more help fending off god botheres!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2012, 04:29 PM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2012 05:38 PM by kingschosen.)
more help fending off god botheres!
I've been in a long running debate with a christian on fb.. I've defended, so far with a very all the sensicale reasoning I've read. I'd like some ideas for a response to ensure I', not missing anything... here's my last response followed by theres.. I'd love some reponses to this, remaining respectful and above all else, quantifiable!:

"For
the faithful, the god they worship purportedly plays an active role in
the cosmos and in their lives. This activity should result in observable
physical phenomena in space and time, which form the very basis of
scientific investigation: the creation of the world, the design of life,
the effect of praying, the revelation of universal truths, the
existence of the mind. In other words, the god of the faithful is a
scientific hypothesis which can, like all scientific evidence, be tested
by standard methods of science.
This
god hypothesis has failed miserably all scientific tests. The existence
of an omnipotent and benevolent god is contradicted by all the
suffering in the world. Prayers don't work. The world, as well as life,
doesn't need a god to be created. Mind ('the soul') is a matter of
matter. Is my cat or 1 year old daughter a sinner being purely atheist?!"


Their response is this:
Prayers
don't work? What would you pray for? I've prayed for a lot of things in
these last two years and I've learned that God answers in three ways,
yes, no and do it yourself! I think it's ignorant of you to say that
prayers don't work as you have not
repented of your sins and asked Jesus into your life and to change you,
I've seen miracles happen I've had prayers answered maybe not when I
wanted them answered or how I wanted them answering but they were
answered,
cats
can't be sinners they don't have a soul and therefore don't know right
from wrong consider the headless vole on my back door this morning!
The
design of life! Every time a giraffe bends down to take a drink it
should die from a rush of blood from it's huge heart to its head and it
should die again when it lifts its head back up so which ability did it
evolve first? To bend down or get back up? The woodpeckers tongue goes
right up over its scull to protect its brain when it hits the tree, a
female kangaroo has THREE vaginas! I personally would not choose to
evolve that!
The
laws of our universe are laws that cannot be changed from inside our
universe as Tom said previously the first two law of thermodynamics are
broken when you consider the big bang theory which btw was a joke made
by a scientist (I forget his name maybe you could look it up cos I'm too
tired to even be texting right now) that was not to be taken literally
but as it disproved God we thought ooooh we'll have that, oh and even
Darwin didn't fully believe in evolution, if I'm correct the first two
words in his book were "I think", and inner of his famous quotes
was"even something as simple as bees making a hive is enough to make me
question whether I have wasted my life on this theory" actually I think
I've got two quotes mixed up in one there but they will be in my
previous mobile uploads if you want to know the exact quote (I've not
slept for about two weeks,I keep praying but apparently its not working)
You have still yet to provide me with evidence of earth being older than 10000 years btw
Oh
and the universe thing as God lives outside of our universe He does not
abide by its rules so who says He doesn't mess sound with space and
time without us knowing even though you already think I'm crazy enough I
can name one particular moment when He did that for me but I've never
really spoke about it because that's between me and God and it would be
too hard for unbelievers to comprehend and I would probably get locked
up lol
I
heard a funny story in our pastors preach actually the other week, he
asked his wife why she always cut the ends off the roast before cooking
it, she replied it was what her mother used to do and she didn't really
know why so she asked her mother why she did it and her mum said it was
what her mum used to do so then she went to her mother and asked her why
she used to cut the ends off the roast and it turns out she had a tiny
oven! Just thought ud like that
There
is suffering in the world because we create it, sin came through the
fall of Adam when He rejected Gods law ,God gave us free will because he
didn't want a nation of robots telling them they loved Him because they
were programmed to do so, He wanted His children to make the choice to
turn to Him just like my children have the choice to reject me when
they're older, they have the choice to deny my laws and reject my
instruction which they do now! If one of my children hurt me add much as
Adam hurt the Heavenly Father I would never stop loving them but I
would cast them out of my house and if they came back with true
repentance I would hold them so tightly in my arms and they would know
that everything I did I did for them
Wow Wot a waffle hope this makes Some sort of sense goodnight and God Bless
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2012, 05:19 PM
RE: more help fending of god botheres!
Going to be fair and address both of you:

(12-12-2012 04:29 PM)paulhe Wrote:  "For
the faithful, the god they worship purportedly plays an active role in
the cosmos and in their lives. This activity should result in observable
physical phenomena in space and time, which form the very basis of
scientific investigation: the creation of the world, the design of life,
the effect of praying, the revelation of universal truths, the
existence of the mind. In other words, the god of the faithful is a
scientific hypothesis which can, like all scientific evidence, be tested
by standard methods of science.
This
god hypothesis has failed miserably all scientific tests.

First, don't use unnecessarily complicated language. It doesn't do anything for you. Speak plainly and speak as if you are explaining things to a 4th grader. This doesn't mean shy away from big phrases or words, just use them in a way that they are easily understood.

Second, you made the mistake of trying to prove the metaphysical with the physical. Binding God to a scientific hypothesis invalidates your argument, since God can operate outside of earthly science.

Quote:The existence
of an omnipotent and benevolent god is contradicted by all the
suffering in the world. Prayers don't work. The world, as well as life,
doesn't need a god to be created. Mind ('the soul') is a matter of
matter. Is my cat or 1 year old daughter a sinner being purely atheist?!"

The scriptures never state nor portray God as omnibenevolent, thus this point is moot.

Likewise, omnipotence doesn't require omnibenevolence.


Quote:Their response is this:
Prayers
don't work? What would you pray for? I've prayed for a lot of things in
these last two years and I've learned that God answers in three ways,
yes, no and do it yourself!

Citation needed. Scripture doesn't say this.

Quote:I think it's ignorant of you to say that
prayers don't work as you have not
repented of your sins and asked Jesus into your life and to change you,
I've seen miracles happen I've had prayers answered maybe not when I
wanted them answered or how I wanted them answering but they were
answered,

Salvation isn't a prerequisite for miracles.

ex:
Mark 7:31-37
Luke 14:1-6
Luke 22:50-51
John 4:46-53 (states they do not believe)
John 5:2-8 (mass healing)
John 9:1-7

Quote:cats
can't be sinners they don't have a soul and therefore don't know right
from wrong consider the headless vole on my back door this morning!

non-sequitur - morality is relative on the being. A cat can, in NO way, be held accountable for human morality. That's just silly.

Quote:The
design of life! Every time a giraffe bends down to take a drink it
should die from a rush of blood from it's huge heart to its head and it
should die again when it lifts its head back up so which ability did it
evolve first? To bend down or get back up? The woodpeckers tongue goes
right up over its scull to protect its brain when it hits the tree, a
female kangaroo has THREE vaginas! I personally would not choose to
evolve that!

Someone's been watching too many YEC youtube videos and not enough science. That's not how evolution works. Might be pointless to try and explain this, though.

Quote:The
laws of our universe are laws that cannot be changed from inside our
universe as Tom said previously the first two law of thermodynamics are
broken when you consider the big bang theory

No. Just no. Again, not worth explaining.

Quote:which btw was a joke made
by a scientist (I forget his name maybe you could look it up cos I'm too
tired to even be texting right now) that was not to be taken literally

citation need

Completely false.

Quote:but as it disproved God we thought ooooh we'll have that,

No it doesn't. If anything, it gives more evidence for God.

Quote:oh and even
Darwin didn't fully believe in evolution, if I'm correct the first two
words in his book were "I think", and inner of his famous quotes
was"even something as simple as bees making a hive is enough to make me
question whether I have wasted my life on this theory" actually I think
I've got two quotes mixed up in one there but they will be in my
previous mobile uploads if you want to know the exact quote (I've not
slept for about two weeks,I keep praying but apparently its not working)

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Citation needed. Darwin never said that. Urban legend.

Quote:You have still yet to provide me with evidence of earth being older than 10000 years btw

There are billions of stars that say differently with their starlight; likewise, radioactive elements in the Earth say differently.

Quote:Oh
and the universe thing as God lives outside of our universe He does not
abide by its rules so who says He doesn't mess sound with space and
time without us knowing even though you already think I'm crazy enough I
can name one particular moment when He did that for me but I've never
really spoke about it because that's between me and God and it would be
too hard for unbelievers to comprehend and I would probably get locked
up lol

The picture he paints of God makes God seem like an idiotic buffoon. Moreover, it goes completely against scripture.

1 Cor 14:33
33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Titus 1:2
2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago


Quote:I
heard a funny story in our pastors preach actually the other week, he
asked his wife why she always cut the ends off the roast before cooking
it, she replied it was what her mother used to do and she didn't really
know why so she asked her mother why she did it and her mum said it was
what her mum used to do so then she went to her mother and asked her why
she used to cut the ends off the roast and it turns out she had a tiny
oven! Just thought ud like that

That had story has been told for decades. I've personally heard at least 10 pastors say that they had a kinfolk that did this. Another silly Urban Legend. No one actually knows someone who did this.

Quote:There
is suffering in the world because we create it,

God is the author of all... including all that is evil:

Isaiah 45:7
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Quote:sin came through the
fall of Adam when He rejected Gods law,

Then God isn't omniscient.

Quote:God gave us free will because he
didn't want a nation of robots telling them they loved Him because they
were programmed to do so, He wanted His children to make the choice to
turn to Him just like my children have the choice to reject me when
they're older, they have the choice to deny my laws and reject my
instruction which they do now!

Then God isn't omnipotent. He is subjugated by our whims and decisions. Our freewill reigns over God if that's the case.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
12-12-2012, 05:35 PM
RE: more help fending of god botheres!
KC bashing theists?

You make me proud ... this time. Yes

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
12-12-2012, 05:36 PM
RE: more help fending of god botheres!
(12-12-2012 05:35 PM)Vosur Wrote:  KC bashing theists?

You make me proud ... this time. Yes
No. I'm just bashing false information.

Coincidentally, theists are pretty bad offenders.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
12-12-2012, 05:39 PM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2012 05:43 PM by Vosur.)
RE: more help fending of god botheres!
(12-12-2012 05:36 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  No. I'm just bashing false information.

Coincidentally, theists are pretty bad offenders.
Fixed. Wink

With that aside, I see where you're coming from; and I agree.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
12-12-2012, 06:30 PM
RE: more help fending off god botheres!
I had a point-by-point response to your whole post almost finished and then I crashed. Now I see KC has done much the same thing so I'm not going to spend the time to re-create my post.

But I do want to correct your detractors on their misconception about Charles Darwin. They said:

(12-12-2012 04:29 PM)paulhe Wrote:  oh and even
Darwin didn't fully believe in evolution, if I'm correct the first two
words in his book were "I think", and inner of his famous quotes
was"even something as simple as bees making a hive is enough to make me
question whether I have wasted my life on this theory" actually I think
I've got two quotes mixed up in one there but they will be in my
previous mobile uploads if you want to know the exact quote (I've not
slept for about two weeks,I keep praying but apparently its not working)

(I find that last line particularly interesting - apparently it's not working indeed!)

Charles Darwin fully believed in evolution. He never doubted evolution from the time he created and wrote about his theory until the day he died. So what if his book begins with "I think", that's how science works. Scientists think! They think all the time. They think about lots of stuff. They also recognize that other scientists might find better info and disprove them, so they rarely if ever say "I know", especially when presenting a new and radical idea - even if they truly believe that they know they are 100% correct, they won't write "I know" because it's pretentious, it's arrogant, it pisses off their peers, and if they are proven wrong at some point, it makes them look like an idiot rather than simply as a scientist who came to some flawed conclusions.

As for the bees quote, tell your detractors that if they're going to quote someone, they MUST give the whole, correct quote. If they don't, then they are simply lying to manipulate you. Here is the exact quote, word for actual word:

“The subject of instinct might have been worked into the previous chapters; but I have thought that it would be more convenient to treat the subject separately, especially as so wonderful an instinct as that of the hive-bee making its cells will probably have occurred to many readers, as a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory. I must premise, that I have nothing to do with the origin of the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life itself. We are concerned only with the diversities of instinct and of the other mental qualities of animals within the same class.”

Look at what he said. He said that bees making honeycombs might give "many readers" cause to believe his theory is wrong. Then he says that the theory of evolution does not explain the "origin of primary mental powers" nor the "origin of life itself". Evolution is only concerned with the "diversities of instinct" etc. "within the same class". So while evolution can explain why some species of bees build hives but other species of bees live in hollow tree branches, evolution doesn't explain how instincts or life itself got its start. If you read more of that page, and the following pages in his book, you'll see that he goes on at great length to explain what the differences are and how the theory of evolution applies to, well, evolution, but not to abiogenesis or the origin of life or the origin of intelligence.

Regardless of whether you believe Darwin was right, you have to realize that his full quote shows that a) he knew some people would use things like this to argue against the theory of evolution and b) he believed that he was right and that those arguers would be wrong - his full quote proves that this is what he thought. Clearly he was not doubting his theory of evolution, but instead he was anticipating the doubts of his readers and then answering those doubts (in the pages that followed) with adequate and accurate explanation to clear up those doubts in support of evolution.

What your detractors have done here is called "quote mining" - specifically, this means taking one little part of what a person says and quoting it like it was the only thing that mattered, much like the way a miner digs up tons of dirt to find a nugget of gold, but the gold is all that matters. If I were to say "I am a very intelligent man but some people don't like me, they say that I'm stupid". You could accurately quote me and say that I said "I'm stupid" - after all, it literally is the last two words of my quote. But clearly I don't believe that I'm stupid, a fact proved by the rest of the words of my quote. If you dislike me, or want to discredit me, you could "quote mine" my sentence and only quote the last two words, pretending that those were the entire quote. But you would be lying by omitting the full quote. That is exactly what your detractors were doing with Charles Darwin, taking part of his quote without including the rest where he says exactly the opposite of what they want you to believe.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
13-12-2012, 08:47 AM
RE: more help fending off god botheres!
I would also like to point out how he both dismisses and gives authority to Darwin in the same sentence.

He dismisses Darwin's theory and then said that he recanted it and that that is somehow important.

Picking and choosing what exactly is important, eh?

What would it really matter if Darwin recanted? Would that lessen the science behind evolution? Why would a Christian care if he recanted; one person's opinion doesn't change the mounds of evidence.

I swear...

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 09:52 AM
RE: more help fending off god botheres!
(13-12-2012 08:47 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I would also like to point out how he both dismisses and gives authority to Darwin in the same sentence.

He dismisses Darwin's theory and then said that he recanted it and that that is somehow important.

Picking and choosing what exactly is important, eh?

What would it really matter if Darwin recanted? Would that lessen the science behind evolution? Why would a Christian care if he recanted; one person's opinion doesn't change the mounds of evidence.

I swear...


But Darwin never 'recanted' anything, so no issue. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 12:15 AM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2012 12:30 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: more help fending off god botheres!
All other critiques aside, tell your friend that (s)he needs to find the period key on the keyboard, and then USE it. This isn't grammar-nazi-ism, this is self-defense. Just reading that gave me a huge headache.

Moving on to actual content...

First, for the OP. I'd strongly suggest identifying your tactical goals before engaging. It's a bit absurd to trot out Sun Tzu for internet debates, but it works. Choose your ground carefully with an eye towards your defense, because with proper preparation you've won the fight before it happens.

In the material presented, you've chosen to take the offense, by classifying the religious subject as a testable hypothesis (false, because it's not clearly-enough defined to be falsifiable), and then presenting evidence (problem of evil and failure of prayer) that purportedly refutes it. Except it doesn't refute it, because of disagreement over what the phenomena indicate. You then produced a collection of assertions that were very broad (souls of kittens and 1-year-olds, mind arising from the material, etc) but also very shallow (in that you left them wholly unsupported). Though I can't be certain without a larger context of the conversation, it seems that your goal here is to deconvert your friend, or at least introduce a little doubt. If so, your tactics are ill-chosen. Broad but shallow doesn't help on the offensive; you need something with a focused punch. Pick one point per post and explore it in-depth.

I'd also suggest switching your strategy to a more defensive one. Not emotionally defensive, but intellectually. If you're trying to change your friend's mind, you bear the burden of proof, at least insofar as you're the one who has to make a strong enough case as to pass some bar. That mind isn't going to change if you just do nothing. The burden of proof is hard to labor under, and it's best turned around by asserting that you believe what you believe (or don't believe what you don't believe), and that you're going to stand pat unless strong evidence is presented to you. So long as you keep the focus on yourself, you have the advantage of the defense, and it's a really strong advantage. It gives your opponent the burden of proof. (Or it results in both of you saying you can coexist and don't NEED to change each other, which I'll call a win.) Having established your fundamentally defensive position, you can then make the occasional (!) foray onto the offense. As I said, pick a single topic and explore it in depth.

Above all, remember that your strategic and tactical goals are NOT simply to shout slogans and wave flags. They're about accomplishing some objectives. If you don't know what those objectives are, or how you're effecting them, or why your attempts at effecting them aren't working, then STOP and don't start again until you do know. This is the other advantage of the defensive: It has a very simple, straightforward, easily identified objective. Achieving it is just a matter of knocking the pins down as your opponent sets them up (or better yet realizing that some of those pins are irrelevant), and it works to buy time for you to consider your offense. Also, withstanding all those apologist arguments is a pretty strong moral argument in its own right. In particular, I'd recommend that your offensive goal NOT be deconversion. Some religious individuals can be quite tolerable. It's only when they start crossing lines that the problems arise. Identify the differences between tolerable religion and intolerable, identify the lines being crossed, and target the specific behavior in question. Eliminating THAT is your objective. Not eliminating faith in general.

When you do go on the offense, your punch should be carefully-considered, well-planned, and surgical, based on an understanding of your opponent's mindset. I recommend aiming your punch at something your opponent feels free to disavow and denounce, with that as the goal of each strike. Work the perimeter. Something like whether religion should be taught in a science class (it shouldn't be, among other reasons, because it doesn't meet the threshold of science) or whether Christians should be in the business of persecuting gays. Turn the religious (not the religion) back on him/her with each disavowal -- question why so many of the faithful are getting it wrong, and leave that as an open question. This is what moves your offensive from the disposable peripheries (this-or-that issue) to the core. Remember, one topic at a time, and each topic's worth at least an essay! Quality is far, far more important than quantity here. Go for a reliable game of small wins, rather than buying a half dozen lottery tickets and playing for the whole pot at once.

Regarding your friend's reply, others have made good responses already. I would add that your friend has the advantage of the defensive, and pursuing these topics would not be good tactics, though a few "for your information" corrections might be called for. One thing to follow up on is evidence of the Earth's age. Go with things like carbon dating, length of time for oil deposits to form, the time it took for light to reach us from other galaxies, et cetera. Remember, depth. Research, support, explain, present, don't just hurl it all in one sentence. Look ahead and anticipate the most common creationist counter-arguments. In particular, consider the counterargument of "yeah, left to its own devices it would have taken that long, but what if the oil and decaying carbon isotopes and light-in-transit were all created in place?" This, to put it bluntly, CANNOT be disproven any more than it can be proven. But it does raise an interesting question (which I've found is a pretty good stumper) of WHY a God would create such a coherent backstory pointing to a rich world before the moment of creation, and spell it out in creation itself, when that story was a lie? Or if you encounter the "Satan made all that stuff to deceive us" argument, ask whether Satan is then powerful enough to alter almost every element of creation, and then look up manichaeism (the heresy, not the religion). (EDIT: Actually I think I got the name of the heresy wrong. What's the heresy that maintains that God and the devil are of comparable power?)

But above all, before doing any of this, ask which (if any) of your objectives this argument will further. If the answer is none, DON'T DO IT.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: