Calling the bluff of the atheist: when to do it?

[Tim]

Is it proper to not accept these atheistic claims:

1. The atheist sees no evidence of God;
2. The atheist does not believe in absolute right and wrong.

By saying:

1. No, I actually think that, deep down, you do know there is a God;
2. No, I actually think that you do know that you have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong.

If the apologist makes these counter claims, I would think that he is claiming that the atheist is not being truthful about his thoughts and feelings. The apologist is not allowing the atheist to get away with claiming that "he just isn't convinced".

Romans 1 seems key here.

 

[Philip]

If the apologist makes these counter claims, I would think that he is claiming that the atheist is not being truthful about his thoughts and feelings. The apologist is not allowing the atheist to get away with claiming that "he just isn't convinced".

But the atheist is just going to say the same things about Christian belief. Or he'll claim that these are mere assertions.

 

[boastinjesus]

I think it's probably better to push against those propositions with a hypothetical to show the opposite. Not much use in just trying to tell him what he really thinks. Was anything wrong with Nazi Germany? Is there really no design to be seen in the universe?
Just my two cents...

 

[RobertPGH1981]

By saying:

1. No, I actually think that, deep down, you do know there is a God;
2. No, I actually think that you do know that you have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong.

At one point in time I used to claim to be an atheist. People did say this to me and when they said it, in that moment I was fully convinced that I didn't believe, and this would only make me angry. However, throughout my life, especially in times of despair, I would try to reach out to God for help even though I would say he didn't exist. So the atheist is probably making those claims and saying God doesn't exist, but I bet there are some who cry out for help every once in a while like I did, but I also believe that somebody could be so hardened that they might not believe in God at all.

Here is what I learned from debating with an most atheists:

Mat 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Is it proper to not accept these atheistic claims:

1. The atheist sees no evidence of God;
2. The atheist does not believe in absolute right and wrong.

By saying:

1. No, I actually think that, deep down, you do know there is a God;
2. No, I actually think that you do know that you have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong.

If the apologist makes these counter claims, I would think that he is claiming that the atheist is not being truthful about his thoughts and feelings. The apologist is not allowing the atheist to get away with claiming that "he just isn't convinced".

Romans 1 seems key here.

I don't think there's much point in just telling a person that they're suppressing truth. I've even heard some atheists self-acknowledge that they understand they don't have any ground for their belief in right and wrong but are comfortable with it anyhow. At least for me, I'm comfortable with the idea that people think I'm a fool because I also know that the Gospel will change minds. I do think that worldview discussions are helpful so that people don't get too smug that their views are self-evident but persuasion and argument are too different things.

I also think that it is common to human experience that most people walk around with a sense of quiet despair. I laughed recently when I was listening to an apologist who saw a bunch of "Brights" wearing T-shirts that said: "I Love Reality". He chided them for being hopelessly naive and sheltered because there is a tremendous amount of reality in this world that is anything but lovely. War, famine, rape, etc. We're comfortable in the West and can wear T-shirts like that. We need to shake some up and get them to think outside of their own sheltered lives to confront reality as it is and offer them the hope that the Gospel offers in a world that has been placed under Curse.

 

[crimsonleaf]

As an ex-atheist myself I'd have to say that no argument from our position will change a mind. Arguing with atheist will bring up the following: Flying Spaghetti Monster; imaginary friends; Dawkin's Teapot; Santa; I believe in one God less than you, and countless other objections, including Christianity's violent past. Some atheists however, seem to question in such a way as to create the impression that they are seekers after truth, in which case, remaining unruffled, answering questions honestly, and testifying personally with the Gospels as a framework, seems to help. Discussing an intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong will only bring out the social evolution answers.

Generally speaking, once all the answers have been given it's best to leave it to God. He's got a trick or two up his sleeve as my own conversion will illustrate!

 

[jwright82]

Is it proper to not accept these atheistic claims:

1. The atheist sees no evidence of God;
2. The atheist does not believe in absolute right and wrong.

By saying:

1. No, I actually think that, deep down, you do know there is a God;
2. No, I actually think that you do know that you have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong.

If the apologist makes these counter claims, I would think that he is claiming that the atheist is not being truthful about his thoughts and feelings. The apologist is not allowing the atheist to get away with claiming that "he just isn't convinced".

Romans 1 seems key here.

This issue gets into to a more practical and psychological aspect of apologetics. I mean yes we have a theory for proper apologetics but there is also the problem of persuasively arguing our case. Obviously according to Romans 1 they do know in some way the two points you mention but they will never admit it. So I would divide your argument into two parts accrding to your two points, don't overload yourself by trying to "prove" too much.

As far as the not being convinced thing I usually tackle it in this way for the very smug and belligerent atheist, and only them. I say "good for you, but who are you?" I ask that because the average smug atheist psychologically beleives that they are just so much smarter than the christian. They are scientific, free thinkers, and rational in their beleifs. But really who are they and why should I care what they think? It seems a little mean but you can pull it off with gentleness. This will help to put them into the right psychological state to actually debate. Most of the time these people just stand there and go "I'm not convinced, I'm not convinced". And many apologists have wasted their time debating them, including me.

To question their "rationality" will leave them in the position of wanting to defend their "privleged" point of view. I know this sounds like manipulation but it isn't. They are incorectly assuming that since they are unconvinced this is a real problem for the beleiver but it isn't. The smartest guy or gal in the world might be one thing but some college kid, and for some reason the most belligerent atheists I have met were guys who never finished college, is hardley any kind of problem for the beleiver. But in good christian fashion we should seek to defend the "hope that is within us".

Your second point is a little easier to talk about than the first so I will start with that. If the atheist refuses to believe in right and wrong than fine but every time they utter a moral denouncment, like the Salem Witch trials being morally wrong, remind them that they don't believe in morality so they have no foundation to base their opinion on. In fact them denouncing some suppossed evil that christians may have done is only their opinion and is about as valuable as my opinion that brussell sprouts are gross. It doesn't matter unless there is such a thing as right and wrong, which only contradicts their original assertion.

As far as God is concerned use whatever style of apologetics you prefer (Reformed Epitemology, Presupossitionalism, Classical Apologetics, Evidentialism, etc...) to argue that they really do know there is a God and they are morally acountable to him. This is where I prefer Van Til because he gave the apologist hope by stressing that even if we finite sinful creatures fail to provide an adequite argument for God it in some sense doesn't matter because the unbeleiver does know he or she is wrong. Now we should obviously seek to have the most rational and persuasive argument possible but don't worry about failure because it is the Holy Spirit who uses our arguments to bring the elect into the kingdom, not us.

Remember that psychologically speaking the atheist can and may deny the two assertions you mention but epistemologically they can never support them. So a long story short is this, no you do not and should not accept these claims but how you go about challanging them takes a little finesse. Your example is a little, no offense intended, simplistic of the actual situation.

 

[steadfast7]

I think the only thing we should try to establish with an atheist is a friendship that endures. Show me a Christian who will stick with his atheist friend for the long haul and will faithfully pray for his salvation everyday, and I will very much expect to see that atheist become a believer in time. I see no other tactic that could come close to being as effective as that.