Especially atheists believe that this book shows the inhumane face of Christianism and refer to the Old Testament with every opportunity to show that they are right in hating Christianism.
But things can be easily explained:
The Old Testament is an older book than the New Testament (surprise! surprise!) and thus requires a bigger effort to understand. Such an ancient text is full of symbolisms and the attempt of atheists to interpret everything in it literally can only be characterized as childish (or cunning).
Try not to read the letter… (saying over the entrance of the Heidelberg library)
The apostle Paul said it anyway: For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (Το γράμμα αποκτείνει, το δεν πνεύμα ζωοποιεί) Try not to follow the letter of what you read, but the overall meaning, the “spirit” of the holy texts.
Take for example the case of Lot.
I had recently a discussion about this story with an aggressive atheist who read it literally and superficially and the only thing he saw was a heartless father. He accused Lot of offering his daughters. But Lot did not “offer” his daughters like one offers a cup of coffee. Lot sacrificed his daughters “who had not yet known man” instead of the two angels, thus showing that he had overcome his egoism. And remember that the two angels were on a God’s work there. The story is completed with the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. A destruction also seen by atheists as a proof of the “evil” God. But let us be serious: Who really believes that he can do anything he likes without consequences? And which father is the best father: The one who does not punish his children no matter what? Or the one who punishes his children when they do something bad but loves them anyway? After that Lot has sex with his daughters (who have the noble goal of preserving the human race – a meaningful reference to what sins people do for a possibly good cause?) while being drunk (a meaningful reference to what people do when not having conscious understanding of their sins?). Again various symbolisms and deeper meanings lie beneath the surface seen by the atheist.
A lot of people also read the story of Job (Gr. Ιώβ) and wander how can God be so hard on him. But if what matters is the soul, if what matters is to understand that the things we cannot see are those which will save our soul, then Job should not protest at all. His kids died. So? We are all going to be resurrected. The body is not the thing we should try saving.
Ποῦ ἦς ἐν τῷ θεμελιοῦν με τὴν γῆν;
Πού ήσουν εσύ όταν έθετα τα θεμέλια της γης;
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
The God of Love is transformed to the God of Power and asks Job. The belief we have that our body is everything is based on our ignorance but on our arrogance as well that we understand the essence of our existence. Like spoiled children we like to see the surface and we cannot understand that our Father cares for us even when it looks that He does not.
Read something as serious as an ancient sacred text like you read your daily newspaper and misinterpretation will soon come into place.
Related links: See related discussion on Reasonable Faith here.
ADDITION:Check out the Greek version of the article “Παλαιά Διαθήκη: Όχι για τους λιπόψυχους! (Μια εύκολη ερμηνεία)” to see the analysis of two more aspects of the Bible which often draw a lot of criticism: The “An eye for an eye” related quotes and the quotes related to homosexuals.
Scientists have demonstrated for the first time how to generate magnetism in metals that aren’t naturally magnetic, which could end our reliance on some rare and toxic elements currently used. Researchers detail a way of altering the quantum interactions of matter in order to ‘fiddle the numbers’ in a mathematical equation that determines whether elements are magnetic, called the Stoner Criterion. (1)
Everything can be anything.
Anything can be transformed to anything.
You can be anything if you aren’t already that something.
The potential for every change exists in everything.
Transformation is possible only because it has already happened.
Look around.
See the unicorn.
PS. Regardless of the above philosophy-oriented post, unicorns do exist. Check this article here. Because the ancients did not waste time or valuable resources to write or speak about things that did not exist. This is a more modern ‘hobby’…
Continue your Reading!
Go to Navigate Harmonia page to see some of the most interesting posts!
Browse the Articles List to see a list of the main articles.
Go here to see the Facebook community of Harmonia Philosophica!
Is your pet hamster high on life — or just a sad little ball of fur?
A new study from England suggests that — just like humans — some hamsters can have a shift in mood, from a gloomy demeanor to a more rosy view of life, for instance. What’s more, the research shows that it doesn’t take a whole lot to boost a hamster’s mood: some hammocks to lounge in, a bit of extra bedding, and a chew toy or two can make a big difference. (1)
The tree of life might seem like a stable design, appropriate for indelible ink. Plenty of people think so. An Internet search for “phylogenetic tattoos” turns up some showy skin art.
But the branches are shifting. Since a radial diagram based on 1990s genetics inspired a rush for tree-of-life tattoos, technical diagrams of life’s ancestral connections have been redrawn. And the simplified version of the tree of life memorized by schoolchildren for decades lags far behind what researchers depict today.
In the new vision — based on increasingly sophisticated genetic analyses — people and other animals are closer cousins to single-celled choanoflagellates than to other multicellular organisms. Giant kelp that grow as wavering undersea forests off the California coast are closer relatives to single-celled plankton called diatoms than to multicelled red seaweeds or plants. Multicelled organisms mingle with singles. Some organisms (orphans, above) have not yet been placed in one of the seven or so supergroups. (1)
> CONSTANTLY UPDATED! > WANT TO HAVE A NICE DEBATE? Join COOD! > GREEK EDITION of this article can be found HERE
How to win a debate with an atheist…
Is that difficult?
Actually no. And I will show exactly how this can be done.
WANT TO GET A QUICK SUMMARY? WATCH THE VIDEO INSTEAD!
Debating atheists – Part 1
Or you can always download the relative presentation (available in English and in Greek) in which one can read a summary of the major arguments to use, plus some additional practical advice on how to handle science-religion debates.
First of all set a structure to the discussion! The atheist will most probably start the debate with an all-out attack mentioning various things and touching on multiple subjects at the same time. Explain calmly that there must be a specific logical sequence in a civilized discussion. Atheists tend to mix different things when discussing Christianity, but this happens only because the things in their head are indeed mixed and confused when it comes to religion. (Important Note: Religious people are also many times confused on various subjects as well – it just happens that this article deals with the atheists and their common misconceptions) Help them get them straight. Christianity – which is usually their greatest “enemy” – has many facets: Philosophical, theological, ethical, political, societal. Discuss about these sectors separately and in order. He will try to convince you that this is not the case. Try to explain to him that not distinguishing the purely theological or philosophical part of Christianity from its political and/ or social part is an over-simplistic – almost childish – way of seeing things. Ask him if he sees things in the same “holistic” way in the case of science which some time ago supported eugenics…
0. Read the basic articles of Harmonia Philosophica!
Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no easy path to knowledge. In order to be able to answer the arguments of anti-Christians (most atheists are in this category, let’s not fool ourselves) you need to read. A lot! Start from the main articles of Harmonia Philosophica where the main arguments in favor of religion are documented and keep on reading until you feel ready to support the arguments presented. The devil is usually hidden in the details, so you need to master all of them if you are to debate in favor of religion (Christianity) with success.
1. Regarding evidence and logic: Try to explain to him that many atheistic beliefs (yes, “beliefs” – see Religion and Science Unification) are illogical and not based on evidence. Ask him how does he think the universe was created. Randomly? Does he accept “random” as a valid reason for anything? Ask him how does he believe matter can develop (immaterial) consciousness. Ask him why does he think the parallel universe theory is valid, even though he will never see them. Ask him why does he believe in infinity even though he will never experience it.
Explain to him the difference between “blind faith” and “faith based on logic and evidence”. And explain to him that science needs faith as well. Add that believing in a scientific axiom (which is by definition unproved) requires more faith than to believe in love like Christ taught. Tell him that it is more irrational and unscientific to believe that everything exist out of pure luck than to believe that everything has a cause. And that Aristotle (the founder of Logic) and Gödel (the second greatest logicologist after… Aristotle) believed – based on their logic – in the First Cause. Logic is not a privilege of atheists. And that the great so called atheist (so called? could it be that…?!? Yes!… Check out here) Nietzsche was an irrationalist.
For advanced Harmonia Philosophica readers: Life is inherently irrational. So why all this love of rationality? Read the Main Thesis.
ONE LINE ARGUMENTS: In some cases you have to deal with a hardline atheist who actually does not want to discuss but to “fight”. There is no need to get into an argument with such a person. The only thing you can say to such a person so as to easily and quickly pinpoint the irrationality of his beliefs is to remind him that he believes (not a random choice of word here) in a universe which was created by accident, randomly and with no purpose. Or in a universe which existed for…. ever for no reason at all! And that opinion needs more justification that the opinion requiring a Creator for the creation of the cosmos! And if they speak to you about the greatness of ancient Greek logical thought, remind them that even ancient Greeks had RELIGION. And in fact this religion was not even something distinct from science – these were no even considered as different fields! And remind him of Aristotle speaking of the First Mover. If finally they speak about science and religion incompatibility, remind them of all those great scientists who believed in God. (see the reference to Nobel prize winners and the images with quotes in this page). A reference to the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is even more easily dealt with: The ToE is simply a scientific theory. It does not answer philosophical or metaphysical problems. It just presents a possible mechanism (and is full of dogmas while doing so – see here). And no, it does not answer to the question how life came to be. “God allows children to die!” fake-argument is easily refuted: See below.
2. Regarding the teachings of Christianity: Usually atheists tend to use the things written in the Old Testament. Older books tend to have harder meanings and more symbolisms. They can be explained of course, but not in a harsh debate with a rude atheist who does not want to listen. So focus on the teachings about love and forgiveness. These are the cornerstones of Christianity. Are there people who killed in the name of Christ? Sure. But they were not Christians!
3. Regarding the effects of Christianity: Christianity was the foundation of the free thinking Europe. Knowledge flourished in what is called “The dark ages”. Modern science was born in Christian Europe even though this is something atheists would like to forget. Humanism and Renaissance were first developed in the christian Byzantine Empire during those “dark” ages. Arts flourished in the “dark ages”. The first universities were the monasteries in these “dark” medieval ages (Dawkins teaches in one of those “dark” places). If it wasn’t for Christianity’s support of the “Help the helpless” way of thinking, we would now have the prevalence of the powerful over the powerless as some (scientific) theories support. Remind him that everything he knows about ancient Greek philosophers he so much admires, he knows because a monk somewhere saved their works. And that even the ancient “free thinking” Greeks had religion. And the logical Greeks were the first to adopt Christianity.
If he tells you that Christianity killed a lot of people ask him if Christ taught murder. If he tells you that Christianity oppressed people tell him to read how Jesus behaved to people who were outcasts in His time. If he tries to refer to various Byzantine christian emperors who led war campaigns, remind him that Christianity – besides its philosophical and theological aspect – also has a secular one. And remind him also that if it weren’t for this he would be speaking Arabic now. Ask him if he really knows and understands the difference between religion’s secular (practical) and religion’s philosophical/ theological aspect. And if he can detect such a difference for every bad thing happens in the name of science. And if he believes Mengele represented science (even though he did in his time – see here).
4. About the relation of Science and Religion: Science analyzes the How. Religion the Why. Science analyzes mechanics. Religion analyzes ethics and the way of living. And the latter is more important. As the Interacademy Panel announced: “Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political – contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations. While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges” [one can see that statement’s full text here or here]. Most great scientists who won a Nobel prize were theists. (see here and here) And most importantly: Religion seems to be the sole foundation of science itself! Read “Religion as the single foundation of Science” for more on that.
5. Accept the rudeness of your interlocutor. This is how many atheists who debate are most of the times: Rude and aggressive. Show them how the Christian guy can discuss with politeness no matter what. This will really make the atheists explode with anger. Show in practice what it means to be a Christian. Love your enemy. (tip: That is when their rage explosion will reach unprecedented levels) However note that there are many Christians being rude like many atheists who are polite and correct when debating. With such people discussion is easy and this advice is not needed. The point of this chapter is not to generalize about atheists but to show how to deal with rude people.
THE “I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD” SOPHISTRY…
Some atheists will try to say “Hey, I just do not believe in God” in order to avoid getting into details. Well, as being a “Christian” does not simply mean “Believing in Christian God”, being an “Atheist” does not simply mean “Not believing in any god”. This is a generalization and a highly suspicious generalization if you ask me. The word “God” has so many meanings in so many religions and philosophies that stating that “Atheists do not believe in god” is simply an utterly (intentionally?) wrong statement. They do not believe God in what sense? God as a creator? God as the source of soul/ spirit in humans? God as a source of Love? God as a Designer? God as the One to which we all return after death?
But again…
I would like to meet atheists who believe in First Cause. I would like to meet atheists who believe in a Designer. I would like to meet atheists who believe in human soul. I would like to meet atheists who do NOT believe in materialism.
Atheism is a System of Beliefs. And as such it should be treated.
6. Understand the motives of your interlocutor: Atheists want to gain control of their lives with science. Explain to them that by accepting God you will have even more control in your life. Explain that nothing is really under control. Tell them to relax. Always politely. Atheists want to become gods in the place of God. That is why they are so eager to make him go away. Because without God ethics is replaced by “personal ethics”. By “opinions”. Discuss about abortions. No, it is not easy to argue in favor of killing a human being because… well because! Atheists often feel angry because they look only the surface of the problems they face.
Discuss about the “Problem of Evil”, a problem which atheists believe is on the hands of the theists but it is the other way around (see here)! What defines evil if there is no God? Is it a personal matter? A matter of opinion? Where do atheists base their own notion of “evil”? “God allows children to die!” he will say to you in anger. Explain to him that the belief that our body is everything is childish. The problem of existence is much more deep than the simplistic “death” event, which for every serious philosophical system in the course of human history was simply a stage in a transformation path.
THE “I DO NOT KNOW” ANSWER: Some atheists will try to play the “I do not know” card. Don’t misunderstand me. There are some people who are genuinely agnostics. I respect anyone who truly says “I do not know”.But most of these cases are cases where atheists hide their anti-Christian feelings behind this. And in any case, if one “does not know” then surely it is quite alright for accept the christian opinion. Right? Unless the “agnostic” has some good arguments against the theistic view of the cosmos. Because he “knows” something… Last but not least, one should note that we almost never “know” anything with certainty. But we all have opinions. (this is how science progresses) Stating “I do not know” in important philosophical matters is not a genuine scientific answer. It is just like avoiding to move so that you are not checkmated. (related article: Why you can’t be an agnostic)
7. Do not accept statements as arguments. Simply saying “This is like this” does not make it “like this”. Ask for explanations. If someone tells you “You have not read things” tell him to explain to you these things. Usually most of the things atheists take for granted are impossible to explain (e.g. how consciousness stems from lifeless matter). It is very common for atheists (or agnostics alike) to accept assumptions of dogmas as ‘true’ in order for them to support their beliefs. Do not allow them to do so. Always ask for evidence and logical arguments. For example modern atheists take the philosophical DOGMA of materialism as the basis of every truth – always remind them that materialism is a DOGMA and a pretty much old one. Surely if we ACCEPT that all there is is matter, we cannot believe in anything spiritual in any way. But why believe that only matter exists in the cosmos when there are so many evidence pointing towards another direction? (e.g. NDE cases)
ONE LINE ARGUMENT: If everything is matter as atheists claim, then nothing matters. Why care for anything – from ethics to death and life – if we are just a lifeless and soulless set of particles?
8. Hit them when they believe they are the strongest. Ask them why they believe Sun is at the center of the solar system (a very important story of philosophical dogmatism lies behind that phenomenally stupid question – see here) Ask them what is a particle. Are particles against materialism? (see here) Explain them why medicine is NOT a pro-science argument! (see here) Explain them why astrology is more valuable than astronomy (read here before you judge this sentence as stupid)
Refer to transubstantiation and to resurrection. If they ask you how can you think one cannot die, ask them how can they believe that one can. (search for “What does it take to believe in death” in Harmonia Philosophica) Remember that it is the simple questions which hold the key to our greatest dogmas. Refer to the Old Testament. Refer to miracles. If turning water to wine or resurrecting people seem so funny, then what about modern science? What about quantum mechanics which has proven that the mind can actually affect the very existence of matter? What about NDE cases being officially recorded? Start a discussion about Galileo or Ypatia. (see the end of the Religion and Science Unification article) Explain to them that Giordano Bruno to whom they refer to with such love, would be an object of mockery by today’s scientists due to the things he said. Argue about consciousness and remind him of the TV analogy. Explain that reductionism is as much “proven” as the 5th axiom of Euclid is. Adding a recommendation for some more in depth reading regarding the brain and the mind. (see “Human Consciousness and the end of Materialism” and here) No, we have not found where memory is stored! (see here) Discuss about why God allows evil in the world etc (see the Problem of Evil in the Point no. 6).
Materialism is ridiculous. Arguing in favor of religion is truly easy for someone who knows the basics. Science is the new religion nowadays. But one must have free thinking is he wishes to be true to himself. Atheism is trendy nowadays. But one must resist the trends if he wants to be called human. Christ taught love, compassion, forgiveness (Gr. Συγ-χώρεση). If all agree with all these, why so hatred against Him?
9. Leave the discussion in peace. There is no point in debating for ever. Explain your arguments and leave them be angry about it. Atheists are fed with rage and anger. Give them love. No point in being part of the imaginary “war” some people believe there is between science and religion. Remember atheists need guidance through love and understanding.
All the above generate a serious question: Why do atheists still exist?
Forgive me asking, but if you think about it this is a very valid question in today’s science era.
In the old days one could have many excuses to be an atheist. Science had not progressed much, archaeology had not made many discoveries, quantum mechanics did not even exist, Near Death Experiences were more something like an urban myth, scientists believed that consciousness was a by-product of the brain such as bile was produced by the liver, we read the holy texts and tried to interpret them all literally or believed they were just fairy tales, there were no nutritionists and people believed that all the church advice on fasting was mere compulsion of some mad men etc etc…
I would really understand someone being an atheist at that time back then, even though some reading and philosophical research can help you see the light somehow.
But now we know that man can affect matter with his conscious immaterial mind (quantum mechanics – see the wavefunction collapse after a conscious observer observes the experiment, how random number generators are affected by the sheer will of humans), that dead people can back to life (officially documented NDE cases by doctors), that many of the Biblical locations are real, that a text like the Bible can have hidden meanings or symbolisms, that human consciousness can exist beyond the limits of our brain (see Princeton experiments), that modern nutritionists suggest the same fasting the church suggests and so on…
With so many arguments in favor of religion and in favor of the idea of an immaterial consciousness/ soul, how can really someone be an atheist? What is the excuse?
At the end, one understands that there is no excuse at all. It is just that atheism is the easiest path and, thus, the most intriguing for people to follow. Loving actively even your enemies is hard. Forgiving is hard. Controlling your passions is hard. Not caring about anything and believing in nothingness is easy…
Religion and Science unification: Science are religion are not contradictory or at “war” as some people think. They are two complementary way of thinking, both based on logic, evidence and faith alike!
