Someone help me find a Jew vs. Athiest debate PLEASE

[Israel Chai]

I need this badly. The only one I can find is "rabbi" Schmuley, in some temple, who I'm pretty sure isn't halachically Jewish.

I've seen Jews debate every other religion, but what about Judaism? Has any actual Jew ever debated an atheist??

[Israel Chai]

I also desperately need a link to a debate with an actual pro-Israel person against someone against the existence of Israel. I can't get into more detail, but it is vital for a debate I will have of my own VERY soon.

[Rubystars]

I don't know that much about Judaism but I do know a lot about atheists. I used to chat with them frequently.

One of the strangest things I've observed is what happened before and after 9/11.

Before 9/11 they basically said that they saw all religions as equally "stupid". They made no secret that they didn't like Christianity which was no surprise, but when a Muslim would come into the chat room, they would ask them pointed questions about the treatment of women in the Middle East, clitoridectomy, etc. They would point out stupid things about the sun setting in a pool of water, etc. and laugh at the Muslims.

After 9/11 everything changed. Suddenly they were pro-Muslim. When I pointed out things they themselves had said in the past, they called me hateful and "ignorant" about Islam.

I had been a relatively well-liked member of the chat because I used to talk about science topics with them and we had some common ground there. However I noticed that after 9/11 the divide between the way I looked at the world as a Christian the way they looked at the world as atheists drove us farther and father apart.

These were not the "logical" people I'd come to somewhat respect. They were openly contradicting themselves by showing favor to Islam.

I realized that they did, in fact, have a religion. It wasn't atheism, as that implies no religious affiliation on its own. It was liberalism. They demonstrated the human need for some form of faith and religion and they latched on to liberalism as a replacement for God.

So in reality what you will be debating with, if you choose to debate them, are not people with no religion, but the religion of liberalism, which ranks up there among the most self-contradictory and ridiculous of all religions. It's based on emotion and not logic.

At the same time, you need to avoid certain arguments when you're debating with atheists.

Whatever you do don't try to argue about things you really don't understand. For example I noticed when theists would debate with the atheists that they would often make a lot of assumptions about things. For example they'd say "Look at this beautiful world do you think it just got here by random chance?" This assumes natural processes work by random chance (they don't). The fewer assumptions that you make, the better. Also be prepared for some arguments that will seem so powerful they will feel like you're being punched in the gut. For example many atheists call into question the historicity of the Exodus. It is important not to assume that all the facts they present are necessarily true. You will need to fact check what they say and research counterarguments to things like this that make sense.

[Israel Chai]

I have been in many debates, and I understand how to do it.

You can't understand where I'm coming from, because I can't say. There is a lot hanging in the balance right now. I NEED TO PRACTICE, AND IF ANYONE HAS EVER SEEN EITHER OF THESE TYPES OF DEBATES, PLEASE POST ONE. BEFORE TUESDAY.

I have arguments, but can't really make an intro speech until I know the types of points I'll be faced with. The only one I have is that they say "oh the firmament has the sun and stars and moon in it, and where is the firmament", which is relatively easy to refute.

Again, this is extremely important, and I wish I could explain myself, but that would not be good. Please someone help me, it's not for my own good.

[Rubystars]

I have been in many debates, and I understand how to do it.

You can't understand where I'm coming from, because I can't say. There is a lot hanging in the balance right now. I NEED TO PRACTICE, AND IF ANYONE HAS EVER SEEN EITHER OF THESE TYPES OF DEBATES, PLEASE POST ONE. BEFORE TUESDAY.

I have arguments, but can't really make an intro speech until I know the types of points I'll be faced with. The only one I have is that they say "oh the firmament has the sun and stars and moon in it, and where is the firmament", which is relatively easy to refute.

Again, this is extremely important, and I wish I could explain myself, but that would not be good. Please someone help me, it's not for my own good.

They will try to make the point that the God of the Bible has His roots in Egyptian mythology and Sumerian mythology. They will try to argue that he's the same as the Egyptian sun god Ra. They will say the flood story is stolen from the epic of Gilgamesh which was written down earlier than the flood story was written down.

They will bring up things from the Bible that they don't understand, things like claiming that there is a cockatrice mentioned in Isaiah (this was a KJV translation error). They will claim that God is evil because he called for the Hebrew tribes to commit genocide on women and children of the Canaanite tribes.

Here's one you might or might not have heard before. They will claim that all your arguments for God work just as well for an invisible pink unicorn. Can you PROVE there isn't an invisible pink unicorn in the room? Why don't you just have faith that there's an invisible pink unicorn? Look around at this beautiful world, could it have just gotten here by chance, or could its design have been influenced by an invisible pink unicorn?

They will say that attributing natural phenomena to God is like believing in gravity dwarves (that cause gravity), or that believing in God is like having an imaginary friend, or believing in an invisible sky fairy.

You have to make sure none of this jars you or gets you emotionally angry. Remember that to them there is nothing "sacred" or "holy" about God so they don't see these kinds of statements as blasphemous (or if they do they don't care), or offensive. One of their arguments is that blasphemy is a victimless crime.

They will make the argument that believing in God is like a child believing in Santa or the Easter bunny, something that adults leave behind when they grow up and are ready to accept the world for what it really is. They say that belief in God is an emotional crutch and an intellectual short cut which is also childish and something that, as a grown man, you should have realized was rubbish just like the other types of imaginary creatures.

I hope some of this is helping.

[Rubystars]

Another thing to keep in mind is that you can't PROVE a negative. For example, you can't really, with absolute certainty, prove that there's no invisible unicorn in the room. Of course the idea is ridiculous on its face but that's not proof or evidence. Similarly, you can't expect them to prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist.

The onus is on you to give evidence for the positive existence of God, not on them to prove that He doesn't exist.

This is the tricky bit, because there really is very little to no empirical evidence for God. There are various arguments that can be made (check to see if these apply equally well to the invisible unicorn before you use them), but at the end of the day what it comes down to is faith and experience.

The atheist views faith as a self-delusion at best and a mental illness at worst. This is the real point at where atheists and theists differ.

The atheist is unlikely to have had any personal spiritual experiences, but if they have, they have found an alternative explanation for them which satisifies them. If you have had such experiences, then they will consider that "anecdotal evidence" only, which is the weakest form of evidence.

[Rubystars]

I have personally had spiritual experiences (the atheists might explain this away through brain chemistry or something like that) and I do have faith that God exists. I also think there can be some carefully constructed arguments that make the case for God, but they will never be completely solid because God is allowing for free will. That's why God doesn't make His presence glaringly obvious and has a seeming absence from the world.

Maybe that's the road you should go down, arguing about the seeming absence and why this makes sense and what the motivations would be behind it. It's just an idea and I don't know if it's a good one or not.

I may not know how to win a debate with an atheist but I at least know many of their arguments.

[Israel Chai]

They will try to make the point that the God of the Bible has His roots in Egyptian mythology and Sumerian mythology. They will try to argue that he's the same as the Egyptian sun god Ra. They will say the flood story is stolen from the epic of Gilgamesh which was written down earlier than the flood story was written down.

They will bring up things from the Bible that they don't understand, things like claiming that there is a cockatrice mentioned in Isaiah (this was a KJV translation error). They will claim that God is evil because he called for the Hebrew tribes to commit genocide on women and children of the Canaanite tribes.

Here's one you might or might not have heard before. They will claim that all your arguments for God work just as well for an invisible pink unicorn. Can you PROVE there isn't an invisible pink unicorn in the room? Why don't you just have faith that there's an invisible pink unicorn? Look around at this beautiful world, could it have just gotten here by chance, or could its design have been influenced by an invisible pink unicorn?

They will say that attributing natural phenomena to God is like believing in gravity dwarves (that cause gravity), or that believing in God is like having an imaginary friend, or believing in an invisible sky fairy.

You have to make sure none of this jars you or gets you emotionally angry. Remember that to them there is nothing "sacred" or "holy" about God so they don't see these kinds of statements as blasphemous (or if they do they don't care), or offensive. One of their arguments is that blasphemy is a victimless crime.

They will make the argument that believing in God is like a child believing in Santa or the Easter bunny, something that adults leave behind when they grow up and are ready to accept the world for what it really is. They say that belief in God is an emotional crutch and an intellectual short cut which is also childish and something that, as a grown man, you should have realized was rubbish just like the other types of imaginary creatures.

I hope some of this is helping.

For Judaism, it's not an argument to say Egyptian religion predates it. Ra and Osiris is for another religion. Judaism was translated into many languages, and others changed it. Nobody can really prove that the Sumerian religion came before Judaism, except with carbon dating, where things like to age several billion years/month after a point. That is an argument I've had, so yes, good point.

I don't debate along the lines that I can prove G-d. Simply that in thousands of years, nobody's disproved a letter, so you can't say that it isn't perfectly reasonable to be Jewish.

Those other arguments prove nothing. I need points that people say disprove Judaism outright. I can disprove any other religion under the sun, but not Judaism, which is a major reason why I stick with it.

Another thing to keep in mind is that you can't PROVE a negative. For example, you can't really, with absolute certainty, prove that there's no invisible unicorn in the room. Of course the idea is ridiculous on its face but that's not proof or evidence. Similarly, you can't expect them to prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist.

The onus is on you to give evidence for the positive existence of God, not on them to prove that He doesn't exist.

This is the tricky bit, because there really is very little to no empirical evidence for God. There are various arguments that can be made (check to see if these apply equally well to the invisible unicorn before you use them), but at the end of the day what it comes down to is faith and experience.

The atheist views faith as a self-delusion at best and a mental illness at worst. This is the real point at where atheists and theists differ.

The atheist is unlikely to have had any personal spiritual experiences, but if they have, they have found an alternative explanation for them which satisfies them. If you have had such experiences, then they will consider that "anecdotal evidence" only, which is the weakest form of evidence.

I have no intention of proving G-d's existence. Atheism can not explain where things began, so it can be disproven like that. It's incomplete. This isn't a religious debate, but a debate for the survival of Israel.

[Rubystars]

For Judaism, it's not an argument to say Egyptian religion predates it. Ra and Osiris is for another religion. Judaism was translated into many languages, and others changed it. Nobody can really prove that the Sumerian religion came before Judaism, except with carbon dating, where things like to age several billion years/month after a point. That is an argument I've had, so yes, good point.

I don't recommend your arguing about carbon dating unless you have a good reason and lines of reliable empirical evidence as to why you don't trust it for that purpose.

They say they can date it through the context of the writings. In the sense that there are common elements shown in different versions of the same stories, slightly altered between cultures. Some say that these stories were taken and changed to show glory to the Biblical God instead of the pagan ones.
 

I don't debate along the lines that I can prove G-d. Simply that in thousands of years, nobody's disproved a letter, so you can't say that it isn't perfectly reasonable to be Jewish.

It's not their job to disprove God. You can't disprove something like God any more than you can disprove the invisible unicorn. There is, however, a lack of empirical evidence for either. Because of a concept called Occam's razor, the atheist sees it as logical to take the simple position that because there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe that either exist.

 In order for them to accept God's existence, they would need to see some kind of evidence for the positive existence of God. As a theist (someone who believes in God), if you want to argue that such a belief is rational, then it is you who must present this evidence, or credible arguments in favor of your theism, if there is any to present.

Those other arguments prove nothing. I need points that people say disprove Judaism outright. I can disprove any other religion under the sun, but not Judaism, which is a major reason why I stick with it.

Be prepared to argue for the historical reality of the Exodus. This has been called into serious question in mainstream archeology, and yet it is very important to Judaism.

Be prepared to explain why bats are referred to as birds, and why some insects are referred to as "four legged insects".

Be prepared to explain why the Bible seems to indicate that pi is equal to 3, in 1 Kings 7:23.

I have no intention of proving G-d's existence. Atheism can not explain where things began, so it can be disproven like that. It's incomplete. This isn't a religious debate, but a debate for the survival of Israel.

If I were an atheist I'd tell you that our universe was a quantum fluctuation, an errant bubble that arose from the multiverse's otherwise steady state overall.

As for Israel they will not likely be moved by claims of ancient historical presence of Jews in Israel, and especially not by any religious claims to Jewish right to the land.

Perhaps your best bet is finding quotations (with references) from Arab leaders themselves that there is really no Palestinian people.

[Rubystars]

Do NOT make the mistake that the caller made here from 10 minutes on. The atheists won and the caller looked like a fool who couldn't follow a simple logical argument while the atheists ended up looking smart:

[Rubystars]

It might be helpful to analyze this video and come up with counter-arguments:

[kyel]

A major thing that I realize is atheist cherry pick the Bible for "violent verses" and take them out of context of why. They also use it in a liberal light and don't realize that humans can be generally evil. I personally believe that prophecy and the mathematical unlikelihood (almost impossible) of evolution prove Gd exists but that takes a while to elaborate on properly for an atheist who has only read lines from different parts of the Bible

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

One of my good friends from work( an evangelical Christian) was telling me, that he was talking to one of our summer workers( a leftist college student) about G-d, I believe. The libtard kid said: "That the Jewish and Christian Bible was written by man, and he wouldn't believe a book that had been rewritten so many times.  The only book he would read was the Koran. " What are they teaching these kids?

[eb22]

The ideal solution for this topic, if it exists,  would be to find a video with Rabbi Kahane debating an Atheist.

[Rubystars]

There are very few if any questions that "atheists can't answer".  If you rely on some list for that then you will be very disappointed and torn apart in a debate. They do have an answer for almost any question you can pose to them. Their answers are not necessarily valid ones though. There is no "magic bullet" question that will leave them stumped though.

[Rubystars]

One of my good friends from work( an evangelical Christian) was telling me, that he was talking to one of our summer workers( a leftist college student) about G-d, I believe. The libtard kid said: "That the Jewish and Christian Bible was written by man, and he wouldn't believe a book that had been rewritten so many times.  The only book he would read was the Koran. " What are they teaching these kids?

The libtard was completely ignorant of what the Qu'ran is and where it came from. The Qu'ran in many places is a heavily distorted rewrite of Biblical stories, and the rest of it comes from the mad ravings of Mohammed and his followers.

A major thing that I realize is atheist cherry pick the Bible for "violent verses" and take them out of context of why. They also use it in a liberal light and don't realize that humans can be generally evil. I personally believe that prophecy and the mathematical unlikelihood (almost impossible) of evolution prove Gd exists but that takes a while to elaborate on properly for an atheist who has only read lines from different parts of the Bible

I don't think anyone should assume that the atheist is ignorant of the Bible's contents. They don't understand the meaning behind many verses or the complete context in which many of these violent things happened, but they do often school themselves well on the actual contents of the Bible if they are going to be debating it. The sad thing is they are often more knowledgeable about that than the believers debating with them.

[edu]

Do some internet searches on Rabbi Moshe Averick. He is an Orthodox Rabbi with some experience debating atheists. He has articles, youtube movies and books on the topic.
Also look up some of the articles at simpletoremember.com Some of those articles deal with the Judaism vs. Atheist debate.

[Yerusha]

Boteach vs English Atheist yok Xtopher Hitchins (who found out later that he was Halachically a Jew!)



Both fellows are "clever idiots", but that's all we've got in this generation!

[Israel Chai]

Boteach vs English Atheist yok Xtopher Hitchins (who found out later that he was Halachically a Jew!)



Both fellows are "clever idiots", but that's all we've got in this generation!

I saw this. Hitchins is more halachically Jewish than the other rabbi. Has an ACTUAL Jew never debated an atheist in history?

[Israel Chai]

Do some internet searches on Rabbi Moshe Averick. He is an Orthodox Rabbi with some experience debating atheists. He has articles, youtube movies and books on the topic.
Also look up some of the articles at simpletoremember.com Some of those articles deal with the Judaism vs. Atheist debate.

This is all I could find on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrd1EaGMT8

[Israel Chai]

I don't recommend your arguing about carbon dating unless you have a good reason and lines of reliable empirical evidence as to why you don't trust it for that purpose.

They say they can date it through the context of the writings. In the sense that there are common elements shown in different versions of the same stories, slightly altered between cultures. Some say that these stories were taken and changed to show glory to the Biblical God instead of the pagan ones.
 
It's not their job to disprove God. You can't disprove something like God any more than you can disprove the invisible unicorn. There is, however, a lack of empirical evidence for either. Because of a concept called Occam's razor, the atheist sees it as logical to take the simple position that because there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe that either exist.

 In order for them to accept God's existence, they would need to see some kind of evidence for the positive existence of God. As a theist (someone who believes in God), if you want to argue that such a belief is rational, then it is you who must present this evidence, or credible arguments in favor of your theism, if there is any to present.

Be prepared to argue for the historical reality of the Exodus. This has been called into serious question in mainstream archeology, and yet it is very important to Judaism.

Be prepared to explain why bats are referred to as birds, and why some insects are referred to as "four legged insects".

Be prepared to explain why the Bible seems to indicate that pi is equal to 3, in 1 Kings 7:23.

If I were an atheist I'd tell you that our universe was a quantum fluctuation, an errant bubble that arose from the multiverse's otherwise steady state overall.

As for Israel they will not likely be moved by claims of ancient historical presence of Jews in Israel, and especially not by any religious claims to Jewish right to the land.

Perhaps your best bet is finding quotations (with references) from Arab leaders themselves that there is really no Palestinian people.

C14 is a radioactive isotope. It runs out after a few thousand years, giving readings in the infinity (billions/trillions of years). Almost nothing is known about the context of the Sumerians.

As I stated, I am not debating the existence of G-d. It's not a sensible debate to have, and both sides can not speak in absolutes. I am debating whether or not there are any absolute proofs that anything in Torah is wrong. This is a point in a debate of whether or not Israel should exist, whether the Jewish people have a right to the land, and whether it is better for the world if Jews live there instead of mudrats, and control the government.

Still for athiesm, all I need to show is that it isn't an answer. Where did the quantum fluctuation come from? Was it always there? Now were back to Aristotle's theory, and so long as they can't prove creation is impossible via Torah's explained method, they can't call Jews liars.

[Yerusha]

Hitchins is more halachically Jewish than the other rabbi.

Is there actually some evidence that Shmuley Boteach is not a Jew?!

[Yerusha]

Has an ACTUAL Jew never debated an atheist in history?

It has happened only once: in the 1960s Rabbi Feivish Vogel of London Lubavitch, then only 26, attempted to debate on BBC TV with then arch atheist philosopher English yok Malcolm Mugggeridge (who himself later 'converted' and became a fanatical Catholic!).

It was a disaster: the atheist Muggeridge won the debate hands down!


Vogel today


then atheist Muggeridge in his heyday

Unless you are master debater, with all your facts to hand and Hashem on your side, like the Ramban, "Never attempt to debate with the goyim, whether Xtians, Evolutionists or Atheists!" (R.Avigdor Miller)

[Jacob_Levi]

G-d and Science are the same to me.

What was here before it was here ? How did it get here ?

Even if a person professes no belief in G-d,  they should live as if they do. The ethics and values of Judaism are an excellent source of general wisdom.

The Sioux Indians have a word ( Wakan Tonka ) which means anything difficult to comprehend or understand. That strange word itself means G-d.

An atheist will demonstrate the upper hand in these arguments because they lack faith. And faith is something a person has to want to possess.

Atheist lack a spiritual awakening.

Emotions like loving another person are also hard to explain. It too is an awakening. And sometimes leads to procreation.  That built in mechanism is a gift from G-d aka Science.

I suppose it is a debate on terminological meanings.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

G-d and Science are the same to me.

What was here before it was here ? How did it get here ?

Even if a person professes no belief in G-d,  they should live as if they do. The ethics and values of Judaism are an excellent source of general wisdom.

The Sioux Indians have a word ( Wakan Tonka ) which means anything difficult to comprehend or understand. That strange word itself means G-d.

An atheist will demonstrate the upper hand in these arguments because they lack faith. And faith is something a person has to want to possess.

Atheist lack a spiritual awakening.

Emotions like loving another person are also hard to explain. It too is an awakening. And sometimes leads to procreation.  That built in mechanism is a gift from G-d aka Science.

I suppose it is a debate on terminological meanings.

    But Tanka.