Debating a Christian and need opinions on various arguments

[Raderick]

I've been casually engaging in a debate with a Christian who just happens to be my neighbor. There have been a couple points where it has been very intense but at the same time friendly.

I need opinions regarding a couple of arguments I plan on making.

My Christian neighbor has made mention many times about Post-Modernism and about either there is a god or not. I keep on saying that he cannot prove the existence of god just as much as I cannot disprove the existence of a god. He goes onto the creation proves the creator argument.

Argument 1: While there may be a creation, you cannot prove nor disprove who the creator is. While we can look at my house, we can go to the company that built my house, because I have the paperwork. I see him saying "The Bible proves the creator" I want to respond "How about the Koran, and the Torah, and the Book of Morman, they say that their god(s) are the right ones?". What should I ultimately expect?

Argument 2: Going back to post-modernism, I can say something to the extent of "My neghbor next to me (not him) has a large box in his closet". Is there? I should only expect a yes or no answer. Otherwise he just fell into his own trap.

I'd also be interested in any other arguments I can make.

[Mister Joy]

When I was about 4 or 5 I asked my mother "does Father Christmas exist?" She was quick to direct my attention towards the presents under the tree and proclaim "Those luxuriously wrapped boxes didn't just sprout legs and wander in through the front door, you know."

The 'creation proves the creator' argument is a straw man, in essence. It relies on the premise that an atheist believes the universe manifested itself when in reality most atheists would not deny that something, some chain of events, must have triggered it to come into being. As such, it can just as easily be used to 'support' big bang theory: "Of course the big bang happened, we're here are we not?" It's just a rhetorical fallacy.

What an atheist - one that wasn't born of a wheat field - really questions is why this chain of events must involve an omnipotent but bizarrely anthropomorphic - in that he, rather than it, is conscious and able to experience a range of seemingly human emotions - entity called Yahweh who gives and receives love (and hate, in a quirky nonsensical way), and who also sent a prophetic son/self-embodiment/neither/both down to earth - via another self-embodiment called 'the holy ghost' - in order to save all of our souls from a place called Hell where we will burn for all eternity if we don't do as we're told. This Yahweh bloke also gave us free will, apparently. :wink:

[Bella]

Okay, I'm on some serious cold meds here... so I hope what I say is correct from my fuddled mind.

This is so classically why God-people have a problem understanding... they can't understand that you don't actually need a creator. I think you should use the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as illustrations for this person. So yea... even if there WAS a creator, who knows who this Thing is?

[SteveS]

Hi Raderick - I'll see if I can give you things to think about.

Argument 1: I'd say that presuming that existence actually is a creation is a huge mistake.  How can anyone take this for granted?  I would put the burden squarely on your friend to prove that the universe is a creation.  How do we know it was created?  Why could it not have always existed?

Consider that even to the theist existence is eternal.  If they don't believe the universe has always existed, they still believe god has always existed.  Since god always exists, then existence always "is".  Otherwise, a non-existent god first had to create existence so that he could exist - which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  So now - if existence is eternal, what's the difference between existence of nature and existence of nature plus god?  Why not apply some parsimony and trim off the "god" bit - it doesn't seem to add anything.  Make your friend demonstrate the difference between natural law that has always existed and natural law that was created by a god.  How would we detect the difference?  What test could we apply to verify or falsify this claim?  If there's no difference, then what does the statement "natural law was created by a god" add to our understanding?

Also, as the philosophers have pointed out, demanding a cause for existence doesn't make sense.  Causation only makes sense within the context of existence.  Existence, as they would say, is a "causal primary".  Existence must be simply accepted, it cannot be explained in terms of causation - it is necessary for there to be causation.  And even the theists understand this at some level, because they understand that for god to be eternal existence must be eternal - god must be said to "exist" eternally.

Argument 2: While every proposition is ultimately either true or false, it is entirely possible that the correct answer is unknown.  Yes, either your neighbor either has a large box in his closet, or does not have a large box in his closet.  The fact of the matter is that this is unknown - what evidence do we have that he does?  What evidence do we have that he does not?  Most likely not a whole lot of either.  Knowing that there must be a correct answer doesn't actually justify leaping to either conclusion.  The only rational response is to say this is unknown.  But at least we know that boxes are frequently kept in closets, so this is some reason to believe this may be true.

Here's a different question: either there is, or is not, a plate of green eggs and ham in orbit, right now, around the planet Jupiter.  This issue has a correct answer: either yes or no.  While I can't claim to know there is not a plate of green eggs and ham in orbit around Jupiter, why on earth would I even entertain the possibility that there is?  Just because I thought up the question?

Hope this helps!

[tacoma_kyle]

My Christian neighbor has made mention many times about Post-Modernism and about either there is a god or not. I keep on saying that he cannot prove the existence of god just as much as I cannot disprove the existence of a god. He goes onto the creation proves the creator argument.

How can we not disprove the existence of god? WHat evidence do we need? What, the fact that life exists? Uhh wrong try again dumb ass (not referring to you, dumb reference).

[donkeyhoty]

How about the Koran, and the Torah, and the Book of Morman, they say that their god(s) are the right ones?". What should I ultimately expect?

Well, technically, that's all the same god. So, maybe tell him that Gaia(the earth) gave birth to Uranus who then banged her to the tune of 6 kids, the Titans.  And, if he asks where Gaia came from, well, she came out of Chaos, or nothingness.  I suppose that's another thing the Greeks and Romans had over the Abrahamic followers; even their religion makes more sense, albeit very little.

His use of post-modernism should clue you into the fact that he, A. equates post-modernism with moral degredation.  B. More than likely has no clue what post-modernism actually means. C. thinks "liberal" is an insult.

[Steve Reason]

I've been casually engaging in a debate with a Christian who just happens to be my neighbor. There have been a couple points where it has been very intense but at the same time friendly.

I need opinions regarding a couple of arguments I plan on making.

My Christian neighbor has made mention many times about Post-Modernism and about either there is a god or not. I keep on saying that he cannot prove the existence of god just as much as I cannot disprove the existence of a god. He goes onto the creation proves the creator argument.

Argument 1: While there may be a creation, you cannot prove nor disprove who the creator is. While we can look at my house, we can go to the company that built my house, because I have the paperwork. I see him saying "The Bible proves the creator" I want to respond "How about the Koran, and the Torah, and the Book of Morman, they say that their god(s) are the right ones?". What should I ultimately expect?

Argument 2: Going back to post-modernism, I can say something to the extent of "My neghbor next to me (not him) has a large box in his closet". Is there? I should only expect a yes or no answer. Otherwise he just fell into his own trap.

I'd also be interested in any other arguments I can make.

Ask him to explain the millions of people that have never heard the "gospel", and that are presumably in hell right now; like the ones that lived and died in the tens of thousands of years before Christianity arose, and the ones spread around the world during the rise of Christianity that never heard about it.

Ask him if that would make sense if there was a loving god.

Ask him if he doesn't think it just a little odd that the story of Jesus came about exactly during the time when the Jews were suffering under Roman oppression. Great time for a Saviour to come into being, huh? And how convenient that he didn't come to destroy the Romans (because, you know, that would be impossible) but came to win the hearts and minds of the people, thereby undermining Roman authority. Somehow I don't see the story of Jesus coming into existence during a time of peace and prosperity. There would be no need to invent a hero then, would there?

Ask him to consider the human tailbone, wisdom teeth, and appendix in light of a perfect creator.

Point out the similarity between Christianity and Astrology. 12 apostles / 12 zodiac signs. Point out that the age of Pisces (you know, the fish) started a century or two before the time of Jesus "the fisher of men" Christ. Note to him the sun seemingly being stuck in time for 3 days between Dec. 22nd and the 25th, before it rises from the "dead" to begin warming the earth again / Jesus rising after 3 days. And just why would he need to be dead for 3 days? I think I know why.

Do a little research on astrology and the worship of the sun deities.

That's just a couple, there are plenty of things to argue with if you think about it.

[Whitney]

On the creator issue....your neighbor must not only prove that the universe is created but, in order to support his god theory, prove that it was created by something which could be described as what he defines as a god.  In all honesty...this cannot be done and is why the debate has continued since man first started wondering why anything is here.

[filip3rd]

If you ask me, don't debate your neighbor is just too close to home.

[McQ]

I've been casually engaging in a debate with a Christian who just happens to be my neighbor. There have been a couple points where it has been very intense but at the same time friendly.

I need opinions regarding a couple of arguments I plan on making.

My Christian neighbor has made mention many times about Post-Modernism and about either there is a god or not. I keep on saying that he cannot prove the existence of god just as much as I cannot disprove the existence of a god. He goes onto the creation proves the creator argument.

Argument 1: While there may be a creation, you cannot prove nor disprove who the creator is. While we can look at my house, we can go to the company that built my house, because I have the paperwork. I see him saying "The Bible proves the creator" I want to respond "How about the Koran, and the Torah, and the Book of Morman, they say that their god(s) are the right ones?". What should I ultimately expect?

Argument 2: Going back to post-modernism, I can say something to the extent of "My neghbor next to me (not him) has a large box in his closet". Is there? I should only expect a yes or no answer. Otherwise he just fell into his own trap.

I'd also be interested in any other arguments I can make.

Ask him to explain the millions of people that have never heard the "gospel", and that are presumably in hell right now; like the ones that lived and died in the tens of thousands of years before Christianity arose, and the ones spread around the world during the rise of Christianity that never heard about it.

Ask him if that would make sense if there was a loving god.

Ask him if he doesn't think it just a little odd that the story of Jesus came about exactly during the time when the Jews were suffering under Roman oppression. Great time for a Saviour to come into being, huh? And how convenient that he didn't come to destroy the Romans (because, you know, that would be impossible) but came to win the hearts and minds of the people, thereby undermining Roman authority. Somehow I don't see the story of Jesus coming into existence during a time of peace and prosperity. There would be no need to invent a hero then, would there?

Ask him to consider the human tailbone, wisdom teeth, and appendix in light of a perfect creator.

Point out the similarity between Christianity and Astrology. 12 apostles / 12 zodiac signs. Point out that the age of Pisces (you know, the fish) started a century or two before the time of Jesus "the fisher of men" Christ. Note to him the sun seemingly being stuck in time for 3 days between Dec. 22nd and the 25th, before it rises from the "dead" to begin warming the earth again / Jesus rising after 3 days. And just why would he need to be dead for 3 days? I think I know why.

Do a little research on astrology and the worship of the sun deities.

That's just a couple, there are plenty of things to argue with if you think about it.

Steve, unfortunately, some of the things you posed are really easy for a good, argumentative, knowledgeable christian to answer. I'm just bringing up examples that they use. I don't agree with christians here, but these things don't bother them, generally. I know because I used to deflect these away easily, back when I was still under the influence of sky pixies.

People who haven't heard the gospel are spared. Different sects explain this away differently, but many simply use the "logic" that if a person never got to hear the gospel and have a chance at receiving jesus as lord and savior, then they are not held accountable. I don't know specifically what references folks like the southern baptists use, but they do use those points.

christians don't have to "explain" similarities between astrology and christianity any more than we need to explain similarities between atheism and ice cream. It doesn't make any difference.

Story of jesus and timeliness with Roman oppression: again, it is not incumbent on christians to explain that. It really isn't. This is a "so what?" thing for them.

Explaining body parts that are either vestigial or useless is even easier for them. Most things simply degraded "after the fall" from grace, or microevolution, etc. They're good at this stuff.

That said, it is the deeper follow up with these things that they have trouble with. All of these can be followed through, but it's virtually impossible to keep a christian engaged long enough to do it. They usually get angry at us heathen bastards and go away.

It's a start though, and it's on the right track.

[Steve Reason]

I've been casually engaging in a debate with a Christian who just happens to be my neighbor. There have been a couple points where it has been very intense but at the same time friendly.

I need opinions regarding a couple of arguments I plan on making.

My Christian neighbor has made mention many times about Post-Modernism and about either there is a god or not. I keep on saying that he cannot prove the existence of god just as much as I cannot disprove the existence of a god. He goes onto the creation proves the creator argument.

Argument 1: While there may be a creation, you cannot prove nor disprove who the creator is. While we can look at my house, we can go to the company that built my house, because I have the paperwork. I see him saying "The Bible proves the creator" I want to respond "How about the Koran, and the Torah, and the Book of Morman, they say that their god(s) are the right ones?". What should I ultimately expect?

Argument 2: Going back to post-modernism, I can say something to the extent of "My neghbor next to me (not him) has a large box in his closet". Is there? I should only expect a yes or no answer. Otherwise he just fell into his own trap.

I'd also be interested in any other arguments I can make.

Ask him to explain the millions of people that have never heard the "gospel", and that are presumably in hell right now; like the ones that lived and died in the tens of thousands of years before Christianity arose, and the ones spread around the world during the rise of Christianity that never heard about it.

Ask him if that would make sense if there was a loving god.

Ask him if he doesn't think it just a little odd that the story of Jesus came about exactly during the time when the Jews were suffering under Roman oppression. Great time for a Saviour to come into being, huh? And how convenient that he didn't come to destroy the Romans (because, you know, that would be impossible) but came to win the hearts and minds of the people, thereby undermining Roman authority. Somehow I don't see the story of Jesus coming into existence during a time of peace and prosperity. There would be no need to invent a hero then, would there?

Ask him to consider the human tailbone, wisdom teeth, and appendix in light of a perfect creator.

Point out the similarity between Christianity and Astrology. 12 apostles / 12 zodiac signs. Point out that the age of Pisces (you know, the fish) started a century or two before the time of Jesus "the fisher of men" Christ. Note to him the sun seemingly being stuck in time for 3 days between Dec. 22nd and the 25th, before it rises from the "dead" to begin warming the earth again / Jesus rising after 3 days. And just why would he need to be dead for 3 days? I think I know why.

Do a little research on astrology and the worship of the sun deities.

That's just a couple, there are plenty of things to argue with if you think about it.

Steve, unfortunately, some of the things you posed are really easy for a good, argumentative, knowledgeable christian to answer. I'm just bringing up examples that they use. I don't agree with christians here, but these things don't bother them, generally. I know because I used to deflect these away easily, back when I was still under the influence of sky pixies.

People who haven't heard the gospel are spared. Different sects explain this away differently, but many simply use the "logic" that if a person never got to hear the gospel and have a chance at receiving jesus as lord and savior, then they are not held accountable. I don't know specifically what references folks like the southern baptists use, but they do use those points.

christians don't have to "explain" similarities between astrology and christianity any more than we need to explain similarities between atheism and ice cream. It doesn't make any difference.

Story of jesus and timeliness with Roman oppression: again, it is not incumbent on christians to explain that. It really isn't. This is a "so what?" thing for them.

Explaining body parts that are either vestigial or useless is even easier for them. Most things simply degraded "after the fall" from grace, or microevolution, etc. They're good at this stuff.

That said, it is the deeper follow up with these things that they have trouble with. All of these can be followed through, but it's virtually impossible to keep a christian engaged long enough to do it. They usually get angry at us heathen bastards and go away.

It's a start though, and it's on the right track.

Well, I've yet to find a Christian that can answer those points lucidly. I guess you must meet a lot of Super Christians or something.
 

When I meet one that does twist himself (it's almost always a him) in a knot over points like these, that's my sign that I'm dealing with a nincompoop. I can normally destroy his arguments rather easily. But if he keeps making an ass of himself, I never feel duty bound to cast my pearls before swine, if you'll pardon the expression. I have little patience for intellectual dishonesty, and I simply don't suffer fools. So in my case it's normally, but not always, the religionist that walks away first.

The one's that you simply can't argue with, are the ones that stick to the script, so to speak. They only want to know if you know where you are going when you die, etc. They are the truly brainwashed ones that don't know the the truth, and don't care to know it. In fact they probably don't care what the truth is. Those are the ones I don't bother trying to debate, because it's hopeless. I usually shoo them away when I get that kind of a vibe from them.

[Julia]

Having lived with a flatmate who insisted on trying to take a couple of religious door-knockers head on (week after week), I can't help feeling "debating a Christian" falls in the same category as "nailing jelly to a wall".  That is, the ones who are sufficiently sure of their beliefs to try debating. I remember well in my former days being primed with stock answers to every difficult question; one reason I never went out to convert anyone else was that there was always the thought in the back of my mind that it all sounded so contrived...

[SteveS]

I have to admit, over many hours of debate with the Jehovah's Witnesses that kept visiting me, I don't think I every really shook their faith at all.  They would go home and then come back in two weeks with a rebuttal to my last points.  I would try to explain how the rebuttal doesn't really work, but the whole while I'm not at all sure they were listening and/or understanding, but rather nodding politely while trying to remember the correct response to my new questions.  If they couldn't remember, they'd go home and look it up.

Oh well - I wouldn't have kept this going as long if I didn't enjoy.  I'll admit it, I was being selfish.  It was lovely to have two human beings just sitting their listening to me because they felt they had to......  Plus, they came to my house and asked to talk, so they couldn't really charge that I was wasting their time;  they could have just left.

 :wink:

[McQ]

I've been casually engaging in a debate with a Christian who just happens to be my neighbor. There have been a couple points where it has been very intense but at the same time friendly.

I need opinions regarding a couple of arguments I plan on making.

My Christian neighbor has made mention many times about Post-Modernism and about either there is a god or not. I keep on saying that he cannot prove the existence of god just as much as I cannot disprove the existence of a god. He goes onto the creation proves the creator argument.

Argument 1: While there may be a creation, you cannot prove nor disprove who the creator is. While we can look at my house, we can go to the company that built my house, because I have the paperwork. I see him saying "The Bible proves the creator" I want to respond "How about the Koran, and the Torah, and the Book of Morman, they say that their god(s) are the right ones?". What should I ultimately expect?

Argument 2: Going back to post-modernism, I can say something to the extent of "My neghbor next to me (not him) has a large box in his closet". Is there? I should only expect a yes or no answer. Otherwise he just fell into his own trap.

I'd also be interested in any other arguments I can make.

Ask him to explain the millions of people that have never heard the "gospel", and that are presumably in hell right now; like the ones that lived and died in the tens of thousands of years before Christianity arose, and the ones spread around the world during the rise of Christianity that never heard about it.

Ask him if that would make sense if there was a loving god.

Ask him if he doesn't think it just a little odd that the story of Jesus came about exactly during the time when the Jews were suffering under Roman oppression. Great time for a Saviour to come into being, huh? And how convenient that he didn't come to destroy the Romans (because, you know, that would be impossible) but came to win the hearts and minds of the people, thereby undermining Roman authority. Somehow I don't see the story of Jesus coming into existence during a time of peace and prosperity. There would be no need to invent a hero then, would there?

Ask him to consider the human tailbone, wisdom teeth, and appendix in light of a perfect creator.

Point out the similarity between Christianity and Astrology. 12 apostles / 12 zodiac signs. Point out that the age of Pisces (you know, the fish) started a century or two before the time of Jesus "the fisher of men" Christ. Note to him the sun seemingly being stuck in time for 3 days between Dec. 22nd and the 25th, before it rises from the "dead" to begin warming the earth again / Jesus rising after 3 days. And just why would he need to be dead for 3 days? I think I know why.

Do a little research on astrology and the worship of the sun deities.

That's just a couple, there are plenty of things to argue with if you think about it.

Steve, unfortunately, some of the things you posed are really easy for a good, argumentative, knowledgeable christian to answer. I'm just bringing up examples that they use. I don't agree with christians here, but these things don't bother them, generally. I know because I used to deflect these away easily, back when I was still under the influence of sky pixies.

People who haven't heard the gospel are spared. Different sects explain this away differently, but many simply use the "logic" that if a person never got to hear the gospel and have a chance at receiving jesus as lord and savior, then they are not held accountable. I don't know specifically what references folks like the southern baptists use, but they do use those points.

christians don't have to "explain" similarities between astrology and christianity any more than we need to explain similarities between atheism and ice cream. It doesn't make any difference.

Story of jesus and timeliness with Roman oppression: again, it is not incumbent on christians to explain that. It really isn't. This is a "so what?" thing for them.

Explaining body parts that are either vestigial or useless is even easier for them. Most things simply degraded "after the fall" from grace, or microevolution, etc. They're good at this stuff.

That said, it is the deeper follow up with these things that they have trouble with. All of these can be followed through, but it's virtually impossible to keep a christian engaged long enough to do it. They usually get angry at us heathen bastards and go away.

It's a start though, and it's on the right track.

Well, I've yet to find a Christian that can answer those points lucidly. I guess you must meet a lot of Super Christians or something.
 

When I meet one that does twist himself (it's almost always a him) in a knot over points like these, that's my sign that I'm dealing with a nincompoop. I can normally destroy his arguments rather easily. But if he keeps making an ass of himself, I never feel duty bound to cast my pearls before swine, if you'll pardon the expression. I have little patience for intellectual dishonesty, and I simply don't suffer fools. So in my case it's normally, but not always, the religionist that walks away first.

The one's that you simply can't argue with, are the ones that stick to the script, so to speak. They only want to know if you know where you are going when you die, etc. They are the truly brainwashed ones that don't know the the truth, and don't care to know it. In fact they probably don't care what the truth is. Those are the ones I don't bother trying to debate, because it's hopeless. I usually shoo them away when I get that kind of a vibe from them.

Yep, I completely understand what you're saying here, man!

I was heavily involved in biblical apologetics for some time, and I was so brainwashed it wasn't funny. Where I felt really fortunate was 1) that I was able to quickly understand that I was being intellectually dishonest and do something about it and 2) that I had a very intelligent, VERY PATIENT, atheist friend who did not give up on me right away.

So, while I was involved with christians who could handle these topics, I have to say that in the long run, I knew that they were either willfully ignorant and wanted to remain that way (hands over ears saying "I can't hear you" type of people), or they were intentionally dishonest and wanted only to "win" arguments, regardless of how badly they skewered their own faith, or they were just reading from a script, and simply didn't know better, trusting those who did know better and lied to them.

The church (pick any one you want) is all about holding power over the lives of its members. Sad.

[Smarmy Of One]

The church (pick any one you want) is all about holding power over the lives of its members. Sad.

While this is true and sad, many people don't want to be freed from the matrix, so to speak. Ignorance is bliss. They call themselves the 'flock' for a reason.

Most people are scared and confused unless they have someone to tell them what to do. There are and always have been a great many people eager to exploit this fear for personal gain.

The real battle is to teach people they have nothing to fear. I believe that religion is a SYMPTOM of group think, not the disease itself.

That being said, nothing brings me more pleasure than laying a verbal trouncing on an evangelical religious person.

The key is letting them know that you have NO belief in god or the bible whatsoever. That takes the foundation out of all their arguments leaving them with the arduous task of them trying to get you to accept even one sentence from the bible so they have a starting point.

Then watch 'em squirm.