Atheist Questions

[dUmPsTeR]

Here is a question an atheist asked me and I'm not sure how to answer him. Please help me out if you know a proper response.

Then why his confusion in the Garden of Eden? He had to ask Adam and Eve to show themselves because he couldn't see them, then asked them why they were covering their nakedness. He didn't know they had Eaten from the tree and had no knowledge of Eve's discussion with the serpent. Sounds like his plan didn't work out.

 

[KingJ]

Atheists, gotta love them.

It's kind of rhetorical questions. God wanted Adam and Eve to come before Him willingly and acknowledge their guilt, of course He knew where they were. He wanted to hear from them why they are covering their nakedness. It's like God asking Cain where Abel was after he killed him. If God knows every hair on our head, He KNOWS where Abel is! He wants to hear from Cain. He wants Cain to give his account of his actions so as to better judge him / bypass judging him (if he were to fall to the ground and repent).

It is much like us today having to give account of ourselves before God. Of course God knows we sin and what sin we commit. He wants us to acknowledge our sin so that we can judge ourselves and deal with it. Thereby hopefully escaping His judgement 1 Cor 11:31.

I guess we just need to think like a parent talking to a kid.

 

[Ravindran]

I think the previous comment by brother KingJ hits the nail! Just like how we parents ask our kids. Did you do that? As though we don't know what they did The question is rhetorical and God wanted Adam and Eve to accept their sinful act.

Atheist can ask all these questions and we can explain them all day long. I always go with only one counter question. How do they define what is good and wrong? Is it based on human feelings and consciousness? If so, then it is not same for everyone. How did morality "evolve"? The only way it could be accounted for is by attributing it to a moral law giver.

 

[RiverJordan]

Ravindran,

I wouldn't bring up "where did morality come from" in a debate with an atheist. If he's at all experienced in discussing the subject, it won't go well for you.

 

[dUmPsTeR]

Atheists, gotta love them.

It's kind of rhetorical questions. God wanted Adam and Eve to come before Him willingly and acknowledge their guilt, of course He knew where they were. He wanted to hear from them why they are covering their nakedness. It's like God asking Cain where Abel was after he killed him. If God knows every hair on our head, He KNOWS where Abel is! He wants to hear from Cain. He wants Cain to give his account of his actions so as to better judge him / bypass judging him (if he were to fall to the ground and repent).

It is much like us today having to give account of ourselves before God. Of course God knows we sin and what sin we commit. He wants us to acknowledge our sin so that we can judge ourselves and deal with it. Thereby hopefully escaping His judgement 1 Cor 11:31.

I guess we just need to think like a parent talking to a kid.

I agree and appreciate your response. Thank you KingJ.

 

[KingJ]

Ravindran,

I wouldn't bring up "where did morality come from" in a debate with an atheist. If he's at all experienced in discussing the subject, it won't go well for you.

You think the morale code of God cannot influence / overwhelm an ....atheist?

It is my experience on atheists sites that this subject makes for a great discussion that I believe can and does lead many back to the Lord.

How does selflessness evolve? Can an atheist be selfless? Christians are not 'good morale code' vs 'bad morale code'. Yes that discussion won't go well because it has no depth. Christians are the epitome of 'good morale code'. One needs to meditate on selflessness for a while for that to sink in.

Most discussion on this involves atheists (even some 'Christians' ) purposely / naively not grasping the definition of selflessness.

Selflessness = Doing a a good deed for someone at a cost to you for absolutely no reward.

Ask an atheist if he will give his life for someone who tried to kill him. If any atheist truthfully says yes to that, they have denounced atheism and are a few seconds away from meeting Jesus. Just to avoid senseless discussion let me say...a 'truthful' atheist believes he only has this life. So a 'truthful' atheist will not selflessly give his life for anyone!

Imagine a world of selfless atheists . God Himself would be impressed! Perhaps God would even visit them / go the extra mile for their unbelief like He did with Peter.

 

[RiverJordan]

In my experience, it is extremely easy for a non-believer to account for morality by pointing out that humans definitely create their own moral codes, largely according to what works to maintain a cohesive, functional society. All they have to do is point to the variety of cultures with widely varying moral codes to support their argument. Also, they can point to the increasing number of studies showing that altruism exists in varying degrees in various animal species (mostly in those that have evolved social structures).

There's a lot that's been written about this and much of it is pretty credible and well supported by the evidence. Of course it's a problem only for Christians coming from a very conservative POV, but for someone who believes as I do, it's all part of the bigger picture.

 

[KingJ]

In my experience, it is extremely easy for a non-believer to account for morality by pointing out that humans definitely create their own moral codes, largely according to what works to maintain a cohesive, functional society. All they have to do is point to the variety of cultures with widely varying moral codes to support their argument.

This is your reason for stating post #4? That is certainly not grounds to say what you did. You are blind to the damage you can do to a young believer! You make me mad. You really do need to think before you speak. I mean this with love! I expected you to apologize to Ravin and acknowledge that God's word is truth and that God's morale code therein > any human fabrication. I don't know of a single atheist that has passed scriptures examination of selflessness / God's morale code, but you ignore and elude it. I feel like I have to repeat what I said with you. Did you even read my post?

Also, they can point to the increasing number of studies showing that altruism exists in varying degrees in various animal species (mostly in those that have evolved social structures).

Did you just justify human selflessness with an animal? Do you think I am brain dead? No animal is close to the intelligence of a human. No animal thinks of the future quite like a human. No animal has vanity quite like a human. Hence all animals are welcome in heaven. Even those that may bite your head off.

Do I really have to ask you to answer from a human perspective? I would like to hear your answer so here goes a copy / paste ''Ask an honest atheist if he will give his life for someone who tried to kill him.''

There's a lot that's been written about this and much of it is pretty credible and well supported by the evidence. Of course it's a problem only for Christians coming from a very conservative POV, but for someone who believes as I do, it's all part of the bigger picture.

Have you got scripture for this bigger picture? Are you going to share this with us?

 

[Kurt75]

Here is a question an atheist asked me and I'm not sure how to answer him. Please help me out if you know a proper response.

Then why his confusion in the Garden of Eden? He had to ask Adam and Eve to show themselves because he couldn't see them, then asked them why they were covering their nakedness. He didn't know they had Eaten from the tree and had no knowledge of Eve's discussion with the serpent. Sounds like his plan didn't work out.

In a theological sense, this is what's called anthropomorphic language. In other words, God is speaking to us using words we would use to speak to each other.

Let's say you saw a child steal a toy and then try to hide it in his pocket. You might say something like, "What did you do just now? What do you have in your pocket right now?" As KingJ already said, the questions are rhetorical. It's not that you don't already know the answer. You saw the child steal the toy and hide it in his pocket. You ask the question because you want to hear the child confess his guilt.

 

[ixoye_8]

How did morality "evolve"? The only way it could be accounted for is by attributing it to a moral law giver.

I don't accept that morality evolved ..

it is what is good and just ..
and that is what God is ..
so if you have a warped sense of what morality is ..
then you have a warped sense of who God is ..

ego is the root of all evil ..
ego is inward all which should be outward ..
so ego turns selfless (moral) into selfish (immoral) ..

 

[Kurt75]

Ravindran,

I wouldn't bring up "where did morality come from" in a debate with an atheist. If he's at all experienced in discussing the subject, it won't go well for you.

The "Moral Argument for the Existence of God" goes like this:

Premise #1: If objective moral values do not exist, then God does not exist.
Premise #2: Objective moral values exist.
Premise #3: Therefore, God exists.

What you need to be able to demonstrate is that objective moral values exist. The key here is to clearly define what you mean by objective moral values.

I would submit that objective moral values are those values that exist whether anyone believes them or not.

There are an unlimited number of directions you can go to demonstrate this.

Here's one: Most atheists would agree that the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals, by Hitler was wrong. But let's say Germany won WWII and everyone who believed that the Holocaust was wrong was killed. Let's say the only people that survived WWII were people who agreed that the Holocaust was a good thing. Does that now make exterminating certain people okay just because nobody remains alive to disagree? Of course not. Exterminating people is objectively wrong and you don't need a surviving culture to validate that.

So then, if culture is not the source of objective moral values, what (or who) is? The logical conclusion is a transcendent, powerful, personal creator, i.e. God.

 

[ixoye_8]

You ask the question because you want to hear the child confess his guilt.

exactly .. but not just hear them confess .. but want them to be sorry so as to learn this is not acceptable, and to seek to be acceptable ..

 

[KingJ]

You guys are spot on.

It is crystal clear to me these days that God is looking hard at every person (irrespective of belief) for simply sincerity and honesty! There is so much to learn from 1 Cor 11:31. Doing good sincerely is drawing closer to Jesus in James 4:8. If we do that we are not far from meeting Lord Jesus.

 

[RiverJordan]

This is your reason for stating post #4? That is certainly not grounds to say what you did. You are blind to the damage you can do to a young believer!

No, I think you are the one who's being blind. Fundamentalists put out these apologetic arguments (like the argument from morality) to young believers that they're supposed to use in discussions with non-believers, but the problem is they're so easily shot down they end up making the young believer look foolish, thereby putting their faith in jeopardy.

I was listening to the local Christian radio yesterday while I was running some errands and I heard "The Bible Answer Man" promoting a flip chart of his about evolution. He claimed it would "equip believers and help them defend Biblical truths". The problem is, the contents of that chart are so...well, stupid...and at times flat out deceitful, that any believer who tries to use it to argue against anyone who knows anything about science is going to get shredded and made to look the fool. IOW, believers are being sent out into the world "equipped" with atrocious and easily countered apologetic arguments.

IMO, that sort of thing does far more harm to young believers than a fellow believer warning them against using such easily countered apologetics.

You make me mad. You really do need to think before you speak. I mean this with love! I expected you to apologize to Ravin and acknowledge that God's word is truth and that God's morale code therein > any human fabrication. I don't know of a single atheist that has passed scriptures examination of selflessness / God's morale code, but you ignore and elude it. I feel like I have to repeat what I said with you. Did you even read my post?

Sorry I made you angry, but I see no need to apologize to Ravin. I've seen what happens when believers confront atheists with "Oh yeah? Well how do you account for morality without God then?" They usually get their rhetorical butts kicked. It's a bad argument to try and use against atheists.

Did you just justify human selflessness with an animal? Do you think I am brain dead? No animal is close to the intelligence of a human. No animal thinks of the future quite like a human. No animal has vanity quite like a human. Hence all animals are welcome in heaven. Even those that may bite your head off.

LOL! Don't ask questions you don't want an answer to.

Again, I'm trying to explain what the atheist response is to the "how do you account for morality" apologetic. Don't you think it's a good idea to have an idea of what sort of response you can expect before you go out parroting an argument?

Do I really have to ask you to answer from a human perspective? I would like to hear your answer so here goes a copy / paste ''Ask an honest atheist if he will give his life for someone who tried to kill him.''

Right, and when you get an answer that isn't what you want, you'll fall back on the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" and say "You're not an honest atheist then".

Have you got scripture for this bigger picture? Are you going to share this with us?

I have shared it. It was generally ignored.

 

[RiverJordan]

The "Moral Argument for the Existence of God" goes like this:

Premise #1: If objective moral values do not exist, then God does not exist.
Premise #2: Objective moral values exist.
Premise #3: Therefore, God exists.

What you need to be able to demonstrate is that objective moral values exist. The key here is to clearly define what you mean by objective moral values.

I would submit that objective moral values are those values that exist whether anyone believes them or not.

There are an unlimited number of directions you can go to demonstrate this.

Here's one: Most atheists would agree that the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals, by Hitler was wrong. But let's say Germany won WWII and everyone who believed that the Holocaust was wrong was killed. Let's say the only people that survived WWII were people who agreed that the Holocaust was a good thing. Does that now make exterminating certain people okay just because nobody remains alive to disagree? Of course not. Exterminating people is objectively wrong and you don't need a surviving culture to validate that.

So then, if culture is not the source of objective moral values, what (or who) is? The logical conclusion is a transcendent, powerful, personal creator, i.e. God.

Except the non-believer will point to accounts of genocide ordered (and thereby condoned) and committed by God in the OT and ask "How can genocide be objectively immoral if your God both commits it and condones it? Either your God is immoral or genocide is not objectively immoral."

 

[ixoye_8]

morality is of God ..
man is made in God's image ..
thus man's moral compass ..
an atheist attempts to find origin elsewhere are as erroneous and most often as disingenuous as their disbelief..

 

[ixoye_8]

Except the non-believer will point to accounts of genocide ordered (and thereby condoned) and committed by God in the OT and ask "How can genocide be objectively immoral if your God both commits it and condones it? Either your God is immoral or genocide is not objectively immoral."

it is a pickle to try and get someone to understand the ways of God who reject Him to begin with .. kind of a silly discussion to even have ..

but as to "perceived genocide" perhaps they are limiting God .. sin makes you guilty no repentance makes you judged .. God recorded every person who would be born names who out of freewill would love and obey Him at the time of creation before even Adam was created .. my guess is they would call Sodom & Gomorrah genocide as well ..

then of course, these same atheist have no problem judging God with non-hypothetical judgement whom they say does not exist .. disingenuous ??? .. you bet

 

[Kurt75]

Except the non-believer will point to accounts of genocide ordered (and thereby condoned) and committed by God in the OT and ask "How can genocide be objectively immoral if your God both commits it and condones it? Either your God is immoral or genocide is not objectively immoral."

Okay this is a different argument. This is basically a complaint that they don't like the God that in the same breath they say doesn't exist. This argument presupposes the existence of God. Atheists will commonly do this and are always all over the map. You need to keep them focused on one argument at a time.

The original argument was that objective moral values cannot exist without a transcendent, powerful, personal creator, i.e. God, that establishes eternal moral truths. Once you get them to concede that God exists, then you can discuss why God behaves the way He does.

 

[RiverJordan]

Ixoye,

You're missing the context of the exchange. We're talking about how to interact with atheists, and specifically the utility of apologetic arguments in providing a compelling case for the existence of God. In this case, Kurt cited the argument from morality as a good example, and claimed...

"The "Moral Argument for the Existence of God" goes like this:

Premise #1: If objective moral values do not exist, then God does not exist.
Premise #2: Objective moral values exist.
Premise #3: Therefore, God exists."

He then said that because genocide (the Holocaust) is objectively immoral, it proves this argument. I noted that the obvious counter to that is the OT accounts of God committing, condoning, and ordering genocidal acts, and how given Kurt's argument structure, there are only two conclusions. Either God is immoral or Kurt has failed to demonstrate the existence of objective morality, and thus failed to make his case for the existence of God.

Now, I'm obviously not saying God doesn't exist, I'm just demonstrating the obvious flaw in Kurt's apologetic argument. And that leads back to my overall point...we shouldn't be sending believers (especially young believers) out into the world with flawed apologetic arguments, because doing so could ultimately cause them to question their faith.

 

[RiverJordan]

Okay this is a different argument.

No, it's an obvious flaw in the argument you put forth. By the very structure of your series of premises, given the genocidal accounts in the OT there are only two possible conclusions. Either God is immoral or you have failed to demonstrate objective morality.

This is basically a complaint that they don't like the God that in the same breath they say doesn't exist. This argument presupposes the existence of God. Atheists will commonly do this and are always all over the map. You need to keep them focused on one argument at a time.

Like Ixoye, you're missing the context of the discussion. We're talking about us believers interacting with atheists and how they will respond to our apologetic arguments. They're simply addressing the God that we're presenting them with. Just like if someone started talking to you about Santa Claus, you could point out the obvious flaws in their "message" without actually believing in Santa.

The original argument was that objective moral values cannot exist without a transcendent, powerful, personal creator, i.e. God, that establishes eternal moral truths. Once you get them to concede that God exists, then you can discuss why God behaves the way He does.

And that's the problem with the argument you put forth and the argument from morality overall. It fails to demonstrate that God exists. That's why it shouldn't be used in an apologetic, evangelical context. It sets us up to fail.