Debate with a creationist

[Zwinmar]

Over the past few weeks I have been in an ongoing debate with a Creationist/Christian who was trying to 'convert' me. I proceeded to print off some stuff from Wong's sight (ty btw for that stuff, helped a lot.) Finally, just a half hour ago I at least got him to walk off in disgust and hopefully leave me alone.

The argument started over a book he gave me to read, "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel, the logical falicies espoused with in are, rediculous, to say the least. (ex.: since Jesus can be proven to exist by historical documents therefore his deity exists, and, since Billy Graham said so.)

What the debate came down to today is the two versions of the ten commandments, and finally genocide.

He believes genocide is wrong, at least that what it says, but, it is ok (even rightous) to kill someone if god says to. As he said, god created life so he can destroy it. When I said that there is no way I could believe that he walked away with the air of finality.


Thanks again Wong for your site helped a lot in getting him to walk away and to forming proper arguments on my part.

Edit 1: spell check, probably more errors in grammar and spelling here.

[Samuel]

So he believes in abortion and infanticide?

[Zwinmar]

He would not admit to it, but he would do it if 'god told him to' at least that is what I got out of his argument.

[Samuel]

He would not admit to it, but he would do it if 'god told him to' at least that is what I got out of his argument.

I was refering to the "creating life" part of his beliefs. A more blatant example is cloning or test tube babies. But he probably goes with "that is playing God!" as for why it is wrong.

[Zwinmar]

For the creating life he used the example that if I wrote a book, build something, that it is my idea and no one can take it away and that I could destroy it because its mine. So, if I came up the cure for cancer I am not obligated to share it with the world, and once it is out there I can recall it at any time and destroy it?

[Darth Wong]

So if you create something, anything you do to that thing must be OK?

Britain created the American Colonies

[jcow79]

As he said, god created life so he can destroy it.

It's funny, that was the same thing my mom used to say. "I brought you into this world, I can take you out." She really DID have a god complex!

But really, shouldn't God be doing his own dirty work? The whole crux of the argument simply doesn't apply because GOD is not ending the life. He's relying on an assassin to do it for him. So if god is ordering you to kill, you have no justification under this premise to follow his instructions. I'd be more apt to say "I'll hold him while YOU smite em!"

And shouldn't you be suspect of a god that is supposed to have created life but can't seem to destroy it without your help? Hmmmmm

[Vehrec]

He would not admit to it, but he would do it if 'god told him to' at least that is what I got out of his argument.

It is very rare in my experience to find someone who actually holds this position-that anything, no matter how terrible it might seem to us is acceptable if done in the name of and with the blessing of God. The idea that moral certainty comes from their god is something a lot of people subscribe to but few have a good argument to support it or even stick to their guns about it. Those that stick to their guns about it tend to get confused when you start asking them 'is a thing loved by god because it is good or is it good because it is loved by god?'

[Alyeska]

What is the story on Lee Strobel? Christians always bring out the whole "Former Atheist" element as if it gives him some sort of credibility. I find the claim to be a former Atheist to be highly unlikely. It seems to me he is probably using an outdated view of Atheism immoral or hates god or some other bullshit like that.

[Darth Wong]

What is the story on Lee Strobel? Christians always bring out the whole "Former Atheist" element as if it gives him some sort of credibility. I find the claim to be a former Atheist to be highly unlikely. It seems to me he is probably using an outdated view of Atheism immoral or hates god or some other bullshit like that.

I have never seen one of these "former atheists" trot out an archived argument from his supposedly atheist period where he laid out the scientific and philosophical reasons for choosing atheism. All they do is lay claim to the label, while presenting zero evidence that they really were sincerely atheist at any time.

You would think that if someone had sincerely become an atheist, he would have been able to explain the reasons for this choice. But in their autobiographical talks, they always skip over that part. It's just some vague mumbling about how "I went through a period" or "I had doubts" or "I became very angry and rebellious". Absolutely nothing to indicate that he had ever given the whole philosophical concept of atheism any serious thought.

The deepest they ever get is to recognize hypocrisy in their fellow Christians, which is not a reason for becoming atheist. It's like saying that you joined Scientology because you became disillusioned with Islam, and then going into detail about how you became disillusioned with Islam. There's a huge gap in that story: we get the "leaving Islam" part, but where do you explain why you chose Scientology instead?

[Alyeska]

They were never really Atheists. They were just Angry Christians who were unhappy about something and used that as justification to claim God doesn't exist without actually presenting a rational argument. And because their "Atheism" was not rooted in reality with a rational concept, they are easily swayed by beliefs they never truly rejected and easily can come back to.

[Patrick Degan]

They were never really Atheists. They were just Angry Christians who were unhappy about something and used that as justification to claim God doesn't exist without actually presenting a rational argument. And because their "Atheism" was not rooted in reality with a rational concept, they are easily swayed by beliefs they never truly rejected and easily can come back to.

This is, of course, assuming that "former atheist" claims made by these speakers are in fact true and legitimate and not simply inventions to demonstrate to the faithful that "even atheists can be redeemed" as well as toss a curveball in arguments with atheists.

[Alyeska]

They were never really Atheists. They were just Angry Christians who were unhappy about something and used that as justification to claim God doesn't exist without actually presenting a rational argument. And because their "Atheism" was not rooted in reality with a rational concept, they are easily swayed by beliefs they never truly rejected and easily can come back to.

This is, of course, assuming that "former atheist" claims made by these speakers are in fact true and legitimate and not simply inventions to demonstrate to the faithful that "even atheists can be redeemed" as well as toss a curveball in arguments with atheists.

After seeing how the Discovery Institute, I have to agree that its a strong possibility. But in the case of Lee Strobel, I think he might be a honest moron. There appears to have documented statements he made back in his "militant Atheist" days. However, given his discussion of subjects such as Evolution, it becomes immediately clear that Strobel is an ignorant moron who never actually understood the scientific arguments to begin with. If he really was an "Atheist" (which seems a possibility), it was because he was completely ignorant on both religion and science. Thinking he knew a ton about science he tries to debunk religion but gets wrapped up into it as it supposedly refutes his bullshit beliefs on Science.

Thats the best thing that can be said about Strobel. That he is a F*cking idiot. The worst thing that can be said is that he is a fraud who is lying about his supposed Atheism.

I don't think that people like Lee Strobel ever have much impact on non-believers. Their purpose is to provide a story for the less enthusiastic believers to try and prove that religion is right and lead them away from the evils of science and secularism.

[Count Chocula]

Hmm. This may be a little bit OT, maybe not. I'm putting my son in a Catholic private school this August, and I was raised Catholic. I'm now a practicing agnostic...I haven't seen proof of "God" other than Aquinas' logical proof, which is not verifiable. However, I cannot discount the possibility of a "God" - but I don't pattern my Sundays on it. I chose Catholic school primarily for the quality of education, secondarily for the reinforcement of what I perceive as a good moral upbringing: honesty, discipline, inquiry, and tolerance.

Having said that, I don't recall the Ten Commandments being taught as anything other than a moral code for humans to strive to live by, good, proven, common-sense guidelines couched in a paternalistic framework (as I later realized). Genocide was NEVER countenanced by our nuns or priests, in any context, and Herod's Massacre of the Innocents is the nearest thing I can recall to a "genocide" in the Bible...but I could be off base.

Killing someone because "God" said so? That's more than a little whackaloon...and not founded in the Bible at all. If this guy ever shows up in your life again, just go tell him to hang out with these people.

[Alyeska]

So long as the Catholic school isn't overly evangelical and you talk with your son to counter any religious indoctrination, I think you should be safe. The school is important, but so are you.

[Darth Wong]

Having said that, I don't recall the Ten Commandments being taught as anything other than a moral code for humans to strive to live by, good, proven, common-sense guidelines couched in a paternalistic framework (as I later realized). Genocide was NEVER countenanced by our nuns or priests, in any context, and Herod's Massacre of the Innocents is the nearest thing I can recall to a "genocide" in the Bible...but I could be off base.

This is exactly the problem with Christians. They have this huge blind spot to Biblical atrocities. Ever heard of the FLOOD, genius? How about Jericho, or the slaughter of Egyptian babies by Moses during the Exodus? How about Sodom and Gomorrah?

These are not obscure stories, Mr. Catholic School. These are well-known stories of ruthless genocide committed by God or by the Jews at his command. You know these stories, but none of them came to mind when Biblical genocide was mentioned, because you have an enormous blind spot about Bible stories. Specifically, about Bible stories where the slaughter is portrayed in a positive light.

[Samuel]

Hmm. This may be a little bit OT, maybe not. I'm putting my son in a Catholic private school this August, and I was raised Catholic. I'm now a practicing agnostic...I haven't seen proof of "God" other than Aquinas' logical proof, which is not verifiable. However, I cannot discount the possibility of a "God" - but I don't pattern my Sundays on it. I chose Catholic school primarily for the quality of education, secondarily for the reinforcement of what I perceive as a good moral upbringing: honesty, discipline, inquiry, and tolerance.

Having said that, I don't recall the Ten Commandments being taught as anything other than a moral code for humans to strive to live by, good, proven, common-sense guidelines couched in a paternalistic framework.

Killing someone because "God" said so? That's more than a little whackaloon...and not founded in the Bible at all. If this guy ever shows up in your life again, just go tell him to hang out with these people.

Logical proofs can be verified. That is the whole point of logic. You need to see if the axioms they are based upon are valid.

The 10 Commandments are not a moral code- they are a deal between the Jews and God. The first 3/4 are completely irrelevant to human relations.

As for God telling you to kill... Abraham.

[Count Chocula]

This is exactly the problem with Christians. They have this huge blind spot to Biblical atrocities. Ever heard of the FLOOD, genius? How about Jericho, or the slaughter of Egyptian babies by Moses during the Exodus? How about Sodom and Gomorrah?

These are not obscure stories, Mr. Catholic School. These are well-known stories of ruthless genocide committed by God or by the Jews at his command. You know these stories, but none of them came to mind when Biblical genocide was mentioned, because you have an enormous blind spot about Bible stories. Specifically, about Bible stories where the slaughter is portrayed in a positive light.

Jesus fucking Christ. The Biblical Flood killed EVERYONE ON EARTH except Noah and his family. Just to jog your memory, here's the definition of genocide:

geno·cide
Pronunciation: \ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Like Hitler's hard-on against the Jews.

Jericho was a CITY attacked and pillaged by the Israelites, as it was attacked over the centuries by the Assyrians and Babylonians before the Israelites. NOT genocide. Razing a city ain't right, but it also is NOT genocide.

If you're talking about the slaughter of male infants in Exodus, perhaps you should blame the Pharoh:

From the Bible

The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, . . . "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." (1 Exodus 1:15, 16)

From archaelogy
Page numbers from "Pharaohs and Kings" by David Rohl
More adult women were buried in the settlement than adult men which indicates a disproportionately high female population. There was also a higher percentage of infant burials - 65% of all the burials were those of children under 18 months (compared to the expected rate of 20% to 30%). These two bits of archaeological evidence are explained by the slaughter of Israelite infant males by the Egyptians. (pg 271)

Or maybe you're referring to this, you didn't specify. Note that, according to the Bible, "God" killed all the firstborn of Egypt, as the Tenth Plague. All Moses did was walk around town. Oh yeah, and "God" killed all the firstborn livestock too. Really. I dunno, maybe my Catholic blinders are on, but all of this sounds like a convoluted description of a nation running out of water and food and killing all the newborns to keep everybody else alive...but I could be wrong.

Sodom and Gommorah? You're really going to trot out that one? You're smarter than that. IT WAS TWO CITIES. If you wish to consider them, together, one cultural group to justify your "genocide" assertion, feel free. I dunno, maybe my Catholic blinders are on, but all of this sounds like a convoluted description of Shep's great-great-great-et-cetera grandfather pushing the red button and nuking two cities...but I could be wrong.

Congratulations. You've made me do more Bible research in 30 minutes than I've done in 15 years.

[Samuel]

cultural group

Like... people who don't obey the one true God. Golly, could religion/ethnicity be used as a qualifier?

Jericho was a CITY attacked and pillaged by the Israelites, as it was attacked over the centuries by the Assyrians and Babylonians before the Israelites. NOT genocide. Razing a city ain't right, but it also is NOT genocide.

Yes, mass transit existed back them... oh, wait, the population of the city was probably the concentation of most of the Jerichons on the planet. Although to be fair, there were some groups that were spread out, like the one group the Jews exterminated 3 times. Must be an embarressment- you kill a bunch of women and chidren but you didn't catch them all.

Oh yeah, and "God" killed all the firstborn livestock too. Really. I dunno, maybe my Catholic blinders are on, but all of this sounds like a convoluted description of a nation running out of water and food and killing all the newborns to keep everybody else alive...but I could be wrong.

Which is why it killed only the first born and the pharoah's first born who presumably got enough water. The story is quite clear about the Egyptians and not Jews getting killed. Historically things are different of course.

Sodom and Gommorah? You're really going to trot out that one? You're smarter than that. IT WAS TWO CITIES. If you wish to consider them, together, one cultural group to justify your "genocide" assertion, feel free. I dunno, maybe my Catholic blinders are on, but all of this sounds like a convoluted description of Shep's great-great-great-et-cetera grandfather pushing the red button and nuking two cities...but I could be wrong.

Once again, this is the ancient world. Populations were alot more localized.

And, of course, this has nothing to do with the "killing shit loads of people". If it makes you feel better we will just use terms mass murder, slaughter, buthery, blood soaked champion of the dark gods, etc.

[Darth Wong]

Lemme see ... according to Count Chocula, it's not an act of genocide if you wipe out almost all of an entire species. It's not an act of genocide if you wipe out an entire city ... in an era of city-states. It's not an act of genocide if you wipe out two peoples at once, instead of just one. And most of all, it's not an atrocity if it doesn't meet Count Chocula's narrow definition of "genocide". Right?

He's inadvertently proving my point for me: he's nitpicking my accusations about the Bible, thus proving that he is incapable of viewing Biblical atrocities honestly. He could have responded by saying "Oh yes, I didn't realize that wiping out the entire human race could be considered genocide", but that would concede the point about how he has obvious blind spots about Christianity. He can't do that, can he? Oh no, so instead he chose option B: look for counter-arguments, no matter how flimsy they may be.

[Count Chocula]

Once again, this is the ancient world. Populations were alot more localized.

And, of course, this has nothing to do with the "killing shit loads of people". If it makes you feel better we will just use terms mass murder, slaughter, buthery, blood soaked champion of the dark gods, etc.

Populations were more localized, yes, that makes sense. Is there any archaelogical or historical proof that ONE racial, political or cultural group was at those sites?

...well shit. Could you consider a city a political group? Would nuking Chicago amount to genocide? Would destroying Bakersfield mean killing all the Republicans? No, I'm going to stick with my assertion, barring evidence from people more educated than I in ancient history that pre-Anno Domini cities were composed of specific racial, political or cultural groups that could be found in no other places.

As for the "mass murder, slaughter, butchery, blood soaked" portion of the Bible, I am in complete agreement with you there. The Old Testament is a festival of suffering and death.

NOTE: Darth Wong beat me to the post by 1 minute.

[Imperial Overlord]

In an era of city-states, a city and the surrounding countryside would constitute one small nation. Wiping them out is wiping out a nation and is genocide.

If alien bastards kill almost everyone one Earth, leaving only one family of survivors, it's genocide. If God kills every human on Earth, except for one family he spares, it's genocide.

[Surlethe]

The nice thing about the Bible is that even if someone wants to nitpick away that those don't "count" as genocide (even though they're senseless and immoral widespread destruction of innocent life), you can actually find a textbook definition of genocide in there:

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than yourselves, and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. 5But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire.

"For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them.) He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face. You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment and the statutes and the rules that I command you today.

"And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers. He will love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock, in the land that he swore to your fathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples. There shall not be male or female barren among you or among your livestock. And the LORD will take away from you all sickness, and none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which you knew, will he inflict on you, but he will lay them on all who hate you. And you shall consume all the peoples that the LORD your God will give over to you. Your eye shall not pity them, neither shall you serve their gods, for that would be a snare to you.

"If you say in your heart, 'These nations are greater than I. How can I dispossess them?' you shall not be afraid of them but you shall remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, the wonders, the mighty hand, and the outstretched arm, by which the LORD your God brought you out. So will the LORD your God do to all the peoples of whom you are afraid. Moreover, the LORD your God will send hornets among them, until those who are left and hide themselves from you are destroyed. You shall not be in dread of them, for the LORD your God is in your midst, a great and awesome God. The LORD your God will clear away these nations before you little by little. You may not make an end of them at once, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you. But the LORD your God will give them over to you and throw them into great confusion, until they are destroyed. And he will give their kings into your hand, and you shall make their name perish from under heaven. No one shall be able to stand against you until you have destroyed them. The carved images of their gods you shall burn with fire. You shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them or take it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it, for it is an abomination to the LORD your God. And you shall not bring an abominable thing into your house and become devoted to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest and abhor it, for it is devoted to destruction.

[Rye]

Even disregarding the ecocide God perpetrates in Genesis, wiping out whole cities and paying attention specifically to the Israelite lebensraum, a particularly horrifying example can be found with the Amalekites, in which, well, I'll repost a chilling bit of "Rational Christianity" to make my argument for me:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/amalekites.html

The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation as they were travelling during the Exodus (Ex 17:8). "When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind" (Dt 25:17-18). They later attacked Israel during the time of the Judges (Jdg 3:13) and often raided the Israelites' land after they had planted crops, leaving them with nothing (Jdg 6:2-5). God punished the Amalekites by ordering Saul to destroy them (1 Sam 15:2-3) - over 300 years after they had first attacked Israel. During that time, the Amalekites had contact with the Israelites and would have heard about God. They could have repented and changed their ways, but they continued to raid and plunder other cities up to the time of Saul and David (1 Sam 30:1-3). The Amalekites that Saul and David warred against were clearly no better than their ancestors who had first waylaid Israel.

Did God "blot out the memory of Amalek" or not?

The LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation." (Ex 17:14-16)

"Blot out the memory of Amalek" refers to the extinction of the descendents of Amalek. Clearly God was not referring to the world's knowledge that Amalek existed, else he would not have commanded the Amalekites' defeat to be recorded. He wanted the incidents to be remembered, so that future generations would realize that God, not the Israelites, defeated the Amalekites and avenged their unjust treatment of others.

The Amalekites presumably would have been wiped out by Saul in 1 Samuel 15 if he had followed God's instructions. He did destroy the city of Amalek, but other raiding parties/nomadic bands of Amalekites survived. These were defeated by David in 1 Samuel 30 with the exception of a few hundred who escaped (30:17). The remnant of the Amalekites were finally destroyed by the Israelites many years later (1 Chr 4:43). Thus, while God did blot out the memory of Amalek by wiping out his descendents, he was at war with them for many generations.

Wasn't this unjust revenge?

The revenge was in fact punishment from God on an unrepentant nation. As noted above, they were given ample time to change their ways. While it was the descendents of the original attackers who were punished, they led the same evil lifestyle that their ancestors had (and possibly one that was worse - in dealing with evil nations in the OT, God often withheld punishment until their wickedness reached a particularly high level). Furthermore, it was God who was avenging the Israelites, not the Israelites themselves. God, who has perfect knowledge, wisdom and justice, has the authority to avenge; humans, including the Israelites, do not have this authority.

So it is okay, and even required by divine diktat to exterminate the Amalekites, regardless of their age. If there were any alive now, it would be just and good for Christians to kill them because their ancestors picked on the Israelites in an Exodus that never happened. If anyone behaves like an "unrepentant" Amalekite or be descended from one, it ought to be equally as just and good to kill him and his family, and anyone can say they heard God telling them so.

[Intio]

Absolutely nothing to indicate that he had ever given the whole philosophical concept of atheism any serious thought.

Another way of putting it is that these former atheists never use the same criteria for becoming a theist, which they used for being an atheist. I forget his name, but there was one former atheist who decided to become a believer because he was walking through a forest on a winter day, he knew that the frozen stream beside him would open to a waterfall up ahead, and when he got there he saw that the waterfall had frozen into three distinct columns. This reminded him of the trinity.

That's it.

Something visual reminded him of something cultural and so he became a Christian. I suspect many former atheists have this mismatch when it comes to their criteria for acceptance.

They were never really Atheists.

I'd be hesitant to make that judgement - since it replicates the smug assurance that Christians express when they find Christians acting in a contradictory way: "Oh well, he was never a real Christian."

We have no way of telling another person whether they are a 'real' exponent of their professed knowledge until they say or do something provably inconsistant with that knowledge. I think the above-mentioned example will be true for these people.