Biff the unclean

Hmmmm? I wonder what would happen if she told him that she wanted to help "save" him and bring him out of darkness and into the light? Bet that would go over big.

Doctor X

Oh indeed.

However, one should try to take the "high road." If anything, it causes the opponent to lose his composure first.

--J.D.

Warcraft3

Hello QueenofSwords:


As someone who has been in the specific role of being a "Bible-study leader" that people would frequently come to for various answers (including skeptics, atheists, etc) I am curious as to this scheduled discussion came about. So if you wouldnt mind sharing....how exactly did it come about? Who initiated the meeting and for what purpose?

I have only had a few "scheduled" meetings with people (both skeptics and Christians) and not one of them was at my request. So I guess I am wondering about the very nature of your meeting.

I do believe there needs to be more interaction and understanding between atheists and Christians. Maybe I say that only because I am a Christian who has several very close friends who are atheists (whom I debate with often), but I think both sides have some misconceptions about the other perspective.

Atheism is certainly a perspective that is rational and sensible (although I disagree with it and think it is false), but often Christians give atheists an unfair label (and vice versa).

As to the moral argument....it is not one I personally use as a Christian. To say that a person can not be moral and good without God or religious belief is ridiculous. I know plenty of moral atheists that prove this argument wrong.

While I do think there are 2 (possibly 3) angles where a Theist could make an argument related to morality........the "an atheist cant truly be moral" and "the atheist has no objective basis for morality but I do" arguments are not among them.

So, hopefully you can correct any misconceptions this man might have concerning atheists by meeting with him.

Good luck


Russ

Kruzkal

Before the date of debate phone him and ask a few questions to get an understanding into what he actually believes in first, like if he is he a fundimentalist, which version of the bible he uses etc. Explain that you need to know exactly what he is trying to get you to believe in. Make notes if necessary to reference back to when debunking his arguments later in the actual debate. Do some homework and form arguments based on the basics of his beliefs. Doing so means you can steer the topic of debate to specific arguments you have formed beforehand. You are more likely to whip his ass if he is in your homeground.

In the debate divert the attention to his beliefs instead of yours . Afterall there are more to talk about in beliefs than the lack of it. Also he can't convert you when he is busy questioning his own beliefs. The followings are possible points for you to refine and put to use. Readers please don't start debating the following points as its not the purpose of this thread. And they are not, by all means perfect as I don't know what exactly that preacher believes (and the fact that I am writting this at 04:30 GMT from the top of my head).

If he is a fundy, simply overwhelm him with more biblical contradictions than he can possibly handle. Try use obvious ones that he can't play with words or add his own ideas to deny like . . .

Numbers 23:19 KJV
God is not like men, who lie; He is not a human who changes his mind. Whatever he promises, he does; He speaks and it is done.

Exodus 32:14 KJV
So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened.

He needs to be truely "logiacally challenged" to think there're no contradictions in the bible.

If he is not a fundy tell him that his alleged omipotent and omiscient god has failed to deliver his words to his followers without misinterpretations. Ask him does he base his beliefs on misinterpretations. Ask him from what basis does he conclude one statement of the bible is true and another one false.

Ask him why he believes. Ask why until the answer eventually becomes "I take the existence of god on faith," or "faith is my reason for believing," or something similar. I think those statements are, strictly speaking, incorrect. Because faith is the belief, its not the reason for the belief. Faith itself implies there're no reasons (or no evidence to support reasons)!

Ask for his definition of faith, which is most likely to be along the lines of "to believe without the presence of evidence" derieved from . . .

Hebrews 11:1 KJV
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Prove to him faith to his definition is irrational. Modify this to suit his definition respectively: Faith is a human behavior. Human behaviors are rational if it stands to logical reasoning. Logical reasoning requires evidence. To believe without the presence of evidence is to believe without logical reasoning. And hence faith is irrational.

If you can convince him that faith is irrationl, and that he is irrational because he has faith. The choice of whether to continue debating with an irrational person or to inform a mental institution they'll have a new patient soon, is yours !

Best is to ask him many questions. Note his answers, then ask other questions and slowly lead him to contradict answers he had given before. If he claims logic does not apply to god then remind him he is only human and those where his contradictions.

PS: steadele, atheists could objectively base their morality on the survival of humanity/planet/etc. If my death would cause the destruction of all religions, I'll proudly cease to exist.

__________________

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on unreasonable men.
- George Bernard Shaw

Gamer4Fire

Thanks bud. Personally I'd keep alive and try to find another solution. You know, self-preservation and all that jazz.

Overwhelming them with questions, isn't that a christian technique? Ask more questions than they could possibly have answers to to prove your point?

Kruzkal

Well atheists never claim to have all the answers or the abolute truth. What we don't know does not imply "the act of god". Theists on the other hand often claim to have all the answers and the abolute truth. So whilst we can just answer "we don't know, wait a few years for science", they can't! One contradiction and pfff to their absolute truth !

__________________

I believe that at every level of society - familial, tribal, national and international - the key to a happier and more successful world is the growth of compassion. We do not need to become religious, nor do we need to believe in an ideology. All that is necessary is for each of us to develop our good human qualities.
-Tenzin Gyatso

Warcraft3

Hello Kruzkal:

Well, you could not objectively base your morality on the survival of humanity/planet/etc......but you certainly could do so on a subjective basis.

Its subjective because each persons definition of what is good for the survival of humanity/planet/etc is not identical. The definition of "good for the survival of humanity/planet/etc" is subject to personal beleifs, experiences, feelings, etc.

So while I think such a basis is definately practical (and one can make a strong argument in favor of this basis for morality), it is still subjective.




Russ

Angrillori

Here's the thing, regardless of what a person thinks is good or bad for the survival of the species, any given act is either good or bad for the survival of society. An act will have consequences. Those consequences will help or hinder a community's survival.

In reference to the previous poster, whether or not I believe religion is good for survival of humanity, eliminating religion will impact survival either for better or worse.

So, while interpretations of what may or may not be better may differ, the fact of what ACTUALLY IS better will remain the same.

It is a question of what actually happens rather than how we interpret what happens.

It is this which has molded our morality. This very objective standard of what actually happened has shaped our morality. The standard of what actually happened. If something hindered a community it was, naturally and objectively, eliminated. If it aided a community's survival, then, what actually happened, allowed that community to flourish, and that behavior to be encouraged. It is the ultimate in objectivity: what actually happens.

Rusting Car Bumper

No. That is exactly what they did.

Biff, I am not going to convince you and frankly I don't care to try. You are a fundamentalist atheist. I can no more convince you that fairness and equity are ways that we will best get along with believers than I can convice the fundamentalists that there is no god. I do not care to do either.

You can go off and chant "Kill Fundie" while invoking the ghost of Malcolm X and I'll stick with MLK.

DC

Kruzkal

How about genetics? Some moral values could just be genetic survival mechanisms like emotions embedded your DNA.

To your definition even theists only subjective morality such as their own interpretations due to experiences etc.

__________________

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
-George Bernard Shaw