Friday, November 6, 2020

Internet Debates with Atheists are Seldom Useful

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Christians are supposed to be ready to give reasons for the hope that is in us, and many feel they are witnessing for the faith in various online forums. However, one has to discern when time is being wasted.

Made at Pablo, quote source is here
As I have stated several times in the past, the word debate is used very loosely. Nowadays it can mean a screaming match, a structured exchange of points and rebuttals, an exchange of comments in various online forums, and all sorts of things. Let's consider internet activity.

Minerals-to-mocker evolution is a cornerstone of atheism and for other rejections of the authority of God's Word. Although what is presented as scientific evidence is based on faith, assumptions, redefining words, circular reasoning, and poor research, evolutionists prefer to defend it no matter how foolish it looks. That is because admitting that evidence supports the Bible is infandous.

Readers of my other sites may recall that I have dealt with atheists who demand proof that God exists. That'll be the day! God is holy and infinite, our Creator and Redeemer, and professing Christians should never allow The Mighty Atheist™ to put God on trial. (This is a problem that I have with the Intelligent Design movement.) Sinful humans are in to position to use their corrupted "wisdom" to decide if God exists and is worthy of worship! No, they should be accepting the evidence that they have been given (Rom. 1:18-23), humbling themselves, and repenting.

One atheopath was asking questions and I gave some answers about creation and other things. Then he attacked with, "But you still can't prove your [G]od exists". That jasper did not want answers, but only to waste my time and to troll.

Note as well that when given any sort of evidence to consider, they refuse to read articles, watch videos, and so on. This is often packed into the genetic fallacy where they reject something from a creationist source, and use the loaded term, "valid scientific journal", which is a kind of ad hominem and a disingenuous redefinition that means they require something that cannot happen: creation science presented in a secular scientific journal

Elsewhere, I encountered the atheist mentioned again and asked, "What constitutes proof in your eyes?" The answer was, "[W]hat proof do you have, and I will evaluate it". As I have said, they have all the evidence they need. Let me add that these misotheists are not going to coerce God into making an extra effort to jump through hoops and accede to their demands. Also, if they want scientific or empirical proof that God exists, they are committing the category error. That is, God is Spirit, and the Creator is not made of the creation. Someone once asked, "What color litmus paper would you use to test for God?"

There was a time when most professing atheists were not only honest enough to admit that they believed there is no God (or gods), but would at least tolerate people who did not share in their disbelief. Today, mockery and ridicule of Christians and creationists are militant.

I have mentioned one Page of angry atheopaths whose only purpose is to share Facebook posts to their own Page for the purpose of ridicule. (The owners of Pages shared from usually are given an electronic notification of these shares.) An Admin at The Question Evolution Project shared a post about vestigial organs, and the atheopath Admin acted in the usual manner of mocking without reading and showing herself to be a great fool again:

Used under federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
If she was well-read on her own evolutionary mythology as well as real science, she may not have made such ridiculous remarks. Also, biblical creation science organizations have taught extensively in videos, books, articles, and such about how vestigial organs/structures no longer please Papa Darwin.

Another hatetheist joined in with an exceptionally dishonest comment. It contained truth, but was designed to mislead others and make creationists look foolish:

Used under federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
He ignored the fact that doctors did remove the appendix (as well as tonsils and adenoids, by the way) because they were allegedly evolutionary leftovers — and caused real or at least potential harm for the patients. Hail Darwin, blessed be! He has hindered medical science many times.

Such bigotry and hatred, along with utter irrationality, are reasons I do not spend time seeking out dens of misotheists. There are times when I may encounter someone who has genuine questions, that is a different matter and I will trust the leading of the Holy Spirit to know whether or not I am wasting my time.

Let me show you these selected examples of visceral hatred from an individual:

Used under federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
Have you ever noticed that no other professing atheists chastise the greatest offenders? I believe it's because they tacitly approve of such actions. If a professing Christian acted in such a manner, other Christians are likely to rebuke him and say he or she is being dishonoring to the Lord.

Also, I can't help but puzzle and puzzle and puzzle until my puzzler is sore about their extreme hatred. They hate us because they hate God who lives within us, that's a biblical fact. I think they are pricked in their spirits because biblical creation science offers convincing and compelling evidence against universal common descent evolution and affirming recent creation. That would ultimately mean that God is the Creator and he makes the rules!

Let's saddle up and ride to another county.

There is a site called Revolution Against Evolution that is censored on Fazebook. Every once in a while, a link or site is censored. If I want to share something, I can couch it in my own material. That's the story now, and we'll go to a link that inspired my own article (above).

Dr. Jerry Bergman essentially resigned from engaging with professing atheists online. They are obstreperous, and use a prairie schooner-full of logical fallacies. Stay on topic and discuss the material in a civil and rational manner? Ain't happenin', Hoss.

Unfortunately, although Dr. Bergman has given creationists and Intelligent Design proponents a great deal of excellent material, I have problems with his approach. He needs to be less hesitant about affirming the Bible and learn how to use presuppositional apologetics.

He debated an atheist, who cleaned his clock. Not because of evidence, but a presuppositionalist is unlikely to have fallen for distractions, manipulation, and poor logic. Bergman clearly knows the science aspects of what he was presenting, but needed to learn about worldviews and countering logical fallacies.
I now rarely involve myself in internet discussion rooms with Darwinists (many of whom are, in Stephen J. Gould’s terms, “Darwin Fundamentalists”) because, in the vast majority of cases, they end up viciously attacking, or at the least making fun of, all Darwin critics (and, not uncommonly, all theists).  Feedback from critics is enormously important and is a key to how science functions (called peer review), but I have found critics present very little helpful information on these chat rooms or web sites—although occasionally very useful criticism is provided.  Much more common are cute putdowns and a flow of hateful derogatory sarcasm (note the comments about Darwin skeptic “Charlie Wagner,” below).

You can read the rest (I recommend just skimming the comments of hatetheists, they are common boilerplate material) by clicking on "Why I No Longer Debate Darwinists in Internet Chat Rooms". You may also like some other articles by Dr. Jerry at this link. Oh, and that "goosebumps are vestigial" canard? Here's a quick answer:

Labels