How Would You Respond to this Atheist?

[ranvan]

How would you respond to these arguments? I have pasted this from another Board (if that is okay) for your responses. If you have questions as to what the argument is about, I can give more background, or you can go to the link provided. If it is okay, I will use your responses and see where that leads. Or you may simply give the response yourself.

Quote:
I have some questions and responses. I do not say I have all of the answers and if I read your responses, you do not not think I have any. So be it.

Don't be so hard on yourself!


Quote:
You may be right, but if I am reading your example given...what you have described is how we learn behavior. And yes, this is passed on from generation to generation. People and animals have learned that cooperating through teamwork results in greater "production." This is a kind of synergistic relationship.

Learning cooperation within the ulture is learned, cooperation itself is innate. Not all life forms need to cooperate, and those that don't--well, they don't. Sharks, for example, have no need to ooperate so they don't. Hyenas need to cooperate, so they do.

In humans this phenomenon is certainly more complex as we cooperate on an extrememly high level, but if such a trait were not innate it would never exist to be taught in the first place. It is true that some people cooperate better than others.


Quote:
So, when the tall men and women worked together, they learned that this resulted in more fruit picked. As their children grew, they also learned this behavior. But when children are born, they are not born as "cooperaters." In fact, that is part of the learning experience as children.

They are born to cooperate. That doesn't mean that they "know" the parameters of such cooperation. How humans cooperate and what cooperation means in a human sense is part of morality, and changes over time. This must be so, or I would not be sitting here typing this.


Quote:
As they get older, they learn to play together. It is around 2 years old that they learn to cooperate and play with other children. And teamwork does not come naturally to those who play sports as an example. Part of a good coach is one who can get the stars to work as a team. (Think Shaq and Kobe in NBA).

Certainly some people cooperate better than others. If selection pressure were to act on the instance you describe, Shaq and Kobe would be abandoned at some point and wouldn't survive to pass on their genetic material.


Quote:
As any parent knows, children do not come with instructions. And we are no born parents. By this point, one would assume that we should be genetically wired to take care of our off spring, yes? We know that we should, but we do not know how. A maternal instinct is diferent than a knowledge of raising children. And not everyone has that instinct either.

We are genetically wired to take care of our offspring. People have been raising children without instructions for most of the time we have existed. I think Dr. Spock is the first to write a manual, but that is just off the top of my head...the point is, that we are great child rearers. The fact that some individfuals aren't is irrelevant.


Quote:
So, maybe the example was not explained as well as you meant. Unless I read it wrong, this example does not compare to an inborn conscience.

It does. The instinct humans have to help one another is innate, not learned. Sadly, when you tack on trbalism (which is also innate) you get the sense of "other" who must not be helped or destroyed. Religion is a great example of tribalism gone haywire.

Just because it is innate in humans to be altruistic to one another it doesn't follow that it isn't in our nature to kill one another. WE can and od learn quite readily, and it is time that people learn we are all one people, and that any differences--no matter how great they may seem--are really trivial and in some cases illusory. If we can't figure that out, we will destroy ourselves, which we are on the cusp of doing in my view.


Quote:
We agree. This is rather obvious. But is morality the same as the knowledge of right and wrong, or are no people born with that knowledge?

Morality is the application of the concept of right and wrong.


Quote:
As a president said too often, "There you go again." While you are the library, tak a trip to the section that has Bibles, and do some research. While in one sense you have some truth to your statement, the kind of slavery that you are most referring to is not condoned in the Bible.

I have, and what I say is true. There is not one passage that condemns slavery.


Quote:
In fact in the Old Testament, there is a law that states, "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) If you doubt the context, feel free to red the rest in the Bible. I think that this clearly shows that forced slavery is not condoned.

Read further. The chapter to which you refer is all about the rules for slaves, and the passage you reference is about stealing a slave, not kidnapping someone. If that were so, why all the rules above that about who the slave's children belong to, etc.?

There is not one passage where anyone in the Bible says, "Slavery is wrong. All men are free individuals and owning another human being is immoral and barbaric."


Quote:
So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we recognize as slavery in the US when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. And since it doesn't seem that there was a welfare program like many countries now have for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves, the poor would by necessity sell themselves into "slavery" or servanthood. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

No offense, but I have read this ad hoc explanation before and it is total crap. The Bible has rules for beating your slaves, keeping their children, and what is owed to the owner of a slave if another injures him.

Why redefine slavery? Didn't the Hebrews beat theirs--as is learn they did by reading scripture?

Certainly, the Bible is contradictory about slavery if we read it broadly, but any honest reading of the Bible shows that God condones slavery. If it didn't Christians and Jews would never have owned slaves, right? There are certainly passages where god prohibits enslaving another Hebrew, but that is not an indictment of slavery itself.

Consider that Fredick Douglas wrote that when his master became a devout Christian he became more brutal, as he understood that he was doing god's will. Or the example of Mark Twain's grandmother who felt pity for Satan, but thought nothing of slaves since she had never heard a sermon condemning slavery.


Quote:
So, when we read the Bible, we see many rules for masters and slaves. These are there to protect the slaves from mistreatment. I could go into detail as to what they are, but I suggest that a good commentary of the Bible could help you find such verses. And Paul did write to Philemon, a "slave" owner, with even a strong suggestion that as a Christian, he should set his slave free.

I have read many a commentary, some better than others--some downright nutty and offensive.


Quote:
And when we read many verses in the Bible, they indicate that God sees everyone as equals. He does not put slaves in a lower class. Look up Gal 3:28, Eph 6:8 &9, Col 3:11. These are just some that show that God does not treat slaves as less of a person.

Really. I suppose you're right, as god says it is ok to beat your slaves (Exodus 21:20-21) and your children as well (Proverbs 13:24). Interestingly, the Bible is where the Inquisition got the idea that torture purifies people. Proverbs 20:30 "The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil, so do stripes inward parts of the belly."

Do you believe that is true, or was ever true?


Quote:
The idea that God approves of slavery is false. In fact, as you would see, anyone selling someone into slavery is punishable by up to death. But voluntary slavery was prevalent due to poverty. In that case, the Bible did give rules as to how masters should treat slaves, etc.

Patently, demonstrably false. If you persist in this point, I would like some references please. Every theology teacher, anthropology teacher, and history teacher I have ever had is dead wrong if what you assert is the case.

Considering that we humans have figured out a better welfare system than slavery, why couldn't god? It would have been easy for him, since he is god, and then look at all the suffering that could have been avoided. Also, why did it take believers 1800 years to figure out that god doesn't like slavery, if it is so apparent in the Bible?


Quote:
Yes, there were "Christians" who had slaves in the South, and there were Christians in the North who spoke out against it.

The Christians in the North were late-comers to the emancipation movement. Look it up.


Quote:
This does not say one way or another what the Bible says about slavery.

Really? Where do Christians get their rules from, then? If the Bible can be used by one group to say one thing and another group to say another thing, what good is it? I have read sermons both for and against slavery from that era, two from Methodists, one on each side of the Mason-Dixon line!


Quote:
And this certainly was not about secular people fighting Christian people in a battle about slavery. In fact, when I read about the Civil War, many historians have written that slavery was not the deciding factor that led to the Civil War. While you are at the library, check out the Civil War history section.

Yeah, and you should read it, instead of just persuing and looking at the things that agree with your preconeived view. I hope you are not suggesting that the Civil War did not end slavery in the United States...


Quote:
I have to say, Moai, when I read your post, I was impressed. You seemed to hit all of the major morality topics in one post.

It looks like that we now move on to feminism. You ask for one passage. Hopefully what I have written will satisfy that.

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)

This verse implies right at the beginning of the Bible that God "thought" that both man and woman was created in His Image. God created woman as a helper to man.

What about the rib Creation story? Woman is responsible for man's fall, so god inreased her pain in childbirth, and women have been persecuted for that ever since. Are you aware of the daily Hebrew prayer where men thank god for not being born female?


Quote:
Oh oh, that will bring up another question, so I will answer that. Helper was not subservient. This same word used here for Eve is also used to describe God in relationship to man. See Ex 18:4; Deut 33: 7, 26, 29; Psalm 33:20; Ps 70:5; Ps 89:19; Ps 115:9; Ps 115:10, 11; Ps 146:5; Hosea 13:9. These are some of them. So clearly, a "helpmeet" is not equal to a servant.

Whatever. Your position is untenable, since those who were given the Bible in the first place treated women horrifically. Why would god give them a book he knew they couldn't understand?


Quote:
Now when we read the Bible, we would assume from what you said that women are just a mother or servant, yes? the answer is the opposite. In the OT already, we have women who are in roles of authority. There is Deborah, the judge and ruler over Israel and there are many others who were in commanding roles. There were many prophetesses who spoke to the people. In the NT, we read of may deaconesses who helped and ruled in the Church. Clearly, this does not show that women had not equal role to men in the Bible.

Nope. Not even close. Given the contradictions in the Bible I am sure we can trade verses all day, but suffice it to say that Exodus 20:17 pretty much covers it: "You shall not covet your neighbors house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." That clearly meansn women are PROPERTY.

God also commands that MEN should come before him. At no time does he want women to come to him. And the word used for "man" is the gender specific, not the one synonmous with "human". In Leviticus we read that when a woman gives birth to a boy she is more "clean"than if she has a girl (Leviticus 12:2).


Quote:
Plus let us not forget the books of the Bible that were written about women. The books of Esther and Ruth come to mind immediately. One was about a queen of Persia and the other is about a woman who is not even a Jew. Throughout the Bible, we see great importance put on women and from what they did, great things occurred.

Yep. And last I checked, there are arguments as to whether Esther was really a hero, whether the books themselves were doctored, etc. As far as Ruth goes, do you really think that is a good way to get a husband?


Quote:
Read the many stories about Jesus and how He treated women. I think that is a good example of how God views women.

Or read Exodus and Deutoronomy and Leviticus to see how god views women.


Quote:
Based on your knowledge, you also probably knew that whenever God refers to His Church, the Church is a "she." In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." The Church or body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." In addition, the Greek word for church is a feminine noun. So, clearly God thought that women were not less than men.

Uh-huh. Not only is that just weird, it has nothing to do with how god views women. Using marriage as a metaphor the Church would have to be female, since god is male. By the way, why does an omnipotent super-being there is only one of have gender?


Quote:
As for Paul and women, let me quote just one passage, since you said I only needed one..."There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. " (Galatians 3:28) Does this sound like women are treated less than men?

It doesn't have anything to do with how women are treated. If it did, it would imply that sex was now unnecessary beause we no longer have gender, which is silly. Saying that women can go to Heaven or follow Jesus doesn't imply that they are treated as equals--which history shows they clearly were not. If your position is the correct one, why is it that only now is the Holy Spirit revealing it?


Quote:
I hope this is a bit of a rhetorical question, because we all know that there are many guildelines for sexual behavior. The Bible is clear that sexual intimacy should be kept within the bonds of marriage. I doubt that it needs to specify all of the many ways sex should not be utilized. I am guessing that if it specified not to have sex with your 12 yr old cousin, then someone would raise the question that this does not apply to a 14 year old cousin. That would be absurd. Sex outside of marriage is not condoned...whether you want to agree with that or not.

No, it isn't. Why can't I marry my 12 year-old cousin? If I did, then sex with her would be ok, right?

It would be easy to cover this for god, I would think. I can do it now, in fact. "Do not have sex with anyone who is under 18, or any of your own sisters or brothers. Do not have sex with your parents, and don't have sex with any of your sibling's children."

And what about Lot's daughters? They get him drunk and sleep with him so he will impregnate them. IS that morally respectable? And why does a woman who gets pregnant through rape have to marry her rapist? Does that sound remotely moral to you--or uplifting for women?


Quote:
As for the elderly, I don't have a specific verse at hand, but this I know, the Mid Eastern culture placed older people on a bit of a pedestal. Age equalled wisdom. I do not think that it was as necessary as it is today to specify how to treat them. This was well known.

Asian cultures rever age as well. But in current US culture the elderly are put in homes and ignored, as if they are a burden. Where in the Bible does it say that is the right idea? Or wrong?


Quote:
I have never taken a philosophy or debating class, but I think this fails on some logical fallacy position. And if you want to use history as an example of how gods looked, many many gods have not been human looking. The Egyptians had many half aniumal/half human gods. One of my favorite TV shows on Sci Fi called Stargate uses alot of this history and creates quite a great storyline. In India, cows are considered sacred. So when we refer to man and his gods, then he has not created simply human looking gods.

Naturism postulates non-human or semi-human gods, that is true. But the Godhead, or Big Cheese, if you will, is always in human form. The Egyptians used animal forms to represent different gods because they had no other way to define them Horus was human, as was Osiris. At the very least, all of the gods are anthropomorphic.

Cows are sacred, not god in Hinduism. And they do have a god that looks like an elephant, and one with lots of arms, but again they can change form and these effigies are representative of their power, not their "true form." As usual, religious iconography is not that simple.

In a basic sense, though, humans create human gods. And they used to walk around and interact with us. But as science advances, that has been shown to not happe, so god became a "spirit" that is "everywhere." Now he only exists in the places where we haven't figured things out yet. Smaller, and smaller, and smaller...


Quote:
As for man creating God, this goes into another area, but I am willing to guess that the God of the Bible is not what man would have created. But as for God being human like, the Bible says that man was created in God's Image not vice versa.

Why not? If you look at all the gods that man has invented, why is Jehovah different? Given their limited understanding of the world around them, I think that their god was a pretty good description of what they saw as happening. A jealous, malicious, psychopathic maniac.

I am aware that the Bible says we are created in god's image. Think about that. Isn't that just a little nutty? Are apes his first shot at it and didn't quite make it? Why are we so close to chimpanzees in form and behavior? We are 98% the same as thy genetically. Are they modeled after god's retarded older brother, or what?

And if god has a body, that implies that he is limited by time and space, and so can't BE everywhere all the time, right?

AND MORE CAN BE SEEN HERE....
http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthr ... 285&page=4

[Fortigurn]

Quote:
In fact in the Old Testament, there is a law that states, "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) If you doubt the context, feel free to red the rest in the Bible. I think that this clearly shows that forced slavery is not condoned.

Read further. The chapter to which you refer is all about the rules for slaves, and the passage you reference is about stealing a slave, not kidnapping someone. If that were so, why all the rules above that about who the slave's children belong to, etc.?

That passage is not about 'stealing a slave'. It's clear he hasn't even read the chapter. I would answer the slavery stuff like this.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I took a look at the link provided and read 2 threads there about God. (I take it you are "Moose.")

This will sound mean but here goes: I don't see any point in debating atheists. They are lost and nothing we could say will make them change their mind and see things our way. God alone has the power to regenerate them but they must first seek Him. All you can do is quote the Bible to them and hope some of that seed will take root somewhere down the way: ...faith comes from hearing the message... (Ro 10:17)

Good luck.

FL

[Kurieuo]

This will sound mean but here goes: I don't see any point in debating atheists. They are lost and nothing we could say will make them change their mind and see things our way.

I would agree, in particular that apologetics and intellectual reasoning only forms part of the picture with people. Life, relationships, experiences and so forth form a larger part of the picture. It is often when people grow in life over time that their perspectives begin to change. And if there are good reasons for accepting God and specifically Christ, then I see this is where apologetics have value in placing God on the table as a rational and viable position.

You can argue until your blue in the face, but it will get you nowhere until at least certain changes in a person's life has taken place. I believe the same works vice-versa for Christians loosing their faith.