What are the top arguments atheists should NOT use?

[Phoenix]

What are the top arguments atheists should not use when debating a theist?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

All of them.

[Grace isn't enough...]

The above one and "I am your God."

[Canuckster1127]

What are the top arguments atheists should not use when debating a theist?

Atheists routinely attempt in their skepticism to undervalue the historical, cultural and literary value of Scripture. Apart from Christians regard for it as inspired and inerrent, there is little to be gained and much to be lost by attempting to attack that belief by overstating their arguments.

When anyone, atheist or Christian, begins arguing from an emotional need to undermine something, it is a very easy task to expose their bias and negate much of what they have to say as emotional rather than credible thought.

You didn't ask, but in my opinion, the top argument for Christians to avoid in arguing with Atheists is to imagine that faith in God, Christ and the Bible does not require calm, rational and convincing arguments. Christians who play the faith card and don't do their homework on why Christianity is rationale and reasonable do a disservice to themselves and to those with whom they debate.

There's nothing wrong as a Christian with admitting you don't understand something or can't prove it to a skeptic's satisfaction. Christianity does involve a leap of faith, but it is not a blind leap, nor is it unreasonable for an atheist to question why we are willing to make that leap.

[bluesman]

Christianity does involve a leap of faith, but it is not a blind leap, nor is it unreasonable for an atheist to question why we are willing to make that leap.

Atheism also involves a leap of faith. To say for certain that God doesn't exist. To be agnostic or undecided requires no faith.

Atheism involves a faith in science of such things as evolution, faith that the bible is not accurate, etc etc. So is it then unreasonable to question an atheist leap of faith?

Mike
Bluesman

[Canuckster1127]

Christianity does involve a leap of faith, but it is not a blind leap, nor is it unreasonable for an atheist to question why we are willing to make that leap.

Atheism also involves a leap of faith. To say for certain that God doesn't exist. To be agnostic or undecided requires no faith.

Atheism involves a faith in science of such things as evolution, faith that the bible is not accurate, etc etc. So is it then unreasonable to question an atheist leap of faith?

Mike
Bluesman

Atheism does involve its own internal leaps.

The questions was what arguments to avoid.

Faith in evolution is not necessarily a tenet. Most atheists will admit there are unanswered questions in this realm. They would state that the onus is upon the person making a positive claim, ie God created the universe, to give proof. From a classical debating position they are right. However, the Atheist cannot prove their positive claim that life sprung spontaneously from nothing to their own standard in this regard.

That is a very valid argument for a Christian to use in a debate with an atheist. I've often been in debates with Atheists where they have actually, at least for the purpose of the debate, admitted that Atheism is untenable when the same standards they demand of Christians are applied to their own position. At that point many see that agnosticism is more intellectually honest and defensible. I see that as a move in the right direction.

Rejecting the Bible is not a leap of faith. Technically you cannot prove a negative. The onus is upon Christians to provide evidence of the inspiration, inerrency and reliability of Scripture.

Again the question was what arguments to avoid (and the question was in terms of what arguments an Atheist should avoid.) I just chose to round it out and include some that I think Christians should avoid as well.

The question is one of effectiveness in a debate. Obviously, I hope you know, I am not an Atheist nor am I defending the position.

[bluesman]

Why would I want to help an atheist out in a debate??

For an atheist to claim say that the bible is historically wrong would be a bad leap and bad argument.

I would agree that the Adam and Noah section is hard to prove one way or the other. The Noah part we know for sure only that some type of flood did occur.

To say that Moses didn't exist would be a bad argument.
To say Jesus didn't exist would be a bad argument.
Next to say Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and had children is a bad argument.
To say the divinity of christ passed by a narrow margin at the Council of Nicea is a bad argument.
To say archeological evidence doesn't support the bible is a bad argument.

Now some of this is only bad against a christian armed with the correct knowledge.

It takes a lot of knowledge and effort to know the answers. Even amoungst the scholars not everyone knows all the correct answers. You need so see the expert in that area.

It doesn't take much knowledge to question or claim something as being wrong. To find a website to support any position is not hard either.
I think there is at least one website that says the USA blowed up their own Twin Towers for example.

I think in debating the atheist or agnostic we are up against year and years of "brain washing" by our education systems. The schools seem to teach evolution as fact and not having any evidence against or any unanswered questions. I also would say many atheist are not aware that there is a "camp" of christians who accept both evolution and God.

I think one of the best and hardest to answer question the atheist can ask is of the evil history of the Church. I won't even attempt the answer here.
However, I think an early life bad experience with churches is what has driven many away from God.

Who is the atheist here who asked the original question??

Mike
Bluesman

[Canuckster1127]

Why would I want to help an atheist out in a debate??

For an atheist to claim say that the bible is historically wrong would be a bad leap and bad argument.

I would agree that the Adam and Noah section is hard to prove one way or the other. The Noah part we know for sure only that some type of flood did occur.

To say that Moses didn't exist would be a bad argument.
To say Jesus didn't exist would be a bad argument.
Next to say Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and had children is a bad argument.
To say the divinity of christ passed by a narrow margin at the Council of Nicea is a bad argument.
To say archeological evidence doesn't support the bible is a bad argument.

Now some of this is only bad against a christian armed with the correct knowledge.

It takes a lot of knowledge and effort to know the answers. Even amoungst the scholars not everyone knows all the correct answers. You need so see the expert in that area.

It doesn't take much knowledge to question or claim something as being wrong. To find a website to support any position is not hard either.
I think there is at least one website that says the USA blowed up their own Twin Towers for example.

I think in debating the atheist or agnostic we are up against year and years of "brain washing" by our education systems. The schools seem to teach evolution as fact and not having any evidence against or any unanswered questions. I also would say many atheist are not aware that there is a "camp" of christians who accept both evolution and God.

I think one of the best and hardest to answer question the atheist can ask is of the evil history of the Church. I won't even attempt the answer here.
However, I think an early life bad experience with churches is what has driven many away from God.

Who is the atheist here who asked the original question??

Mike
Bluesman

Mike,

You're all over the map on this.

In observing Phoenix's past posting record I see no evidence of whether he is an atheist or not, nor is it relevant.

Someone asked a question.

I gave my opinion.

You're free to agree or disagree with it as you see fit.

I do agree that evil, period, is a testing ground for Christian apologetics that requires much thought and prayer to navigate through and that it is especially tragic that historically there has been evil done in the name of Christ.

Bart

[bluesman]

I didn't think any of the posters were atheist. I thought we was all christians
from our past posts.

I enjoy being "all over the map" as its the only traveling I seem to do now days.

and I agree more with your posts Canuckster then I do with some others like
say PL for example.

I heard the Ghandi use to say that he liked this Jesus Christ , its christians that he had problems with. We are sometimes our worst enemy.
A wise lady once said that you will find a lot of immature people in church because thats where they need to be.

Mike
the Bluesman

[sandy_mcd]

What are the top arguments atheists should not use when debating a theist?

If there is a God, let Him strike me down now.

[bizzt]

What are the top arguments atheists should not use when debating a theist?

If there is a God, let Him strike me down now.

Classic!

[bluesman]

sandy_mcd wrote:
Phoenix wrote:
What are the top arguments atheists should not use when debating a theist?
If there is a God, let Him strike me down now.

Well the atheist would win on that point as God not going to do that.
No streak of lightning from the sky.
I realize we are having are silly fun here and we need a good laugh sometimes.

Its just sometimes I feel God is on his seven day rest.
According to the likes of Jack Van Impe, Monday morning is coming soon.

Michael
Bluesman

[madscientist]

I think atheisys arguing christians is other way around is the same, obly the opposite. The atheist says how do u believe? theres too much evil etc and if god existed hed changed it. I used to think that until i came to godandscience website. How wonderful! I now sort of undeerstand that but not completely.
And they are like 'u hav no proof so y wasting time goin 2 church'. But the christian may say 'u got no proof god doesnt exist'. and tats a question of faith vs. proof. I think god doesnt want to show himself to us in a form we cud see; he will judge on faith... and actions and our hearts.
But they definitely shudnt use 'u got no proof' coz us christians we can say the opposite and no1 won the argument...

[SaintGeorge]

I also would say many atheist are not aware that there is a "camp" of christians who accept both evolution and God.

Indeed, they are aware of us. They consider us irrational, and "double-thinkers," in that we supposedly compromise Christian teaching be accepting evolution. To the average atheist, it is abundantly clear that the author of Genesis meant his account to be taken literally. In truth, the author of the creation account intended to write symbolic poetry, did in fact write symbolic poetry, and it is obvious that what he wrote is symbolic poetry.

Even the ancients didn't take Genesis literally. I'll quote some passages from the writings of Origen.

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

"The text said that 'there was evening and there was morning'; it did not say 'the first day,' but said 'one day.' It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

"And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the 'days of creation' ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before 'that in six days the creation of the world had been finished' and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: 'This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]'" (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" (ibid., 6:60).

"For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days" (ibid., 6:61).

Here are some things from Augustine as well:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19—20 [A.D. 408]).

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

So no, taking Genesis symbolically and not literally is not merely a reaction to the random musings of Charles Darwin. Arguably, a majority of Christians have favored the symbolic or poetical approach throughout history.

In fact, if one were to truly take Genesis literally in the proper sense, they would take it as a poem. That's what it is, after all.

[animal]

"I am your God."

Agreed, this is an argument that should not be used.

To say that Moses didn't exist would be a bad argument.
To say Jesus didn't exist would be a bad argument.

I myself have been in discussions where these arguments are actually valid and, in my opinion, do sustain themselves in debate. I have yet to come across the empiricism necessary to dispel them - but then I am still going through this website, so who knows, perhaps I'll come across some of it yet... I should say that personally, I think it more than likely that there was a man name Moses who did some of things Jews, Muslims and Christians recognize him for. As for Jesus, I remain undecided on the question of his existence.

I think in debating the atheist or agnostic we are up against year and years of "brain washing" by our education systems. The schools seem to teach evolution as fact and not having any evidence against or any unanswered questions. I also would say many atheist are not aware that there is a "camp" of christians who accept both evolution and God.

This can be turned around at the chrisitian and his/her indoctrination as well...

As far as evolutionary theory - evolution is taught as a fact because it is - the scientific community acknowledges this as they do not debate whether or not it has happened (the overwhelming amount of evidence prevents them from doing so). Anyone who has a firm understanding of evolutionary theory is well aware of this.

To the average atheist, it is abundantly clear that the author of Genesis meant his account to be taken literally. In truth, the author of the creation account intended to write symbolic poetry, did in fact write symbolic poetry, and it is obvious that what he wrote is symbolic poetry.

I can't speak for all atheists but I would agree with your last sentence here as far intention of the authors, not author (I believe scholars consider more than one in authorship), of Genesis and the entire Bible for that matter, in my opinion.