Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
First of all, a caveat: I don't think all unbelievers are intrinsically dumb or that they all know nothing. Not at all. Carnal foolishness is clearly a moral problem and not an intellectual one. But still, this "new atheist" movement is so unbelievably smug and misotheistic. See this conversation from Facebook that I had.
The context of this is that, about a year ago, amidst my own theological and prideful foolishness, I decided to go up against a huge Facebook group of unbelievers. My argument was still defensible in a sense (the atheists on the board simply overwhelmed me with personal remarks and sheer numbers), but it was evidentialist. I returned about a year later to mark at the fact that I was no longer evidentialist but now a Reformed presuppositionalist. I was trying to be affable. See what ensues:
ME
ATHEIST
ME
ATHEIST
ME
ATHEIST
[...]
ME
ATHEIST
OTHER ATHEIST
ATHEIST
Throughout this thread, atheists were responding to my original post on evidence for the Resurrection of Christ, and while their arguments were actually futile, I did not want to respond to them because the purpose of my post was to state my rejection of evidentialism. Then the atheist started arguing with me about how my "methodology was flawed" after I stated my non-adherence to evidentialism... The craving for argument and enmity in that group clearly demonstrates the moral need of them for Christ.
The context of this is that, about a year ago, amidst my own theological and prideful foolishness, I decided to go up against a huge Facebook group of unbelievers. My argument was still defensible in a sense (the atheists on the board simply overwhelmed me with personal remarks and sheer numbers), but it was evidentialist. I returned about a year later to mark at the fact that I was no longer evidentialist but now a Reformed presuppositionalist. I was trying to be affable. See what ensues:
ME
And I'll add three things:
1. Evidential apologetics is quite weak. (I learned this firsthand from you guys and gals.)
2. Reformed theology and presuppositional apologetics is quite not.
3. I'm listening to Death's album "Symbolic" and it is excellent.
Discuss. I'm gonna go take a mildly quick shower.
1. Evidential apologetics is quite weak. (I learned this firsthand from you guys and gals.)
2. Reformed theology and presuppositional apologetics is quite not.
3. I'm listening to Death's album "Symbolic" and it is excellent.
Discuss. I'm gonna go take a mildly quick shower.
ATHEIST
"Reformed theology and presuppositional apologetics"
Well, let's see, the former is a fairly recent invention and as for the second: just don't tell me you're one of those TAGers.
Well, let's see, the former is a fairly recent invention and as for the second: just don't tell me you're one of those TAGers.
ME
Well, of course, any serious Christian denomination would argue that theirs is the historic faith, the one that was originally established. I don't really feel like demonstrating that here at all, but I do feel like asserting its awesomeness.
Please don't tell me you're one of those TANGers.
Please don't tell me you're one of those TANGers.
ATHEIST
"I don't really feel like demonstrating that here at all"
You just like to assert what you can't prove. But you're quite right that yours is not the only tradition of that sort. Christianity is so full of contradictory traditions that it allows one to seriously doubt just how unified and coherent the faith is.
"Please don't tell me you're one of those TANGers."
An argument like TAG deserves an argument like TANG (and Michael Martin has the benefit of professional knowledge of philosophy, unlike a lot of apologists). I'm just waiting for you to quote Romans 1 (as if the Bible should be an authority to an infidel) and go on long tirades about words nowhere found in the Bible like "common grace", "unregenerate man", "reprobate", and "unconditional election".
You just like to assert what you can't prove. But you're quite right that yours is not the only tradition of that sort. Christianity is so full of contradictory traditions that it allows one to seriously doubt just how unified and coherent the faith is.
"Please don't tell me you're one of those TANGers."
An argument like TAG deserves an argument like TANG (and Michael Martin has the benefit of professional knowledge of philosophy, unlike a lot of apologists). I'm just waiting for you to quote Romans 1 (as if the Bible should be an authority to an infidel) and go on long tirades about words nowhere found in the Bible like "common grace", "unregenerate man", "reprobate", and "unconditional election".
ME
Easy there, killer.
//I'm just waiting for you to quote Romans 1 (as if the Bible should be an authority to an infidel) and go on long tirades about words nowhere found in the Bible like "common grace", "unregenerate man", "reprobate", and "unconditional election".//
You forgot "Trinity."
Also, I'd rather quote Psalm 14:1.
//I'm just waiting for you to quote Romans 1 (as if the Bible should be an authority to an infidel) and go on long tirades about words nowhere found in the Bible like "common grace", "unregenerate man", "reprobate", and "unconditional election".//
You forgot "Trinity."
Also, I'd rather quote Psalm 14:1.
ATHEIST
"Easy there, killer."
Is that an objection to the paragraph, or just an acknowledgment that you can't refute it?
"You forgot 'Trinity.'"
Indeed. The doctrine of the Trinity can only be established by after-the-fact prooftexting.
"I'd rather quote Psalm 14:1."
And I'd rather quote every other holy book which contradicts your worldview. So what?
Is that an objection to the paragraph, or just an acknowledgment that you can't refute it?
"You forgot 'Trinity.'"
Indeed. The doctrine of the Trinity can only be established by after-the-fact prooftexting.
"I'd rather quote Psalm 14:1."
And I'd rather quote every other holy book which contradicts your worldview. So what?
[...]
ME
"I don't really feel like demonstrating it" =/= "I am incapable of demonstrating it because I am a stupid Christian"
ATHEIST
Unsurprisingly, you completely misunderstand me. I wasn't suggesting that you're "a stupid Christian", or that Christians are somehow generally stupid (my experience is that people are generally not stupid, regardless of beliefs or lack thereof). Ignorant maybe (although we all are to varying degrees), but that's a different story.
I was indeed suggesting that you are incapable of demonstrating it, but this need not be your fault. For example, no one is capable of demonstrating the truth of a falsehood, no matter how learned or brilliantly intelligent.
I see no reason for you to take umbrage, especially as someone unlikely to consider it necessary to demonstrate much of anything anyway. The mere statement of fact is not offensive.
I was indeed suggesting that you are incapable of demonstrating it, but this need not be your fault. For example, no one is capable of demonstrating the truth of a falsehood, no matter how learned or brilliantly intelligent.
I see no reason for you to take umbrage, especially as someone unlikely to consider it necessary to demonstrate much of anything anyway. The mere statement of fact is not offensive.
OTHER ATHEIST
I had to look up TAG on Wikipedia. That's an argument?? You might as well say God exists because we have a concept of the colour blue!!
I need a lie down.
I need a lie down.
ATHEIST
That's the argument. And what's more; the vast majority of Christian apologists (and believers in general for that matter) don't bother with it, and it's virtually unheard of in the world of philosophy.
In short it goes like this: even those who ostensibly reject belief in God, are not really atheists. Everyone presupposes the existence of God to make sense of the world, in order to get logic, induction and so forth. Hence, they borrow from the Christian worldview.
Never mind how ridiculous that sounds; how on earth do they get from "God exists" to "Christianity is true"? Atheist philosopher Michael Martin has devoted some time to refuting it, and even produced his own argument TANG, the transcendental argument for the NON-existence of God.
In short it goes like this: even those who ostensibly reject belief in God, are not really atheists. Everyone presupposes the existence of God to make sense of the world, in order to get logic, induction and so forth. Hence, they borrow from the Christian worldview.
Never mind how ridiculous that sounds; how on earth do they get from "God exists" to "Christianity is true"? Atheist philosopher Michael Martin has devoted some time to refuting it, and even produced his own argument TANG, the transcendental argument for the NON-existence of God.
Throughout this thread, atheists were responding to my original post on evidence for the Resurrection of Christ, and while their arguments were actually futile, I did not want to respond to them because the purpose of my post was to state my rejection of evidentialism. Then the atheist started arguing with me about how my "methodology was flawed" after I stated my non-adherence to evidentialism... The craving for argument and enmity in that group clearly demonstrates the moral need of them for Christ.