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.
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
__________________ 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."
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".
That is a pretty good argument.
[quote]1) What would be your main scientific/evolution counter-argument to bring up?[/quote]
I would mention the transitional fossils from the reptile-mammal transition. I would also mention that genetic analysis shows alligators are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards and the closest living relative of whales is the hippo. That tends to weed out the "common design, common genetics" argument.
2) And when the person denies all science, what would be your main non-scientific counter-argument?
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.
__________________ 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!
When going door-to-door, we're instructed not to sit and talk about issues --- to keep the conversation on the Gospel, and the Gospel only.
A good comeback to someone who wants to discuss evolution is to explain to them that, in evolution, man is born of "corruptible seed" --- whereas one needs to be born-again of "incorruptible seed" in order to see the Kingdom of God.
Originally Posted by 1 Peter 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,417
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by Ectezus
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? - Ectezus
1) Whatever feels like fun, or is on my mind that day. There are countless arguments in the class of science and religion, and countless in the clash of religion and evolution.
2) Not much of one, someone who denies science is clearly showing a severe level of psychological lobotomy. Our entire society runs on science and it's products, to deny the existence of science is showing a significant level of mental damage. Even the amish/minanites admit to the existence of science, but they have more freedom to choose not to since they use little of it's products. Anyone who refuses the validity of science but still flicks on a lightbulb is just being hypocritical. Therefore, self-delusion on this scale is pretty much a conversation ender for me.
I would ask why God would heal people of disease by prayer but doesn't do the same for amputees.
Originally Posted by MoonLancer
i would ask him why god heals cancer but not limb loss.
This gets them every time.
Hah, I actually raised the "why doesn't god heal amputees?" after the fellow talked about god healing cancer and such and guess how he responded...
"There have been cases where this happened, where legs spontaneously grew back".
I chuckled a little, never expected that answer in a million years!
Obviously there is no such documented evidence for that claim and the closest thing you're gonna get is an eye-witness report. Guess we can all safely accept that all the alien abduction stories are true as well.
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."
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.
- Ectezus
__________________ 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."
There is no counter-argument to deliberate ignorance. Keep arguing all they want, they will deliberately ignore it all.
Instead, go on the offensive. Make them defend their pet interpretation of the bible, whatever it happens to be. Literalism is pretty easy to undermine with the bible itself; show them the passage about the earth having corners, or Jesus being shown all nations from a mountaintop (both imply a flat earth). Or about the storehouses of rain above the firmament where god keeps all the weather. If they're not literalists, go for the morality aspect. My favorite passage is Joshua 6 through 7, the battle of Jericho. People know the walls fell well enough, but don't know so well that God commanded them to "put every living thing to the sword". Women, Children, Cattle, Cats, Dogs, you name it. There's also a stunning sequence right after that where a man withholds some of the booty from the sacked city that was meant to be smashed on the altar for god. In return, god demands vengeance via the burning alive of the man and his entire family. Just and loving god, eh?
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. There's a few from Romans, etc, about marriage, but the key one people use to justify "God Hates Hays" is the one in Leviticus about it being an abomination. Also theres a passage in Matthew somewhere IIRC where Jesus himself explicity states that ALL the old laws will continue to be in effect until the end of time. Ask them if they consider eating shellfish to be an abomination, as the Bible says it is.
The hard part is doing any of the above civilly, because they are pretty aggresive positions. If they willing to have an open discussion though, it can be done. Also, I've argued that Christianity at its foundation is unjust. Rather than typing it all out I'll link to a pretty good discussion of it I had recently. http://www.christianforums.com/t7361066-6/#post51472815
Good luck n all
__________________ On "illegal" immigration: "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..." -The Statue of Liberty
On the alleged connection between Hitler and Atheism:
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." -Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter X
Danth's Law: "If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly."
Last edited by sbvera13; 10th May 2009 at 09:24 PM.
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
When it comes to the far past or future, wherein the creation debate resides, you have no possible counter argument. Get used to it, it ain't goin away. So called science, in case it is news to you is a religion of unbelief in God, and the spiritual, and a closed minded rejection of all that is not in their silly little box. Of course.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Linear Mode
