with Christians or listen to debates on podcasts or youtube. There is definitely a ' Praisey' mindset that seems to stay with you after Sunday School days.  I remember in my church days in Barbados writing two songs that actually gained some popularity on the gospel scene. One was called " Sing His Praises!" the other was called " Sing Hallelujah!" So I was definitely caught up in the 'praisey' fad myself. Today on Christian forums online you see  a lot of 'Praisiness' in evidence. Below is a fictional example, but it represents what you typically see.

Posted Message: I am happy to report that my daughter that had an asthma attack last night is now doing much better. The Lord is marvellous! Thank you all for your prayers. We must always give him praise.

Responder 1: Hallelujah, The Lord's name be praised!


Responder 2: He is worthy! Praise his holy name!


Responder 3: Hallelujah, Hallelujah!


Responder 4: Hallelu, Hallelujah, Praise his Name!


Responder 5: HALLELUJAH!!


Responder 6: HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH!! PRAISE YE THE LORD


Responder 7: HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH!! HALLLELUJAH!!! THE LORD'S NAME BE PRAISED


Responder 8: PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIM!


Responder 9: PRAISE HIM!!! PRAISE HIM!! PRAISE HIM!!


Responder 10: PRAISE HIM!!!! PRAISE HIM !!!!!!PRAISE HIM!!!!!! PRAISE HIM!!!!!!


Responder 11: THE LORD IS SO GOOD! PRAISE, PRAISE PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIS NAME THE MOST HIGH!


Responder 12:  HAAAAALLLLLLLEEEEEEELUUUUJAH! PRAISE HIM!!

You can see clearly here the 'Praisey' influence that goes all those years back. The same two key words 'Hallelujah' and 'Praise'. Today in the 21st century, things have changed a bit. Instead of trying to drown out your neighbour with noise,  you add volume by using ALL CAPS or simply typing the word more times. To take things up an extra notch you bring in more exclamation marks!!!!!! and even bolding.  Then you can just elongate the words and repeat as much as you want. I saw someone actually post the message below, I am not kidding.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thankfully that person didn't bother to tack on 'Praise the Lord.' He would have probably needed a new laptop for that. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with believers using all the features available on their keyboard to get God's attention. It is clear that God is well into this internet age, he has millions of friends on facebook in spite of  the fact that he has no recent posts. I even heard a lady say that God downloads songs into her spirit. Not sure if he is using itunes but it is quite clear that the Lord is very open to working with the latest technology. Now it would appear that he has Steve Jobs himself to do the necessary updating.

I must admit that these things seem a bit comical to me, but in all seriousness, if you believe that God will hear you if you type more EMPHATICALLY, go right ahead. If you think it demonstrates your level of faith to your fellow believers when you do that, that is fine too. If you think that such proclamations in BOLD will bring unbelievers into the fold, that's OK too. If you believe in Him, no one should try to stop you from expressing yourself how you wish. So I can't say I am a fan of the atheists who respond to the 'Praisey' comments with "What the &*%#*@%*$&*%*$*%#@#!" It contributes nothing to the dialogue and only adds to keyboard suffering.

Where I have a problem is when the 'praisey' mindset finds its way into debates or discussions between atheists and theists regarding the existence of God. Similar to the way we did it when singing 'Praisey' as children, these debaters have specific words which the people on their side are required to say. They may 'hear' what the other side is saying, but it is not a matter of responding to an argument as much as it is restating what they said the time before. Maybe faster, in a louder voice in a different key but always the same message. Indeed, maybe they don't respond to atheist arguments because they assume what we are going to say. They think of us saying 'hallelu' and they just get up with 'praisey' all the time. And more often than not from a 'praisey' point of view they win hands down. There are more singing on their side than ours for sure, so we can't match them for sound. And just like the 'praiseys' in the Sunday School song they always seem to get the last word too.  The long held out phrase to end the discussion. It happens because often atheists get tired after a certain point, of making the same argument over and over without them  being addressed. We bow out once we realise we are not making headway. In a way, Christians make us play their game, for we end up being as repetitive as they are. We have to, because if they are not answering our points we end up having to restate them and it becomes as repetitive as "Hallelu."

The only difference is that we don't generally resort to turning up the decibels although we do try to change the rhythm and the tone as we go along, just to see if a different strategy will lead to better understanding. It seldom works, because they are only counting down the time as we talk, looking forward to springing up from their seats and shouting "Praisey the Lord" one more time.

So here's how the  'Praisey' mindset works in debates. The atheist makes a point the theists counters, the atheists counters the counter argument, the theists repeats original counter argument without any acknowledgement of directly previous counter argument from atheist. Atheist restates the previous counter argument that was not addressed by the theists last counter argument and the cycle continues. Sounds confusing? Here are two examples:

Praisey Argument One

Atheist:  I don't believe in God because there is no evidence. You are making the extraordinary claim that there is a supernatural being controlling everything in the world. The burden of proof is on you to give justification for that belief.

Theist: But where is your proof that God doesn't exist? You believe in science. I choose to live and praise my God. Science has not proved that there is no God.

Atheist: That is true, but the point I was making is that the burden of proof is on you, because you are making the God claim. It has to be like that, otherwise you couldn't say you didn't believe in fairies unless you could provide evidence for the non existence of fairies.

Theist: I am still waiting on your proof that your atheism is correct. You have not provided a shred of evidence on your side so far. Your position is just one of blind faith.

Atheist: No, it's not,  as I said before the burden of proof is not on the person who is challenging the claim. Atheism is not a faith anymore than 'off'is a TV channel. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Theist: Jeez, you just dance all over the place with a lot of fancy talk but you still have given me NOTHING! Not one piece of evidence to support your belief that no God exists. You expect me to take you seriously???? What is your evidence that God does not exist?

Atheist:  Again, I am saying to you that you are asking the wrong question. You are the one required to give support for your claim. I am not making any claim, my disbelief is due to lack of supporting evidence for your claim. Where is your evidence that Santa Claus is not real?

Theist: Well that does it. This conversation is over, you are not responding to me. Now you are answering my question with a question. You guys are so silly, no wonder God calls you FOOLS. Thank God I am not so blind to JESUS as you.YOU BETTER FALL ON YOUR KNEES WHEN HE COMES TO YOU.  All I can do is PRAY FOR YOU. OHHH PRAISE  THE LORD THANK GOD !

Praisey Argument  Two

 (This time the 'praisey' theist starts)

Theist: Oh praise the Lord! How can anybody look at the beauty of creation and deny that there is a God. It just doesn't make sense to me. They would have to be blind. .

Atheist: But the existence of the natural world is not evidence of anything other than the natural world. You can't just assume that God made nature and then claim that the existence of nature proves God, that's circular reasoning. You are assuming what you want to prove at the beginning. In any case if you think God made nature, then who made God? How do you account for him?

Theist: So who made creation then? How did all this get here? A design must have a designer? A painting must have a painter?

Atheist: Well,  we have ideas about origins of the universe through Big Bang cosmology but  still scientists don't have a clear idea of the state of the universe further back than the 'Planck time.' So, there are still many unanswered questions. I have to accept that I really don't know exactly  how everything got here, but a God doesn't help explain. Because you still have to explain his origins. You are just answering one mystery with another mystery.

Theist: Just as I thought. You don't know. I will ask you again. How can you get CREATION without a CREATOR? You think that all this came from nothing? When it comes down to it the answer that you atheists have to the big questions are " Don't have a clue, don't have a clue and don't have a clue."

Atheist: But you don't know either, you still haven't given an explanation for how your God got here. How did God come to be? Did he appear from nothing? You are making an argument from ignorance, putting in a God that you have no evidence to support. Then you claim that you know this God exists because of his 'creation.' Why do you assume that the universe was created?

Theist: You are so arrogant, now you are calling me ignorant. I can't understand why you keep denying God. How do you think you are able to breathe? Who gave you that oxygen? Who woke you up this morning? When was the last time you created a human being, MR. ATHEIST? You can't even do one millionth of what God can do. He created you, gave you life and a brain you could use and you use it to deny the existence of him who gave you everything. It's very sad. Why don't you just give God the Praise. ALL PRAISE AND GLORY ON TO HIM!

Atheist:  All those things are just assumptions. As I said before, you can't just assume that all of those things you mentioned were created by God if we are trying to establish whether God exists or not. You are just making bald assertions. All your arguments rest on the assumption that God's existence is fact. How can you know what God did if you can't even establish that God is? And we still haven't addressed the point about how God came to exist.

Theist: This is really ridiculous. You have no idea where anything came from and  yet you are rejecting my explanation that gives you all the answers you are looking for. God's creatures continue to choose darkness over light, blindness over sight and death over light. ALL CREATION TESTIFIES TO THE MAGNIFICENCE OF GOD. HE IS WORTHY, SO WORTHY, WORTHY TO BE PRAISED. I PRAY  that you will one day accept the LORD AS YOUR SAVIOUR!!! So that we can be  TOGETHER PRAISING GOD FOR ETERNITY IN HEAVEN!!!! SO, REPENT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!  HALLELUJAH PRAISE THE LORD MOST HIGH!!!



Well, what can I say?  These are the 'praisey' arguments we see and hear everyday. I have to say that in spite of  what Harold Camping may be saying about October 21st, I feel we will be stuck with these types of arguments for many years to come. We in the secular community just have to be patient and continue to find strategies for survival. It won't be that easy in this 'praisey' world we live in.