Email debate with a theist friend
Offline I have been lurking around this site for months, finally registered a few months ago and never got around to actually posting. I visit every day and love every minute of it. Allow me to forgo the typical introduction thread where I'd talk about how I used to be an evangelical christian who thought all gay people would burn in hell so we can get right into some fun stuff.
A friend of mine who ever so often sends emails out to his conservative friends about politics and things in the news recently sent out an email about the election (I don't intend to debate politics here. I'd rather stick to religion). To make a long story short: he was upset about Giuliani dropping out and how he doesn't like McCain and liked Romney - except that he's a Mormon. He then listed some of the beliefs Mormons hold that he considered laughable. I responded that I think we should choose a candidate based on their record, not their personal lives, including religious beliefs. After this I talked about a couple christian beliefs. I think I'll go ahead and post my response to the religious part and the couple emails that followed. I apologize if font sizes get messed up and hard to read. And sorry if it's too long, but it's not a difficult read: (As a side note: how do I use the quote function if I want to copy and paste something that I'm not actually quoting from another post?)
edit: Sorry, I forgot to finish my thought. How do I respond to him? I realize I'm not going to change his mind, but I'm at a loss for words. It seems like he and I aren't debating the god issue or anything relevant to that. It feels like I'm trying to explain basic scientific principles to him.
ME:
And just for fun, if we can attack Mormon beliefs (which is quite easy and very deserved) we can absolutely attack Christian beliefs as well. Christians believe:
* The earth is 6000 years old, despite all geological evidence that points to a 4.5 billion year old earth and all astronomical and cosmological evidence that shows the universe to be 13 billion years old.
* We were created from dirt.
* It's OK (and normal) for God to have slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in the book of Exodus and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in Joshua including women, children, and trees.
* The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who sacrificed himself to himself, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
* Despite hundreds of translations and reinterpretations of the Bible -- including both councils of Nicea when it was decided that Jesus was divine and which books would be included in the Bible -- the version that each Christian owns is the correct version. If disagreements between denominations of individuals occur, it is simply "up to interpretation".
* Despite many religions that predate Christianity having gods that were born of a virgin and died to save all of humanity, Christianity is the true one because God said so.
And of course:
* The Bible is true because God says so, and God is the Almighty because the Bible says so. (Maybe I should write a book that says I am all-powerful and that everyone should worship me, then I'll say that that book is true. If i add hundreds of contradictions and kill a few babies here and there it could actually become a major religion!)
HIM:
I rather expected you would "just for fun ... absolutely attack Christian beliefs as well," but you didn't seem to enjoy it very much. FAITH is believing in the unprovable. I can't prove God exists any more than your cosmological timeline proves He doesn't. The Latter Day Saints will tell you that they base their "faith" on the teachings of Joseph Smith, who was clearly only a man, and who was clearly Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. (I'm going to ask you not to call Jesus the same, for your sake, in case he was - GASP - God.) I question Mitt's judgement because he doesn't recognize Mormonism as a pseudo-faith.
No Egyptian babies would have died if Pharaoh hadn't decreed that all Israelite babies would die. It's the only thing Pharaoh would understand. Just like today it's all the terrorists understand.
The Israelites failed to complete the mission of extermination upon which they were sent by mean old God. Today the survivors' descendants are called Muslims and their hobbies include flying jets into skyscrapers.
You ask, "Since when does someone's faith matter when it comes to leading?" I will answer your question with a question. Want a Muslim in the White House?
If you chose to, you could google your way to much scientific information supporting Bible accounts. There are plenty of credible scientists who say the Earth could be only 6,000 years old and that if the universal flood cited in so many traditions around the globe actually occurred, the pressure of the water weight would result in the appearance of extreme antiquity. That makes as much sense to me as saying that the universe wasn't there one moment, and the next moment it was, and no Supreme Being had anything to do with it. Brilliant scientists have calculated items known to be seventy years old at age seven billion. When astronomers measure the distance between stars and tell us how many there are, I chuckle. It's all guesswork.
If we weren't created from dirt, then we crawled out of the primordial goo. From whence came the primordial goo? Keep going backwards. Eventually there's only faith, scientific or religious. You seem to have made your choice, but, as I've asked you before - who are you trying to convince? ME: I don't want to debate whether or not Mormons follow a pseudo-faith or not, because I think believing in anything supernatural is silly. Although if you're saying it is not real because they follow the teachings of a man whereas Christians believe their beliefs come from Jesus who himself was God, then I think you have to take on almost all eastern religions as well. Also, Mormons do believe that Jesus is the son of God, died for the sins of humanity and will return for the second-coming. So it's really in the specific details that the LDS church disagrees with mainstream Christianity. I would argue that there is more disagreement between the many, many denominations of Christianity than there is between Mormons and any one denomination.
Ideally, every time I vote I would have the option to vote for a fiscally conservative, states' rights supporting, family values-backing atheist...but I don't see that happening in the near future. Not that Mike Huckabee was on my list in the first place, but he sealed his fate when he said we needed to change the Constitution to be more in line with God. As for putting a Muslim in the White House: I definitely think I would be hesitant, however in being qualified for president you should have some sort of track record of doing the things you say you wish to accomplish (Why is Hillary running again?). If a Muslim has been in multiple positions of power and has shown to cut taxes, fight abortion, support the Second Amendment, keep government small, etc (you know the issues)... and most importantly been against radical Islam, I don't see why I would not vote for him. If he has shown not only to be a true conservative and willing to not only stand up and denounce those of his faith and others who wish to destroy Western civilization, but be willing to kill them before they kill us, I would put him in the White House.
Believe me, I think I have read everything on the internet and in books that deals with evolution, creationism, young-earth creationism, abiogenesis, beginnings of the universe and anything else that would relate to Christianity and science. When something new strikes my attention, I immerse myself in it. When you got me thinking about personal freedom with the smoking ban discussions that we had, for weeks all I read about was Libertarianism. But my journey from being an evangelical Christian who believed in speaking in tongues and miracle healing to an atheist was not easy. It wasn't that one day I just decided to not believe anymore. (You can read that other email I sent you months ago for the long story). I began doubting, examined evidence, then realized how wrong I was.
There are many things scientifically impossible in the Bible, such as man just popping out of nowhere as a fully formed human being and the flood that you cited (where did the water go? There is not enough water on earth including what's frozen, the oceans and what's in the atmosphere). There is geological evidence of a flood in the Middle East a few thousand years ago. Most of the cultures in that area have flood stories. These same stories do not exist all over the world. And the universe didn't just pop into existence either. There are a few theories that have evidence for what they claim to have happened (And to clarify, in science a theory is not a guess as we use the word in common language. A theory is the end result, the explanation supported by the evidence. Gravity is a theory). None of these theories invokes the power of a supernatural being who left no evidence of himself when he created anything. We have scientific explanations for so much, so why include a deity at all? One cannot claim that everything has to have had a cause except God. If the universe had to have had a creator, then the creator had to have had a creator.
I'll gladly continue the debate on God, origins of the universe, evolution (I don't know your stance, but I hope you believe it) or anything else. However, I feel that your lack of knowledge on the subject of astronomy leads to this chuckling you mentioned. Distances between stars are very easily measured. All it takes is telescopes and science. We measure the shifting of light on the visible spectrum. We measure radio waves emitted by the difference chemical reactions taking place inside the stars. It seems complicated, but once you understand how it works it is quite simple. Not only is it possible to measure distances between these stars, but we know how fast they are traveling relative to us and what elements make up the stars (and planets) that we can see. Two astronomy courses at Ohio State really opened my eyes to the wonders of the subject. I'm attaching a picture that the Hubble space telescope took. My professor said that the telescope was aimed at a tiny sliver of the sky equal to the width of a dime 100 yards away. and the shutter left open for 10 days to let in as much light as possible. In this picture you can count tens of thousands of galaxies. now multiply this by the infinite number of times you could take a picture in this manner all over the sky. The number of galaxies is astonishing and really puts into perspective just how insignificant we really are.
Faith in science and faith in the supernatural are two completely different things. I have faith that every time I jump I will return to the floor. Religious people have faith that something unobservable exists with no evidence. My faith is testable, theirs is not. HIM:
Before you went to the internet looking for evidence to the contrary, did you believe that Jesus died to save you, Steven, personally, that God loves you, Steven, personally? I'm not asking if that's what you were taught, I'm asking if you ever believed it, really, deep down.
You're faith is testable. Does this mean you consider science a religion? If so, your religion has something in common with Christianity, for the Bible instructs believers to test their faith. But you shouldn't need faith, with all those exact data. Faith only comes in when you can't prove something.
Frankly, I don't believe that you've read everything ever written on the subject of creation vs the alternative(s). Even if you had, in the end you're left with nothing but evidentiary bickering. There is no absolute proof either way.
How scientific would most scientists consider the following statement? "I know this doesn't exist based on the preponderance of the lack of scientific evidence." Not very - until ''this" is replaced by "God."
Why can't one claim that everything has to have had a cause except God? People are always claiming that nothing could have been caused by God. What neither side can do is prove it.
Silly, am I? Supernatural indeed. We're not talking about the Amityville Horror, we're talking about God.
Yes, having faith in science is completely different. By the definition of faith, faith in God isn't an oxymoron.
Miriam-Websterfaith1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionaryfaith1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.—Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
I'm glad OSU managed to open your eyes to the wonder of of the universe. It requires faith, though, to believe they've nailed the distance between stars. I do understand the basics of how it's calculated, thank you, and look at what those calculations are based on. Knowing the exact speed of light itself. You can prove the math, and maybe it's accurate, but to prove the distance, I'm afraid you'll have to go out there - and take a very long tape measure. I will chuckle, and probably shake my head, when an astronomer says we know with absolute certainty what a star is made of based on its color and what kind of radio wave happened to drift in here from that star's general vicinity. The numbers, plugged into the accepted formulae add up, so people believe that an actual sample of that star would prove that the astronomer correctly deduced the star's elemental composition. That's fine, as far as it goes. But until somebody drops by the lab with that sample, we can't know. It's theoretical, and theories are educated guesses. Highly educated guesses, often, but still - guesses. It's faith.
I admit it - I can't prove God exists. Like it or not, it can't be conclusively proven that He doesn't. You'll have to take his non-existence on faith. Ironic.
We agree on this much - the number of galaxies (whatever it is, exactly) is astonishing and it really puts into perspective just how insignificant we really are. I'll caution you to be careful how far you follow that particular thought-thread.
- Login to post comments
Welcome to the forums !
Rather than go over his e-mail piece by piece, I'll just take on this one section for brevity's sake. It's such a common, and altogether faulty, assertion for a theist.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Here's the thread about: How to use the quote function
How you respond is ultimately up to you.
Since they have their dictionary handy... perhaps asking them to look up the word 'theory' in the context of science would be helpful.
Questions. Questions. lol.
Why is 'faith' so noble of an endeavor to this person?
They have asserted that their 'faith' is as testable as science. How so? Let's try it. lol.
Science requires no faith because it is testable negating the very definition of faith posted.
They mention that the bible tells them to 'test their faith' yet jesus' parable/story on the temptation says:
Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
You can read the entire chapter.
In my opinion, this person needs to turn off the televangelists for a while and get some sunshine.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
If you dont mind me asking, how long have you been an atheist? And congratulations on having your deep indoctrination cracked. It is nice to know that you have been set free from your delusion.
Now, take a crack at Beatz, he is still stuck in his delusion. It might go over better comming from an x-evangelical.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I created an intro thread that alks about it. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/12327
As to everyone else, thanks for the responses. When I write him back I'll post it along with his response.
I compiled most of what you guys responded to, changed it slightly (good=spirited plagiarism?
) and added some stuff. He should respond within a day or two:
My Response to my friend. He should probably email be back within a day or two:
The fundamental flaw in your emails has been the red highlighted word 'proof'. Of course I cannot prove any god does not exist. However you cannot prove that there are no purple elephants on Mercury either. Believe in them? I hope not, because there is a ton of evidence that this is unlikely. Mercury is quite warm, and as far as we know it has no means to support life. Also, it is unlikely that an animal identical to one on earth (except for color) would have evolved (or flown itself there from earth) on the planet. Thus we can come to the probable conclusion that they do not exist.
If I had the time or motivation I could give you ten million suppositions, each one more ridiculous than the next, and you would not be able to conclusively prove that any are untrue. I could use every religion that has ever been known to man and still you could not prove that any of the myriad of gods mentioned do not exist.
That doesn't lend the slightest credibility to any of my suppositions or to the existence of the immense number of gods I might suppose are true. This is because the burden of proof lies with the person making any positive claim (god X exists) and not the other way around.
You don't have the time to try to prove that Thor, Apollo or Zeus do not exist and you've likely never even bothered to try rejecting them. This is the same as me rejecting your god for complete lack of evidence. This is a very good thing though, because only the believers in the above hold the responsibility to prove the existence of said gods to you. What a time saver this will be for you.
By the same token you don't have to waste most of your life trying to disprove my 10 million suppositions because now you understand the burden of proof, and I really don't see anything "ironic" in that.
Science requires no faith because it is testable, thus negating the very definition of faith you proposed. You mention that the Bible tells us to test our faith yet Jesus' parable/story on temptation says:
Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
A common theme I see from Christians talking to ex-Christians is the question of whether or not they truly believed in the first place. Yes I did, and I was deep in it. This gave me all the more motivation to find the true explanations once I realized what I had been taught was incorrect.
I think this debate is over. I don't even know what we're debating anymore. Should I just respond with something along the lines of "Let's get back to the basics. You believe. I don't. Convince me"?
His response to my email:
Do you ever miss Him?
Testing one's faith in the Lord his God is not the same as testing the Lord his God.
What's this about purple elephants on Mercury? All I wanted was an acknowledgment that you can't prove that star distance calculations are actual, and I'm still waiting for it. I very much doubt that purple elephants are at this moment cavorting on the surface of Mercury, but I've never been there, so, who knows?
I never spent time trying to disprove the existence of Apollo. I don't have to try rejecting those gods, because I never believed in them. You did, however, once believe in the God you tried to reject. I'm not convinced you've entirely succeeded. In rejecting the existence of purple elephants on Mercury, I would not be reversing myself. Why would I spend time trying to disprove Thor? You were raised on the differences between the million and one other religions and Jesus, the Son of the Living God. You might have heard it put this way: If Jesus existed, He (he) was one of three things, a liar, a madman, or Who He claimed to be. You've changed your mind about it. Which do you think now, never, nut, or liar?
Christians ask ex-Christians if they believed in the first place because belief is the crux of Christianity. It's very hard for most of us to understand how anyone could truly believe and then truly change his mind. Once you determine where a person is coming from, it makes a difference in how you approach the discussion.
Because science can be tested, it requires no faith. Never? If you can't prove test results, you either take their accurate reflection of reality on faith, or you treat it as a theory. The fundamental flaw in your emails is that you stop with testing. Thus the word proof in red. Science, not always, but sometimes, does require faith. Once we've got that point in common, there's not much more to say.
Except maybe that you can't pray for help to a theoretical equation.
Actually, we can. Here's the simple version: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/phonedrmarc/2002_november.shtml
And a much more complex alternate method: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/hr/hr.html
These may not be the best examples, but they were the first two that popped up on my 2 second google search. Now, he will probably respond by saying that you cant actually prove that these distances are accurate until you actually take a measuring stick and measure them, but thats a bit ignorant. NASA has never physically measured the distance from the earth to the moon, and yet we did a fairly good job of landing on it. Same goes for mars, and the voyager probe went almost exactly where they wanted it to. We have never even seen an atom, and yet im willing to bet that the people in japan believe that atoms exist. My point is, if the math adds up, perfectly, then its proven. Simple.
"I may be going to hell in a rocketship, but at least I get to ride in a rocketship. You have to climb those damn stairs. " - Katie Volker
We took a hunk of metal the size of a VW, strapped it to a giant roman candle, and sent it hundreds of millions of miles away. When it got to its destination, Saturn, we made threading a needle look like an ant walking under the Great Gate of Kiev by sending our little probe in between two of the rings and into orbit.
This is the equivalent of me standing in San Francisco and throwing a dart that hits dead center of the bullseye -- in New York.
If our math is wrong, our success is so amazing that the equation for the probability would have more digits than there are atoms in the universe.
That's not an exaggeration.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
i applaud this post
Same here. Hamby did a much better job of putting my point into words than I did. Well said.
When I responded I was nice. I simply explained how measurements are made using parallax. I'm sure he'll call BS on that one too, and I'll be forced to wrap duct tape around my head to keep the blood from shooting out of my eyes.
Did you ever get a response from this guy? I would love to see if he just continues to ignore the evidence, or if he actually came up with a decent counter.
"I may be going to hell in a rocketship, but at least I get to ride in a rocketship. You have to climb those damn stairs. " - Katie Volker