Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
we arent as old as dad so we dont remember it fall down go boom
No, it killed all but those on the ark, according to the bible. No witnesses to tell the tale, but those that did! Face it, the telescope just doesn't exist to see what the poster wanted.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Literalism is pretty easy to undermine with the bible itself
Aye, I did, I got him to agree on "not everything in the bible should be taken litteraly".
Of course he might just talk about that single part where the bible says the Earth is flat while I have a lot more passages in mind. We didn't address them all of course.
When they use the inevitable "but that's the old testament, Jesus fixed it" card, ask them if they support homosexual rights. All of the bible passages against homosexuality come from the old testament, in particular Leviticus.
Really? That's interesting, didn't know that. That does make a good argument.
He was anti-homosexual but not really outspoken about it. Probably a smart thing to do because most people here in The Netherlands are pro-equal rights, and homosexuality, if that's your choice, is just perfectly fine here.
- Ectezus
Oh and Dad, thank you for your wonderful "science is a religion" statement. Now please get out because I didn't address the questions to you and you're just repeating the same ol' stuff like you always do. I don't need you spamming this topic with offtopic discussions again.
Lets just agree that you think you make perfect sense, and leave it at that.
__________________ Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] (Austrian physician and pioneer psychoanalyst) said:
"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."
Last edited by Ectezus; 10th May 2009 at 09:45 PM.
I would ask why God would heal people of disease by prayer but doesn't do the same for amputees. Nothing can really compare to the questions you posed however.
I asked a street preacher who came to my college, Brother Micah Armstrong, this very question, and he said "He does, all the time... in China!" and proceeded to change the subject to masturbation. That always gets a good reaction out of college kids =P
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Live as though you were to die tomorrow.
Learn as though you were to live forever.
-Mahatma Gandhi
In general, I'm not a huge fan of the amputee argument because it never says anywhere in the bible that god is supposed to heal them and I accept answers like "They are amputees for a reason" aka the "god works in mysterious ways" argument. Those are all fine with me.
I only responded with the amputee argument as part of a larger context like "It's funny how the miracles performed are always invisible and could have happened through natural means, unlike amputees for example."
Remember that Jesus healed a withered hand and Elijah raised the dead. God seemed perfectly ok with stuff like that in the Bible. I wonder why he doesn't care to do it now?
Having a discussion with this guy was like playing chess against someone who marches forward with all his pawns. Even though you know it's a stupid move, it's still fairly difficult to counter because you've never played (/experience) against this tactic before.
You could also use things like, "why were women who gave birth to boys only unclean for seven days while women who gave birth to girls were unclean for 14 days?"
Or, "If somebody ordered his troops to go into a city and kill all the women and children, should they be punished?" If they say yes, then remind them that God ordered such acts several times in the Bible.
__________________ Slug's 1st Law of YECism- Genesis 1-9 must be interpreted literally. Slug's 2nd Law of YECism- Any other verses can be interpreted liberally to support the 1st Law. Slug's 3rd Law of YECism- Make up any extra-Biblical claim, no matter how wild, to wave-away evidence in violation of the 1st Law.
"If God sent a wind from space, and blew waters off the surface, for example, the waters would go down. Just as if you take a cup full of water over a sink, and blow hard on it, a lot will go out of the cup. Elementary." -dad ^This statement nullifies his own argument by comparing a "present state" event to a "past state" event!
Or, "If somebody ordered his troops to go into a city and kill all the women and children, should they be punished?" If they say yes, then remind them that God ordered such acts several times in the Bible.
Make sure he doesn't have a Schofield Bible with him before you ask --- or that he doesn't know Dispensation Theology.
Yesterday I was shopping in the city with my girlfriend when a young gentleman approached us wanting to spread the word of God. We had a chat for about 20-25 minutes and overall it was a pretty good & gentle discussion.
Personally I never refrain from such conversations because I think it gives a good insight in how the "other" side's mind operates.
I've seen plenty of arguments, including a lot from this forum, that prepare you for such talks but this fellow was all shades of crazy that I haven't seen even on this forum. I have to say he was extremely polite though.
I'll give you a brief synopsis of the conversation:
Basically his opening line/argument when he approached us was about "a purpose in life".
That god gives you heaven and atheism gives you nothing and that somehow proves God exists. Of course things like "wishful thinking", "why does there have to be a purpose" and "we simply can't be 100% sure without evidence" were mentioned but he was a full 100% sure god existed, not a 99.9%, I did ask.
A large part that followed was about "wanting evidence before I base my life upon a belief". His main argument was that you won't find God unless you accept him first. To me that sounds like: You have to smoke pot before you see hallucinations, but I didn't tell him that. We've also talked a little about Bigfoot and the flying spaghetti monster and why he also first wants evidence before he believes in those but somehow he didn't seem to get the contradiction with his own argument. /face palm
When the conversation shifted towards evolution his response was simple yet mind shattering effective: "I don't know". I kid you not. He admitted he knew little to nothing about evolution and every single question I asked him was replied with "I don't know".
Seriously, how do you begin to make a point when someone else finds "I don't know" a valid way to dismiss the whole argument, stop thinking about it and act like it was never brought up...
At least here on the forum people (those who respond at least) come up with some kind of answer, which you can then respond to and refute if it's wrong. I've even had a Jehovah witnesses at my door that have read the Origin of Species and it allows for great dialogue. This guy however dismissed science in general and expected others to believe him why evolution is wrong without him knowing anything about it in the first place.
Furthermore he didn't even believe in micro-evolution. I've grown accustomed that even the most die-hard creationists here believe in micro-evolution because it's practically undeniable (or so I thought) when you look into it with clear cases of mutations in every day life like Swine flu for example. But alas, he clearly stated he didn't belief in micro-evolution and once again every follow-up question was answered with "I don't know".
We've even had the segment from the Atheist Experience regarding Hell. It's about a couple of simple questions: - Do you believe hell exists? (His answer: Yes) - Do you believe God sends people there (Yes) - Do you believe Apostasy - not believing in god - is the one true unforgivable sin (Once again: a definiteyes)
So the important follow-up question: "Do you think me and my girlfriend *deserve* to go to Hell?"
And just like the caller in the Atheist Experience his response was the same: "It's not up to me to judge about that".
I find it funny that most people can't give their own opinion when answering this question. As Matt Dillahunty perfectly said it: "That tells me everything I need to know, that right inside of you you're dealing with a moral struggle where you are beginning to realize that you are more moral than the god they forced you to belief".
And yes both his parents were religious as well, I've asked. Although in his defense he said he made the decision himself when he was 8.
Anyway, I was wondering what you (if in disagreement with that fellow I met) would have said.
1) What would be your main scientific/evolution counter-argument to bring up? 2) And when the person denies all science, what would be your main non-scientific counter-argument?
Think about it, I hope to see some good replies.
- Ectezus
Please bear in mind that the majority of Christians have no beef with science at all.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Make sure he doesn't have a Schofield Bible with him before you ask --- or that he doesn't know Dispensation Theology.
So right now we're under "Grace/Ecclesial" dispensation? It covers Acts 2 to Revelation 20. Of course, much of what John mentioned in Revelation had already happened.
Are you a traditional, progressive, or classical dispensationalist?
Some verses in the Bible seem to go against dispensation theology:
Deuteronomy 28:58–64 indicates that the promises of God were conditional. "If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book [...] the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone." The conditional nature of predictive prophecy is explained clearly in Jer 18:1–10, with immediate application to God's people in Judah and Jerusalem (vv. 11–17). It is also the subject of the entire book of Jonah. Both Jeremiah and Jonah indicate that prophecies can be conditional even when the conditions are not explicitly stated. Other prophecies without stated conditions are understood as conditional (e.g., 2 Sam 12:14–23).
The New Testament conceives of the church not as a stopgap substitution for the kingdom, but as the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose and plan: the faithful remnant of the Jews (the faithful apostles and the earliest Jewish disciples) accepted Jesus as Messiah, joined by a great multitude of Gentiles who have come to faith through their ministry. The new Israel is the heir of God's promises to the unbelieving nation. This theme begins with the preaching of John the Baptizer (see Matt 3:9–10), continues throughout the ministry of Jesus (see Matt 21:43), and is confirmed by the apostolic ministry (Acts 10:35–43; Rom 9:22–33; 1 Pet 2:4–10; etc.).
Romans 11 speaks of the "olive tree" (Israel) as having branches broken off (unbelieving Jews) and branches grafted in (Gentiles). The broken branches can be grafted back in, however, if the unbelieving Jews were to come to faith in Jesus: "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again" (Rom 11:23). As far as God is concerned, then, the entire tree—roots, trunk, natural branches (the faithful remnant), and grafted branches (believing Gentiles) —is still Israel and subject to divine blessing under the New Covenant.
Dispensationalism portrays a God with changing covenants and requirements that may not be part of a single plan for salvation. This may be viewed as contrary to the orthodox understanding that God is immutable.
Dispensationalists de-emphasize (or even discourage) human efforts to achieve peace because of the belief that an increase of war and famine is prophesied and inevitable. Some dispensationalists have taught that international peace institutions such as the United Nations may be paving the way for the reign of the Antichrist.
The old distinction between Jew and Gentile is permanently erased in Christ: "Remember that at the time you were separated from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility" (Eph 2:12–14).
__________________ Slug's 1st Law of YECism- Genesis 1-9 must be interpreted literally. Slug's 2nd Law of YECism- Any other verses can be interpreted liberally to support the 1st Law. Slug's 3rd Law of YECism- Make up any extra-Biblical claim, no matter how wild, to wave-away evidence in violation of the 1st Law.
"If God sent a wind from space, and blew waters off the surface, for example, the waters would go down. Just as if you take a cup full of water over a sink, and blow hard on it, a lot will go out of the cup. Elementary." -dad ^This statement nullifies his own argument by comparing a "present state" event to a "past state" event!
Linear Mode
