Debating an Atheist

[TrumanSmith]

"When you see and understand the evidence, then you will understand."

Hi Truman. So when you look around at the sophistication of the universe with the miracle of your own eyesight, from the molecular to the galatic, do you honestly believe that it created itself without any guidance? If so, then your beliefs require perhaps the greatest faith of all the belief systems that I've ever encountered.

If Darwin were alive today, all he'd have to be shown is the wonder of the DNA double helix, and he'd probably chuck his theory of naturalistic macro evolution right in the trash!

PR

Like I said- it is perfectly reasonable to draw the conclusions that you do if you don't know the science. There are many unanswered questions, such as the origin of life and origin of the universe. But how humans were made is not an unanswered question. The details on evolution are still being figured out, but the FACT that it happened is certain. If you don't know this, then you really need to watch some of the YouTube links I gave from fellow Christians. And yes, it is hard work learning new science and terms, but that is required if you want to know for yourself.

About Darwin, I disagree. It is amazing that his theory is so accurate when they knew nothing of DNA. When I was a Christian, I heard a lot of bad things about Darwin. But if you read about his life and read his book "On the origin of species," you will see what a brilliant and nice guy he was.

[TrumanSmith]

Truman, I think the problem is that you don't know Steve very well. His theology is as far from the "prosperity gospel" as one could get, and even has a series of lectures refuting it. Do you think he's unaware of Christian martyrs? I'm really struggling to understand why you think such bizarre things about him. Even young Christians know these things, without having gone to seminary. Did you not study things on your own when you were a Christian? Did you not read books by theologians and philosophers and historians? Why do you assume only people who go to seminary engage in such things? This is truly baffling.

I believe you when you say that you were once a Christian, but it seems that you assume all other Christians are of the same sort that you were. That seems a bit provincial, and even naive. It may have been the case that you (apart from being forced to in seminary) did not read widely or discuss things with knowledgeable people. But it wouldn't be safe to project those shortcomings onto others. I think the kind of Christianity that you clung to earlier in life is easy to refute. If you were surprised to find out that the Christian life includes pain and suffering and anguish, you probably missed those verses where Jesus promised these things. It doesn't take going to seminary to know this. I have had very close friends who were Muslims and Agnostics and we had no trouble challenging and learning from one another. Perhaps you were not tested much when you were a Christian, because the arguments that seem impressive to you are actually not very impressive to rigorous thinkers or those who've been around the block, so to speak. Were you perhaps sheltered a bit when you were in the faith?

About the prosperity gospel, I wasn't accusing Steve Gregg of that. I was accusing him of having foggy logic because he was trying to demonstrate he had a personal relationship with Christ, and that his blessed life was what he offered as evidence. That's his problem.

Of course I don't assume all Christians are like how I was when I was a Christian. I'm well aware of the various sects and movements.

I did know about missionary troubles before seminary, but not the EXTENT of that suffering. There are waves and waves of missionaries who died early deaths. I think Steve Gregg idolizes someone like Mueller as if Mueller is a role model and could be typical for a "real believer." I don't know a whole lot (I do know some) about Mueller, but I suspect much about him might also just be legend. Do you notice how these great spiritual role models are all dead, like Mueller? That way you can easily spin who he was and what he did.

As for testing when I was a Christian, I did more than most, thanks to http://www.asa3.org . I did lots of hashing on there as a fellow Christian, trying to understand the truth about our world. If it wasn't for the ASA, I would have left Christianity a few years earlier. The scientists and academics there gave me pause for an extra year or two.

[PR]

"There are many unanswered questions, such as the origin of life and origin of the universe."

Therein lies the problem with your beliefs Truman, it doesn't even begin to answer life's greatest questions. What's the point? Do you not see how totally unsatisfying that is for most thinking people? So you think you've got the material world all figured out and that answers everything?

PR

[Roberto]

I follow Jesus because I have received the testimony of good men n' women who say that Jesus was crucified for our sins and was raised from the dead for our life.
Now for the sake of this possible discussion I will now grant you that evolution is tru, Truman. So my next question to you I suppose should be, Why is it I should stop following Jesus? (Assuming that is one of your thrusts).
God bless you,
Bud

Bud- I would say the testimony you accept (Gospels) in unreliable. Bart Ehrman, a Bible scholar, says they are all anonymously written. The Church was just being creative in assigning names to them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). In my booklet, I also give examples of obvious myth in the Bible and gospels. Here's an essay I wrote that is very similar to my booklet, if you want to see it for free:
http://tinyurl.com/SciPhi

Think about it critically, like you do with other religious claims (such as Joseph Smith claiming to have seen God, and him translating plate text into the Book of Mormon).

Your argument is that because Bart Ehrman said that they were anonymously written that it is true. There are scholars on each side of about every issue, lol!

[paulespino]

Hi Truman,

Has evolution been demonstrated through empirical experimentaion if yes how?

[jriccitelli]

I am not sure what you mean with the analogy, since it is obvious I am well aware what actually makes a car go and a light turn on, purposeful planned engineering, wiring and transmission of energy all the way back to the sun.
So still you know also that the heart for example has valves that open on one side, close on the other, restrict blood from going backward, it gives one good pump, while opening into another chamber, while those valves close the others open, the opposite side is doing the same thing in synch with the left, speeding up and slowing down together at the same time, etc, etc, this is just on the surface while hundreds of other systems are working in tandem and in synch with the heart, this is not magic, it reveals design far far far superior to an automotive engine, it grew out of egg smaller than the period at the end of a sentence, and it fixes itself!
Do you not see the fantastic intellect needed to design just the heart?

Science observes the fact that millions of biological parts look similar, this does not mean they evolved.
Over and over the answer I get from the Evolutionist is that scientific observation reveals things ‘look similar’ and thus they evolved from each other. Is this your reasoning also?

[Bud]

Hi again Truman, thanks for replying to me.

I read, or more rightly said, skimmed your essay, since I had granted you evolution for the sake of discussion, though I remain unconvinced by the theory.

I was more interested in what you might have to say about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus which proves to me His claims and thus the veracity of the Old Testament which Jesus believed in, as well as the veracity of His apostles teachings.

I noticed you call christians liars for stating Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels. Quite a slur Truman, but I noticed your not adverse to using unjustified slurs, that's not very nice Truman.

The fact that the gospel writers didn't name their books is something everybody knows, it hasn't been some insidious lie! I found out about this very shortly after receiving my Lord. I don't remember all the details, but tradition (which is often found correct and shouldn't be dismissed so easily, as in you asserting, "The Church just made them up") and some scholarship named the gospels.

But then your essay, and debate with Steve didn't present anything I haven't heard before really. All of your arguments have winning answers to them, I've read them, Steve Gregg gave them.

Re: Trumans' Myth argument;
Read: "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" Norman Geisler pg 518
There's a very good defense here covering how there are appearances of New Testament books too early for myth to have formed.
C.S.Lewis is quoted here (an experienced myth author) saying strongly that the Bible books are not myth-like.

There is sooo much more!

You haven't come close to presenting a good reason for me to deny Jesus Truman.

God bless, you need Him,
Bud

[Homer]

Truman wrote:

We know what's true by testing.

Could you describe the tests that were conducted that demonstrate macroevolution, and what these tests produced?

Thanks

[Roberto]

There are too many issues floating around here- can we agree on one thing? Otherwise it devolves into personal complaints which distract from the real issues. I guess evolution is the main focus, huh?
ORDER IN THE COURT!

[Candlepower]

Here's an excellent YouTube channel that presents more than enough evidence any honest atheist/evolutionist needs in order to snap out of his evolution delusion. (The key word is honest).

http://www.youtube.com/user/slaves4christ