How to respond to athiest

  • Thread starter Thread starter 101405
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

101405

Guest
I’m debating with an atheist on youtube about the validity of sacred Scripture, the existence of the soul, and the effectiveness of abstinence education. I’m having trouble convincing her. I pray each time before I reply to her, and ask God to speak through me to her. CAn you all please pray for? And can you advise me on what to say next? Here is our most recent exchange:

Me:

Actually some Jews would still consider themselves unclean during these times. Christians don’t anymore, because after Jesus died for us things changed. Like it said on that forum, being unclean didn’t mean sinful, it simply meant that you couldn’t participate in the religious ceremonies. They don’t have to worry about it, because Jesus changed some of those laws, not simply because of the way they explained it.
He did write it, though through men. The bible is the supreme book. It DOES stand up to this scrutiny. Unfortunately many people simply do not understand it. And others simply twist it to make it say what they want, or to make it seem like lies. You can’t blame the bible or God for the faults of people.
In the council of Nicea, the bible was not edited, the Church simply said which books were actually supposed to be in it. At that point, it wasn’t all put together into one book. And there were several other books that some people mistakenly thought were supposed to be part of it. The council simply rectified this problem. The only time the bible was edited was by Martin Luther during the Protestant reformation when he removed 7 books from it. He had no right to do this, and to this day it has caused serious problems. But the full version it remains as the Catholic bible.

Does empirical evidence exist for love? Of course not. But no one would say that you shouldn’t care about love. Would you say that I should prove that love exists?

Of course many words have several definitions. But that doesn’t mean that any definition is correct.
I think most biologists would agree that genes are not the only things that make us what we are. Do you think a child raised in a loving family will come out the same way if he is raised in an abusive family by a father who beats him and curses him daily? Genes are certainly part of it, but so is environment, and so is our soul and our relationship with God (or lack-thereof.)

Yes, I know about telomeres. We are not talking about machines here. We are talking about people. Big difference. And machines don’t stop working for no reason. Something breaks in them. And yes that happens with humans too, but I’m talking about when that doesn’t happen. Stop stalling and making excuses for it to happen because something in the person’s body stops working, because that’s not what I’m talking about. People sometimes die, when there is no illness, and no injury and everything is working great. How can this happen if there is no soul?

Actually I said that I didn’t agree that logical arguments are not proof. However the argument has to be logical, which your wasn’t. What I realized was that you tried to use a “logical” argument as proof, after claiming that arguments can never be proof, which is rather ironic.

It’s not my book, it’s God’s book. I don’t have it memorized. If you won’t tell me where in the bible is says that, then I’ll have to assume that you are making it up.
I acknowledged that at one point maybe we did need the largest gene pool, but we don’t anymore. So there is no need for everyone to have sex, and for most people, (since few people are called to be single or nuns monks or priests their entire lives), there is no reason for them not to wait for their future spouse. Do you want you future spouse to have sex with someone else right now? Of if you are already married do want your spouse to have had sex with others before he married you?
Imagine this. Your future spouse is having sex with someone else right now. You know it. In fact, he has a baby with her. Are you OK with this?
Don’t you want your future spouse to wait for you, to make love to you? If you are already married, aren’t you glad that he did? Or wish that he did?

Very few churches have a lot of money. Solutions are almost always free, and if they do require money it usually goes to someone besides the church.
The Catholic Church never requires anyone to give money. As for the donations given, these all go to charity. Things like youth groups, soup kitchens ex. And bare necessities, like food and clothing electricity, gas ex. The Church is by no means rich.

The few “religions” that steal peoples’ money by brainwashing are cults not really religions, and those need to be gotten rid of.
 
Her:

Quite conveniently, might I add, considering Jesus specifically said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Yet it’s very convenient that Christians get all the benefits of Jews, but have to put in none of the sacrifice. Convenient.

How can you say it stands up to scrutiny when you haven’t even read the whole damn thing? I HAVE. I read the part where God commands the killing of an entire village, except for the young virgins, so that they could be forcefully married to the soldiers, i.e. RAPED. I could go on, but you’d just ask me to provide verses, which you could EASILY look up yourself. See, seeing as how this is YOUR holy book, and not some obscure, hard-to-understand scientific paper, you asking me to provide verses just underscores your LAZINESS. This is the book YOU defend, yet you don’t know what it says in it? How unbelievably STUPID. Look this **** up yourself.

What the Council of Nicea ultimately came down to was a vote of majority to decide which parts of the bible were divinely inspired. The Council of Nicea was specifically convened to root out the Luciferians, and then persecute them and exterminate them. The modern bible is even missing some of the parts found in the oldest manuscript of the bible found to date, so to claim it hasn’t changed over time at the hands of men is naive in the extreme.

Actually, yes I do. Love is a specific chemical distribution in specific areas of the brain at specific densities caused by the organism’s desire and NEED to meet someone with whom to procreate. All the electrical and chemical signatures of the brain activity of those who experience love has been mapped and well understood. We even know all the hormones and neurotransmitters released when this emotion arises in a person. Now, to address your ignorance: pointing at something and saying, “You can’t prove this!” does nothing to help your side. You could disprove everything I’m saying, but that doesn’t automatically prove your side right. You still need evidence to back you up.

So, so far we’ve been able to list nature and nurture as determiners of the way someone turns out as an adult… I still don’t see what the soul has to do with it. Genes take care of the nurture part, upbringing takes care of the nurture part… still don’t see a soul anywhere in this.

I’ve said it so many times, and I’m growing weary of it. I NEVER said it was for no reason, I said they wear down. Things tend to do that, you know. Same with people. Why should a biological organism be able to regenerate itself forever? Actually, we do know of one organism that can do that. Nematodes. But you said all animals have souls as well. So god forgot to give nematodes souls? Kind of a douchy thing for him to do… except with science we’ve been able to look into their DNA and replication processes, and we see that their telomeres never shorten, and they live forever. Strange how telomere length explains lifespan. No soul needed to explain it.

I used it specifically to show you WHY arguments are NOT enough to prove something. First comes the argument, then comes the empirical evidence. And of COURSE it’s logical. Do your parents let you get hurt on purpose? SERIOUS injury? Did any of your parents even let you severely burn yourself, to teach you a lesson? No? Then they are FAR better parents than god is. If it was up to you, would you let your children lose limbs? No? Then you’d be a far better parent than god. If it were up to you, would you let ANYONE, ANYWHERE EVER get cancer? No? Then you are a better person than god is.

In general, you should stay away from emotional arguments. Not only do they make you look weak, and unable to form logical arguments, but sometimes you don’t even hit the right triggers, and won’t convince your opponent. I don’t care one bit that my future spouse may have already had sex with someone. It literally does not bother me. What matters is to whom someone dedicates the entirety of their lives, not with whom they may or may not have had fleeting encounters. People are not trading cards: I do not need someone who is untouched, just someone who is devoted to me as I will be to them. You should be ashamed. People are not object. They are not devalued by previous events.

I’m sure… but don’t forget the nearly $3.3 billion paid out in settlements in child abuse cases over the last 15 years. patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/17/the-economist-estimates-the-catholic-church-spent-171600000000-in-2010/

How do I reply?
Or should I not bother replying and just keep praying for her?
I’m feeling very discouraged and feel like giving up, because she won’t listen, but I know that that’s wrong. Please pray that God will give me perseverance.
 
101405,
She has said quite a few things and it certainly will take some time to answer them. So I will get to them one by one, but I can’t do it at one setting.

Quote from her,
“Quite conveniently, might I add, considering Jesus specifically said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Yet it’s very convenient that Christians get all the benefits of Jews, but have to put in none of the sacrifice. Convenient.”
Unquote

I frankly do not understand what she is remarked about the Jews and Christians.

I can say that Jesus did not come to abolish the 10 commandments, for we find this in the new testiment especially in the letters of St. Paul. They may not be numbered, or in a certain order, but St. Paul covers them all one way or another. From what she has said, she knows what is in the bible, so I don’t think you need give chapters and verses.

Now the other laws of religious rituals and purifications and so on, this was abolished, for we do not observe these since we are no longer are in the old testiment but in the new. But I don’t know why that would be a problem for anyone. In addition I don’t know what convenience has to do with any argument that she brought up. Sounds a bit emotional to me, which she herself comdemned using in arguments.

That finishes round one. More later.
 
Take a look at Lighthouse Catholic Media. They have a cd titled Answering Atheism.
 
101405,
Second round.

She said that God commands the killing of an entire village.

She is talking about Canaanites, or Amalekites, and she conveniently (word she used) ignored the reasons for their destruction. So the explaination for that is found on the site below. It is the best I’ve seen and is quite good. The problem is, it is a little long, and she may not have the patience to listen to it. But you can read it and maybe break it down to give to her.

christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html
 
101405,
She has said quite a few things and it certainly will take some time to answer them. So I will get to them one by one, but I can’t do it at one setting.

Quote from her,
“Quite conveniently, might I add, considering Jesus specifically said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Yet it’s very convenient that Christians get all the benefits of Jews, but have to put in none of the sacrifice. Convenient.”
Unquote

I frankly do not understand what she is remarked about the Jews and Christians.

I can say that Jesus did not come to abolish the 10 commandments, for we find this in the new testiment especially in the letters of St. Paul. They may not be numbered, or in a certain order, but St. Paul covers them all one way or another. From what she has said, she knows what is in the bible, so I don’t think you need give chapters and verses.

Now the other laws of religious rituals and purifications and so on, this was abolished, for we do not observe these since we are no longer are in the old testiment but in the new. But I don’t know why that would be a problem for anyone. In addition I don’t know what convenience has to do with any argument that she brought up. Sounds a bit emotional to me, which she herself comdemned using in arguments.

That finishes round one. More later.
She brought up where it says that when women have their period they are unclean. She used this to make it sound like the Church is anti-feminism. I linked her to a Christian forum discussing this chapter (I think it was from lamentations but I don’t remember) explaining that unclean didn’t mean sinful but that they couldn’t participate in the Jewish religious ceremonies. She then said that they were just explaining it away so that they didn’t have to worry about it, and that we know from modern medicine that a women’s period doesn’t make her unclean. (I think that she thinks we just pick and choose what to believe, although she didn’t say this) I responded that some Jews would still consider themselves unclean during this time, but that Christians don’t have to worry about it not because of how we explain it, but because Jesus changed some of those things, to which she responded with the verse where Jesus said that He came to fulfill not to abolish. I know that Jesus must have been talking about something else there, but I’m not sure how to respond. I’m also wondering if I should not bother replying to that part and just ask her why she cares what the bible says Jesus said if she doesn’t even believe that the bible is valid? But I don’t want to just evade what she said, and risk making The Church look bad either.
 
101405,
She has said quite a few things and it certainly will take some time to answer them. So I will get to them one by one, but I can’t do it at one setting.

Quote from her,
“Quite conveniently, might I add, considering Jesus specifically said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Yet it’s very convenient that Christians get all the benefits of Jews, but have to put in none of the sacrifice. Convenient.”
Unquote

I frankly do not understand what she is remarked about the Jews and Christians.

I can say that Jesus did not come to abolish the 10 commandments, for we find this in the new testiment especially in the letters of St. Paul. They may not be numbered, or in a certain order, but St. Paul covers them all one way or another. From what she has said, she knows what is in the bible, so I don’t think you need give chapters and verses.

Now the other laws of religious rituals and purifications and so on, this was abolished, for we do not observe these since we are no longer are in the old testiment but in the new. But I don’t know why that would be a problem for anyone. In addition I don’t know what convenience has to do with any argument that she brought up. Sounds a bit emotional to me, which she herself comdemned using in arguments.

That finishes round one. More later.
Actually she is talking about a different part of scripture, where God says not to kill the virgins but to kill the others. I actually have read this, but I don’t how to respond other than “God is our creator, so He has a right to take our lives if He sees fit to do so.” While this is true, and is enough of an explanation for me, I have told other atheists this explanation before and they never except it. Is there a better way to explain it that would be easier for atheists to understand?
Thanks for linking to that article. I read the beginning of it and I’ll read the rest later.
 
Take a look at Lighthouse Catholic Media. They have a cd titled Answering Atheism.
I actually have that CD, and many of their others. However it is about mainly the existence of God. Not the existence of the soul, or chastity, or Sacred Scripture. Do you know of any other talks about talking to atheists about these things?
 
Well, the first thing I would say is that her verbiage and tone with you is extremely disrespectful. She doesn’t want to hear what you have to say, all she wants is to feel as though she’s more knowledgeable than you. I really wouldn’t waste my time arguing with her, because you could give her a miracle, you could parade the truth in front of her eyes and she would still refuse to see it. So, if you do continue to debate with her, I really think that you should establish a very important ground rule: disparaging of another person via snide tonality or swearing is grossly inappropriate, uncalled for, and should not be a part of a logical discussion.
 
Well, the first thing I would say is that her verbiage and tone with you is extremely disrespectful. She doesn’t want to hear what you have to say, all she wants is to feel as though she’s more knowledgeable than you. I really wouldn’t waste my time arguing with her, because you could give her a miracle, you could parade the truth in front of her eyes and she would still refuse to see it. So, if you do continue to debate with her, I really think that you should establish a very important ground rule: disparaging of another person via snide tonality or swearing is grossly inappropriate, uncalled for, and should not be a part of a logical discussion.
Thanks.
Most people I debate with about this kinds of things are like that. I just usually ignore their rudeness. After all people were very disrespectful to Jesus, and He still responded to them. Like all the times that people asked Jesus questions just to try to trap Him, He still answered, and he astonished them with His answers.
 
101405,
Third round.

Her quote,
The Council of Nicea was specifically convened to root out the Luciferians, and then persecute them and exterminate them.
Unquote
A statement like this needs documentation. I checked one history book and there was nothing mentioned about Luciferians. If it were that important something would have been said.

Her quote,
The modern bible is even missing some of the parts found in the oldest manuscript of the bible found to date, so to claim it hasn’t changed over time at the hands of men is naive in the extreme.
Unquote
Again she needs to name that oldest manuscript and some details before this can be checked out. I can say this just off hand, that the oldest is not always synnoymous with best. For example, we do not have any original manuscripts of the bible but only copies.
Therefore it depends on where these copies originated from, that is, their line of copiers.
Some lines are considered better than others even tho they may not date back as far as another line. So age is just one consideration but not front and central necessarrily.
But she must provide more information when talking about manuscripts.
 
She brought up where it says that when women have their period they are unclean. She used this to make it sound like the Church is anti-feminism. I linked her to a Christian forum discussing this chapter (I think it was from lamentations but I don’t remember) explaining that unclean didn’t mean sinful but that they couldn’t participate in the Jewish religious ceremonies. She then said that they were just explaining it away so that they didn’t have to worry about it, and that we know from modern medicine that a women’s period doesn’t make her unclean. (I think that she thinks we just pick and choose what to believe, although she didn’t say this) I responded that some Jews would still consider themselves unclean during this time, but that Christians don’t have to worry about it not because of how we explain it, but because Jesus changed some of those things, to which she responded with the verse where Jesus said that He came to fulfill not to abolish. I know that Jesus must have been talking about something else there, but I’m not sure how to respond. I’m also wondering if I should not bother replying to that part and just ask her why she cares what the bible says Jesus said if she doesn’t even believe that the bible is valid? But I don’t want to just evade what she said, and risk making The Church look bad either.
101405,
In response to “unclean” women, I would simple say that the Jewish women don’t have a problem with it. She might look at it like the Native Americans see there dancing, as part of their heiritage that they are proud of and wish to be included in. Suggest that she might feel better about it if she saw a Rabbi and discussed it with him.
 
101405,
Third round.

Her quote,
The Council of Nicea was specifically convened to root out the Luciferians, and then persecute them and exterminate them.
Unquote
A statement like this needs documentation. I checked one history book and there was nothing mentioned about Luciferians. If it were that important something would have been said.

Her quote,
The modern bible is even missing some of the parts found in the oldest manuscript of the bible found to date, so to claim it hasn’t changed over time at the hands of men is naive in the extreme.
Unquote
Again she needs to name that oldest manuscript and some details before this can be checked out. I can say this just off hand, that the oldest is not always synnoymous with best. For example, we do not have any original manuscripts of the bible but only copies.
Therefore it depends on where these copies originated from, that is, their line of copiers.
Some lines are considered better than others even tho they may not date back as far as another line. So age is just one consideration but not front and central necessarrily.
But she must provide more information when talking about manuscripts.
Thanks! I’ll ask her for sources for both those statements.
 
101405,
She has said quite a few things and it certainly will take some time to answer them. So I will get to them one by one, but I can’t do it at one setting.

Quote from her,
“Quite conveniently, might I add, considering Jesus specifically said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Yet it’s very convenient that Christians get all the benefits of Jews, but have to put in none of the sacrifice. Convenient.”
Unquote

I frankly do not understand what she is remarked about the Jews and Christians.

I can say that Jesus did not come to abolish the 10 commandments, for we find this in the new testiment especially in the letters of St. Paul. They may not be numbered, or in a certain order, but St. Paul covers them all one way or another. From what she has said, she knows what is in the bible, so I don’t think you need give chapters and verses.

Now the other laws of religious rituals and purifications and so on, this was abolished, for we do not observe these since we are no longer are in the old testiment but in the new. But I don’t know why that would be a problem for anyone. In addition I don’t know what convenience has to do with any argument that she brought up. Sounds a bit emotional to me, which she herself comdemned using in arguments.

That finishes round one. More later.
So basically, listen to Paul before Christ?
 
101405,
she responded with the verse where Jesus said that He came to fulfill not to abolish.

Mk 7;20 “Thus he delcared all foods clean.” He just abolished this one. “not to abolish” refers to the commandments and not religious ritual laws or sacrificial laws.
 
So basically, listen to Paul before Christ?
Paul, on the road to Damascus, was given the commission by Jesus appearing to him, to be an apostle and teach. Paul in his letters is the word of God speaking to us.

Just a thought.
 
101405,
she is talking about a different part of scripture, where God says not to kill the virgins but to kill the others.

Here is how I see it.

She will pepper you with all different kinds and situations of suffering. It will be similiar to fighting a battle over each fox hole. I believe I would try to make the point of explaining that suffering is suffering no matter who suffers and that the question of suffering should be addressed at large. Otherwise you will be hounded at every corner over each new incident.

As far as addressing the virgins, they too suffered according to her, so it is still suffering. Suffering is suffering regardless of the age, nationality, person, or race, whether the suffering is hugh or small or tiny. And if she objects, then just ask her why she isn’t interested in everyone’s suffering. Why just these? And if she says it is because God is doing this. But God is involved in everything if you believe in God.

Eliminate “ad hominem” arguments, for example, tiny babies suffering, little old women…
Suffering is suffering regardless. “Ad hominem” dosen’t add anything to it except emotion which isn’t logic.

There is another issue to be considered as well when treating suffering.

It seems that some argue suffering just to hammer away at God and make God look like a monster. This is wrong. In fact in my opinion this is nothing else but blasphemy. They have an agenda against God just as the devil. The devil hates God and this is exactly the approach he would take. I think we need to exorcise caution and not lead them on to this sort of behavior. That means we must limit what they are aloud to say and to say it with respect.
A logical argument is ok, but a passionate tirade against God is wrong. And it should not be permitted in a good discussion. And if they are interested in the truth, this will not be offensive to them, but if not, they will start to tell you how unfair you are and such like.
It seems in some cases, it is not about a denial of God or that God doesn’t exist, but rather that God is mean and nasty, whom they hate. Bad adjectives about God should not be permitted.
Jesus died for us, he is more that our friend, and we need to stand up when necessary and affirm this.

It is good to have talks with everyone as long as they are objective and not subjective. It seems some have an axe to grind against God.

If it were me in these little conversations, I think for her good, she should show common curtesy and respect, and if her emotions get the best of her, then I would gently say that she is expressing this emotionally and not logically. And maybe it would be better to wait for a while. Since this is person to person, this would be possible. You might even suggest that something else seems to be troubling her, and just furnish her with a couple of ears to listen.

What Atthecollegegal said I would ditto.

More comming.
 
Love is a specific chemical distribution in specific areas of the brain at specific densities caused by the organism’s desire and NEED to meet someone with whom to procreate. All the electrical and chemical signatures of the brain activity of those who experience love has been mapped and well understood. We even know all the hormones and neurotransmitters released when this emotion arises in a person. Now, to address your ignorance: pointing at something and saying, “You can’t prove this!” does nothing to help your side. You could disprove everything I’m saying, but that doesn’t automatically prove your side right. You still need evidence to back you up.
This is quite a narrow definition of love, love is not just a desire and need to meet someone with whom to procreate, it also requires trust and commitment.

Here is my take at it:
The bible also clearly says that LOVE is GOD: See the first letter of John chapter 8 verse 4 “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” So, if love is God, and if there is evidence for love, then there is also some evidence for God.
 
101405 she said,
All the electrical and chemical signatures of the brain activity of those who experience love has been mapped and well understood. We even know all the hormones and neurotransmitters released when this emotion arises in a person.

An answer.
If love is nothing but chemicals and electronics of some sort, then love really dosen’t exist, but is only a bunch of this stuff wired together which causes a reaction in human beings. So when love is expressed by word of mouth, it is nothing more then chemistry working. When the words “I love you” are said, then it really means nothing except that the person is wired correctly. So instead of “I love you” is good, “my wiring works right” is better, since it would be more accurate. At this point, I could think of all sorts of cute “ad hominem” things to say about Valentine’s day but I won’t.

This argument denies human meaning since chem and elec has taken us over. It is all physical. And so their argument goes that we don’t need God for love. Or there is no soul that loves.

But if everything is physical, then there is no true meaning between man and wife. There is no connection other than neuorlogical, or other meaningless hard wired connections.

Now if this is true, that would also mean that a mother and child have no meaning, but just hard connections. That grandparents too are meaningless, as well as all family and friends are meaningless, IF they too are hard wired in the same way as a man is to a woman. But then how could it be otherwise according to this idea. Because nobody could actually love anybody else, all they could hope to do is be “wired correctly” toward them.

We would not deny the wiring, just that there is something more, a more important connection.

More to come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top