Lunawalk

I was just wondering why God would want people to have faith in his existance, if he wanted people to love and serve him. and not go to hell. If we had evidence we can make an informed decision.

rick87

If there was definite evidence of God then there would be no need to have faith in God, and everybody would beleive in God out of self interest, instead of love, for God.

Sparrow

What difference does that make? Does that mean that those who 'choose' to believe as a result of Pascal's Wager are comdemned? That would seem to be belief solely due to self interest. Does this render the entire threat of hell impotent? Because if I'm just believing in order to avoid hell is that not blatant self interest?

Stacey Melissa

Not all Christians are willfully ignorant. Some of them are just ignorant.

When arguing with them, you're pretty unlikely to get many concessions right that moment, but it's often still worth a little time to argue. Forget about nitpicky little Bible contradictions (unless they are inerrantists who rarely actually read their Bible). Drop some theological bombshells instead. And choose your bombs wisely, based on how the person came to the faith and where they are now.

Start out by attacking the concept of faith itself. Ask them the process by which they came to the faith. Then apply that same process to a couple other religions. In every case, those other religions will end up being true too!

If your opponent came to Christianity through some profound experience, ask them what they think of similar experiences that happen for adherents to all other religions, not to mention cokeheads. What makes those experiences any less real? How can we tell which ones are true? Answer: We can't.

If your opponent came to Christianity because someone presented some of the popular proofs for God's existence to them, then take those arguments and apply them to Allah or Zeus, or whatever other god you can think of. Those Gods will exist too!

Maybe your opponent is only in it for the afterlife insurance policy, sometimes known as Pascal's Wager. If you apply it to other religions, then it ends up that you should follow them, too. Yet you can only follow one at most, so it's still a crapshoot and the insurance policy is worthless. The premiums (wasted Sunday mornings, to start with) are pretty steep considering the probable payout of $0.

Maybe your opponent was simply indoctrinated into Christianity in the nursery. In that case, it may be enough just to introduce them to some Eastern philosophies, just so they know something else is out there besides atheism.

Now that you've disposed of faith, you're ready to arm your thermo-theological-nuclear arsenal. You know what that is, right? If not, learn it, and learn it well. The Argument from Evil. The Argument from Nonbelief. And the Incompatible Properties arguments. But they have defenses. Know their defenses better than they know their defenses. Know the Freewill Defense, the Testing Defense, the Soul-making Defense, and the Unknown Purpose Defense at a minimum. And know their doctrines better than they know their doctrines. Use their own doctrines against them when they try to defend against your nukes.

Christians like to use average Joe's as what happens to all Christians in their examples. But that's not the whole story. How do their doctrines affect Average Joe, Mentally-handicapped Robby, and SIDS-victim Jenny. Does the doctrine work consistently and fairly for all of the above on Earth, in Heaven, and in hell? For example, if God has this great place called "Heaven" all set up for us, then why didn't he just make it that way to begin with? Maybe he has to test us first, says the Christian. So is he testing Mentally-handicapped Robby and SIDS-victim Jenny?

If there is anything left of them after this, then you can start dragging out the Bible contradictions. And you can give them a proper history about how the Bible really came to be.

Somewhere along the line, you'll probably also have to defend evolution. You'll have to knock over the Argument from Design. You'll have to tell them how it is that the universe exists on its own. So know the Big Bang Theory and Evolution.

And if all that isn't enough, send 'em this-a-way.

rick87

Just beleiving in God so that you won't go to hell is not truly beleiving in God. When Christians say beleive in God it means more than just acknowledgeing his existance. It means loving and obeying him as well.

Hell is not an impotent threat to everyone. Many people have been converted to Christianity after hearing about hell.
But to many people who have made up their minds that their is definetly no God or Heaven or hell, then the threat of hell will be impotent.

Stacey Melissa

As opposed to what they do now?

Stacey Melissa

You know your parents exist, right? I'm assuming you've got some physical evidence of that. So you can believe in them, and trust in them, and love them, and obey them all while having pretty conclusive physical evidence that they exist.


Yeah, except the "made up their minds" part. It's more like, "came to the conclusion."

rick87

true, but completley irrelevant to what i said.

uh, they mean the same thing you know. "made up their minds" is an informal way of saying "came to the conclusion"

Lunawalk

Well if there is no definite evidence for God, why should I believe and serve him. If the bible is true about god than it would be in my best interest to be an servant because basically god says obey or else.
Lunawalk

Starboy

This train of logic always amazes me. The logical conclusion is, if there is no god then the bible is made up by people and they are essentially getting people to be servants to them. You realize that the people that created the bible are the Catholics.

Starboy