Jump to content


Photo

Answering Atheist Arguments


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 DawnS

DawnS

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Interests:apologetics, history, astronomy; sewing, cross-stitching, and other crafts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mayodan, North Carolina

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:29 AM

Recently I was attacked by an atheist on another forum. It may be a waste of time to continue the debate with him, as he seems to be just repeating his same arguments over and over, but I am looking at this as a learning experience, and I would be interested in hearing some perspectives from you guys on his points, to see if I have missed anything.

His main points are as follows:

1. God cannot be benevolent because of the atrocities He ordered in the Old Testament. This person posted a long list of scriptures concerning killings, rape, and slavery. I would be particularly interested in some perspective on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 21:20-21

2. I can't possibly know that I'm on the right side (between God and Satan). This person also said that he had jokingly made a contract with Satan, and nothing bad had happened to him, so he just didn't "buy it" that Satan was evil.

I'm a little confused as to why he would debate the second point, considering that he supposedly doesn't believe in either God or Satan. I suppose he is just trying to undermine my faith. If so, it's not working :)

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5566 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 February 2012 - 11:36 AM

I'm sorry I'm not as mindful of the theology arguments however here is one you can shoot back at him, (if you feel so inclined ;) )


Ask whether he has evidence that there is no God, ( none of which is scientific since God is supernatural and thus is outside the bounds of scientific inquiry). Claims about evil or whatever doesn't negate God's existence it only questions his character, ( if this argument is claimed it is a non sequitur)


Therefore since there is no evidence for atheism, the atheistic belief itself is based on the argument from ignorance logical fallacy.

"An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. "

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

#3 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 27 February 2012 - 11:57 AM

Many times people ask me how a loving God could order the deaths of an entire tribe of people, including women and children.

They way I heard it explained somewhere was that the Israelites were told by God to possess the land he'd given them. If they intermarried with the locals, they would take the sins of polytheism, adultery, etc into their culture and "gone native", in a sense. So all traces of the previous culture had to be wiped away.

As for the children, I admit that it sounds awful...but there is one consolation. I firmly believe that children who have never had the opportunity to know Christ go straight to heaven after death. So by killing the body, they save the soul from the inevitable results of living in a wicked, pagan society. I still imagine that many of the men couldn't do it and were sick from the killing, so mercy compelled them to stop. And mercy was their downfall, as native customs crept into their lives and turned them away from God.

#4 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:29 PM

Recently I was attacked by an atheist on another forum. It may be a waste of time to continue the debate with him, as he seems to be just repeating his same arguments over and over, but I am looking at this as a learning experience, and I would be interested in hearing some perspectives from you guys on his points, to see if I have missed anything.

His main points are as follows:

1. God cannot be benevolent because of the atrocities He ordered in the Old Testament. This person posted a long list of scriptures concerning killings, rape, and slavery. I would be particularly interested in some perspective on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 21:20-21

2. I can't possibly know that I'm on the right side (between God and Satan). This person also said that he had jokingly made a contract with Satan, and nothing bad had happened to him, so he just didn't "buy it" that Satan was evil.

I'm a little confused as to why he would debate the second point, considering that he supposedly doesn't believe in either God or Satan. I suppose he is just trying to undermine my faith. If so, it's not working :)

he is just an ignorant is no that easy make a contract with satan ts a long process... you must do horrible things...like eat a cat alive....or get the a human skull from a graveyard (but you must make sure he wasnt a christian ) etc.and you advance in the satanic path is not just sign a paper..satan..i give you my soul atte your name .this guy is another of those guys who thinks you are an ignorant because believe in God and the thinks he is a genius because has read dawkins , sagan books

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:20 PM

Recently I was attacked by an atheist on another forum. It may be a waste of time to continue the debate with him, as he seems to be just repeating his same arguments over and over, but I am looking at this as a learning experience, and I would be interested in hearing some perspectives from you guys on his points, to see if I have missed anything.

His main points are as follows:

1. God cannot be benevolent because of the atrocities He ordered in the Old Testament. This person posted a long list of scriptures concerning killings, rape, and slavery. I would be particularly interested in some perspective on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 21:20-21


http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=164

Slavery meant different things back then because there were 3 forms.
1) Slavery where you were forced against you will to work for someone else.
2) Slavery where you were made to pay restitution to someone you did wrong and the king ordered it. And you could not get out of it until the debt was paid.
3) Slavery where a person took pity on someone who basically had nothing. Therefore takes them in and takes care of them while they work for them. The deal usually was to continue getting fed and having a place to sleep you did whatever work was given you. But you could leave anytime you wanted.

2. I can't possibly know that I'm on the right side (between God and Satan). This person also said that he had jokingly made a contract with Satan, and nothing bad had happened to him, so he just didn't "buy it" that Satan was evil.

I'm a little confused as to why he would debate the second point, considering that he supposedly doesn't believe in either God or Satan. I suppose he is just trying to undermine my faith. If so, it's not working :)


So basically he's a Satanist. Here's what the Bible says:
mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
mk 3:26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
lk 11:18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

So for Satan to allow something bad to happen to him while he;s being used by him would be Satan fighting against himself. But when he's done the bad thing that will happen is that he will die and burn in Hell. Why? Satan's main objectives are:

mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

jn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

Satan is not after his body so why would he do anything? Satan is after his soul so when the time comes he will kill the body to get his prize.

#6 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:05 PM

When he talks about the "atrocities" he assumes that God doesn't have good reason to punish those who sin. The Bible consistently speaks that we should treat others well, God ordered countries to be wiped out likely because they were dangerous to Israel. Notice that when they didn't listen to God many times another country would overtake them.

When he said he made a contract with the devil and wasn't harmed he is deceiving himself. The devil wants us to sin, and sin itself is harmful to us in many ways. So, his "contract with the devil" has certainly harmed him in some way.

These are very short answers but unfortunately I'm short on time.

#7 DawnS

DawnS

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Interests:apologetics, history, astronomy; sewing, cross-stitching, and other crafts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mayodan, North Carolina

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:41 AM

http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=164

Slavery meant different things back then because there were 3 forms.
1) Slavery where you were forced against you will to work for someone else.
2) Slavery where you were made to pay restitution to someone you did wrong and the king ordered it. And you could not get out of it until the debt was paid.
3) Slavery where a person took pity on someone who basically had nothing. Therefore takes them in and takes care of them while they work for them. The deal usually was to continue getting fed and having a place to sleep you did whatever work was given you. But you could leave anytime you wanted.



So basically he's a Satanist. Here's what the Bible says:
mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
mk 3:26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
lk 11:18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

So for Satan to allow something bad to happen to him while he;s being used by him would be Satan fighting against himself. But when he's done the bad thing that will happen is that he will die and burn in Hell. Why? Satan's main objectives are:

mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

jn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

Satan is not after his body so why would he do anything? Satan is after his soul so when the time comes he will kill the body to get his prize.


Good points. That gives me some things to think about.

#8 DawnS

DawnS

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Interests:apologetics, history, astronomy; sewing, cross-stitching, and other crafts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mayodan, North Carolina

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:45 AM

he is just an ignorant is no that easy make a contract with satan ts a long process... you must do horrible things...like eat a cat alive....or get the a human skull from a graveyard (but you must make sure he wasnt a christian ) etc.and you advance in the satanic path is not just sign a paper..satan..i give you my soul atte your name .this guy is another of those guys who thinks you are an ignorant because believe in God and the thinks he is a genius because has read dawkins , sagan books


I know someone who got possessed once, but that was after years of involvement in the occult. He is a totally different person now and won't even talk about the things he was involved in back then.

I had that same thought about this guy. He seems to think he is pretty brilliant. Twice he has accused me of not having read the Bible because I disagree with his point that God is not benevolent.

#9 DawnS

DawnS

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Interests:apologetics, history, astronomy; sewing, cross-stitching, and other crafts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mayodan, North Carolina

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:51 AM

Many times people ask me how a loving God could order the deaths of an entire tribe of people, including women and children.

They way I heard it explained somewhere was that the Israelites were told by God to possess the land he'd given them. If they intermarried with the locals, they would take the sins of polytheism, adultery, etc into their culture and "gone native", in a sense. So all traces of the previous culture had to be wiped away.

As for the children, I admit that it sounds awful...but there is one consolation. I firmly believe that children who have never had the opportunity to know Christ go straight to heaven after death. So by killing the body, they save the soul from the inevitable results of living in a wicked, pagan society. I still imagine that many of the men couldn't do it and were sick from the killing, so mercy compelled them to stop. And mercy was their downfall, as native customs crept into their lives and turned them away from God.


I agree that children go to Heaven, but I had not thought of that point, that killing the body would save the soul.

#10 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:24 AM

A simple thing that I've always wondered is ....given the choice between a world with God and a world without Him, why would anyone choose the latter?

You're left with:

A) No objective standard to decide what is good/evil. Every man is, in effect, his own "god".
B ) No morality, since morality cannot exist without A.
C) No hope of eternity; the life you live is all you have. Then it's over and you cease to exist. This gives rise to hedonism.
D) No clear picture of how the world and its inhabitants came into being.

With God, you're given:

A) An objective standard that spells out what is good/evil.
B ) Clearly-defined moral standards inherited from A.
C) Hope for a life of eternal joy with the Creator of the universe.
D) A time-line for the creation of the world and its creatures.

Do you notice the main difference between the two? The scenario without God leaves mankind free to decide his own fate, conjure his own morality, decide for himself what is good and what is evil, and think for himself about the creation of the world and stars. It does have an appeal, admittedly, dreaming of a world where man is his own judge and jury. But the reality of that dream is not so good, as we see in nations under the grip of atheist regimes. One man will always be more powerful than another, and when that man enforces his idea of what is good and proper, he'll invariably harm others.

The second scenario gives man an objective standard of good/evil, morality, hope for an eternity with God after this life ends, and knowledge of what came before us. When a righteous leader enforces God's plan, while remaining true to the word and not allowing his own desires to taint his responsibility, then a nation prospers. The fact that some leaders have fallen away from that perfect plan and attempt to use God's word against their people doesn't mean God is wicked or that His Word is wrong. It just means that men are fallible. That doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to follow His commands.

#11 DawnS

DawnS

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Interests:apologetics, history, astronomy; sewing, cross-stitching, and other crafts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mayodan, North Carolina

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:37 AM

A simple thing that I've always wondered is ....given the choice between a world with God and a world without Him, why would anyone choose the latter?

You're left with:

A) No objective standard to decide what is good/evil. Every man is, in effect, his own "god".
B ) No morality, since morality cannot exist without A.
C) No hope of eternity; the life you live is all you have. Then it's over and you cease to exist. This gives rise to hedonism.
D) No clear picture of how the world and its inhabitants came into being.

With God, you're given:

A) An objective standard that spells out what is good/evil.
B ) Clearly-defined moral standards inherited from A.
C) Hope for a life of eternal joy with the Creator of the universe.
D) A time-line for the creation of the world and its creatures.

Do you notice the main difference between the two? The scenario without God leaves mankind free to decide his own fate, conjure his own morality, decide for himself what is good and what is evil, and think for himself about the creation of the world and stars. It does have an appeal, admittedly, dreaming of a world where man is his own judge and jury. But the reality of that dream is not so good, as we see in nations under the grip of atheist regimes. One man will always be more powerful than another, and when that man enforces his idea of what is good and proper, he'll invariably harm others.

The second scenario gives man an objective standard of good/evil, morality, hope for an eternity with God after this life ends, and knowledge of what came before us. When a righteous leader enforces God's plan, while remaining true to the word and not allowing his own desires to taint his responsibility, then a nation prospers. The fact that some leaders have fallen away from that perfect plan and attempt to use God's word against their people doesn't mean God is wicked or that His Word is wrong. It just means that men are fallible. That doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to follow His commands.


I agree with you. However, this atheist I've been talking to is claiming that morality came about through evolution because it is needed for the survival of the species. What would be the best way to counter that claim?

#12 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:56 AM

That smacks of Christopher Hitchens. Have to wonder ...to which population is he referring? Various people groups often think it in their best interest to do a thing. That doesn't mean it's in the best interest of "the population", meaning the human race as a whole. Germany thought it was a grand plan to destroy the Jews. Stalin thought it was a fantastic idea to enforce militant atheism and execute Christians. The Romans imagined that throwing Christians to the lions was in their best interest, since it removed a "dangerous" new faith from their city.

By claiming morality of any sort, he's borrowing from Christianity. Without God's commands, there is no morality. The very concept does not exist, for without an eternal yardstick, so to speak, you cannot measure good or evil. The ultimate question still remains: who is the ultimate arbitrator? Who ultimately decides what is in the best interest of the people? If it's isn't God, then it's man. One man has never agreed with another concerning what is best for us all. Which means every man will have his own definition ....which equates to no moral standard whatsoever.
  • Ron likes this

#13 DawnS

DawnS

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Interests:apologetics, history, astronomy; sewing, cross-stitching, and other crafts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mayodan, North Carolina

Posted 29 February 2012 - 09:36 AM

Never mind my question about Deuteronomy 22. When I look at the verses in context, the answer is obvious.

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:36 AM

I agree with you. However, this atheist I've been talking to is claiming that morality came about through evolution because it is needed for the survival of the species. What would be the best way to counter that claim?


You see this is where they get you if you accept their "words" as evidence. He "claims" morality happened because it was part of survival, right? But actual "science" demands that he show proof of this. And he cannot.

You see when in the mind of the evolutionist, they accept evolution as an absolute then whatever exists in reality they also accept as a part of evolution even though there is no evidence, a process, or a mechanism for it. So their logic and justification for it is to use "words and claims" in the place of any real science. So basically what he is betting on is that you will take him at his "word" and therefore your acceptance gives his words the power to change truth and make new realities (at least in his mind). What you "always" have to do in that situation is ask him where does he get that idea from and where is the evidence for it.

If he uses the logic that evolution is true by implying that because something exists therefore evolution is the only answer regardless of whether he can provide you with evidence or a process. Then it is only by words that he thinks he can prove this which is not science.

A evolutionist that worships evolution to an absolute and thinks their words are golden and contain the power to change reality will basically only use words to explain things where evidence or observable processes do not exist. The other part of the equation is that he selling you a used car LOL. what I mean by that is that to get you to buy or place doubt into what you currently believe he's only going to tell you what is always "good" about what he's selling. Just like a used car salesman is only going to tell you the good things about a used car to get you to buy it.

You see selling is not science, proving is. And you need evidence and observable processes to do this, not words and claims that cannot be backed up.

You see all he's doing is using words, words , words. Your objective is to turn the discussion into real science and that is where his claims will fall apart. So no matter how many words he uses you have to stick to your guns of evidence and observable processes. And when he dodges this you point out that there was really no science to his claim just opinions, or he would have provided what you asked for and shown the real science that existed. and add: Nice try....

Proving evolution is a play on words and how you use them. And since this mainly a word game, you have to learn how to shut the word game down. So you:

1) Stick to your guns that words prove nothing and that actual science has to have evidence and observable processes.
2) That when he cannot meet the criteria of doing this that you point that out which shuts down his word game machine.
3) When he starts to try and insult you, you won. Because when he cannot provide real science, insults are the only thing left which means he just declared you the winner.
4) Since insults are just another word game to bring down your point of proving he had no science to back up his words and claims you have to diffuse those insults. How you do this is that you never react to them as he would want you to. Reacting badly gives what he says power over you. So what you do is take that power away. Saying things like: Come on, you can think of better insults than that, Did not your side teach you how to hate people just for disagreeing with you? If he continues you just keep up the same style of response never crossing the line of reacting to what he says. What you are doing here that diffuses the situation you are showing how childish and immature his actions are. and a child cannot have power so you basically take his power away. The thing you have to watch out for while doing this is to keep your responses aimed at his responses only. It is tempting to add a little side punch or insult but that would be you acting like him which gives him the power back. You have to be the adult here, and it will be that maturity that you show that diffuses his immature efforts to insult you when his science cannot support his claims.

#15 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:35 AM

A perfect example of the problem you face is the debate going on here: http://www.evolution...l=&fromsearch=1

He's trying to prove what he believes by words and opinions. Notice how quickly he makes his claims and opinions sound like truth and reality and uses his words in the same way.

Added: You see the more he posts in there the more it turns into a word game. Not a evidence game. And certainly not anything scientific. So I hold to my guns of making him prove what he claims scientifically and he continues to use word games. This debate will progress the usual way to either frustration as he figures out he is going to have to back up his claims with science, or insults will soon start as he realizes the forum is not a push over like he thought it was going to be.

His reaction determines my course of action. But it's nothing new this goes on in over 90% of the debates I get involved in. The thing you have to do is remember what works and tweak it. Keeping a journal is not a bad idea.

#16 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:34 PM

..this atheist I've been talking to is claiming that morality came about through evolution because it is needed for the survival of the species.


So why hasn't immorality been weeded out?

The evolutionist will probably argue that immorality also has survival benefits. It is just another example of how evolution is practically impossible to falsify..




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users