How to publicly argue with a Christian.

Why would you want to confront them(Christians)? This seems so futile. You aren’t going to change their mind, it is in love with a ghost. Something about fighting in the mud with a pig, you will get dirty and the pig loves it!. And to intentionally make them look bad, seems the lesser of two goods you might do…dan

THIS is the kind of pamphlet I’d take seriously.

I like the first comment you received.

Or the first public one, rather. I have no idea how many private comments you may have received. *shrugs* Nice entry regardless.

Hmmm… short and sweet, I like it.

It’s clear and it makes sense, to a non christian. I would like to see other examples. I suspect that responses A and B are not all that you are likely to see. For instance, I can imagine a christian attempting to argue that it wasn’t genocide, or that God’s true word was lost in translation somewhere.

I don’t think it’s an argument that will win over any christians. Christians, and people of many other faiths, have been happily committing atrocities in the name of various Gods for centuries. The media tends to shy away from the term “genocide”, but often we hear of “ethnic cleansing”. These acts are justifiable in the eyes of those that commit them. They don’t consider them to be genocide.

In regards to ‘B’, God doesn’t have to “justify” anything to you. By thinking that you can set the parameters of an argument just shows your ego. Non-believers think the must have an explanation for everything, they must understand it or their mind closes. You’re like an ant looking at Mt. Everest wondering why a blade of grass is so big.

“In regards to ‘B’, God doesn’t have to “justify” anything to you.” Hold on. I’m not asking God to justify anything to anyone. I’m asking Christians to justify THEIR actions — their worship of a genocide commanding creature. So how do you answer the question?

yn: to quote you- “B. God is justified in ordering this genocide because…..” I don’t have to explain anything for God to you. Is that an answer that you can comprehend or no? I would guess no. Consider me unimpressed with your arguments questions. You are what is considered a ‘troll’ on the internets. You cast out your net looking for answers to questions that you don’t want answers to. You make atheists look stupid.

“I don’t have to explain anything for God to you. Is that an answer that you can comprehend or no? I would guess no.” Right. Since I’ve repeatedly said (it’s even reason number 2 in the entry): “2. It does NOT ask the believer to explain God’s actions, but to explain his own actions (worshiping such a creature).” So, to respond again. NO. I am NOT asking you to justify God’sactions. I am asking YOU to justify YOUR actions. How can YOU worship a God that commands genocide? If you think you have an answer to this question with an option besides the ones I’ve listed, I’m all ears. Again: ASKING: How can YOU worship…? How can YOU worship…? Not asking! -> Explain God’s actions.

“Consider me unimpressed with your arguments questions.” You haven’t even attempted to answer them. The only thing unimpressive here is your evasive maneuvers. The question is simple. How do you personally justify you yourself granting worship and respect to a deity that is described as commanding genocide. For moral purposes, this is no different than granting worship and respect to Hitler orPol Pot.

I love when the ignorant take scripture out of context. Would you like to talk about the other stuff, or are you really focused on one historical event?

Fail.

@Issued Puppet Well then, put it in context. Put it in a context that makes a deity ordering the annihilation of men, women, children, and animals make moral sense. All quotes, even those of “holy” books, are by necessity out of context. The only question is if the conclusions drawn by the quoter are correct or incorrect.

i saw your note on shadowkat’s diary. i am christian (catholic) and i thought i would try to answer your question. you can’t take one verse from samuel and do that. throughout samuel, it’s a fight between the israelites and god, samuel and saul. god commands saul to destroy the amekelites in your verse, but what does saul do in the next verse? saul spares the innocents in amalek.

i am sure that is not the answer you want, because what you want is for christians or any religious believer to somehow admit that they worship a killing machine and you won’t be satisfied until you get that answer.

ps i realize i spelled amakel as amalek, im dyslexic apparently.

B. God is justified in ordering this genocide because 1.) He is God, 2.) He exacts justice perfectly and holy and 3.) He sets the rules for justification. I realize that if you don’t believe in God you can only measure His actions by your own understanding and there’s nothing wrong with your question or the way you asked it, it was all fair. I would correct it in one area, if you don’t mind…genocide is pretty limiting to racial, political or cultural groups as we understand them and God actually enacts justice in accordance with sin. Think of the flood, He’s pretty equal opportunity when it comes enacting justice as a matter of fact. Although there are no New Testament commands along this line for Christians today, I do believe that God commanded those things in the Old Testament and He promises to enact justice again in the near future on a much larger scale. If you’re right and there is no God, then moot point; none of that happened and nothing will happen other than your run of the mill genocide committed by humans for less than perfect reasons every day. If you’re wrong, and there is a God it’s still a moot point; unbelief or disagreement won’t chang

So you’re wondering why I would worship God? He’s perfect, He’s holy, He created me and everything else, He’s worthy of worship. He does exactly what He says He will do if we fail to worship Him, and then is longsuffering beyond our imagination to allow time for people to come to Him. If He chooses to take away what He has freely given, who am I to question that? What alternative can Ipropose in His sight? Good question. I think those are the questions people should ask and also, that Christians be ready to answer. Thank you for allowing me to stop by.

My thoughts as a Non-Christian: You’re taking one verse from the Bible and using it to prove that believing in God is the same as condoning genocide. That’s about as black and white a mindset as any cherry picking Bible thumper’s mindset against (among other things) homosexuality and miscenegation. You’ve also accused Christianity of being morally bankrupt, but I’m not sure if you consider it morally bankrupt because of the Bible verse you cited, or because that’s your opinion. If it’s the latter, then you really haven’t supported that argument in this entry. This reminds me of something my philosophy 101 professor told us: To be an atheist means you have to believe in God. It’s true. Atheists deny God exists, but the fact that they deny God exists shows they paradoxically believe God exists, even if God exists in only in human belief systems. An entity that is only present in belief systems is still an entity. (I’m agnostic, by the way. I don’t presume to know the infinite universe.)

@Search Results Atheism is a lack of belief in any number of deities. Its opposite is theism, a belief in one or more deities. Agnosticism means claiming no knowledge of a subject (typically the existence of a deity.) Its opposite is gnosticism (not Gnosticism), which means claiming knowledge of a subject. They are answers to two separate questions, and thus are not incompatible. cont. below

Atheism is NOT, repeat, NOT only the denial of the existence of a deity, though such a belief would be an atheistic one. Most atheists are generally agnostic atheists, and are gnostic atheists in regards to specific deities, with most in the west being irreligious (again, a separate question). cont. below

Additionally, belief in the existence of the idea of a deity is not the same as belief in that deity. Otherwise, we’d all be members of every religion we’ve ever heard about.

I believe the noter above me misunderstood what I said. Here’s a tautology, it’s very simple: If it exists, it exists. It doesn’t matter how or why or how many people think it doesn’t. Even if you don’t believe in God, God exists, if only in the minds of people who believe in God. Or whatever deity. And yes, belief in the existence of a deity is the acknowledgement that that deity exists. No,you don’t have to WORSHIP that deity, but that you can name deities means that those deities exist, if only in theory, theory you personally find stupid or worthless. Now I’m just hijacking your notes, I apologize.

“If it exists, it exists. It doesn’t matter how or why or how many people think it doesn’t. Even if you don’t believe in God, God exists, if only in the minds of people who believe in God…” – Search Results The first part of the statement is true: If it exists, it exists. The second part is a false equivocation between “God” and “the idea of God”: the “idea of God” can exist in theminds of believers and non-believers at the same time that “God” does not exist. Ideas that you have in your head only testify to the existence of those IDEAS, not necessarily the OBJECT of those ideas.

I misspoke. Belief in the existence of the idea that a deity exists definitely translates into belief in that deity, albeit not in a faith based, worshipping way. You know what God is, in order to say God doesn’t exist you have to believe that there IS a God in some form, maybe not some omnipotent being in the sky, but maybe in the human construct that wants to believe in some higher, better entity. If there isn’t a God or any other deity, then what are you arguing against?

I’ll answer. You wouldn’t argue against ANYTHING. God is as real as any notion anyone has of justice or love or anything else that can’t be measured or seen. God is an idea. Not one I personally accept, but one that is real because it is a very common human belief, not unlike love or justice or all the other things many people “believe” in without tangible proof. The only way to be an atheist is to accept that God is a reality, even if God is just an IDEA, a fact which you seem to be hung up on, and then deny that idea. You can’t argue against something that doesn’t exist. I would say you, Thinking BUM and the lady whose name starts with a W, are probably more agnostic than atheist.

Sorry, Wurdalac is a man.

“If there isn’t a God or any other deity, then what are you arguing against?” I’m arguing against Christians! That’s in the title of my entry!

Aw, come on, A Thinking BUM. Jesus was a cool dude. Seriously. He was all about loving thy neighbor and rendering unto Caesar what was Caesar’s (Jesus said that religion should have no place in government, and I think we can agree on that!). Jesus was cool as hell. As religions go, mainstream Christianity is pretty benign. Religion gets dangerous when it’s used as a brainwashing tool, when it’s used as law or a way to oppress the people, whether by wielding it as a weapon or by not allowing people to have it. Maybe you don’t know, but a LOT of oppressed societies in the 20th century denied the populace the right to worship as they saw fit. That is not to say that religion hasn’t caused problems, of course it has, but the suppression of religion has also caused problems. I would rather live in a place where people were free to worship whatever they wanted and had a free say in their government than in a place where everyone had to worship their dictator. The best thing Jesus espoused was “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Render unto God what is God’s.” I would like to think most Christians have taken his words to heart.

There’s a big difference between accepting that the idea of something exists, and accepting that that something exists independently of human consciousness. Most theists would not accept the idea that their deity exists only in their heads; they would insist that he/she/it objectively exists.

What’s the point of starting an argument that you know from the start will go nowhere? All you’ve proven is that you can be as narrow minded as the hardest Bible thumpers out there. Really, an exercise in intolerance and futility, nothing more.

Jesus Christ, Wurdulac! Way to confuse the argument! AGAIN! Who cares what theists think? That is NOT my argument. My argument is that in order to reject a thing, that thing must EXIST. My argument is a rejection of God (or other deities) means God exists. Not physically. I don’t believe in God myself. I say in order to to declare oneself an atheist, there must be an acknowledgement of a deity. Atheist, etymologically, means “against god” or “against theism”. The very WORD presupposes a deity! The entire school of thought presupposes a deity in order to reject it! It doesn’t matter that the deity is imaginary. In order to call yourself an atheist means you believe God (or deities) exists (exist), otherwise you wouldn’t have anything to reject!

Search results: Do you believe in the Protoculture? Why not? This means that you are without Protoculture; ie. you are an aProtoculturist. But that means that the Protoculture exists! Aha! An absurd argument? Perhaps. Now replace “Protoculture” with “god”. And on a side note, of the two, I’d prefer to believe in the Protoculture.

“My argument is that in order to reject a thing, that thing must EXIST” That’s why you’re argument makes no sense. To an atheist God is not a thing, it is a CONCEPT… a concept that they reject. It is not the same thing as the Christian belief that god is the omnipotent overseer of the universe. Atheist rejection of the concept of god doesn’t validate the Christian belief that god exists

A Thinking Bum: Point One: The tool is a brutal one, effective but not sure how useful. It would take the right moment and delivery. Point Two: Once again the best part of these types of posts is the obvious lack of rationality in the responses by believers. They really are that dumb aren’t they? More proof. Point Three: Meek athiests are annoying. Faith doesn’t deserve respect. NONE.

I would prefer to live in a society where religion and state were actually separated. gods name on our money and in our allegiance only empowers ignorance. However, I think christianity and religion in general should be a personal choice with no influence from government. Like as a superstition to avoid cracks in the sidewalk, let them live their life as uncomfortably and uselessly as they want.

Search Results, I think I understand your underlying metaphysical position, and that of your Meinong-loving prof. Things that don’t exist EXIST in some form or another. Sounds odd to say. Basically, in the World, there is a section for things that exist, and one for things that do not. Most people don’t hold this view, so don’t be surprised when they reject your most boldly stated claims.

I’m not a Christian, but I have an answer I’m curious how you’d respond to: “I don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Since that verse conflicts with my belief that God is infinitely good, I choose to believe that verse is apocryphal.”

Please feel free to review the Wikipedia entry on Fallacy. You might learn a bit there why your arguments aren’t very well constructed or good. Please try harder. (Speaking as an Agnostic.)

“Please feel free to review the Wikipedia entry on Fallacy. You might learn a bit there why your arguments aren’t very well constructed or good.” – Anon These are my favorite non-arguments. The “you have a flaw!” assertion without a single example of the mistake, or even a statement of which ‘fallacy’ I actually supposedly make.

“Why would you want to confront them(Christians)? This seems so futile. You aren’t going to change their mind” I was a christian, now I am an atheist, because someone changed my mind.

i think what a lot of criticisms are missing with this post is that the author seems to be directing the points not to the christian in the argument but to the audience. the purpose of the exchange is to appeal to objective (more or less) judges who may then jusge the christian apologist to hold a weak position and religion. most posts dont seem to be adressing this aim.

The greatest gift God gave us was free will. There are many instances of God placing tests of faith before humanity. He gives us the choice to choose mercy and love or to be evil. Saul chose mercy. I dont support Genocide, I support Gods gift of allowing us to choose our own path, and judging us for our choices.

“Saul chose mercy. I dont support Genocide, I support Gods gift of allowing us to choose our own path, and judging us for our choices.” Saul chose mercy? Are you kidding? 1. No, killing every human except for the King is not mercy. 2. What’s God’s reaction? Congrats you passed the test? NO, God is ANGRY with Saul for disobeying his command. Read the next entry if you want morespecifics.

Man, some really dumb notes.

Haha, wow, this is great. “What’s the point of starting an argument that you know from the start will go nowhere?” As stated, the point is to make the Christian look foolish in front of others.

Crap, didn’t realize that discussion was still going on. Anyways…. If “atheist” means “against a god/gods”, then “asymmetrical” means “against symmetry”. Clearly, this is not the case. Just as “asymmetrical” simply means “not symmetrical/without symmetry”, “atheist” means “without a belief in a god/gods.” To be honest, I’m still confused as to how so many people screw that up (not just you)

“Asymmetrical” indeed means “against symmetry”. Without the existence of the concept of symmetry, the word “asymmetrical” is meaningless. “Asymmetrical” relies upon “symmetry” in order to be a valid word. In fact, there is no such word as “Asymmetrical” without “Symmetry”. I’m not screwing things up. Just like I’m not screwing up the fact that the word Atheism wouldn’t exist without Theism.Both “asymmetry” and “atheism” are dependent words – dependent upon the positive aspect of their roots, which are “symmetry” and “theism”. So funny that so many people try to narrowly twist a word to fit their convenient definition. To be honest, I’m still confused as to how many people get all belligerent when confronted with the fact that thier entire belief system depends upon denying the belief system of someone else. (not just you) 🙂

Search Results, you are confused. Let me help you. You are confusing the Term with the System. You cannot have the TERM Atheism without the SYSTEM of religion. That is, in fact, why many people don’t like the term ‘Atheism’, it’s like saying I’m an “A-Astrologer”, it is silly to define yourself as outside of a ridiculous view, I agree.

However, Atheists worship the god {} (That’s an empty set). This god has {} requirements and proclaims {}. (Read no and nothing respectively). You CANNOT tell me that Christianity, or any other religion, is required in order for me to worship {}, unless you are very foolish, in which case I invite you to say it again anyway.

I believe that the probability that you misunderstood your professor is very high. If, however, you did not misunderstand him, and are faithfully echoing his words, then I have no problem proclaiming that your professor is not qualified to teach. He clearly, in said case, does not understand the subject.

For arguments sake lets say you’ve outlined how to argue with a christian in public. What I want to know is why? Who else do you feel compelled with to argue with in public? Is there some added ego pay off for you with a public argument? Do you have plans for agreement with members of any specific group in public?

“As stated, the point is to make the Christian look foolish in front of others.” You must have been one of those kids that got beat up in Junior High. Most Christians could give a flying rats ass about whether we look foolish in front of a bunch of dweebs.

“You must have been one of those kids that got beat up in Junior High. Most Christians could give a flying rats ass about whether we look foolish in front of a bunch of dweebs.” – shadowkat If you’re talking to me, I take issue with the note you quoted and your response. It’s a fairly serious self-incrimination for a person to admit that he calls a proponent of genocide a supremely moral being. Looking foolish is quite a bit better than being a genocide apologist — and I haven’t been arguing for the foolish case.

A couple of things, BUM. First, as to your question, I’m not convinced that fingering the Christian God foer commanding genocide isn’t a bit of a straw-man. Second, the typical warfare of the day (and indeed warfare until the twentieth century) largely employed what we could now call genocidal tendencies. That moves me neither here nor there. This is classic straw-man arguments.

In addition, the New Testament ethic and later developments in Old Testament ethic would further inform Christian teaching on the subject, so a Christian need not become an apologist for genocide in order to be a Christian. It’s a false dilemma. And of course, the irony in an atheist lecturing Christians on genocide is amusing. No ideological system has perpetrated more death than atheism.

Apologies. The above two notes are mine. I hadn’t been around a while and forgot what the “Unsigned Note” thing did. Glad to see you’re still at it. Did you ever the questions I asked you about the veracity of the resurrection? I admit, I’ve not been on OD very much since I started working full time.

hi in my experience when arguing with Christians after you quote a horrible section of the old testament they will tell you that the old testament is irrelevant. to have a truly effective argument you need to work in a trip up line so that they cannot revert to denying the truth of the old testament eg. begin by asking them whether they believe EVERYTHING in the bible,

“hi in my experience when arguing with Christians after you quote a horrible section of the old testament they will tell you that the old testament is irrelevant.” You’ll only get that if you quote a rule that you think they should still be following — quoting the actual actions of God Himself is easily still on the table.