Jump to content

The Fool Proof Way To Beat An Atheist In A Religous Or Science Debate. (this Is Gold, I Promise)


Robbobrob

Recommended Posts

So, i picked up this gem this afternoon in another forum. He is convinced he has defeated us all with this. I hate walls of text myself, and when I told him, he was like, "Thats cool, because if you would have read it and disagreed I would have won anyway. Forfeiture will save you some heartache, smart move."

 

Anyway, since most Christian posters here are fly by poopings, I figured you guys could have fun with this one.

 

The first thing to do is educate yourself on the matters of science and theology. Science is constantly redefining terms and re-evaluating old assertions, so always brush up on your science. As far as theology goes, Christians, I've noticed most of us are ignorant about our own faith, so what does that say about any scientific knowledge we may have? Learn your faith and learn science or forget being an effective witness. You'll never catch these guys posting the crap I see most of you post.

 

Becareful using the word 'proof'. I don't see anything wrong with it, but thats a one way ticket to getting atheists or scientists to distract you from the real situation and cause a terminology dispute. An atheist is always looking for ways to distract and split hairs, so stay on your toes. Also ignore the spinners and fakers, they'll just piss you off, and anyone with half a brain knows that one who spins and twists ones intent has zero credibilty. Also ignore the micro-managers that gripe about being too in general about topics. They love to say foolish things like "not every atheist feels that way" Or "How do you know what scientists are saying, have you talked to them all?" Again, it's a distraction tactic. Watch for these because most debates will require you to force the atheist or agnostic back to the topic, because they're always looking for an exit strategy.

 

The evidence is starting to mount that the Bible could not possibly have been literal in in the early chapters of Genesis. So young earthers need not apply. The prophecies are clearly symbolic, and I think the creation account is as well, quit arrogantly assuming that you know the creation account in Genesis is a literal and specific description.

 

When looking at the creation accounts in Genesis from the proper perspective, it's blatant the findings of science and the claims of Scripture compare very well. The cosmos came first, then came lesser life until the creation of man, the 7 creation days are the 7 epochs science is currently offering, man was made up of the elements of the universe and the expansion of the universe is mentioned (but not in Genesis, thats in psalms, job and proverbs.) However, the Bible speaks in generalities when speaking about creation, obviously leaving much to the readers imagination. To say the Bible is blatantly specific on creation is bogus, thats what science is for, He's deemed fit for us to study these things through observance, not His written word.

 

The rest of what I'm about to say is pretty much the nail in the coffin. Despite the arrogant boastful claims, there is no real evidence for macro-evolution. No matter how fancy the word or brutal the insult you may recieve, they're lying. The only way to observe evolution through the fossil record is to find a consecutive string of fossils recording the evolution of a species transformation. There is no such things as one "missing link" because one fossil of a bi-pedal ape, is just that, a bi-pedal ape. Often they will then say it's impossible due to climate conditions for such fossilization, but thats actually completely false. While currently earth appears this way, the fact of the matter is, there's been plenty of ice ages and several ways out of a supposed 3 billion years of evolution, to provide a couple of cases at least in the fossil record where this would be observed. Theres not. Remember this when they say "I want evidence for God".

 

When they bring up biology and say that evolution has been observed, they're talkig about micro (not macro) evolution every time. Micro-evolution are slight changes in species due to conditions, but the species is still the same species and hasn't transformed at all. Slight changes due to conditions is about as impressive as gaining muscle mass from body building or shivering in the cold. Those are not accurate comparrisons of course, but you get my drift.

 

Still, I have seen nothing in the Bible that would suggest evolution contradicts God. Purely on lack of evidence is why one should be skeptical of macro-evolution. Evolution looks like the molding and creating of life anyway, so who's to say God couldn't have done it like that? How can one say that's not "making man in His image?" Make sure you make it clear that evolution does not threaten your faith, or you'll be accused of having a religious bias and ruin your credibility. Evolution poses zero threat to the word of God, so stop acting like it does.

 

Speaking of evidence, this is where the atheist or agnostic shows their true colors. They claim the burden of proof is on us to proove theres a God. Existance, cosmos and life is all the evidence one needs. Why? Because nothing has ever been witnessed to happen without a cause, the burden of proof is on them to show how matter can spontaneously arise or eternally exist without cause. It's far more logical to believe in a God without cause, than matter without cause. Check out a post I made yesterday I think it was called something to the affect of "Would Christians be more effective if they were fundementalist?" It's a great example of how to melt an atheists mind.

 

Scientists have two options and two alone. Either matter in some shape form or fashion has always existed or it had a begining. Check out the thread I mentioned and look at the outrageous things they say when confronted with this common sensical fact. It is 100% impossible for it not to be at least one or the other. Most scientists today believe matter has eternally existed, but I've noticed many in this forum do not realize this yet. Anyway, if matter can eternally exist there is no way science is the proper tool to observe it. Since you can't find the begining of something eternal, you can't thoroughly observe it's nature. If one can't predict, one can't search, therefore one can't observe. Science is 1.Predict, 2.search and 3.observe. Therefore it's out of line for one to ask for observable evidence of something eternal (especially God) when one can't even thoroughly observe the eternal existance of matter.

 

Always keep your eyes open for scientific findings that are also attributes of God. It's stunning how similar both sides sound describing two different things. The Bible says God spoke into nothingness when creating this universe, so if they say it came from nothing, you got 'em. If they say matter in some way shape or form has always existed, you got em believing in eternity as well. The only difference being that one believes in an eternal living being and one believes in eternal non-living matter. It's a win win situation for the Christian here as it's absurd to assume life can't be eternal when non-living matter can be. If life exists amongst matter that it is eternal, then believing in the possibilty of God is right on par with believing in the possibilty of aliens. Nothing but pure logic.

 

Since scientists believe matter is eternal and we see the existance of life amongst things that are allegedly eternal, It is gross speculation to assume there isn't an eternal living being as well. There is nothing they can say to this as it is completely out of line to assume such believing what they do. This is shows that it is a substantial leap of faith to assume there is no God.

 

Also notice the hypocricy. God has revealed himself through His creation and various attributes of His character are obvious. Yet these things are absurd to them when describing a living being, but perfectly fine when describing non living matter. Trust me, you'll stump em. I actually had people in here tell me yesterday that it was mere speculation to believe that something had to either begin or always exist. It was the most spectacular display of denial and biased closed mindedness I have ever seen.

 

 

Oh and try to ignore people that accuse you of using the "strawman arguement". Anytime someone builds a case for anything someone is always going to toss in that tired and old cliche. It is a red herring tactic, remeber they always want to get away from what you're saying and they will do anything to get you talking about something else other than your main point. It's also a cop-out for many because they utterly don't know what to say to the case in front of them. Before you know it you'll be arguing about scarecrows instead of the fact that many scienctists and atheists are hypocrites and are making extraordinary claims with little evidence. You'll know it's over when you see them reach for that last absurdity and claim that it is speculation to believe that the universe either began or always existed. It's clearly oxy-moronic and shows the extreme measure of faith they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since scientists believe matter is eternal ...

I'm not so sure about that.

 

I think the Big Rip hypothesis say that matter will eventually disintegrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, for one, he himself admits that:

 

To say the Bible is blatantly specific on creation is bogus, thats what science is for, He's deemed fit for us to study these things through observance, not His written word.

 

So right there he specifically is stating that the Bible is not inerrant and may simply be the words of man. If you can apply that sentiment to the first few chapters of a book, then you *must* apply it to the rest of the book (Genesis). If Genesis is false then you must bring into question every other book in the Bible and especially the Gospels since "original sin" was the reason for the necessity of salvation.

 

They claim the burden of proof is on us to proove theres a God. Existance, cosmos and life is all the evidence one needs.

 

The burden of proof is on the believer and existence, cosmos, and life do not prove that God or any "god" exists. They prove that *something* happened, but when it really comes down to the ultimate basics of it we simply DO NOT KNOW. Maybe it was a god, maybe it was the big bang, maybe it was something else. (Maybe the "big bang" happens when all the galaxies explode in a few trillion years, rips a hole in the space/time fabric of the universe and begins the process all over again...the end is the beginning/the beginning is the end)

 

While currently earth appears this way, the fact of the matter is, there's been plenty of ice ages and several ways out of a supposed 3 billion years of evolution, to provide a couple of cases at least in the fossil record where this would be observed. Theres not. Remember this when they say "I want evidence for God".

 

Well, there are many, many, many scientists who disagree with you. How about reading their opinions instead of just the ones that agree with your opinion?

 

Since you can't find the begining of something eternal, you can't thoroughly observe it's nature.

 

So this would apply to an eternal "god" as well. How can there even be a Bible that tells us all about God when he's eternal and unobservable? By your own argument the Bible is nothing more than mans *speculations* of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, i picked up this gem this afternoon in another forum. He is convinced he has defeated us all with this. I hate walls of text myself, and when I told him, he was like, "Thats cool, because if you would have read it and disagreed I would have won anyway. Forfeiture will save you some heartache, smart move."

 

Okay I get it, by writing pages and pages of text that make our eyes glaze over just scrolling down and insult our intelligence when we do read a few things to the point where we don't even want to respond to the garbage, means they win their argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could take apart his arguments, but I'm feeling lazy since he's not here trying to make his case. So I'll just be brief. The whole argument is flawed. For one thing "atheists" don't have a single school of thought, so he can't claim this argument addresses all of them. Secondly the argument, "Most scientists today believe matter has eternally existed, but I've noticed many in this forum do not realize this yet", is a blatantly false statement. Matter was created. So his entire argument that it's not so unlike believing a eternal being exists is made entirely moot.

 

Finally his telling people that to reject any time someone accuses this as being a "straw man argument" is quite telling indeed! Guess why? Because it in fact is a straw man argument. Here's how: "Scientists believe matter is eternal, so they're hypocrites to say and eternal being isn't equally plausible." He creates an artificial opponent, in this case saying that scientists believe matter is eternal, and then he does battle with that created opponent stuffed with the straw he provided and readily claims victory with his arguments against what he staged. Why should anyone be told to dismiss out of hand anyone calling someone on a logic fallacy? Have something to hide?

 

I'll give him credit though... it sounded almost impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cosmos came first, then came lesser life until the creation of man, the 7 creation days are the 7 epochs science is currently offering, man was made up of the elements of the universe and the expansion of the universe is mentioned (but not in Genesis, thats in psalms, job and proverbs.)

This person isn’t to up on his science either…the 7 epochs he refers to are during the Cenozoic Era, which is only one of three geological eras of the Earth, covering only 65.5 million years of the earth’s existence. The other two Eras are the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic and the infamous KT boundary (the largest mass extinction in Earth’s history) occurred between the Mesozoic and the (currently ongoing) Cenozoic. Don’t you just love it when supposedly “knowledgeable†Christians show how little they really know? :lol:

 

Micro-evolution are slight changes in species due to conditions, but the species is still the same species and hasn't transformed at all.

Macro-evolution is nothing more than a series of micro-evolutionary events that result in the formation of a new species…something that man has done through his 15,000 year manipulation of Canid genes, changing the (probably several different) ancestral lupine Canidae (wolf) to the present day Canis Lupus Familaris (dog). Man was only doing what nature has done through earthly history, albeit much more quickly. :wink:

 

because one fossil of a bi-pedal ape, is just that, a bi-pedal ape.

Wow, that’s soooo deep…if you stop and look at the genetic picture, we are nothing more that bi-pedal apes with a (not too greatly) modified brain, feet and hands. :Hmm:

Evolution looks like the molding and creating of life anyway, so who's to say God couldn't have done it like that?

Something that we Deists have contended all along…Even then there is no evidence that this “Creator†is the biblegod…

Existance, cosmos and life is all the evidence one needs.

Once again as we Deists like to point out, the evidence in no way points to the “Creator†being biblegod…in fact, if you accept the “history†supposedly contained in the bible, the evidence is that a loving Creator would NOT be the biblegod! :nono:

 

It's far more logical to believe in a God without cause, than matter without cause.

This from the people that tout faith over logic… :lmao: …Mathematically matter without cause is just as likely as God without cause…so much for logic! :crazy: - Heimdall :yellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's far more logical to believe in a God without cause, than matter without cause.

 

so it's more logical to believe in a person-like intelligent entity without cause than a few subatomic particles without cause? Riiiiight! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy is really, really impressed with himself, IMO.

 

What struck me most about his weak point of view is his use or misuse of fallacy. What he says is basically, "Your fingering of me for the use of fallacy (strawman) is a fallacy! (Red Herring)." All that tells me is, "Don't try to confuse me with facts or reality!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either that or he is being disingenuous in order to keep the sheep from getting nervous. The sheep that are his audience are probably to slow to see his logical sleight of hand. Thus, when they go out to debate using the tactics he suggests, they will come away with the self satisfaction that they had somehow won.

 

For example:

 

Xian goes to a message board and debates an atheist.

 

The atheist calls him on using straw man tactics.

 

Xian: Ah ha! I was warned you would accuse me of using straw man tactics. You just don't want to admit that I'm right evil atheist.

 

Our disingenous author is vindicated and one more sheep is saved for the sheerer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, i picked up this gem this afternoon in another forum. He is convinced he has defeated us all with this. I hate walls of text myself, and when I told him, he was like, "Thats cool, because if you would have read it and disagreed I would have won anyway. Forfeiture will save you some heartache, smart move."

 

Okay I get it, by writing pages and pages of text that make our eyes glaze over just scrolling down and insult our intelligence when we do read a few things to the point where we don't even want to respond to the garbage, means they win their argument.

That seems to be the "rationale" used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.