[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.08 MB, 1920x1440, 1235813256344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1742530 No.1742530 [Reply] [Original]

My creationist friend is officially inviting me (an atheist) over to his bible study group as a debate/study. What verses should I focus on?

>> No.1742554
File: 61 KB, 600x597, 1262948785951.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1742554

>>1742530
WHY DO YOU HAVE STUPID FRIENDS?
that just reflects badly on you.

You should both be "put down"
GTFO FAGGOT!

>> No.1742557

As an atheist, you should know this already. How do you expect to criticize a religion you know nothing about?

>> No.1742584

Number : 31
same guy who stated gods ten commandments said rape the virgins.

>> No.1742603

>>1742530

Dude don't argue semantics with christians. Have you done any literature classes? We can interpret shit anyway we want, and change the context and re-interpret shit over and over....

Instead ask them what they MEAN by certain ideas, go deeper and deeper eventually they will fuck up and give you incoherent definitions. If they don't, then just ask them HOW DID THEY ACQUIRE SUCH KNOWLEDGE and then go over the fallibility of the human mind and human texts and what not...

ask them, what do you mean
ask them, how do you know it to be true

their answers should be easy to pick apart

dont argue bible verses

>> No.1742621

>>1742603
>dont argue bible verses

THIS

Bringing up arcane details that the other party has never heard of is a shitty way to "win an argument". You're not debating facts, you're just saying something arbitrary to make it seem like you know what you're talking about.

Talk about epistemology, where knowledge comes from, etc.

>> No.1742620

Don't do it. It won't do you any good, and when they start using fucked up logic, and the fallacy is overwhelming, you won't be able to answer. They will take this as a proof that science is wrong, and the bible is right.

>> No.1742628
File: 64 KB, 486x365, bears.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1742628

>>1742530
II Kings 2:23-24

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."

And when you find out how to summon bears to attack annoying teenagers, fucking let us know ok?

>> No.1742638

>>1742584
What a fucked up passage. If a man commanded another man to kill someone, then both men are guilty. Of god commands you to kill someone, god is not guilty.

Also how did those guys know whether or not the women were virgins? Did they ask each one individually?

>> No.1742639

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ if you really insist on bible verses

Ask them why they pick and choose which parts of the bible they are going to believe in literally and which ones open to interpretation. After all God's word should be absolute.

To them homos = bad, it's in the bible
Being killed for working on the sabbath is also in the bible.. but hey.. let's skip over that part

Also maybe some youtube videos from Qualiasoup on critical thinking might help you prep.

Honestly you won't change their minds and they will always re-arrange the world (in their minds) to fit their belief system.

>> No.1742641

sage for blatant bullshit religious thread OP is a fag etc etc

>> No.1742682

umm, don't go?

what, do you think you are going to walk in there and change their minds? you will accomplish nothing except to make yourself lose a little faith in humanity.

>> No.1742683

>>1742621
>invited to a BIBLE STUDY group
>not allowed to present passages of the BIBLE for critical STUDY

what really?

>> No.1742712

>>1742530
What? Why would you do that? Are you trying to argue evolution and atheism on its tenants, or partake in some bullshit exercise in futility as you cherry pick quotes from their bullshit book?

>> No.1742714

>>1742683

Just saying it turns into this.

Nutjob: "You know that AIDS was created by the government as an experimental weapon against the Soviet Union, right?"

Reasonable Person: "lol no it wasn't, it jumped species from primates in Africa, probably as a result of people eating monkeys etc."

Nutjob: "Are you aware that former CIA director in essence admitted it in a private memo that was leaked in 1973, corroborated by no less than 3 insiders that came out later blah blah blah"

Reasonable Person: "No, I haven't heard about that."

Nutjob: "Well I guess you should be better informed before you go telling people they're wrong."

NOTE: I am totally making this shit up.

You can find bible verses to support whatever you want to say. And chances are the person you're talking to won't have any familiarity with them. It's quite possible that your arguments are total crap and easily refuted. It appears to score you points because your opponent can't counter it and appears uninformed, but in fact it's totally meaningless.

People like to use arguments like that but it's a total dead end.

>> No.1742731

>>1742714
Actually, the AIDS virus probably crossed into humans from the Oral Polio Vaccine given in the Belgium Congo in 1957-59, but you're right that it wasn't any sort of conspiracy or biological weapon. It was just incompetence and bad science with some gross negligence.

>> No.1742741

>>1742731

Forget the AIDS stuff it's just stream of consciousness bullshit.

Point is, bringing up something obscure that can't be refuted due to lack of knowledge doesn't mean you win.

>> No.1742744

>>1742731

The thought of AIDS makes me feel uneasy.

Can this discussion stop? I'm afraid of the AIDS, even with its low numbers. Theres still some people unlucky enough to catch it and that frightens me.

>> No.1742746

>>1742714
Here's the difference between citing the bible and a nutjob referencing obscure esoteric details that no one has heard of.

You can't go look at those memos, you can't verify they're true or what context they occurred in.

However, in the case of the Bible, you're talking to people who can open up their bibles and see the passage. They can see the context it's in, and they have to believe it's true, because that's their whole argument.

Citing bible verses is valid.

>> No.1742763

>>1742746

Are you serious? How can you be so blind to your ignorance? The fact that science is always changing things is the precise reason it and logical thought should triumph oh those silly fairy tales.

>> No.1742764

>>1742746

You can look it up but the proper interpretation and context aren't necessarily obvious. For proper analysis you might have to cite some other references or something. You may find someone who's willing to say, "Oh yeah? It's on now, motherfucker!" and actually go to the trouble, but that's way beyond the scope of casual debate, AND it totally derails the whole argument into correct translations from Hebrew, the preceding several chapters, cultural context at the time...

There's endless room to debate that stuff, and it does little to address the christian vs. atheist stuff that's supposed to be the substance of the argument.

>> No.1742766

Your friend wants to prove you wrong in an attempt to convert you.

Participating is a mistake in and of itself.

>> No.1742778

>>1742764
If a person's entire argument is "what the bible says is true" then I think challenging them with what the bible says is about the only way to argue that.

>> No.1742790

>>1742778
If that's what they believe, then there's little to no point to argue with that person. Attempting to point out inconsistencies may bear some fruit, but I've found that it rarely works.

>> No.1742792

>>1742778

I think that risks getting muddled in details, Christians don't even have a solid consensus on biblican inerrancy or how to interpret specific passages, I'd start with what makes something "true" and how to verify it, etc... i.e. "knowledge" means something and it doesn't have anything to do with what "just makes sense" to you, or what you "feel" or intuitively grasp.

>> No.1742801

Don't waste your time. Creationists are exceptional at rhetoric, memorizing verses and atrocious-sounding quote-mines from scientists, and there's nothing you can say that will ever sway them, even if you did "win" the debate (they will NEVER admit this even if you could win).

>> No.1742806

>>1742801
I didn't mean to sage this post, not that I actually did. My apologies.

>> No.1742812

sage sage religious faggotry sage

>> No.1744398
File: 789 KB, 1415x2000, 1246981506-why_do_you_believe_in_god_.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1744398

Print this off and give it to everyone.

>> No.1744404

You can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into.

That being said, don't even go-- you'll just give them an emotional buttress to their delusions.

>> No.1744415

>>1742530
Read Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason (it's short). In ch7 he finds pretty good biblical evidence that the word modern Christians translate as "prophet" actually meant "poet/musician".

>> No.1744425

>>1744398
If you don't want to be handed a Christian pamphlet, don't hand out an anti-Christian pamphlet. That's just a lack of class, signifying you don't have to brain power to back up what you believe yourself.

>> No.1744432

>>1744415
They'll probably point out the Thomas Paine came back around to Christianity and regretted having written that book.

>> No.1744440

>>1742792
What makes something knowledge?

>> No.1744444

>>1744432
Only Christians are stupid enough to believe that people recording deathbed conversions are trustworthy.

>> No.1744465

>>1744444
My pastor told us that Richard Dawkins converted to Christianity on his deathbed, and I believe him.

>> No.1744467

>>1744444
I'm not talking about what he said on his deathbed. I'm talking about what he wrote in letters before he died.

>> No.1744471

Advice: don't go.
Advice 2: if you feel you must go, just listen and don't say anything.
Advice 3: most Christians don't take the Bible literally, so don't try to reason based on that. If you have to pick on shit, go with Leviticus and ask why they don't stone disobedient children to death, or why you can't rape a woman and get away with just paying her dad a couple of cows
Advice 4: if they are literalists and you want to lose your friends, point out that there are two different creation myths in the first two chapters of Genesis. Which one is right? They can't both be right, because they contradict each other. Also, God created light before the Sun, and plants aren't alive, and so on.

>> No.1744482

>>1744471
what do you mean plants aren't alive?

As for following mosaic law, Jesus is considered to have abrogated it for Christians.

>> No.1744487

>>1742530
none. you shouldn't waste your time on that shit. you shouldn't even join them. mark my words:

you will waste time trying to point out the flaws of religion.

you will waste more time trying even harder.

eventually you and them won't get anywhere and you will have wasted your time.

well, for someone that wastes his time on 4chan that shouldn't be a concern, at least you'll get to go out so

the choice is yours.

>> No.1744485
File: 260 KB, 485x3001, 1270497478341.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1744485

>>1742530
Print this out.

>> No.1744488

OP, don't go.

By going you are saying that it is actually up for debate, when it isn't, at all.

Your spite will only encourage the Christian mind that wants always to play victim.

>> No.1744500

>>1742530
Unfortunately for you, you can't win. Christians hold all the philosophical, moral, historical, and scientific grounds. Atheism is the belief in NOTHING. It is far from rational.

>> No.1744506

>>1744485
Wow. The Egyptians actually Prophesied the coming of Jesus! Praise Jesus!

>> No.1744508

>>1744500
in my humble opinion atheism is just as irrational as theism.

both hold back on mere presumptions and lack of evidence to prove their arguments.

>> No.1744509

>>1744482
But 95% of Christians don't actually believe that. See: homosexuality debate.

It says (or implies) somewhere in Genesis that plants aren't alive. Pretty much all I remember about it.

>> No.1744513
File: 32 KB, 838x627, 1283208836824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1744513

>>1744508

herp

>> No.1744523

This entire thread is ridiculous. Why the hell would you go to a Bible study group if it's obvious you've never read the Bible. Way to be a atheist for aesthetic purposes. Good God.

>> No.1744522
File: 41 KB, 416x300, cho_seung_hui.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1744522

You want to go Korean on them

>> No.1744521

>>1744506

oh those silly egyptians.

>> No.1744525
File: 66 KB, 535x438, 1256601715386.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1744525

>>1744485
>The Ritual as the book of resurrection = The Book of Revelation
Pic related.

>> No.1744526
File: 17 KB, 373x330, atheists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1744526

>>1744508

>> No.1744529

I like Revelation, but I haven't actually read it.

>> No.1744534

>>1744526

lolz

>> No.1744539

>>1744529

Revelation could be a movie or something.

>> No.1744546

>>1744526

Honestly, self-righteous self-titled atheists are the problem, not the person who quietly believes in God without bothering anyone else. Sure, ignorant theists that try to cram their ideas into other people's heads are bad (and I question whether this even happens because I've never seen it), but they're at least not smug about it.

>> No.1744549

>>1744509

Genesis was terrifying.

>> No.1744553

>>1744509

Genesis is one of my greatest fears.

>> No.1744555

>>1744513
what? do you have something to say to me? do it, instead of hiding yourself behind a sarcastic picture.

>>1744526
bad troll.

>> No.1744558
File: 50 KB, 600x431, 1274728181472.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1744558

>>1744546

>self-righteous self-titled atheists are the problem

>> No.1744560

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Creationist_Arguments

Read this.

>> No.1744563

>>1744553

(because of the flood)

>> No.1744565
File: 23 KB, 469x428, 1270937552046.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1744565

>>1744555

>> No.1744567

Talk about dinosaurs. A lot.

>> No.1744568

>>1744558

I'm not discussing the merits of the church, you moron. Faith and the church are not the same thing. Get a better response next time. That's the first counter-argument that's always heard, and it's always a bad one.

>> No.1744570

>>1744565
still hiding? afraid? or lack of arguments? is there a difference? keep on replying let me find out.

>> No.1744571

>>1744509
I've studied the creation story in Hebrew for years, and have never noticed any implication that plants were not alive. If there was such implication, it would just mean its using a different definition of life than what biology uses. In the Hebrew tradition, there's something known as the breath of life -- the life is in the breath. And God breathed into man to give him life. So in that sense, things that don't breathe certainly do not have the breath of life. There's really nothing to argue about there.

All Christians I've ever heard of do believe that Jesus abrogated the Mosaic law. That's why they don't follow the ritual laws or dietary laws that Jews follow. They do, however, look to what is written in the OT as a source of understanding morality. The theme in the Gospels, is that Jesus looks to the things written in the OT, and says to understand those things spiritually, not naturally.

>> No.1744574

21 And every creature crawling on the earth, with the birds, and with the cattle, and with the animals, and with everything that swarms on the earth, and all mankind perished.
22 Everything that has the breath of life in its nostrils, everything on the land died.
23 And everything living thing on the face of the earth, from man to animals to crawlers, and the birds of the air, were wiped out. And they were wiped out from the earth, and only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 And the waters flooded the earth for one hundred and fifty days.

>> No.1744575
File: 59 KB, 1000x1939, 1274223056182.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1744575

>>1744570

>> No.1744577

>>1744575
I see.

>> No.1744581
File: 13 KB, 164x149, 1278810976518.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1744581

>>1744508

>he doesn't know that theists are also atheists

>> No.1744582

>>1744581

cute baby

>> No.1744585

>>1744582
It's the babby's first troll.

>> No.1744592

>>1744574
There have been many such floods. Note that in ancient times there was no such concept as "earth the planet". "earth" just meant the ground. True today nearly all biblical literalists take that as a "global" flood. But it is not necessary to interpret it so from the literal text. Even where it says "the whole earth" -- that means the same thing as "the whole land", which could mean all the land known to those people. Such floods happened many times in many parts of the world after the ice age.

>> No.1744595

>>1744509
This goes in line with the "lol the Bible says bats and flying insects are BIRDS!"
Context is the key here. Obviously the Bible isn't going to focus on modern taxonomy.
What's this? Does it fly? Ok, then... group that in the "shit that flies" file.

>>1744571
Also, in Acts 10, God straight up tells Peter "Yeah, about that kosher nonsense...forget about all that..."

>> No.1744612

>>1744595

This is true. But if a more logical explanation is required, then look no further than Romans.