LAMO! Well I takl to alot of theist it makes just as much since as what I hear from them! Yep you have cured me and I will make the correction! Thank God for you! Oops.

It is fun the know their book better than they do. In first peraon experiences people usually get very quiet very quickly.

I often get the fre will argument when I point these things out. They consistantly are so brainwashed that they do not understand that it can not exist with a god that knows our every action before hand. So we can not change our future. So we can not have freenwill according to their theology. Since they are taught that it goes both ways they can't see that they are mutally exclusive.

That's some pretty sick shit.
I usually declare myself to be an Atheist if they bring up religion and am not afraid to discuss it. I don't have a memory for Booble verses so site Thom Payne's Age Of Reason. I do think it's important to remind us Atheists that people generally don't have a change of mind while in discussion about a subject. Generally it happens later, after they've had time to consider the conversation and do some research. It's very hard to say how many people we affect and don't but the public is becoming less religious.

@rainmanjr +1 for bringin' on the Payne.

Edit: +1 more for being a fellow resident of Vegas.

You bring up a good point. In the heat of debate, or even in polite conversation, it is very difficult for someone to concede another person's view as superior. People naturally have a lot of pride in their point of view and many people cannot stand to admit in the moment when they see the other side's points beat theirs. A "change of heart" is usually admitted later, if at all.

How do you approach the trinity?

@DavidLaDeau First you have to make sure your debate/discussion partner has not been through the rigors of the argument from the St. Gregory school of apologist theory, which you can read through an example of here:

[bethinking.org]

If they have that convoluted perspective and training, they might be able to out-circular-argument you if they're clever enough.

If you've established that your debate partner has only a layman's understanding of the trinity concept (and let's face it, few people have that, even), then you just ask questions that put them in the position of having to defend their understanding, basically forcing them to figure out for you how 1+1+1 could possibly equal 1. They really can't do it in any way that can't be countered. Eventually they will have to relent and refer to the Booble...but the Booble contains no specific references to a trinity concept that I've been able to find.

Rather than list out the specific tactical questions, I'll provide a halfway decent resource:

[plato.stanford.edu]

@Shawno1972 Bart Ehrman did a fine job of it. "I am a father, a husband, and a son."
The problem with the idea trinity is we know exactly when it was FORGED into the Bible when tha Latin Vulgate was written. It simply was the addition of holy ghost to one passage that said the father and the son.

@DavidLaDeau Except that what Bart refers to is only the titling ergonomics of a single entity. It's still one entity. The Trinity concept asserts that there are specific physical and metaphysical differences between the father, son, and holy ghost. To whit: you cannot be your own son. It makes absolutely no sense. But in the trinity idea, that's precisely what's asserted. Now square that contradiction with yet a third parameter, a holy ghost, which is supposed to be yet a separate entity. Good luck.

Now, if we want to assert that Gob just has a split personality and a trickster mentality, I can get behind that idea.

@Shawno1972 Okay thank you for the clarification. I somehow misunderstood you intent. You are right. They just throw down god magic in this case. Another God of the gaps in the basket!

@Shawno1972 Me too once the fact has been established that there is a god.

I think of any conversation as merely passing on some information that they don't, or haven't, gotten from somewhere else. If it changes their lives then grand for all concerned.

@rainmanjr so shall i seek out such people and lecture them? i do not generally encounter them except very occasionally on facebook and i am not going to get embroiled in an argument unless there is more to be gained. i have enough to do.

g

Since I have a YouTube channel that is focused on helping fundamentalist escape religion I daily get pushback. I do not try to convert at all. First it is not possible to convert to atheism as it is not a religion. Second I only attempt to get people simply to ask themselves why they believe what they do. That is all that is necessary.

@genessa I'm not suggesting you lecture anyone. Lecturing, or getting embroiled in argument, doesn't make anyone listen. You can simply make a reply to their assertions and leave it for them to extract the meaning of your thought. If it resonates then it will have an impact so try to make some good replies. Often, a wry joke or hard to argue piece of wisdom is enough.

@rainmanjr I have other fish to fry. When i feel so inclined on those uncommon occasions when i am approached on the subject, i respond. Otherwise i do not. I do not feel obligated, and it isn't even something i encounter on a regular basis.

g

" It is trivial to show that the God of the Bible can not exist" I have an entire youtube channel that is dedicated to just that. When believer undertand that the Bible can not be true, It helps people to dump the myth.

Problem is that it very well might affect your rights. Better to offer those conversations, I think, so that they might not.

@rainmanjr I hear you, but I don’t argue with family, friends, etc.
I choose my battles to places where I have a chance of making a difference versus giving myself an evil headache.

@CarolinaGirl60 So only argue your values to people who don't care about you one way or the other? That seems very safe without being defining. I prefer my family knows who I am and what I stand for. If they don't like it then they can stop inviting me over.

@rainmanjr You misunderstand what I wrote.
My family and friends ALREADY know what my values, thoughts, and opinions are; they know where our views diverge. I know those things about them, too. I don’t feel the need to argue at every meeting, when we already know where we stand.
It’s not a matter of safety, it’s a matter of respect.
For example: my 78-year-old dad watches Fox News and is a conservative; he will argue anyone if they want to debate him....but I don’t want to. He’s my dad; I love him and I’m not going to fight with him.

If your thing is to engage with everyone you know, go for it and enjoy. That’s just not MY thing.