Thread: How would you answer this atheist acquaintance of mine

http://http://www.infidels.org/libra...xperience.html



First, would you you answer him?

Then, what errors does he make about Presbyterian history?

The link didn't work for me

I'd say "whatever."

Okay, I got there now.

Not being a fan of McDowell's approach, I wouldn't try to back McDowell up.

I would, however, try to get him to explain his obvious moral judgments regarding slavery, et al. The Christian worldview makes great sense -- even of the atrocities done in the name of Christianity, since it has a doctrine of sin and a source and standard of righteousness. He clearly knows what God requires, as evidenced by his 'moral high ground'. Can he explain WHY he believes slavery is wrong? Similarly, he points to a shallow understanding of history -- a myopic selection of some events to make sense of the whole. I wonder if he can explain a connection between events at all? I would imagine that Hume would be particularly destructive to his own historical analysis.

These are just a couple of the places where I would want to probe him. I wouldn't bother disputing the 'facts'. Some of his observations are quite trenchant. I would rather dispute his ability to make those observations without borrowing from Christianity. It is difficult to do this 'on paper', since I don't know what his basic commitments are. Can we assume he's a materialist? If so, how can he communicate at all? Why would he communicate if he could? Ah... but he does communicate, and expects us to hear and understand him -- and even be persuaded and change. So he proves that he doesn't REALLY believe in materialism. He just claims to. Is he a radical Darwinian? Then why is slavery wrong? Why, for that matter would rape or murder be wrong? Wouldn't that be a matter of securing the survival of my line? Why should I submit to societal norms? Wouldn't his worldview demand a rugged individualism?

It's hard to know. I don't know what he DOES believe. But I'm quite confident that, if I did, I would be able to demonstrate that he doesn't actually live in conformity with his espoused beliefs. And the reason he doesn't is that he actually lives in the world God created and he bears His image -- however much he distorts that image and suppresses the truth of God.

Pergalicious, I worked very hard on formulating my answer and would appreciate a thank you.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Pergalicious, I worked very hard on formulating my answer and would appreciate a thank you.

You almost wrote as much as God did about answering atheists ("The fool says.." versus "whatever"....both one sentence).


You MIGHT just have the more Biblical approach.

(I was just kidding about the thanks)

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Okay, I got there now.

Not being a fan of McDowell's approach, I wouldn't try to back McDowell up.

I would, however, try to get him to explain his obvious moral judgments regarding slavery, et al. The Christian worldview makes great sense -- even of the atrocities done in the name of Christianity, since it has a doctrine of sin and a source and standard of righteousness. He clearly knows what God requires, as evidenced by his 'moral high ground'. Can he explain WHY he believes slavery is wrong? Similarly, he points to a shallow understanding of history -- a myopic selection of some events to make sense of the whole. I wonder if he can explain a connection between events at all? I would imagine that Hume would be particularly destructive to his own historical analysis.

These are just a couple of the places where I would want to probe him. I wouldn't bother disputing the 'facts'. Some of his observations are quite trenchant. I would rather dispute his ability to make those observations without borrowing from Christianity. It is difficult to do this 'on paper', since I don't know what his basic commitments are. Can we assume he's a materialist? If so, how can he communicate at all? Why would he communicate if he could? Ah... but he does communicate, and expects us to hear and understand him -- and even be persuaded and change. So he proves that he doesn't REALLY believe in materialism. He just claims to. Is he a radical Darwinian? Then why is slavery wrong? Why, for that matter would rape or murder be wrong? Wouldn't that be a matter of securing the survival of my line? Why should I submit to societal norms? Wouldn't his worldview demand a rugged individualism?

It's hard to know. I don't know what he DOES believe. But I'm quite confident that, if I did, I would be able to demonstrate that he doesn't actually live in conformity with his espoused beliefs. And the reason he doesn't is that he actually lives in the world God created and he bears His image -- however much he distorts that image and suppresses the truth of God.

I've presented this line of reasoning to atheists before, namely the glaring lack of basis that they have for calling anything good or evil, especially when their Darwinian underpinnings credit all of life to a blind system of tooth-and-nail, claw your way to survival while killing those who compete--yet suddenly it's "wrong" to steal from your neighbor. The response I've had, when it isn't flatly dodged or avoided, is usually a polite brush-off to the effect of "Well, maybe you need an all-powerful cosmic Daddy to tell you right from wrong, but those of us who grew up can figure that out for ourselves." I haven't yet received a pat on the head, but I've expected one. So in effect they pull a bit of a superiority ruse and simply skirt the issue.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Pergalicious, I worked very hard on formulating my answer and would appreciate a thank you.

I got ya covered.

Okay. But we should not judge a method by its 'results'. Jesus went from 5000 to 12 in one day. Missionaries to Muslims may spend a lifetime to get one convert. I would rather demonstrate that the only way they can continue their game of make-believe is to brush me off this way than to compromise my own convictions as they compromise theirs, and condone their sinful autonomous fantasy. We aren't in control of results. That's the Holy Spirit's work. Our responsibility is to be faithful.

Originally Posted by wturri78

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Okay, I got there now.

Not being a fan of McDowell's approach, I wouldn't try to back McDowell up.

I would, however, try to get him to explain his obvious moral judgments regarding slavery, et al. The Christian worldview makes great sense -- even of the atrocities done in the name of Christianity, since it has a doctrine of sin and a source and standard of righteousness. He clearly knows what God requires, as evidenced by his 'moral high ground'. Can he explain WHY he believes slavery is wrong? Similarly, he points to a shallow understanding of history -- a myopic selection of some events to make sense of the whole. I wonder if he can explain a connection between events at all? I would imagine that Hume would be particularly destructive to his own historical analysis.

These are just a couple of the places where I would want to probe him. I wouldn't bother disputing the 'facts'. Some of his observations are quite trenchant. I would rather dispute his ability to make those observations without borrowing from Christianity. It is difficult to do this 'on paper', since I don't know what his basic commitments are. Can we assume he's a materialist? If so, how can he communicate at all? Why would he communicate if he could? Ah... but he does communicate, and expects us to hear and understand him -- and even be persuaded and change. So he proves that he doesn't REALLY believe in materialism. He just claims to. Is he a radical Darwinian? Then why is slavery wrong? Why, for that matter would rape or murder be wrong? Wouldn't that be a matter of securing the survival of my line? Why should I submit to societal norms? Wouldn't his worldview demand a rugged individualism?

It's hard to know. I don't know what he DOES believe. But I'm quite confident that, if I did, I would be able to demonstrate that he doesn't actually live in conformity with his espoused beliefs. And the reason he doesn't is that he actually lives in the world God created and he bears His image -- however much he distorts that image and suppresses the truth of God.

I've presented this line of reasoning to atheists before, namely the glaring lack of basis that they have for calling anything good or evil, especially when their Darwinian underpinnings credit all of life to a blind system of tooth-and-nail, claw your way to survival while killing those who compete--yet suddenly it's "wrong" to steal from your neighbor. The response I've had, when it isn't flatly dodged or avoided, is usually a polite brush-off to the effect of "Well, maybe you need an all-powerful cosmic Daddy to tell you right from wrong, but those of us who grew up can figure that out for ourselves." I haven't yet received a pat on the head, but I've expected one. So in effect they pull a bit of a superiority ruse and simply skirt the issue.

Wait, was my "thank you" to Joshua removed?

I'm assuming/hoping Josh did that himself.

What? Unauthorized than you removal? I have a hard enough time being grateful to others without further impediments!

I removed the superfluous "thank yous" from my posts.

Originally Posted by Joshua

I removed the superfluous "thank yous" from my posts.

I appreciate that...those were kind of bothering me.

-----Added 6/16/2009 at 06:10:05 EST-----

Originally Posted by Pergamum

http://http://www.infidels.org/libra...xperience.html



First, would you you answer him?

Then, what errors does he make about Presbyterian history?

I wish I could open the link...it's not working for me at all.

Perhaps we need a thank-you-enforcing magistrate, to ensure that righteous behavior is appropriately thanked...no more, no less.

The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience