Debating an Atheist

[TrumanSmith]

Darinhouston said: "Another similar frustration was the time spent on evolution -- the debate topic wasn't whether evolution was true and you kept trying to prove it was true by holding up canards of theories which (if true of course) would be CONSISTENT WITH but not proof of same. "

We all knew upfront the two main subjects of discussion was biological evolution and neurology.

As for the core gospel, let me say this: it is nonsense.

Essentially you could say that God sacrificed himself (because Jesus is God, and there's only 1 God) to appease his own wrath. And he did this by dying on a cross then coming back to life, even though gods are said to be immortal and therefore can't die.

It made perfect sense to the ancients who copied each other by sacrificing animals to their gods. With modern logic, it is nonsense.

[TrumanSmith]

SteveF wrote: "Truman, in fairness to Steve I suggest you go back to debate at 1:21:00 and listen to what Steve actually said. It seemed clear to me he was saying there was good evidence."

Mr. Gregg says he personally rejects biological evolution because the evidence isn't good enough for it. The evidence is great; he just doesn't know it. DNA synteny shows much more than just similarities; shows descent when thinking about it logically.

Here's the YouTube where an evangelical Christian scientist tries to teach fellow Christians the basic evidence in DNA for evolution. Yes, some big terms in there... but that's science. Sorry, no way to break it down to 3rd grade level (as was joked about with one of the callers on a different question):
The first in a multi-part series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of0PjoZY4L0

[steve7150]

Steve7150 said: "Good points and we are reaching an inflection point. I'm not so dogmatic about heaven vs the lake of fire (contrasts?). My thought which is unprovable is that if God decides learning evil is useful He can use it in the next age. I don't believe the lake of fire is eternal so whatever needs to be done can still happen. So the atheist sees evil in this age as simply unjust because if this life is all there is then Mr Atheist is right. The bible believer who accepts that God is greater then hell can see other possibilities because God is a just God."

1. Learning is not useful for any of the 80% of naturally occurring miscarriages. Why are you only taking your own life into consideration? Look at the bigger picture.
2. Atheist sees evil in this life as what would be expected if there was no god. That's why we'd defend ourselves rather than pray for god's protection.
3. There are no 'other possibilities.' Usually the answer is "no one knows and someday we'll die and God will tell us in heaven." I'd say the evidence is there; just draw the necessary conclusion. Don't be too timid to not follow the truth.







Truman you didn't really read my response because i said that this age is not everything so God can use any learning device that is needed for anyone including a miscarried baby in the next age.
Re #2 i also defend myself while asking for God's help.
Re#3 you believe the evidence for Atheism is there? As you know trillions times trillions of transactions have to work every second for life to exist & for the universe to be maintained and i think it's a mathematical impossibility to occur on it's own. The only option IMO is God. This is the necessary conclusion i see based on a logical deduction of the material universe.

[mattrose]

As for the core gospel, let me say this: it is nonsense.

Essentially you could say that God sacrificed himself (because Jesus is God, and there's only 1 God) to appease his own wrath. And he did this by dying on a cross then coming back to life, even though gods are said to be immortal and therefore can't die.

It made perfect sense to the ancients who copied each other by sacrificing animals to their gods. With modern logic, it is nonsense.

This was the weakest aspect in the debate and continues in this thread, in my opinion. Almost all of your slams against Christian theology/doctrine are on secondary issues. You don't seem to know the difference b/w essential and non-essential elements of the Gospel or be aware of various options.

In the debate you kept thinking that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is essential to Christianity. It is not. You kept thinking that the doctrine of original sin is essential to Christianity. It is not. You kept thinking that the existence of the soul is essential to Christianity. It is not. Here, you are saying that the penal substitution theory of the atonement is essential to Christianity. It is not (there are a wide variety of atonement theories).

What's more, you seem somewhat confused about doctrines like the Trinity and Incarnation. This is understandable, since they are profound doctrines. But your first statement makes it sound like you're critiquing modalism, not trinitarianism. The second makes it sound like you haven't thought through what incarnation means much at all.

The core of Christianity is that God exists, is love, sent His Son who is Savior and Lord, and that this Son, Jesus, died and rose again. As far as I can tell, your booklet doesn't respond to the arguments for God's existence or the evidence for the historicity of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. You do have a chapter in your booklet about the problem of pain (which could potentially be an argument against God's love), but I haven't read your booklet so I won't critique it.

It just seems to me you've settled on an aversion to some particular schools of thought within Christianity, but you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater either out of frustration or ignorance that there were alternatives. I'd speculate that it wasn't ignorance, but frustration with the uncertainty of the whole project. Seeking certainty, you chose another world view that speaks very boldly about itself. And then to feel even more certain, you pretend that no smart people disagree with this view of things and you attempt to argue that other views have been 'destroyed' (b/c this, of course, will help you feel more certain that your view is exactly right).

But I'm no psychologist. I can't get in your brain. These are just my thoughts based on limited observation.

[CThomas]

Truman -- uncle. I think at some level you realize that you're not responding to the substance of my point, but that is a decision you have to make.

Best wishes, and I appreciate you dropping by here after the program to talk with us.

CThomas

[brody196]

Hey Truman,

If you get a chance, could you respond to some of my specific points? Thanks.

[TrumanSmith]

Steve7150 said:"Truman you didn't really read my response because i said that this age is not everything so God can use any learning device that is needed for anyone including a miscarried baby in the next age."

Think about it- what kind of learning device could God use for all the naturally miscarriaged baby up in heaven? Suffering can teach some people like you a lesson; doesn't teach anyone anything if they don't have even a partially developed brain (as for miscarriaged babies).

[TrumanSmith]

Brody wrote: "How do you know that a "peaceful community" is good? "

Seriously, don't you think it is silly to ask why punching someone in the face is bad; and giving someone a hug is good? It is because one results in good feelings, the other pain. Same answer for why living in peace is 'good' and living in fear and crime is 'bad.'

[CThomas]

More power to you, Brody, but this seems pretty pointless to me. I hope this doesn't seem nasty, but it seems clear that Truman is either unable to, or chooses not to, engage any arguments against his own worldview. I was hoping that it was simply the live debate format which made it seem that way in the program but unfortunately the problem seems deeper than that.

[TrumanSmith]

Mattrose said: "The core of Christianity is that God exists, is love, sent His Son who is Savior and Lord, and that this Son, Jesus, died and rose again."

God sent his son, they are both God, and there is only one God. Makes perfect sense, right? It is nonsense. Only instead you say to yourself "It must be true because the Bible says it is, even though it doesn't make sense." All of the theologians say the trinity concept is incomprehensible. Why believe it? Because you choose to, without evidence or reason; even contrary to reason. Catholics can go even further and say the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Jesus, even though it only looks like a wafer.

For some reason, you can see the nonsense in other religions, but not your own. I don't think you think critically about your own religion as you do others. Be honest and seek the truth, wherever it leads. It is freeing.