Debating an Atheist

[TrumanSmith]

By the way, I've also heard many stories of atheists who start thinking and become Christians. So your point has only rhetorical value to those who don't realize that these 'conversions' happen both ways.

I acknowledge the flow is both ways. However, the outflow of Christianity is much greater than an outflow of atheism. I think the religious polls in America show that. So yes, it flows both ways; but certainly not in equal quantities. Europe is sometimes called "post Christian" and there are many ministry leaders that are afraid we are going like that. I'd say Europe is more intellectually mature than us Americans. But I do appreciate the amazing religious freedom in America... that's why it is home to so many different kinds of religion, and you can even invent your own, like the Mormons did.

[TrumanSmith]

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

There are lots of tests to validate evolution. "Young earth and old earth creationism" and "evolution" are two distinct hypothesis, and when you look for evidence, evolution is validated while special creation (from nothing) is invalidated. Furthermore, with evolution, scientists have predicted where certain fossils might be found, dug there, and actually found them. You can't do that with special creation.

[mattrose]

It is only lying if you know the truth but say something else. If you know they are anonymous, but then claim "Matthew wrote...," then that would be lying. It is representing the text as if you knew who wrote it. Here's what I wrote about lying:

As an aside, it should be recognized that the four gospels are anonymously written. Imagine if a Pastor said “Turn to Anonymous Gospel #1” rather than “turn to the Gospel of Matthew.” Obviously that would have a greatly diminished impact on the congregation (but Christians claim to strive to be honest and represent the truth
fairly). It is a form of subtle lying to misrepresent the gospels as if scholars knew who wrote them, when no one really does.

This is a pretty lazy argument, in my opinion.

First, Just because something isn't signed, doesn't mean it is impossible to know who wrote it. It just takes some research. There is a strong and early tradition that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, and Luke wrote Luke. The 4th Gospel is a bit more debated. I, in my ministry, tend to refer to "the 4th Gospel" rather than call it John b/c I have some doubts about whether the Apostle John is its author. But I wouldn't have to be 100% certain about Matthew, Mark & Luke to be justified in labeling them as such because nobody is justifiably 100% about anything that happened 2000 years ago let alone yesterday!

Second, if we referred to the Gospels as "the 1st Gospel... the 2nd Gospel, etc.," I don't see how that would "have a greatly diminished impact on the congregation." There would still exist, after all, the evidence that the 4 Gospels are early. There would still exist the strong tradition that they were written by eyewitnesses.

Your argument brings me back to my original point about you. I speculated that your arguments are basically just the fruit of our cultures demand for absolute certainty in areas that don't exist in the realm of certainty. Most everything you've argued since then has justified my initial speculation.

About the resurrection- you'd have to tell me what the soul is, and then I can falsify it for you. You'll have to define it, because everyone defines it differently. The words of the Apostle Paul are to the effect "Absent in the body is to be present with the Lord." Do you believe that your soul goes immediately with Jesus when you die? Steve Gregg's response is "none of this is important" ... so there's nothing to really discuss when one says nothing is important. I wasn't able to get him to the point of having a discussion over "what is important" so I can attempt to show him how to falsify it.

This paragraph raises the question of whether you are familiar with what the word 'resurrection' even means! Why did you jump right to the issue of 'soul' when resurrection is a term referring to the body? The fact that you don't seem to understand this makes sense of why you were so annoyed by Steve's insistence that the fate of the soul in the intermediate state is a non-essential issue. The Bible doesn't really concern itself with the intermediate state. When it talks about life after death (which isn't even very often), it usually is talking about bodily resurrection.

[TrumanSmith]

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

Normally I assume it is an insult to one's intelligence to think that people might believe in "creation science" but I know that Steve Gregg thinks a worldwide flood is a possibility, so I'll have to assume people here think likewise with creation science (which also promotes a worldwide flood and "flood geology").

The reason why it is called "creation science" is because it is not "modern science." Modern science, as practiced by every major university in the world, is also known as "methodological naturalism." Because it deals with evidence and predictability, etc., it is actually not in competition to religion, in general. But when there's a material explanation for it, but someone else wants to claim instead "God dun it," then you have your things like "Creation Science." The Hindu's also have their "Vedic Science," and because of that, they think astrology (your future in horoscopes) is real science. You should really learn science from scientists (there are plenty of Christian ones too, like Francis Collins who fully accepts evolution), not uneducated "teachers" like Eric Hovind (a guy featured at the link on your reference).

[TrumanSmith]

About the resurrection- you'd have to tell me what the soul is, and then I can falsify it for you. You'll have to define it, because everyone defines it differently. The words of the Apostle Paul are to the effect "Absent in the body is to be present with the Lord." Do you believe that your soul goes immediately with Jesus when you die? Steve Gregg's response is "none of this is important" ... so there's nothing to really discuss when one says nothing is important. I wasn't able to get him to the point of having a discussion over "what is important" so I can attempt to show him how to falsify it.

This paragraph raises the question of whether you are familiar with what the word 'resurrection' even means! Why did you jump right to the issue of 'soul' when resurrection is a term referring to the body? The fact that you don't seem to understand this makes sense of why you were so annoyed by Steve's insistence that the fate of the soul in the intermediate state is a non-essential issue. The Bible doesn't really concern itself with the intermediate state. When it talks about life after death (which isn't even very often), it usually is talking about bodily resurrection.

Like I said- give me something to work with. Tell me what you believe, and then we can see if I can falsify it, rather than complain about me when I'm trying to start a conversation. Everyone has different beliefs. And answer the question... according to Paul, when you die, do you immediately go to heaven or not? Do you believe the passage or not? How else can you interpret such a plain saying?

You know, there are two kinds of eschatology: that for the world and that for the person. One asks "When and how does the world end," and the other is "What happens to me personally after I die?"

[mattrose]

Like I said- give me something to work with. Tell me what you believe, and then we can see if I can falsify it, rather than complain about me when I'm trying to start a conversation. Everyone has different beliefs. And answer the question... according to Paul, when you die, do you immediately go to heaven or not? Do you believe the passage or not? How else can you interpret such a plain saying?

Where am I complaining about you? I don't even know you. I am critiquing your arguments, which IS a conversation

I believe in the (bodily) resurrection of the dead on Judgment Day. That is a core Christian belief (eternal life).

I believe in the continued existence of believers between their earthly death and judgment day. This is a secondary Christian belief (intermediate state). But I don't claim to know much about this since the Bible doesn't often address it.

I heard the debate and read your essay. Your argument against the soul seems like nonsense to me. But you can try to articulate better if you like.

[paulespino]

Hi Truman,

Biological evolution (specifically macroevolution, change of one species into another) has not been directly observed from seeing one animal morph into another, because the time-scale is too big. But that isn't an argument against it, because it is like arguing that your finger nails don't really grow because you can't see them growing. (If you argue that you can see them grow over time by snapshots, one might argue back that it is because God makes them grow when you aren't looking, etc.). Yes, snapshots really do prove your hair and nails grow over time, even though you can't observe it. It takes observation and deduction to know this. It is the same with macroevolution. Fossils are your snapshot. And the DNA shows the signs of descent (synteny and pseudogenes and fused human chromosome #2, as some examples).

In the examples you gave the finger nails and an animal evolving it is like you are comparing apples with bananas because finger nails that grew to have a new fresh finger nails is not an evolution. With fingernails it is possible to observe it's growth through the use of special camera and yes it grew because it was designed to grow.

Evidence by deduction will not work in your example because deduction itself requires observation in order to arrive to a right conclusion . Since there are nothing to observe because the time scale is too big, you can not apply the method of deduction.

Observation by using the method of Synteny,pseudogenes and fused chromosome # 2 are there any Data recorded that will prove that human did evolve ?

[steve]

That's so funny, and thanks for posting. Now when Christians on this board want to argue the point and claim that the gospels are not anonymous, I can let you deal with them.

Are there really Christians who want to argue that the gospels are not anonymous? I suspect that Truman misunderstands the word "anonymous" and thinks it means "nobody knows who wrote it."

Truman appeals to authority (something he calls a "logical fallacy" if someone else does it) by quoting Bart Ehrman. I suspect that Truman's experience in Bible college was similar to Bart's. Both went in with naive assumptions about the Bible. When they learned what every literate Christian has always known, it challenged their simplistic concepts and destroyed their "faith."

Obviously, if one's faith can be destroyed by learning facts about the Bible, then that "faith" was merely a belief in certain foolish notions about the Bible (which it seems inconceivable that any intelligent Christian would hold). If they had actually known God Himself, they could have modified their wrong beliefs without denying God as well. This only proves what I have said about Truman (and Bart) all along: they never knew God.

[Homer]

TrumanSmith wrote:

There are lots of tests to validate evolution. "Young earth and old earth creationism" and "evolution" are two distinct hypothesis, and when you look for evidence, evolution is validated while special creation (from nothing) is invalidated.

Shouldn't you have written "evolution (from nothing) is invalidated"? Christians say God is the "first cause" of all that exists. What is your "first cause" and what proof have you that you are correct and the Christian is wrong?

You appear to place no value on the accounts of historical events. Have you ever considered why the ancient children of Israel celebrated the Passover? Ask yourself whether this celebration would be instituted and kept alive to this day if the events celebrated had never occurred. Surely those who first celebrated the events knew whether the events had occurred or not. Why would they have celebrated an event that never happened? Why do we celebrate the Fourth of July, which similarly celebrates an event that occurred one year previous to the first celebration.

Better yet, Christians have celebrated communion week after week, or more often, in a unbroken chain going right back to shortly after the events that are celebrated occurred - the death and resurrection of Jesus. Those first celebrating certainly knew whether the resurrection occurred. Christianity is based on facts. Perhaps you think you can falsify the facts?

[TrumanSmith]

That's so funny, and thanks for posting. Now when Christians on this board want to argue the point and claim that the gospels are not anonymous, I can let you deal with them.

Are there really Christians who want to argue that the gospels are not anonymous? I suspect that Truman misunderstands the word "anonymous" and thinks it means "nobody knows who wrote it."

Truman appeals to authority (something he calls a "logical fallacy" if someone else does it) by quoting Bart Ehrman. I suspect that Truman's experience in Bible college was similar to Bart's. Both went in with naive assumptions about the Bible. When they learned what every literate Christian has always known, it challenged their simplistic concepts and destroyed their "faith."

Obviously, if one's faith can be destroyed by learning facts about the Bible, then that "faith" was merely a belief in certain foolish notions about the Bible (which it seems inconceivable that any intelligent Christian would hold). If they had actually known God Himself, they could have modified their wrong beliefs without denying God as well. This only proves what I have said about Truman (and Bart) all along: they never knew God.

Ha ha, looks like Steve Gregg wants to talk ABOUT me, but not TO me. I guess he's not ready for that yet. It is easier to just lob grenades rather than enter into a back-and-forth discussion. Or did you change your mind and really want to have a discussion now Steve?