UNREFUTED | UNANSWERED | TRICKS | BIAS | EVIL | VERSUS | EHRMAN | HOME

One of the favorite debate games the atheists like to play was bringing up some other religion, and trying to say since I did not believe it, I should not believe Christianity. I answered these for a while, and finally realized there was no limit to the number of times they could use that trick, and demanded, that instead we compare what I believed to what they believed. They refused to meet me in that arena. Here are some of the exchanges we had regarding comparing Christianity to other belief systems.

Before they were done we had reviewed or touched on Muslims, Jainists, Sikhs, Buddhists, Eastern Orthodoxy, Zoroastrians, Zeus, Mithra, Mormonism, Catholics, Hindus and a dozen others. They most often brought up Mohamedism, Mithraism and Mormonism. Although some of these are Christian sects, the parts of their beliefs that were brought up were things neither I nor the Atheists believed. There was no reason to talk about these issues since neither of us believed them, but they would not shut up about them. Some samples are shown below.

MOSLEMS

Atheist Claim: Moslems worship the same god you do. Mohammed was hundreds of years after Christ. Why aren't you a Moslem? Why don't you believe the Koran?

My response: Abraham is indeed the ancestor of many of the people who practice these religions. I am aware that Moslems claim to be worshippers of Abraham's God. I disagree with this assertion, so I am not going to defend the Koran or what Moslems think. The Koran contradicts the Bible. The Bible is true. Why would I believe something that contradicts the truth?

Atheist Response: Many Jews, not accepting Jesus or the trinity, would say you don't worship the same god of theirs. After having read the Koran, I find Islam closer to the Jewish doctrines and traditions than Christianism claims to be.

My Response: I agree with your first statement. So what? Your second assertion is begging for some supporting evidence.

Atheist: Here's a better question (which might help you understand my doubt in re many of Christianity's claims); are those that believed - within a short time after Mohamed - that an angel of the god of Abraham visited him, to be discounted because they have no evidence that such a thing actually happened, or because Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. deny that it happened? It all comes down to evidence. If my brother strongly believed something for which he has no evidence, I wouldn't just take his word for it, simply because he can quote a bunch of other people that also have no evidence.

My response: I'm a big supporter of the idea of evidence being a good thing on which to base conclusions. I do believe that Mohamed was probably visited by an angel. His actions and obvious conviction support such a view. I just think the angel lied to him about who he was. As far as evidence goes I think you are measuring the evidence based on what you would like for it to be, instead of what it is reasonable to expect in a given situation. If the scriptures are all a big lie, how do you explain the existence of Christianity?

JAINISTS, SIKHS & BUDDHISTS

In one of my attempts to get them justify their morality I said, "Without God as the referee who decides what is right and wrong? Why not do as the Spartans did and expose babies that seem defective to the elements and let them die? Why not do as the Apaches did and torture animals and humans for the fun of it?"

Atheist Reply: The Jainists, Sikhs, and Buddhists, among several other societies in history, have developed compassionate moral systems without the Jewish god dictating right and wrong to them. People are perfectly able to discern for themselves which actions are obviously favorable and which are obviously harmful. Besides, your chosen referee has mandated massacre and horror in several instances. The ancient Jews, supposedly led by the supreme god, repeatedly killed thousands of their neighbors. No amount of divine authority can make such genocide morally right. If divine direction wasn't able to make the chosen people a bit better than the average troglodyte, why should I trust my life to that particular god?

My response: I do not dispute that there are many people in the world who know how to behave properly towards each other, and do so. However, I do not see how you can claim any moral superiority for them over anyone else. On what basis could you make such a claim? I look at them and say they "behave properly" because it agrees with what God says they should do. What is their basis for their choices? Besides, behaving well towards one another is only half of what we are supposed to do. We are also supposed to worship God. You accuse God of immoral killings on a massive scale. What is your evidence for this? You just said a few paragraphs ago that death is just an inconvenient fact of life. Now you say it is wrong for God to cause it. I know why I think it is wrong to kill people, but I do not understand why you think so, and especially how you can say it is wrong for God to end someone's life.

Atheist Response: Because I am "people" as well. Knowing this, I will not kill, because I have the wish to live, and I understand that any other being who is like me will naturally have that same wish. If I respect myself as the living creature that I am, I will naturally respect any creatures that are like me, for they also wish to live. The rest of moral laws may follow from here.

My response: I am not following your logic at all. How does, "I will not kill," follow from "I wish to live." In fact, if the other person is perceived as a danger, it is more logical that "I will kill," follows from "I wish to live." I am not sure how you can conclude that all others always wish to live, when suicide is one of the leading causes of death. Even if you did not mean "all," it sounds as if your morality would support assisted suicide. I do not see the link between respecting yourself, and respecting others similar to you. I suspect your last statement would be true if we could somehow establish this foundation, but so far we haven't even dug a good trench to pour the footing.

EASTERN ORTHODOX

Atheist Claim: Eastern Orthodox Christianism teaches that everybody goes to heaven, like it or not.

My Response: Where is such a belief supported in the Bible?

ODYSSEY, POPOL VUH & THE NORSE SAGAS

Atheist Claim: No feature of the Bible would ever lead me to consider it a single book. All that is preached about its alleged internal consistency and harmony crumbles under the weight of evidence. The Bible is so obviously incoherent and contradictory that it has the mark of human invention all over it. The Bible is no more and no less valid than the Odyssey, the Popol Vuh, or the Norse sagas. It's part of the mythological tradition of humankind. That's where its value reaches, and no more. The intention of each author is sufficiently clear to me when I read each book in the Bible. You can rest assured that, when evaluating the validity of the texts, I always take into account what reasons the author could have had for saying what he said, what suppositions he was defending, to whom he was writing, what he expected from his readers, what mythological tradition produced those beliefs, and who could eventually benefit from the public acceptance of such ideas.

My response: Wonderful! All you lack is to drop your pre-conceived notions of what God must be like, to abandon your anti-supernatural bias, and to read it again. The Bible claims to be a collection of testimonies of people, who all had encounters with God. If you will read it in that light, instead of projecting on it some expectation of magical properties, it is amazingly convincing.

ZOROASTRIANISM

Atheist: There is as much evidence for Zoroastrianism as Christianity

My response: I researched Zoroastrianism several decades ago. At this point in time I no longer remember its claims or why I rejected them. (I do remember being a little disappointed that it had nothing to do with Zorro. I think I was still a teenager.) If a practitioner of it should ever enter my circle of acquaintances I might re-visit it, but until that happens I have no interest.

Atheist: Well, this seems to be a pattern for you. There are a number of questions that have been presented to you (by various panel members), for which your answers tend to have an "I already know everything I want to know" mixed with a little "I don't care about this matter" kind of attitude, rather than ACTUALLY addressing the issue. In all honesty, it is quite annoying. It makes you sound like a pompous twit that can think of a dozen things he'd rather be doing than giving a logical reason why he thinks his religion is any better than the others.

My response: It is possible that I am a pompous twit. In fact, you are not the first to suggest that I might be, although I am usually described with less politeness. I really do not mean to annoy you. I am sorry if I do. However, I should not be expected to investigate anything beyond my level of interest. I agreed to be your Christian whipping boy not your research assistant. There are in fact, many things about which I already know everything I want to know and/or about which I do not care. Shouldn't I be the best judge of where to focus my intellectual efforts? I address the issues which are brought up based on my level of information and interest. I believe I have done very well at giving logical reasons for what I believe. I am happy to discuss Atheism vs. Christianity. Do you really think it would be fruitful for you and me to discuss Zoroastrianism? Neither of us believes it.

Atheist: Only as an example. I mean, we could really pick any religion that is similar to Christianity in one way or another. Also, if you bring up a topic, and I give a rebuttal, you can either respond to it or delete that section in your response. Just saying you don't care to investigate the matter is like saying "Well, I don't care if the earth isn't really flat, I don't want to do the research necessary to find out if I'm right or not."

My response: You analogy suggests you believe me to be not only a pompous twit but also ignorant and lazy. Was that your intent? Just because I do not wish to become your disciple and let you direct my learning and research does not mean that I am ignorant or lazy. Instead of comparing Christianity with some other religion that neither of us believes, why don't we compare what I believe with what you believe? There thousands of religions in the world. If you want to take a tour of them, please, leave me out. I have better things to do with my time than explain what is different about what I believe and what someone else, that neither of us knows, believes. All religions have some features in common. It proves nothing. It would be better to compare my truth claims with your truth claims than those of some third party. What do you believe is true? I am not free to delete anything. I get accused of dishonesty and cowardice when I do.

ZEUS - THE CHIEF GREEK GOD

Atheist: Do you believe Zeus existed?

My response: Probably Zeus did not exist.

Atheist: Probably???? You're leaving the probability open? That's the kindest I've seen a Christian be toward other gods.

My response: Zeus may have been some ancient political or religious leader. Or he could have been a demonic apparition. The similarities between many of the various ancient pantheons is striking. I think it possible that there is some historical basis for them. The days of the week, almost always seven days, are usually associated with the same god or goddess, which in turn is associated with same planet or star, and a corresponding god or spirit. For instance Mars is the Roman god of war and is associated with what we call Thursday. Thor is the Norse God of war and is associated with the planet we call Mars and Thursday, etc. Because almost every culture has a similar arrangement it points to a common beginning.

Atheist: This is not exactly so. While the names of the days in Germanic languages are derived from Norse gods (Friday after Freya, etc.), the names of the days in Latin languages are derived from Roman gods and are in a slightly different order. In Spanish, for example, Monday is lunes (after Luna = Moon), (Spanish does not require uppercase for these names); Tuesday is martes (after Mars), Wednesday is miércoles (after Mercury), Thursday is jueves (after Jove = Jupiter), Friday is viernes (after Venera = Venus), Saturday is sábado (after Sabbath), and Sunday is domingo (after Dominus = Lord).

My response: I'm having trouble seeing the difference between my "almost always" and "usually" and your "not exactly so." I realize they shift about a little but it is still seven days = five visible planets + the sun and the moon, all associated with idols in some pantheon. I may be mistaken, but isn't Spanish the only language derived Latin that has them in this order? Don't the others match the Norse order? However, even if you were right about it all, none of it comes anywhere close to bringing Christianity into doubt.

MITHRA - THE PERSION SUN GOD

Atheist: Do you believe Mithra existed?

My response: I have heard of Mithra before but I have forgotten which pantheon and which position he holds.

Atheist: Mithra was a Persian sun god. He belonged to an ancient and widespread current of sun gods (along with Horus, Dionysus, Krishna, Tammuz, Serapis and Jesus) who all shared common mythical features: they were born on December 25th from a virgin mother, preached compassion, healed the sick, died and resurrected, and saved the world. Mithra is the main figure from which the Jesus myth was built.

My response: Since I think there is 1 chance in 365.25 that Jesus was born on Dec 25th that point is lost on me. Not being familiar with Mithra puts me somewhat at a disadvantage. Some of the panel have tried comparing Christianity to things like Mormonism which is easily refuted by pointing out the obvious differences. (I was exposed to Mormans, before I was to Christians.) However, let's suppose that what you say is true, and all these entities shared these seven things in common. It's really not a very long list, is it? If you were to list the differences wouldn't it be a much longer list? You are like those people that are impressed by the lists of commonalities between John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. Those lists are longer than seven by far, and still not convincing. If you pick out any two people on earth at random, and if you have sufficient information about them, you can compile a pretty impressive list of similarities. This is a statistical fact. It would be pretty surprising if you couldn't do the same thing with deities. Since you have identified Mithra as the Persian sun god I can point out a couple of significant differences without any research. Mithra was the god of the sun; Jesus is the God of everything. Mithra shared his deity with others in his pantheon; God shares His deity with no one. In addition, supposing it could be shown that the similarities are significant, Satan is active in trying to deceive us. Perhaps, being aware of Old Testament prophecies, he invented counterfeits to create confusion. Alternatively, perhaps the similarities come from distorted earlier versions of the Bible. Whatever the case, one difference is most important. Jesus is the only one founded in historically verifiable truth.

If we are going to make progress towards the truth, we need to compare my truth claims to your truth claims. Matching my truth claims to something neither or us believe gets us nowhere.

Atheist: I do not believe you can make any headway in your search for truth if you do not learn about religions other than your own.

My response: Of course, you are right. The first religion to which I was exposed was Atheism. Next to Christianity I probably know the most about it, including the fact that most of its True Believers would object to it being characterized as a religion. Then, probably to give me the idea that all religions are mythical, my parents made sure I learned about the Norse, Roman and Greek pantheons. The next religion to which I became familiar was Mormonism. For many weeks, my mother allowed a couple of Mormons to come over the house once a week to argue for a couple of hours, although they would probably not have called it arguing. Mama asked questions about their beliefs, and they tried to answer them. (One of them had been one of the Windtalkers in WWII.) She allowed the children to participate, probably to further expose us to the idea that all religions are ridiculous. She debriefed us after each meeting to make sure we were not swayed by any of it.

Then in my teenage years I became exposed to Methodists, Baptists and Catholics, particularly Catholics, through my schooling and friends. Then in college I got a much broader exposure. I remember my linguistics teacher was a Hindu, and the way to keep him from lecturing about the class topic was to get him to talking about religion. I made good friends with a Moslem with whom I talked a good deal of religion. I explored a number of other religions at this time, either through my reading, or with more casual relationships with the people at college. During this same period one of my brothers joined the Church of Christ and my sister became a Lutheran. I talked with both of them extensively, trying to rescue them from the error of their ways.

My wife's family is Baptist, so I started out my Christian walk in Baptist churches. I followed my baptizing minister's advice and have continued to read widely on this topic. Since becoming a Christian, I have continued to have conversations regarding all this with my siblings, which, besides the above, include an atheist, an agnostic, and a Pentecostal. (The Pentecostal has passed.) I have never shunned close relationships with people just because their beliefs are different than mine. Since becoming a Christian most of my friends have been Christians of various sects, but they have also included several Atheists, several Agnostics, a Hindu, a Wicca, another Moslem, a Jew, and a Jehovah's Witness.

Now I got a bunch of Atheists trying to teach me about Mithraism and Mormonism. How ironic is that? One of you sent me a private e-mail, several pages long, on Mithraism. It was full of quotes from various Christians and others who over the years were impressed by the number of similarities between Mithraism and Christianity. It tried to add a few similarities to the short list above. Many of the people quoted wrote before statistical analysis was available, and most the rest, perhaps all, have no understanding of statistics.

Many of the so-called additional similarities were ludicrous. Like; both Christianity and Mithraism emphasize celibacy. Roman Catholics and a few others do. Most do not. Celibacy could hardly be said to be a characteristic of Christianity. Even the Roman Catholics seem to find a way to reproduce in great numbers in spite of it. Paul's teaching on it in First Corinthians is offered as his personal opinion, not doctrine. But even if these additional similarities were real they are still nothing compared to the differences. It is like claiming that everyone on this panel are members of the same immediate family because we all have access to e-mail, argue about religion, have noses, have eyes, have fingers, have claimed to be atheist at some point in our lives, etc.

Do not imagine that just because I disagree with you that I am ignorant. My point was, and is, that it would make more sense for you and I to compare what we believe, rather than to talk about what some third party believes with whom neither of us agrees. Even if you were able to establish similarities with Mormonism or Mithraism that just makes my case weaker. It does not make your case stronger. The best you can hope for is to make a Moslem or something out of me. It does not endanger my belief in God at all. Something is true. What is the truth and how do you know?

MORMONISM

The first part of this discussion was about believing the testimony of the early Christians.

Atheist: It does not surprise me one bit that Christians (either "early" or "recent") understood it this way. They do not want to see the errors in their holy books (just as Mormons do not want to see the errors in their holy books). Certainly the testimony of many Mormons who said "Joseph Smith received golden plates from an angel" are not convincing to you. So why would the testimony of many Christians convince me?

My response: That these Christian men, Origen et al, were so lacking in personal integrity that they made up stories to support a belief, when they themselves did not have good reason to think so, is certainly possible. However, many of them were living under the constant threat of deadly persecution so it seems reasonable to me that they really believed what they were saying rather than making stuff up.

Atheist: Origen lived 200 years after Jesus (and I don't think he made anything up). But that doesn't matter if we look at what you're saying. I'm fairly certain that the early Mormons were also under a constant threat of deadly persecution. Joseph Smith was eventually lynched, you know. He died for his beliefs. According to your way of thinking, shouldn't you, therefore, find his testimony to be "fairly convincing if not definitive."

My response: I do find Joseph Smith's testimony pretty convincing. I think it was the angel who did the lying, not the dupe. Sure would be interesting if a competent linguist and archeologist could get a look at those "engravings thereon" and the "curious workmanship."

Atheist: Ah, but according to Smith, the angel took those plates back to Heaven (where they belong). Interesting parallel to your religion, don't you think? Some might say: the lack of these plates today PROVES that the angel took them back. Right? (Similarly to how the "lack of Jesus' body" PROVES that he was resurrected, right? ;)

My response: There is no significant similarity in the gold plates and the body of Jesus. Joseph Smith saw a vision which no one else shared. According to the testimony of some witnesses some gold plates existed for a time. They have since been lost or destroyed. Many people find this convincing. You and I do not, albeit for different reasons. The absence of the body of Jesus is one piece of evidence in an argument I find convincing and you do not. (I notice that you did not deny the body did at some time exist and was later missing.) Over 500 witnesses saw Jesus after He rose from the grave. His exit to heaven was also witnessed my more than one person. Who saw the angel take the gold plates to heaven? One can easily imagine a motive for stealing gold plates. What would be the motive for stealing a dead body?

MORMONISM

Another discussion of evidence and testimony that turned to Mormonism:

I made this claim: Luke's account is confirmed because the church whose beginning is documented in his narrative is still on-going.

Atheist: Are you sure you meant to say "confirmed" there? The Mormon Church is still on-going. Does that confirm the accuracy of the Book of Mormon in your eyes? Honestly?

My response: The existence of the Mormon Church does not confirm the Book of Mormon because the Book of Mormon does not describe the beginning of that church. The New Testament does describe the beginning of Christianity.

Atheist: The 2nd book of Mormon (known as a Doctrines & Covenants) does describe the beginning of that Church. Does the on-going-ness of the Mormon church therefore "confirm" the accuracy of the events described in the D&C?

My response: I have no good reason to dispute the historical claims of the Mormons. You have no good reason to dispute the historical claims of Christians.

MOSLEM, MORMON, & CATHOLIC

Another discussion that turned to Moslems and Mormons:

My question: If Jesus did not rise again from the dead, why did the Apostles preach that He did, at the cost of their lives?

Atheist: Why did Mohamed preach that the angel Gabriel dictated the Koran to him? Why did Joseph Smith preach that Native Americans are descendants of the Hebrew? Why has the Pope stated that his is the true church Jesus founded? Because they were convinced. They didn't even need to have seen the true facts for themselves; they were content to be gullible enough to believe it.

My response: Gullible implies someone was tricking them. Mohamed and Joseph Smith were deceived by an evil spirit, probably the same one, and believed what they were told without bothering to get independent confirmation. I think gullible dupes is an accurate description of those two. The Pope has reasons for what he says, that I can not defend, because I disagree with them. However, his evidence is not imaginary, and is well attested at many points. Who was fooling the Apostles and the various other people who met the resurrected Jesus Christ? Why?

Atheist: By claiming that Mohamed and Joseph Smith were visited by something other than an angel from heaven, it seems you are measuring the evidence based on what you would like for it to be. Since you can't accept other religions as true, without rejecting your own, you have to come up with ad hoc explanations about the origins of other religions, so that you can reject them.

My response: I'm wrong because I actually believe something? I can only be right if I believe nothing? Are you trying to be funny? All I am saying is that if you treat the testimony of all the witnesses exactly the same, Christianity wins. Mohammed and Joseph Smith have no independent confirmation. John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and the other New Testament witnesses do confirm one another.

HINDU - SATHYA SAI BABA

Atheist Claim: Sathya Sai Baba has witnesses to all his miracles, claims to be a god, and is still alive (not to mention, he has millions of followers). Considering the fact that Baba has more eyewitnesses, more miracles, etc. than Jesus (and is even on "youtube") will you now become a Hindu?

My response: If you do not believe in Baba's miracles why do you bring them up? If you do, why do you not believe the ones in the Bible? I am in no danger of becoming a Hindu and do not feel at all responsible for debunking his miracles. I feel sure you can do that for yourself. This discussion began because you wanted to say that the miraculous accounts discredited the Bible. I do not believe the Bible because of the miraculous accounts. I believe it, because it is good testimony. I am certainly not going to go running around chasing every miracle I hear a rumor about.

BABYLONIAN JEW - ONKELOS

Atheist: Also, if no one knows what supposedly happens in the afterlife, how did Onkelos know that Yehsu and Balaam were being punished, in the afterlife, while Israel was being rewarded (Gittin 57a)? Was it just more propaganda? Was he lying? Was he just plain deluded regarding his experience?

My response: I do not know who Onkelos is and am not interested in what he thinks about the afterlife. I am not interested, and you do not believe it. What is the point of bringing it up? What do you believe happens after you die, and what makes you think so? That is a question you and I can discuss. Why talk about someone neither of us agrees with? What is true, and how do you know?

As usual, my valid arguments were unacknowledged, and my questions ignored.

UNREFUTED | UNANSWERED | TRICKS | BIAS | EVIL | VERSUS | EHRMAN | HOME