Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was meeting last week with representatives from a teachers union in his home state when things quickly devolved.
Before long, Fetterman began repeating himself, shouting and questioning why “everybody is mad at me,” “why does everyone hate me, what did I ever do” and slamming his hands on a desk, according to one person who was briefed on what occurred.
As the meeting deteriorated, a staff member moved to end it and ushered the visitors into the hallway, where she broke down crying. The staffer was comforted by the teachers who were themselves rattled by Fetterman’s behavior, according to a second person who was briefed separately on the meeting.
I have a pet flying dragon that breathes fire and devours people I don’t like. Do you believe me?
This isn’t as smart of an argument as you think it is.
And your reply wasn’t one at all.
I wasn’t arguing. I was giving you an analogy. What’s the difference between not believing in a god and not believing in a pet dragon? Does one require faith and not the other? Why or why not? That’s an argument.
If my argument is so easy and stupid, rip it apart. Condescension gets you nothing.
It’s a very bad faith (heh) argument to compare god to a mythological creature. I’m not arguing that the abrahamic god is real or that Zeus et al are real. I’m saying that as the thing that encompasses everything that exists, the universe, could be a god of sorts. Or the God if you want.
The argument is that atheists believe so much that god does not exist and become so hostile to the notion of religion itself that it behaves as a religion and becomes like a religion itself.
Perhaps the fault in communication here is that atheist mostly define gods as intelligent and willful entitities when there is nothing that suggests that other than the deities that we invented in our own image. But to say, conclusively that god does not exist, meaning that we know that the universe is without a doubt not a transcendental entity is just faith that god does not exist because you have no proof of that nor any way to prove it without looking at it from outside of it.