A Guide to Dialogues with Nonbelievers

[Life2Christ]

I cannot comfortably reject or accept Christianity until I have thoroughly studied scripture, Christian history, apologetics, and theology.

Just curious, are you planning on studying the other religions too?

 

[EvanWilliams]

Just curious, are you planning on studying the other religions too?

Yes, I do. I plan on studying Judaism and Islam after Christianity, then branching off into more Eastern traditions like Hinduism and Buddhism.

I make specific mention of Christianity here because, in second place to Taoism, I feel that out of all the religions I know anything about, it makes the most sense. Reincarnation makes no sense because there should be less and less of us, not more and more if we are all moving towards nirvana. I must say I always liked the Jews because out of all religions they are most prone to not care what you believe, as long as you leave them alone. I like that. As for Islam, well... let's put it this way: I've often said that my favorite thing about Christianity is that it isn't Islam. I'm planning on studying the Qu'ran mainly more for background knowledge than being persuaded; I know Islam will never persuade me no matter what anyone says because I detest the way Islam treats women and their generally violent nature as they exist in the Middle East. Even though the Bible is almost as misogynistic, at least most Christians generally recognize that that part of the Bible contradicts modern sensibility.

 

[Life2Christ]

I must say I always liked the Jews because out of all religions they are most prone to not care what you believe, as long as you leave them alone. I like that.

When you read the Old Testament, you'll find out why that is.

 

[EvanWilliams]

When you read the Old Testament, you'll find out why that is.

I imagine the Holocaust may have a lot to do with it as well... that's enough to make any group of people want to be left alone.

 

[wingsofevermore]

Hitler was an atheist, do some research.

 

[Jase]

Hitler was an atheist, do some research.

Hitler was most certainly not an atheist. Opposed to organized religion perhaps, and not what I'd necessarily call a Christian, he has referenced numerous times in Mein Kampf "God", "creator of the universe", "Lord of Creation".

Hitler was opposed to religion, not God.


Evan, thanks for the points you brought up. As someone who used to debate with atheists constantly as a "fundie", and now is a liberal, I'd certainly agree with you about which arguments make lousy witnessing tools to an atheist. Witnessing to an atheist requires logic, reason, and evidence - not fallacies and appeals to emotion.

 

[salida]

Comments in red.

1. Do not misrepresent the atheist's worldview. For example, do not assert the old line that we automatically believe that we came from nothing, which demonstrates a profound ignorance of the actual tenets of Big Bang theory and evolutionary biology, concepts most atheists accept. (What is the cause of the big bang nothing)?

2. Do not play the victim card. In other words, do not assert that Christians are persecuted by atheists, the government, or general society. This is especially pungent to us atheists when your churches have taxation concessions and great influence over high-level politicians. (This christian is not a victim)
　
3. Do not make the claim that simply because science does not understand a particular concept yet, that it automatically means that a God is responsible. This is a false dichotomy and will cause most atheists to immediately dismiss your arguments. Besides, most of us will immediately wonder, ignoring the obvious bifurcation, what could possibly lead you to assume that it is the god of your particular religion. (I make a logical assumption that God is responsible because of intelligent design. For example, your automobile didn’t appear by itself-so a human body cell is 1000 times more complicated-it even has a much less of a chance statistically appearing by itself. Its not because science doesn’t have anything better. Science is men interpreting what God has done period).

4. Do not confuse the concept of a theory in the common vernacular and a scientific theory. (Agree here)

5. Do not bring cosmology into a debate about evolutionary theory. The two are completely unrelated. (I don’t).

6. Do not assert that evolution provides no explanation for human morality... because...well... it actually does, based on the survival value of mutual cooperative groups. Read Richard Dawkins if you want the full story. (Will comment later).

7. Do not argue that irreducable complexity is proof of creation. I won't go into the specifics of why that is false here, but read a book on evolutionary biology if you are interested in why that is tosh. (Not sure what your talking about- this may be the same answer as #3).

8. Do not claim that information cannot be added to a genome.
(It can be added-but it won’t cause the species to evolve at a higher level)

9. Do not claim that the universe is less than 10000 years. (What science?-it has proven just the opposite also in many ways).

10. Do not use the Bible as a source of argument that the Biblical God is true. That is an entirely circular argument. Trying to do this would be like using a Star Trek movie to prove the existence of Scotty. (No, its not circular at all-I suggest you do your research and homework. Your not at all familiar with the bible and its facts. Athiest shouldn't assume its a circular argument).

11. Do not accuse the atheist of having a culture of close-mindedness, especially because atheistic scientists embody humanity's endeavor to establish truth, to question everything, and to contribute to mankind an explanation and an understanding of reality through constant, unbiased, open, and transparent experimentation and discovery, in which falsifiability and replicability are highly valued and relied upon. This is the exact opposite of being close-minded. (Yes they do -they look through their athiest glasses at science- their worldview dictates their science).

12. Do not assert that science keeps "changing its mind". (The science I believe in doesn't change).

13 (Is not the term religion mean a set of beliefs? Atheism is a belief).

14. (No comment).

15. Do not claim that the Founding Fathers of the United States were overtly Christian or that the United States was founded on Christian principles when in fact the truth is quite the opposite. You can easily see this by reading the founding documents, for instance the Treaty of Tripoli from 1796. Or the First Amendment's proclamation of freedom from religion. Or capitalism's direct defiance of the Tenth Commandment. (Hmm, I have a 1000 page book called The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the U.S. The Founding Fathers have a christian ethic and/or where christians). What their religion was:
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

The first amendment mentions the establishment of religion-this means a state religion not religion from the public square. I don't want a state religion-forcing people isn't of Christ.

The separation of church and state was to keep the gov out of the churches affairs according to the founders.

How does this prove they weren't overly christian-it proves that they were-because they don't believe in forcing people.
　

16. Do not assert that without religion, we would have no moral compass without providing any arguments. Western civilization decidedly does not get its morality from the Bible. (This nation was founded on christian-judeo values-so this was from the bible. Prove otherwise).

17. Do not assert that any civilized legal system is based on the Ten Commandments.
(Not true-our legal system started with the 10 commandments).This is certainly true in America.
http://www.firstchurchoftheinternet.org/studies/db400yrs.htm

The 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th are all good laws, although the punishments are not the same as in the Bible. As I said before, the 10th commandment prohibits the central mechanism of capitalism. (Please explain how the 10 commandment has anything to do with capitalism)?

18. (No comment)

19. Do not use appeals to emotion or consequence of belief such as "Then what meaning does life have" or "Evolution tells us we're just an accident". Your emotions on the matter have no bearing on objective reality. (Fact then emotions follow in my world).

20. Do not use appeals to fear such as "You'll burn in Hell". We already don't believe in Hell and frankly will just laugh at you if you expect us to take you seriously when you theaten us. Threats only convince us further that your religion has little more to stand on than fear. (If you don’t understand the christian concept, hell is meaningless to you).

21. (I don’t in fact, Christ said few will find it).

22. Do not use appeals to antiquity. The age of a belief does not make it any more true than it was when it was new. If I believed that a triangle had four sides and lived to be a billion years old, I would be just as wrong as I was today if I still held the same belief.
(Agree-it’s the evidence even though the jewish faith is the oldest).

23. (No comment. Evidence does not mean anything to those who do not want it or want to see it).

24. (Agree).

25 (No comment).

26. (No comment)

 

[Autumnleaf]

To all Christians:

I have constructed the following as a guide to you to help you in your dialogues with nonbelievers. The following is a list of common fallacious arguments Christians use against atheists and agnostics. Moderators, I know this looks tongue-in-cheek and facetious at first glance, but I am seriously making an attempt to provide advice that will foster better dialogue between Christians and atheists. I am merely providing them a list of things NOT to say, lest they be dismissed by atheists entirely, normally for the realization that the Christian has no understanding of their actual beliefs and lack thereof. But please move this thread if it is in the wrong section. That being said, let's begin:

Shall we.

1. Do not misrepresent the atheist's worldview. For example, do not assert the old line that we automatically believe that we came from nothing, which demonstrates a profound ignorance of the actual tenets of Big Bang theory and evolutionary biology, concepts most atheists accept.

If you don't believe in God but you do believe in the big bang then you do believe we came from nothing because the big bang came from a singularity according to Stephen Hawking.

2. Do not play the victim card. In other words, do not assert that Christians are persecuted by atheists, the government, or general society. This is especially pungent to us atheists when your churches have taxation concessions and great influence over high-level politicians.

You really think the Christian church has great influence over high-level politicians while the US is engaged in two separate foreign wars at the same time? Which Christ do you think those politicians are following? Furthermore, look into how atheist communist governments treat Christians versus how Christian friendly governments treat atheists.

3. Do not make the claim that simply because science does not understand a particular concept yet, that it automatically means that a God is responsible. This is a false dichotomy and will cause most atheists to immediately dismiss your arguments. Besides, most of us will immediately wonder, ignoring the obvious bifurcation, what could possibly lead you to assume that it is the god of your particular religion.

If you walking in the desert and found a Ferrari would you assume it came from science, or would you think that maybe it was created by an intelligent designer? To assume the Universe is the result of testable rules called science is to ignore where those rules came from. Or is science God?

I've never been one to push a particular religion as most tend to get it wrong to one extreme or another.

4. The word "theory" has an entirely different meaning in science than it does in common discourse. For example, saying that evolution is "just a theory" will immediately cause us to assume that you were sleeping in high school science class.

If I'm not mistaken science class teaches evolution as a theory. The process of genetics is fairly well understood. You can believe those processes are the result of ? or you can say God did it. Pick your favorite choice and consider if the two are really much of a choice at all.

5. Do not bring cosmology into a debate about evolutionary theory. The two are completely unrelated.

Cosmology encompasses everything in the Universe, except evolution in your mind?

6. Do not assert that evolution provides no explanation for human morality... because...well... it actually does, based on the survival value of mutual cooperative groups. Read Richard Dawkins if you want the full story.

Granted as a red herring.

7. Do not argue that irreducable complexity is proof of creation. I won't go into the specifics of why that is false here, but read a book on evolutionary biology if you are interested in why that is tosh.

Granted as another red herring. Who really cares if God made people as they are or if he used what you call evolution to make it happen?

8. Do not claim that information cannot be added to a genome. Reading up on frame shift mutations in examples of gene duplication will provide insight as to why information can in fact be added to a genome, a whole new stretch of DNA with an entirely new protein coding function suddenly being introduced.

People are gene splicing like crazy right now. Monsanto is cornering the market on farm seed by doing this.

9. Do not claim that the universe is less than 10000 years old because science has proven in a multitude of ways that is demonstrably not true, most notably the distance of stars, the rate of expansion of the universe, and the rate of travel of light from distant stars that are well over 10000 light years away.

According to some scientists all time is an illusion and its all happening at the same time. Hence, the Universe may only be a fraction of a moment old.

10. Do not use the Bible as a source of argument that the Biblical God is true. That is an entirely circular argument. Trying to do this would be like using a Star Trek movie to prove the existence of Scotty.

Does a chemistry text book proves Helium exists?

11. Do not accuse the atheist of having a culture of close-mindedness, especially because atheistic scientists embody humanity's endeavor to establish truth, to question everything, and to contribute to mankind an explanation and an understanding of reality through constant, unbiased, open, and transparent experimentation and discovery, in which falsifiability and replicability are highly valued and relied upon. This is the exact opposite of being close-minded.

Atheists are by definition closed minded because atheists believe there is no God. If you said agnostic instead of atheist your point would be valid.

12. Do not assert that science keeps "changing its mind". This statement would demonstrate a profound ignorance of the scientific method and will cause most atheists to immediately dismiss anything else you have to say about science. Like I said, science constantly revises its understanding of reality in light of new discoveries and data, which is decidedly not the same thing as flippantly "changing your mind". This is called progress, so you would be in effect denigrating the progress of which you presumably are a beneficiary, as you are viewing this via the Internet.

Granted as another red herring. Science is observing the Universe.

13. Do not claim that atheism is also a religion when it is in fact a rejection of religion. This is tantamount to saying that "off" is a TV channel. If the rejection of religion is religion, then not playing football is a sport. Atheism has no creed, no corollary obligations, no faith, no unproven propositions, no organization, no rules or rituals, and no affirmations. To reiterate, atheism is *not* a religion.

No, atheism is a rejection of God, not of religion. Atheists are alike in their disbelief and that is their belief. Their religion.

14. Do not claim that the mass-murderers of the 20th century such as Hitler and Stalin prove anything about a disbelief in God. There is no logical link between atheism and genocidal atrocities. To suggest otherwise is to make a massive causality error because you are ignoring the mass-murderers additional dogmatic adherence to communism, facism, collectivism, nationalism, and militarism, all of which have nothing to do with atheism, and do not reflect the more libertarian atheist modality as it exists today. Besides, Hitler believed in God, a fact noticably apparant by the fact that Nazi belt buckles were inscribed with, "God is with us"

The link is there. Its hard to argue against what happened and who did it to whom.

15. Do not claim that the Founding Fathers of the United States were overtly Christian or that the United States was founded on Christian principles when in fact the truth is quite the opposite. You can easily see this by reading the founding documents, for instance the Treaty of Tripoli from 1796. Or the First Amendment's proclamation of freedom from religion. Or capitalism's direct defiance of the Tenth Commandment.

"God created all men equal.", ring a bell? The founders of the US were Christian deists.

16. Do not assert that without religion, we would have no moral compass without providing any arguments. Western civilization decidedly does not get its morality from the Bible. And, to assert the need of religion for morality is to completely ignore the Humanist movement and evolutionary biology. Furthermore, you are making an appeal to consequence, a logical fallacy. Consequence has no objective impact on the veracity of a belief or non-belief.

The mass murders of Stalin and Mao speak volumes of the moral compass atheism unchecked leads to.

17. Do not assert that any civilized legal system is based on the Ten Commandments. This is certainly not true in America, and could only be possible in a theocratic dictatorship. We all know someone who works on the Sabbath without killing or condemning them, instead paying them extra for doing so, so none of that. The Fifth Commandment here in America rather depends on how honorably one's parents have behaved themselves. The 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th are all good laws, although the punishments are not the same as in the Bible. As I said before, the 10th commandment prohibits the central mechanism of capitalism.

A Godly legal system would align with the Ten Commandments. Would you prefer murder and theft be legal?

18. Do not assert that any criticism of Christianity that refers to the Old Testament is invalid, especially when you turn right around later and use the Old Testament as evidence that Christ's coming was foreshadowed. By doing this, you are trying to have it both ways, which is both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

You're right.

19. Do not use appeals to emotion or consequence of belief such as "Then what meaning does life have" or "Evolution tells us we're just an accident". Your emotions on the matter have no bearing on objective reality.

Doesn't atheists' version of evolution suggest we're just an accident?

20. Do not use appeals to fear such as "You'll burn in Hell". We already don't believe in Hell and frankly will just laugh at you if you expect us to take you seriously when you theaten us. Threats only convince us further that your religion has little more to stand on than fear.

Some people have to touch the hot stove to know.

21. Do not use appeals to the majority such as "A billion people believe it, it must be right". I could say the same thing about atheism and Islam, and I'm pretty sure you and I are in agreement about Islam. Besides, many people believing something has no bearing on its objective truth. For example, the whole world used to believe that the earth was flat. Saying that now would earn you well-deserved ridicule.

You have to find your own answers. This is one test you can't cheat on.

22. Do not use appeals to antiquity. The age of a belief does not make it any more true than it was when it was new. If I believed that a triangle had four sides and lived to be a billion years old, I would be just as wrong as I was today if I still held the same belief.

Do not be too quick to discard conventional wisdom in favor of groupthink.

23. Do not try to convince us using anecdotal evidence. Your personal story of how you converted and that feeling in your heart that you speak of are no more convincing to us than the Bible is. Of course, experience is evidence, but only if we can objectively verify your experience. Sorry, but only evidence counts as evidence.

You won't be swayed by the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart?

24. Do not attempt to argue about the finer details of evolution unless you have actually read about evolution. I made this mistake when I was a creationist. You will likely just embarass yourself and discredit your position, making all Christians look bad. I don't pretend to know about the finer details of theology as I have not researched them in depth (yet); similarly, you should not attempt to confer with us on evolution if you have not actually read and understood evolution. If you use the argument, "then why are there still monkeys", "why don't monkeys give birth to humans", or pretty much any of the standard creationist monkey fare, you do not understand evolution in the slightest.

Do you know the finer details of evolution? When was the last time evolution happened in recorded history? Which trait was it and where? What triggered the evolutionary process to happen world wide at the same time?

25. If you bring up anything from the Hovind "Theory", prepare to be immediately ridiculed. I could personally shred the Hovind Theory to bits here, as could anyone with a high school science education, but that's a post for another day. In fact, you're probably better off just not mentioning anything to do with Noah's Ark to us. Honestly, most of us are embarassed for you when we watch you try to prove that that story is literally true. I could also shred Noah's Ark, but that is also for another post on another forum where I won't get banned for it. I wonder if I'm going to get banned for this post itself anyway. Again, mods please move this if it is in the wrong section.

Can you prove C14 has decayed at a constant rate throughout history? If the speed of light is subject to change due to the Universe expanding or contracting, as many current scientists believe, then how can you know anything for certain about historical timelines?

26. Do not try to convince us using Pascal's Wager... ...Pascal's Wager utterly and completely fails at being a compelling argument for belief in God, and also provides no real argument for God's objective existence, but is rather a "best to cover your behind" argument. It is widely considered by us to be the most pathetic and un-Christian argument for God aside from direct threats of hellfire.

It is a cover your behind argument. Pascal never said it was anything else.

I would also like to see a similar list from a Christian some day as advice for atheists in dialogues =)

-Evan Williams

Here's my Christian list for Atheists to abide by when dialoguing with Christians:

1. Its not about us or you. Its about God. Whatever you ask us we will try to answer but we don't have all the answers, God does. If you really want to know, ask him. Just be prepared to receive whatever his answer is.

 

[Johnnz]

This is where the search must begin. The story of human 'objectivity' is running out, as post-modernism reminds us. Too narrow an understanding of knowing inevitably leads to an inadequate process of discovery.

Over against Schleiermacher, who sought to penetrate the logic of his deep inner feelings and build his doctrine of God and his theology by working out the implications of those inner feelings, and over against the logicians and philosophers who seek to build a vision of God by making deductions from what they perceive to be the irrefutable truths of reason, a proper Christian theology refuses to be limited to mere human feelings and mental processes, and looks instead to Jesus Christ, submitting itself to the rationality inherent in his very being as the Son of God incarnate. Over against those who accept the plausibility structure of a given tribe or culture and build a vision of God consistent with its norms, a proper Christian theology takes its, stand on Christ alone, in faith that here we meet God of God and thus the one true light illuminating all things. Over against the Pharisees, who neither know nor honour the distinction between the living Word and the words, between Jesus Christ himself and the text of the scriptures, and thus build their vision of God by organizing statements about God, a proper Christian theology listens to the one Word of God addressing us in the words and seeks to bring its mind (its thinking and reasoning) into conformity with the very logic of God revealed in the living person of Christ.

It is not our deep inner feelings, profound as they may be which should set the agenda for our thoughts about God. It is not what makes sense to us or seems right to our natural minds, which should guide our theologizing. It is not mere statements, with their dictionary definitions of words, which should shape our thinking about God; nor should the spirit of the age or the political correctness of our value system or the implicit axioms of our world-view determine what must or must not be true about God. Authentic Christian thinking about God follows the logic, the order, and the rationality implicit in the very name and being and presence of Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God incarnate.

As science proceeds on the assumption, indeed on the faith, that the world of its exploration—whether fishes or animals, subatomic particles or planetary orbits—is real, knowable and rational, proper Christian theology proceeds on the assumption and faith that Jesus Christ is real, that he is knowable and that he is the supreme expression of rationality. Indeed, Christian theology proceeds on the assumption that in Jesus Christ we find the very logic of God. Here in Jesus Christ we meet God Himself—not a part of God, not a mere dimension of God, not a revelation of God, but the revelation of the very being and character and will of God. And therefore in Jesus Christ we meet the logic that predates the universe, the one rhyme and reason behind it all, the one Word, the Logos, written into the marrow of the cosmos and of human existence within it. Baxter Kruger

John
NZ

 

[salida]

Oh, one more thing Mr. Evan Williams-

I can attribute my belief as believing in the true creator: there is evidence-but the question is do you want objective overwhelming circumstantial evidence?

I suggest you research the credibility of the bible concerning overwhelming evidence which is very high more than any religious or nonreligious book-even though it’s a spiritual decision first. Do your research and homework concerning the bible rather than assuming its false. Some info to start below.

Visit: www.TheBibleProofBook.com, (you will need acrobat reader for this), read The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (its overwhelming circumstantial evidence of bible) and Examine the Evidence by Muncaster a former athiest/The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel a former athiest. Christiananswers.net, www.equip.org (articles), http://www.gotquestions.org/

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/booklets/tw-bk.cgi?category=Booklets1&item=1167942458

500 eye witnesses of Jesus Resurrection
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Visit the website Reasonable Faith-Bill Craig is a great debater and started this site, in fact Richard Dawkins the famous athiest is afraid to debate him. You have to register but its worth it if your interested.

Internal Evidence (prophesies confirmed within bible)
Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Lukes time period 60-70 AD)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 - Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60 - 70 AD)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14 - Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60 - 70 AD)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of a dream of
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20/and the fourth
great kingdom to follow- part iron and clay-which is the Roman Empire. During this empire Christ came and his church was established.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Accuracy
The bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago and has not
been proven incorrect in any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament starts - at 25 years between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Caesar - at 1000 years
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Manuscript Copies-New Testament - 5,686/Homer - 643/Demosthenes - 200/
Plato - 7/Caesar -10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency/Written by God
Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years and has no internal inconsistencies.
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. No other religious book makes such claim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Evidences (prophesies outside bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never built again.
Nineveh - Nahum 1:10, 3:7,15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon - Isaiah 13:1-22
Tyre - Ezekiel 26:1-28
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bible before Science- He hangs the earth on nothing-Job 26:7/Earth is a sphere-Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight-Job 28:25/Gravity-Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33/Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago; some scholars think 3000 years ago)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles
Archeological Finds
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

 

[EvanWilliams]

Comments in red.

(What is the cause of the big bang nothing)?

We do not yet know, but at the same time we feel it is an intellectual copout to simply proclaim "GODIDIT!" Finding out the answer to that question in one the main motivations of constructing the Large Hadron Collider.

(This christian is not a victim)
　
I'm glad we agree on that.

(I make a logical assumption that God is responsible because of intelligent design. For example, your automobile didn’t appear by itself-so a human body cell is 1000 times more complicated-it even has a much less of a chance statistically appearing by itself. Its not because science doesn’t have anything better. Science is men interpreting what God has done period).

We do not believe that body cells appeared "by themselves". We believe that they are the result of billions of years of genetic mutations. The suitable mutations are kept and the bad ones weeded out by the sieve of natural selection, giving the eventual illusion of a design.

6. Do not assert that evolution provides no explanation for human morality... because...well... it actually does, based on the survival value of mutual cooperative groups. Read Richard Dawkins if you want the full story. (Will comment later).

Looking forward to that, and I mean that most sincerely.

8. Do not claim that information cannot be added to a genome.
(It can be added-but it won’t cause the species to evolve at a higher level)

Actually, it will.

(What science?-it has proven just the opposite also in many ways).

Proven that the universe is less than 10000 years old? Okay, in what ways? And I answered the question of "What science". If a star is over 10000 lightyears away, moving away from us, and we can see its light, it stands to reason that that star was created over 10000 years ago. Furthermore, we have detected stars much farther away than that.

(No, its not circular at all-I suggest you do your research and homework. Your not at all familiar with the bible and its facts. Athiest shouldn't assume its a circular argument).

Sorry, but it is in fact a circular argument, and you didn't actually provide any real argument to the contrary, just empty assertions. Saying the Bible is the word of God because it was written by God is an entirely circular argument. Sorry, you lose on that one. You cannot use the sole basis for your beliefs as evidence for your beliefs. It makes no sense. Instead, point to something external, like the Shroud or archaeological evidence. Oh, and I have plenty of understanding of the Bible kthx.

(Yes they do -they look through their athiest glasses at science- their worldview dictates their science).

A real scientist's science dictates his worldview, not the other way around as you suggested. Granted, some scientists may have it backwards. Real ones do not.


(Is not the term religion mean a set of beliefs? Atheism is a belief).

Atheism is the lack of a belief, not a positive belief. Besides, the term religion also encompasses some form of ritual, creed, etc... Atheism is not united by any common form of ritual or creed. We simply lack the belief in a deity; therefore, we are not a religion.

(Hmm, I have a 1000 page book called The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the U.S. The Founding Fathers have a christian ethic and/or where christians). What their religion was:

The first amendment mentions the establishment of religion-this means a state religion not religion from the public square. I don't want a state religion-forcing people isn't of Christ.

I'll have to check out that book you mentioned, sounds interesting. Maybe it does raise a good point.

The separation of church and state was to keep the gov out of the churches affairs according to the founders.

But also to keep the church out of government affairs.

How does this prove they weren't overly christian-it proves that they were-because they don't believe in forcing people.
　
Not believing in forcing people does not equal Christian =/

The Founding Fathers were mostly deists, meaning they believed in a God that created the Universe, then left it alone and no longer interferes or cares. That decidedly does not reflect Christian thought.

(This nation was founded on christian-judeo values-so this was from the bible. Prove otherwise).

I never said anything about the nation being founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I am saying that our moral compass has changed significantly from what the Bible teaches. So, we do have a moral compass; it just isn't in tune with what the Bible says.

17. Do not assert that any civilized legal system is based on the Ten Commandments.
(Not true-our legal system started with the 10 commandments).This is certainly true in America.

Since you left out the points I made, and just said "YAH IT IS" I'm not even going to bother shredding this as you'll likely just do the same thing again. As I said before, commandments 1-4 could only be enforced in a theocratic dictatorship. No one cares if people work on the Sabbath anymore. Parents are not required to be honored under our laws (but should be honored regardless).

The 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th are all good laws, although the punishments are not the same as in the Bible. As I said before, the 10th commandment prohibits the central mechanism of capitalism. (Please explain how the 10 commandment has anything to do with capitalism)?

The Tenth Commandment prohibits the coveting of property. Desire and greed are the cornerstones of capitalism. Without coveting, we would have something more akin to socialism or communism.

(If you don’t understand the christian concept, hell is meaningless to you).

I don't quite understand what you're saying... what Christian concept of what? Hell has plenty of meaning to me. I was terrified of it for four years of my adolesence driving me to the point of near insanity. It was only after reading about science that I could finally cast off my fear of Hell. So don't tell me that I have no understanding of Hell. I researched and read about Hell obsessively for four years. Sorry, you lose on that one.

23. (No comment. Evidence does not mean anything to those who do not want it or want to see it).

I could say the same thing about Christians who refuse to read anything about cosmology or evolution.

24. (Agree).

25 (No comment).

26. (No comment)

Above all, thank you for your reply and civil disagreement! =)\\

Peace,
-Evan W.

 

[EvanWilliams]

If you don't believe in God but you do believe in the big bang then you do believe we came from nothing because the big bang came from a singularity according to Stephen Hawking.

The singularity was not a nothing, though. The singularity contained all of the matter currently in the universe at that time in the form of pure energy. After the big bang, the energy cooled and became quarks and electrons, which then assembled into protons, neutrons, and hydrogen atoms. As the universe continued to cool, more complex elements formed, coalescing to form what we now see as the stars and planets. Now, what caused the Big Bang? I don't know; nobody does. That is what science is trying to find out. But, I could also say, what created God? What created that which created God?

You really think the Christian church has great influence over high-level politicians while the US is engaged in two separate foreign wars at the same time? Which Christ do you think those politicians are following? Furthermore, look into how atheist communist governments treat Christians versus how Christian friendly governments treat atheists.

Let me first say that there is no logical link between atheism and communism. Atheism is rather used as a tool by communist leaders to deify themselves, to keep the people from looking to a higher authority than the communist figurehead.

And yes, the Christian church has PLENTY of influence over politics. At least, more so than atheists. Atheists are far more discriminated against and generally hated than Christians are. This is what I was saying.

If you walking in the desert and found a Ferrari would you assume it came from science, or would you think that maybe it was created by an intelligent designer? To assume the Universe is the result of testable rules called science is to ignore where those rules came from. Or is science God?

Oh, not this nonsense again... Look, we've seen people making cars, so we obviously already know from past experience that someone made the car. We have not seen the creation of universes, so we still don't have any way of knowing how it actually came to be. Your analogy is a pretty flimsy one.

Again, I'm saying that there are plenty of unknowns in science, such as what brought the physical laws about. But we are looking for a real answer, not just throwing our hands up and saying that God did it. Maybe the laws of science *are* a manifestation of a god, who knows? This would be more in line with Taoism though than Christianity.

I've never been one to push a particular religion as most tend to get it wrong to one extreme or another.

There we agree.

If I'm not mistaken science class teaches evolution as a theory. The process of genetics is fairly well understood. You can believe those processes are the result of ? or you can say God did it. Pick your favorite choice and consider if the two are really much of a choice at all.



Cosmology encompasses everything in the Universe, except evolution in your mind?

No, cosmology is concerned with the origins of our universe in the macrocosmic sense, particularly in the field of astronomy i.e. where did the earth and the stars come from? Evolution is particularly concerned with how *we* came about AFTER abiogenesis.

People are gene splicing like crazy right now. Monsanto is cornering the market on farm seed by doing this.

Hmmm, I haven't heard about that, but it sounds interesting. Will have to check it out, thanks.

According to some scientists all time is an illusion and its all happening at the same time. Hence, the Universe may only be a fraction of a moment old.

Possibly, but if you are relying on the human interpretation and understanding of time, then the universe is indeed older than 10000 years.

Does a chemistry text book proves Helium exists?

An interesting question. Technically, no, but I could go out and objectively observe helium after reading about it in the textbook. I can try to combine it with other elements and find out that indeed it is a noble gas. Everything I read about helium in a chemistry book can be observed and tested by me later. You cannot do that with the Bible; experiences are purely subjective. Again, a faulty analogy.

Atheists are by definition closed minded because atheists believe there is no God. If you said agnostic instead of atheist your point would be valid.

You do have a point, but only when we're talking about ontological atheists, which assert with certainty that there is no God, a viewpoint I disagree with just as strongly as religious ones. Agnostic atheists are different from agnostics. Here is why: the agnostic atheist (like myself) believes that you cannot know for sure whether there is or is not a God, but defaults to the atheist side of the fence until more evidence is presented by the other side. The agnostic is perpetually on the fence, never taking a side.

No, atheism is a rejection of God, not of religion. Atheists are alike in their disbelief and that is their belief. Their religion.

If you want to argue semantics then maybe. But atheism does not in any way reflect religion as it is understood in the common vernacular, encompassing rituals, beliefs, etc...

Again, you cannot identify a religion by what it does not believe. Shall I lump all non-Islamic people into Allah-rejectionists. Of course not.

The link is there. Its hard to argue against what happened and who did it to whom.

Mmm, you presented no real evidence for your claim of a link, so I have no choice but to dismiss what you've said.

"God created all men equal.", ring a bell? The founders of the US were Christian deists.

Christianity and deism are incompatible. Deism asserts that God created the universe and left it alone, totally indifferent. Christianity asserts that God does care and intervened through Christ.

The mass murders of Stalin and Mao speak volumes of the moral compass atheism unchecked leads to.

You totally ignored everything I said about their additional adherence to communism, socialism, militarism, etc... They used atheism as a tool to deify themselves.

Look at modern secular nations, like those of Scandinavia. They are largely atheist; do you see them mass-murdering people? No. Again, atheism does not equal a propensity to go on a killing spree. I'm an atheist... do I want to go around killing millions of people? No.

A Godly legal system would align with the Ten Commandments. Would you prefer murder and theft be legal?

No, of course not, but laws against murder and theft were pretty universal long before the Ten Commandments ever came along. And, like I said, America flatly rejects the Tenth Commandment because it completely contradicts capitalism.

Doesn't atheists' version of evolution suggest we're just an accident?

Not an accident so much as the result of billions of years of mutation and natural selection, but I still think I see where your criticism is mainly going.

What I'm saying is this. If you told me my family just died, and I rejected that statement because it would mean great sadness for me, you would find that a faulty line of reasoning, would you not? You cannot reject something just because the consequences are not appealing to you is what I am saying.

Some people have to touch the hot stove to know.

Granted, but what I am saying is that it doesn't make much sense to threaten us with something we don't believe in. Also, you should be appealing to God's love, not our fear of punishment. We are not inclined to love your God when all we ever hear about him is how he is going to burn us simply for not believing in him.

Do not be too quick to discard conventional wisdom in favor of groupthink.

Indeed, and I am not. What I am saying is that beliefs do not get more true over time.

You won't be swayed by the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart?

Although I am happy for you, no. If Christians were the only group that experienced this, I might be convinced. But, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Jews, etc... all feel the same things you feel, or report to. So, no, I am not convinced of your particular God by your joy, as heartwarming as it is.

Do you know the finer details of evolution? When was the last time evolution happened in recorded history? Which trait was it and where? What triggered the evolutionary process to happen world wide at the same time?

I'm sorry, as much as I appreciate your civil debate, this made me want to cry... Of course we can't practically observe evolution because it is an incredibly slow process. However, we can observe microevolution... and macroevolution is the logical consequence of billions of years of microevolution. Evolution happens worldwide because it is a fundamental counterpart of natural selection. Species adapt over generations to their environment. This is the crux of evolution.

Can you prove C14 has decayed at a constant rate throughout history? If the speed of light is subject to change due to the Universe expanding or contracting, as many current scientists believe, then how can you know anything for certain about historical timelines?

You know... I honestly don't have a rebuttal for that. Thanks, you have indeed given me something to think about. Maybe we can discuss it more when I have done more research.

It is a cover your behind argument. Pascal never said it was anything else.

Precisely, we are in agreement. What I am saying is that when Christians use it, we do see it to be nothing more than a cover your behind argument, which means that to convert would be to give lip-service, something God would see right through and damn us anyway.

Here's my Christian list for Atheists to abide by when dialoguing with Christians:

1. Its not about us or you. Its about God. Whatever you ask us we will try to answer but we don't have all the answers, God does. If you really want to know, ask him. Just be prepared to receive whatever his answer is.

I like that advice. Deep down, I find it entirely pointless to engage in theological debates with Christians because I will not be convinced by anecdotal evidence and they have their faith and will not be convinced by science, so it's a perpetual stalemate. Telling us that we must go directly to God and find the answers belies wisdom on your part. I am still searching myself, reading the Bible and studying theology to see if I can be persuaded. Desire to be persuaded combined with critical thinking is the hallmark of a true scientist, something I strive for.

Thank you for your reply.

Peace,
-Evan W.

 

[EvanWilliams]

I suggest you research the credibility of the bible concerning overwhelming evidence which is very high more than any religious or nonreligious book-even though it’s a spiritual decision first. Do your research and homework concerning the bible rather than assuming its false. Some info to start below.

I am seeking to be reasonably convinced, so I will be sure to check out what you have listed below. Archaeology fascinates me, so I imagine I will particularly like reading about the excavation of Ur. Thanks for the reading list... as Abe Lincoln said, my best friend is someone who will give me a book I have not read. Perhaps we can continue this discussion when I have checked out the source material you listed. Again, thank you for your civility in your disagreements and have a wonderful day. =)

 

[salida]

You have a wonderful day too and I truly glad you were civil.

 

[Johnnz]

I am seeking to be reasonably convinced, so I will be sure to check out what you have listed below. Archaeology fascinates me, so I imagine I will particularly like reading about the excavation of Ur. Thanks for the reading list

I am a great fan for a reasonably based faith. Nevertheless I am aware of the post Enlightenment reliance on 'objective reason' has had its season. Its deficiencies and limitations are openly discussed these days. Over-reliance upon very limited concepts of how humans actually know has been a very modern story within history. Today, the subjectivity of the scientific method, and expanding reason to include ethics, intuition, creativity and common sense are both widely accepted by many different academic disciplines. A person can attempt to subject Christian belief to too narrow concepts of reason without ever questioning the history, nature and scope of Modernism and the nature of reason itself. But Modernism is but one story within many, not the only point of reference and today many advocate post modernism as having revealed the emperor's lack of clothes.

Christian belief is based on a simple fact - we can't know God as a human being. Only Jesus truly knows the Father, and so we must rely on our relationship with Him to properly understand. He alone if the prism through which we gain insight sad true understanding. From the outset Christians attest that the infinite is beyond the capacity of finite beings to adequately comprehend, and therefore over reliance on reason alone will never be enough.

John
NZ

 

[jacks]

Hello Evan:

Although we may not agree on many of the points you raise, I do believe you are sincere in your search for the truth of life.

After some thought (maybe not enough) I feel that we all must have "Faith" in something, our only choice is what we have faith in. Using Dictionary.com we see the first two definitions of faith as follows: (the other definitions are related to religion as you would imagine.)

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

When I was an agnostic/atheist I had faith in a thing (science) and I had to accept some ideas that weren't proven. Take a small quote from your previous post:

The singularity was not a nothing, though. The singularity contained all of the matter currently in the universe at that time in the form of pure energy. After the big bang, the energy cooled and became quarks and electrons, which then assembled into protons, neutrons, and hydrogen atoms. As the universe continued to cool, more complex elements formed, coalescing to form what we now see as the stars and planets.

I think to believe this takes Faith.

I know you never said you didn't have faith, you said atheism isn't a religion. However, the confusion to some may be that faith is the basis of their religion.

Just a small point. I have enjoyed your thoughts and willingness to debate.