how to debate creationism?

just mike
atheist
Posts: 5
Joined: 2010-12-01
User is offlineOffline
how to debate creationism?

I keep  trying to debate people on another forum by bringing up biblical inconsistencies or various things within the bible that are unsavory such as child abuse and how women are subjugated.

 

Their reply is always, "where in the bible does it say that?"

 

I always roll my eyes and post the link to the skeptics annotated bible site in which you can actually read the passages containing the unsavory stuff.

Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
You might want to at least

You might want to at least post the verse for them, or just quote it outright.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
just mike wrote:I keep 

just mike wrote:

I keep  trying to debate people on another forum by bringing up biblical inconsistencies or various things within the bible that are unsavory such as child abuse and how women are subjugated.

 

Their reply is always, "where in the bible does it say that?"

 

I always roll my eyes and post the link to the skeptics annotated bible site in which you can actually read the passages containing the unsavory stuff.

Alleging biblical inconsistencies, so it seems, inevitably gets bogged down in a debate over whose interpretation of such scriptures are correct. For better or worse, Christians have ways to rationalize and explain the allegations. This to me is zero sum for atheists...a Christian isn't going to be anymore compelled to accept the allegation than an atheist is going to be to accept the rationalizations...

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
just mike wrote:I keep 

just mike wrote:

I keep  trying to debate people on another forum by bringing up biblical inconsistencies or various things within the bible that are unsavory such as child abuse and how women are subjugated.

 

Their reply is always, "where in the bible does it say that?"

 

I always roll my eyes and post the link to the skeptics annotated bible site in which you can actually read the passages containing the unsavory stuff.

Here is a mountain of information all compiled into this brief video. Demonstrates perfectly why no one can possibly take the Bible literally and the hundreds of verses that have been used to justify every type of cruelty imaginable. Also points out why the Bible utterly fails as any form of guidance. Hehe, enough information to quiet most argumentative theists :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA&feature=related

I don't know how youtube Atheist AronRa manages to talk so fast and can cram so much information together at once, but his videos are all awesome like that .

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Christians have ways to rationalize and explain the allegations.

Yeah, I thought Isaiah 7:14 was a perfect example of why the predictions were just copied from the Septuagint. Turns out the word for Young Woman CAN mean virgin (although the single other use of the word in the Bible talks about sleeping with a young woman, which indicates loss of virginity, and the actual word for virgin is a different one), and that in Hebrew "a woman IS pregnant" can also mean "WILL give birth". So christians are pretty good at rationalizing.


faithnomore
atheist
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-10-28
User is offlineOffline
just mike

just mike wrote:

I keep  trying to debate people on another forum by bringing up biblical inconsistencies or various things within the bible that are unsavory such as child abuse and how women are subjugated.

 

Their reply is always, "where in the bible does it say that?"

 

I always roll my eyes and post the link to the skeptics annotated bible site in which you can actually read the passages containing the unsavory stuff.

 

To a degree, I do the same thing you do.  It seems, to me, that Christians occasionally experience a certain amount of doubt in God when logic creeps into their mind.  Somehow, they eventually manage to ignore this logic.  On other forums, I use biblical inconsistencies and absurdities in an attempt to plant "seeds of doubt."  I doubt that I'll ever convert a Christian instantly.  However, when they experience doubt, maybe these "seeds" will take root and make it harder for them to ignore logic.

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe. - Carl Sagan

Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion. - School Superintendent on "The Simpsons" episode #1


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:just mike

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

just mike wrote:
 

Their reply is always, "where in the bible does it say that?"

Alleging biblical inconsistencies, so it seems, inevitably gets bogged down in a debate over whose interpretation of such scriptures are correct. 

I agree; bible errancy is just a distraction from the actual topic imo.

It really just serves as a place for theists to hide. They can argue back and forth all day and never have to address the absurdity of god and supernatural belief in general.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah - bugger arguing over the bible.

 

It would be like arguing with our David Henson.

I'd be asking them to define god first in a way that was coherent, measurable using human sense data and did not cling to labelling and reification at the expense of all earthly explanation. Assure them it's not possible for the humanly inexplicable to explain god to humans. You will have to do this more than once. 

Given they will not be able to define god without resorting to lunacy, the argument will progress no further. Next, whether they concede defeat or no, direct them towards Massimo Piliucci's book Nonsense on Stilts.

Repeat.

Ed: Given the OP was about creationism debates not general bible inerrancy, you could just ask them to describe how creationism actually works. It's going to be a brief precis, I would think. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Gawdzilla
atheist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2011-01-01
User is offlineOffline
I ask them why a creator

I ask them why a creator would make a universe billions of light years across that was 99.99999% vacuum, and 99.9999% of the remainder nuclear fires? They never get a good answer out.

Then I ask them to explain why a creator would choose defecation as the preferred "waste management system". 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
God said it, I believe it,

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

God works in mysterious ways.

 

 

 

Not much you can do, really.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well. My approach tends to

 Well. My approach tends to vary based on just how insane a theist comes off and on just what the specific bit of lunacy actually is.

 

Once in a while, I will come on really hardass on them. Not on the accuracy of the bible as such but on related matters. For many of the common points, I may have actually taken some time to look into the matter previously.

 

Let me take a moment to discuss a couple of doctrinal points and the reality behind them.

 

Take the bit about the definition of a virgin as the example. In the OT Strong's word H1330 is translated as virgin but does not even refer to an individual human being. It is used to refer to a collective state of a whole nation. In context, it means a people who are in good with god. However, it is used several times to refer to a people who have fallen from grace but having been called out on the matter remain capable of getting right with god again. Basically, this is a state which can be returned to after having been lost. Typical usage is found in Jeremiah 18 and Jer 31.

 

The word used in the NT is Strong's word G3933 and that does actually refer to a woman with an intact hymen. It is, in fact, the same root word as Parthenogenesis, which refers to virgin birth in general. Does it not seem odd that the Greeks would have a word for such a thing if they did not consider the idea to be part of their world in general?

 

However, the fact remains that the NT term for virgin is a Greek word and not one that would have been used by the people writing in that time and place. The fact is that we do not have any surviving original text of the NT and thus we are left wondering if the original really used H1330.

 

Another really useful one is when the loonie starts talking about the trinity. Well, early christians did not have a concept of the trinity. That does not enter into matters until early in the 4th century. Prior to that, christianity had become fractured into different sects that had radically different view in the matter.

 

The Ebionites believed that jesus was fully human but became possessed by one of the archangels at his baptism. They also believed that to be a christian, one first had to become a jew. So while they were willing to take converts, they had to first engage in jewish genetial mutilation.

 

The Marcionites believed that jesus was not human at all. Rather, he was a bigger and better god than was yahweh. As such, there was no reason to become jewish first. Hey! Want to be a christian but don't want to have your cock worked over by a rabbi? Well, we have a deal for you...

 

By the time of the council of nicaea, both groups had fragmented into various disputes and had been cross pollinated with the thoughts of each other as well as the thoughts of many smaller sects of christianity. Hence the need to have a gathering of the world's bishops to hammer matters out and figure out what the one universal church really believed (btw: the term catholic means universal).

 

For each of the points where disagreement was at hand, the bishops voted on matters and the majority would be what it really meant to be a christian. They did this on fairly minor matters but also on the big questions like the need for circumcision and the nature of god jr.

 

So the whole holy trinity thing is not really a matter that even occupied the thoughts of christians prior to this time. Mostly, they did not believe in the trinity but rather that jesus was either a really cool dude or a god who just happened to be man shaped.

 

Now obviously, you are not going to be able to get all of this out in a face-to-face with some idiot. But if you want to come out of the gate strong, keep such things in the back of your mind. Ask the loon who is on about the trinity “what the vote was on the matter at the council of nicaea”. Since they will, with some degree of certainty, have been shielded from such matters by the abusers we call priests/pastors/reverends, you can expect them to go stupidly ignorant on the matter at hand.

 

Then hit them with “Well, before you try to sucker people into your batshit crazy stuff, don't you think that you should know what it is actually about?” If they persist, then you can tell them to go blow a talking donkey, if they can find one. Mind you, the OT does have talking donkeys so they must exist. The conversation will not go much farther than that.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I like the part about how

I like the part about how Bishops that didn't agree with the counsel consensus were excommunicated, exiled, their books burned and anyone caught following them would be killed.

Truly, the holy spirit at work.

 

Because, you know, nothing fosters honest debate and consensus like the threat of eternal damnation and mortal execution if you don't agree to toe the party line!  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.iv.html

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.