Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Your Best Arguments/facts


Emme

Recommended Posts

A lot of people here seem really well read, educated, logic, smart, wonderful, handsome, pretty, hot, loving (list goes on an on).

 

Ever so often, I am forced into discussions with christians (family and friends) and they corner me and ask for a list (yes, a list) of proofs, facts, waterproof arguments why believing in evolution and science, not believing in god is an acceptable alternative to christianity. For some reason, I get tounge-tied when it comes to family discussions (though never in other situations) and I need to know beforehand what I want to say. They get aggressive, so I need to be prepared. Since they are important to me, just telling them to fuck off and buy a brain is not really preferable, plus if someone turns to me and questions faith, I wanna help out.

 

I am constantly looking for these proofs, facts etc. and also ways to explain them to people who do not know much about evolution, science or other religions.

 

I thought I'd use this boards' collective knowledge and ask you all to hit me with your best, most pedagogical arguments and/or facts.

 

Come on fellow Ex-c:s HIT ME! :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you ever get get by Quantum Theory arguments, remember that Quantum Theory permits god-like beings, not God. I got into a discussion about this with my father the other day. He claimed God could exist based on the probability that a more highly evolved life form can exist at the same time as the life form it originated from. My response:

 

But that would constitute "god-like" not "god." Yes, we could encounter beings that had god-like properties, and who may have meddled in our development, but it still doesn't fit to the omnipresent, omniscient definition of "god" itself. In that case, it would just be a question of perception, and therefore irrelevant, since the chain could go on forever - even those beings that we consider god-like could have beings that they consider god-like.

 

If you want to argue about genetics and evolution, I'd recommend Dawkins - it's a lot to cover in one post. When evolutionists try to tell me it was ape to man in one go, I like to use the Mount Improbable argument (basically, creationists try to paint evolution as climbing up a steep cliff, whereas actual evolution is a gentle, gradual slope). When people ask things like "How did the eye evolve," I'll point out that many organisms have less developed eyes than we do. I'm not nearly as good at refuting stuff like that as a lot of people on this site, but I can definitely hold my own. I'm better at detecting logical fallacies and flaunting them smugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I doubt that any list is actually going to help. They will probably find some reason to dismiss anything you say, even if it is a terrible reason. I'd ask them for a list of hard, verifiable facts as to why they believe in The (W)Hory Bable. They can't because it is based on faith, and it seems hypocritical to me to ask someone else to furnish proof when you rely on none yourself. I guess at best that will just make them shut up, but I think that may be the best you can do.

One of my favorite facts is the hierarchical appearance of retrovirus DNA in new and old world monkeys and humans. I should have a paper that Zach (the guy from the podcasts at the top of this science section) that is really technical (a lot of it goes right over my head) it does get its point across. It doesn't seem to be on this computer, so I'll see if I can find it on one of the others.

While transitional fossils about (check talkorigins, they have some great articles), it tends to get me frustrated because so many people deny that fossils are evidence.

 

Are there any specifics they bring up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a whole bunch of stuff, right up your ally:

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutevolution...nd_Religion.htm

 

Not so much tied to evolution, but below is a great site for xtain debunking:

 

www.godisimaginary.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of my favorites involve a set up into a self-contradiction.

 

Example: Xtian points to some feature of biology that is evidence of God's Ineffable Design™ and agree that this would be an example of good engineering. All biology must have been designed by this master engineer under their beliefs, for the sake of argument.

 

Now the fun begins: Point out a feature of biology that really doesn't work (hip-bones in whales, the human appendix, the bloodflow to the head of the human femur, etc). This would be an example of bad engineering, i.e. a screwup. I'll go with head of femur for this. The head of the human femur has bloodflow from small, easily torn arteries, making a hip break fairly nasty as the bloodflow will be very rudely interrupted causing a stroke and ischemic event (massive cell dieoff) from the disruption, causing the head of the femur to break down (no new calcium = wear and tear) and suffice it to say, will ruin the hip if not promptly treated. This is an example of bad engineering (easily corrected structurally, even easier if bone didn't have to be vascular).

 

When they object on the grounds that god can't be judged by man's standards, point out that their "proof" of an intelligent creator via good engineering also gets thrown out.

 

Enjoy the semantic contortions that will follow, hours of entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always bring up the law of non-contradiction (Aristotle) to explain why the Judeo-Christian God cannot exist. I point out to christians that they believe their god is omnipotent, all loving, and omniscient. However, given the state of the world (disease, death, torture) and the horrific behavior of God in the Bible, we know this cannot be true. In Aristotle's words, the law of Non-Contradiction states: "It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect." Meaning, an object (or person) cannot not possess a characteristic and LACK that very same characteristic at the same time. Case in point: God cannot be all loving (wholly benevolent) if he condones murder, rape, infanticide (which, if you read the Bible...these seem to be his favorite hobbies). You can apply this to any of God's characteristics (all knowing, all powerful etc.) A very simple example (non religion based) is this: there is no such thing as a married bachelor. One cannot be BOTH married AND single at the same time. Thus, God cannot inflict evil upon his followers (read the book of Job) if he is all loving and benevolent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eejay

Well, I've come to the reality that there are some people you will never win an argument no matter who's wrong or right. Assuming they are a person that an argument can be won against with proof or otherwise, doesn't always matter when it come to their religious beliefs. I have purchased several books that are great for pointing out biblical errors and contradictions. (Biblical Nonsense by Jason long, and Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible, by Ruth Green) Unfortunately I can't tell you that even such material will solve your problem. The person on the other side has to 'receptive' to wanting to know or accepting the truth. Other than that, you can argue till you're blue in the face...won't work. So, with those people the best thing (if you can) is to firmly stand your ground and agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever so often, I am forced into discussions with christians (family and friends) and they corner me and ask for a list (yes, a list) of proofs, facts, waterproof arguments why believing in evolution and science, not believing in god is an acceptable alternative to christianity. For some reason, I get tounge-tied when it comes to family discussions (though never in other situations) and I need to know beforehand what I want to say. They get aggressive, so I need to be prepared. Since they are important to me, just telling them to fuck off and buy a brain is not really preferable, plus if someone turns to me and questions faith, I wanna help out.

I get tongue-tied too. It doesn't matter how much you know, in a face-to-face discussion it's so much more emotions, faster pace, no chance to give good arguments, emotions, and very fast, and did I say emotions??? Well. In the end, mostly the emotional arguments win or you get a black eye. So I tend to avoid the direct approach, and only try to contribute very, very small parts of a wider picture. For instance, I don't go into debating the proof of Evolution, because I know it really doesn't matter how much I have, because they believe beyond proof and without proof. I just talk about whatever they want to talk about, and then just bring in some questions here and there to make them think about their own view of things and why they believe such-and-such, and not this-or-that instead. They're pentecostal, so do they think Catholics are wrong about the salvation and if Catholics believe in Jesus and so on, why are they not considered real or even false teachers? And so forth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with eejay. There are some people that you just can't get through to. For example, my father. The last time I tried to argue with him it first started with him calling me an idiot and then turned into a screaming match which then led to us actually coming to blows. He's very passionate about his beliefs and it does not matter what evidence or proof you bring to the table, if he doesn't want to believe it then he simply just won't. You just can't reason with someone like that, it's impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

If you must try to sway someone, or at least give reason for your own disbelief, the easiest way is to disprove the Bible. Just Google "Biblical Errors" and you will find more specific material than you could ever address in several discussions.

 

Reason and logic are no match for faith. To the faithful, bad things are either a test or a vexation from the devil. Good things are always due to god's benevolence. The harder an absurdity is to believe, the more valuable the faith required to ignore reality. You can't win on that playing field. Stick to the concrete evidence that refutes the Bible and points out its internal conflicts.

 

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an evolutionary psychology perspective you will have a difficult time arguing with people you are close to. The desire for group cohesion trumps the desire for facts. As a younger member of the group you will feel a greater need to conform to the groups dictates then say your parents. This need will operate whether you are conscious of it or not. Your tied tongue in their presence is an example of this need in operation. In this group something else is going on besides an exchange of information and theory. It would be best if you didn't argue in this group.

 

Find some way to politely avoid the argument, or if they insist, write the question out or have it written out so that you can can answer it on paper away from the group dynamic.

 

Edit: As far as I know there is no fast way to acquire knowledge. Read, read, read...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a whole bunch of stuff, right up your ally:

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutevolution...nd_Religion.htm

 

Not so much tied to evolution, but below is a great site for xtain debunking:

 

www.godisimaginary.com

I agree. Austin Cline writes intelligent, well presented arguments for most fundy nonsense at the link above. Look back through the archives and you should have ammo for any situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emme the findings of science are always tentative things in my estimation. They always stand to be overturned by the next paradigm shift. But evolution, for instance, strikes me as being as factual as facts get.

 

The way I’ve argued it in the past is as follows. First I ask my “opponent†if they will agree that these two things are facts.

 

1)Organisms reproduce with heritable variation.

2)Many more organisms are born than will go on to reproduce.

 

These two facts necessitates to my mind that evolution will necessarily follow. And the classic analogy employed by Darwin and many others is that of selective breeding. The types of plants and animals that we now eat to survive were no where to be found 20,000 years ago. They have been shaped by a long process of selective breeding carried out by farmers for millennia. Even the types of cats and dogs we now keep as pets have been shaped by this process of selective breeding.

 

If we can do this much in a scant 20,000 years or so, then what might be possible over the billions of years that natural selection has had to act?

 

When I bother to argue the thing, that is generally how I do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person on the other side has to 'receptive' to wanting to know or accepting the truth. Other than that, you can argue till you're blue in the face...won't work. So, with those people the best thing (if you can) is to firmly stand your ground and agree to disagree.

 

Yes, I realise the person on the other end has to actually listen and take in, and I don't randomly butt into people and force them to hear me out: ("HEY! you wanna hear about evolution!? I'll TELL you about evolution! u was a monkey, you was! God is your opium! You're delusional!"). But ever so often these discussions occur, unprovoked by me, and I get to represent sceptisicm and science and atheism and what have you. Especially with my sister, who is between the christian stool and the agnostic armchair, I feel obligated to give straight answers and not confuse her further. I am not looking for ways to agitate blind believers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get tongue-tied too. It doesn't matter how much you know, in a face-to-face discussion it's so much more emotions, faster pace, no chance to give good arguments, emotions, and very fast, and did I say emotions??? Well. In the end, mostly the emotional arguments win or you get a black eye.

 

Yes, this is a bit of a problem in my family, discussions tend to get heated. The other day I was discussing rent control with my big sister, and when she ran out of arguments she flew into a temper, called me rabble, threatened to punch me, then ran away. :twitch: Actually pretty funny, but if we can't even discuss such an unsexy safe topic as rent control (which we both don't really care about), how are we supposed to discuss questions regarding important stuff? That's why I don't tell her about my beleifs. I don't mind raised voices, screaming or arrogance, but stick to the discussion and tell me your point of view, don't resort to threats or personal insults. (rabble! over rent control! oh the humanity.) :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with those who have advised turning the tables. Make them give you good reasons why they do believe, since you are the one with the default position of non belief. They are the ones making the fantastic claims. Make them back them up with evidence. From there you can pick appart their claims. It should be much easier for you that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This always annoys me too.

 

They're the ones making stupid unsubstantiated claims, and -you're- the one who has to provide explanation? Where's their evidence? Why should you provide any when they have absolutely none for their claims?

 

You don't have to prove anything, they are the ones who have the burden or proof in this situation. Especially considering their claims contradict the actual evidence.

 

I like to turn the situation around on them. What about the armies and forts the Egyptians had on the other side of the Red Sea? Why does Jesus hate trees for doing what they're supposed too? How did Noah fit all that stuff on one boat? How did he get to all those animals in the first place? The Ark of the Covenant is still missing, where did that thing go? Why don't the evidence in sediment layers support the Flood story? Why worry about the Philistines when they didn't exist for 500 more years? Why does the bible say that Pi=3, the earth is flat, and the sun and moon make their own light? Wouldn't something 'inspired' by god, be correct in -spite- of human ignorance, rather than screwed up -because- of it?

 

Tell them to google it, you're not a science book.

 

ID is not science, nor is it theory. You have to be able to test a theory. Unless 'God wus here' is written across the equator, how do you test ID? It's a philosophy, and a stupid one at that.

 

To answer the question though, if you're looking for ammo to support evolution, or just Atheism in general, check out 'Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism' by David Mills.

 

Here's the link to the book on Amazon:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Universe-Thi...5961&sr=8-1

 

It's an easy to read and understand explanation for 'why not', and it simplifies a lot of the science involved into easy to understand explanations. It's easier to read and understand than say something by Dawkins or Sagan. A great starter book for new Atheist that can make reading some of the more complex reading a bit easier to understand.

 

It's an every man's explanation that brings Atheism down to easy to understand points and examples. It covers ID pretty well.

 

Good luck with making them look like the idiots they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Christianity revolves mainly around Jesus dying on the cross and there is no doubt of that in a Christian's mind, I use this alleged fact as an illustration that not even God can stand against the indifference of suffering of people in the universe. (Much less animals.) Basically, the Crucifixion is a perfect example which argues in favor of The Argument from Evil Against God's Existence if you posit God as an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent entity. Such a being could easily re-write the rules and the conditions of the universe, thereby negating suffering as a necessary condition. And why not? Heaven is supposed to be a place where no one will suffer, live forever, and only make holy choices. God created Heaven after-all.

 

The Christian is left arguing that an all-powerful and an all-good god allows evil by gerrymandering the definitions, going so far to turn suffering into a good thing. They can not deny the Crucifixion, nor can they leave the belief of God as an all-powerful entity.

 

Have fun with that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a bunch of great information available on my glorious site:

 

http://christianityisbullshit.com

 

Glory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people here seem really well read, educated, logic, smart, wonderful, handsome, pretty, hot, loving (list goes on an on).

 

Ever so often, I am forced into discussions with christians (family and friends) and they corner me and ask for a list (yes, a list) of proofs, facts, waterproof arguments why believing in evolution and science, not believing in god is an acceptable alternative to christianity. For some reason, I get tounge-tied when it comes to family discussions (though never in other situations) and I need to know beforehand what I want to say. They get aggressive, so I need to be prepared. Since they are important to me, just telling them to fuck off and buy a brain is not really preferable, plus if someone turns to me and questions faith, I wanna help out.

 

I am constantly looking for these proofs, facts etc. and also ways to explain them to people who do not know much about evolution, science or other religions.

 

I thought I'd use this boards' collective knowledge and ask you all to hit me with your best, most pedagogical arguments and/or facts.

 

Come on fellow Ex-c:s HIT ME! :thanks:

 

Two tactics that you can use:

 

1) Ask them for a list of reasons why they believe, and when they give it to you, ask them why those same reasons don't apply to (pick your non-christian god of choice). For a bonus, you can ask them to explain why if their religion is correct, why so many hindus believe that christians are wrong.

 

2) They are asking a question about evidence. At that point, I have sometimes said that one of the strengths of the scientific outlook is that it can help you discover when you are wrong. For example, I can think of 4 or 5 things that would lead me to believe that god actually exists. A good parting of a lake or even a pond would go a long way, as would walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes - most of the biblical miracles, really.

 

Then ask them how they would know if they are wrong, and god doesn't exist.

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.