Debating with an atheist; need advice.

[dlamberth]

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.

I understand that's your belief. But it's not the belief of most people. And I would suspect it also would not be the belief for the atheist in the OP. That's all I'm wanting to say. When talking to an atheist I feel pretty confident in saying that the options given in your post #67 are limited in scope when looking at evolution for the simple reason that you do not believe in evolution. So all I did was to provide an evolutionary based option to the limited ones that you based a suggested argument on.

 

[Butch5]

I understand that's your belief. But it's not the belief of most people. And I would suspect it also would not be the belief for the atheist in the OP. That's all I'm wanting to say. When talking to an atheist I feel pretty confident in saying that the options given in your post #67 are limited in scope when looking at evolution for the simple reason that you do not believe in evolution. So all I did was to provide an evolutionary based option to the limited ones that you based a suggested argument on.

I didn't make an argument. I simply pointed out that to argue morality from an evolutionary perspective is illogical. Evolution cannot account for morality. The Biblical world view can account for morality, logic, continuity in nature etc. The Evolutionary world view cannot. In a random chance universe there is no reason for morality. To argue a point on morality must first assume the Christian world view. Morality actually runs counter to evolution. One of the theories in evolution is survival of the fittest. Taking this into account I shouldn't help m fellow man. He is a direct competitor in my survival. He competes with me for food, shelter, water, a mate, etc. It's to my advantage to get rid of him, not help him. Giving some of my food to help my fellow man run contrary to survival of the fittest. Morality says I should help him, evolution says I should get rid of him.

 

[dlamberth]

I didn't make an argument. I simply pointed out that to argue morality from an evolutionary perspective is illogical. Evolution cannot account for morality. The Biblical world view can account for morality, logic, continuity in nature etc. The Evolutionary world view cannot. In a random chance universe there is no reason for morality. To argue a point on morality must first assume the Christian world view. Morality actually runs counter to evolution. One of the theories in evolution is survival of the fittest. Taking this into account I shouldn't help m fellow man. He is a direct competitor in my survival. He competes with me for food, shelter, water, a mate, etc. It's to my advantage to get rid of him, not help him. Giving some of my food to help my fellow man run contrary to survival of the fittest. Morality says I should help him, evolution says I should get rid of him.

I simply pointed out that to argue morality from an evolutionary perspective is illogical. [/QUOTE]
Your argument is based on the theory of intelligent design. I guess the place to start is that evolution is not "only" random chance. There are other things going on, such as mutation. Google it, there's a lot of information on the subject. But like I said in the beginning, even as a Lover of God I wouldn't buy your point. And I'd be hard pressed to believe that an atheist would as well.

 

[Butch5]

I simply pointed out that to argue morality from an evolutionary perspective is illogical.

Your argument is based on the theory of intelligent design. I guess the place to start is that evolution is not "only" random chance. There are other things going on, such as mutation. Google it, there's a lot of information on the subject. But like I said in the beginning, even as a Lover of God I wouldn't buy your point. And I'd be hard pressed to believe that an atheist would as well.[/QUOTE]

I think you're missing my point. I'm not making an argument for what I believe. I'm simply pointing out that for an atheist to argue in favor of morality is illogical because he has no basis for it. His world view cannot account for it. It's like an atheist arguing that air doesn't exist while he's breathing air to make his argument.

 

[dlamberth]

I'm not making an argument for what I believe.

Based on your own words about not believing in Evolution as well as posting a link to to Answers in Genesis, it's pretty clear that you are in fact are basing your argument on your own beliefs. On top of that, add incorrect beliefs about how evolution operates.

It's like an atheist arguing that air doesn't exist while he's breathing air to make his argument.

You brought up morality, not air. Morality is different from person to person and even from cultures to culture, yet it exist in some form in the Human experience. Based on your argument though, logically morality has to be exactly the same across the globe, which isn't happening.

 

[Butch5]

Based on your own words about not believing in Evolution as well as posting a link to to Answers in Genesis, it's pretty clear that you are in fact are basing your argument on your own beliefs. On top of that, add incorrect beliefs about how evolution operates.


You brought up morality, not air. Morality is different from person to person and even from cultures to culture, yet it exist in some form in the Human experience. Based on your argument though, logically morality has to be exactly the same across the globe, which isn't happening.

You're completely missing my point. I didn't say people don't have moral standards, they make up their own. What I'm saying is that the Evolutionary worldview cannot account for them. According to evolution there is no reason that I should have any moral standards. That the atheist does have moral standards shows the Biblical worldview is correct. When he argues that there are morals, he is taking a Biblical position. According to evolution there is no difference between the guy who helps the poor and that guy who kills. They are both just products of evolution. You argued for an evolving consciousness. However, in evolution there is reason for one's conscience or evolve. It's just a random process of evolution. When you bring reason into the equation you bring a mind into the equation. If things happen for a reason then you have you have intelligent thought and not Evolution.

 

[Motherofkittens]

First, I want to say I am very sorry that you have had this happen to you. But I can assure you that God is still sovereign (in authority and in control) in this situation and you will see the blessings from this in the future. All that to say, I know that it in no way makes this easy for you.

I think you are making the right move by seeking the council of your community and church, they will be able to help you tremendously - especially if there is someone who is an ex-athiest! But also make absolute sure that you are studying the Scriptures yourself, like you said (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But there is one other resource that I would like to mention, and that is the internet. There are a ton of good resources on the internet and my favorite is got questions.org. They have thousands of questions answered that are right up your alley, and if you can't find one then you can ask your own. But here is a link to the "God being a murderer, thus you're a murderer" statement: Does God killing people make Him a murderer?

Additionally resources that I personally like are: desiringgod.org, CARM.org, anything from Ravi Zacharias, Matt Chandler

This very well could be a phase he or she is going through that will in turn make you BOTH stronger Christians in the long run, but I do not know. But most importantly, if you feel lead (which it sounds like you are) continue to share the Gospel of good news to him, for it is the Scriptures that have the power alone to save and correct people (2 Tim 3:16-17, Romans chapter 10). Additionally, always make sure that you show the love of Christ when discussing, debating, etc. And... pray pray pray pray, prayer is also essential!!

I hope this helps a little, I will have you and your friend in my thoughts and prayers. God bless you both!

In Christ.

I had a look at the first link you shared. I bookmarked it and will read other topics from there. It is fascinating. Thanks for posting.

Of course "murder" and "killing" are different. And obviously if you define your god, as a lot of people do, as "perfect and righteous, everything they do is good" then they could literally [it is going to get a bit graphic ahead, sorry] rape a million babies, pluck their eyes out, eat them, throw it up and then stuff the forcefully, regurgitated, taken out eyes to their mothers and by definition it would be "very good". The same goes for any horrific thing that could ever be done. [End]

If we do go by what is legally unlawful (which the link tells us to) in most countries and illegal in all of the best countries, a lot of the stories told about Yahweh, would have him charged, convicted and sent to prison for life for direct involvement, participation and conspiracy. Including for murder, rape, torture, child abuse, crimes against humanity, animal cruelty, doing nothing while a crime is being committed that you could have stopped, crimes against the peace, slavery, war crimes, etc.

I'm not trying to be blasphemous or insult anyone's faith. I know Christian's either don't believe all parts of the Bible or they believe he has righteous perfect judgement and everyone deserves this, we are all sinners, or since he created us he can do as he wants, he is above human laws,or it is for the greater good and so on. I'm just pointing out that if we believed the Bible was inherent and we judged Yahweh, by our laws, as the link told us to, that is what would happen.

As for the OP, I suggest you research for yourself what they bring up that you feel you don't have a good grasp on. For example if they point out troubling verses, read the Bible verses in several different versions and if you can languages. Find out what the original meaning and context was. Then read apologetics and then critic's of those apologetical writings, more back and fourths, asking questions all along the way.

Best wishes! More knowledge is always a good thing.

 

[Motherofkittens]

You're completely missing my point. I didn't say people don't have moral standards, they make up their own. What I'm saying is that the Evolutionary worldview cannot account for them. According to evolution there is no reason that I should have any moral standards. That the atheist does have moral standards shows the Biblical worldview is correct. When he argues that there are morals, he is taking a Biblical position. According to evolution there is no difference between the guy who helps the poor and that guy who kills. They are both just products of evolution. You argued for an evolving consciousness. However, in evolution there is reason for one's conscience or evolve. It's just a random process of evolution. When you bring reason into the equation you bring a mind into the equation. If things happen for a reason then you have you have intelligent thought and not Evolution.

Even if evolution didn't answer this, that just means no one knows as then no one would have evidence for why we have it. You know there are also many other religions and they could just easily say and be just as wrong as you by saying "...this then shows that the Guru Granth Sahib or the Upanishads or any other religions book is correct." It only shows the biblical world view is correct by you, because you already believe it. However morality is well understood and makes perfect sense within evolution. Here is an easy to understand article. There are many more. The Evolution of Empathy

Point 101: genetic drift and mutations are random. Natural selection is not. And evolution and atheism are not directly connected. No more so then with Germ Theory, Atomic Theory or anything else and religious people don't have to exclude science. Most religious people, including Christians accept evolution and everything else science has evidence for.

 

[Butch5]

Even if evolution didn't answer this, that just means no one knows as then no one would have evidence for why we have it. You know there are also many other religions and they could just easily say and be just as wrong as you by saying "...this then shows that the Guru Granth Sahib or the Upanishads or any other religions book is correct." It only shows the biblical world view is correct by you, because you already believe it. However morality is well understood and makes perfect sense within evolution. Here is an easy to understand article. There are many more. The Evolution of Empathy

Point 101: genetic drift and mutations are random. Natural selection is not. And evolution and atheism are not directly connected. No more so then with Germ Theory, Atomic Theory or anything else and religious people don't have to exclude science. Most religious people, including Christians accept evolution and everything else science has evidence for.

Firstly, I didn't say people don't have empathy. What I said is that evolution can't account for it. Your article did nothing to account for it. Words like, Likely, and probably, show that it's just speculation.

Secondly, the Biblical worldview is correct because I believe it, It's the only one that can account for these things logically. Speaking of logic, evolution can't account for that either.

As I pointed out before, in the evolutionary worldview, I shouldn't have empathy. It's detrimental to survival of the fittest a basic concept of evolution.

That people have empathy doesn't show where it came from. Survival of the fittest has no place for empathy. It's about survival.

 

[dlamberth]

Firstly, I didn't say people don't have empathy. What I said is that evolution can't account for it.

Well, here we go again. The evolution of consciousness in life accounts for the awareness of empathy in human beings. With out consciousness we have no empathy.

It's about survival.]

That would be incorrect.

 

[MehGuy]

As I pointed out before, in the evolutionary worldview, I shouldn't have empathy. It's detrimental to survival of the fittest a basic concept of evolution.

That people have empathy doesn't show where it came from. Survival of the fittest has no place for empathy. It's about survival.

Why? It's often better to work as a group than working alone.

 

[Butch5]

Well, here we go again. The evolution of consciousness in life accounts for the awareness of empathy in human beings. With out consciousness we have no empathy.

But, this evolution of consciousness isn't proven.

That would be incorrect.

Which run counter to empathy.

 

[MehGuy]

While empathy can be great, it also has it's biases and dark sides. Like my sig Paul Bloom has interesting discussion on empathy. It's certainly flawed and seems to scream an evolutionary origin.. lol.

 

[dlamberth]

That people have empathy doesn't show where it came from. Survival of the fittest has no place for empathy. It's about survival.

Evolution is NOT about survival. Before you go any further you might want to correct that piece.

 

[Silmarien]

As I pointed out before, in the evolutionary worldview, I shouldn't have empathy. It's detrimental to survival of the fittest a basic concept of evolution.

That people have empathy doesn't show where it came from. Survival of the fittest has no place for empathy. It's about survival.

The thing is, most of those of us who adhere to an evolutionary worldview disagree with you. I'd suggest taking a look at something like Evolution, Games, and God, by Martin A. Nowak and Sarah Coakley, an evolutionary biologist and Anglican theologian, respectively.

 

[keith99]

Firstly, I didn't say people don't have empathy. What I said is that evolution can't account for it. Your article did nothing to account for it. Words like, Likely, and probably, show that it's just speculation.

Secondly, the Biblical worldview is correct because I believe it, It's the only one that can account for these things logically. Speaking of logic, evolution can't account for that either.

As I pointed out before, in the evolutionary worldview, I shouldn't have empathy. It's detrimental to survival of the fittest a basic concept of evolution.

That people have empathy doesn't show where it came from. Survival of the fittest has no place for empathy. It's about survival.

The book The Selfish Gene gives a good explanation of of how empathy could come about through natural selection and points out some interesting experiments with ants that confirm the hypothesis.

Speaking of logic, you believing something does not make it true any more than someone else believing that the world is flat makes that true.

 

[CherubRam]

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.

You need a better grasp of words. Murder and killing are two different subjects. There is righteous and unrighteous taking of life.
A mentally defective person is not able to discriminate right from wrong.