How to deal with arguments by outrage?

[hierogrammate]

I'm mostly a lurker on TWeb, but I'd like to ask a question as a n00b in apologetics to other fellow Xtians. If this question has been asked a million times before, and I guess it probably has, my apologies. Feel free to ignore my post then.

One of the most common objections I keep seeing carelessly tossed around in places like YouTube are re-heated leftovers of the "Problem of Evil," normally using argument by outrage, or in a sanctimonious tone to condemn what they deem to be sanctimonious Christians. I need a bit of advice on how to ruminate upon such arguments to later come up with appropriate answers. I'll use this one as an example, to try to narrow my question as best as possible:

Let's use common sense. "Every 24 hrs 40,000 children starve to death" because "there are no good people". Are we to believe that those children deserved some sort of punishment for being born in Africa? Are we to believe that the children of Job were treated justly when they were killed in the torture experiement [sp] sponsored by God? Reading the book of Job alone should be sufficient to show that there is no benevolent force out there looking out for us. We have to solve hunger outselves [sp].

That person was in turn prompted to make that response to a video that deals with the issue of whether there are "good people" in the world (which I believe that the Biblical answer to that is "No," since everybody has sinned and falls short of the glory of God).

I know that child starvation in Africa is one of the many evils in the world that can easily be assigned to primarily humans themselves, for many many many reasons (enough food for everyone, artificial scarcity, "special interests" wanting to keep nations undeveloped, etc.). And yet atheists want to place the burden on G*d... but if G*d intervenes then they also complain.

In this particular case, the person also characterizes the book of Job as a "torture experiment," instead of the honor challenge involved there among other things. I have no idea how he jumps to the conclusion (solely on that book) "that there is no benevolent force out there looking out for us." Maybe they characterize G*d as a celestial gumball machine (as I think JP Holding said once) that should give them automatic satisfaction for their desires, and if the quarter gets stuck, or if they shake the machine to get a freebie and nothing comes out, then G*d is bad.

I can partially agree with the last sentence that basically says "we have to solve these problems ourselves," although I can see how our sin nature (and sentient spiritual Evil) will always get in the way of making any major progress. In addition, in the random chemical reactions of a homo homini lupus atheistic view of the poster, I don't know how can he wax sanctimoniously saying "we" can really solve it.

Any pointers on how I can organize my thoughts to address these people on this issue, especially when they will probably never accept my use of the Bible since they don't believe in that "archaic, ancient book" (or even believe Christ never existed)?

Thanks.

Ed

[technomage]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[RBerman]

Ed, you should post more! You are well-spoken. I wouldn't waste any time picking fights in the comments sections of You Tube videos, though. It's not a good forum for people who want to discuss issues.

[Carrikature]

Even better, don't try to debate theology on youtube.

[seanD]

In my experience with theological discussions in public forums, I've found that some of the most venomous arguments from outrage come from ex-Christians. So it would be like trying to reason with a person who just had a bitter break-up, yet still obsessed with getting even with their ex. Chances are, you ain't going to win any rational conversations with someone like that no matter what you present to them.

[Cerebrum123]

In my experience with theological discussions in public forums, I've found that some of the most venomous arguments from outrage come from ex-Christians. So it would be like trying to reason with a person who just had a bitter break-up, yet still obsessed with getting even with their ex. Chances are, you ain't going to win any rational conversations with someone like that no matter what you present to them.

Actually in my experience the most rabid, and venomous person against Christianity I had ever met, as an atheist Hindu(don't really understand how that works, but that's what he said), and there was no indication of him being formerly Christian. So, I think that there is another group that needs to be taken into consideration, people who have been hurt by someone who identifies as a Christian. Lest I be accused of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, many Christians can still do things that hurt people, and can even do things that many people would describe as "un-Christian", while still being a Christian. Christians are still fallible human beings, even though we are striving to be better than we were before we accepted Christ.

[thewriteranon]

Hindu(don't really understand how that works, but that's what he said)

Hinduism, from what I have seen, has a strong cultural component, like Judaism. There's also a strong emphasis in eastern philosophy that any path to God/enlightenment/whatever is equally good as any other path (but evangelism is strongly frowned upon).

[Andius]

I'm mostly a lurker on TWeb, but I'd like to ask a question as a n00b in apologetics to other fellow Xtians. If this question has been asked a million times before, and I guess it probably has, my apologies. Feel free to ignore my post then.

Hope this unlurking continues, we would be honored by your company. ^^

One of the most common objections I keep seeing carelessly tossed around in places like YouTube are re-heated leftovers of the "Problem of Evil," normally using argument by outrage, or in a sanctimonious tone to condemn what they deem to be sanctimonious Christians. I need a bit of advice on how to ruminate upon such arguments to later come up with appropriate answers. I'll use this one as an example, to try to narrow my question as best as possible:

Lets take a look see, and i'll offer my input.

Let's use common sense. "Every 24 hrs 40,000 children starve to death" because "there are no good people". Are we to believe that those children deserved some sort of punishment for being born in Africa? Are we to believe that the children of Job were treated justly when they were killed in the torture experiement [sp] sponsored by God? Reading the book of Job alone should be sufficient to show that there is no benevolent force out there looking out for us. We have to solve hunger outselves [sp].

His sweeping analysis of 40,000 starvations in Africa due to bereftness of good people, insultingly oversimplifies the matter of why it happens. The matter of deserving is utterly irrelevant. It be a straw man of wild imagination to suppose being a spawn of Africa is some sort of punishment. Similar deal in Job's kids. In that era, corporate consequence was the norm. Since the children were still bound by the house of Job, they were also bound by his fortunes (both good and bad). Even in his day, it is a far cry from unjust by the prevalent norms of the day of Job (not that your objector has any basis for a morality to condemn the deaths of the children either way).

That person was in turn prompted to make that response to a video that deals with the issue of whether there are "good people" in the world (which I believe that the Biblical answer to that is "No," since everybody has sinned and falls short of the glory of God).

True, but the "there are no good and just, for all have sinned" would not be a proper response to his objections.

I know that child starvation in Africa is one of the many evils in the world that can easily be assigned to primarily humans themselves, for many many many reasons (enough food for everyone, artificial scarcity, "special interests" wanting to keep nations undeveloped, etc.). And yet atheists want to place the burden on G*d... but if G*d intervenes then they also complain.

They fail to realize that the so called problem of evil involving God is utterly baseless. They are presupposing that God, by the sole virtue of being "God", is automatically obliged to rid the world of trouble, and bring comfort to all. There is no such reason that is true, especially to the Deity found in Bible. But yeah, fundy atheists will harbor any excuse for all divine action and non-action. (Especially if one is stuck in a fallacious "freebie human rights entitlement")

In this particular case, the person also characterizes the book of Job as a "torture experiment," instead of the honor challenge involved there among other things. I have no idea how he jumps to the conclusion (solely on that book) "that there is no benevolent force out there looking out for us." Maybe they characterize G*d as a celestial gumball machine (as I think JP Holding said once) that should give them automatic satisfaction for their desires, and if the quarter gets stuck, or if they shake the machine to get a freebie and nothing comes out, then G*d is bad.

Your spot on there. Same reply from above, it does not follow that God HAS to look after humanity's wellbeing.

I can partially agree with the last sentence that basically says "we have to solve these problems ourselves," although I can see how our sin nature (and sentient spiritual Evil) will always get in the way of making any major progress. In addition, in the random chemical reactions of a homo homini lupus atheistic view of the poster, I don't know how can he wax sanctimoniously saying "we" can really solve it.

True in the things you say. Men's maliciousness tends to jeopardize the well intended operations of others. If they are convinced there are ways to do it, let them be either way.

Any pointers on how I can organize my thoughts to address these people on this issue, especially when they will probably never accept my use of the Bible since they don't believe in that "archaic, ancient book" (or even believe Christ never existed)?

Do not forget that there be other books out there that aid in understanding Bible. Heck, works like Kaminsky's Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible practically destroy outright the fundy atheists objections regarding innocents suffering. Thus is the magic of anthropology and sociology. ^^

EDIT:

Oh yeah, also, heed the word of the above posters. Usually, arguing in Youtube is a real time waster, at least via the comments. At best, argumentation is okay if a very simple point is being disputed. The other exception is the policy of JPH, whenever some wise guy shows up, JPH will usually toy with him (something appealing to the more sinister of us within Church, heheheheh) by demonstrating his/her foolishness. Other than that, if the subject is super complex, it's best to do it in a forum or private PM's, since Youtube comments allow only so much space for serious debate (video debates are best for that within Youtube's dominions).

[RBerman]

Deal with arguments from outrage by yelling really loud! If you are excited, it means you are correct!

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm mostly a lurker on TWeb, but I'd like to ask a question as a n00b in apologetics to other fellow Xtians. If this question has been asked a million times before, and I guess it probably has, my apologies. Feel free to ignore my post then.

I will not and I will try to give my best answer.

One of the most common objections I keep seeing carelessly tossed around in places like YouTube are re-heated leftovers of the "Problem of Evil," normally using argument by outrage, or in a sanctimonious tone to condemn what they deem to be sanctimonious Christians. I need a bit of advice on how to ruminate upon such arguments to later come up with appropriate answers. I'll use this one as an example, to try to narrow my question as best as possible:

Let's use common sense. "Every 24 hrs 40,000 children starve to death" because "there are no good people". Are we to believe that those children deserved some sort of punishment for being born in Africa? Are we to believe that the children of Job were treated justly when they were killed in the torture experiement [sp] sponsored by God? Reading the book of Job alone should be sufficient to show that there is no benevolent force out there looking out for us. We have to solve hunger outselves [sp].

To be honest, I find such people are not very interested in arguments because here is the thing:

In the US, we have so much food that we have a problem with people getting overweight and we continue to stuff ourselves with way too much. The bottom line is that we have an abundance of food here, but why isn't the same in Africa? Could the result of the starving children be a result of our greed and not following the commandments of loving our neighbor as we love ourselves and to help those we find in need? I have found that many atheists loves to point the finger at God, but want to pretend that humanity has no responsibility to others. Likewise, in the book of Job, this atheist is ignoring the fact that Job's problem had nothing to do with his sin and ignore the fact that God had a few choice things to say to his friends, that tried to claim that he did have some sort of hidden sin he had to confess to. Again, many atheist, I find simply ignore parts of the Bible they personally dislike and try to make arguments though emotion (AKA outrage) like this one.

That person was in turn prompted to make that response to a video that deals with the issue of whether there are "good people" in the world (which I believe that the Biblical answer to that is "No," since everybody has sinned and falls short of the glory of God).

Ask him how he defines 'good'. Is it 'good' that we live in an abundance of food, while thousands of children around the world starve every day?

I know that child starvation in Africa is one of the many evils in the world that can easily be assigned to primarily humans themselves, for many many many reasons (enough food for everyone, artificial scarcity, "special interests" wanting to keep nations undeveloped, etc.). And yet atheists want to place the burden on G*d... but if G*d intervenes then they also complain.

You are quite correct, they do, I tend to remind atheist of where God tells us that we are not to 'wish our neighbor well', but we should care for his needs as well (see James 2 and 3 for this) and by ignoring this commandment that we were given, that is where this problem comes from. Atheist of that type are not so much interested in finding answers as they are in complaining. Not too much you could do for them, that is one of the reasons debate should be about the audience and showing the audience the weakness of such a position.

In this particular case, the person also characterizes the book of Job as a "torture experiment," instead of the honor challenge involved there among other things. I have no idea how he jumps to the conclusion (solely on that book) "that there is no benevolent force out there looking out for us." Maybe they characterize G*d as a celestial gumball machine (as I think JP Holding said once) that should give them automatic satisfaction for their desires, and if the quarter gets stuck, or if they shake the machine to get a freebie and nothing comes out, then G*d is bad.

The most likely only read the first chapters of Job and didn't bother to read the rest and read the major topics the book covers because they are too busy seeking excuses to feed their doubts. They also most likely ignored the commandments about caring for our neighbors needs instead of 'wishing them well'.

I can partially agree with the last sentence that basically says "we have to solve these problems ourselves," although I can see how our sin nature (and sentient spiritual Evil) will always get in the way of making any major progress. In addition, in the random chemical reactions of a homo homini lupus atheistic view of the poster, I don't know how can he wax sanctimoniously saying "we" can really solve it.

And ask him how we solve it ourselves. Bet in involves being better people and caring for the needs of others in which the Bible actually commands us to do, which would then undermine his entire argument to start with. You could actually use this as a pretty good way to trap him into a corner and make him face the rest of what the Bible says instead of his cherry picked version of it.

Any pointers on how I can organize my thoughts to address these people on this issue, especially when they will probably never accept my use of the Bible since they don't believe in that "archaic, ancient book" (or even believe Christ never existed)?

Watch and learn how debates work. In many ways, it is very much like a dance and does take some careful skill as well as a good bedrock knowledge of the topic(s) in question. Books and web sites can give you some pretty good guidence as well as just watching and learning. I really do doubt this guy is as educated on this topic as he wants to appear and it is actually not too hard to trap him into a corner, using his own comments against him. How do we become 'better people' in his view? The Bible tells us just how to do that and that is by loving our neighbors as we love ourselves, blessing those that curse us, by caring for the needs of others instead of just 'wishing them well' (just to name a few), and most importantly, being faithful to God. You could also point out the history of charity and the reason we even care about the starving people around the world is thanks to the concept of Christian charity. The era in which Christianity sprouted in was one where charity was hard to come by and nearly impossible to find. Christianity is the major reason we see charity the way we do today.

[Andius]

Deal with arguments from outrage by yelling really loud! If you are excited, it means you are correct!

You're not doing it loud enough, therefore, you must be wrong.

[hierogrammate]

First of all, I want to thank all of you for your comments. I've been short on time these couple of days and haven't been able to visit the forum. And when I did get some time, I heard the news about the mass-shooting in Colorado, and have spent most of my free time trying to learn as much about it as possible. Tragic, but that seems to be the spirit of the times.

To get back to the topic: I'll try to read carefully each post during the weekend. But I'll say right now that I agree that YT, with its awfully limited message system, is not the best place for such debates, unless one made a video.

G*d bless.

IHN

Ed

[MooseOnTheLoose]

I'm mostly a lurker on TWeb, but I'd like to ask a question as a n00b in apologetics to other fellow Xtians.

What on earth is a "Xtian"?

Some kind of alien?

[Cerebrum123]

What on earth is a "Xtian"?

Some kind of alien?

It just means Christian, but shortened, kind of like X-mas. That is the first time I have seen a Christian use that spelling. Usually it's an atheist, who is using it in a negative way, and just to be offensive.

[Soyeong]

"Christmas," 1551, X'temmas, wherein the X is an abbreviation for Christ in Christmas, from first letter of Gk. Christos "Christ" (see Christ). The earlier way to abbreviate it was Xp- or Xr-, corresponding to "Chr-," and the form Xres mæsse for "Christmas" appears in the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" (c.1100).