User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Experience
How to argue against a thiest/atheist.

I would like to post something I find annoying that the radical theists and atheists do. By radical I mean those that use the Bible to prove that events in the Bible are fact. I've seen you do it on your show but I haven't seen enough to find out if you are the kind of people who do this or not but. That annoying thing is trying to argue.

In order for an argument to take place, both sides must agree on what is to be argued about. *The existence of god for example* Then a medium must be created in order for the thoughts and ideas to be carried across. Here is where my problem starts. There is no medium. One side arguments are based solely on faith and the other is based solely on reasoning.

I think it would be better than instead doing this, use faith instead to debase the theist's arguments. I find it highly unlikely that any theist would traverse to your side and argue on basis of logic so you're forced to go over there. Ideally you try to get them to start thinking with logic but you gotta start with faith and slowly ween them over to your side.

I would like to put this in the way of a story. This is the Chrisitan Version though it's easily adapted to fit any other religion. It's an intelligent design/big bang crossover. It's meant for an adamant believer.

How the universe was created:

In the beginning there was nothing. Then God created the universe. This creation from a man's perspective would be equitable to a "big bang." After about a 500 million year break, God moved on the day 2. (you know the story.) At some point in between creating the intergalactic council and creating spirits/angels/whatever and putting them in charge of all of the aspects of the universe, he decided to create man. He took dust from the earth primarily composed of Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, a primordial ooze for the lack of a better word, and over the coarse of a few million years, created a bunch of self replicating molecules which became a man. One day God thought this man was lonely so he took a rib or DNA as scientists call it, and created a woman.

The story goes on to describe the fall of Adam and Eve and includes topics such as homosexuality, masturbation, circumcision, war and a bunch of other topics people base their religion on but what just that is not important.

This story is 100% based on the "facts" given by the Bible and in no way is it disproved by it. It mostly runs on the things that God left out or people failed to mention or assumptions made by people such as how God created the universe in 7 CONSECUTIVE days.

How is this benefit you? Well the idea is to get them to start thinking about their religion. Once they are open to the possibility that maybe God created the universe via a big bang or in a slightly different way than thought, they are more receptive to changing their views. It's all a matter of baby steps then. The purpose of inserting such things as "creating an intergalactic council" is to adopt other religions such as Scientology into the story and to do what the Bible does oh so well in teaching it's religion, subtle suggestions hidden in stories.

well there are 2 very short videos about the creation of the world that i would recommend to any convinced creationist or any other christian to see about the creation of the universe from my perspective, would take only a few minutes, worth watching for atheists as well, maybe even more for them.

6 minutes vid of how genesis looks like compared to the scientific knowledge we collected about the universe

2 minutes vid about the genesis "as is" in the bible


I loved those videos ;P

I think my point got lost in example.

I find it best to argue against anyone who uses faith with with their own faith. I find it best to argue against anyone who uses logic with their own logic.

No progress is made if someone doesn't change their tactics. Extremists will still call and say you're going to hell. To explain more, I think Socrates was the one who is famous for doing this, but instead of trying to prove or disprove the other side, get them to question themselves. This is called "Shadow of Doubt" and is the work of Satan but not the point. I realize you guys are trying to do this but I think there maybe a better method. (Of course i think my method = best method :P)

I had a longer response typed up it got lost when it failed to post. I might retype it later.

you can not win with logic, that is the whole problem, you lose by default, because the smarter one gives up, every single time.

as Mark Twain said: "You can not reason somebody out of something that they were not reasoned into." I would interpret this like this.. if somebody uses his boundless imagination to find excuses which will protect his version of reality, you can not beat him with logic and reasoning, our knowledge is limited, imagination isn't.

I decided to use that other saying "If you can't win against them, join them." but under a condition, convert me rationally.

i let them read something, and if they still have even a single reason for me why i should accept their god or whatever they believe in, they can try to convince me, provided it is not a reason i already rejected in what i wrote.

That way i hope they look at their religion from my point of view before they try to feed me their reasons. Rather useless for atheists, but if you have some spare time check it out. I put this link in another topic, however i will post it again.

if you have anything to add or any suggestion how i could improve what i wrote, do mail me or post here.

That Mark Twain cite is right on. I just am taking that philosophy into application. The idea is to use their imagination they used to convince themselves that their fantasies are real to show that their fantasies are anything but.

One such example I have use recently was the explanation of Jesus Christ's actual purpose.

For sake of argument, I said that Jesus was a real person, The Bible gives historical accounts of his life and teachings, he was sent here to die for our sins. Basically I formulated my hypothesis around everything my opposition had accepted as truth. Then I started getting my point across basing it on those assumptions. What sins exactly were we committing that required such a drastic action from God? Aside from the murdering, stealing, lying ,etc. I give my hypothesis that Jesus was trying to save us from religion. I think God was just a little tired of us lying, cheating, stealing and using God as an excuse.

My evidence consists of a few Bible stories such as the one about how the people brought the woman accused of adultery in front of Jesus. Paraphrasing because I do not have a Bible in front of me, they said that Moses' laws require she be put to death. Jesus, being as smart as he is, whether or not it was from being the son of an omnipotent god or if he just claimed that because people wouldn't listen unless they thought it was God or some other important emissary from God, responded in such a unique way that people couldn't deny his truths but were also convinced he was acting as part of their religion.

The group I was talking to at the time couldn't find any way to disprove me without undercutting their own beliefs and ended up accepting that maybe my interpretation is of the Bible was right.

While this seems to not be significant, it was a big step into what I belief is the right direction. The audience stopped and was force to think about their own religion. Many Atheists started out this way.

I believe that one way to the supreme truth is at the end of a long road of "why's?". You start out at the low rung on religion and after you ask yourself a few questions you work you're way up to Atheism. At the same time, I believe Atheism is not the highest rung either. There are still possible questions that can be answered. One such is, Why should I believe in something I have no evidence for? I have no evidence that God exists therefore I choose to believe he does but then I have no evidence that says God does not exist so why do I believe he doesn't?

The only evidence I've seen so far that says God does not exist has been based on things that have no solid evidence to begin with. Sure the Bible contradicts itself, The Bible is the words of a bunch of people claiming to be inspired by God.

Since I do not have any evidence that says God does or does not exist, I use what I do have and come to a seemingly safe conclusion that God might exist and I should live a life such that no matter what, I end up ahead.

"Why should I believe in something I have no evidence for? I have no evidence that God exists therefore I choose to believe he does but then I have no evidence that says God does not exist so why do I believe he doesn't? "

Well if somebody makes such a claim, like "There is a God and he took some dust and created the man, then he took a rib from the man to create a woman and then he kicked them out because they ate some fruit"

well the default position is to not believe it, asking the ones who want you to believe that to prove that to you. The fact that you don't believe with no buts is "normal", the null hypothesis.

Them killing people or threatening them just for asking, without giving any better explanations, pretty much should give you more reason NOT to believe blindly, so there we are again not believing them, logically.

The fact that they started brainwashing kids to believe "by default" doesn't make their point any more valid, it just makes it more difficult to reject the irrational claim which has no proof whatsoever, a book full of crap doesn't prove it and "faith" doesn't prove it.

So there we are again, not believing in God.

And believing in something just because we don't see it doesn't make much sense, assuming that it is there just because we have no explanation for so many things in live, is a logical error, no proof for God.

Many people wouldn't even think about God, if other people wouldn't present the concept of God to them so yet again there we are, not believing and having no reason to believe.

Oh and there is a lot of evidence suggesting that there is no such thing like a god, at least the ones people usually believe in.

"intelligent Design of the world?"

"Is the common version of hell plausible?"

"what happens when God dies?"

etc etc

other versions of God are also based on iimagination and ignorance only, you have no base to believe it.

Also, we already have halfway plausible explanations for the existence of the universe and everything in it that suggest that a God is not needed, so if you don't need, one why make one up?

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup