A friend of mine is a pretty die-hard Christian (shock horror, both of his parents are missionaries/vicars) and he often posts little sayings of some kind or another on Facebook, which I usually ignore. However, today he posted something that really irritated me for some reason:
"The more I look at science, the more in awe of God I become."
And just to make that worse, one of his Christian friends commented "Boom" as if he had made some kind of infallible argument. Somehow, I feel as though nothing I say will make any difference because they must be incredibly deluded already to believe that God just "invented" science. Basically, this is the guy who thinks he's a "modern and intelligent" Christian by saying that things like Noah's Ark are "just stories and aren't meant to be taken seriously by Christians". But if that is true, then why take ANY of the Bible seriously and where does he draw the line between stories and (what he believes is) the truth?
In the past I asked him and his friend where the evidence was. He claimed science (yes, seriously) helped prove Christianity and that Christianity was about "opening yourself" to it and believing, and then you "feel God" or whatever. How do you argue with someone like that??
What do you all say to religious people (not necessarily just Christians) who claim that science is just an invention of God? Is there a specific way to argue with someone who twists everything to awkwardly suit modern day thinking?
You can't claim free will after setting out a group of rules and threatening an eternal barbeque for not following them - true free will doesn't involve punishments.
How can you claim free will for poor old Pharaoh in Exodus, when your own book says your god hardened his heart?
Richard, justice is all about right and wrong, what you deserve is what is supposed to be.
If we are all supposed to be in hell, why does a perfect being like God have desires opposite of what is actually supposed to be? A perfect God would not desire anything other than what is supposed to be because he would fully understand why something is supposed to be.
That means the incarnation, the cross, salvation ect are all a game, because if something is already "supposed to be" why do you have to play gymnastics like all those things to just put what is supposed to be in place? It is completely unnecessary. It isn't just to exploit legal loopholes that violate the intent of the law, and plus he made the law after he knew the consequences, so he created the problem.
And you can't say you as a Christian ever was supposed to be in hell, because obviously God thought you never were supposed to be there.
I kind of like that, John.
Thanks Strega. I think that the best way to address Christianity is to take on its most core claims. Without this atonement justified, Christ has no reason for being, and Christianity falls.
Though I don't want to use this too much, because normally I am not in the business of deconverting people. Sometimes they annoy me though. Plus I want to put it in a book eventually. I can tell this Richard character is not a humble loving Christian, so I don't feel bad dropping this one.
No God or angels? Please don't tell me there are no leprechauns, either! I so want that pot o' gold!
"1. Non-existent, 2. Powerless or 3. Evil"
I like it and I'm stealing it :)
HA! That is priceless!
Non-chicken... That's awesome.
Amusingly this thread is titled "How to argue against a particular delusion," and thanks to Richard, we have somewhat demonstrated the answer! You just rebuke, rebut and counter his fallacious "arguments" (or lack thereof), and then wait until he realizes his impotence within the intellectual realm and runs away cowering.
I think I had a math prof do the same thing with probability theory....
I wonder why he announced his exit instead of just disappearing POOF! in a cloud of smoke?