It'd be nice to have your post too so as to reference it to what this person is talking about.
First I would ask him to expand on what specific educational and government programs are being directly influenced by atheism in such a way that it favors atheism and atheists. Most likely he will respond with something along the lines of "taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance" or "removing commandments from government buildings." Instill the difference between laws/programs that favor atheism and laws/programs that are secular. A secular Pledge of Allegiance would be a pledge without a reference in favor to any god or no gods, where as a pledge favoring atheism would have reference to god not existing. Same with the government buildings. A government building that has the Ten Commandments outside is obviously favoring Christianity. A government building that has a plaque that says "God does not exist" would be obviously favoring atheism. A government building with no references to any belief/disbelief is secular.
I would rather have unanswered questions than false answers. Point out the many fallacies of the Bible that we know because of science today. The Earth is not 6,000 years old. The sky is not a dome, above which is Heaven. Ask him why other peoples' interpretations of the Bible are incorrect but his are poignant and accurate. He may say that the Bible is supposed to be read within the context of the time, society, and culture it was born in but there are plenty of other Christians that believe that the book's message is timeless.
This is where a reference to your post would make things a bit easier. I would like to know what you are presenting but essentially I can tell you this is just a load of horse shit. The functional origins/material origins and scientific concordism/non-concordism is all ways to split hairs and throw you off your track. Concordism isn't even a real fucking word. I Googled the word after spellcheck told me it was wrong, the only place you see it are in Christian scientific journals. They teach people this shit like it's real fucking science terms and then they go out and use it thinking they are sounding real fucking smart saying it.
What fucking evidence? Guess what, I have overwhelming evidence that at one point the planet Jupiter sprouted legs, squatted down, and shat out Pluto. From Wiki:
Until he can provide you with that overwhelming evidence instead of just talking about it, and it should come from a peer reviewed journal, tell him he can blow it out his ass.
Quote:First of all, when you talk about tolerance and saying that you are fine with people believing whatever they want to, I have to say that atheism has crossed the line even further than any religious group out there (except maybe Shiiete Islam). Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennet (especially Dawkins) are easily the most militant group out there who care nothing about forcing their beliefs on other people and they even extrapolate it out into our education system and governmental procedures. If anything, Christianity is doing a bad job at forcing their beliefs on other people, aside from a select few.
First I would ask him to expand on what specific educational and government programs are being directly influenced by atheism in such a way that it favors atheism and atheists. Most likely he will respond with something along the lines of "taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance" or "removing commandments from government buildings." Instill the difference between laws/programs that favor atheism and laws/programs that are secular. A secular Pledge of Allegiance would be a pledge without a reference in favor to any god or no gods, where as a pledge favoring atheism would have reference to god not existing. Same with the government buildings. A government building that has the Ten Commandments outside is obviously favoring Christianity. A government building that has a plaque that says "God does not exist" would be obviously favoring atheism. A government building with no references to any belief/disbelief is secular.
Quote:The second thing is you say it is a bold claim to say that an ancient text is infallible and inspired as the “Word of God” but what many people have done is taken the text out of context and overcomplicate it with false interpretations. The Bible is not that easy to understand as infallible if you take it in the sociocultural context that it was meant to be taken in. Also, you have a bigger problem on your hands because science and history does not even come close to having the ability to answer certain questions on the “how” and “why” of really anything, simply because science and history are not able to answer those kinds of questions. You are leaving yourself with a lot of unanswered questions, which I think is a very uncomfortable step of faith.
I would rather have unanswered questions than false answers. Point out the many fallacies of the Bible that we know because of science today. The Earth is not 6,000 years old. The sky is not a dome, above which is Heaven. Ask him why other peoples' interpretations of the Bible are incorrect but his are poignant and accurate. He may say that the Bible is supposed to be read within the context of the time, society, and culture it was born in but there are plenty of other Christians that believe that the book's message is timeless.
Quote:Thirdly, on the point of evolution and its compatibility of the Bible is to be taken from a completely different vantage point than what you presented. The length of the days in Genesis and the historicity of Adam do not matter, as the Genesis text is an account of functional origins, NOT material origins. You are presenting scientific concordism, and I believe in non-concordism, which takes care of these “issues” that you see in the text.
This is where a reference to your post would make things a bit easier. I would like to know what you are presenting but essentially I can tell you this is just a load of horse shit. The functional origins/material origins and scientific concordism/non-concordism is all ways to split hairs and throw you off your track. Concordism isn't even a real fucking word. I Googled the word after spellcheck told me it was wrong, the only place you see it are in Christian scientific journals. They teach people this shit like it's real fucking science terms and then they go out and use it thinking they are sounding real fucking smart saying it.
Quote:Finally, your history on the exile and Egypt is just simply not true. We have overwhelming amounts of evidence in ancient artifacts and cities and other items and literature absolutely confirm that this event took place. So we have found TONS of credibility to this story.
What fucking evidence? Guess what, I have overwhelming evidence that at one point the planet Jupiter sprouted legs, squatted down, and shat out Pluto. From Wiki:
Quote:A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". A number of theories have been put forward to account for the origins of the Israelites, and despite differing details they agree on Israel's Canaanite origins. The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite, and almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.
Until he can provide you with that overwhelming evidence instead of just talking about it, and it should come from a peer reviewed journal, tell him he can blow it out his ass.
