Cherry-Picking Argument: "Drink poison..."

One of the handful of Bible verses a typical atheist might pick out (usually from some website) is this one:

"they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover ."

Mark 16:18

Of course, the argument follows: "If you Christians truly believe your Bible, you'll never go to the doctor."

Let's look at the WHOLE passage so we can get the CONTEXT, which atheists like to ignore:

"And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved ; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. "These signs will accompany those who have believed : in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues ; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover ."

Mark 16: 15-18

It's plain that Jesus was prophesying of Apostolic gifts given to those chosen ones who were seeding the early Church. The prophesy of the snakes came true on one of the Apostle Paul's journeys. He was bitten by a serpent, yet suffered no ill effects.

Many Atheists labor under the delusion that everything in the Bible is a commandment. Where are people commanded here to drink poison, play with vipers, or skip seeing a doctor?

Paul the Apostle knew very well the Apostolic gifts, yet his advice to his student Timothy, concerning what were obviously gastrointestinal issues, was:

"No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments."

1 Timothy 5:23

Not to mention the Apostle travelled with a Greek doctor named Luke.

There's a REASON we read the Bible in whole passages, versus singling out a verse or two. We believers actually think the Bible is worth reading and understanding.

Silly Argument: "The Bible isn't evidence"

This is a common fallacious argument made by prejudiced individuals who are generally ignorant of ancient history. Here's an example of the silliness of this claim:

Specific examples showing Luke was right after his critics said he was wrong

Let's examine some cases where Luke was called wrong, but later vindicated. For example, Luke was said to imply incorrectly that the cities of Lystra and Derbe were in Lycaonia but Iconium wasn't (Luke 14:6), according to what the Roman politician and orator Cicero (106-43 B.C. ) and others had written anciently. But in 1910, Ramsay found a monument that showed Iconium was in Phyrgia, not Lycaonia--a discovery since corroborated by further evidence. When Luke said Lysanias was the Tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1), this was said to be erroneous, since the only Lysanias known to ancient historians had died in 36 B.C. But later an inscription, dated between A.D. 14 and 29, was discovered near Damascus, Syria that said "Freedman of Lysanias the Tetrarch." The textual critic F.J.A. Fort maintained Luke was wrong to use the Greek word meris to mean "district" when referring to Philippi as part of Macedonia. Later archeological discoveries have found that Luke was right--this very word meris was employed to describe this district's divisions.

Luke called Publius of Malta the "first man of the island" (Acts 28:7); inscriptions have been found that refer to him as "first man." Luke wrote of a riot in Ephesus that took place in its theater. Having room for 25,000 people, this theater has been dug up. Paul's preaching here provoked a riot because silversmiths feared their trade in objects related to the Temple of Artemis (one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world) would collapse if he was believed. Correspondingly, one unearthed inscription said the silver statues of Artemis were to be placed in the "theater during a full session of the Ecclesia [assembly]." Luke once described Paul nearly being killed by a riot provoked by the rumor he had brought a gentile into the Temple (Acts 21:27-31). Helping confirm this account, archeologists have found inscriptions that read in Latin and Greek:

"No foreigner may enter within the barrier which surrounds the temple and enclosure. Anyone who is caught doing so will be personally responsible for his ensuing death." (44)

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/is-bible-the-word-of-god/chapter4.html

These are just a few of the numerous examples of the proven accuracy of the Bible.

The fact remains, the Bible has been found truthful again and again concerning ancient history. To claim the Bible is worthless without corroborating extrabiblical evidence is just bigotry.

Dragons and Spaghetti Monsters In My Garage

Atheists love to use Carl Sagan's "Dragon In My Garage" or the Spaghetti Monster analogy as a means for claiming people just make gods up.

The problem here is, atheists like Sagan or the Spaghetti Monster people failed to address the spirtual needs of human beings, which dragons and noodly monsters don't meet the criteria for. God is in a form we can relate to, according to the Bible and the testimonies of millions of believers.

Monsters like dragons only appeal to terror. Cults that ruled through nothing but fear have died out. In fact, any form of religion or government that rules through terror will eventually fall apart.

Judeo-Christianity, the world's oldest monotheistic belief system, has survived not by inventing fantastic pasta beings but through a loving God who seeks personal relationships.

Sagan didn't get it, the Spaghetti Monster Bunch didn't get it, and neither do the supporters of these lame arguments.

Another Atheist blows it... surprise!

Atheists are fond of spreading the mantra that they know about Christianity better than most Christians, yet Tom Flynn, a professed "secular humanist" (that's supposed to be somebody who doesn't believe in gods but is a nice person nonetheless) writing for the New York Post, makes this blunder:

"...Traditional Christian doctrine is no less different from the historic Mormon teaching that God is not a transcendental being, but was once a man who by moral excellence ascended to the role of deity over this universe (of which there are implicitly companions without number -- hmm, maybe Joseph Smith received a revelation about quantum mechanics)..."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/tom_flynn/2010/07/credit_where_credit_is_due.html

Am I not understanding Mr. Flynn's context here, or is he just plain wrong?

Anybody with a Sunday School education knows that both traditional Christianity AND Mormonism believe in a trancendental God. The difference is in their beliefs on JESUS.

Traditonal Christians believe Jesus IS God and the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Traditional Mormons believe Jesus was a created being and a son of Adam.

This is basic knowledge, something you don't need a degree in Religious Studies to understand.

Or am I just too stupid to understand the wording of a smart guy like Tom Flynn?

Maybe one of the 'brightstars" can correct me here.

Silly Atheist Question: "Well, who made your God?"

Why is it Village Atheists would have no problem accepting an eternal, self-existent Universe, but can't logically fathom an eternal, self-existent being?

Tired Atheist Argument: "No evidence for God"

This statement is intellectually dishonest.

It doesn't allow for documentary evidence (such as the Bible), alternate interpretation of existing physical evidence (such as the orderly complexity of our universe), and evidence yet to be discovered (read Bradley Monton, atheist, on this subject).

Village Atheists need to stop speaking in unprovable absolutes. Why do I need to provide a reasonable rebuttal for a provably false argument?

Silly Argument: "Everybody is born an Atheist"

Really?

Atheists love to tell you that nobody believes in God until "some wacko" tells that person about God.

Well, if a person had never heard about God, and you mentioned God to that person, what would that person say in response?

Probably something like "Who's God?" Guess what? That's what you call an "agnostic".

I contend nobody is born an atheist, either, until somebody tells them that God doesn't exist.

Being ignorant doesn't automatically make somebody an atheist. But it helps.