My debate with an Evangelical

[Repugnant Abomination]

I'm posting the back and forth between me and this woman from a Christian message board for your reading enjoyment. I'd like to apologize in advance for the shitty formatting, but it's the best I could do.

The title of the thread that caught my eye was:
The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?



ME: Yes, while Stalin did attempt to destroy religious institutions, he never started a war for that sole purpose. There's a difference. The crusades, and in contemporary times, Islamic Jihad, is waged in the name of God. Stalin never waged war in the name of atheism. But yeah, he was an atheist, and probably responsible for the most human suffering in the history of mankind.

HER: Anyone who says that someone's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are not factors in war, and in the actions of those leaders (such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, etc...) are not being logical. Of course their actions were influenced by their lack of religion, and their starting of wars, and their treatment of fellow humans are all impacted by their religious stance.

As for morality, outside of God, there is no logical basis for morality. For the Argument from Moral Law; the point isn't that everyone will have the exact same definition of right and wrong, or the exact same laws, but that everyone will have some sense that there is right and there is wrong; even if their view of what actually is right/wrong are twisted. As for morality, outside of God, there is no logical basis for morality.

ME: I whole heartedly agree. And while the believer thinks this a bad thing, I think it a logical one. Morality is a man made construct, and has culturally relative aspects to it. The reason we all abide by the "rules" is because we are more prosperous through cooperation, because it yields mutual gain. That's it. There are no absolute morals, because you can't prove them empirically. Obviously the believer says that's wrong, because of the Bible, but I reject that because the Bible is one of those few, self validating books. It's right because it says it's right, and I think that's wrong. It's circular logic. That's not to discredit rationalistic thought though. I recognize morality is a conception and doesn't necessarily answer to empirical inquiry.

HER: Straw man fallacy. The Bible is not just a self-validating book; there is ample extra-biblical evidence of it's credibility.

Also, morality is not a man made construct; if it were, you could not claim anything is good/bad, right/wrong, good/evil and mean it. You couldn't say that what Hitler did was wrong, or even denounce him logically; you could only say that you didn't personally like him or his actions. Everyone has a concept of right and wrong; it comes from outside of ourselves. Moral laws have cultural aspects; Moral Law does not. True Morality springs directly from God's being. No God; no true morality. No true morality and everything "moral" is up for grabs; might makes right. Wanna kill a little two year old just for annoying you? Logically, atheism should say, "have at it...just don't get caught" yet, I personally don't know an atheist who would...Moral Law is a part of us.

ME: I don’t think what I said was an example of the straw man fallacy. I claimed the Bible is a self-validating book. You say there is ample evidence outside of the Bible to give it credibility. I say that’s false. Now, here is where I find I run into the most problems with believers: we’re working from two different foundations. As a believer, you reject mainstream scientific evidence. You don’t believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old. You don’t believe in evolution. You therefore must think that the vast, vast majority of physicists, biologists, chemists, and geologists are wrong. There’s no other way around it. You choose to believe in the small minority of scientists whose beliefs support your already held belief. That is, you’re looking for science to validate your belief, rather than looking for science to shape your beliefs. So immediately we run into a problem, because you dispute the heavily promoted views of the scientific community, because it contradicts your Bible. Because of this I don’t believe we can even have a conversation or debate, because we’re basing our arguments off of two different things.

The reason why I disregard creationism is because it’s not science. A good scientific theory is testable and falsifiable. That means you can test it over and over again and it can be proven wrong. Religion can’t be proven wrong because there’s no empirical basis for it, and it is not scientific, it is belief. I have yet to see any evidence outside the Bible supporting its supernatural claims.

Now, on to morality. Once again I disagree with you (of course). I do think morality is a social construction designed to help perpetuate our species. It is a construct so deeply ingrained in our psyche that we believe it to be “true”, but that doesn’t make it so. And don’t get me wrong, I recognize we need these morals, or else there would be total chaos. I’m not disputing the necessity of them, only the truth of them. You say that the concept of right and wrong comes outside of ourselves, but I would argue that a child living in the wilderness, having no human contact, would not share our morals because he would have no concept of them. It’s not innate. It’s taught.

What I think is going on here is you’re mixing rationalism with empiricism. As a rational human I can say yes, murder is wrong. But as an empirical scientists I can also say there is no such thing as wrong because you can’t prove it. I think it’s obvious that we need both. And really what this boils down to is an epistemological argument – the nature of knowledge itself. But however we determine what knowledge is, I simply cannot, empirically or rationally, come to the conclusion that some antiquated book that claims the world is 6,000 years old is infallible and absolutely true.

HER: You haven't formed an argument here, you've made a declaration; a conclusion with no premises, and you twist the counterargument position in an attempt to make it easier to "knock down." Some facts you need to consider; the Bible is not a single unit; it is made up of multiple manuscripts from multiple authors. If there is scripture that validates other scripture within the collection of manuscripts called the Bible, that is not self-validating. It would be like someone collecting many early American political documents into one bound book and then you claiming that that book is self-validating.

Another fact; the Bible has been found to be historically and archaeologically accurate. It is also internally consistent; again across historically reliable manuscripts. It is also prophetically accurate; there are lists of events that scripture has accurately predicted. There is more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other historical writing. The lives and testimonies of the Apostles, and writers of the NT are evidence in and of themselves. I could go on, but you get the picture.

This is all a red herring. Not once did I bring up evolution or the age of the earth. I believe in and completely accept observational science; I also believe in natural selection and speciation. I don't reject scientific evidence, I reject the interpretation of that evidence. I'm also not a dogmatic Young Earth Creationist, though I lean that way. You have your focus completely off base. The only really relevant question is Jesus; who do you say that He is? If you want to rehash discussions of Macro-evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism, do a search, there's plenty of posts on this message board, believe me.

The theory of evolution as it stands now cannot be "proven wrong" either; and it's based on faith, just like my beliefs.

The evidence is there, you've just got to put in the time and effort to study it. There is evidence for the resurrection of Christ (one example: http://www. resurrectionism. com/ ), there is evidence for fulfilled prophecies (one example: http://www. apologeticspress. org/rr/r... f-the-Insp. pdf and another for free: http://www. apologeticspress. org/articles/3077 ), there is evidence for not only fulfilled prophecies, but also Jesus as Messiah (one example: http://www. rr-bb. com/showthread. php?t=8371 ) etc... etc... etc...

As a footnote to the above, it is interesting to find neat little insights in the Bible that show some evidence as well. One example:

Mark 8:22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought. 24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. 25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly

Guess what we find today when individuals who have been blind are cured by surgery? They cannot comprehend what they are seeing. They have sensation, but not perception. They suffer from visual agnosia. They actually have to learn to perceive what they are "seeing" this can be a tough process, and some never fully see like a "normal" person, they never "see" clearly. You can read about an interesting case of this in Oliver Sack's book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. So, Jesus first heals the man's sight, then he heals his perception. Did He miss the perception the first time around? I don't think so - for those of us in this century it shows us that although Mark might not have known it when writing his gospel, now we can see why the blind man Jesus healed could not perceive at first. Our technology backs up the case of Visual agnosia in the Bible.

I should have said that the concept of right and wrong; any right and wrong, regardless of detail, is a part of our being; grafted into us from the outside. If a child had no human contact at all, it is likely he would learn to behave for mere survival's sake; he would be conditioned to react in a seeming non-moral manner; that would not show that he was born without Moral Law.

To put it in a way that you might understand; evolution has mainly only demonstrated the loss of function associated with genes (e.g., blind cave fish) but this only demonstrates that extreme circumstances can bring about a loss of natural function. The extreme hypothetical situation which you posit and the supposed outcome only demonstrates the possibility of the loss of natural function.

My psychologist husband has treated people that have gone through things that are incredibly traumatic and not just a lack of human contact, but negative human contact, and yet, many of these individuals are able to form a conscience, develop a belief in God, and know the true and meaningful difference between right and wrong.

Coming from you, a source that claims that they were made by time and chance, you can't claim absolute knowledge or truth about anything; so it negates any comments you may make; you pull the rug out from under your own feet. I, on the other hand, claim a source that is not bound by space-time; He is not bound by it in the way that we are. He is the repository of absolute knowledge and truth, I pray that you come to know Him, and His Son who who gave His life for mankind, including you. You don't have to come to Him with blind faith, quite the contrary, there's plenty of evidence out there, and why don't you ask Him with an open heart and mind to answer your questions, and to help you come to faith?

ME: I just spent half an hour typing up my response, only to have my internet crash as I was posting it. So unfortunately I’m going to respond in an abbreviated version. I haven't addressed all your points, but I will. Sorry for the inconvienece.

First of all, I have no issues with the Bible from a historical or archaeological perspective, it’s the supernatural that I have problems with.

Now, could you please clarify your beliefs so I can effectively understand them? You say you believe in natural selection, which is a product of evolution, and you don’t believe in the young earth, but both of those facts contradict the Bible, which you base your beliefs on. The Bible claims we were created as we are now – no evolution. How do you account for this? Also, going by the Bible, the universe would only be about 6,000 years old, which we know to be incorrect. Please clarify your stance…You mention you don’t reject this evidence, you reject the interpretation of it…But who are you to question the interpretations of the vast majority of scientists within their field? Are you an expert in molecular biology, or physics? I don’t mean to come off as insulting, it just seems arrogant.

The theory of evolution can be proven wrong. The mark of any good scientific theory is that it’s testable, falsifiable, and makes predictions. Darwin predicted evolution based on his findings, which are falsifiable, and testable. They had no idea about genes 150 years ago, but today genetics reinforces evolution. Had it contradicted the theory it would have come under serious question. The point, however, is that it is falsifiable, and so far it has stood the test of scientific inquiry. Metaphysics, the supernatural, these things are not verifiable, testable, or falsifiable.

I agree with you, philosophically there is no absolute morality.

I don’t think the fact that I argue there is no absolute form of knowledge weakens me argument, and here’s why. The strength of science is that it is willing to change, based on new knowledge. That’s why we call them theories, because even though they are heavily supported through observational evidence, we can always uncover something new, and revise our theories based on it. The ability to adapt, to admit that yes, we may be wrong, but this is the best explanation we have so far. That is a strength that the believer doesn’t have. The believer is arrogant, because no matter how much new evidence we have they will never change their belief, even though they look increasingly ridiculous (the fundamentalists, at least).

With that said, let me ask you: is there anyway you would ever admit you could be wrong? Because if you refuse to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, and with the help of new scientific discovery, you could be wrong, then what are we even doing? I for one readily admit I don’t have all the answers, but we’re getting there, not through superstition, but empirical evidence. Testable evidence. If the theory of evolution is proven wrong tomorrow, I will accept that. Can you say that same about your religion?

HER: Why? Because miracles can't occur therefore they didn't occur and anyone who says they did is wrong because miracles can't occur therefore.... Circular reasoning. There is evidence that miraculous events did indeed occur; the healing of the blind, the resurrection of Christ, fulfillment of prophecy. Do some more research.

Sorry no, the theory of Darwinian evolution postulates that macro-evolution arises from natural selection, not the other way around.

I don't think you are reading my responses; at this point I do indeed believe in a young earth. We were created just as we are; Adam was formed from the ground, and Eve from Adam.

You are making a judgment call that it is incorrect. I happen to disagree. http://www. answersingenesis. org/home/area/faq/young. asp

Who am I? Christian, female, wife, counselor, college instructor. I hold a Master's degree in Counseling psychology, yes, from a secular college. I graduated at every level of secular college with a perfect 4.0 grade point average, including graduate school. My classes included all the sciences. I prize learning and furthering my own education on my own. I'm no expert in either molecular biology or physics, though I am swift enough to learn anything I choose...I'm also smart enough to bow to God, and acknowledge His Son. I teach psychology, Logic, philosophy, and sociology at the college level, yes at a secular college. I go where the evidence leads. I'm not arrogant in myself; but I am boasting in the Lord and thankful for the many blessings He has given me, including the knack of absorbing information.

I would ask you your qualifications, but I see you've been rightly dismissed.

Darwinian evolution is not a good scientific theory; it fails miserably at those things (testability, falsifiable)

Ha! Genetics reinforces ID, and scientists are finding out those little genes and their interactions are more and more complex than they had ever dreamed of. Sorry, evolution just doesn't cut it.

Evolution has become faith; the majority of scientists in positions of power are dead set against any evidence against evolution coming out. But thank God that's changing.

If you cannot claim truth and knowledge; then anything you say is irrelevant.

Science has poked out its own eyes. It starts with a faulty supposition; it is based on naturalism. I do have the answer; it is Christ. Learn about Him, turn to Him, you won't regret it. Macro-Evolution will never be "proven" wrong; they've now set it up that it is no longer falsifiable; also when speaking of the burden of proof, it is the positive or affirmative side that holds the burden, not the side that says macro-evolution does not explain life on this earth. Same thing for abiogenesis.

People have been trying to prove Christianity wrong for thousands of years. What is interesting is that many of them convert to Christianity because of the evidence they find whilst trying to tear it down. McDowell, Strobel, Morison, Greenleaf, the list goes on, including those that started out in other faiths, not just atheism. Go do some serious studying from all sides of the situation.


You have been banned for the following reason:
Troll

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

The end.

[Orgazmo]

BANBANBANBANBAN

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

It's funny because its Darwin. Get it?

[Repugnant Abomination]

[Ugly Bastard]

tl;dr

Repug,

You might like this book called Conversations with God. If I remember, I'll type out a section the author wrote about religion. Don't be fooled by the book's title... it's anything but religious.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Sure, I'll give it a gander. You should read my post too though.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?

So what was the thread about? What is the first post?

Why are you trolling/reading Christian Message boards? This is what I don't understand about activist atheists, why bother jumping into their world and trying to change them? It seems as bad as crazy as johovitz witnesses to me.

Both of the sides of the arguement were more about prose than point. But clearly she is a psychobitch. These christian colleges only purpose is to spoon feed the people that go there debate material for jesus/voodoo shit.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Please let me know if anyone thinks i crossed a line. But know that a lot of special people on this board make me want to cream my jeans.

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

Originally Posted by THEINCREDIBLEdork

This is what I don't understand about activist atheists, why bother jumping into their world and trying to change them? It seems as bad as crazy as johovitz witnesses to me.

My thoughts exactly. Religion is not going to be swayed by people arguing. Ever.

The only way people are going to change their beliefs are through personal experiences.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by SittinOnDubsWGW

My thoughts exactly. Religion is not going to be swayed by people arguing. Ever.

The only way people are going to change their beliefs are through personal experiences.

Ottoman conquest of the Balkans called, he would like a word.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Why is it that I was trolling? I was simply engaging in debate. I don't see anything wrong with that. I do it because I like to think these people can be reached, that deep down they'll see the problems with their beliefs. I guess it's partly personal - I feel like I've lost my entire family to this stuff.

[Ugly Bastard]

Arguing with them probably just reinforces their beliefs.

[Repugnant Abomination]

I know. It's so bitchy.

[Heaven Can Wait]

Originally Posted by SittinOnDubsWGW

My thoughts exactly. Religion is not going to be swayed by people arguing. Ever.

The only way people are going to change their beliefs are through personal experiences.

I also troll christian message boards, but only because I play football for the league they're in, Evolution is the only big one that I apsolutely own them on, with the new e-coli evolving.
Real evidence for micro evolution.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/sho..._Anti-nonsense