christian / atheist debates in school

[trust_in_the_name]

Here's how I like to look at it... Our knowledge and perceptions all fall back on our senses. In my eyes, our senses are extremely unrealiable and can be rather deceptive at times, but... that's not the primary reason why I think the way I do. The reason why I believe that there is no such thing as objectivity is that everything we deem as knowledge and truth are merely made up of terms and observations that have come from humanity. Humanity does not have the authority to establish universal truths... mainly due to the unreliability of our senses.

We have a much different way of perceiving time in comparison to that of other organisms. We also have a different way of perceiving the universe all together, thus making (what we perceive as) reality subjective in comparison to that of the universe. So... we can't truly know anything. We just go by what our senses tell us.

What I just described to you could be considered epistemological nihilism... a form of nihilism that I'm a bit weary about. Feel free to challenge that theory because I'm not quite sure about it myself.

On another note... existential nihilism is, yes, what you described: there is no objective meaning of life. I've heard the term "anti-nihilist" used several times in a book I'm reading, but I'm not entire sure what that is. As for myself... I am an existential, moral, and political nihilist... all falling under passive nihilism (which means I accept society for what it is and have no desire to attempt to change it).

Just a quick comment about epistemological nihilism: a person who is one can't make assertions of any sort. So if you were one, you couldn't assert that you are one, and couldn't know that you are one. You couldn't know anything. Even your perceptions would have to be regarded as meaningless. Simply because there would be no meaning at all. Kind of like non-existence, except that the idea of non-existence is meaningful and ideas aren't allowed (since they have meaning).

It's the ultimate non-position.

 

[Rogo]

Just a quick comment about epistemological nihilism: a person who is one can't make assertions of any sort. So if you were one, you couldn't assert that you are one, and couldn't know that you are one. You couldn't know anything. Even your perceptions would have to be regarded as meaningless. Simply because there would be no meaning at all. Kind of like non-existence, except that the idea of non-existence is meaningful and ideas aren't allowed (since they have meaning).

It's the ultimate non-position.

That's just it. According to epistemological nihilism, we can't know anything, but we can still form opinions on what little we have (our subjective, unreliable senses).

And we're not talking about meaning or value in this particular discussion. Nihilism (specifically existential nihilism) regards everything to be meaningless (which leaves the individual to create subjective values, morals, etc). So it is rather pointless to make that assertion. Epistemological nihilism is about rejecting the concept of knowledge and has nothing (specifically) to do with meaning (because it can already be assumed that one who abides by its philosophy believes there is no such thing as objective meaning anyways).

 

[trust_in_the_name]

That's just it. According to epistemological nihilism, we can't know anything, but we can still form opinions on what little we have (our subjective, unreliable senses).

And we're not talking about meaning or value in this particular discussion. Nihilism (specifically existential nihilism) regards everything to be meaningless (which leaves the individual to create subjective values, morals, etc). So it is rather pointless to make that assertion. Epistemological nihilism is about rejecting the concept of knowledge and has nothing (specifically) to do with meaning (because it can already be assumed that one who abides by its philosophy believes there is no such thing as objective meaning anyways).

That's where I would take issue. The problem is that epistemological nihilism creates a sort of vicious circle since, upon adopting it, you are from that point onward forced to not even believe anything (or assert that you believe anything), since believing something would imply that you think you have knowledge that you believe that something. The same thing goes for the senses: if you say you have these sense perceptions, you're implying that you have knowledge of the fact that you have them, which goes against your own epistemological nihilism.

 

[Alex314]

Of course, in the proper context.

I'd be curious to know what the proper context is then.

There aren't any contradictions, although there are a few minor inconsistencies in names and numbers which may have been the result of transcriptional errors.

This website seems to bring up more than a few contradictions, most of which could be taken out of context (can't be sure without doing research) but there are some which are genuinely puzzling.
A List Of Biblical Contradictions

Then I'm at a loss to explain why you're taking issue with slavery in the Bible, which is an ancient book.

I'm taking offense than an all-powerful all-benevolent god source of all human morality endorses slavery and goes about describing how one should take slaves from neighboring nations. If His morality is immutable, then slavery should still be moral today. If it was never moral, then why endorse it in the OT? Why wait until slavery is abolished about a century ago in the US before most christians saying slavery was not acceptable?

Like anything it would depend on the specific circumstances. The Bible condemns most facets of slavery of the sort that was found in America. On the other hand, there was no way for a slave to support himself while the institution was in effect, and a Christian slave-owner would have provided for his slaves and treated them as family.

So the Bible supports the slave trade for the Israelis back in the day, but not for Americans?

Much ado about nothing. Mary was a virgin and God provided the Y chromosome. This is trivial and should be obvious. Chromosomes are just a particular arrangment of atoms, which are abundantly available. God wouldn't even have had to create ex nihilo, if He didn't want to. Or, if He wanted to, He could have. It really doesn't matter.

I'm sorry, but saying that a chromosome is merely an arrangement of atoms is like saying the universe is merely a sprinkling of stars. It is a gross oversimplification that's almost insultingly simple.
Also, you seem to be saying that God can make something from nothing here. Creation ex nihilo.

 

[Alex314]

Not if you're incapable of following what's being said. That would be a huge waste of my time. Pearls before swine, and all.

It is a big subject, and I'm not that well versed in scripture. Perhaps another time after I've read the entire NT?

Look, understanding concepts does not require faith of ANY KIND. All you need is a brain capable of understanding concepts and following logic and reason.

I agree completely. Understanding the concepts requires no faith. Understanding that people are born due to the fusion of two gametes takes no faith. Understanding that in order for Jesus to be sinless from birth, that he must be born of a virgin, in order to avoid the original sin that is passed down through the generations, understanding that takes no faith. Thinking it's actually true does take faith.

Putting faith in God is another thing all together.

I'm confused, what do you mean here?

You said there is a Biblical contradiction regarding law, but you haven't proven it or explained it, even. Simply stated it exists. Make your case, friend.

I didn't say that there were contradictions in the laws of the Bible, but there are contradictions in the way Christians apply those laws. There are also contradictions between what is written in the bible and what we see in reality (rabbit not a cud chewer, bat not a bird) which don't make sense if such information comes from a divinely inspired person, but makes perfect sense if those words come from the mouths of people living in those times. I'm saying there are perfectly valid secular reasons for why most of those laws are there in the first place, and hardly requires divine aid, and that those secular reasons can help explain the mistakes in the bible.

 

[Alex314]

Here's how I like to look at it... Our knowledge and perceptions all fall back on our senses. In my eyes, our senses are extremely unrealiable and can be rather deceptive at times, but... that's not the primary reason why I think the way I do. The reason why I believe that there is no such thing as objectivity is that everything we deem as knowledge and truth are merely made up of terms and observations that have come from humanity. Humanity does not have the authority to establish universal truths... mainly due to the unreliability of our senses.

You do realize this is why we invented measurements that we decided to use internationally as a convention, so as to remove as much as possible of the human factor? Humanity does not have the authority to do establish universal truths, but we do have to authority to make as best an approximation as we can.
Knowledge is merely the sum of our observations of the objective universe, and while objective truth may exist, it's unlikely that we'll find it one day.

We have a much different way of perceiving time in comparison to that of other organisms. We also have a different way of perceiving the universe all together, thus making (what we perceive as) reality subjective in comparison to that of the universe. So... we can't truly know anything. We just go by what our senses tell us.

The thing is, no matter how which species feels the time pass differently, a second is a second is a second. A second to a snail might seem longer than a second to a fruit fly, but both seconds have the same objective duration.

On another note... existential nihilism is, yes, what you described: there is no objective meaning of life. I've heard the term "anti-nihilist" used several times in a book I'm reading, but I'm not entire sure what that is. As for myself... I am an existential, moral, and political nihilist... all falling under passive nihilism (which means I accept society for what it is and have no desire to attempt to change it).

Anti-nihilism would be from what I gather, a nihilistic approach to the meaning of life, but instead of despair/sadness, there is happiness that we are able to find meanings for ourselves.
As for being passive, I know there are many things that I want to change in the world, because there are so many suffering, and there is so much we could do to help them out of that suffering. My non-inaction stems from my empathy and sense of responsibility towards my fellow women and men.

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

Ok... I am back after many weeks away due to graduation, finals, vacation, etc. I am going to try to respond to some posts I missed Sorry if I miss you in this post and please post something to remind me if I miss you.

The problem lies here: you state that the Universe must have a cause, but you accept that what you allege caused the universe need not have a cause; and yet you refuse to lay out what, exactly, differentiates the two such that one requires a cause, and the other does not.

That is the crux: in the absence of a cogent explanation, that double-standard is entirely arbitrary, and as such, I find it unconvincing.

In order to master this difficulty, you'll need to explain why the rule "all things must have a cause" need not apply to your "Uncaused Cause".

I'm not here to badger you about this, though, and I don't think that you'll agree with me, no matter how tightly I reason this; so if I am getting tiresome to you, say as much, I'm cool. You have faith, I don't, and I can accept that.

I appreciate your smart, and courteous, replies.

Ah... I think you are misunderstanding my argument. You said "you state that the Universe must have a cause, but you accept that what you allege caused the universe need not have a cause." I stated that anything that has a beginning has some sort of cause. If something has no beginning than it does not need a cause. I don't see where I am using a double standard.

You aren't badgering me. I love to talk and learn new things and it is possible for my mind to be changed. It was once before. I appreciate your courteous replies too

If causality is not known to be a universal (or valid) principle then it doesn't follow that there must be a cause to the universe.

I also addressed the virtual particles thing through the following link: Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles

I wasn't aware of anything else that you brought up regarding the issue and I even asked if you had anything else and to the best of my knowledge I received no response. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[rainacorn]

I didn't say that there were contradictions in the laws of the Bible, but there are contradictions in the way Christians apply those laws.

Again, this is just a statement. Back it up with something.

There are also contradictions between what is written in the bible and what we see in reality (rabbit not a cud chewer, bat not a bird) which don't make sense if such information comes from a divinely inspired person, but makes perfect sense if those words come from the mouths of people living in those times.

Make sure the confusion isn't a translation issue. I know what you're talking about here because I've heard it before, but rather than dismissing it, get down to the actual words and what they mean.

We see this a few times in the Bible. The words used don't always have direct translations into other languages. We do our best to get the point across, which is usually done successfully, but more digging has to be done if one doesn't get the point and insists on something more... pedantic?

This specific example is translation.

I'm saying there are perfectly valid secular reasons for why most of those laws are there in the first place, and hardly requires divine aid, and that those secular reasons can help explain the mistakes in the bible.

You assume it's a mistake to begin with.. or that there is some error that needs to be corrected in order to understand the 'point'.

While I totally agree with you that there are 'natural' explanations and reasons for that chunk of the Bible, it doesn't exclude the possibility of a divine existence or even some divine inspiration in writing it down.

 

[Rogo]

You do realize this is why we invented measurements that we decided to use internationally as a convention, so as to remove as much as possible of the human factor? Humanity does not have the authority to do establish universal truths, but we do have to authority to make as best an approximation as we can.
Knowledge is merely the sum of our observations of the objective universe, and while objective truth may exist, it's unlikely that we'll find it one day.

Yes, we have the authority to make the best approximation that we can, but that does not make it objective. We can also not conclude that an objective truth exists because that would require us to have an objective perspective... something we do not have.

Science, in my opinion (as well as Nietzsche's), is the one of the more reliable perspectives when regarding our subjective understanding of the universe. It presents many different perspectives (hypothesis), and the more perspectives the better.

 

[Rogo]

However, if the definition of anti-nihilism is how you presented it, then I suppose I would be an anti-nihilist as well.

 

[suriturbo]

Well, maybe you should ask them if they also dont believe in oxygen... Ive never seen it... Experiments have been done to prove that it exists but ive never seen it, so how can it be real? The same with God, we've never seen Him... So how do we know He exists? Experiments (The bible and miracles) prove that He does exist... That is enough proof for me right there.

I guess it all comes down to faith... I believe that by having faith, you have to believe in something you cant see (not just that but a large part of it)

@Goofy777. You gave him an interesting example to ask the atheist.But more than likely they will try to give a reason as to why it makes sense to believe in oxygen,despite us not being able to see it.Yet they think it's crazy to believe in God.I guess the fact that oxygen doesn't hold them accountable for the life they live,might have something to do with some people that refused to believe in God.But have no problem with believing in anything that doesn't hold them accountable by the way I along with everyone else believe that oxygen is real.I also believe in God. You're right it does come down to faith.

 

[Willot]

Liquid oxygen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See, it does exist! And there's a little picture on the side of the page to prove it. Now you can gladly say that you have seen oxygen.

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

Liquid oxygen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See, it does exist! And there's a little picture on the side of the page to prove it. Now you can gladly say that you have seen oxygen.

Lol... is this in response to the air comment?

 

[Willot]

Yes, yes it is lol

 

[Alex314]

Again, this is just a statement. Back it up with something.

Did you ever stone an unbeliever? Deuteronomy 13: 5-11. If you haven't done so, you haven't done your duty to your lord. That is a direct commandment.
Did you ever kill a Pagan, Asatruar, Druid, Bard, Ovate, or Heathen? If not, you haven't done your duty to your lord. Exodus 22:18 Suffer not a witch to live.
When Christians will start doing that, then I'll let them also call homosexuality an abomination. Until then, I think it's inappropriate to pick and choose whatever one wants in the Bible.

Make sure the confusion isn't a translation issue. I know what you're talking about here because I've heard it before, but rather than dismissing it, get down to the actual words and what they mean.

We see this a few times in the Bible. The words used don't always have direct translations into other languages. We do our best to get the point across, which is usually done successfully, but more digging has to be done if one doesn't get the point and insists on something more... pedantic?

This specific example is translation.

I could understand that because in the time, there were no words for mammal, the scientific classification of animals didn't exist, translation for cud is difficult, yadda yadda yadda. I just don't get why people who become pedantic about 'kinds' in the bible and invent baraminology are so vague about these issues, as though they are selectively choosing what is to be taken seriously and what isn't.

You assume it's a mistake to begin with.. or that there is some error that needs to be corrected in order to understand the 'point'.

I'm just thinking that if the Bible were the inerrant word of God, then we shouldn't be having all these issues. One doesn't need to correct the mistake to understand the point, but wouldn't one think that a perfect being would divinely inspire translations of his holy book to ensure the message doesn't get corrupted down throughout the ages?

While I totally agree with you that there are 'natural' explanations and reasons for that chunk of the Bible, it doesn't exclude the possibility of a divine existence or even some divine inspiration in writing it down.

It doesn't exclude the possibility of there being a Bigfoot either. I'm not looking for something that would exclude God from the equation, I'm looking for something that would tell us unequivocally and without reserves that this could not have come about without God. I've been looking for three years so far (which admittedly isn't much) but I haven't come across anything that would support this position yet.

 

[Alex314]

Yes, we have the authority to make the best approximation that we can, but that does not make it objective. We can also not conclude that an objective truth exists because that would require us to have an objective perspective... something we do not have.

Oh no, I'm not saying our measurements are objective, I'm just saying we are subjectively attempting to measure an objective reality (the universe) and the scientific method is attempting to remove as much subjectivity as it possibly can.

However, if the definition of anti-nihilism is how you presented it, then I suppose I would be an anti-nihilist as well.

I honestly have no idea if that is the correct definition, but it is the definition someone gave me, and a quick 5-minute search didn't disprove that notion.

 

[Alex314]

Well, maybe you should ask them if they also dont believe in oxygen... Ive never seen it... Experiments have been done to prove that it exists but ive never seen it, so how can it be real? The same with God, we've never seen Him... So how do we know He exists? Experiments (The bible and miracles) prove that He does exist... That is enough proof for me right there.

I guess it all comes down to faith... I believe that by having faith, you have to believe in something you cant see (not just that but a large part of it)

Would you like a scientist to give you a glass of liquid oxygen? A cube of frozen oxygen? Would you like to weight how much does 1 gallon of oxygen weighs? Would you like a scientist to tell you how hot oxygen burns? You can call believing in oxygen faith, but I call it trusting reality. Please don't mistake faith with scientific ignorance.

@Goofy777. You gave him an interesting example to ask the atheist.But more than likely they will try to give a reason as to why it makes sense to believe in oxygen,despite us not being able to see it.Yet they think it's crazy to believe in God.I guess the fact that oxygen doesn't hold them accountable for the life they live,might have something to do with some people that refused to believe in God.But have no problem with believing in anything that doesn't hold them accountable by the way I along with everyone else believe that oxygen is real.I also believe in God. You're right it does come down to faith.

Oxygen doesn't care that you are alive, oxygen doesn't condemn you to an eternity in hell nor does it give you salvation. Oxygen can just as quickly kill you as help you (try breathing pure oxygen for a while and see how that goes).
'Belief' in oxygen needs about as much faith as the 'belief' that throwing oneself off the roof of the Empire State building will kill you, which is to say not very much. There is a difference between faith and knowledge.

 

[TomB_2012]

i have had several debates with some kids at my school who have made the decision to become atheists. most of their arguments consist of science disproving the bible. i need some help on were i can acquire the knowledge to further debate them.

There is a fact about the Earth. I'm not sure if it has been scientifically explained though.

The Earth has an axial tilt of 23.44°. If it was more or less than that, we'd either freeze to death or burn alive.

A scientist might say that the gravitational pull in the Universe was responsible for this.
I believe that God put the Earth at that angle during the 6 Days of Creation (1 Day of Rest) in Genesis 1.

 

[Tethered]

There is a fact about the Earth. I'm not sure if it has been scientifically explained though.

The Earth has an axial tilt of 23.44°. If it was more or less than that, we'd either freeze to death or burn alive.

A scientist might say that the gravitational pull in the Universe was responsible for this.
I believe that God put the Earth at that angle during the 6 Days of Creation (1 Day of Rest) in Genesis 1.

Where did you get this fact from?

 

[Dare2Question]

1 Timothy 4:7
"Do not waste time arguing over godless ideas and old wives’ tales. Instead, train yourself to be godly."
(instead of pointless debating, share your hope and joy in God to others)

Do not preach to deaf ears, they have already set in stone what they believe and so have we. Nothing is to be gained from this pissing contest.

Please don't argue for something you are not knowledgeable of, it makes you look naive and easy to prey on. Also please don't use the knowledge you poses to berate others for the purpose of your own pleasure. We all need to stop and give ourselves time to ask, why?

Much love, Dan.