Atheism

[JM]

How do we begin to engage atheistic concepts, how do we begin a debate attacking the foundations of atheistic thought?

I'm new to philosophy and dove in head first, discussing some philosophical ideas online [which I see I wasn't ready to do], I've been called a sophist for using epistemological arguments. Is this a common attack, it's probably just my wording and presentation but I'd still like to how to get things rolling by building a foundation from which to work.

Any good links, perhaps outlines on discussing these topics?

Thanks guys.

j

 

[VanVos]

I'm currently doing a series on apologetics found here www.vanvos.blogspot.com.

I recommend Part 2 and 3, where I cover epistemology and worldviews. There's notes available for each teaching.

Hope it helps VanVos

 

[A5pointer]

17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

This is not a popular response with the sophists but I believe that presupposing the words of the cross are true and telling just that story to any athiest is the only way to go. As an old reformer said "Christ is a Tiger, just let Him out of the cage".

 

[KMK]

I like both of these responses so far. Let me state up front that I am in no way an expert on apologetcs. However, I think another route would be to get them to define their terms.

Rom 1 tells us that all men know there is a creator. We can take that to the bank. Even if they say they do not believe their is a creator, they actually do. The problem is they do not glorify nor thank the God of the Bible as creator.

So, ask them how they got here. How did the trees, the sun, the stars etc. come into being. If they answer, "By chance", then 'chance' is their god. If they answer, "By evolution", then 'evolution' is their god. If they answer, "By mother nature", then 'mother nature' is their god. Once you point out that they do believe in a god, but they just don't call it 'god', then you have some common ground.

This could lead to questions like, "How do you know your god?" By science? But science continually changes. (Just ask Pluto) "What is your responsibility toward your god? After all, it created you." "What was your god's purpose in creating you?"

And that might give you an opportunity to tell them about your God that is revealed, not only in nature, and in the law written on man's heart, but in the Bible.

I am looking forward to other responses.

 

[A5pointer]

I like both of these responses so far. Let me state up front that I am in no way an expert on apologetcs. However, I think another route would be to get them to define their terms.

Rom 1 tells us that all men know there is a creator. We can take that to the bank. Even if they say they do not believe their is a creator, they actually do. The problem is they do not glorify nor thank the God of the Bible as creator.

So, ask them how they got here. How did the trees, the sun, the stars etc. come into being. If they answer, "By chance", then 'chance' is their god. If they answer, "By evolution", then 'evolution' is their god. If they answer, "By mother nature", then 'mother nature' is their god. Once you point out that they do believe in a god, but they just don't call it 'god', then you have some common ground.

This could lead to questions like, "How do you know your god?" By science? But science continually changes. (Just ask Pluto) "What is your responsibility toward your god? After all, it created you." "What was your god's purpose in creating you?"

And that might give you an opportunity to tell them about your God that is revealed, not only in nature, and in the law written on man's heart, but in the Bible.

I am looking forward to other responses.

Or you could simply tell your interlocutor that you believe they stand rightly condemned for their sin before the sovereign creator of all things. Then tell them the good news that there is a way of escape through the cross. Fill in the blanks. They either believe or they don't. You have made clear to them the only message that will ever make a difference.

 

[JM]

Thanks for the advice guys, I downloaded the mp3's from the blog, thanks Pastor.

Trevor, I wish I had your advice before I stated the discussions. I went back and re-read my posts, besides some factual errors I made, I was referring to too many areas of logic in too short a time. Like the blog said the transendental argument can be difficult to understand and I referred to subjects the atheists had little or no knowledge of.

What is "The Myth of Neutrality?"

thanks,

j

 

[Greg]

Hi Jason,

What is "The Myth of Neutrality?"

thanks,

j

I'm new to the study of apologetics myself. From what I understand at this point, the myth of neutrality is the mistaken assumption an unbeliever will attempt to impose on a believer by insisting that we approach a given topic (such as the existence of God, the inspiration of Scripture, the person of Christ, the nature of reality, how we know what we know, etc...), neutrally with no presuppositions, or underlying philosophical biases. The problem is that this is impossible. We all have underlying philosophical belief systems by which we interpret things.

The unbeliever is at enmity with God. He is at war with his Creator. The Bible tells us that his thinking and reasoning is all messed up, it is darkened. He cannot possibly examine the things of God from an unbiased neutral stand point. The things of God are but foolishness to the unbeliever.

The Bible makes it clear that the unbeliever is not neutral, regardless of what he professes. The Bible is also clear that believers likewise are not neutral. We are to be sanctified, or set apart, by the truth. God's Word is truth.

The unbeliever is not neutral, nor should we be. When we as believers attempt to approach things on their terms (namely by laying aside our Christian distinctives in the name of being "neutral"), by default we then begin reasoning as they reason, which is, by biblical definition, futile.

Intellectual neutrality is indeed a myth.

 

[A5pointer]

Hi Jason,



I'm new to the study of apologetics myself. From what I understand at this point, the myth of neutrality is the mistaken assumption an unbeliever will attempt to impose on a believer by insisting that we approach a given topic (such as the existence of God, the inspiration of Scripture, the person of Christ, the nature of reality, how we know what we know, etc...), neutrally with no presuppositions, or underlying philosophical biases. The problem is that this is impossible. We all have underlying philosophical belief systems by which we interpret things.

The unbeliever is at enmity with God. He is at war with his Creator. The Bible tells us that his thinking and reasoning is all messed up, it is darkened. He cannot possibly examine the things of God from an unbiased neutral stand point. The things of God are but foolishness to the unbeliever.

The Bible makes it clear that the unbeliever is not neutral, regardless of what he professes. The Bible is also clear that believers likewise are not neutral. We are to be sanctified, or set apart, by the truth. God's Word is truth.

The unbeliever is not neutral, nor should we be. When we as believers attempt to approach things on their terms (namely by laying aside our Christian distinctives in the name of being "neutral"), by default we then begin reasoning as they reason, which is, by biblical definition, futile.

Intellectual neutrality is indeed a myth.

I agree with the way you are thinking.

 

[JM]

Hi Jason,



I'm new to the study of apologetics myself. From what I understand at this point, the myth of neutrality is the mistaken assumption an unbeliever will attempt to impose on a believer by insisting that we approach a given topic (such as the existence of God, the inspiration of Scripture, the person of Christ, the nature of reality, how we know what we know, etc...), neutrally with no presuppositions, or underlying philosophical biases. The problem is that this is impossible. We all have underlying philosophical belief systems by which we interpret things.

The unbeliever is at enmity with God. He is at war with his Creator. The Bible tells us that his thinking and reasoning is all messed up, it is darkened. He cannot possibly examine the things of God from an unbiased neutral stand point. The things of God are but foolishness to the unbeliever.

The Bible makes it clear that the unbeliever is not neutral, regardless of what he professes. The Bible is also clear that believers likewise are not neutral. We are to be sanctified, or set apart, by the truth. God's Word is truth.

The unbeliever is not neutral, nor should we be. When we as believers attempt to approach things on their terms (namely by laying aside our Christian distinctives in the name of being "neutral"), by default we then begin reasoning as they reason, which is, by biblical definition, futile.

Intellectual neutrality is indeed a myth.

I knew it! It's the first thing I noticed when talking with atheists/theists. To test the waters I started a post offering a lecture for discussion it was on a forum that had an open forum for religion and here are a few responses:

Quote:
You are apparently not willing to even attempt to forge such an agreement because you're afraid to engage in real debate.

Quote:
JM seems blissfully unconcerned with reality, especially nature and what is observed in nature.

Quote:
But that's all it is: asininity. The guy said that he wasn't interested in actual debate.

Quote:
I just recognize an idiot when I see one, and realize that it is useless to argue with him.

Quote:
Never argue with an idiot. He will beat you with his stupidity, as he is far better versed in it.

Quote:
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Quote:
JM: You ran away this time, but don't think I'm not going to continue to hold your feet to the fire. If you're going to throw down the gauntlet, you'd better be ready to follow through on your sabre-rattling.

Quote:
I suppose it's because I think your ilk give theists a bad name.

---------------------------------

When I read the responses I realized they had little understanding of what we were talking about and it was almost useless to continue, I'm new to philosophy, but these folks pride themselves with being experts in what they believe without realizing the foundation for their belief which makes it difficult to have an honest back and forth. Many of the posts I made have concepts taken from other debates and in these debates the "knowing" atheists were reduced to fools, but these guys just couldn't see it.

Peace,

j

 

[panta dokimazete]

Hi Jason,



I'm new to the study of apologetics myself. From what I understand at this point, the myth of neutrality is the mistaken assumption an unbeliever will attempt to impose on a believer by insisting that we approach a given topic (such as the existence of God, the inspiration of Scripture, the person of Christ, the nature of reality, how we know what we know, etc...), neutrally with no presuppositions, or underlying philosophical biases. The problem is that this is impossible. We all have underlying philosophical belief systems by which we interpret things.

The unbeliever is at enmity with God. He is at war with his Creator. The Bible tells us that his thinking and reasoning is all messed up, it is darkened. He cannot possibly examine the things of God from an unbiased neutral stand point. The things of God are but foolishness to the unbeliever.

The Bible makes it clear that the unbeliever is not neutral, regardless of what he professes. The Bible is also clear that believers likewise are not neutral. We are to be sanctified, or set apart, by the truth. God's Word is truth.

The unbeliever is not neutral, nor should we be. When we as believers attempt to approach things on their terms (namely by laying aside our Christian distinctives in the name of being "neutral"), by default we then begin reasoning as they reason, which is, by biblical definition, futile.

Intellectual neutrality is indeed a myth.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If anyone out there wants to throw tomatoes at me or call me anti-intellectual...

Trevor,

You're an anti-intellectual. I need a current 10 digit grid for your location. I've checked the metereological report and now only need to dial in the azimuth, quadrant, and power to launch a tomato to you position. Please remain motionless for about 30 minutes after pressing submit reply to allow sufficient time for the tomato to reach you.

Seriously, I've been reflecting quite a bit about apologetics lately. Everyone is charged to be prepared to defend the hope that lies within us but I don't believe we need to be trained logicians to do so. On the other hand, I don't believe we ought to be completely naive of the vain philosophies that exist.

I believe apologetics serves two purposes: to strengthen believers and stop the mouths of fools.

I think I used to like to engage in some debate with unbelievers in the past just to register my disdain for their folly. I admit that was sinful. Honestly, most of the people that hang out in such boards are teenagers and young twenty-somethings. This board is relatively rare on the web where a forum restricts membership even on the basis that you have to be of a certain maturity to discuss issues. Most that participate in forums are just opinionated and not really interested in discussions except with like-minded folk.

Understanding Scripture and the nature of man is very liberating in this regard. It can really be like water off a duck's back when a man rejects the truth. I believe we ought to be willing to answer real objections or sincere questions but we don't have to suffer fools for the sake of having them repeat their folly. There are some that feel a vocational call to such work but their apologetic endeavors are not the norm for all Christians.

Belief in the power of the Gospel is very liberating as well. Look how Paul deals with the philosophers at Mars Hill. He only quotes their philosophy enough to show how foolish it is and then commands them that its time to repent and turn to Christ. It wasn't the persuasiveness of his arguments that converted men that day but the power of the Gospel.

Thus, I think its important that we be able to rebuff the regular objections to the Word and prepare ourselves so we can equip our children and those around us to be able to see folly for what it is and not be attracted to it but I don't think becoming a specialist in such endeavors or going into the company of fools is where most of us are called.

As Rev. Winzer pointed out recently, we don't know all the universals and the particulars but we know the God who does because He has made us know Him. Such a philosophy will never be acceptable to those whose minds suppress real truth by precluding God and we can see folly for what it is and point it out to leave men without further excuse but it's the Gospel that will transform and not the persuasiveness of our words or the evidence of how nice our lives are.

 

[JM]

Is there ever a time to move from presuppositions to evidence? One the atheist sees they have no foundation for the way in which they live, is it time to move onto physical evidences we can prove from the Bible?

Is the TAG being used by peoples of other faiths? A short while back I read something written by a Muslim and it sounded like a transcendental argument for "allah," I'll try to find it and post it.

Thanks.

 

[A5pointer]

Trevor,

You're an anti-intellectual. I need a current 10 digit grid for your location. I've checked the metereological report and now only need to dial in the azimuth, quadrant, and power to launch a tomato to you position. Please remain motionless for about 30 minutes after pressing submit reply to allow sufficient time for the tomato to reach you.

Seriously, I've been reflecting quite a bit about apologetics lately. Everyone is charged to be prepared to defend the hope that lies within us but I don't believe we need to be trained logicians to do so. On the other hand, I don't believe we ought to be completely naive of the vain philosophies that exist.

I believe apologetics serves two purposes: to strengthen believers and stop the mouths of fools.

I think I used to like to engage in some debate with unbelievers in the past just to register my disdain for their folly. I admit that was sinful. Honestly, most of the people that hang out in such boards are teenagers and young twenty-somethings. This board is relatively rare on the web where a forum restricts membership even on the basis that you have to be of a certain maturity to discuss issues. Most that participate in forums are just opinionated and not really interested in discussions except with like-minded folk.

Understanding Scripture and the nature of man is very liberating in this regard. It can really be like water off a duck's back when a man rejects the truth. I believe we ought to be willing to answer real objections or sincere questions but we don't have to suffer fools for the sake of having them repeat their folly. There are some that feel a vocational call to such work but their apologetic endeavors are not the norm for all Christians.

Belief in the power of the Gospel is very liberating as well. Look how Paul deals with the philosophers at Mars Hill. He only quotes their philosophy enough to show how foolish it is and then commands them that its time to repent and turn to Christ. It wasn't the persuasiveness of his arguments that converted men that day but the power of the Gospel.

Thus, I think its important that we be able to rebuff the regular objections to the Word and prepare ourselves so we can equip our children and those around us to be able to see folly for what it is and not be attracted to it but I don't think becoming a specialist in such endeavors or going into the company of fools is where most of us are called.

As Rev. Winzer pointed out recently, we don't know all the universals and the particulars but we know the God who does because He has made us know Him. Such a philosophy will never be acceptable to those whose minds suppress real truth by precluding God and we can see folly for what it is and point it out to leave men without further excuse but it's the Gospel that will transform and not the persuasiveness of our words or the evidence of how nice our lives are.

well said, I'm with you