arguments for religion – Harmonia Philosophica

Summary of arguments in favor of Christianity (and against atheism/ agnosticism)

Discussions for Christianity, religion and atheism are very common nowadays. The following is a breakdown of some of the key arguments in defense of Christianity against the main arguments of atheists / agnostics.

Argument from atheist	The answer of the Christian	Related articles
Religions are fairy tales	This is a generalization. Be more specific.	Religion and science unification
Jesus Christ never existed	Many saw Him. Many wrote for Him. Many died for Him. What more proof do you want? For many historical figures we have much less evidence.
Resurrection is a fairy tale	Actually the opposite is true: Death is a fairy tale. Which is based on many philosophical dogmas (belief in the notion of change, in time, in senses etc). Read Parmenides.	Against atheism, in one simple sentence – Episode 2: The Resurrection miracle is not so weird as it seems… Resurrection – Illogical, thus True Against atheism, in one simple sentence – Episode 2: The Resurrection miracle is not so weird as it seems…
Whoever wrote about Christ was a christian	They turned into Christian because they saw Him. And they weren’t rewarded for that. Exactly the opposite: They died for that.
God is a fairy tale	Which God do you refer to? Explain to me what you are talking about. God as the First Cause is perfectly logical. Aristotle himself had arguments in favor of that. God as the One in which we all belong has also deep philosophical roots from the time of Parmenides. (just to mention two examples)	Religion and science unification Articles related to “One” How to easily beat an atheist in a debate
Modern science has made religion obsolete	Science deals with the how. Religion with the why. Even the Global network of Science Academies accepts that. Not to talk about great scientists. In the past religion and science were not separated. They are both needed to reach the truth. Biology is a nice science. But it is not theology nor philosophy. As much as it is related to viruses, it is not at all related to God.	Religion and science unification Articles related to “Science” and “Scientific models”
When I get sick I go to the doctor, not to church.	And that is a good thing you do. Religion heals the soul. Not the body. Nor does it compete with science for the things on this earth. Religion deals with metaphysical matters.	Articles related to “Religion”
Medicine heals. Not the belief in metaphysical beings.	Modern medicine relies on Christian philosophy (love towards the weak). What is more, medicine is not in any way against religion, which deals with other matters.	Why Medicine is NOT a pro-Science argument!
Science will someday explain everything	Actually the only thing that science has proved is that it will never prove everything. Read Gödel.	The limits of science
Science proves. Religion is based on faith.	First, science proves based on unproved axioms. Thus, it does not prove anything. Secondly, religion is also based on logic (see the arguments of Aristotle for the Immovable Mover) and on empirical facts (see the cosmic parameters which have been set to the exact values needed for the existence of life for example, witnesses to the resurrection etc), while faith in religion is by no means what we call “blind faith” but faith which supplements the existing logic and the aforementioned evidence.	Religion and science unification The limits of science
Every religion says a different story.	I do not care. I am a Christian. I will not apologize for other religions.
Religion is responsible for all bad things.	No, the exact opposite is true. Atheistic regimes are responsible for the greatest massacres. Christianity is the basis of the European civilization, including humanism and Renaissance. In the colonies Christianity helped countries set the proper foundations for structured free states.	The positive effect of Missionaries. [OR: Christianity as the basis of civilization] Articles related to “Religion”Religion: Its contribution to society (and other subjects) Fasting. Ancient knowledge. Precious religion. Religion as a Guide Decline in religion, decline in morality
Why shouldn’t I believe in the Flying Teapot instead of God?	Everything is a matter of definition. How do you define this teapot? If you give it the same characteristics that the Christian God has, the name is not an issue per se. If you just define it as a flying teapot then this has nothing to do with God. How can a flying teapot create the cosmos?
Religion is old fashioned.	And that is a good thing. Values should not change according to fashion.	Church is old-fashioned and that is a good thing
How does religion explain evil?	Actually the problem is not the existence of evil but the existence of good in such a world. And that existence of good despite the harsh conditions is an argument in favor of God. Evil is just the result of man’s free will.	The problem of Good… The problem of Evil… The problem as the Solution!
Why do good people and children die in this world made by God?	First of all death means nothing for the Christian but the portal for the eternal life. Secondly, how come an atheist be frustrated about this? If we are only matter then what does it matter who dies? Are you upset about matter? Are you upset about stones? About wood? Dirt perhaps?	Why do good people suffer? Against atheism, in one simple sentence…
Why should I listen to religion to be moral?	There can be no ethics without a stable reference point beyond the personal beliefs of men. If you are a good person because you decided so, good for you, but that means that you can easily decide not to be good at any other point in time. So this means nothing for the morality of your actions per se. Don’t forget that Nazis killed Jews because they thought that this was a good thing (and they even had a state law forcing them to do so).	Articles related to “Ethics” The source of ethics
Only old men believe in religion.	Mainly young people believe in atheism. Old men are wise. Young men are usually arrogant and ignorant.	Articles related to “Atheists”
Religion oppresses me.	In 2019? Are you kidding me? The exact opposite is happening: Christians today are under persecution!
Church condemned Galileo.	And was correct in doing so! Read first about something before speaking about it. Galileo was first of all wrong in everything he said, from a scientific point of view! Secondly, his stance was highly arrogant and offensive against a friend of his (the Pope) and during a time period in which the church fought the external bitter challenge of the Scripture from heresies.	Religion and science unification Earth at the center of the universe? From Galileo to Hubble: Copernican principle as a philosophical dogma defining modern astronomy Articles related to “Galileo”
The Church had the Holy Inquisition!	And rightfully so! This institution made its appearance in Spain during an era of constant turmoil. If some of the heresies fought by the Holy Inquisition back then had prevailed (e.g. the Cathars) there wouldn’t be any Christians left in Spain. Remember that the church has not only a theological/ philosophical aspect but also a cosmic one. And the latter is often involved in politics. Try not to mix these three aspects. Mistakes in one of them does not mean anything for the others.	Articles related to “Holy inquisition” The contribution of the Holy Inquisition to civilization (no it is not a joke)
I am a free thinker, so I believe in nothing!	Actually you are a sheep and for that reason you react against religion. Atheism is in fashion these days, so being an atheist today just shows that you follow the flock. If we lived in the middle ages, you would probably be the best and most obedient worshipper.	Yes, I am a Christian. And I do not tell you why! Common Mistakes in Arguments Against Christianity
All clergy is corrupted.	Many priests are indeed corrupted. But their percentage in the church is smaller than the percentage of the same corruption in society. This doesn’t mean nothing of course. The goal is for everyone to be a saint. But no one achieves that. People who go to church need Christ, they have no already achieved sainthood. Should they be perfect? Sure. As much as the scientists should be perfect too. But they are not. The church is made of flawed people. Don’t judge Christ and His teachings via those people.
Middle Ages were darkness.	No. This is a view promoted by the Enlighteners to promote the idea that Enlightenment is light. This view has now been strongly disputed. In the Middle Ages we had an overdevelopment of the humanities (and they need those the same way we need exact sciences). We had humanism and the Renaissance. The first universities were built back then. Actually the whole modern European civilization is based on the foundations laid during the Middle Ages.	Middle Ages – An era of light! Against Enlightenment: The Enlightenment was not light. The Enlightenment is darkness.
I believe in nothing.	Good for you. So you don’t believe that you have free since it hasn’t been proved yet. You don’t believe that tomorrow it will dawn since this is not proved beyond the shadow of a doubt either. Or perhaps you are not consistent with what you believe and believe things which are not 100% proven? Faith is another thing than blind faith. Don’t confuse them.	What does it mean to be Dogmatic?
Saying “I don’t know” is the most honest answer we can give in metaphysical questions.	If you say “I don’t know” to everything that has not been proven with 100% certainty then you should say “I don’t know” about everything! Nothing has been 100% proven! And neither will they ever! (See Gödel) This is the only thing that has been proven. Are you honest enough to do that? Or do you simply cover up your anti-Christianity sentiments with the cloak of the “agnostic”? Christianity has painted a picture for the world. Picture your own and convince yourself that it is better. Don’t hide behind the “I don’t know.” Culture and science never progressed with “I don’t know”.	Articles related to “Agnosticism” Agnosticism, as a cloak to Dogmatism Why you can’t be an agnostic
Religion is convenient and makes you feel better. It is the opium of the people.	The exact opposite. Christianity constantly reminds you of how much effort you need to be good. The last thing it does is make you feel better! If you want to feel better, become an atheist, believe that nothing matters (since everything is matter) and drink some wine. Not for a second believe that Christianity is the easy way out. Most saints became martyrs.	What is Christian is NOT How to easily beat an atheist in a debate
The Old Testament is a despicable book.	Actually it is despicable to say stupid things about things you do not understand. The Old Testament states the obvious: that when you do bad things you will be punished. (Remember: causality is the cornerstone of science. Why deny it in life?) Modern man cannot stand that. He wants to be free and do whatever he likes. And as a spoiled child, he does not like his Father to punish him for anything.	Old Testament: Not for the faint-hearted. (An easy interpretation)
I am an atheist! Blha blah blah blah blah…	Why should I discuss with you? Aren’t we all random sets of matter? Why does your opinion matter? Why does anything matter?	How to easily beat an atheist in a debate Against atheism, in one simple sentence… Against atheism, in one simple sentence 2: Resurrection… Against atheism, in one simple sentence 3: The ‘randomness’ argument debunked…
I am an agnosticist. Blha blah blah blah blah…	Why should I discuss with you? Why does your opinion matter? If nothing can be proved, how can you be certain for what you say?	Agnosticism, as a cloak to Dogmatism Why you can’t be an agnostic Against agnosticism II: Why “I do not know” is never the answer… Articles related to “Agnosticism”
I am not stupid to believe in miracles.	And yet miracles happen all the time. First and foremost the most important: your very existence. But if you want miracles that meet your scientific criteria, you can look in literature for cases of Near Death Experiences. There you will find many interesting cases published and in medical journals.	NDE and other consciousness without brain references Near Death Experiences are Real (not just… real!)

Easy and Quick answers to Atheists [Modern guide to fast debating]

Modern world calls for modern ways of thinking and reacting. It is not difficult to find yourself in a situation where an atheists attacks Christianity with a crescendo of punchlines which are gaining more and more traction over the Internet. In our shallow era there is not time to perform proper discussion on important issues. Unfortunately philosophical discussions in many cases are limited to small phrases which have the goal to produce as much spectacular effect as possible to others, while saying nothing of true importance.

There are two ways to deal with an atheist who follows such a way of speaking.

OPTION 1: Do nothing. Stay silent. The wisest (but less fun) option. A person who performs such a shallow attack on something so deep as Christianity is no worth your attention. No matter what you tell him he will not have the willingness to understand. Buddhists have a saying: Only when the student wants, the master appears. This is perfectly applicable in this case. If someone does not want to learn (or even discuss) something let him in peace.

OPTION 2: Answer to the atheists in a similar manner, while trying to convey useful information to your fellow listeners. Less wise, but more fun! Such type of speaking though requires a mastery of the arguments underlying the debate ‘Modern world vs. Christianity’ (did I tell you that Christianity is usually the target of the atheists? Well, I tell you now) and an equal mastery of the ability to condense valid arguments in single-liners.

Let us go through some of them…

Atheist (A): All religions are just fairy tales.

Christian (C): Did you know that Marx and Stalin also thought the same

A: But all religions say the same stupid things.

C: Generalization is the mother of all mistakes.

A: But we are not even sure if Jesus existed.

C: Would you ever give your life for something that did not exist?

A: Of course not.

C: Then how do you believe others would?

A: Prove me that Jesus existed!

C: Prove me that Pythagoras did.

(to be continued…)

Common Mistakes in Arguments Against Christianity (Defense of Religion Against Modern Anti-Christians)

How many times have you been in a discussion where some atheist (or “agnostic”) attacks and mocks religion or Christianity in particular? Unfortunately mocking anything religious is in fashion today and such cases are the norm rather than exceptions.

This article aims to answer some of the most common arguments against religion (and Christianity more specifically) in such context. The analytical answer to those arguments requires of course a more in-depth reading of Harmonia Philosophica.

But first thing’s first…

“Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah!”

Usually the atheist will start his attack with a raging ranting of multiple “arguments” dealing with multiple and non-coherent topics. This is a direct result of the confusion that exists in his brain, which cannot distinguish between the different dimensions of the topic “religion” and “Christianity”. It is important to emphasize the existence of those dimensions. Religion has a theological dimension, a philosophical one, a historical (everything happens in the context of a specific era), a social (it is important to know the society in the context of which various events took place, events which we easily characterize as mistakes of religion ignoring the effects of society as a whole on them), even a political one (which many times becomes a subject of exploitation by authorities). A discussion for each and every one of these dimensions takes time. So keep calm. And always have a good mood and discuss in good faith. (something which is rare)
In such a case simply ask him “Do you really believe that the world was created by pure chance out of nothing?” while vaguely smiling…

“Religion/ Christianity is just a stupidity to control the masses”

A very general and vague comment. It puts a lot of unrelated things in the same bucket (common tactic of an atheist during an anti-religious rant) based on a general leveling logic that does not fit into a subject as deep and diverse as religion. Difficult to answer, as it would be difficult to answer a shallow comment such as “Science is a stupidity.” Religion has many dimensions: philosophical (especially Christianity), theological, secular. Usually atheists refer to the latter, in addition to confusing the cosmic (secular) dimension of the church to how the secular power itself (politicians, political groups, etc.) use the church (as they are using science today) for its purposes. If I use the Internet to control you, will you say that “The Internet is a stupid thing to control the masses”? Heisenberg, who had stated that “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you”, would surely be laughing with such people. Apostle Paul, who sacrificed the good life he had to become a persecuted man and eventually die for his faith, would be really amazed by the shallowness of some people seeing “stupidity” in things that are so deep (philosophically and theologically) that they inspire people to give their own life for this superior something that we all feel in our life. (except for the atheists, of course, who constantly see matter and… matter everywhere) In a world full of spirit, it is really funny that the people who think they are just sacks of blood and bones try to teach us the truth. Why would the “truth” have any meaning if we are only matter (something like “complicated stones”) as atheists claim? And what does it matter who controls who in a world where there is only inanimate matter? What does it mean to talk about evil or about stupidity and intelligence in such an inanimate world? Do the stones deal with such things? In such shallow arguments, the only possible answer is silence and sorrow. The one who said it does not have the skills or, more importantly, the will to learn more than the childish “Religion is bad and is to be blamed for everything” that he has already learnt. And yes, usually such views are accompanied by a pinch of communism and a dose of liberty in the personal preferences of life…

“The Old Testament is a fairy tale to scare children”

Old Testament (OT) books are the most common object of ridicule for anti-Christians. This is because they have difficulty understanding their meaning and even if they do, they cannot agree to their (admittedly dark) message. At a time when everyone believes “I am free to do whatever I want,” learning that there are consequences for your actions is the last thing you want to hear. And this is what the Old Testament says: If you sin, there will be consequences. Yes, God loves you, but in the end you are responsible for whether you will go to Heaven or not. And you are responsible through your actions. No modern man who has made himself “god in the place of the dead God” is willing to receive any command from anyone else. And the difficult symbolism of the OT makes things even worse. The atheist will complain and be outraged every time a “good” person dies in a story of the OT, without understanding the meaning of natural death in the context of the Christian worldview (for Christianity there is no death as the atheist sees it), without seeing the symbolism behind the history (symbolisms that even with a simple search on Google can reveal – for example, no, God did not ask someone to sacrifice his son because of sadism), without understanding the context of the epoch in which the texts were written (e.g., the “eye for an eye” motto was a call for a more righteous punishment at a time when, if you were poor you could be sentenced to death even for the slightest misconduct), without wanting to read an ancient text in good faith and to open youself to try to learn something from it. And yes, usually such views are accompanied by “diametrically” polished views on how ancient Greek texts about Jupiter who had fun (made love) with every woman he found was profoundly “symbolic” …

Note: This inconsistency is the major problem in such views as the above. Surely, every point can have arguments and it is a matter of discussion to see which points are more valid than the others. However no matter what one believes, it is important that there is a consistency in all the views a person holds. (and this is something which can objectively be documented) If there is no consistency it is difficult to hold a discussion for any subject.

“Christianity is a Jewish religion that was imposed upon us to dissolve the supreme spirit of the ancient Greeks”

In simple words: No. Firstly, Christianity is not directly related to a particular nation (however much some want to believe the opposite). Secondly, the Greeks were the first (or the second, depending on how we read some details of the story) and certainly the most basic nation that embraced Christianity and made it world-wide. And this was not because Paul went to Athens and scared them off with his magic powers or threatened them with a big sword, but because the philosophy of the Greeks was so mature to accept the transition to a monotheistic religion with the characteristics of Christianity. If we accept the superiority of the Greeks of the time, let us also accept their choice of becoming Christians. And no, Christianity was not imposed with the “sword” as anti-Christians like it. The exact opposite. Christianity expanded with the blood of its martyrs. During the first centuries, Christians were widely and wildly persecuted. If you believe that the ancient Greeks who initially became Christians were not on their right mind, then you must prove it. Because it was the same Greeks, who were so advanced so as to culturally impose themselves on the Romans. (in general the tendency to tag entire sections of human history as a”dark” and “decay” according to what suits us, is very funny and one of the best weapons of the atheists – for them the epoch during which the greatest philosopher of human history was killed deserves to be called the “Golden Age”) It is true that later on some Christians became from persecuted persecutors, but this must be seen in its true dimensions and context: the persecutions were based on politics to ensure the unity of an empire and were not based on the teachings of Christianity (Christ told us to turn the other cheek). These are basic details that anti-Christians conveniently forget. And yes, such arguments are accompanied by selective amnesia about the fact that the “enlightened” ancient Greece also had religious wars…

“Christians closed the Greek schools in Athens”

Nah. To say this is like claiming that the French revolutionaries had freed the prisoners in Bastille: both are sophisticated inaccurate and in essence wrong. The schools in Athens at the time they were closed were in decadence and had few pupils. What is more, new schools had opened in Constantinople and elsewhere. This was merely euthanasia, not death. (incidentally, Bastille only had… 7 detainees when the “big” release took place) And yes, usually such views are accompanied by an extremely selective “education” on history issues…

“If we said what we say now some years ago, they would burn us in the stake”

Seriously, get a grip man. Sure, only you and Giordano Bruno. The biggest fetish of every atheist / anti-Christian today is to imagine himself in the position of a persecuted intellectual for his “advanced” views. And yet he does not understand many things about what he claims. First, the church did not “burn people” in the Middle Ages. Executions at the stake (death by the fire) were decided by the political authorities of the time and were (no surprise there) made for political reasons, but also for reasons of common sense that related to the survival of the the state/ empire. (for example, the Holy Inquisition had condemned Cathars, the preaching of which – if left undisturbed – could lead to almost none of us being here today) Secondly, the extent of the phenomenon is much smaller than the anti-Christians want to believe. Contrary to the widespread (and erroneous) view that millions or hundreds of thousands of people died in the Middle Ages by the Holy Inquisition, the truth is that during the ~300 years of the existence of the institution, only about 5,000 died. (as opposed to the 200,000 people who died in a second without a trial in our “enlightened” time in Hiroshima) Last but not least: the anti-Christian who says that, does not understand that what he is doing today is not “revolution” against some power, but on the contrary, an act of submission to the imperatives of (current) authorities, which, after the Enlightenment, welcomes every attack on anything religious. Speaking today against religion (which has lost its power in society a long time ago) and speaking against God is something that is in line with what is in fashion today and according to the imperatives of the era we live in. Current atheists would be the most faithful (in the bad sense of blind faith) faith people back in the Middle Ages. Far from any “revolutionary” behavior that they want to believe that they have. And yes, usually such behavior and mistakes are accompanied by a good dose of ignorance about what happened in the notorious Galileo affair (see relevant articles I have posted from time to time for details on this)…

“Christians believe that a man can rise from the dead. Hahaha!”

Hahaha back at you. The answer to this is to reverse the question so as to highlight the ignorance of the modern man on the subject: Do you think someone can die? We all have to understand that materialism (which many people today believe) is a philosophical doctrine and not a proven point. To believe someone that people die, he must believe in multiple dogmas (materialism, notion of change, existence of time etc) which are all subjects of discussion in philosophy for thousands of years with no clear-cut conclusion. So no, you should not laugh to some people believing that someone rose from the dead after they saw Him. You should laugh with people believing that they are an inanimate set of lifeless matter when every day they see and feel things which dictate the exact opposite…

“How can you believe such stupid things! I am an agnostic!”

Sure. And I am an elephant with feathers. The most common (and low level) trick of atheists is to portray themselves as “agnostics”. And I say trick because they try to claim they are just agnostics in order to hide their obvious dogmatism in various matters, even though it is more than clear that they do “know” a lot of things despite the tag “agnostic” they like to put on themselves. If you laugh at religion, if you laugh at God, if you believe that everything in the cosmos just exist with no reason, if you believe nothing/ no one created the cosmos, then you surely know a lot of things and you are not an agnostic. A simple as that. For example the universe either existed for ever or it was created at some point by someone/ something. If you laugh with the latter option, then you certainly take a stance in favor of the former. You cannot at the same time claim you are an “agnostic”.

RELATED ARTICLES

How to easily beat an atheist in a debate…

HOW TO DEBATE AN ATHEIST

> 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.

PRESENTATION (EN) – Debating atheists v0.003 Download

PRESENTATION (GR) – Συζητώντας με άθεους v0.003 Download

Before the discussion

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.

Harmonia Blogger articles list
Harmonia WordPress articles list
Tags: religion, science, science dogmatism, scientific dogmatism, materialism. (search for additional tags which might be useful)

HOW TO DEBATE AN ATHEIST SERIES

Quick Guide

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.

Related article: Peer Review. As in “censorship”

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!

For advanced readers: Read the Old Testament: Not for the faint-hearted. (An easy interpretation) article. Check out here or here for some explanations of phenomenally “wrong” Old Testament texts.

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.

RELATED ARTICLE: Middle Ages – An era of light!

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Christianity against knowledge? (Yes and No!)

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).

For a great summary of all the positive effects of Christianity in society and the negative effects of our modern (scientific) way of living, read “Religion: Its contribution to society (and other subjects)“.

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.

Relative post: Yes, I am a Christian. And I do not tell you why! [Unless you insist…]

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.

Related article: Why does life exist? A very scientific (and theological) response… (science still believes)

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…

Quality Articles Selection

Harmonia Philosophica Main Thesis: Why the irrational is more logical…
The limits of science: Science is a good tool for analysis, but it is inherently limited.
The Dark Side of Technology: Do you really think it is good to have a GPS?
The dictatorship of the science of psychiatry: Do you feel down? Modern psychiatry could tag you as mentally ill…
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!
Human Consciousness and the end of Materialism: The brain is not the same as the mind. And modern materialistic science may never find the difference…
The source of ethics: Are you a good person because God told you so, or because you just feel like it?
Why do good people suffer? A difficult question. With difficult answers… A must-read for anyone interested in ethics, death and the meaning of life…

Relative discussions (indicative list)

The limits of science @ Sciencechatforum
The limits of science @ PhilosophyNow forum
Medieval times – A enlightened era… @ PhilosophyNow forum
Consciousness – The End of Materialism? @ Sciencechatforum
Why Medicine is NOT a pro-Science argument! @ onlinephilosophyclub
Religion and Science Unification @ onlinephilosophyclub
Philosophy of Religion and Science @ ReasonableFaith
Why the Nazis actually won… @ ILovePhilosophy forum
Earth at the center of the Universe? @ ILovePhilosophy forum

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!

Yes, I am a Christian. And I do not tell you why! [Unless you insist…]

Yes, I am a Christian. And I do not tell you why!

Unless…

…you tell me that Chirstianism killed a lot of people.

So I will ask you if Christ taught murder.

…you tell me that Christianism oppressed people.

So I will tell you to read how Jesus behaved to people who were outcasts in His time. And I will also ask you if you really know and understand the difference between politics, religion and religion philosophy. And if you can detect such a difference for every bad thing happens in the name of science. And if you believe Mengele represented science (even though he did in his time – see here).

…you tell me that Christianism is darkness.

So I will tell you that humanism began in Byzantium. (see here) And that everything you know about ancient Greek philosophers you so much admire, you know because a monk somewhere saves his works. And that even the ancient “free thinking” Greeks had religion. And that universities started in the “Dark” Middle Ages and Dawkins teaches in one of those “dark” places.

…you tell me that Christianism is all about faith.

So I will tell you the difference between “blind faith” and “faith based on logic and evidence”. And I will explain to you that science needs faith as well. And I would add that believing in a scientific axiom requires more faith than to believe in love like Christ taught.

…you tell me that Christianism is unscientific and irrational.

So I will tell you 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. And that the great so called atheist (what? Yes… Check out here) Nietzsche was an irrationalist. And that the Interacademy Panel [IAP – Global network of Science Academies] acknowledged the limitations of science (see “The Limits of Science” @ Harmonia Philosophica) and the need to coexist with religion which examines completely different questions which are out of scope for science. (see “Religion and Science philosophy” @ Harmonia Philosophica) And that most important scientists like Max Planck, Heisenberg and Collins were believers (see here).

…you tell me that consciousness/ soul stems from the brain.

So I will tell you the TV analogy and remind you that reductionism is as much “proven” as the 5^th 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)

…you tell me that Christianism has stupid rituals

So I will tell you to spend some time in the analysis of the words spoken and the appreciation of the artistic beauty of the hymns sang during the John Chrysostom liturgy. And to compare it with stupid rituals with semi-naked women you so much enjoy watching.

…you tell me that Christianism is simplistic.

So I will tell you that the highest philosophy is and should be simplistic. And I would dare you to find any phrase full of philosophical meaning like “Love your enemies” is.

I love you too my atheist friend.

And I understand that your irritation stems from your deep need to believe.

Materialism is ridiculous. Arguing in favor of religion is truly easy for someone who knows the basics. Science is the new religion nowadays. But you must have free thinking is you wish to be true to yourself. Atheism is trendy nowadays. But you must resist my dear atheist friend. Christ taught love, compassion, forgiveness (Gr. Συγ-χώρεση). If you agree with all these, why so hatred against Him?

Accept logic.

Accept your thoughts.

Accept your feeling.

Only then will you be able to say “I am a Christian!”.

Without the need to tell anyone why…