Comment

Comment by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on June 6, 2009 at 7:37pm

In other words, hammer this HonestTheist the on probability that he is worshiping a very DishonestGod.

Comment by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on June 6, 2009 at 7:33pm

If he comes up with the "god's ways are beyond our understanding" trick then ask him why, if he admits he cannot fully understand god, he is sure that he can fully understand his purpose at any level? And what right he has to insist that he and the social group he identifies with, are the only ones who are omniscient enough to be able to infallabily interpret the Bible.

Point out that Biblegods PR and education systems are so bad that confusion reigns and it the norm, not the exception, for people who call themselves Christians to be in disagreement about a lot of quite major issues.

Ask him he believes that Paul was infallibly correct in stating that the holy spirit would lead people into all truth. If so, then why has it clearly not done so? If Paul and/or the Bible is not correct then how can this be explained without arguing that the holy spirit has very ungodlike qualities - laziness, incompetence, stupidity, powerlessness, etc.

Ask him is the Bible is infallibly correct when it promises: Ask and you will recieve. If someone sincerely prays the evangelicals prayer or salvation does this mean that god always keeps his word and sends the holy spirit into them. Does he go back on his word if they find their beliefs logically untenable at some future date? Why would he hide the truth from people who are honestly searching and diligently making use of all the talents they have?

Comment by Billy Deaton on June 5, 2009 at 9:28pm

And secondly if it was written as allegory or metaphor, then each one of those lessons need to be re-examined and put into context with today's morality. The bible says it's ok to beat your slaves. That's not moral on several levels. But it also says to treat others as you'd like to be treated. That is moral.

then there's a lot of shakey ground, like 'love thy neighbor.' What if my neighbor is a racist, murdering fuck. I don't love him. All in all, I don't know if the fact that it's full of metaphors makes it wrong, but I think there are a lot of lessons from the bible that are just irrelevant and many that straight up are not moral.

Comment by Billy Deaton on June 5, 2009 at 9:24pm

I disagree Cliff, because there's no part of the bible that's meant to be taken as history. I mean, it's historic in the sense that, these were the stories people of the time told each other. But pretty much nothing that happens anywhere in the bible exists in any other recorded history. I think it was always meant as a piece of allegorical literature and that once a religion started to form around it, that's when people started insisting these things happened and then the books started to be carefully edited to carry this heavy 'praise god' (ie. pay our church) message.

Comment by Billy Deaton on June 5, 2009 at 1:49pm

First make sure his definition of God is that of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. Then, of course you have to tell him that you don't have to disprove his assertion anymore than if you say you think the earth was created be the Invisible Pink Unicorn (see Russel's teapot).

Of course you can logically disprove the possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. Just ask him if God can microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it. Once he realizes he's in a paradox he'll try to redefine god, don't allow him to do this without evidence. Of course he'll soon start to see he never had any evidence.

Don't allow him to use a 'god of the gaps' argument , there's plenty of shit we don't know, that doesn't mean god's behind it. Turn's out Zeus wasn't behind that lightening.

Comment by TK Gold on June 5, 2009 at 12:25pm

If 'god' had created the earth in 1 day it would not have proven his omnipotence so your question to TheHonestTheist is not a very good one. What constitutes a day in biblical terms? Are you dealing with one who interprets the words of the bible literally or one who freely interprets everything as symbolic?
I believe that questions about violence (as Angie Jackson has mentioned) i.e. "an eye for an eye" and murder are harder for a theist to explain without invoking hocus pocus or personal interpretation. Ask about sacrifices and miracles.

In addition, if you are going to debate in print, you might want to use a spell check. Every little bit helps.

To Angie...did you mean this guy: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Epicureus

Comment by SayNoToTheism on June 5, 2009 at 8:07am

All brilliant points. Thank you!

Comment by Angie Jackson on June 5, 2009 at 8:05am

A couple of debate points: It's crucial to remember the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim (god exists), not with the one disbelieving the claim (there is insufficient evidence that god exists for me to believe). Keep him on the ropes, you ask the questions, and don't let him weasel onto a new topic before answering your questions.

Questions to ask him:
Should we take an eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?
Is slavery morally acceptable? (It is never renounced by Jesus, so don't let him try that approach) If it is okay, if you beat your slave and he dies, under what conditions does it count and not count as murder? (hint: if he dies instantly it's murder, but if he suffers for a few days it's okay cause you owned him in the first place)
Is God pro-life? (NOT!)
And then there's the classic Epicureus question - Where does evil come from? If god is able to destroy it, but chooses not to, he is malevolent. If god desires to destroy it but is unable, he is not omnipotent. If he is neither willing nor able, why call him god? If he is both willing and able, why does evil exist?
Oh, and why the heck did God create Satan, if he was omniscient and knew full well that satan would go bad and muck up the whole plan?