Debating an Atheist

[riseupandwalk]

Heb.11:1-16 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a [good] testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith [it is] impossible to please [Him], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and [that] He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as [in] a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God. By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born [as many] as the stars of the sky in multitude--innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore. These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced [them] and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that [country] from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly [country]. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them."

[steve]

Hi Truman,

This is Mr. Gregg (the other Steve). This thread is moving so fast that, in the time it takes to write a response, it has turned several new directions. This post is responding to two of your earlier posts.

The first is your claim that things that lead to a peaceful society are obviously the things that define morality. You say punching someone in the face is bad because it causes pain. In saying this, you are assuming that causing pain is bad. Yet nature, as you say, is "red in tooth and claw." Doesn't this involve a lot of pain? Would you describe nature as "immoral" for causing or allowing this pain? In fact, in evolution by natural selection, it is the extinction of weaker species (probably involving pain in many of their respective specimens) that propels progress. At what point in history did the strong preying upon the weak become a bad thing? Why is it bad for people to do this today?

The only non-theistic answer would seem to be: "Causing pain is bad because we don't like to feel pain, so people should not inflict it upon us." But why should a universal morality be based upon what we like or don't like. The antelope does not like being killed by lions, but this arrangement seems to suit the tastes of lions admirably. We take no pleasure in being victimized, but some criminals seem to take a twisted pleasure in victimizing weaker folks. Why shouldn't morality be based upon the preferences of the predator, rather on those of the prey? Doesn't nature and evolution favor the former? Why embrace the creation myth of evolutionism, and then ditch that system when it comes to discerning moral values?

In identifying antisocial behavior with evil, you are not following the lessons that nature teaches you. You are following your Western-Judeo-Christian heritage. If you were to visit tribal groups unreached by our culture, or were to live in Europe prior to the advent of Christianity, I do not believe that you would find "peace" and "empathy" to be recognized values there. Nature does not model or teach such values.

Unless there is a mind and a will above that of man, then there can be no moral standard incumbent on men to recognize. A peaceful society may benefit the largest number of people, but when did the preferences of the majority become the arbiter of right and wrong? If the majority in society felt that it was desirable to exterminate the few atheists that have emerged to make life obnoxious for decent, thinking folks, would this majority preference translate into a true moral value? Should atheists be exterminated because the vast majority of civilized people find them unpleasant?

Mr. Gregg says his personal relationship with god is the best evidence better, better than science. I also felt the leading of the holy spirit, fellowship with god, etc. I now see it as a delusion.

I tried to clarify this matter for you in the debate, but you must not have been listening (I said it at least twice or three times). You kept implying that my professed relationship with God is based upon "feeling" and "intuition," and that you had once had the very same kind of relationship with God. I pointed out that I have never appealed to any feeling or intuition of mine as the basis of my relationship with God, just as I do not appeal to my feelings or intuitions in declaring that I have a relationship with my parents.

My relationship with God involves much less in the way of feelings and intuitions than many might profess to have—and the same is true of my relations with most other people as well. Like my relationship with other real people, my relationship with God is based upon real experience with another real person. This experience is not based upon feelings, but upon acquaintance, interaction, tangible products, etc. If you are thinking I am referring to emotions here, then you are, no doubt, projecting your own former experience upon a case that is not like yours.

Your comments make it plain that your relationship with God was merely feelings and emotions, or else you would not imagine that mine (which you regard to be the same as yours) is based on such things. This tells me only that you did not know God. I don't know why you took offense to my saying so in the debate. You have testified to this very fact, in that you say it was "a delusion." Isn't this an admission that you never genuinely knew Him as a real Person? Delusions are the opposite of reality.

This is the difference between a person who has merely joined a religious community, attended their institutions and embraced their culture/beliefs, on the one hand, and a person who has become acquainted with the Person about whom these doctrines are, in many cases, mere speculations.

Of course my relationship with God is a more important basis for my knowledge of Him than is science. My relationship with my wife is also a more important basis of my knowledge of her than is science. Science may tell me some important things about my wife (especially if she has a disease), but most of the time, science does not have much of value to say to me about her. What science does say, I do not ignore. However, I have something better than science that informs my relationship.

I hope that you, too, may come to know the difference between a feeling and a relationship.

[steve7150]

God sent his son, they are both God, and there is only one God. Makes perfect sense, right? It is nonsense. Only instead you say to yourself "It must be true because the Bible says it is, even though it doesn't make sense." All of the theologians say the trinity concept is incomprehensible. Why believe it?




This is really going off on a tangent but the first thing is that every objection you have theologically to Christian doctrine is answerable if you are really interested. I don't want to go off in a trinity explanation but Jesus is the WORD of God distinct from God the Father. When it is said "The Word was God" most likely means "divine." Since the Word is "of God" and also the Spirit "of God" both originated from the Father at least IMO therefore God did not sacrifice himself.

Now it seems to me you morph quickly from one objection to the next which indicates it's not really the individual issues that drive you but maybe the idea of God ruling over a creation with evil and sickness and injustice. If that's the case i empathize but as i've tried to explain the lake of fire may be quite multi-purposeful
and useful for God to right all wrongs in the NEXT AGE. All you have to do is believe in God and believe he is just because all things are possible with God.

[darinhouston]

Truman, if you will follow some of the threads in this forum on the Trinity, the identity of Jesus with Deity/God or even the separate "personhood" of the Son is not clear in Christendom, so slamming one formulation as being nonsensical is itself nonsensical. You will find some here who struggle with the seeming inconsistencies in this doctrine, but as it is very opaquely dealt with in Scripture it is not (to me anyway) essential to Christianity. There are many that would say if you don't confess the traditional view, you're a heretic, and some would even say it is an essential foundational threshhold issue to be a Christian. Most here would not take that position, and so you're attacking a bit of a straw man with that one. Either debate the view of the Trinity itself or leave it alone -- all it does is make you look foolish if you are trying to convince someone that Christianity itself is a delusion to attack even this very important tradition within Christianity. You might be right that it shows the irrationality of some who formulate and adhere to this particular doctrine, but that's not the same thing as proving Christianity to be illogical or false.

[TrumanSmith]

darinhouston said:
RE: Trinity "You will find some here who struggle with the seeming inconsistencies in this doctrine, but as it is very opaquely dealt with in Scripture it is not (to me anyway) essential to Christianity."

It was said earlier that God sent Jesus to die and rise again. You believe Jesus is God. You believe God the Father is God. You believe there is only one God. Is it important (core) that Jesus is God? Yes, because a mere man (like you, me, or the Apostle Paul) couldn't pay for someone else's sins, correct? (According to your theology.) So why do you say the trinity isn't important when you believe that Jesus must be God, God the Father is a different person, and there is only one God?

I'll respond to Steve Gregg's post later tonight (I hope).

[steve]

Truman, in my review of your book I mentioned that you are responding to a Sunday School adolescent's understanding of the Bible and theology. If you would think about it for a moment, you would necessarily realize that it doesn't take an enlightened atheist to recognize that a simple 1 + 1+ 1 = 1 reasoning of the trinity is nonsense. How, then, did the greatest philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists of the past millennium manage to accept the trinity doctrine and fail to see the simplistic problem you are finding in the doctrine? It should be obvious that they were not understanding the doctrine in the childish way that you are presenting it. How did they understand it? That is what you ought to be researching, before taking pot shots at what you do not understand.

[TrumanSmith]

Steve Gregg said:
"Like my relationship with other real people, my relationship with God is based upon real experience with another real person."

You don't understand that I had the same relationship with Jesus as you think you do now. Only I would say I recognize my relationship was a delusion. I was deluded. You are still deluded. You think it is real, but it isn't. If you come to see reality as I think it is, then you will also come to say "I once thought I had a real relationship with Jesus but now I understand it as a delusion."

It isn't at all like a relationship with your spouse or parent. You can SEE them, visibly! And I can also meet them and SEE them. That makes all the difference in the world.

What makes you think you have a relationship with God? It has to be feelings and intuition, since there is NOTHING visible or measurable in any way. This is what I am saying it part of the very basics of "critical thinking" ... not to take any subjective feelings as a guide to determine what is true or not. Following your feelings... "the gentle leading of the Holy Spirit," will not lead you into truth. That is a mind-game you are playing with yourself.

Look at the movie "A beautiful mind" and you'll come to see there are lots of people that have mental diseases and think they see and talk to people (have relationships with people) that aren't really there.

This whole topic is EXTREMELY important, and key, because in your other atheist debate you said this relationship (you think you have) is more important to you than any scientific evidence, regarding the existence (or not) of God. Once you learn that your feelings are worthless for determining truth, then you can really look for the right ways to determine truth, by learning what a hypothesis is, how to develop one, and how to test it, and how to logically think about it.

Here's the best book, ever, on "critical thinking," which our local University uses as a textbook:
"How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age"
http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-About-W ... 0078038367

The older versions of the book are just as good and can be bought for under $5 at half.com:
http://product.half.ebay.com/How-to-Thi ... 79&tg=info

[TrumanSmith]

Steve Gregg wrote:
"If you would think about it for a moment, you would necessarily realize that it doesn't take an enlightened atheist to recognize that a simple 1 + 1+ 1 = 1 reasoning of the trinity is nonsense. How, then, did the greatest philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists of the past millennium manage to accept the trinity doctrine and fail to see the simplistic problem you are finding in the doctrine? It should be obvious that they were not understanding the doctrine in the childish way that you are presenting it. How did they understand it? That is what you ought to be researching, before taking pot shots at what you do not understand."

I have thought about it, a lot. I think we both know that the conclusion of theologians is that "it is a mystery." In other words, no one can understand it; just believe it. In reality, it can't be understood because it is nonsense.

Hank Hanegraaff "the Bible Answer Man" has said the trinity can be "apprehended but not comprehended." Meaning, you can accept it and use it, but not understand it.

Steve Gregg, are you trying to imply that you actually comprehend the idea of the trinity? It actually makes sense to you? Or can you admit it is a "mystery" (meaning it doesn't make sense)?

[steve]

Okay, Truman, I am going to give this one more try. If you don't believe I am telling the truth, or if you think I am delusional, I will have to leave you with your continuing self-delusion. There seems little point in discussing important subjects with people who think you are lying.

You don't understand that I had the same relationship with Jesus as you think you do now. Only I would say I recognize my relationship was a delusion. I was deluded. You are still deluded. You think it is real, but it isn't. If you come to see reality as I think it is, then you will also come to say "I once thought I had a real relationship with Jesus but now I understand it as a delusion."

This is the last time I am going to repeat this. If you don't hear it this time, you will have to remain ignorant.

Your relationship with God (by your own admission) was delusional. You did not have a real relationship with anybody named God. You only imagined it. I grant you this. You also admit that you know of no way to have a relationship that is not reducible to scientific explanations. Again, fair enough. I think I believe that about you. The sad thing is that you imagine that no one else has had more genuine relationships than you have had. This is mere arrogance.

It isn't at all like a relationship with your spouse or parent. You can SEE them, visibly! And I can also meet them and SEE them. That makes all the difference in the world.

Whether you can meet someone I know or not has no bearing on whether I know them. I have many friends that you will never see or meet. You'll have to trust me on that.

Furthermore, it is not necessary even that I see someone in order to have a relationship with them. A child born blind never sees his parents or siblings. This does not make them imaginary or prevent his having a genuine relationship with them. You are talking nonsense.

I have friendships, of sorts, with many people I have never met. For example, I receive letters regularly from people I may never meet. They have heard me talk a great deal and they think they know me somewhat. Some have read my book and responded to it. They tell me their stories and I listen. They ask my counsel and I answer. They sometimes send me gifts. You will say that I have nothing but feelings and intuitions upon which to base my belief that these people exist and that they interact with me—because I have never seen them, heard their voices, nor touched them. More nonsense.

In over fifty years of knowing God, I have received communications from him in various forms (none of them emotional or intuitive). I have made specific requests by the thousands, and received the things requested. He has actually been my benefactor for over forty years. He sends me everything I need on a daily basis, so that, without my ever having made my needs known to any man, my bills have always been paid on time. I have raised and educated five children, avoided all debt, never had health insurance (nor needed for myself or any family member to seek medical treatment—with one remarkable exception, in which the money for a procedure came in the mail a day before I knew the procedure would be required). God has been a Father and Friend to me for half a century, and if you think I have no genuine relationship with Him, you only display your own lamentable ignorance, my Friend. My relationship with God has had little to do with feelings or intuition, but it does have quite a bit to do with loyalty and trust (two essential relational dynamics which your faux relationship with Him clearly lacked).

What makes you think you have a relationship with God? It has to be feelings and intuition, since there is NOTHING visible or measurable in any way. This is what I am saying it part of the very basics of "critical thinking" ... not to take any subjective feelings as a guide to determine what is true or not. Following your feelings... "the gentle leading of the Holy Spirit," will not lead you into truth. That is a mind-game you are playing with yourself.

You can't imagine how stupid this makes you sound to anyone who does not share your present religious convictions. If the fact that something cannot be seen or proven by science means it does not exist, then you will have to give up some of the favorite invisible gods of your naturalistic faith—notably macroevolution, the creative power of natural selection, and the multiverse. The latter, by definition, cannot be observed by anyone in this universe (making it "supernatural"), and the former is an invisible creative force that makes sense to you, no less than theism makes sense to the larger portion of intelligent people who have walked the earth.

Look at the movie "A beautiful mind" and you'll come to see there are lots of people that have mental diseases and think they see and talk to people (have relationships with people) that aren't really there.

I have seen the movie. I pity those with such delusions, as I pity you with your delusions.

This whole topic is EXTREMELY important, and key, because in your other atheist debate you said this relationship (you think you have) is more important to you than any scientific evidence, regarding the existence (or not) of God. Once you learn that your feelings are worthless for determining truth, then you can really look for the right ways to determine truth, by learning what a hypothesis is, how to develop one, and how to test it, and how to logically think about it.

You have no idea how EXTREMELY important this is. Since you do not believe there is transcendent reality, nothing can really be very important. All people live and die, regardless of their beliefs or the course they seek in life. No one's life is more important than another. Even the man or woman who invents a cure for cancer, or the one who sets off a worldwide nuclear exchange, has done nothing that impacts the basic fact of mortality. The person who dies at three years old is no better or worse off than one who lives to be ninety. All die, and all are eternally meaningless. If there is a God, then He can identify for us what things are truly important—and they are things that those who are ignorant of Him will miss out on.

Steve Gregg, are you trying to imply that you actually comprehend the idea of the trinity? It actually makes sense to you? Or can you admit it is a "mystery" (meaning it doesn't make sense)?

As for the trinity, I am willing to believe that it is all mysterious—if I have that on good authority. My own personal understanding of the trinity may be more or less accurate, but it does make sense. I don't know whether a better grasp of that subject than my own exists, or not (nor do I care). In any case, I have not had to resort to "mystery" for lack of a reasonable explanation.

[paulespino]

Hi Truman,

I would like to read your response to this.

Steve wrote:

This is Mr. Gregg (the other Steve). This thread is moving so fast that, in the time it takes to write a response, it has turned several new directions. This post is responding to two of your earlier posts.

The first is your claim that things that lead to a peaceful society are obviously the things that define morality. You say punching someone in the face is bad because it causes pain. In saying this, you are assuming that causing pain is bad. Yet nature, as you say, is "red in tooth and claw." Doesn't this involve a lot of pain? Would you describe nature as "immoral" for causing or allowing this pain? In fact, in evolution by natural selection, it is the extinction of weaker species (probably involving pain in many of their respective specimens) that propels progress. At what point in history did the strong preying upon the weak become a bad thing? Why is it bad for people to do this today?

The only non-theistic answer would seem to be: "Causing pain is bad because we don't like to feel pain, so people should not inflict it upon us." But why should a universal morality be based upon what we like or don't like. The antelope does not like being killed by lions, but this arrangement seems to suit the tastes of lions admirably. We take no pleasure in being victimized, but some criminals seem to take a twisted pleasure in victimizing weaker folks. Why shouldn't morality be based upon the preferences of the predator, rather on those of the prey? Doesn't nature and evolution favor the former? Why embrace the creation myth of evolutionism, and then ditch that system when it comes to discerning moral values?

In identifying antisocial behavior with evil, you are not following the lessons that nature teaches you. You are following your Western-Judeo-Christian heritage. If you were to visit tribal groups unreached by our culture, or were to live in Europe prior to the advent of Christianity, I do not believe that you would find "peace" and "empathy" to be recognized values there. Nature does not model or teach such values.

Unless there is a mind and a will above that of man, then there can be no moral standard incumbent on men to recognize. A peaceful society may benefit the largest number of people, but when did the preferences of the majority become the arbiter of right and wrong? If the majority in society felt that it was desirable to exterminate the few atheists that have emerged to make life obnoxious for decent, thinking folks, would this majority preference translate into a true moral value? Should atheists be exterminated because the vast majority of civilized people find them unpleasant?