Debating with an atheist; need advice.

[quatona]

Can't believe I'm saying this, it's just so...well not sure, just not a term I normally use for some reason.

The fact you couldn't see the disagreement would be your problem then.

This is your post in question (post #19):

Are you an Atheist? I ask because it looks at though you have no intention other than to question the OP's beliefs, when I think that is the opposite of what he asked for, hence off topic.

Are you trying to help or hinder here?

 

[Kenny'sID]

This is your post in question (post #19):

Are you an Atheist? I ask because it looks at though you have no intention other than to question the OP's beliefs, when I think that is the opposite of what he asked for, hence off topic.

Are you trying to help or hinder here?

Your point?

 

[Hawkins]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I don't think the answer to your morality question is difficult. It's an easy one to me. However I don't think that it does any good to even try to explain it to atheists, unless you try to offend them or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] them off.

Basically, God sets morality for humans that we based our morality on human bodies as the baseline. To us, if someone is harmed or killed, it's thus definitely immoral. The baseline of God's morality however is set on souls. He's not moral if a soul deserved to be saved yet not saved.

That said. When soul is used as a baseline, it means that God reserves the right to remove those already dead to give way for His message of salvation to reach today's humans to save our souls.

 

[quatona]

I don't think the answer to your morality question is difficult. It's an easy one to me. However I don't think that it does any good to even try to explain it to atheists, unless you try to offend them or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] them off.

Basically, God sets morality for humans that we based our morality on human bodies as the baseline. To us, if someone is harmed or killed, it's thus definitely immoral. The baseline of God's morality however is set on souls. He's not moral if a soul deserved to be saved yet not saved.

That said. When soul is used as a baseline, it means that God reserves the right to remove those already dead to give way for His message of salvation to reach today's humans to save our souls.

Thanks for expanding on your conclusions. However, the question you tried to answer was: How did you arrive at those conclusions?
And just to be clear: I didn´t ask you this question (but the person who asked for advice), and I didn´t ask a moral question - I asked "How did you arrive at this conclusion?" in response to "[My believe is] that whatever happened in the bible, happened, and for reason."
But maybe you just confused the threads?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Debating with an atheist; need advice.

Matthew 7:6

 

[Hawkins]

Thanks for expanding on your conclusions. However, the question you tried to answer was: How did you arrive at those conclusions?
And just to be clear: I didn´t ask you this question (but the person who asked for advice), and I didn´t ask a moral question - I asked "How did you arrive at this conclusion?" in response to "[My believe is] that whatever happened in the bible, happened, and for reason."
But maybe you just confused the threads?

I simply tried to explain the reason behind. So that this conclusion can thus be arrived because there's reason behind (as I explained).

 

[Butch5]

Recently me and a friend of mine, who came out as an atheist recently have been debating nonstop for the past month or so. I learned that he used to be a Christian himself, until he started reading the bible more mindfully. He was made aware of all the "bad things" that happened, such as God killing people, stoning children, etc. He came across this link: Cruelty and Violence and then decided that Christianity was no longer right for him. He also studied scientific concepts such as big bang, evolution, etc. and just trying to disprove the bible in any way he can. Overall I would consider him a "Strong atheist".

On the other hand, myself, I feel like I'd consider myself a "Weak christian". There are so many questions he asks me that I don't feel qualified enough to answer, and the ones that I do feel like I answer accurately and within reason, he just comes back with a counter-arguement. It just happens every time and I feel like there's nothing that comes to my mind, and there's no reason to continue discussing this. But I care about him so much, and I feel like he at least deserves the respect from me by answering any of his questions/concerns. He respects my beliefs, and I respect his. So overall the discussions are respectful and there's nothing to complain about there, but I tend to give relatively short responses because I just haven't studied the bible enough, nor have I paid much attention in church until recently. But deep inside my heart I know what I believe is truth, but it's difficult for me to express it.

One of the things we discussed was morality. I stated that I think God is the standard for morality, but then he states that if I think God is moral, then ultimately, somehow accept and believe in murder and all the "bad things", and that morality is subjective. Like, how do I even respond to that? It doesn't make sense to me and at that point there's nothing I can contribute to the discussion. I know that if I learn more from church/bible studies/asking you guys, then I can come to a sensible conclusion or response and then we could have more intellectual discussion with each other. I'm tired of one-sided discussions where I have nothing to contribute. I know I'm better than that.

One thing you can point out is that by arguing for morality your friend has already acknowledged the authority of God. You see, if the "Big Bang" or evolution are correct then we live in a random chance universe that cannot account for morality. If we live in a random chance universe there is no reason to be moral. Evolution cannot account for morality. Things are wrong because God said they're wrong. That you're friend would acknowledge morality means that he is standing of a Biblical principle to argue against the Bible. That is illogical. You could point out that he's being illogical in his argument. By saying anyone is good or bad one must acknowledge an ethical standard. Evolution has no ethical standard, God has provided that. He can disagree with God's standard, but in order to do that he must judge God by another standard. However, there is no other standard, so he must create his own standard. So, in effect he has made himself the ultimate standard of what is good and evil. You could then ask him on what basis he claims this authority to determine for all life what is good and what is evil.

There is a book called "The Ultimate Proof of Creation." It gives a great defense of the Christian faith. Here is a link to a video from the author.

The Ultimate Proof of Creation

 

[Silmarien]

One thing you can point out is that by arguing for morality your friend has already acknowledged the authority of God. You see, if the "Big Bang" or evolution are correct then we live in a random chance universe that cannot account for morality. If we live in a random chance universe there is no reason to be moral. Evolution cannot account for morality. Things are wrong because God said they're wrong.

That is completely arbitrary. If good is good only because God commanded that it be so, then he could as easily have commanded something else. If he can break these rules whenever he so desires or change them on the fly, we end up with a morality that is as meaningless as if it had been selected by mindless natural processes.

Evolution is actually less arbitrary, since it at least can account for morality up to a certain point. We are social animals, and thus are biologically predisposed towards behaving in ways that reflect that origin. Group dynamics matter.

Also, the Big Bang is totally consistent with theism. It was the atheists who initially were troubled by it, at least until they conveniently forgot.

 

[dlamberth]

One thing you can point out is that by arguing for morality your friend has already acknowledged the authority of God. You see, if the "Big Bang" or evolution are correct then we live in a random chance universe that cannot account for morality. If we live in a random chance universe there is no reason to be moral. Evolution cannot account for morality. Things are wrong because God said they're wrong. That you're friend would acknowledge morality means that he is standing of a Biblical principle to argue against the Bible. That is illogical. You could point out that he's being illogical in his argument. By saying anyone is good or bad one must acknowledge an ethical standard. Evolution has no ethical standard, God has provided that. He can disagree with God's standard, but in order to do that he must judge God by another standard. However, there is no other standard, so he must create his own standard. So, in effect he has made himself the ultimate standard of what is good and evil. You could then ask him on what basis he claims this authority to determine for all life what is good and what is evil.

There is a book called "The Ultimate Proof of Creation." It gives a great defense of the Christian faith. Here is a link to a video from the author.

The Ultimate Proof of Creation

I'd just like to point out that even as a Lover of God, the trajectory of your point would not work for me at all. And I'm pretty sure even less for an atheist. But that's because I look towards the evolution of consciousness as playing towards the development of morality.

 

[Tom 1]

Recently me and a friend of mine, who came out as an atheist recently have been debating nonstop for the past month or so. I learned that he used to be a Christian himself, until he started reading the bible more mindfully. He was made aware of all the "bad things" that happened, such as God killing people, stoning children, etc. He came across this link: Cruelty and Violence and then decided that Christianity was no longer right for him. He also studied scientific concepts such as big bang, evolution, etc. and just trying to disprove the bible in any way he can. Overall I would consider him a "Strong atheist".

On the other hand, myself, I feel like I'd consider myself a "Weak christian". There are so many questions he asks me that I don't feel qualified enough to answer, and the ones that I do feel like I answer accurately and within reason, he just comes back with a counter-arguement. It just happens every time and I feel like there's nothing that comes to my mind, and there's no reason to continue discussing this. But I care about him so much, and I feel like he at least deserves the respect from me by answering any of his questions/concerns. He respects my beliefs, and I respect his. So overall the discussions are respectful and there's nothing to complain about there, but I tend to give relatively short responses because I just haven't studied the bible enough, nor have I paid much attention in church until recently. But deep inside my heart I know what I believe is truth, but it's difficult for me to express it.

One of the things we discussed was morality. I stated that I think God is the standard for morality, but then he states that if I think God is moral, then ultimately, somehow accept and believe in murder and all the "bad things", and that morality is subjective. Like, how do I even respond to that? It doesn't make sense to me and at that point there's nothing I can contribute to the discussion. I know that if I learn more from church/bible studies/asking you guys, then I can come to a sensible conclusion or response and then we could have more intellectual discussion with each other. I'm tired of one-sided discussions where I have nothing to contribute. I know I'm better than that.

I’d suggest using this as an opportunity to develop your own understanding of those issues. Your friend has made some emotional decisions based on an incomplete understanding of what are for anyone emotive issues. It takes a mature mind and a lot of application to get to grips with any of that, and it isn’t easily explained even when your understanding does deepen. Haha not very helpful I know but realistic I think.

 

[Butch5]

That is completely arbitrary. If good is good only because God commanded that it be so, then he could as easily have commanded something else. If he can break these rules whenever he so desires or change them on the fly, we end up with a morality that is as meaningless as if it had been selected by mindless natural processes.

It's not arbitrary because it's based on God's character. Everyone has an ultimate standard, whether it is God or themselves.

Evolution is actually less arbitrary, since it at least can account for morality up to a certain point. We are social animals, and thus are biologically predisposed towards behaving in ways that reflect that origin. Group dynamics matter.

No it doesn't. Whether we're predisposed to certain behaviors is irrelevant. Evolution cannot determine what is good and what is evil.

Also, the Big Bang is totally consistent with theism. It was the atheists who initially were troubled by it, at least until they conveniently forgot.

How so?

 

[dlamberth]

Evolution cannot determine what is good and what is evil.

Your correct in that the mechanical process of evolution in and of itself can not determine what is good and evil. But there's a lot more gong on in evolution than merely mechanical change. There's also the evolution of consciousness within the spark of Life.

 

[Butch5]

Your correct in that the mechanical process of evolution in and of itself can not determine what is good and evil. But there's a lot more gong on in evolution than merely mechanical change. There's also the evolution of consciousness within the spark of Life.

Then that's not evolution determining morality, it's a conscious mind determining good and evil. That's what I said in attributing morality to God. A conscious mind determined morality. It then becomes the question of whose mind has the authority to determine morality?

 

[Petros2015]

On the other hand, myself, I feel like I'd consider myself a "Weak christian".

Go be a strong Christian. Then your life will be a witness to him, and not a debate.

 

[Silmarien]

It's not arbitrary because it's based on God's character. Everyone has an ultimate standard, whether it is God or themselves.

Everyone's standard is ultimately themselves. Find a dozen people who believe in objective morality, and they'll give you as many different explanations of it. Even people who derive their moral understanding from Scripture are going to be stressing various aspects of it, depending on their own beliefs.

I go beyond divine command theory--I would say that you need the Incarnation to have an objective standard of morality, but I don't think it's very obvious that we actually have one at all.

No it doesn't. Whether we're predisposed to certain behaviors is irrelevant. Evolution cannot determine what is good and what is evil.

From a purely naturalistic perspective, good and evil don't exist. What evolution can do is offer an account of how we have come to be what we are and what behaviors may or may not be psychologically good for us. I'm not convinced by naturalistic attempts to derive objective values from this, but a naturalist does not really need to. Morality could be a largely illusory phenomenom that only exists from our perspective.

From the perspective of natural law, what is good for us is objectively good. Evolution is an inherently teleological process, higher forms of life can only emerge when cooperation begins to play a role as a survival strategy, and all of this points to something objectively true about the nature of reality. Still not the best approach to take with an atheist, though, since the Enlightenment era prejudice against teleology is hard enough to shake off without tossing in morality as well.

How so?

The Big Bang theory was initially proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest. That went over very well with atheistic scientists committed to the idea that the universe was eternal.

 

[Radagast]

Recently me and a friend of mine, who came out as an atheist recently have been debating nonstop for the past month or so.

Hmm. Given where you're posting, you obviously don't want Christian advice.

 

[dlamberth]

Then that's not evolution determining morality, it's a conscious mind determining good and evil. That's what I said in attributing morality to God. A conscious mind determined morality. It then becomes the question of whose mind has the authority to determine morality?

I'm not saying that it is an evolution "determined" morality. But with out consciousness, we have no morality. And consciousness evolved. The morality of a duck for instance is different and that of human beings. We have evolved different kinds of conscousness.

 

[Butch5]

I'm not saying that it is an evolution "determined" morality. But with out consciousness, we have no morality. And consciousness evolved.

Consciousness evolved? Please elaborate.

 

[dlamberth]

Consciousness evolved? Please elaborate.

Well, we human beings have a evolved a greater level of consciousness than the animals we evolved from. And those animals evolved a greater consciousness than the critters that first crawled out of the seas. And those critters evolved a greater level of consciousness than those first multi-cell animals before them. The evolution of Consciousness is a direct result of the evolutionary process.

 

[Butch5]

Well, we human beings have a evolved a greater level of consciousness than the animals we evolved from. And those animals evolved a greater consciousness than the critters that first crawled out of the seas. And those critters evolved a greater level of consciousness than those first multi-cell animals before them. The evolution of Consciousness is a direct result of the evolutionary process.

The premise of that argument is that evolution is true. I reject that premise. I don't believe you can prove that. After all, evolution is just a theory.