Need help debating athiests

[MoneyGuy]

I encounter athiests who say this: "You believe in some fairies in the sky or some other nonsense about some supreme being snapping his fingers and creating this whole universe. It makes no sense."

I need to develop a compelling contrary argument. I was thinking something like this:

"So, you believe that out of nothing came something. Not only that, but this something that came out of nothing developed into complex creatures that over a very long period of time developed even more amazing complexity, including arms, legs and tremendously complex brains that can do things that even the greatest super computer cannot. All of this just happened by chance, with no being intervening? And you say that my beliefs are unbelievable?"

Ideas please.

 

[metherion]

It's pretty terrible.

First of all, that isn't what the science says, and misrepresenting it can only weaken your point.

Secondly, acceptance of evolution/abiogenesis/Big Bang cosmology is not atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God, nothing else. The science is not faith based. If you want to debate them on the existence of God, going into science generally won't work.

As to what you should say... well... I can't be that constructive on it since I generally don't debate people on the existence of God. But the way you have proposed to go about it generally won't work.

EDITED TO ALL: Well, actually, slash that. Try asking them WHY they think it is so ridiculous to believe a supreme being (God) created everything. That would at least get you some information on their mindset which would influence what you wind up saying later.

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

I encounter athiests who say this: "You believe in some fairies in the sky or some other nonsense about some supreme being snapping his fingers and creating this whole universe. It makes no sense."

I need to develop a compelling contrary argument. I was thinking something like this:

"So, you believe that out of nothing came something. Not only that, but this something that came out of nothing developed into complex creatures that over a very long period of time developed even more amazing complexity, including arms, legs and tremendously complex brains that can do things that even the greatest super computer cannot. All of this just happened by chance, with no being intervening? And you say that my beliefs are unbelievable?"

Ideas please.

No. You are confusing evolution with atheism. You want to deal with atheism, deal with atheism, not something else.

Probably, you need more questions than argument.

Ask them to describe what they think it means to believe in God. Most of the time, what they describe is nothing like what any Christian actually believes, so you can honestly answer "I don't believe in that god either."

Then you can begin a real dialogue on what belief in God really means.

For example, do you really believe God is like a fairy waving a magic wand or scattering fairy dust around to make things? Is that really what Creation means to you?

In short, show them their objections to God are not really about God, but about straw men they have invented in place of God. It's always easy to knock down a straw man. It's not so easy to deal with the real thing.


OTOH, if you offer up straw man caricatures of evolution (as in your post), you only give them more reason to think you believe in fairies.

 

[MoneyGuy]

It's just that this believing in fairies or some magical flying being is that I hear from these folks. What I said isn't what I would normally say in response, but it seems an appropriate response given the comment they use. And, I know that what I wrote is more about creationism-evolution, but that's the way they try to knock down my beliefs.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I agree with gluadys that asking questions is more effective then returning their scorn.
e.g. Do you really think that that is what I believe?
How would you explain where the universe came from?
Where did the matter that became the universe come from?
Was it always there and will it always be there?
How is your belief anymore subject to proof than mine?
You can think of more as they answer your questions because each answer to any question about the origin of things only seems to engender more questions. You probably won't convince them you have a correct belief system but they may at least stop trying to get you to agree with them that your beliefs are childish.

 

[juvenissun]

Do not try to win the debate, because you will not in any case.

You debate, because you want to strengthen your own faith. Take your opponent as one who is trying to polish your faith. They are usually pretty useful for that purpose.

 

[Papias]

Moneyguy wrote:

what I wrote is more about creationism-evolution, but that's the way they try to knock down my beliefs.

If you try to attack evolution, you confirm to them that you either terribly ignorant, or dishonest. Evolution is well supported by science, with no significant disagreement - it is a fact.

First, I'd point out that most of the scientists who discovered evolution were Christians, and that a lot of clergy today accept evolution (look at the clergy letter project, here Clergy Letter Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Show them that your understanding of the science of evolution is just as up to date as his, then get to the important part of the discussion - God.

As Gluadys pointed out, ask him if he believes in a Magical fairy God who flies around in alternate dimensions and poofs things into existence. When he says "no", say "neither do I - let's talk about what kind of God you may believe in, and see if we actually have similar beliefs".

That may be a better way to start to open an honest discussion, and you will end up looking a lot better for it.

Papias

 

[crawfish]

I agree with the above. Atheists who argue like you mentioned are trying to be demeaning, but as Christians I don't think it is proper for us to act in a like manner (especially since we're supposed to be concerned about their eternal souls).

Asking questions may not seem to be as satisfying, but it's probably the only way to swing the argument in your favor. It forces them from the original position of assuming what you believe into a more uncomfortable position of having to present what they believe in more detail. This can give you a point of discussion. I'll list a few questions you can ask to get the conversation going. Just always remember - respect the atheist's beliefs, do not demean them, but force him or her to defend them. You may just end up getting them to admit to themselves that a belief in God may not be as silly as they think, and that could very well plant a seed for the future.

1. Why do you think that Christianity has survived, and even thrived, over the years and belief in fairies, mythical creatures and other gods has waned considerably?

2. Why do you think Christianity survived and grew during a near 400-year period of persecution, when there were absolutely no material rewards, and the punishment for being discovered was often death for yourself, your children, and your family?

3. Why do you think that the bible, a book written by dozens of authors over a 2,000-year time span that ended 2,000 years ago, is still regarded as relevant and authoritative to so many people today?

4. Why do so many rational and intelligent people in the world today still regard Christianity as the truth?

Just some examples, there are many, many more.

 

[TheBlueBlurr]

I agree with the above. Atheists who argue like you mentioned are trying to be demeaning, but as Christians I don't think it is proper for us to act in a like manner (especially since we're supposed to be concerned about their eternal souls).

Asking questions may not seem to be as satisfying, but it's probably the only way to swing the argument in your favor. It forces them from the original position of assuming what you believe into a more uncomfortable position of having to present what they believe in more detail. This can give you a point of discussion. I'll list a few questions you can ask to get the conversation going. Just always remember - respect the atheist's beliefs, do not demean them, but force him or her to defend them. You may just end up getting them to admit to themselves that a belief in God may not be as silly as they think, and that could very well plant a seed for the future.

1. Why do you think that Christianity has survived, and even thrived, over the years and belief in fairies, mythical creatures and other gods has waned considerably?

2. Why do you think Christianity survived and grew during a near 400-year period of persecution, when there were absolutely no material rewards, and the punishment for being discovered was often death for yourself, your children, and your family?

3. Why do you think that the bible, a book written by dozens of authors over a 2,000-year time span that ended 2,000 years ago, is still regarded as relevant and authoritative to so many people today?

4. Why do so many rational and intelligent people in the world today still regard Christianity as the truth?

Just some examples, there are many, many more.

Don't ask these questions OP. You'll just get laughed at.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Lady Kate]

I encounter athiests who say this: "You believe in some fairies in the sky or some other nonsense about some supreme being snapping his fingers and creating this whole universe. It makes no sense."

I need to develop a compelling contrary argument. I was thinking something like this:

"So, you believe that out of nothing came something. Not only that, but this something that came out of nothing developed into complex creatures that over a very long period of time developed even more amazing complexity, including arms, legs and tremendously complex brains that can do things that even the greatest super computer cannot. All of this just happened by chance, with no being intervening? And you say that my beliefs are unbelievable?"

Ideas please.

Your friend is arguing a strawman... arguing a strawman back at him accomplishes nothing.

 

[crawfish]

Don't ask these questions OP. You'll just get laughed at.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not declaring truth based on these questions. I'm opening up a dialog.

I approach it like a scientific theory. Evaluate the evidence and counter-evidence, and build up a likelihood. The original question proclaims that belief in God is as silly as a belief in fairies; what is required to counter this is to amass evidence of how our belief in God is different. Our faith is supported by real-world evidence, in other words.

I would certainly not attempt to put forth these arguments as "proof" of God, but they are more than adequate for falsifying the OP.

 

[MoneyGuy]

If you try to attack evolution, you confirm to them that you either terribly ignorant, or dishonest. Evolution is well supported by science, with no significant disagreement - it is a fact.

First, I'd point out that most of the scientists who discovered evolution were Christians, and that a lot of clergy today accept evolution -Papias

For the record, I didn't say I wanted to argue against evolution. I believe in evolution as a tool used by God to create this world around us.

 

[gluadys]

For the record, I didn't say I wanted to argue against evolution. I believe in evolution as a tool used by God to create this world around us.

Then why don't you say that to your friend, because judging from what he said, he thinks you can't believe in evolution as a tool used by God to create this world around us. He thinks that if you believe in God you have to reject evolution. It might surprise him to know that you don't object to evolutionary science.

You might also want to introduce him to a book such as Francis Collin's "Language of God". Collins assumed as he entered on a scientific career that atheism was a logical viewpoint. The book tells of how he became a Christian without rejecting his scientific work in genetics.

There are lots of other good books by scientists who believe in God as well.

 

[lucaspa]

I encounter athiests who say this: "You believe in some fairies in the sky or some other nonsense about some supreme being snapping his fingers and creating this whole universe. It makes no sense."

I need to develop a compelling contrary argument. I was thinking something like this:

"So, you believe that out of nothing came something. Not only that, but this something that came out of nothing developed into complex creatures that over a very long period of time developed even more amazing complexity, including arms, legs and tremendously complex brains that can do things that even the greatest super computer cannot. All of this just happened by chance, with no being intervening? And you say that my beliefs are unbelievable?"

Ideas please.

Several people have already told you that your argument won't work.

I would suggest you ask the atheists how they think the universe got here. If they say "Big Bang" ask them what caused the Big Bang. If they say "energy" has always existed, tell them that science falsifies that position.

If they say "quantum fluctuation", ask them how this is different from believing in some divine being? After all, with current theory it's not possible for quantum fluctuation to make a spacetime.

 

[lucaspa]

you also believe that something came from nothing... where did god come from? saying that god always was... isnt that far off from saying that the universe always was

Oh, it's very far off. After all, the scientific data is pretty clear that the universe -- energy/matter and spacetime -- came into existence. "Before" that those things did not exist. So no, the universe cannot be "always was".

When you get to a cause of the universe, even atheists get into entities that just "always were". Logical and mathematical Necessity has the laws describing the universe always existing. Ekpyrotic has a 5 dimensional 'brane always existing. Even quantum fluctuation has quantum mechanics always existing.

Sorry, but this argument won't work, because eventually atheists have to get to entities who, just like God, "always existed". Those entities, however, cannot be the universe.

 

[lucaspa]

For the record, I didn't say I wanted to argue against evolution. I believe in evolution as a tool used by God to create this world around us.

I agree with Gluadys; you need to state that. Because your OP denied evolution when you said: "Not only that, but this something that came out of nothing developed into complex creatures that over a very long period of time developed even more amazing complexity, including arms, legs and tremendously complex brains that can do things that even the greatest super computer cannot. All of this just happened by chance, with no being intervening? "

Evolution is not "chance". And yes, the processes of evolution will produce our brains without any interference by God. God could intervene to get our specific physical form, but He doesn't need to in order to get our brain. Natural selection will produce such a brain in some species eventually.

So now you have 1) a misunderstanding of what your position on evolution is and 2) the atheist thinks you are ignorant of science. You've put yourself into a credibility hole and you need to climb out of it ASAP.

 

[lucaspa]

The original question proclaims that belief in God is as silly as a belief in fairies; what is required to counter this is to amass evidence of how our belief in God is different. Our faith is supported by real-world evidence, in other words.

First, fairies have been falsified. That is, we have looked at all the places fairies can be and they aren't there. Also, the actions in the physical universe that have been attributed to fairies have been shown to be cause by another material cause.

Second, the same situation does not apply to God. God has not been falsified. Ask them for the scientific paper that shows God does not exist. They won't be able to provide one. Then remind them that entities that are not falsified in science stay on the table as possibilities.

Third, our faith is not supported by scientific evidence. The best we have is that our faith is not contradicted by scientific evidence. By science, God is possible. That's the best we have from science.

Our evidence for God comes from outside science in the form of personal experience of people of God. Now, scientific evidence is also personal experience. But science restricts itself to a subset of personal experience called "intersubjective". This means personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Personal experience that is not intersubjective cannot be included in science. It can be correct; it's just not science.

When it comes down to it, the personal experience of atheists is of no experience of God. So, atheists pit their personal experience against that of theists. Since everyone believes their personal experience over that of someone else, atheists believe their personal experience over that of theists. They conclude from that that God does not exist.

But wait. There are other hypotheses that could also explain the lack of personal experience by atheists but God still exists. Atheists cannot disprove those alternative hypotheses. Therefore, ultimately, atheists rest their belief on the same epistemological basis as theists. Atheism and theism are equal as faiths. The rhetorical trick of comparing theism to belief in fairies is just that, a rhetorical trick. Call it what it is.

 

[crawfish]

First, fairies have been falsified. That is, we have looked at all the places fairies can be and they aren't there. Also, the actions in the physical universe that have been attributed to fairies have been shown to be cause by another material cause.

Second, the same situation does not apply to God. God has not been falsified. Ask them for the scientific paper that shows God does not exist. They won't be able to provide one. Then remind them that entities that are not falsified in science stay on the table as possibilities.

Sorry, you cannot prove that something does not exist. Especially something supernatural. God and the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven through evidence; thus, each lies outside of the realm of science.

Third, our faith is not supported by scientific evidence. The best we have is that our faith is not contradicted by scientific evidence. By science, God is possible. That's the best we have from science.

Continuing my earlier thought, without the ability to use evidence to prove something, what we can do is explore the likelihood of something. This involves examining all secondary evidence, both for and against, and building up a coherent argument. I think when this is said and done, the likelihood of fairies existing is almost nil, while the likelihood of a creator existing is almost a certainty. The likelihood of the Christian God is also very high.

The comparison is probably best made with the science of archaeology. There are logical rules used to try and divine the truth of any ancient text or any claim about ancient matters. While we can never be 100% sure, we can get pretty close if enough source material is found.

I don't disagree with anything else you said. Including the fact that the OP is a strawman.

 

[lucaspa]

Sorry, you cannot prove that something does not exist.

Really? Does a flat earth exist? Haven't we proven that that particular "something" does not exist? How about a solar system where earth is in the center and the sun and planets orbit the earth? Does that exist? How about a global flood?

What you have here is one of the myths of atheism. In reality science proves things do not exist all the time. That's what falsification is: proving things do not exist.

Especially something supernatural. God and the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven through evidence;

But we weren't talking about either God or the supernatural. We were talking about material entities called "fairies". And, because of the statements that define "fairie", we can and have disproved them. We've also disproved unicorns.

You also need to consider that many supernatural entities have been disproven through evidence. That's what theists have done with a host of versions of deity: Zeus, Thor, Quetzelecoatl, Osiris, Marduk, etc.

You see, you phrased the statement poorly. God cannot be proven or disproven by science. Not at the present moment, anyway. What you need to ask is: why cannot God be proven or disproven by science? The answer is: it is a limitation of science.

Continuing my earlier thought, without the ability to use evidence to prove something, what we can do is explore the likelihood of something.

I don't see how. Without evidence you cannot do any calculations of "likely". In this case, all "likely" means is your personal prejudice about whether the entity exists or not. But you introduce a new term: "secondary evidence": "This involves examining all secondary evidence, both for and against, and building up a coherent argument."

What is "secondary evidence"? How does it differ from "evidence"?

The comparison is probably best made with the science of archaeology. There are logical rules used to try and divine the truth of any ancient text or any claim about ancient matters. While we can never be 100% sure, we can get pretty close if enough source material is found.

But that process involves evidence. But think about it. What type of evidence are ancient texts? Intersubjective? Personal experience?

 

[grasping the after wind]

We haven't proven that a flat earth does not exist we have only proven that this earth is not flat. Same with the rest. It is not possible to prove that something doesn't exist in some form, somewhere. It is possible to prove that a certain thing does not exist in a certain form and in a certain place.