Debate Preparation: Atheism v. Christianity

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
hostile reviewers at face-value
Your words 'hostile reviewers' is also a loaded term. Both reviews emphasise where they appreciated Fesko's book and that he said things 'that needed to be said'.

But this thread is about preparing for a debate with atheists. Lets not derail the thread.

If you want to comment about the reviews in another thread feel free to do so.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
Your words 'hostile reviewers' is also a loaded term. Both reviews emphasise where they appreciated Fesko's book and that he said things 'that needed to be said'.

But this thread is about preparing for a debate with atheists. Lets not derail the thread.

If you want to comment about the reviews in another thread feel free to do so.
If someone is going to debate atheists, they are going to need to read something on apologetics. Hence, the reason that I recommended the book in question.
 

TheBruisedReed

Puritan Board Freshman
Was it the professing atheist who decided on this wording?

What is "reality"? What on earth does it mean to be "coherent and congruent with reality"?

I can't make much sense of the question.
It was the professing atheist that decided on the exact wording. I don't like it either, but I believe he has inadvertently set himself up for failure. I believe his question sets up "reality" as the absolute standard by which all other things must be judged. So, I believe the way to "win" this debate will be to show that within a truly consistent atheistic worldview, there cannot be absolutes. If there are no absolutes, then reality is completely subjective. If reality is subjective, then all things thereunto pertaining are also subjective. Yada yada, the atheist cannot know anything because he cannot define what is really "real".

Now, of course, my opponent will borrow from the Christian worldview because I firmly believe he will not admit to the absolute absence of absolutes (thereby confessing an absolute). In doing so, he would effectively forfeit his position as "reality" would no longer be a concrete or factual thing and the conversation would be finished. He will undoubtedly make truth and knowledge claims with certainty, which cannot be possessed according to his worldview, providing me the opportunity to show him that he is suppressing the truth about the God he knows exists.
 
Last edited:

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
It was the professing atheist that decided on the exact wording. I don't like it either, but I believe he has inadvertently set himself up for failure. I believe his question sets up "reality" as the absolute standard by which all other things must be judged. So, I believe the way to "win" this debate will be to show that within a truly consistent atheistic worldview, there cannot be absolutes. If there are no absolutes, then reality is completely subjective. If reality is subjective, then all things thereunto pertaining are also subjective. Yada yada, the atheist cannot know anything because he cannot define what is really "real".

Now, of course, my opponent will borrow from the Christian worldview because I firmly believe he will not admit to the absolute absence of absolutes (thereby confessing an absolute). In doing so, he would effectively forfeit his position as "reality" would no longer be a concrete or factual thing and the conversation would be finished. He will undoubtedly make truth and knowledge claims with certainty, which cannot be possessed according to his worldview, providing me the opportunity to show him that he is suppressing the truth about the God he knows exists.
You're totally right about the wording. It doesn't favor the atheist. It's fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top