Discuss discussion_section_1

Published on February 25th, 2017 | by Discussion Questions

How do I witness to an agnostic?





ANGELA WRITES: I’ve been looking for opportunities to witness to people lately, and recently I got my wish in a new friend. But I’m having trouble talking about the gospel with him because he prefers the scientific approach (which is fine by me) and is an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who isn’t sure what they believe, whether they’re Christians or Darwinists or naturalists or….you get the idea.

He is what he calls “open-minded,” which means every time I approach him about Christianity, he counters with a theory about such-and-such. Because “anything is possible,” I can’t seem to get anywhere. Any pointers? I really want to reach out to him, but at this point, I’m stuck. Thanks in advance!


Share Your Thoughts in the Comment Section!

There are currently 0 Comment(s)


Have something else you’d like to discuss? Just submit your question or topic (and any elaboration you’d like to provide) using our Submit Content Page. We look forward to hearing from you.


signup_for_email_updates_banner










About the Author

are submitted by real rebelutionaries who are looking for godly answers to tough questions and lively conversation with other young adults. You can join the conversation by commenting below. If you'd like to submit your own discussion question, email us at [email protected]



  • Heather C.

    I watched this the other day, and I think it will help you. :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N22LF_o1n7E

    • Angela Pycroft

      Thanks Heather! This was really helpful!

  • Lydia Graham

    I don’t have much except, when you are witnessing to anybody, no matter their religion you can always pray for them.
    Keep at it.
    Will be praying for you

    • Angela Pycroft

      Thanks Lydia! Your prayers really do mean a whole lot to me!

  • cowboyclayt

    If you go to answersingenisis.org they will probably have some helpful tips. I will be praying for your friend.

    • Angela Pycroft

      Thanks! I really appreciate the prayer; I’ve recently been coming face-to-face with how much it can really do.

  • Okie Gal

    Well, since he says anything is possible that should give you a chance to speak the gospel, and say “This is possible.” And what’s more, you believe it.

    Agnostics believe we can’t really know what’s true, or if truth even exists, so super intellectual arguments might not be the best. I think a really strong witness would just be to live as someone who actually does know truth, and speak the gospel with loving confidence in that.

    • Okie Gal

      Also, some of the answers under “Why do you believe in God?” might be helpful. I wrote a (really long) philosophic/scientific proof for God, and the accuracy of Scripture, if you want to look it up.

      • Jumping in here–that would help me a lot right now actually. A girl who’s an atheist has recently come into my life, and I’ve been studying scientific facts in the Bible, etc. trying to prepare myself to witness to her and others.

        • Okie Gal

          Ok, it’s in 2 parts on that DQ. I really hope it helps, let me know if you have any questions or if I wasn’t very clear or something. I have one other thing that helps shows biblical accuracy — and once you explain that you can focus on bible study and the gospel. Let me see if I can dig it up.

          • Okie Gal

            Found it! The Bible is definitely the most historically accurate book of it’s time. If it isn’t true, no ancient history is. Hope this helps:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/12e6e6e94bdef561fc36488cd94a947c76d00773b4f0b12349a3673ee32bc341.jpg

          • Regan Seba

            I’ve heard this before, but I couldn’t remember the exact years/numbers. Thanks so much! I love so much that we have such strong historic evidence for the New Testament.

          • Okie Gal

            Yep! You’re welcome, it was just in my feed a few days ago.

          • Regan Seba

            I don’t know if this was noted, but obviously these are the most accepted historical documents of all time, with when they were written and then how long it was until they found a fragment/copy of it. It then notes the number of copies they found in this time period, clearly making Homer’s Iliad the most historically accepted document among the top six. In addition, the criterion of multiple attestation states that if there are 2 or more independent sources giving similar accounts of an event, it is altogether likely that it is true. There are obviously scholars who spend their lives pouring over the manuscripts, looking at whether or not they line up with each other and the Old Testament or not, by whom they were written, etc. But so far as historical manuscript evidence goes, the New Testament has by far the most evidence of any document. Anywhere. Ever.

            And on a last note, there are quite a few non-Christian historians from Jesus’ time who documented and wrote about his miracles, but particularly his death and the aftermath of his ressurection/the rise of Christianity. ( http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/ ) There is no self-respecting historian nor anyone who knows anything about history who can possibly say that Jesus a) lived and taught, b) was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and c) has had an undeniable effect on history and the world. There is no other man in all of history who has had the impact Jesus Christ has had, enough that Islam devoted time in the Koran to talk about him and try and water him down. He is that much of a threat to Islam and to Satan.

            Gosh, isn’t that jus SO COOL? God is so amazing! 😀

          • Okie Gal

            It really is amazing. I love that Islam, Catholicism, and other religions deal with the bible because it makes such a good bridge to talk about God and the Gospel. I’m not great at taking advantage of it, but it is really useful. I’m also really glad that God will save people from every tribe, including Muslims and Catholics, through the one true Gospel.

          • Angela Pycroft

            Wow. May I mention that no one has any questions about Homer writing the Illiad…..

          • Okie Gal

            Right! Plus since our copis where written so closely to the originals and so many were published, it meanseems the Bible must’ve been verified by thousands of other first hand witnesses. Which is awesome

          • Angela Pycroft

            Definitely. I remember hearing once that when a monk finished copying out the Bible, the words in the copy were counted, and if it was even off by one word, the whole thing was trashed because it did not perfectly follow the original. Talk about careful translation!

          • Okie Gal

            Cool!

        • Angela Pycroft

          I’d say you are taking the right steps in trying. An atheist is not going to come to faith because of our personal testimonies (at least not very commonly; out of the many, many Christians I know, only one was saved because of a personal testimony), but because the science behind our beliefs is found to be trustworthy. I’m not saying don’t share your testimony with her; by all means! That is still very important; it just isn’t going to give them a Christian faith on strong foundations.However, you took a good approach and based your arguments around science. Good job!

      • Angela Pycroft

        Haha, I read that, it was good! I’ll go back and read those comments again 😉

  • Regan Seba

    Here are some thoughts:

    Point out to him that believing that anything could be true is the same thing as saying nothing is true. If anything is possible, Buddhism, Islam, the pagan beliefs of the Aztecs and Greeks and Romans and Druids etc, Darwinism, Naturalism- all those things are true. But if they are all true, doesn’t that go agains what they say? I have never once met a religion that says it is the one true faith, but also says, “but that belief system over there? It’s true too. But we’re also true!” Yet if they are all true, none of them are true.

    Christianity is the one “religion”(don’t jump on me, please, I know it’s not really religion) where God came to us. We were broken sinners, and He came down to us and died for US. This is what makes Christianity different. This is what makes it stand out- the beautiful story woven through the Old Testament and coming to a climax in the New Testament where we break away from God and He constantly calls us back to Him, saying, “Where are you? I want to be with you.”

    I understand this is not exactly the science you may be needing, but this is a huge part in believing in everything or nothing. There is HUGE scientific evidence for Christianity all over the world- and I don’t say proof because I happen to know scientific proof is only proof if it is observable, testable, and repeatable. But noting this, we can not PROVE Christianity- it is by faith(Hebrews). However, we cannot prove evolution either. Unless you can repeat it, it is a theory. All that is standing for it is evidence and faith.

    I suggest that, if this person you are desperately trying to reach is truly seeking God, give him a copy of A Case for Christ(Lee Strobel) and Mere Christianity(C.S. Lewis). Beyond that, keep talking and listening to him, but live your faith. People are not going to come to Jesus by pure intellectual means, even if that is a large part of what is holding them back. If you live your faith, as this person is seeking he will see that you really actually do believe what you say and act it(James 1 and 2 have tons to say about this). Love him like Jesus.

    Share these two verses with him:

    “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”

    -Matthew 7:7-8

    Those are the words of Jesus.

    “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”

    Jeremiah 29:13

    That is the voice of God the Father through Isaiah. Can’t be much more direct than that, can you?

    God bless you, sister. Keep praying and living your faith.

    • Angela Pycroft

      Thank you Regan! This was so helpful :)

  • Alison Hawthorn

    point him to Creation Ministries International website:
    creation.com
    Pray as it is a spiritual battle, clever arguments don’t win, God’s Spirit does.

  • Clare

    I’m no apologist, but here’re some thoughts.
    As an agnostic, he not only does not know what he believes, but he believes that truth cannot be known (a – negative, gnostic/gnosis – knowledge, or no-knowledge). Therefore his belief can be questioned very simply on a logical basis by asking how he can know that truth cannot be known since that would be knowledge of the supposed truth that truth cannot be known? It’s a logically corrupt position stating that knowledge of the truth doesn’t exist – which is itself claiming knowledge of truth. If he comes to believe in truth, he will be able to sort through what is true and not true and you will be able to have a legitimate discussion what he actually believes and how Christianity offers an explanation for the world.
    One of my favorite books for someone exploring Christianity is More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell, Summit Ministries has some great resources for dealing with agnosticism and naturalism

    • Angela Pycroft

      Thanks Clare! That’s actually a really good point; I’ll have to mention that sometime!

    • clippy the paperclip

      …That’s not really a logically sound position at all.

  • I have a similar friend, and it’s hard.

  • KatelynS

    I’m going through this course with my Sunday School: http://occ.edu/series/apologetics
    I would recommend it!

  • CharlotteB

    I was at a conference yesterday and one of the speakers pointed out that there are different parts of evangelism.

    Not believing in a god à Believing there is a god à
    Believing there is a god who caresà
    Knowing that Jesus is savior of the
    world (Who DIED for YOU to be with HIM) à Taking that step of faith and ACCEPTING HIM as you personal savior.

    I encourage everyone to remember this: you might not realize how you affect someone in their walk with Jesus. Even just being different from everyone else might be all someone needs.

    • Angela Pycroft

      Thanks Charlotte! I’ll certianly keep that in mind :)

  • Paul

    I myself am an atheist. Please feel free to ask me questions. I will respectfully answer.

    • Okie Gal

      Hi Paul! Do you have any Christian friends, or know of a church close? I’d love to talk to you about this, but I think it’s better to have someone to talk with in person.

      • Paul

        Hi Okie. In order to answer your question, I think it is best to offer a little background on myself. I grew up as a Christian and went to church for most of my life. In fact, I heard of this website because when I was a Christian I read Do Hard Things and really enjoyed it. I taught and attended youth group for several years. I live in a rather conservative Christian community with multiple churches on the same street (often even next door to each other). Everyone I know are Christians, including my family, friends, and coworkers. I do not have any friends who are atheists like myself. I have never met another atheist. The only atheists I know are those I watch on YouTube or whose books I read. Also, like many atheists, I am “in the closet” in the sense that I hide my atheism. I am afraid of the potential persecution I may face if people I know learned that I am an atheist.

        • Madison Camp

          Hey Paul! I can’t imagine how hard that must be. Can I ask what caused you to make the switch?

          • Paul

            Sure Madison, thanks for asking. Every former Christian turned atheist/agnostic will obviously have their own story as to what caused them to “switch”. However, I do feel like my reason is fairly typical and most Christians turned atheists that you talk to will probably give a similar reason to my own.

            Just to be clear, I never thought in a million years that I would ever be an atheist. I was what you might call a hardcore Christian (believe me when I say, I did not just go through the motions, I wholeheartedly loved God). Whenever I heard of a Christian who had turned from their beliefs and became an atheist, I felt like they had turned their back on God. I thought that something very traumatic must have occurred in that person’s life for them to denounce Christianity and become an atheist. I also viewed atheists with distaste. I viewed them as unrepentant sinners, immoral, angry, ignorant, and truth deniers (however, I continued to show love and respect towards them of course). Perhaps you yourself are putting those same labels on me, which is fine, I can take it : ) But now that I AM an atheist, I realize that those negative labels are not true. Anyways, that is a bit off topic but I felt like it was important to address, let me make sure to answer your question.

            The short answer is I became an atheist because of science. Like I said, that is probably the response you will hear from most atheists/agnostics. The more I studied science the more it just didn’t seem to line up with what was taught in the Bible (particularly in regards to the account of creation in Genesis). I studied evolution in detail and found its claims to be contradictory to religion (obviously not everyone shares this belief. There are several scientists who believe in evolution and also believe in Christianity, there is nothing wrong with that). I could go on for quite awhile listing examples from science that slowly led me away from Christianity, but I will spare you all that boring talk haha. Just know that the short answer is science is the primary reason why I became an atheist.

          • Paul

            Sure Madison, thanks for asking. Every former Christian turned atheist/agnostic will obviously have their own story as to what caused them to “switch”. However, I do feel like my reason is fairly typical and most Christians turned atheists that you talk to will probably give a similar reason to my own.

            Just to be clear, I never thought in a million years that I would ever be an atheist. I was what you might call a hardcore Christian (believe me when I say, I did not just go through the motions, I wholeheartedly loved God). Whenever I heard of a Christian who had turned from their beliefs and became an atheist, I felt like they had turned their back on God. I thought that something very traumatic must have occurred in that person’s life for them to denounce Christianity and become an atheist. I also viewed atheists with distaste. I viewed them as unrepentant sinners, immoral, angry, ignorant, and truth deniers (however, I continued to show love and respect towards them of course). Perhaps you yourself are putting those same labels on me, which is fine, I can take it : ) But now that I AM an atheist, I realize that those negative labels are not true. Anyways, that is a bit off topic but I felt like it was important to address, let me make sure to answer your question.

            The short answer is I became an atheist because of science. Like I said, that is probably the response you will hear from most atheists/agnostics. The more I studied science the more it just didn’t seem to line up with what was taught in the Bible (particularly in regards to the account of creation in Genesis). I studied evolution in detail and found its claims to be contradictory to religion (obviously not everyone shares this belief. There are several scientists who believe in evolution and also believe in Christianity, there is nothing wrong with that). I could go on for quite awhile listing examples from science that slowly led me away from Christianity, but I will spare you all that boring talk haha. Just know that the short answer is science is the primary reason why I became an atheist.

          • Angela Pycroft

            Looks like this is a very interesting conversation! Mind if I jump in?
            You mentioned earlier that the arguments in The God Delusion are what helped you turn atheist. Can you lay one of those out for me? I’d love to know some of Dawkin’s arguments so I can do a better job at debating, witnessing, etc. I really want to see my opponent’s side so I can be prepared for it. Thanks Paul!

          • Paul

            A big argument that Dawkins lays out is called The God of the Gaps. It is the idea that when people can not understand a natural phenomena, they say God must have done it. For example, an individual might say that nobody can explain what happened before the Big Bang or how the Big Bang got started, therefore, God did it. Or an individual may say, scientists cannot explain the origin of life, therefore, God did it. Or, people cannot explain consciousness, therefore, God. It is just inserting God into anything that is confusing or unexplainable. The problem with this is that we keep getting more knowledge of the natural world through the process of science. There are many natural occurrences that people once attributed to God which can now be explained through science (earthquakes and child bearing as just two quick examples). So what happens when you say “God did it” but then we later discover that the mystery can be explained using the laws of physics? What happens is where you once said “God” you now say “gravity”. As this process continues God’s role in the universe becomes smaller and smaller as those gaps are filled with science instead of God.

            Obviously there are several other arguments he makes in the book, but this is one of my favorites.

          • Angela Pycroft

            Hmm. I must admit I’d seen that argument before, but not laid out in that detail, and I never really thought about it. So here’s a stab at that :)
            I believe that God uses natural occurrences to do His will. After all, He created the laws of physics and could therefore use them to accomplish what He wanted; so if a layman said “God did that” in response to an earthquake, and a scientist said “The crust’s plates did that” then both would be right; God uses those plates’ movement to His advantage and has complete control over them. God also uses childbirth, other natural disasters, eclipses, death, etc. to do as He wills, since He is in control over them. I believe that God wouldn’t go to all the trouble of creating these things to ignore them when He had purposes to accomplish. So, except in cases of particular divine intervention, such as turning water to wine (although maybe that’s possible via science as well!), God uses the physics, chemistry, and biology He created to do His will. Like creating a robot and using it to do your will of getting a Pepsi from the kitchen; on a much, much larger scale, of course. You used the robot which you created to do your will; so it is with God and His laws of nature. So we can at once say it is God and the law of gravity at the same time; God uses gravity to accomplish His wish of holding you and your possessions to the earth. And if He wanted to waive that law, He could because He has the power to.
            Thanks for holding this discussion with us! I don’t know if I answered that satisfactorily or not :D, what do you think?

          • Paul

            Thanks for the reply Angela. I feel like what you said about God creating the laws of nature and using them to do his will is what most Christians believe. For example, Christians that accept evolution often say that God had his hand in evolution where he hand picked the mutations that he desired and that the process was not random.

            Here is how atheists address that though.

            Sure, God may have caused the earthquake, the solar eclipse, and the birth of a child using the laws of physics. There is no way for me to refute that. Science cannot refute that either and never will be able to. That is because God is unable to be disproven using science (every scientist will tell you this).

            But here is the thing, you say it was God, but which god was it? Was it a Roman God? A Greek God? A Norse God? I could say, “Zeus caused that lighting storm using the laws of nature” (which is what Romans once said). Or I might say “Thor caused that lighting storm using the laws of nature” (which is what the Norse once said). Or I could go as far as saying “the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused that lighting storm using the laws of nature” (The Flying Spaghetti Monster is often referenced by atheists). You see what I am getting at here? There is just as much evidence saying that Zeus controls the laws of nature as there is to say that God controls the laws of nature. If you are going to say that God controls all of nature, you need to show me evidence and tell me why you believe it is YOUR God and not some OTHER god.

            One more thing about this. If God does control all of nature, then he is responsible for all the harm caused by it. When a child is stillborn, God killed the child (sorry, I know this may start to sound disrespectful, that is not my intention). When a hurricane wipes out a city and kills hundreds of people through drowning, God did that. When someone gets cancer, God started the cancer. When someone is born horribly deformed, disfigured, and heavily disabled, God did that. When a tree falls and crushes a person, God did that. Is it morally ok for a God to do all of these things?

          • Angela Pycroft

            I’m going to be honest and say that I don’t have a good answer (yet) for that first part. I’ve never wrestled with that argument or heard anyone else do so (or even heard of it before at all); and I don’t want to form a half-baked opinion. So I’m just going to skip to the second.
            As you probably know, you hit upon one of the hardest questions for a Christian to answer here. So I’ll do my best.
            Things like tsunamis, deaths, cancer, etc. are products of the Fall. Yes, God has the power to stop them, but at the same time, if He stopped every single bit of suffering in the world, then why was it so bad for Eve to take of the Tree? I mean, if God protected us from everything caused by the Fall, we wouldn’t have much reason to regret her choice. After all, what would it matter? Life would carry on much the same anyway. So thats one reason for our suffering. It is a result of our freewill; we bear the consequences. This is an indirect result of sin.
            Second, we brought a lot of it upon ourselves. Stillborn children and birth defects are often the products of a careless pregnancy (think alcohol, drugs, accidents, etc.). Lung cancer is often caused by smoking, and many other tragedies are directly caused by human actions. Therefore we see again that our suffering is caused by our freewill; this time, it is directly caused by sin.
            Thirdly, these can often work out for our good, as bad as it may seem at that time. For instance, my grandfather committed suicide a year ago. Yeah, ouch is right. But as much as I miss him, I have been able to reach out and relate to so many people through that, using my unique situation. My little brother contracted a polio-like illness seven months ago, and its really rough. But, although we can’t see it all yet, we’ve been able to catch glimpses of God’s plan for this; and I know it’ll be good. When my dad lost his job for six years, it opened us up to repair a house for my grandparents that had been destroyed by renters, as well as take care of my great grandfather in his last years; getting valuable experience along the way. I can’t tell you how much my family grew and learned during that time. So yeah, it’s not fun. But (yes, I know; cliche) God knows what He’s doing, and He hasnt messed up so far.

            In conclusion, our suffering is caused, either directly or indirectly, by our own sin, and God uses it to our later advantage. Sorry for not answering your first point, I honestly have not thought about that before and would like to put some more thought into it. Thanks!

          • Jess Ladyboat

            Hi there. I apologize for butting into this conversation, but I wanted to ask a question. Have you ever researched counter-arguments to the arguments that brought you away from God? I feel inadequate to address everything you’ve brought up in this thread, but I think there are some good resources here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

            As a fair disclaimer, there are a lot of links on that list and I obviously haven’t read them all so I apologize if you search through them and find them to be untrustworthy. But even if you don’t like this particular website, I still think it’d be worth it to consider that some of the arguments you’ve believed against the Bible have been based on misinterpretations or misrepresentations of the original text.

            I’m also wondering, during the time when you were being slowly lead away from Christianity, did you ever try seeking God in spite of your growing uncertainty with the faith? Did you try continuing to pray, to listen to the music that previously stirred your affections for Him, to study scripture and consider the perspective of Christian apologetics? Or did you simply walk away? What do you think you would have done if you felt that it was more logical to not believe in a God, but also felt like somewhere inside you knew Jesus loved you? Is there anything you think would have kept you in the faith despite the new things you read?

            I’m sorry for my interruption and abundance of questions. Debates actually make me anxious so please know that I appreciate how respectful you’ve been in this thread. Feel free to let me know if there’s any way you felt I haven’t been respectful in return, and have a nice day!

          • Paul

            Feel free to join the conversation Jess. I prefer to call this a conversation rather than a debate. People often try to “win” a debate and try to persuade people to change their thinking. My goal is not to change anyones beliefs here. In fact, I think it would be healthy for everyone involved in this conversation to realize that the ideological differences between atheists and Christians are ancient (going back thousands of years) and will not be solved on Therebulution.com That is why I would prefer to call this a conversation, because my goal is simply to be a voice for atheists. The original post was about how to witness to an agnostic, so I feel like it would be helpful to understand an agnostic/atheist perspective if you are hoping to witness to them.

            But anyways, on to your questions.

            The answer to your first question is yes, I have researched counter arguments. I assume what you mean by counter arguments is Creation Science, or at least something that looks similar to that. The website that you referenced seems to be based on Creation Science, so I will assume that is where you are going.

            Richard Deem, the author of the site, states that, “most skeptics assume Christianity is false before making a serious attempt to examine the evidence.”First of all, Deem doesn’t site any sources to back up this claim. I don’t believe it is true and as a matter of fact, I believe it is backwards. Most skeptics HAVE made a serious attempt to examine the evidence and it BECAUSE of the lack of sufficient or substantial evidence that they believe Christianity is false. This is how science works. You don’t start with the assumption that something is true or false, you do your best to stay neutral. You then gather evidence and go where that evidence leads. The evidence that I examined does not lead towards a God, but rather way from a God.

            Yes, I have examined counter arguments and it is because those counter arguments fail to hold up their weight that I came to the conclusion that God does not exist. Just to give some examples, I have read The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, The Case for Creation, The Case for Christmas, Mere Christianity, More Than a Carpenter, and Know Why You Believe.

            I understand that you feel that my interpretations are incorrect. But would you mind clarifying using examples just so I can know what you are referring to? Thanks : )

          • Jess Ladyboat

            Sure, I can expand a little more. Some of the language in the Bible is meant to be poetic rather than literal – an example would be how it mentions emotions coming from the heart. To the best of my knowledge, that’s a poetic device rather than a literal explanation, so it wouldn’t matter that it’s not compatible with science.

            I know there were many other issues you had with the Bible and as I said in my last reply, I feel inadequate to address them myself. I just wanted to make sure that you were keeping an open mind towards counter-arguments to the issues you found, and it seems to me that you are, so I’m not sure that I have much else to contribute to the conversation. Thank you for listening, though.

          • Paul

            The heart was considered to have emotions. People still today think some emotions come from the heart. Egyptians made sure to carve out the heart when people died and they often discarded the brain. So no, the Bible didn’t use poetry when saying emotions come from the heart. The Bible copied what was the most common idea at the time in society. The Bible says emotions come from the heart, it teaches that emotions come from the heart, and it is wrong.

          • Rachel M.

            Sorry for butting in here, but I want to turn your “God Gaps” argument on you.

            A good majority of people who believe in evolution fill in gaps with time and “just the right conditions.” How did humans evolve from singular celled organisms? A lot of time passed. How did the earth become a safe place to live? The earth was filled with just the right amount of gases and what not and they mixed together just right to create a safe atmosphere. You get my point.

            What I am saying is that a lot of your arguments can be turned on you. You say all of our beliefs are based on faith since they cannot be proven by science. Isn’t that the same for your beliefs? Evolution cannot be proven with science, so it is just a theory that you believe through faith.

            In conclusion, I encourage you to look into how many things in the Bible have been found to be true. We have found city walls that have fallen outward to prove the battle of Jericho. The Dead Sea scrolls have been found. Your argument about the Bible teaching that men are superior to women is false, but I can use that in my favor. In Jewish times, men were considered smarter and better than women. (This does not mean that the Bible teaches that. It doesn’t.) So, if men were better than women, why did women find the empty tomb? If the Bible was made up by the Jews, men would have found the empty tomb since they were believed to be better. Women would not have been an important part of the story. This fact stands true for lots of instances in the Bible. (Think the stories of Deborah and Jael.)

            I will be praying for you Paul!

          • Paul

            Rachel, there is a lot I could say here, but I will try to keep it short.

            The God of the Gaps argument is about tackling a question that we have no answer for and saying that God must be responsible for it. The argument is only used when there is a lack of evidence.

            When it comes to evolution, we have tremendous evidence. Therefore, you cannot turn the God of the Gaps argument around to use on evolution like you are trying to do. You are making the incorrect assumption that evolutionists use “time” to fill in any mystery to which they have no answer. That is simply false. We know that evolution takes a lot of time because we have evidence for it. Scientist do not just through the word “time” around willy nilly to help them explain evolution.

            Evolution is not “just a theory”. This is a very common idea that non scientific individuals hold. A scientific theory has the same weight and respect as a scientific law. When scientists say “theory” they do not mean “this is just a guess.”

            Evolution is not a belief system. I do not claim to believe in evolution, I accept it based upon scientific facts. It is based on facts and not faith. Faith is believing in something without evidence, but since we have evidence for evolution, it doesn’t fit into the realm of faith.

            I challenge you to read through your edited post and replace the word “men” with “white people” and replace the word “women” with “black people”. Then read your last statement again about “separate but equal”. I am not racist at all, but you do realize that the term “separate but equal” is heavily criticized as a racist statement and is a fallacy. You cannot be separate but equal. In the Bible women were not even separate but equal (that would have been slightly better than how they were actually treated). In the Bible, women are separate and inferior. (Women are VERY SEPARATE in the Bible because, according to the Bible, people should not even sit at the same seat that a menstruating women has sat in because menstruating women are, according to the Bible, “unclean”.)

          • Rachel M.

            I know that “separate but equal” was a very controversial topic back in the day with Plessy vs. Ferguson and such. However, I am not saying it in a racist way. If it sounded like that, then I apologize and I hope you know that I did not mean it that way.

            Women in the Bible are not inferior. (Again I recommend you read the stories of Deborah and Jael.) They were treated as equals by Jesus and that is what He taught we should treat them as. I don’t want to argue with you on this because you don’t seem to realize the error in your reasoning.

            Evolution is a theory. It has not been recreated by science. No one was there to observe it. Just like we take the belief that God created the world on faith. There is not evidence for evolution. Scientists do use time to fill in the gaps they can’t explain. Do some research. Honestly someone else could probably explain it over comments than I can. I can explain this better in person, so you will have to get in contact with someone who can explain this better. Here is a link to a website I am sure you have heard of, Answers in Genesis. https://answersingenesis.org/ Watch the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debates. They are really good.

            I am still praying for you.

          • Paul

            I am very familiar with AiG. I have watched the entire Ham on Nye debate. I agree, it was very entertaining.

            It seems like you are getting most of your science education from Answers in Genesis. That group is heavily criticized in the scientific community because they spread false scientific ideas. I think it would benefit you if you researched science from non-Christian sources (not to say that Christian sources are wrong, but they typically approach science from a Biblical perspective and therfore come to the wrong conclusions).

          • Rachel M.

            I’m afraid you are mistaken there. I have taken a college level science course that promoted the idea that evolution is true. I do not get the majority of my science education from Answers in Genesis. I learn about secular scientists’ ideas and theories. If you realize exactly what evolutionists are saying you will see that they are very speculative.

            By the way, Answers in Genesis does not “spread false scientific ideas.” Ken Ham is an extremely intelligent man who loves the Lord and lives to serve Him. The Biblical perspective is the correct perspective. God created the world and everything in it. All creation points to an intelligent Designer. You can only use your brain to deny God because God gave you the ability to think and reason. You are only breathing because God put breath in your lungs. The only reason that our bodies function the way they do is because God created us. He loves us. He handcrafted us in our mother’s womb.

            Can’t you see that you are disrespecting your Creator by bashing Him like you are? My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ came down from Heaven to die for all of mankind. That includes you. He presents us with a free gift of eternal life. What does He require of us? Only that we live for Him; we must dedicate our lives to serving Him. And you are just washing that all down the drain for some proof-less theory. You are turning your back on God.

            “The unpardonable/unforgivable sin or “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” is mentioned in Mark 3:22–30 and Matthew 12:22–32. Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter” (Mark 3:28), but then He gives one exception: “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin” (verse 29).” Does this apply to you? If so, I am extremely sad. I pray that you have not blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.

            Still in prayer for you,
            Rachel M.

            P.S. For more information on the unpardonable sin, go to

          • Paul

            It doesn’t matter what courses you took. What matters is your understanding of science. And based on how you talk about evolution and scientific theories, you have decided that the professor who taught that course was wrong and the “real” science is from Answers in Genesis and the Bible.

            Also, it doesn’t matter what evolutionists say. What matters is the evidence. The scientific evidence suggests that evolution is true. That truth does not depend upon what evolutionists or other scientists say.

            I am not sure why you are bringing up Ken Ham’s intelligence or that he loves the Lord. Neither of those things can change scientific facts.

            If you are going to claim that the Biblical perspective is the correct perspective, you need to back up that claim. You need evidence to support that claim. But the fact of the matter is that there is tremendous scientific evidence that suggests that the Biblical perspective is NOT the correct perspective. If you are going to say otherwise then you need to provide evidence.

            Provide evidence that “God created the world and everything in it.” Provide evidence that “all creation points to an Intelligent Designer.” Provide evidence that “God gave [me] the ability to think and reason. ” Provide evidence that “The only reason that our bodies function the way they do is because God created us.” Provide evidence that ” He handcrafted us in our mother’s womb.” You are making remarkable statements that require remarkable evidence.

          • Rachel M.

            I understand evolution very well, and the “evidence” you speak of is not there.

            As for evidence of the claims I made, I have plenty. Consider going to the sight, You have to pay to watch the videos there, but the guy that does this stuff really explains it well. It would take me a while to type it all out. I haven’t seen you provide this “evidence for evolution” that you speak of. (There are plenty more where those came from.)

            Still praying for you,
            Rachel M.

          • Paul

            I do not believe in the Holy Spirit. I do not worship the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit I denounce you. Holy Spirit I turn my back on you.

          • Paul

            I just condemned myself, so you don’t need to pray for me any longer.

          • Rachel M.

            I am going to continue to pray for you. I know you don’t think it will help, but I know that prayer is a powerful weapon. Thank you for conversing with me.

            ALWAYS praying,
            Rachel M.

          • Paul

            But…prayer doesn’t trump the unforgivable sin…which I just committed.

          • Rachel M.

            However, I have realized that you yourself claimed that you were a sold-out Christian before you were an atheist. No matter what, you cannot lose your salvation.

            Praying,
            Rachel M.

          • Paul

            So what you are saying is, once you are saved, Jesus will forgive you of ALL sins, including the unforgivable sin. He will even forgive you of the sin that he himself said is the exception to the rule. So the unforgivable sin is indeed forgivable if and only if you commit it AFTER you are saved. But if you were at first not saved and committed the unforgivable sin, THEN it is unforgivable. Jesus really should have clarified what he meant when he said that all sins are forgivable except blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. What he should have said is “All sins that a saved Christian commits are forgivable, but if an unsaved person blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, that person will never be forgiven.” Or put another way “All sins that a Christian commits are forgivable, but non-Christians might be out of luck.”

            I never knew that I could bash The Holy Spirit as much as a want, blaspheme against Him, call Him immoral, turn my back on Him, die without asking for forgiveness, and STILL be saved because “once I am saved I am always saved”. I guess Jesus doesn’t know what he meant by the word “unforgivable”.

          • Rachel M.

            Forgive me, for I have misspoken about the unpardonable sin. I consulted some wiser, older Christians and realized my error. The unpardonable sin is dying without Christ. If you are dying without Christ, you have been refusing to accept the Holy Spirit your whole life. If one rejects the Holy Spirit all the way to their death bed, then gets gloriously saved right before they die, they have not committed the unpardonable sin. Does that make sense? Basically, you have not committed the unpardonable sin.

            Praying,
            Rachel M.

          • Paul

            But…there is a HUGE error in your thinking. The Bible explicitly says that the only people that have the Holy Spirit are those that have accepted Jesus. So if a person dies without Christ it isn’t because they rejected the Holy Spirit. If they die without Christ they didn’t even have the Holy Spirit to begin with and therefore could not reject the Holy Spirit. If you have The Holy Spirit, it is because you FIRST had Christ. Christ comes (enters a persons heart) first and the Holy Spirit comes (enters a persons heart) SECOND. I cannot be guilty of rejecting the Holy Spirit if did not know Christ because if I did not know Christ I did not obtain the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the only people that can reject the Holy Spirit are those that have ALREADY accepted Christ. But once they have already accepted Christ their salvation is secure and cannot be taken away. And therefore, the unforgivable sin doesn’t exist because the only people capable of committing it are Christians who have accepted Christ and have received the Holy Spirit there after but then have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit yet they cannot lose their salvation. You see how that just doesn’t work!?

          • Rachel M.

            I probably could have worded it better. Not necessarily rejecting the Holy Spirit, but denying Him. Personally I think that rejecting is the better word, and you can reject what you don’t have, but denying works just as well if that is the word you prefer. If a person dies without Christ, they have committed the unpardonable sin by refusing to accept God’s free gift to us. Make sense?

            Praying,
            Rachel M.

          • Angela Pycroft

            No ,not prayer, but the God we are praying to does. God can trump everything; there are no sins unforgivable by God :)

          • Paul

            So Hitler can be in Heaven too if he asked for forgiveness of his sins? Once in Heaven he can look into the eyes of the millions of women and children he killed. Would you want to spend eternity in Heaven with the man who tortured and killed your entire family and tried to kill your entire race?

          • Angela Pycroft

            Ok. My response is that he COULD have, but due to his nature he WOULD not. If Hitler honestly and sincerely repented of all his sins and became a true Christian, then yes, he could go to Heaven. God’s mercy does not have a limit. That is a biblical phrase without an asterisk. The thing is, he was so deep in his own sin that he would never have even considered it. So he is not in Heaven because his very nature reviled against it.
            I do apologize, but I am going to have to stop answering comments on this thread. I love the conversation we are having here but I have a lot going on in my family right now and I can’t devote the time I would like to the Reb. Sorry! I will post occasional answers as I can but mostly I will have to devote my time to other channels.

          • Paul

            If there is no evidence for evolution, then why do the majority of scientists say we have large amounts of evidence for evolution?

            Also, you said you have evidence to back up your claims, but then you refenced a website that requires a fee to view their content. Can you please provide evidence that I can view for free? You should know good and well that I was not going to pay to watch those videos, so it was a poor choice to reference.

          • Rachel M.

            Let me make things clear. There a two main parts to evolution. Microevolution (natural selection) and macroevolution. Microevolution according to modern scientists is “changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the gene pool”. This has been proven true. God designed it to work that way. Macroevolution on the other hand is basically the idea that all current organisms originated from an original, single-celled organism. Since no one has ever seen macroevolution occur, the fossil record is used as evidence. However, not one single transitional form has ever been found. If macroevolution were true, there should be billions of them! This is just one aspect of the theory of evolution that has been proven false. Give me some of the “evidence for evolution” that you speak of.

            Those videos that I recommended to you explain how evolution is wrong a lot better than I can over a comment. I simply assumed that you would want to know the truth and would be willing to pay a small fee for that truth. However, since you will not, ask me questions about what evidence you feel is lacking for the existence of God. I will do my best to answer them.

            Praying,
            Rachel M.

          • Paul

            Ok so you gave me quite a bit to address here. First of all, you typed “microevolution” with natural selection in parenthesize. This seems to suggest that you think they are the same thing. They are, however, different. Evolution is as you stated, a change in the relative frequencies of alleles in a populations gene pool. That is not the definition of natural selection though. Natural selection is the method which causes the frequencies of alleles to change. But ultimately the distinction isn’t that important, so I will move on.

            You stated a common misconception that microevolution and macroevolution are different things. Microevolution and macroevolution are essentially the same thing. The ONLY difference between the two is time. Let me state that again, the ONLY difference it time. That is it! Period.

            Given enough time, microevolution causes a population to become a new species. But the amount of time is very large, often requiring thousands or even millions of years. This is why we do not observe it occurring right now because nobody lives long enough to see it. There is an exception, however, with some bacteria. We are able to witness a bacteria species evolving into another species of bacteria. This has already occurred in the lab. So yes, in fact we HAVE seen macroevolution occur.

            But apart from the lab, we do in fact observe animals changing into a different species by looking back in time. We didn’t have to live back then because we gather evidence from the past that lets us know what happened when we were not there.

            What you say about transitional fossils is false. Transitional fossils have been found. In fact, every single species is a transitional species. It is incorrect to look at a hummingbird and assume that it has reached its final form. Given a few thousand years, what you see as a hummingbird will very likely be completely different. A hummingbird is currently in transition to becoming whatever it is it will be in a few thousand years. This is the same for all species. An fossil you look at is a transitional fossil. But if you really want a good example, look up the fossil called Darwinius masillae.

            But since I doubt you will believe what I say about transitional fossils, let me ask you this. According to you, if we did find a transitional fossil, what would that look like? How would we know it was transitional? Are you wanting a fossil that is half bird half dinosaur? Half fish half mammal? What is it you want? What fossil would you look at that would convince you that it is a transitional fossil and not just an ordinary fossil?

            Also, please stop using the word “proven” when talking about scientific ideas. As I mentioned before, there is very little, if anything in science that you should say is proven. What we gather is evidence and that evidence can either support or not support a particular scientific claim. So you are incorrect to say that there is any aspect of evolution that is proven false.

            Also, I am very surprised that you would expect me to pay 100$ annually to watch those videos you linked. 100$ annually is not a small fee for a set of videos that are about 4 minutes each and can all be watched in a single day. It is a ridiculous get rich sceme that only works because they are appealing to a very niche Christian audience. Also, it is ridiculous that the videos are not just free since right on the home page there is a donation button! I am sure that the donations alone pay for all the content on that site, so the 100$ annual fee is completely uncalled for. It is rather laughable that you say you expected me to pay the money so that I could “know the truth”.

          • Paul

            Evidence for evolution includes but is not limited to; the fossil record, vestigial traits, DNA, homology, and geographic distribution of plants and animals, Honestly, just google “evidence for evolution”.

          • Rachel M.

            Let me address the things you mentioned here.

            1: The fossil record gives plenty of evidence for Creation, not evolution. It suggests that the animals were buried rapidly under layers of sedimentary rock. This suggests a catastrophe that occurred to bury all those animals at once. Why are marine fossils found on the tops of mountains? The Flood explains it perfectly.

            2: Creationists that I know do not deny that there are organs in man that have lost some of their functionality. However, they do reject the notion that those organs were inherited from a common ancestor with apes or other animals. Evolutionists typically point to these presumed non-functioning organs and insist that they are evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor with more primitive organisms. Just because humans have organs with reduced functionality does not really count as evidence of common ancestry. This is perhaps because God created Adam and Eve with those organs, but they have lost some functionality in their descendants. At best, evidence of vestigial organs in man demonstrates deterioration and loss of information since the Fall. They are evolutionary relics of common ancestors with animals only if you begin with evolutionary presuppositions.

            3: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/genetics-no-friend-of-evolution/ I will just put this here so I won’t have to type out a super long explanation. Oh, and since you don’t think that Answers in Genesis is a good source, here is this: http://www.icr.org/article/common-dna-sequences-evidence-evolution/

            4:http://www.icr.org/article/does-homology-prove-evolution/
            Here is some of my thoughts, then another article.
            One great evidence for evolution claimed by scientists, is the similar structures (or homology) found in diverse and closely related organisms. If evolution were true, and all life has evolved from a single common ancestor, we should see similarities present in organisms. However, using these similarities as evidence for evolution makes the argument false on two accounts.
            A: Evolutionists base the “phylogenies” on the similarities found in animals. In other words, if two animals are similar, it is assumed they are closely related in the evolutionary scale. But for evolutionists to turn around and claim these same similarities ‘prove’ evolution is false.
            B: This line of reasoning also commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Evolutionists claim: “If evolution is true, we would expect to see similarities in organisms. We do see similarities. Therefore, evolution is true.” This conclusion may not be true — there are other explanations for similarities in organisms, such as a common designer. To escape their argument being labelled as a fallacy, evolutionists might substitute the conclusion “therefore, evolution is true” with “therefore, evolution is probably true”. But this is also fallacious. We could say: “If the moon is made of Swiss cheese, it will have large depressions. The moon has large depressions. Therefore, the moon is probably made of Swiss cheese.” Adding ‘probably’ to the conclusion does not change it from being fallacious as it still commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization.
            http://www.defendingthechristianfaith.org/dna-and-structural-homology-studies-that-argue-against-evolution.html

            5: http://creation.com/genetics-geographical-distribution
            I think that this article is very good on this topic, because it is an atheist debating a creationist. You will probably enjoy it very much.

            Thank you for taking the time to read all of that! : )

            Always praying,
            Rachel M.

          • Paul

            1. This is called an argument from ignorance.

            2. I didn’t mention vestigial organs, I mentioned vestigial traits, but whatever. Why are you jumping to conclusions? You are saying “we have vestigial organs…therefore God.” You don’t get to make that GIANT leap.

            Also, what use did Adam and Eve have for goose bumps?

            Also, since you recognize that organs DO change in a species just realize that it is only a matter of TIME until those changes cause a new species.

            3. This is called confirmation bias. EVERY source you have mentioned is from a creationist website. So it is no wonder you believe in it since it is the only information you seek out. It is the same reason people believe in conspiracy theories and can point you to all the “evidence” for such theories. You need to get out of your little bubble. I encourage you to read The God Delusion or other books that don’t just confirm your currently held beliefs.

            4. Confirmation bias again. Also you use this weird logic puzzle that scientists don’t use. “If evolution is true, we would expect to see similarities in organisms. We do see similarities. Therefore, evolution is true.” This isn’t what scientists say. THis is how theology and philosophy work, not science. Science is based on evidence, not some word games.

            Also, I mentioned it so many times, but I will mention it again cause you still aren’t getting it, scientists do not PROVE anything. They collect evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. Evidence can either support or not support a particular claim, but it does not prove it. So stop saying all this stuff about proof.

            5. Confirmation bias again. Also, why would you assume that I would “enjoy it very much” just because there is an atheist in it? Atheism is a lack in belief. I don’t enjoy articles by people that don’t believe in unicorns just because they say they don’t believe in unicorns.

            Lastly, what you need is your entire church to pray for me. The Bible says that when more people gather to pray the magical powers work better. It is kinda sad though that some people die of cancer simply because they needed just ONE more person to pray for them. 15 prayers was great, but God was only going to answer if he heard 16 prayers.

          • Rachel M.

            This is going to be my last comment on this discussion. When researching the specific items you mentioned, I looked at both creationist AND evolutionist articles. I carefully looked at both sides of the argument. I have studied both sides immensely. So no, I am not just in a “little bubble.”

            I will not take the time to argue this further. Most of the stuff you are saying you have provided no evidence for. You are just making claims and accusations. Thank you very much for discussing this issue with me.

            One last thing. Please do not say those things about prayers. What you said is not true. I have not made rude claims about your beliefs, please do not do so about other beliefs. It does not come across well at all. It is not helpful in a debate. Thanks!

            Praying,
            Rachel M.

          • Paul

            You believe in Creationism, you were probably homeschooled, you believe in your parents religion, probably all your friends are Christians, you got upset when I challenged the concept of prayer, and you don’t accept mainstream science. So yes, you are in a little bubble.

            You have not made rude claims about my beliefs because I haven’t stated them. I said I am an atheist. That isn’t a belief. It is a lack in a belief in theism. I also said I accept evolution. That is not a belief, it is a process that occurs in nature.

            You claim to understand science very well, but you don’t accept evolution. You don’t seem to understand what a scientific theory is. You don’t seem to understand the difference between proof and evidence. The science that you accept comes from Creation websites. And yet, you claim to have studied “immensely”. Even though it sounds like all the “immense” research was simply done online where, once again, you encounter lots of confirmation bias.

            I provided you with evidence (the fossil record, vestigial traits, DNA, homology, and geographic distribution of plants and animals). But you used Creation Science to discredit the evidence. It isn’t that I didn’t provide you with evidence, it is that the evidence I provided you with didn’t fit with your currently held beliefs, so you chose to discredit it. Also, you said you took a college course that taught evolution, so why would I need to teach it any further? It isn’t that you haven’t heard the evidence, it is that you think your conclusions are correct and scientists conclusions are incorrect. You continue to believe in science that Bronze Age humans attempted but failed at.

            To show how silly your beliefs are IS actually helpful in a debate. And you didn’t even answer the question. How many prayers are needed until God listens? I know you form circles and pray with a large number of people. Why do that if you don’t think the number of people matter? If it does matter, then how many people do you need until God finally listens? See, it is a silly belief. Showing that it is silly might be rude, but that is only because everyone you surround yourself with says it is normal. Gathering together in a circle to telepathically talk to an invisible God who may or may not even answer you is silly.

          • Rachel M.

            I said I wouldn’t comment anymore, because I didn’t see any questions in your previous comment. Sorry about that. God sees everything. He listens to our every prayer. He ALWAYS answers. He doesn’t always answer the way we want, but that is because He is an all-knowing God. We gather together not because prayer “works better” that way, but because the Bible says that fellowship is good for our faith, encouraging other believers is important, etc. So no, it is not silly.

          • Angela Pycroft

            What a beautiful conversation this is! Lol I was just going back through the comments and found this. Great convo!

          • Paul

            Ok almost done but I want to mention one more influence in my life that caused me to become an atheist. This too is a big one. While still a strong Christian, I read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (yep, that guy). At the time, I read it just out of curiosity and to broaden my knowledge. But the ideas in the book stuck with me. Dawkins presents many challenging thoughts in that book that as a Christian can be very difficult to wrestle with (seriously, be careful about picking this book up unless you are prepared to work through some TOUGH questions). If you talk to an atheist or an agnostic, they have probably read The God Delusion or at the very least heard about it and have it on their reading list. It is a very popular book in general, but also VERY popular among the atheist community. It is a book that many atheists refer to when you talk about why they believe what they believe.

            Hope that answers your question Madison. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.

          • Angela Pycroft

            You know what, I think we might have The God Delusion in a box somewhere (after my atheist grandfather died, we inherited his books). Maybe I’ll go check it out so I can see what you are talking about :).

        • Okie Gal

          Okay, thank you for being so open about it. Could you describe what kind of god you don’t believe in? It’s possible that your community has a wrong view of God. And you would be in the right, not to believe that.

          • Paul

            Okie, honestly I am not sure if I completely understand what you mean by asking what kind of god I believe in. I do have an idea so I will go ahead and take a stab at it, just correct me if I am wrong.

            Real quick before I get into this, I am an atheist, and so by definition I do not believe in any god of any kind. So I will assume you mean what kind of god did I used to believe in when I was a Christian. Or perhaps you mean, what are my views on God even now as an atheist.

            The kind of God that I “believe” in is, I would assume, what you would expect. He is the traditional Christian God who sent his son to die on the cross. He is all loving and all knowing and all powerful. He is kind and merciful. I believed in the teaching of John Piper, C.S. Lewis, and Rick Warren. I shared my beliefs with TobyMac, Hawk Nelson, The Newsboys, Chris Tomlin, and Britt Nicole. I would assume Okie, that when I was a Christian I would have shared nearly the same Christian beliefs as you.

            It seems to me that you are suggesting that I have the wrong view on God and that is why I am an atheist. If only I had the “correct” view then I would love God and have faith in Him. However, this is not the case. As an atheist I do not believe in ANY god. I don’t believe in the Christian God, but I also don’t believe in any gods from other religions. To me, it doesn’t matter who that god is or what that god teaches, I still will not believe in him/her. Sorry, I know that may come across as disrespectful, but that is quite simply, at the core, the definition of atheism.

          • Okie Gal

            No, I was just wondering if you had turned from Christianity because you thought God wasn’t good or something, let me read your other comments and get back to you.

          • Okie Gal

            Okay, so since you’re basing your atheism on scientific reasoning, let’s talk about science. Would you mind explaining your position a bit more? What are some specific reasons you might think the idea of a god is illogical?

          • Paul

            You are kind of asking two different questions here. First, you are asking what ideas in science turn me away from Christianity/God. Second, you are asking what logical reason do I have to disbelieve in God.

            Science is the study of natural phenomena. By definition, all scientific theories have to be falsifiable (able to be disproven). Since God is not falsifiable and we cannot put Him in a test tube so to speak, he is outside of the realm of science. So there is no theory or observation in science that I can point you to that will help you understand why I do not believe in God.

            The problem comes from how science and the Bible butt heads. The Bible says the Earth was made before the Sun, science shows this is false. The Bible says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, science shows this is false. The Bible says that emotions come from the heart, this is false. The Bible says Noah had two of every species on the Ark, science shows how this is impossible. The Bible says Man was made from dust instead of evolution, this is false. The Bible says stars will fall out of the sky, this is false.

            Then there are the other problems that I have with the Bible. For example, the Bible condones slavery. God’s people win victories and as a prize can rape women. Men are superior to women. God has a chosen people, the Jews, who are superior to people of other races. Fathers are told to kill their disobedient children. God’s people are told to kill witches (who don’t even exist).

            But ultimately, it isn’t really any of these things that turned me away from God. It was the realization that with science, there was no longer a need for God. Science explains the origin of the universe. I realized that religion was often used to simply explain nature, but science was able to do that too, and in my opinion did a much better job at it. So if science explained nature, why did I need God?

          • Okie Gal

            Hmm, okay, this is really interesting. If I’m understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong on this) you don’t believe in God because 1) you don’t think you need him 2) confusing parts of Scripture and 3) because certain scientific hypotheses contradict biblical teaching.

            So, obviously there’s a lot to talk about here, and I’m not expecting to change your mind in this one conversation. But I would like to deal with each of those things, point out some flaws I see in that thinking, and (hopefully) give a good explanation of how Christianity offers a better, more comprehensive view of the world.

            Let me get my thoughts together and then I’ll get started.

          • Okie Gal

            Okay, before I get into the need for God, or any scientific proofs, let’s talk about one assumption here. If I’m understanding, you said that God cannot be measured and therefore can’t be proven. But by saying “there is no theory or observation in science that I can point you to that will help you understand why I do not believe in God,” you’re basically telling me that science cannot disprove him either.

            I think that’s worth thinking about. I actually believe that while we can’t physically measure God, we can see evidence of him in science. Think in terms of atomic theory — we can’t see or really measure atoms, yet we have enough evidence to trust thier existence and study them.

          • Paul

            No. I am not saying that my disbelief in God is nonscientific. What I was saying is that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Therefore, there is no scientific theory that I can reference that will show you God and no scientific theory that I can reference that will disprove God. Just as there is no scientific theory that I can reference to disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

            However, I can say that in all of science, there is not ANY evidence that such a thing as a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. If that evidence was to come to light, then I might believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. The same is true for God.

          • Okie Gal

            Okay, sorry about that. What I’m trying to say though, is that you shouldn’t count God out of science simply because you can’t measure him.

            You have to be willing to consider the possibility of a god if you’re presented with evidence for him. (If you refuse that then maybe you only refuse god based on your personal desire).

            Let me give some quick evidence.

            The first would be DNA, which hardly anyone can study without using words like “information” and “Code”. Well information requires an informer, and codes come from coders. There’s a necessary intellect behind information that Darwinian theory can’t explain, and I think it gives credit to the idea of a personal god.

            The same could be said for the complexity of all the functioning systems it takes to maintain life on earth. Our sun is the right size, our planet is the right distance from the sun, our atmosphere isn’t too thick, we have the right ratio of oxegen, water, and carbon dioxide. And if any one of those were to change even a bit, Earth couldn’t sustain life.

            That’s not even including how many systems need to be up and running for a single organism to live and reproduce. It has to be able to gather food (or whatever it turns into food), then it must use the those for chemical combustion, and use the heat created to keep living. Add to that, so many more complex organisms require seperate systems both to pump and clean out blood, remove waste, regulate temperature, distribute sugars, and keep the whole thing communicating and working in sync.

            I just don’t see how these things could’ve come about by chance, and the idea of a personal creator is the only other (acceptable) explanation. Why I believe the creator is also the god of the bible is another, really good, discussion.

          • Paul

            Ok, sorry, but I feel a need to correct you here.

            1) It is not that I do not need God. It is that I do not need God to explain natural phenomena.

            2) I did not say I was confused by scripture. I mentioned some biblical referenes that are contradicted by science. I also mentioned some biblical references that challenge the idea that the Bible presents a positive moral value system.

            3) Try not to confuse a scientific hypothesis with a scientific theory. A hypothesis is a possible explanation for some obsersved natural phenomena. A scientific theory is an explanation that explains the natural phenomena which is rooted in a large body of evidence. There are scientific theories that contradict the Bible, but there are not scientific hypotheses that do so. A scientific theory is not “just a theory”. A scientific theory is, for all intensive purposes, treated as fact because it is supported by a large body of scientific evidence. A scientific law is not higher up on the pedestal then a scientific theory. They are both treated with just as much respect in the scientific community.

          • Okie Gal

            Sorry about that, I wrote it late at night and my word choices weren’t the best. I did know what you meant about not needing god to explain things. And I didn’t mean that you, personally, we’re confused. Just that some those passages are very complicated.

            I did, however, use the word hypothesis on purpose. I know the difference between theory and hypothesis, but I just don’t see enough proof of, say evolution, to call it a theory. It’s also worth noting that the scientific method can be wrong; it was considered scientific law for hundreds of years that the earth was flat, which is cleary false.

          • Paul

            No problem Okie. I was not offended in any way. I just wanted to make sure my points were clear and not being skewed.

            I agree, that parts of scripture are complicated. But I do not believe that the references I made were complicated. When God gives permission for men to rape women as victory spoils, that is pretty clear. When God says to stone disobedient children, that is pretty clear. And when God says on multiple occasions throughout scripture that the Jews are his chosen people, it is pretty clear that they are indeed his chosen people.

            No offense, but I am not sure if you actually understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. I mean no disrespect by saying this. I am not trying to be confrontational.
            Perhaps you just misspoke, but there are several things that you said that make me question your understanding of science (again, please, don’t be offended, I am not sure how else to say this rather than just coming out and saying it).

            The first reason I question your understanding of science is because you used the word proof incorrectly (again, perhaps you misspoke and in that case feel free to correct me). You said that you don’t believe there is enough proof for evolution. “Enough” proof is just silly. If you have proof then why would you need more of it? There is very little in science that we ever say is proven. In fact, I think it is best to avoid the word all together. Often when people say there is not enough proof, what they actually mean is that there is not enough evidence. Evidence is what we collect and what we use to determine if there is “enough”.

            Second, you make the assumption that the validity of a scientific discovery is based on your personal opinion of that discovery. Whether you believe there is enough evidence for evolution (or any other scientific theory) doesn’t really matter. What matters is the evidence. And the truth is that there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution. So much so that even though I say it is best to avoid the word proof, it is essentially proven.

            The third reason I question your understanding of science is because you said that the scientific method can be wrong. This is incorrect! The scientific method is simply that, a method. It is the process of observing a natural phenomena, forming questions about that observation, making and testing a hypothesis, and then coming to a conclusion about that hypothesis. There is nothing wrong about that method. In fact, that method is VERY well respected and is the reason science works so well. When you say that the scientific method can be wrong, I believe what you really mean is that scientific conclusions can be wrong. I would agree with that, scientists do not always reach the proper conclusions. However, generally what happens is we get new evidence which leads us to grow in our understanding and help us form better conclusions.

            Also important to note is that part of the scientific method is submitting papers for peer review. This means other scientists are looking at your data and checking to see if it all “checks out” or if you made a mistake that would discredit your findings.

            Lastly, you said that people once considered it scientific law that the Earth was flat. Yes people once thought the Earth was flat, but I do not believe people ever said it was scientific law (perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t think scientists at the time would have used the term scientific law. They might say it was a fact, but I don’t think they would say it was a scientific law). Just as I say my chair is black which is a fact, but it is not a scientific law. Scientific laws are based on a large body of evidence and are only considered a law after repeated experimentation. When people called the Earth flat they were using the evidence that was presented to them (though not all of it. For example, all they needed to do was go sailing in the ocean and realize that when another ship is approaching them in the horizon, the top of the ship is seen first, then the middle, then the bottom. This can only occur with a curved surface as on a flat surface you would expect to see the entire ship to come into view at the same time). As we gained more scientific knowledge, our understanding of the shape of the Earth grew. The science did not change. The scientific method did not change. The only thing that changed was the available evidence and the conclusion scientists were able to make with that available evidence. Evolution is much different because the amount of evidence we have and the quality of that evidence are both very substantial. A huge amount of modern technology, medicine, and discoveries have all been based on this theory of evolution. If you do not believe evolution is true, then you really shouldn’t be taking much of any modern medicines because so many of them are developed with a foreknowledge of the theory of evolution and would not be possible without evolution being true.

            Again, sorry. I am trying to present my side of things without sounding rude or disrespectful.

          • Okie Gal

            No, you’ve been really good about it. This might be a good time to kill the conversation though, since we don’t seem to be getting anywhere. At this point we’re both just restating the same things and duking it out over phrases, which honestly doesn’t help either of us. I’m pretty sure we’ll just end up mad if we try to keep going.

            Thank you so much for this convo though, sometime later we should talk it more.

          • Paul

            It has been a good conversation Okie, thanks for joining me.

    • Angela Pycroft

      A little off topic I suppose, but isn’t it depressing? I mean about when you die there is nothing, no Heaven, no God, that you are, according to your view, about as important as a grain of dust. That, when you die, unless you have done something valuable and important, such as Einstein or Stephen Hawking, you will be forgotten forever, your temporary existence, having no meaning, wiped away and quickly forgotten by the universe? That whatever you do has no importance, that if you do a good deed it has no signifigance, that if you d something wrong there is no one to correct you and draw you back up? Don’t you find that depressing? I mean, what would be the point to living if it mattered not one iota to the universe if you lived or died?

      • Paul

        Angela, I completely understand where you are coming from. When I was a Christian, I probably would have said something very similar. You actually covered a lot here so I will take it in stride.

        First off, yes, the idea that when I die there is no Heaven is rather, well not depressing, but discouraging and disappointing. I wish Heaven were real and that I could live forever in eternal bliss, but in my view such a place does not exist and wishful thinking will not cause it to exist. I relate it to Santa Claus. The idea of someone going around the world and giving out free gifts is very appealing. But alas Santa does not exist and my knowledge of that does not make me depressed. I use this analogy because I bet you can relate. You too do not believe in Santa, but you can still live a happy, joyful, meaningful life. It is the same for me but just replace Santa with God.

        Ok so next. You mentioned that in my view I am about as important as a grain of dust. I understand your perspective, but I disagree. True, in the grand scheme of the entire universe, my life is un important. But I find value and meaning in life through my relationships, my job, my family, and my passions/hobbies. I do not believe there is any meaning in life, but that people create that meaning for themselves.

        As for being forgotten when I die, perhaps this is just a personal thing, but I don’t really mind. I admit, I probably have this view because in my opinion. Death is the end. When I am dead I am dead. So to me it really doesn’t matter if people remember my name when I am gone because quite frankly, I will have no recolection of what happens on Earth after I am gone, so I just don’t really care. It would be nice to die as a hero, but when I am dead it will not matter anyway.

        I do not believe that my good deeds are insignificant. My good deeds help other people enjoy life which is significant.

        If I do something wrong I have to face the consequences. There are natural consequences for my actions and it is how I respond to those consequences that determines if I will be corrected and drawn back up.

        • Angela Pycroft

          Hmm. Thanks for the answer! I don’t really know any atheists, so its nice to be able to discuss your views.
          You’ve given me an interesting aspect on the matter; I’ll have to think about that.
          Thanks again!

    • Okie Gal

      Hey Paul, I just wanted to thank you for being so open and kind about all this. It’s an issue that runs deep and can get people riled, so I really appreciate your attitude and willingness to talk about it.

  • Andrew

    Something I’ve heard is that “People are tired of hearing about the love of Christ; they want to see it.”
    Maybe the best way to witness to someone like this is to be a great friend and show him the love of God. However; I don’t think it’s a bad thing to bring up God, but do so lovingly.

    I don’t think anyone will ever be able to denounce or truly counter the love of our Savior. His love is the truth.

    I really like this sermon – I don’t know how relevant it is, but it came to mind: https://www.life.church/watch/under-god/grace-and-truth/

  • Paul

    Consider watching this video titled “Interview an Atheist in Church Day”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hzHSA7pSWc

    • Matthew Christian

      Hi Paul!
      Thanks for being open and sharing the video – it was very insightful. I would like to discuss (in a conversation, not necessarily a debate) it and some questions I had about it. That is, if you want to – no pressure. I just wanted to hear some of your thoughts on the video, in particular at the moment, some of Neil’s 11 points.

      First off, then I respect his 2nd point, that I do not know you better than you know yourself. Other than what I have read in the conversation below, I know nothing about you, and therefore I can’t make any judgements or conclusions about what I don’t know. That is logical and makes sense. I will try not to make assumptions, but let me know if I am unclear or assuming on something :).

      My question for now is on his first point, “Atheists have morals, too.” I believe all people have morals, although some may be different than others. My question is this: What is the basis for your morals? Do you (and atheists in general) have an absolute right and wrong, a standard? From the interview, it sounded like in his group, then they disagreed on a few things, but how do they know which views are the correct ones? Or is there a correct one?

      I’m just curious about that. Not trying to convert you back, but wanting to respectfully converse with you and get a better understanding of you and other atheists. Let me know if my question was unclear or if you do not want to converse (I wouldn’t be offended – it’s your choice :). Thanks!

      • Paul

        Matthew, I am very interested in these kind of conversations, so I will gladly join you. I will not try to defend my morals, but simply give you an informative answer as to where many (perhaps most) atheists get their morals.

        Many atheists also consider themselves to be humanists. To be honest, I am not entirely clear on what the term humanist means. I intend to do some more research on this (you might find it informative to do the same). But my basic understanding is that humanists get their morals from society. If what I do benefits society and humanity, then it is most likely morally justified/correct. Murder obviously does nobody any good. Since murder does not benefit anybody, I can say (and atheists say) it is not beneficial to human kind and thus immoral.

        As far as atheists are concerned, there is no ABSOLUTE right or wrong. Right or wrong is generally determined by society. Basically, as a human race, we have defined what we considered to be right and wrong. As a general consensus, we say things such as rape, murder, and stealing are not beneficial to humanity and are thus wrong to do. I do not need the Ten Commandments to tell me not to murder because I already know that is wrong.

        Basically, there is no “correct” view. As a species, we have defined what we determine to be “correct”. But, as simply a hypothetical, there may be an alien race that has a different view on morality. Generally, morality is determined by what people determine to be right and wrong.

        It has been a rather long week and a tough week at work. So just let me know if things didn’t make sense or I was unclear.

        Thanks for joining the conversation Matthew. I hope I am able to help.

        • Matthew Christian

          Thanks for sharing! It was very interesting what you shared – sparked a lot of questions. I’ll try not to make this too long – may just have to save some questions for another time.

          Anyways, so what your saying (correct me if I’m wrong) is that whatever is beneficial to society at the time, that is what is moral. If it doesn’t benefit society, it is immoral. The morals change with society and society can make those changes. Correct?

          But what would happen if say society decided that murder was acceptable? I don’t think it would ever become so, but hypothetically, would it still be immoral because it doesn’t benefit anyone, even though society says it’s acceptable?

          [ If you don’t mind another question as well, I have another. But if it’s getting to long, then you don’t have to answer it :) ]

          Can you then explain what role does the conscience have if morals do change with society? If the conscience is “a voice insides one’s head that tells him/her what is right and wrong”, then does that mean the morals of conscience change with society too or do they remain constant? Or would does it even exist in a way, since it is dependent on a constant right and wrong?

          That was something that just came to mind when I was thinking about your reply – just curious :). Sorry if it is a bit too much. Whatever you are willing to answer is fine with me. Thanks for you time! Interested in what you have to say on it :).

          • Paul

            No, not necessarily. The Bible says it is moral to own slaves, yet just because that society said it was ok doesn’t mean it was indeed ok. We have empathy for other human beings and much of morality is derived from that empathy. It is simple for me to say slavery is wrong because I know that I would not like to be owned as a slave.

            Actually, in the Bible it was deemed acceptable to murder. Gods people were commanded to stone and kill people, including gays, disobedient children, and witches. So the Bible said that murdering a gay man is accceptable, but that doesn’t mean it is ok.

          • Angela Pycroft

            Hey Paul! Thought I’d jump in here (again). :)
            Yes, the Bible did allow slaves, but it was more like indentured servitude; they were prisoners of war and had to be released after seven years. There are several reasons for this.
            First off, the Israelites couldn’t just release those prisoners because then they would have continued fighting upon release. You can’t just expect to capture someone who was ready to die for his tribe, release him, and say “OK, don’t go off to fight again!”. That’s not going to work.
            Second, they had to be released. God never intended to enslave people indefinitely. The reason they are released after seven years is that they would have become acclimated to the society and would most likely have begun to build a life there. So they weren’t going to start fighting again.
            Also, the slaveowner upon release of their servant was to give them a means of livelihood; “You shall furnish them liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress.”(Deut.15:15)
            It was also noted in Exodus 21:16, ““Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”. So you couldn’t go around and kidnap people into slavery; God directly condemned that.
            I’ll finish this later; I’m going somewhere now but will pick this back up soon!
            I hope we can continue our discussion lower down; it has taught me a lot and found it very enjoyable! Thanks!

          • Paul

            Is owning another person as personal property ok? Is it ok to beat a person as hard as you like so long as they do not die the next day?

          • Matthew Christian

            Fighting human trafficking/modern day slavery is something I am very passionate about. I am strongly against any kind of slavery, especially s*x slavery.

            So my answer would be no, slavery of any kind is wrong. Those who do, it grieves me deeply. Angela put it very well. I won’t restate her comment, but the point is that God is a God of justice AND mercy. He is both fair – giving what people what they deserve, but also merciful, which is NOT excusing the sin, but offering a second chance.

            But why people still do things like this, is simply because man is by nature evil. I know you may disagree with this, but I believe that mankind is by nature evil/sinful. When a person accepts Christ, he is given a new nature – one that is good. That doesn’t mean without sin, but it is no longer that man’s nature to be sinful.

          • Paul

            I am glad you are opposed to slavery. However, the Bible clearly is not. The Bible says I can beat a slave as hard as I like so long as they do not die the next day. The Bible explains a loop hole that I can use to keep a slave for life as opposed to releasing them after 7 years. The Bible says I can have s e x with a slave so long as I give her food and clothes. The Bible never says slavery is wrong. The New Testament is no better as it quotes Jesus himself saying that slaves should respect their masters. If Jesus didn’t believe in slavery, he should have said “slavery is wrong”. But he never said that, he just continued to teach the status quo.

            We did not see a large decrease in slavery because of what the Bible teaches. It was by not listening to what the Bible teaches that we opposed slavery and made it illegal. According to the Bible, there is nothing illegal about slavery. Isn’t that a pretty big problem since you claim to get your morals from that book?

          • Matthew Christian

            Do you mind sharing with me the Biblical references for the things you pointed out? I can’t think of where exactly that is in the Bible (not that I doubt you, but I can’t think of where). I would like to look at those passages before talking about it. Thanks! :)

          • Paul
          • Paul

            Is it ok to have s e x slaves? Is it ok to hold family members hostage?

          • Angela Pycroft

            No, and that was not what I meant. This discussion follows a very fine line here, so I’ll try not to slip off the edge here :).
            Neither I nor the Bible supports this. The name “indentured servant” isn’t just a title used to cover up abuse, here it is used to show that they were to be treated with respect and kindness, as equals and human beings, not property. I explained a lot of this above, so I won’t go over it again. As for beating your slave, this is the kind of thing where you have to recognize the spirit of the law, not just the law itself, like Jesus pointed out when the Pharisees accused Him of working on the Sabbath. God meant that you may not kill your slave through beating, yes, but He also meant that you are not to abuse your slave. Now, I’m not trying to be harsh, cruel, or anything like that here. However, there may be some times when you have to bring your servant into line. Not cruelly, harshly, or out of anger, but to show them that they must obey, like you might spank a child, gently and out of love for the child so she won’t do it again. For instance, what if a slave repeatedly and purposely, say, dumped out the flour or refused to work? You can’t fire them. So you kindly and carefully punish them in such a way as to not be cruel or uncalled for. I know this sounds horrible of me, but try to see what I’m attempting to say.
            The Jewish culture was also set up so as to help with this. Neighbors kept each other in check. So if someone saw their neighbor being cruel to a servant, they could go over and say “Hey, don’t do that”. If the neighbor did not listen, they would bring some friends over and plead with them again, and if that didn’t work, they would bring it before a judge. The system was designed for this kind of thing.
            As for the keeping slaves indefinitely, that loophole would be pretty hard to come by. The slave had to stay of his own free will, presumably in a public statement of some sort. You couldn’t force him to stay,because if you tried,he could go to the judge or someone else and say “Hey, this guy is forcing me to stay with him”. So that wouldn’t work.
            Hope I answered you properly! Thanks for hanging around!

          • Paul

            Spanking a child is not ok and it does not teach the child to obey. Instead it teaches the child that “if you want someone to listen to you, you have to use violence.” and “hitting someone is ok so long as they were doing something wrong.” Spanking is harmful and abusive to children and in many countries is illegal.

            The bible DOES support slavery. The slaves ARE treated as property. Leviticus 25:44-46

            Keeping your slave forever is not a difficult loophole. Give your slave a wife. The slave has kids. If the slave ever wants to live with wife and kids the slave must be your slave forever. Exodus 21:2-6 Also if your dad sells you into slavery and you are a daughter, then you are not released after 7 years, you are a slave for life. Not only that, but you are a s#x slave. Exodus 21:7-11

            Masters can hit slaves as hard as they like so long as they do not die in the next day or two. Exodus 21:20-21 This does not teach someone how NOT to abuse their slaves. There is no “spirit of the law” here. If they were being told how NOT to abuse their slaves then these are TERRIBLE instructions.

            You can call them servants all you want, but they were considered property. When is it ever ok to own another human being as your property?

            “There may be some times that you have to bring your servant into line.” ARE YOU SERIOUS!? I hope you are not a parent. If you are you need to realize that physical harm is NOT how you get someone to obey you. Is it ok for a parent to hit their child because they needed to bring the child into line? (You better say no!) This is called child abuse and your kid will be taken away from you. But in the Bible it is ok to treat your slaves that way (even slave children). If you beat them and they die then you are in trouble. But if you beat them and they don’t die, then you are not in trouble.

            Also, why are you trying to justify slavery?

          • Angela Pycroft

            Hmm. I don’t really agree with the part about not spanking your kids (my parents did that to me and my siblings and we all turned out fine, in fact with 5 year old me I wouldn’t listen any other way xD) but as that’s more a matter of opinion, I won’t dig into that.
            I checked out Leviticus 25:44-46, and it actually supported my point earlier about how they were prisoners of war. But anyway, yes, it did say

          • Paul

            It is generally best not to come to broad conclusions based on personal testimony. You can say that you were spanked ask a child yet you turned out fine, but that does t justify spanking. I might say that my grandpa smoked cigarettes since he was twelve and he is now 89 therefore cigarettes are not bad for you because he turned out “just fine”. Obviously this is not the proper way to approach the problem. But anyway, this seems to be getting way off topic so I wouldn’t try to defend my position any longer.

            As to the other topic. Are you trying to justify slavery? Is slavery ok so long as God uses it for his purposes?

          • Paul

            Should we continue to treat people this way so long as we call it indentured servitude?

          • Paul

            most christians claim to get their morals from the Bible, yet they actually don’t get them from the Bible. 5 year olds learn to not take a to you from another child’s hand and not to hit another child. They don’t learn this lesson from the Bible. They learn partly because they see the crying face of the other child. Adults learn not to cut someone off in traffic because they see that when hey do, the other driver is upset (or because they got upset themselves when being cut off). The Bible doesn’t teach us these things. Morality is actually very simple and doesn’t come from the Bible (unless you believe in slavery and killing gay men).

          • Matthew Christian

            Sorry for the late response – been a bit busy. Thanks for answering again.

            Okay, so let’s just say then morality doesn’t explicitly come from the Bible. My question is, how then does a 5 year old know that if they take something from another child, and that child starts crying, that is wrong? Yes, they are crying, but what is it that tells the child that by making them cry, they did something wrong? Or what is it that tells an adult that cutting someone off in traffic is wrong? Yes, they may not like it when it’s done to them, but what is the root of it that tells them this is wrong? What is it that is at the core that tells you this is wrong or right?

            Even if one didn’t believe in absolute right and wrongs, then somethings people just know without a doubt is wrong. I can’t think of anyone who would say rape is acceptable – but why? What is it that tells them it is wrong? Yes, maybe no one would want it done to them for very understandable reasons, but there is some deeper reason. What is that? Where does that come from?

          • Paul

            It is empathy and sympathy for other human beings that makes someone say “hey, maybe I shouldn’t rape another person.” It is because we recognize that other people have feelings just like us. If I were to punch someone in the arm, I would then see that everyone around me now distrusts me and they now give me a scowl. In fact, now that I punched someone, everyone that witnessed the event doesn’t want to be my friend. There is no root cause of my reason to not hit someone next time. But I have learned from experience that my actions have consequences. I learn about which actions result in positive consequences and I tend to do those things more often, which in tern make me feel good because I know it makes others feel good. I have learned through experiences that some actions have negative consequences and so I do those things less often. Those actions make me feel bad and I have learned that other people don’t like it when I do those things, so it is best for me and everyone else involved not to do negative things. Again, there is no root cause for this. It is learned through experience, through experimenting (as a child does) with various choices and taking the responsibility of the consequences of those actions.

            Anything that you might consider to be a root cause of morals can be explained through evolution. Throughout or evolutionary history, it has proven advantages to help other individuals of our same species (this is true for most if not all species). It is an evolutionary advantage for me to help other person when they break their arm because I am helping that person survive and reproduce. I would imagine that throughout evolutionary history, individuals might have developed a feeling of happiness when they helped out other human being. This would then cause the gene for “helping other people” or sympathy, to be passed on to the next generation. After a long period of time, these emotions would grow stronger because the more sympathy someone felt for another human being, the greater chances of all individuals involved to survive and reproduce. In other words, their is evolutionary psychology that helps explain why we act and behave the way we do. You might call it instinct, but it is more complicated than that. However, if you want to poke around with the idea of a root cause for moral behavior, I would say it could be found within the study of evolutionary psychology.

          • Matthew Christian

            I agree with you that actions defiantly do have consequences, but not quite so much with the latter part of if it feels good to you, then it is correct/right. An example I can think of would be say looking at p o r n. Before I go into the example, I want to make it clear that I am NOT accusing you for this (I have no idea if you have or not and you don’t need to tell me), this is just for the sake of an example.

            Yes it may make one feel good, but it certainly does not make others (the ones whom that person is looking at). I mentioned in another comment that I’m fighting human trafficking. P o r n is a big part of trafficking. So to the one watching it, it may be something that makes that person feel good, but for those in it, they are being raped and abused beyond imagination. They are certainly not feeling good as a result. They are forced to this with a gun pointed at them. It is not as glamorous or enjoyable as it may seem.

            Does that then mean p o r n is morally correct because it makes the person watching it feel good? It wouldn’t seem like that to me. Those people say it is okay to rape other human beings as much as they want. It is okay for them to s*xually and physically abuse children. Does that make it morally correct for them if they wanted?

          • Paul

            I never said if it feels good then it is morally correct. I said if it feels good I am more likely to repeat that action as opposed to if it does not feel good. This is basic behavior psychology.

            So no, just because it might feel good to sexualize other people, doesn’t mean it is correct. Just as smoking isn’t good even though it might feel good.

            Does it make it morally correct for people to r a p e other people as long as God told them to do it? Is it ok for a father to give up his daughters to be r a p e d so long as it he is protecting angels? Is it ok to s*xually abuse children so long as they are your slaves?

          • Matthew Christian

            Forgive me for not fully understanding you and thank you for explain more (and the link below – I will be looking at it). Let me get back to you on that point. I have a very busy week and will be out of country next week. But I would love to answer your question when I get back and have more time (: Hope you understand.

  • Oh my gosh, look up livingwaters.com, answers in Genesis, or Clayton Jennings.. All really great resources!

    • Paul

      Just recognize that many, if not most, atheists are familiar with Ray Comfort and Ken Ham. These two individuals are often mentioned on Atheist blogs, videos, and books. Ray Comfort is made fun of for being the “Banana Man” where he revealed his lack of understanding of science (honestly, he seems to have just made an ignorant mistake that is easily forgivable, but nonetheless, atheists mock him for it). Ken Ham is made fun of for his Creation Museum and more recently for his Ark Encounter. Both show his lack of scientific knowledge, particularly when he shows dinosaurs coexcisiting with humans at the museum. So if you plan on using The Way of the Master or Creation arguments, be prepared for some backlash. Most atheists are well prepared for your scripted responses from these websites.

      • Well, I meant for him to learn from these people, not regurgitate material. These people have so many amazing things to say. Nobody is perfect.

        • Paul

          Emma, I agree that nobody is perfect. I respect Ray Comfort and Ken Ham. They both come across as very kind individuals. I am not attacking their character. What I meant to say was that their ideas on science are flawed. I know you will not agree with me on this. However, it is a fact that the majority of scientists do not agree with the science that Ken Ham and Ray Comfort believe in. Also, the majority of atheists are going to side with the majority of scientists and therefore atheists will not accept the science presented by Ham or Comfort. This is something that Christians should be aware of if they are going to be witnessing to atheists/agnostics.

          • Matthew Christian

            Sorry for butting in, and with all due respect, but I just wanted to point out that majority rule is not always what is correct (that is a logical fallacy called mob appeal/appeal to the people). Just because the majority of scientists or atheists don’t agree, doesn’t make it false. What ideas on science do you or others do not agree on with them and why?
            Not trying to insult you or anything like that, just wondering why you disagree with them and say that their ideas on science are flawed.

          • Paul

            …And yet you believe in Christianity because it is the most popular religion in your culture. Just because it is the most popular religion in your culture doesn’t make it correct.

            Science doesn’t work this way though. It is based off of evidence and evidence does not change based on how many people believe in it or not. I don’t care how many scientists believe in a certain theory, what matters is the evidence. I go where the majority of the evidence leads. This isn’t a flawed idea, it the best way we have found to come to proper conclusions. We examine the evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. If you have a better way to come to proper conclusions about nature, bring it forward, scientists would love to hear it.

            Also, this is the reason we use a process of peer review in science. It is the best way we know of to validate another scientist’s conclusions. Scientists review other scientists work and if it is incorrect or has errors, they call each other out on it. The majority of scientists accept evolution because when they all look together at the evidence, they cannot find one piece of evidence to contradict the findings. Not ONE piece of evidence. If you could find one piece of evidence that disproved evolution then it would be debunked, that is how science works. You don’t prove anything in science, but you can disprove. Evolution has not been disproven.

            Ken Ham believes in a young earth. That alone is just laughable and I shouldn’t need to explain to you why he is incorrect.

          • Matthew Christian

            When I replied, then I did not know that Christianity was the most popular religion. But I do not believe it just because the most amount of people do (I would still believe it even if it was not the most popular religion). But this is a different conversation.

            I agree with what you said about science based off of evidence. However, I have heard evidence that disproves evolution that have been made scientific laws (law of biogenesis, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.). Also, what is your explanation on why there have been no “intermediate” stages of animals evolving in the fossil record? To me, there is more than enough evidence for disproving evolution.

            As for you last comment on Ken Ham believing in a young earth, then I would recommend watching the commentary/movie called “Is Genesis History?”. They were able to present a lot of evidence for a young earth. And if the earth is truly a young earth, how can evolution happen if it all depends on having billions and billions of years?

          • Paul

            Just a quick question. When you were 5 years old, what made you decide to believe in God?

            If there were evidence to disprove evolution, then scientists would accept that evidence and no longer accept evolution. Scientists don’t cling to evolution like Christians cling to the Bible. If some day evolution is disproved, scientists will be very interested, curious, and intrigued. But they will not be moping around disheartened because they discovered evolution is false.

            That being said, the laws you mentioned are often referred to by Creationists to try to discredit evolution. However, these laws do not disprove evolution in the slightest.

            The Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from life. In other words, life can never come from non life. But life coming from non life has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn’t teach about life coming from non life. That is called abiogenesis and evolution is not the study of abiogenesis. Evolution is only concerned with what happens AFTER life has emerged. Evolution does not explain how life began.

            The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy (disorder) will always increase. Creationists always leave out an important part of this law. The 2nd law only applies to CLOSED systems. Since Earth is not a closed system the law does not apply to the Earth.

            There are intermediate fossils. In fact, EVERY fossil is an intermediate fossil. It is a fallacy to think that the elephant you see today is “complete”. Elephants looked different millions of years in the past and they will look different millions of years in the future. Elephants are a transitional species just as all organisms are transitional species. But I understand your perspective. My question to you is what does a transitional fossil look like? If scientists find a transitional fossil, how will it look different from a non transitional fossil? Are you looking for a fossil that if halfway fish and halfway monkey?

            If the Earth is young, say 7,000 years old, then evolution as we know it would not be possible. But we know the Earth is not young. There are trees that are close to 10,000 years old, The Earth’s seafloor is millions of years old. Sedimentary layers and fossils are millions of years old. We know that tectonic plates move at about the speed of a growing fingernail. We can clearly see that South America and Africa were once joined. Based on the distance between the two continents and the tectonic plates moving at the speed of a growing finger nail, how could the two continents ever have previously been joined if the Earth is 7,000 years old?

          • Paul

            Matthew, why did you believe in God when you were 5 years old?

            The laws you mentioned do not disprove evolution. If they did, then scientists would no longer accept evolution. The second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution because it only applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Biogensis does not disprove evolution because evolution does not address abiogenesis. Evolution is only concerned with what happens AFTER life has started.

            If the earth is young, such as being 7,000 years old, then evolution as we know it could not be true. But since we know of trees older then 7,000 years old and rocks older than that, we know the Earth is not young.

          • Rachel M.

            How do you know that some trees and rocks are older than 7,000 years old? All of the modern dating methods are not accurate because of how much assumption goes into them. I would just like to know why you are so sure that the earth is millions of years old?

            EDIT: Most creationists agree that the earth is around 6,000 years old.

          • Paul

            We know some trees are older than 7,000 years old because we have found trees that are older than 7,000 years old. We know that rocks are older than 7,000 years old because we found rocks that are over 7,000 years old. We have ice cores that are thousands of years old. We have fossils that are thousands of years old. We have geological features such as the Grand Canyon and glaciers that are thousands of years old. We see light from stars that are thousands of years old.

            There are multiple methods used to determine the dates of ancient materials. Two common ones are counting tree rings and measuring an isotope’s half-life. We know VERY precisely the half-life of isotopes and this is used to date all sorts of material. This method has never been shown to be inaccurate. Scientists use a process of peer review to check one another’s claims. During the entire history of isotopes being used to date material, no scientist has ever found an error in the dating method. The method is VERY sound. Granted, the dates that are determined from the method have various ranges to account for possible inaccuracy. But that doesn’t mean that the method is flawed.

            I don’t need to defend my position because ALL of the evidence suggests an old earth. Instead it is up to you to defend your position. If you are claiming that the earth is young, you need to present evidence of that. If you can, then you should question why scientists haven’t been able to find that same evidence. Do you think scientists are just not smart enough to figure out the “true” science? Do you think that scientists are suppressing the “true” science? How come during the peer review process, no scientists put forward the evidence to show that dating methods are not accurate?

            If you believe that the dating methods are not accurate, you need to support that claim with evidence. What evidence do you have that would show that the dating methods are inaccurate?

            Also, I don’t believe that the earth is millions of years old. It is not a belief. I have evidence that the earth is billions of years old and I accept that evidence. I don’t believe in evidence, I accept evidence.

            Also, you do realize that creation scientists are the ones that make assumptions. Creationists start with the assumption that God and the Bible are true and then they see how science and nature can fit into that assumption. Creationists are the ones that say “The only way to explain the way the Grand Canyon was formed was to look at Noah and the Flood.” Don’t you realize the assumption here? They are assuming the Flood is true. What you need to do is provide evidence for the Flood, provide evidence for the Bible, provide evidence for God, YOU shouldn’t start with YOUR assumption that God is true. YOU are the one assuming because you have no evidence to back up your claim that God is true. There is NO evidence for God. Can you provide just ONE piece of evidence to support your claim that God is real?

          • Paul

            If you believe that all the dating methods are not accurate then you need to show the scientific study that made you come to that conclusion. There is NO scientific study that exists that refutes the validity of scientific dating methods, therefore, we continue to use them because they appear to work without any error.

            Check out this article which talks about several ancient trees. http://mentalfloss.com/article/29879/6-oldest-trees-world.

          • Rachel M.

            First of all, I posted a reply to Timothy Lund above. Please read that.

            Second, I just wanted you to know that you were previously criticizing me for posting only creationist websites, yet all the sources you have provided are strong supporters of evolution. Just thought that maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to criticize me. I am totally fine with you posting these websites because I get more information on the wrong so I can better defend the right. Thanks!

          • God

            Rachel, I agree with Paul. Can you please show us the scientific study that disproves evolution? Or show us one piece of evidence to support your claim that a God exists.

          • Rachel M.

            Absolutely! Just look up Answers in Genesis or some similar website. They have awesome articles there that completely disprove evolution. Thanks for the question!

            P.S. This is off topic, but I personally think that it is disrespectful to comment as “God.” Just my personal opinion.

          • God

            Thank you for directing me to this website. I had heard of it before but never took the time to check it out. It appears very well made. I read three of the articles and will probably look through a few more when I get time. Each article is very thorough. Even though they seem well researched, I couldn’t find any that were presenting a scientific study that disproves evolution. If you can remember the name of the specific article/study you are referring to could you please direct me to it so I can look it over?

          • Rachel M.

            Ok, glad you took the time to look it over. So many don’t, so it was nice to see some positive feedback.

            Honestly, if you just search things like evolution, millions of years, etc. in their search bar, you will see plenty of articles on how evolution is incorrect.

          • Timothy Lund

            Really? What evidence do you have to back your claims? What assumptions are made? Us reality minded individuals know that carbon dating and nitrogen isotope dating via radioactive decay is standard, observable, and testable. Your argument in saying it is ridiculous to believe in a million-plus earth is not thought-out. You cannot argue one to be uncertain–yet without evidence, claim that there is a young earth.

          • Rachel M.

            Let me begin with the method of radiometric dating: Some radioactive elements undergo decay, which changes the nucleus of the atom. If scientists know the initial and final amount of radioactive material contained in a substance, and he also knows the rate (a.k.a. half-life) of decay, he can determine how old the substance is.

            Now for the problems with the method: In nearly all analyses performed using the radiometric dating technique, the initial amount of radioactive material must be guessed, since no one was around to actually measure it. This has led to many highly erroneous results, such as living snails that “died” 27,000 years ago, and rocks from recently erupted volcanoes being dated millions and even billions of years old.

          • John Chang

            The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.

  • Meow Meow

    I have found through personal experience that the best way to witness is by example. Actions are stronger than words. If you look at the story of Jesus and his life, you will see that he witnessed by example. He backed up his words with his actions.

    For example, in Mathew 18 it says “21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”
    22Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.” NIV

    Jesus backed up what he said by forgiving the entire world and even died on the cross to save us.

    However, while we do our actions, they must not be for the purpose of glorifying ourselves, but to glorify God. Mathew 23 speaks a lot about this topic.

    We could tell someone that Jesus says in Mathew chapter 19:

    “16Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
    17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
    18“Which ones?” he inquired.
    Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.” NIV

    But what good would we do if we murder people with our words through bullying and gossiping. What good would we do if we knowingly immersed ourselves in inappropriate books and movies that cause us to struggle ( For example, The Fault in our Stars), but told others not to commit adultery.

    We could tell someone to honor their father and mother, but what good could we do if we gossip and curse about our own parents behind their backs. The same applies for you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, and so on and so forth.

    I’m not saying that we have to be perfect and never ever make a mistake. Because we’re not perfect and do make many mistakes. I know I do!

    But what I am saying is that we should try to recognize our mistakes and learn from them, forgive others when they make mistakes themselves, and try to role model God’s amazing grace and compassion to the best of our ability.

    And even if we can’t convince someone that God is real, loves us, and cares about us so much that he sent his only son to die on the cross to save us from our sins, we can still place our trust in God to work in their life while we “love your neighbor as your self.”

    This does not mean we have to agree with them at all, but when we disagree, we should do it in a kind, godly way, upholding the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

    Just as God loves us all unconditionally, we should love our neighbor unconditionally. Whether our neighbor is Christian, atheist, or another religion, we should love them like Jesus loves everyone, unconditionally. We should treat others how we would want to be treated, with kindness and respect.

    By doing these things, we are putting actions with our our words and showing this broken world the love and hope they so desperately need.

    Hope this helps. And thank you to anyone who took the time to read this very long comment.
    😀 Have a blessed day.😀

  • Angela Pycroft

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Reb thread with more comments on it…. lol. I guess I opened up a popular topic! 😛

  • My dad shared a small quandary he recently faced of something similar. I think the way to go is just to find an easy, middle, common ground. Nothing too big, let him know that you’re both more alike than you are unalike, and go from there. Maybe the common ground is a food you both like, a band, a book, or an activity. After you establish that, there might be another way and opportunity that will open up for you to testify, one that wouldn’t have opened up otherwise. Just be patient, and let him know that he’s your first priority and not just a box to be checked off on your “to witness to” list. Let him know you see him as a person, so he doesn’t feel like you’re only being friends with him to convert him.
    Good luck, I can’t wait to see where this will go for you!!

  • Jesus

    This conversation is pointless. I wrote a book that said I am God. Since I said in my book that my book is true you can know that it is true. End. Of. Duscussion.

    • Jesus

      unless you sprinkle some water on you head while saying my name I will spank your butt for eternity. The world is pretty so you have no excuse not to follow this command.

      • AnonymousYo

        “Jesus,” have you read The Case for Grace by Lee Strobel? It’s short, and you might like it.

  • Isaac Valdes

    Most of the people I witness to usually claim atheism or agnosticism. Either way both always have doubts about what they believe. once i witnessed to a guy that claimed to be an atheist. His mother is a Bhudist, his father is a Jew, and his grandparents are catholics. Personally, I think he was just simply confused because of all of the religious influences in his life. He said that he believed that there is a possibility of a god, but he needed more evidence to proove which “religion” is more fact and scientifically based. I have 2 pieces of advice for you: 1- Talk to God about it. God put you in this guy’s life for a reason, only he knows how to reach him. Ask Him for wisdom on how to approach witnessing to him. 2- Get to know him. Everyone loves to have someone listen to them (just a fact). By listening to him you can learn how he thinks, responds and acts so you can relate to him. By relating to him, you can present the gospel to him in a way that he is responsive to it and understands it.
    I hope this will help you in this challenge. Uncertainty is one of the hardest battles to fight in evangelism(whether you or the person being witnessed to is uncertain.) Best of luck.

  • GodGirl

    You should start by pointing out facts in the Bible to back up your argument. People can’t argue with the Bible.

    • God

      The Bible says a that all scripture is able to be rebuked.

      • Rachel M.

        No it doesn’t. It does say in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

        • God

          I am reviewing the verse and see now that I was misunderstanding what it said. Thank you for correcting me.

        • Megan S

          In your opinion, does this verse apply to the Old Testament as well?

          • Rachel M.

            This is a tricky question that a lot of people use to trap Christians. (Please note that I am not accusing you of this.) The verse specifically says, “ALL Scripture…”. Moses wrote the Law — Genesis – Deuteronomy — and many others wrote the other books of the Old Testament. However, God told them what to say, just as He directed the New Testament writers. So the books of the Old Testament were given by inspiration of God, just as the verse says. The parts on slavery and other touchy subjects today don’t apply to us, however we can still learn from them. So the verse does apply to the Old Testament, even if certain laws no longer pertain to us. I hope that answers your question.

          • Megan S

            How do you determine if a book was inspired by God and how would this look different then a book that was not inspired by God?

          • Samuel

            Well you’ll notice that there’s no contradictions in the Bible. It may seem so at face value, but if you study it there’s actually not one. But the Koran, for example (just an example, I’m not targeting Muslims), says not to kill people. Then it says to kill the infidel. No sense.

          • Megan S

            But there are lots of books without contradictions, how come the Bible is inspired by God but the others are not?

          • Samuel

            Name one.

          • Megan S

            C.S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity does not have any contradictions. Can we then conclude that it is God inspired and part of scripture?

          • AnonymousYo

            Megan, that’s a thoughtful point. Lack of contradiction doesn’t infer truth. I don’t believe any of the scriptural authors made that claim. When canon was formed, we Christians were concerned more with eyewitness accounts and Apostolic authority. If you’re interested you might read Eusebius’ church history. It’s sometimes flawed, like my comments, I’m sure, but it really does give some background to the formation of Biblical canon.

    • John Chang

      What do you mean “facts”? Do you mean historical facts, scientific facts, or something else?

  • Samuel

    I’m really inexperienced on this subject (witnessing) as I don’t generally have much opportunity for it, but it sounds like he’s questioning the infallibility of the Bible. In which case I think it’s a bad idea to point to verses, but rather point to the fact that despite it having over 20 authors over the course of 6-7,000 years, no part of it contradicts another. There are other arguments as well, you might look at the work of Lee Strobel and Ken Ham. If he questions how we know there were that many authors, etc., I would at that point consult a pastor or someone like that (which I’m sure you’ve already done.)

    • John Chang

      Actually there’s a whole list of contradictions, such as Jesus’ geneology in Matthew and Luke, different ways as to how Judas killed himself, and differing accounts as to how Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus.

      • Samuel

        There’s only one account of Paul meeting Jesus in the Bible, but if you mean historically then I understand.
        The gospels differ slightly because each one was a separate eyewitness account. For instance, and this may not be how it happened, it’s just an example: Jesus could heal a lame beggar and say “Rise up and walk.” John was there for it and wrote it down verbatim. But Matthew may not have been, so he heard it from Peter who wasn’t there either who heard it from John. Then Matthew writes it as just, “Rise up” or “Walk” or maybe extra words. You can find more on this subject by looking up J. Warner Wallace, an ex-homicide detective. But none of the differences are contradictions, and they’re all exactly what we should expect from four separate eyewitness accounts. I’ll have to look at the genealogy discrepancies you mention.

        • Andrew

          The Geneologies in Matthew and Luke are different for a very specific reason. One tells the family line of Joseph, and the other of Mary. This is to show that both of them were descended from David, I think.

        • John Chang

          That makes sense.

        • Megan S

          What are your thoughts on the two accounts of Creation?

          • Samuel

            Two accounts of Creation? There’s only one.

          • Megan S

            Can you elaborate on that?

          • Samuel

            Chapter 1 and the first part of Chapter 2 in Genesis.

          • Megan S

            Can you explain why both chapters only teach one account of creation?

          • Samuel

            Chapter 1 lays out the creation process. Chapter 2 states the creation of man and woman.

          • Megan S

            Why was the creation process separate from the creation of man and women?

      • Samuel

        Honestly, if there were contradictions in the Bible, then the Bible wouldn’t be trustworthy, and therefore we wouldn’t be able to have complete trust in Christ or even believe in the first place for that matter. If you believe there are contradictions in the Bible, then I don’t know how you keep your Christian life going. If I noticed one contradiction that I couldn’t explain in the Bible, I’d probably not be a Christian any more.

  • Samuel

    Lee Strobel would be a good resource for historical evidences and such (though I believe he did some scientific studies as well,) while Ken ham would likely be better for the scientific stuff.

    • John Chang

      What type of scientific stuff?

      • Samuel

        Technicalities and proof of the flood, carbon dating, fossils, all that jazz. I don’t really use his repertoire but I definitely recommend it and I would use it in arguments or debates if I were ever caught in one.

        • John Chang

          what proof of the flood?

          • Samuel

            Seriously? Are we going to run in question circles? I don’t study that stuff, so I can’t answer that question. This isn’t to say I can’t defend my beliefs, just not in that area. There are others however who can.

          • John Chang

            So you state that there is evidence and then you don’t give the evidence. Great paper tiger.

          • Samuel

            Okay, you want proof? Go look up Kent Hovind and watch some of his videos about the Flood and a number of other things. And Kent hovind isn’t the only one who does this stuff.

            All I was saying is that I haven’t studied and don’t study Creation science. That’s not my area. That area belongs to other people. While I believe I should, I haven’t gotten that far yet. I feel that I need to reach the “lost sheep”—Those who THINK they’re saved because they’re nice, or they did x, y, and z, or God’s merciful, all that stuff, but really aren’t. I don’t feel called to reach the agnostics and atheists (though they definitely need salvation as well), so I devote my time to what I’m going to need, which is Biblical knowledge and not “proof”.

          • Megan S

            Would it be correct to say that you believe God isn’t true but you don’t know why you believe that?

          • Samuel

            No, it wouldn’t. You can see my opinion there in another discussion titled “Why do you believe in God”. (I was using a different account then so you won’t be able to see it through my profile, but I’m still Samuel over there.)

          • Emma

            Hey Megan. In answer to your question “What does Jesus say are the requirements for salvation?” here are some quotes from the Bible:

            “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
            Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
            Romans 10:13 promises, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
            And Romans 10:9 also says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

            There are no actual “requirements” for salvation, other than simply admitting that you’re a sinner, believing that God sent Jesus to die for you, and asking Jesus to come into your heart.

          • Megan S

            In which area can you defend your beliefs?

          • Samuel

            I can defend my beliefs in doctrinal areas such as baptism, predestination(but I hate debating that topic), “requirements” for salvation (hint: there are none) and similar. I know a little about creation science, but I’d prob get wrecked in a debate with an atheist who actually studies his side of the debate.

          • Megan S

            What does Jesus say are the requirements of salvation?

          • Samuel

            In short? Accept his sacrifice and turn to him.

            Arguments could be made against this, which I’m all for talking about, but I don’t have time right now. Maybe later.

          • Megan S

            Can you offer me quotes attributed to Jesus where he explains the requirements of salvation?

    • Megan S

      In your opinion, what is the best piece of historical evidence presented by Lee Stobel? What is the best scientific evidence provided by Ken Ham?

      • Samuel

        Hmm…For Lee Strobel, I would say his book “The Case for Christ” is probably the most irrefutable. In Ken Ham’s case I would say his argument for why distant starlight doesn’t prove the earth is old.

        I like Kent Hovind better than Ken Ham though, because Ham tends to use an “It’s in the Bible, it’s true” approach, which is fine if you’re talking to a Christian, but atheists don’t believe the Bible is true so attacking them with it in an argument won’t do jack.

        • Megan S

          Which piece of evidence from his book is the best?

          Is it true then that Ken Ham’s best evidence is no evidence at all?

          • Samuel

            I wouldn’t say there’s any one piece of evidence that’s the “best”. The whole book is good.

            I wouldn’t say that’s true, he does use good arguments sometimes. But he just tends to use the wrong approach sometimes.

          • Megan S

            Would you please offer me one of Ken Ham’s good arguments then?

            Can you give me just one piece of good evidence from the book?

          • Samuel

            Ham’s argument that distant starlight doesn’t prove the earth is old. I’ll get some info in just a sec, I’ll have to go grab the book again.

            One of Strobel’s points was that when Jesus was born (or when he died, I don’t remember which), the calendar started over again, which is why we live in 2017 now. So if Jesus never existed, how did we get the year 2017? That’s quite a feat if he never existed. This is just one of many arguments.

          • Megan S

            Would it be correct to say that the best reason to believe that Jesus excisted is because we live in the year 2017?

          • Samuel

            No, it wouldn’t. I just haven’t read the book in a while so i don’t remember most of it.

          • Megan S

            Then what is the best evidence to believe that Jesus existed?

  • Linnea Rainbow

    There’s this documentary on Netflix called “Is Genesis History?” and albeit it is long and is a little over detailed, it is an amazing resource for scientifically explaining creation and christianity. (idk if someone already mentioned this, i didnt read all the comments.)

    • Megan S

      What is the best piece of evidence provided in this documentary?

      • Linnea Rainbow

        Well each part of the documentary covers a different place or event in Genesis, but my favorite piece of evidence that it mentions is the Grand Canyon. It’s made up of a lot of geological layers and, basing off of evolution, each layer should have different types of fossils from animals “millions” of years apart. Well, actually, the fossils in those layers are scientifically proven to be animals from the same time period but totally different locations. How could, idk (this is just an example here) a kangaroo fossil be right next to a guppy? The only logical explanation of this is that both animals were swept up in the same flood and fossilized instantly. Another one that I like is the layers of the Canyon itself. If they had eroded naturally, they would be really jagged and uneven and just a total mess. However, the layers are flat and hardly jagged at all, proving that a massive, rushing body of water came and cut all those layers at the same time.
        Lol well there’s my answer, sorry it’s so long. If you have any other more in depth questions, I recommend going to the website ( http://www.isgenesishistory.com ) They are better at the sciency stuff than I am :) Hope this helped tho

        • Megan S

          Can you explain why there are only two options to explain the Grand Canyon? Why is it that either The Flood caused the Grand Canyon or Evolution cause it? Could there perhaps be a third or fourth option that doesn’t require evolution or The Flood?

          • Linnea Rainbow

            Well I’m definitely not saying that those are the only two reasons for the Grand Canyon, I was just using that as an example of a way to help prove that the flood (and Creation, ergo there is a God) actually happened. After some googling, the main consensus appears to be that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River over like 17 million years… Or that a catastrophic water event carved it immediately. I don’t know if there are other theories at the moment, although I bet its an interesting topic. As I mentioned previously, there are several websites and resources that offer both sides that you may want to check out if you are real curious about this issue. (Also this book called “Defeating Darwinism by opening minds”, it’s amazing and filled with arguments from scientists from both sides)

  • I was having a similar plight a while back. I had an Agnostic friend who was admantly NOT going to turn to God. When he’s responding with things like ‘anything is possible’, it may be best to just show God’s love through your daily activities. When an opportunity comes to talk about the Gospel, by all means, take it! Just don’t be too forceful. That’s my advice.

    My friend, by the way, is now a Christian and goes to church with me.

    • Megan S

      How do you show God’s love through your daily activities?

      • By listening through tough times, being willing to share your thoughts if he asks a question. Sadly, his faith wasn’t genuine as I was unfortunately told shortly after this response was written.

        Also, don’t get hung up on issues like Revelation, and try to avoid discussing issues like LGBT and such. This is because if you immediately jump to issues like universalism and homosexuality, it can drive people away.

  • Carrie

    Hi Angela,

    For a bit of background, I was raised Methodist, but due to various forces in my life considered myself agnostic from around the ages of 14-20. At the beginning of my Sophomore year at MIT, I decided for no reason in particular (or so I thought then) to attend a service at a nearby church. It was a slow process for me to come back to Christianity. Many aspects of the faith, in particular the dictum to “love your neighbor as you love yourself”, resonated; however, when I was agnostic, I had come to associate the church with not much more than a bunch of hateful shouting. Slowly, I was overwhelmed by the love and kindness of those at the church, and I could feel that God was making me a kinder person.

    My advice in reaching out to this friend would to be a witness to Christ by showing him love, by showing him that Christianity is centered around Christ’s agape love. I would avoid trying to sell him on issues that are debated even within the faith community (evolution, members of the lgbt+ community, the virgin birth, etc.) and instead focus on what is most central to our faith (Mark 12:29-31).

    As for belief in God, I’d highly recommend C.S. Lewis’s book Mere Christianity. It is a highly logical book that quelled my concerns about an omnipotent, omniscient force.

    As for belief in the Resurrection, N.T. Wright makes a compelling historical argument in the book he wrote jointly with Marcus Borg. To summarize, other men contemporary to Jesus of Nazareth gathered followings during their lifetimes (take for example, John the Baptist); however, these followings died out within a generation or so. Additionally, in any other case at the time, Jesus’s brother James would have been named the new head of the movement. Christianity’s mere existence proves that something extraordinary occurred, and based upon several accounts, it is most probable that this occurrence was some form of resurrection of Jesus. (I would not push him on what form it took, as that remains a topic of debate within the church.)

    This, of course, is only based on my personal experience and what helped me to reconcile things I know in my heart to be true with a faith that I also know in my heart to be true.

Back to Top ↑