Banging My Head Against A Wall!

[ExFundiDCLawyer]

I'm sure most of you have has similar conversations, but this one makes me want to bang his head into a wall repeatedly. This is from a man who I thought was my friend (he was my youth group leader for several years). We both moved away and we lost contact, but his level of anomisity suprised me. What do you think, should I even bother to respond? Part of me wants to just call him a prick and move on, but the other part wants to keep trying to have a rational discussion with him

 

BTW this was in response to a couple of funny "Atheist motivational posters I found online and posted to my FB account. - Sorry, its kinda long.

 

From: Dan [mailto:*********]

Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 2:07 PM

To: Jim

Subject: Rambling thoughts of a mind-numbed belever

So let's see if I've got this straight.....

Christians are ignorant Neanderthals who either don't have enough sense to question what they have been taught and think for themselves or who simply lack the basic intelligence to think beyond the 'God said it and that settles it' mentality. But those of you who are among the intellectual elite have grown by your never-ending quest for knowledge to the point that the fairy-tales of the Bible are of little or no value to you. So, then am I to understand that the finite minds of men are capable of gaining so much knowledge and understanding that they have a better grasp on science and truth than the creator? Or are you going so far as to say the creator does not even exist in the first place?

Dan

 

On 10/03/2010 07:17 PM, James wrote:

Dan,

Good to hear from you. I hope everyone is doing well. We are all doing well, getting used to the wonderful humidity here in DC.

In regards to your statement:

I would never be so arrogant or condescending as to call someone ignorant or a Neanderthal. I do not believe I am better than anyone or more intelligent. This is a question that I have struggled with a great deal in the last several months as my beliefs have been changing. How do two intelligent, rational individuals look at the same evidence and information and come to completely opposing viewpoints and beliefs as to what the information means. I have yet to come up with an answer but I have developed a theory. I equate to a person who studies a historical figure, for sake of illustration let’s say Abraham Lincoln. This person has studied his life and writings and believe he is fairly knowledgeable regarding him. Along comes another individual who writes a book claiming evidence that Lincoln was, let’s say, homosexual. The first person has a choice, he can study the new evidence and decide if it is credible or not, or he can simply ignore the new evidence discredit it and go on believing what he previously had. I believe that most people would discredit the new evidence without ever objectively analyzing it because it does not fit into their current world view – whether or not the new evidence was credible. This is human nature. In the two fields that I have the most interest, religion and politics, I find this a common theme. Most individuals will not question the basis of their world views, even when presented with contradictory evidence. With religion, it is even more difficult, as religion forms the framework for many people’s entire lives and to question those things would be to shake the very foundations upon which their lives are built. It is human nature. Turn on any cable news channel or listen to political discussions and you will see evidence in full view. In politics, it really doesn’t matter what the facts show, it matters what the party believes.

 

The entire Christian faith is based upon the premise that the bible is the inerrant word of god. That forms the framework for the beliefs and without it there is no foundation. I have been on the other side, defending the bible against attack and I understand the thinking. When confronted with evidence which appears to contradict the bible or show it to be false, the fall back is the premise that the bible is true, therefore, the evidence must be wrong. When I really began studying and researching I began with that premise. As I studied more, I began to look at the evidence from the opposite premise, that the bible is not the word of god. I believe that to fully understand an argument one must look at the evidence from both premises. Instead of just saying “the bible is true, prove its not” it is necessary to also say “the bible is not true, prove it is” When I have examined the evidence in this light, I have come to the conclusion that the bible is not the word of god. Therefore, there is nothing to base a faith in the Christian god upon. I do not believe that makes me better or more intelligent, just trying to be honest with myself. I started examining the evidence and I was determined to follow it no matter where it led.

As to the belief in a creator, I would submit that most people who have traveled the path I am on would argue that there is not creator. I will not go that far. I am Agnostic. While some believe that since there is no scientifically verifiable, objective evidence that proves the existence of a god, then god does not exist. I would agree that while there is no scientifically verifiable, objective evidence to prove the existence of a god, there is a great deal of anecdotal, personal experiences that are common to all religions. Maybe there is a “god”, maybe an intelligent supernatural being, maybe some impersonal “force”, maybe some sort of ascended beings (Stargate-sorry I’m a sci-fi geek) – I don’t know. I do know that based on the evidence that I have seen, it is not the god of the bible.

Anyway, It is good to talk to you, please feel free to respond with questions, comments, rants, etc.  I love a good debate and discussion about this, politics, or any other subject for that matter.

James

 

 

From: Dan [mailto:*********]

Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:29 AM

To: James

Subject: Re: Rambling thoughts of a mind-numbed belever

Well, it's late and I'm tired. So I won't take the time to write a full response now. But suffice it to say that while you may not say it out loud, the general sentiment is the same. You think those of us who believe the Bible are willingly ignorant of the facts. As you said, we simply choose to discredit anything that challenges our world view. Therefore, you think we choose faith over facts because we will not objectively evaluate the evidence.

My answer to that is this: It is you who refuse to objectively analyze the evidence. This notion that Christians lack true knowledge and blindly follow their faith while ignoring the evidence is total BULL! Biblical Christianity stands up to the scrutiny of science on EVERY FRONT without exception!!! Man in his arrogance thinks he can explain away the truth of God, yet true science always ends up confirming the truth of the Word of God. You say you have evaluated all the evidence. Well, obviously you chose to disregard the evidence that supports Christian doctrine and refutes your 'faith'. You are guilty of the very same blind faith of which you accuse Christians.

I have read some of the garbage on the web site for the 'Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science', which you are so found of posting on your facebook. They obviously hold a great disdain for people like me. That's OK - Jesus said, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." (John 15:18), so I'm in the best of company. I've noticed that they paint Christians as people who shun knowledge. That is a boldface lie and you know it. Proverbs 19:2 says "Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good". True knowledge is always a good thing. But there is a great deal of false knowledge out there as well and the institutions of "higher learning" (which is a misnomer of the worst kind) are filled with false knowledge. Science is based on observation and is always subject to interpretation. Furthermore, scientists have a terrible habit of using their flawed conclusions from past studies as the premise for interpreting the results of subsequent studies, thus compounding the error of the results. It's a sad thing that in this "information age" wherein the world's population has more access to information than ever before in the history of the world, they are so devoid of any true knowledge. But it's not surprising to those of us (that would be the ignorant ones according to you) who know and understand the working of Satan and the outcome of these last days that he would use technology in this way.

I will not waste my time debating the facts with you. There is nothing to be gained by that. The facts are readily available to you if you have the guts to go against the culture of so-called 'intellectuals' and research it. But I doubt it, because your religion discourages such open and honest study and would rather put its efforts into discrediting true knowledge by ridiculing anyone who believes in God and the Bible. Consider one of many such jabs at God and His people seen on your favorite web site that reads: If you're too stupid to understand science, try religion. This is the ignorance and arrogance of the religion you have chosen over the Christ who laid down His life for you!!!

ITim 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

Rom 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"

Now it's really late and I'm really tired. So much for short answers. Good night.

 

On 10/04/2010 04:16 PM, James wrote:

Dan,

I am curious as to what I have done to deserve the apparent hostility that the tone of your email demonstrates. I would expect that out of some people, but from you it surprises and honestly disappoints me. I know that we have not kept in touch much since you left Spokane, but I have always considered you a friend. Your family was influential in my life growing up and was helpful to Leslie and I in our early married years. Maybe I have misunderstood the intent of your messages and if so I apologize.

As to the substance of your email: I will be the first to admit that Richard Dawkins is arrogant and conceited. He believes that anyone that is not an Atheist is a simpleton and a fool (which includes those that are agnostic). I do not agree with his assessment. Maybe I should be more careful where I pull quotes and links from, but when I post things it is usually because I find them humorous in some way, or I know that they will be controversial and I post them to get a debate started. You have known me long enough to know that I love a good discussion and debate, whether it is about religion, politics, or any other subject. The more controversial the better  I am the same person that I was before, I do not blindly follow what Dawkins or anyone else says. I study all sides of an issue before deciding where I stand. It might surprise you to know that I did not wake up one day and decide that I would no longer believe in the bible. This was a long and difficult process. Leslie and I disagree on this point. She still attends church here in VA. I started out because I had some questions that had been bothering me for years and I set out to research those questions. I started out studying the apologetic literature, but frankly most of the popular ones like Josh McDowell’s books are so full of illogical arguments, logical fallacies and circular reasoning that I began to search out other sources. One classic example of what I am talking about is the inspiration of scripture. In several places the only “proof” that some of those give for the bible being inspired is because it says it is in II Timothy. While that works great if you already believe the bible to be the word of god, it is a circular argument to anyone else. If you do not take the premise as a given that argument falls apart.

Anyway, I know you think discussing evidence and proof with me is a waste of time, but I wanted to convey to you that it is not. I was not blindly following anyone, I searched it out for myself and I have come to the conclusions I have drawn based upon what I believe the evidence demands. One thing I did want to point out though is that you accuse me of arrogance for thinking that anyone who believes the bible is willingly ignorant of the facts, but are you not doing the same thing? You believe the bible to be true and you believe anyone who does not see it your way as willingly ignorant or deceived by the devil. I am not throwing stones, just pointing it out. Everyone believes their position is the right one, and the others are wrong, its human nature.

I would love to have a more detailed conversation with you regarding the evidence and facts that both of us relies on to form our beliefs. I have had some people in Spokane, ignore me or defriend me because of my posts, but I love having discussions with anyone who is willing. I am currently having three ongoing email discussions about these issues; A friend from Eastern, Larry House(not sure if you went to FBC with them or not) and now you. I am not as closed minded as you may believe and I look forward to speaking with you again!

Your friend,

James

 

From: Dan [mailto:*******]

Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:24 AM

To: James

Subject: Re: Rambling thoughts of a mind-numbed believer

Please do not mistake passion for hostility. I am not angry at you but I am very disappointed that you have allowed worldly wisdom to turn your heart from the truth.

 

As to your posts, many of the things you post and link to from the Dawkins site blatantly ridicule Christians and the Bible. Why in the world would you post it if in fact you don't agree with the views they represent? If you find it amusing when it makes fun of the King James Bible (and by implication, those who believe it) then, yes you do share his disdain for Christians and consider us beneath you. Otherwise, what's so funny or poignant about such things?

They certainly don't make any substantial points. I mean, Jim, even you know the simple answers to the inane statement "The Bible - Because all the works of science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house". But I'll remind you of some basic points on that subject anyway. Both the Bible and science clearly support the fact that the world was all one continent prior to the flood. Also, Noah worked on the ark for 120 years, so there was plenty of time for the animals to migrate to his location as God directed them to. And the climate had not yet been changed by the global effects of the flood, so all the species were equally acclimated to the same climate and environment. Not all the world's species were on the ark anyway. Millions of them survived the flood simply because the water is their natural habitat. Besides all that, God is not limited by nature or geographic location, or time, or anything else. he created this world and all that is in it. So, sending the animals to the ark is no problem for Him even if we did not have the answers for Dawkin's STUPID objections. Then you posted another one that is equally ridiculous. But when a person is motivated by a desire to justify his stand on something he will grab at anything. And when there is nothing of substance to grab a hold of he will resort to ridiculing the opposition in order to make himself appear to be superior. Such is the case with the post that reads: "What about the carnivores? If the flood story of Genesis is literally true - then what did the animals eat immediately after they left the ark?" (You'll notice I had to correct their spelling and capitalization errors for them. These are the intellectual giants who have figured all of this out?) Anyway, I don't know why I'm even giving this one the courtesy of an answer. I won't waste much time on this, but here are a few thoughts just off the top of my head. First, they were not always carnivores. The animals were not killing and eating each other in the Garden of Eden. There were two major shifts in the balance of nature. One occurred after Adam and Eve sinned and the other was the flood. Secondly, if they needed meat to eat, I assure you there was no shortage. When the waters abated there were fish and other sea creatures left behind on dry land or stranded in small areas of water in low lying areas and recesses in rock formations, etc. Also, there would have been an abundance of insects such as June Bugs and Beatles which carnivorous beasts will eat when nothing else is available. Lastly, they were on the ark for quite some time before the waters receded and they left the ark. Do you think none of the animals procreated during that time. Jim, do they even give any thought to their comments before they publish them. They sound like school children shouting insults at each other that come out of their mouths before they realize how stupid it's going to sound. "Oh yeah? Well, if your Bible is so smart, then what did the animals eat when they came off the ark. Answer that one, you dumb Christians!!" I'm sorry, Jim, but that is really just how ridiculous it is. And these people call themselves researchers and scientists????????

Oh and one final thought, if you were reading after the likes of Josh McDowell, it's no wonder you didn't find the answers you needed. As you pointed out, he is one of the more popular "Christian" authors. That should have been a giant red flag for you. Modern popular "Christianity" is just the world wrapped in a cloak of Christian terminology. These modern evangelical types DO NOT have the answers. Listening to them will get Christians off course every time.

Once again, it's late and I'm tired. Good night.

Rom 3:4 ".....let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

 

 

On 10/06/2010 07:44 PM, James wrote:

Dan,

I apologize for misinterpreting your tone in the previous emails. I understand your disappointment, and I appreciate your concern. At least you care enough to engage me in discussion rather than write me off as some have.

In regards to the Dawkins post that ridicule Christian, you are correct, I need to be more careful the types of posts I use. In politics, one of the things that bugs me the most is the mud-slinging by both sides without any regard to any sort of meaningful discussion of the actual issues. It is hypocritical of me to do the same thing in this regard.

In reference to Josh McDowell’s books, he was not the only source I consulted in my research. I looked at a great deal of apologetic material. I have a fairly extensive library of material left over from my time at Faith and PCC and Faith Baptist Institute. I only mentioned McDowell because he is one of the more popular and well-known authors on the subject.

As to the flood, I could spend hours on this subject as it is one of the issues that I have research a great. I will start with your analysis of the distance of the animals to the ark. One of the critiques of the flood story is that there are diverse continents, as such how did all the animals transverse the distance, even given 120 years across the oceans. You raise the most common response, that the earth was a single continent prior to the flood. (Good point, even evolutionary scientists speculate that this was the cases, albeit several million years ago). This explanation raises another problem thought. For this to have worked then the continents would have had to been broken up during the “fountains of the deep” being broken up. Given the current rate of continental drift (10cm per year – via Wikipedia) then in 4000 years, the continents would have only moved 400m. Which means that during the 40 days and nights of the rain, all of the continents would have had to move to within 400m of their current locations. The Indonesian earthquake in 2004 that triggered the tsunami, only caused a 20m displacement in the tectonic plates. This relatively small movement released energy that was equivalent to 26.3 megatons of TNT

. Tectonic and seismic activity necessary to move the continents in a manner that you are suggesting would have vaporized the oceans, destroyed all aquatic life and obliterated the ark. I do not see how you reconcile these two facts.

Anyway, I am sitting in class (probably should be paying attention ) I look forward to hearing your response.

James

 

 

From: Dan [mailto:********]

Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 9:22 PM

To: James

Subject: Re: Rambling thoughts of a mind-numbed believer

OK - I just had to fix my typing error and re-send this. I had the quotation marks in the wrong place making part of my own comments inside the quote as though it was part of Scripture. Not good!

Well, here's a quick answer just off the top of my head.....

The event is not limited to the 40 days of rainfall. They were on the ark for a full year. The ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat and they continued on the ark until the waters were abated enough for them to come out. The exact time frame is a little hard to nail down but for now suffice it to say that from the day God closed the door until they left the ark was around 364 to 370 days. They exited the ark and began their new lives high in the mountains, so it could have been a long time still before the waters receded enough to reveal the rest of the lower lying land masses around the earth. And since there were only 8 people alive on earth and only 3 married couples to procreate, it would be several generations before the human population grew and migrated throughout the continents. So, the process of receding waters and separating of the continents was still ongoing even after they came out of the ark, which is no doubt the reason why God brought the ark to rest in high elevations where they would be safe from the sometimes violent effects of this process. So, even though I suspect that the most violent part of the breaking up of the continental plates occurred during the flood, I think they stayed grouped fairly close together and then drifted apart as the waters receded into the deep crevices between, being pushed away from each other by the immense force of all that water rushing into the void between them. And then they continued to drift apart gradually. Obviously the separation would be greatly accelerated whenever the pressure of the water flowing in became greater than the resistance of the friction between the plates holding them in place. That probably happened at the time of Peleg. Gen 10:25 says, "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." So, your calculations are completely off because you tried to compress the entire event into 40 days which is not correct. I'm sure the entire process took hundreds of years. I'd have to research it further to get the exact time-line down, but you get the picture. As for the rate of drift, it would be a mistake to calculate the event based on today's current rate of drift. Once the accelerated separation began it would have been much faster than that of today. Then, as true to the law of inertia, without any outside force to maintain that rate of movement, the rate of drift would gradually decrease to what it is now. If nothing ever happened again to force continued movement of the plates, movement would eventually stop altogether. But that will never happen because the plates are unstable resulting in ongoing earthquakes, tsunami's, volcanic eruptions, etc. which perpetuates the movement and contributes to the structural decay of the earth. That's why the earthquakes, etc will become more frequent and more severe as we get closer to the end of time. This earth is deteriorating just like all of creation is and has been ever since man sinned. And of course there is another factor that we have not yet inserted in the equation - the LORD!! He could have brought it to pass regardless of whether or not it fits into our models and calculations of how we think it could have or could not have happened. He is God after all. Once he made the sun dial turn backwards, meaning, of course, that He either just made the shadow on the dial move while the earth continued as normal, or He actually reversed the rotation of the earth. Either way, He was not limited by the laws of nature or what we observe as what the natural result of that would be. Can you imagine what would happen if the earth suddenly stopped and reversed its rotation for a short period and then returned to its normal direction of rotation again? Man, that would wreck havoc on the planet!! Not to mention what it would do to the rest of the solar system and then the chain reaction throughout the universe!!! But GOD!!!!!!!! Yeah, He made it all and He holds it all together. Col 1:16-17 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." So, He can pretty much do anything He wants with it and is not limited to what is naturally possible. The word 'consist' there means to be held together! Yep, sometimes we can explain things with great clarity and detail and sometimes we can't. But either way, God can do anything whether we understand it or not. And I'm glad for that! If I could understand everything He does, he wouldn't be much of a God, would He?

My back is killing me, so it's time for a muscle relaxer and bed! Good night!

 

On 10/13/2010 05:32 PM, James wrote:

Dan,

Sorry it has been several days since I responded, it has been a crazy week around here with my class assignments and changes with the kids school.

I am not a geologist or an expert in plate tectonics so I cannot speak intelligently regarding the climate and geological impact of the sort of displacement that you refer too over the course of several hundred years. Even granting you that assumption though I still have several problems with a literal flood story. Another example is fresh water fish. There exists aquatic life which lives only in fresh water and which would die if exposed to salt water. If the world was flooded, all of the water, both fresh and salt, would have co-mingled and all would have been salt. There is no way that those fresh-water species would have survived. Of course, a supernatural explanation of “god did it” is not out of the question, but that only works as an explanation if you already believe in a god. I found an article recently while looking for information on plate tectonics that I found interesting. http://www.letu.edu/opencms/opencms/galleries/download/chemphys/Plate_Tectonics.pdf As far as I can tell, the author is a christian professor. The article attempts to harmonize the “truth” of the flood story with proven geological data. From what I read he appears to believe that the problem with the young-earth creationist argument is the result of a misinterpretation of scripture and that an old earth is consistent with the biblical texts.

Of course I engaged in the debate regarding the flood because that is the subject your addressed in response to my facebook posts. My change in beliefs however, was not because of my beliefs regarding the historically of genesis. There are a large number of Christians who view genesis as allegorical in nature and still maintain faith in the bible as god’s word. Now where in genesis does it say “read these chapters as literal history”, that view is simply the interpretation that men have put upon it and everyone since then has followed along. All that to say that I change my belief in the historical accuracy of genesis long before I change my beliefs on the rest of the bible. I changed my beliefs in the rest of the bible, and thus the faith that follows from it, due to the study that I did regarding the inconsistencies and contradictions that are found within. I know that I was taught that there are no contradictions, but I believe that there are. I had many questions that I ignored or rationalized away because it did not fit with my view that the bible was true – i.e. “the bible is true, therefore there are no contradiction, therefore the apparent contradiction that I see is not really one and can be explained somehow, and if it can’t be explained then I just need to trust god that I will understand one day.” I believe that those beliefs rest on the premise that the bible is true, but when you start with the premise that the bible may not be true, you stop giving it the benefit of the doubt when looking at textual issues. As I said before, I am not trying to demean or make fun of people who still believe that way, simply trying to explain my thinking in reaching my conclusions.

I am rambling a little, but to give fodder for further debate I will list a couple contradictions which I believe exist. (Of course, In my previous view, even one is enough to do away with the inerrancy of scripture – and with that gone there is no longer any basis to believe that any part of it is true).

Take the gospel accounts of the birth of jesus. According to Matthew 2:1, Jesus was born during the days of Herod. According to Luke 2, Jesus was born after the decree for taxing was issued after Cyrenius became governor of Syria. The problem lies with the fact that Herod died in 4 BCE while Cyrenius did not become governor until 6 CE, nine years later. It is a physical impossibility for a person to be born before 4 BCE and after 9 CE at the same time. These dates are mutually exclusive. Which means if Matthew’s account is correct then Luke’s has to be wrong and vice versa.

Another example is Matthew 27:9 makes a statement regarding prophesy which attributes the prophesy to “Jeremy” (Jeremiah). The problem with this one is that no were in Jeremiah is any reference which looks like this fulfillment. There is a reference to 30 pieces of silver in Zechariah, but it only works as fulfilled prophesy if you completely mutilate that meaning of Zechariah 11:12-13 to make it fit the reading of the author of Matthew. In reference to fulfilled prophesy as a proof that the bible is true I found an interesting article. I do not agree with some of their conclusions but I research all of the claims and found a lot to hold up. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

Anyway, those are a few of the examples that I found while researching prior to making a decision regarding what I believed. I look forward to reading your response.

James

 

 

From: Dan [mailto:*******]

Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 1:17 PM

To: James

Subject: Re: Rambling thoughts of a mind-numbed believer

Hi Jim,

It's been a long time since we corresponded. I haven't been intentionally ignoring you - just very busy. But, I was cleaning out some e-mails this morning and came across your latest response. I have started once or twice to write a response to it. But, now I have decided against it. Here is why.....

Your mind is made up. You have rejected the truth in favor of the falsehoods of modern 'so-called' science. I have debunked the pseudoscience of your arguments on every issue that I addressed but you dismissed my points out-of-hand because you see everything through the prism of your bias against God and His Holy Word. Your anti-God agenda blinds you to the point that you accept anything that remotely seems to support your side, even when a simple, open-minded examination clearly shows that your argument is full of holes. You accuse the Bible of being contradictory, yet you blindly follow the vain babblings of a bunch of intellectual elitists whose thoughts and ideas are so disconnected and incoherent, when one takes a minute to look at the whole of it, that it's a wonder anyone can take them seriously at all. That being the case, why should I bother 'debating' with you about it - you obviously are not interested in truth, but only in building a case against God to soothe your conscience. A meaningful debate can only exist when both sides are open to learning the truth. Sad to say, but.....you are not.

I Timothy 6:20-21

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Dan

[oddbird1963]

I must say, ExFundiDCLawyer, you are a very patient man.

 

The guy is completely ignorant of science. I kept thinking how ridiculous it is to have to read his "explanations" and "refutations" concerning the great flood stories and even treat the guy like a grown up. I kept saying to myself, "What an imbecile!" He even claims to know about how "real" science works.

 

If you have the time and the energy to deal with people like that, I think it can be a good thing. Exposing a fundi to the problems related to their positions can possibly create enough cognitive dissonance, eventually, to disabuse them from their mistaken viewpoints. It won't happen with all or even most fundies, but the right information and approach can help release a few of them from their intellectual prisons.

 

I think he decided he doesn't have a defensible viewpoint to communicate. So, he makes you out to be prideful, deceived and close-minded. But you have done everything to indicate a willingness to look at evidence. If you have the time and resources to respond to him further, go ahead. If not , don't bother. He's just being ignurnt!

[Droptail]

You got more patience than I would, at least right now. Your friend's quite entrenched in this particular worldview, and it'll probably take a long time for him to work out of it, if he ever even starts...keep messaging him if you don't mind the nuisance, I suppose. Maybe try to talk about something less contentious and build some common ground with him.

[SleeplessGhost]

Wow. You are quite a patient man. If you do respond, make sure to note that he never mentioned the contradictions you brought up.

[I listen to logic]

I personally think that further communication with him will be futile, although I am not necessarily saying you should not continue to try. He showed his cards with his last communication by opting out for the very reasons he accused you of (e.g. your mind is made up, you have rejected the truth in favor of the falsehoods of modern 'so-called' science, etc.) It is his mind that is made up and he doesn't intend to give an inch in protecting his belief. He doesn't want the headache (and possibly fear) of trying to justify his position further. He is the one who opted out, not you, and he knows that. He may feel smug in his doing so but he also can not escape that fact. It bothers him now and will in the future as well, although he would never admit it. He feels all comfortable and content in his belief and wants you to leave him to it. You have done an amazing job already showing your patience and willingness to listen to him and any argument he may have. Unfortunately I don't think he is capable of returning the favor.

[JadedAtheist]

It's not worth the effort, trust me. Looking at his last email to you almost made me laugh. It's bitterly ironic.

 

A meaningful debate can only exist when both sides are open to learning the truth. Sad to say, but.....you are not.

How very true indeed.

[Vigile]

This is a perfect example of just how powerful a paradigm is on the human mind. Your friend appears to above average in intelligence yet he can't get past one simple stumbling block -- he knows the answers before the questions are asked.

 

Doesn't matter if you have an IQ higher than Bill Gates, if you already know the answers, you can't learn a thing.

[Darklady]

He denies hes angry, but those emails are very angry.

[Guest Valk0010]

I wouldn't bother responding back considering his tone.

[Margee]

I get exhausted just reading this. I simply can't be bothered trying to explain myself to anyone, anymore. Why do these people think we are 'anti-god'? I'd love to believe in their God again, but my questions got way too big......... They make us out to be 'monsters' or something because we believe different?

 

They go so far in their 'search' and then they stop....... It's too scary for them, I guess? Friendships do change with this! Actually, I have learned over the years, that as soon as one changes their mind about anything that might go against a friend - it can change the whole dynamics of the friendship. Somehow - we used to be able to 'agree to disagree'......................

[ExPenty]

I'm sure most of you have has similar conversations, but this one makes me want to bang his head into a wall repeatedly. This is from a man who I thought was my friend (he was my youth group leader for several years). We both moved away and we lost contact, but his level of anomisity suprised me. What do you think, should I even bother to respond? Part of me wants to just call him a prick and move on, but the other part wants to keep trying to have a rational discussion with him

 

BTW this was in response to a couple of funny "Atheist motivational posters I found online and posted to my FB account. - Sorry, its kinda long.

 

I think that before you respond you need to work out what you want to do.

 

Do you want to try to help him see your point of view? If so, I strongly suspect you'll be wasting your time. When someone is deeply entrenched within a religious worldview, they won't budge from it unless the impetus comes from within. They will defend it against all outside influences, and in most cases it's only when (and if) they have their own doubts that they will begin to look beyond their religion. In other words, don't try to debate a fanatic because it never works. Pearls before swine and all that.

 

If you want to remain in contact with him as a friend, I strongly suggest that you agree to disagree and avoid the topic of religion altogether. The reason for this is that as a Christian who believes the whole shebang is true, he probably sees your stance not as an attack on the abstract thing called Christianity, but an attack on him personally. Christianity is too big a part of his self-perception for him to look at it objectively, so an attack on his beliefs in an attack on him as far as he's concerned. It's not worth pursuing if you want to maintain any sort of relationship with him.

 

Of course, you could keep on discussing the topic with him, but I think that will most likely just lead to the total destruction of any kind of friendship without convincing him that one iota of his religion is false.

[NaturalMary63]

I'm sure most of you have has similar conversations, but this one makes me want to bang his head into a wall repeatedly. This is from a man who I thought was my friend (he was my youth group leader for several years). We both moved away and we lost contact, but his level of anomisity suprised me. What do you think, should I even bother to respond? Part of me wants to just call him a prick and move on, but the other part wants to keep trying to have a rational discussion with him

 

After having similar conversations with people, I have found that the topic is just too huge and all the threads are so interwoven (such as between all the Bible stories, 'actual' history and science, OT and NT, etc) that it's extremely difficult to parse these apart and stick to just one logical point at a time. It doesn't help that Xians are so used to circular reasoning, ambiguous concepts, and equivocation that they're able to squirm out of any logical corner they paint themselves into.

 

Unless you can get him to calm down and avoid these traps, then take one aspect of one story at a time and stick to that through its conclusion, you'll end up chasing around and around in his circles until he exhausts you then claims victory. I've never managed to do that, but perhaps you have more patience than I do.

 

Also, check out this chart for debating Xians.

 

Good Luck!

[Deva]

It seems the person's mind is completely closed. He has made his mind up that the story of the flood, for example, is literally true. This flies in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Animals migrating to the ark is absurd! I don't think you will be able to get through to someone that believes this way. He is the one who is so self-deceived he can't see that he isn't looking at any of the scientific evidence against an event like the worldwide flood, and yet expects you to review the ravings of apologists.

 

This person is ignorant and proud of it. He is also hostile. If I were you I wouldn't waste my time with further discussion unless his attitude suddenly undergoes a profound change.

[ExFundiDCLawyer]

Thanks for all the thoughts! Yeah I found it sadly ironic his accusation that I am closed-minded and unwilling to learn. I wonder if he actually read his email before he sent it and realised the hypocricy of it all. Probably not, knowing him he is too self-assured in his own rightness.

 

As far as reasons for continued discussion are concerned, I don't think he would ever change, but I enjoy a good debate with anyone who is willing to have a discussion. At this point, I doubt that he will continue to engage. Maybe I will just try and keep communication lines open on other subjects and see where it goes from there. Thanks for the imput.

[Franciscan Monkey]

Having had a few rather similar exchanges with my friends from my former Christian life, I would suggest just letting it go tactfully. He's already stated that he doesn't wish to continue the debate. Thank him for his friendship and tell him that if he wishes to talk more about it in the future that he is free to do so. I usually include something like, "Having been in your shoes, I understand your reticence to believe that my search for truth was based on just that, a search for truth, regardless of where that search might lead. I, too, would have questioned the motives of the deconverted Christian, as admitting that my then-held beliefs may not hold up to rational and reasonable scrunity could disturb the faith I was so comfortable with. I can assure you that I did not want Christianity to be false, but it's okay if you don't believe me."

 

BTW, by PCC do you mean Pensacola Christian College? I have quite a few friends who went there as the Christian HS I attended for a few years as well as the church I went to heavily promoted PCC, Bob Jones University (my poor personal choice for "higher" education - graduated in 1992), or Maranatha.

 

Respectfully,

Franciscan Monkey

[Ro-bear]

Unless you enjoy this sort of thing, you are wasting your time. And all you will recieve for your pains is scorn.

[ExFundiDCLawyer]

BTW, by PCC do you mean Pensacola Christian College? I have quite a few friends who went there as the Christian HS I attended for a few years as well as the church I went to heavily promoted PCC, Bob Jones University (my poor personal choice for "higher" education - graduated in 1992), or Maranatha.

 

Yeah Pensacola Christian College. Thankfully I only went there for one semester and then couldn't afford to go back (they don't take any FA and the won't let you work past 9 p.m.) By the time I went back to college at 25 I had a family so I went to the local secular university. Of course, that is the source of all of problems and disbelief

 

 

Unless you enjoy this sort of thing, you are wasting your time. And all you will recieve for your pains is scorn.

 

lol, I do enjoy this sort of thing Actually, I enjoy a good debate as long as the other party is willing at least try and be civil - in this case it is probably a lost cause.

[OpheliaGinger]

Your friend sounds exactly like I did when I was a believer. There is nothing you could say or do that would open his mind, so you are better off just leaving the discussion at rest.

[ExFundiDCLawyer]

Ok, here is the response that I have drafted, what do you think?

 

Dan,

 

Thanks for the response, I thought you forgot about me lol, no I completely understand being busy, the older I get, the crazier life seems to be – course I wouldn’t have it any other way!

 

I have been trying to decide how to respond to your last message – not sure if I am satisfied with my answer, but here goes.

 

I did not go into our discussion with the idea that I would somehow change your mind, I simply enjoy discussing and debating these topics with anyone capable of holding up their end of a conversation. If I could spend all day arguing and debating religious and political topics I would be a very happy man (probably one of the things that drew me to law ). That being said, I am saddened by your belief that I am closed-minded regarding these topics. Maybe the reason you felt that I dismissed you points out-of-hand is that most of the points you raised are topics that I have also struggled with and have researched extensively and have ultimately found to be unconvincing, if that is the case then I did not express myself clearly enough on those topics. I truly believe that my mind is open to any and all evidences that I am wrong. I try very hard to go into a topic by looking at all sides of the issue. Even if I already hold an opinion on a subject, I try and look at it from the opposite position and ask myself, “could I be wrong?” I am not perfect at it, no one is. We are all human beings with biases and prejudices which cloud our reasoning and judgment, but I strive to be as objective as I can. I truly belief that if I was offered clear, rational, objective evidence of the existence of the bible god then I would change my belief – you may not believe that, but that is where I stand. You stated that “A meaningful debate can only exist when both sides are open to learning the truth” – do you realize how ironic that statement is from my perspective. From my perspective it is you that is not open to all sides of the argument. Ask yourself this question (one that I struggled with) – “Is there any possible evidence that could conceivably convince me that I am wrong?” If the answer is no – then my point is made. If the answer is yes, then I welcome further discussion and debate.

 

Either way, I welcome open communication with you. I have long considered you to be a friend and I would love to keep in touch on any subject (other than religion ).

 

Your friend,

 

James

 

[chosendarkness]

He denies hes angry, but those emails are very angry.

 

Christians feel personally threatened when anyone doubts their faith. They've given their lives to Christianity so the notion that it's false is very unnerving.

[SilentLoner]

You're way too polite. But then again I personally have a low tolerance for idiocy.

[Chris Schreiner]

I commend you for the calm, rational & level-headed responses with your friend. That is a great approach to emulate. From what I've read, your buddy there unfortunately seems very defensive, treatened and close-minded to objective, evidence based reasoning with you. I noticed several times he quoted scripture, which seems like such a common tactic with Christians. It trumps everything you may say and becomes from my own experience a colossal waste of time at that point. They turn the argument from objectivity to you are the problem.

[noob]

I'm with Margee. Reading that made me tired! Kudos to you for your kind, thoughtful, rational responses. I don't think I could do it.

[Vigile]

I truly believe that my mind is open to any and all evidences that I am wrong

 

Excellent and classy reply. I hope you don't think I'm being pedantic. The sentence above is a bit awkward. I only bring it to your attention as a bit of confusion in an otherwise excellent response might cause him to get sidetracked a bit and miss your overall great points.

 

Perhaps: "I truly believe that my mind is open to any and all evidences, and I am honestly willing to be proven wrong."

[ExFundiDCLawyer]

I truly believe that my mind is open to any and all evidences that I am wrong

 

Excellent and classy reply. I hope you don't think I'm being pedantic. The sentence above is a bit awkward. I only bring it to your attention as a bit of confusion in an otherwise excellent response might cause him to get sidetracked a bit and miss your overall great points.

 

Perhaps: "I truly believe that my mind is open to any and all evidences, and I am honestly willing to be proven wrong."

 

 

lol, thanks. I never said English was my best subject