Those Annoying Little Habbits...

[Jester]

I thought it might be a good idea to look at a few of the complaints we Christians tend to get in terms of our debating. I've been trying to picture my opponents doing something similar, even if it's not the sort of thing that would ever happen. I think it might be enlightening for us to answer some of these questions.
And feel free to add some of your own, but can we make complaints about the irritating things our opponents do out-of-bounds for this one?

1) How would you respond if there were some kind of atheistic "scripture" that was quoted at you for evidence as "proof" that there was no God?
2) What would you say to an atheist who simply but sincerely maintained that he has faith that no God exists.
3) What is the best response to claims from atheists that some force in the universe will punish us severely if we don't accept their belief that there is no God?

Trying to answer these questions, I think, will make us more empathetic and better debaters (even if you don't personally do these things). I'm a big believer in the idea that we can't expect people who don't know God to come to our place of understanding on their own. Rather, its our job to understand their form of reasoning.

[otseng]

I agree with what you say. To effectively communicate, you need to understand the audience and where they are coming from. If you don't understand them, you'll never be able to get your message across. And unfortunately, most Christians are not able to speak on the same wavelength with non-Christians.

To your points, that is why I rarely ever use the Bible as a source of authority when debating atheists. I try to minimize appealing to faith. And I don't pull out the eternal damnation card. Though there are times and places for those, using those to debate with atheists online is not productive.

BTW, at first, I read your title as "Those Annoying Little Hobbits..."

[Goose]

I thought it might be a good idea to look at a few of the complaints we Christians tend to get in terms of our debating.

I don't think, as Christians, we should be too worried about the complaints levied against us by atheists/agnostics. I'm not about to compromise what I believe to make some overtly vocal atheists happy. I'm more concerned with what other Christians, that hold similar beliefes to me, think of me.

1) How would you respond if there were some kind of atheistic "scripture" that was quoted at you for evidence as "proof" that there was no God?

Haven't you ever had an atheist quote Richard Dawkins to you as "proof" that God doesn't exist? I have.

But to answer the question I'd provide counter evidence and arguments using reason and logic as to why the atheistic "scripture" was mistaken if I thought it was. I wouldn't reject it on the sole grounds it was written by an atheist. If I did then I'd be committing the same fallacy as all the sceptics that reject the Bible on the grounds it is written by believers. And that is an intellectually bankrupt position.

2) What would you say to an atheist who simply but sincerely maintained that he has faith that no God exists.

Let's make an important distinction here. There is, on the one hand, the sincere searching atheist/agnostic that simply does not believe. Then there is the evangelical atheist/agnostic that has an agenda to take down Christianity. To the former I would say sorry to hear that, try to provide some answers and evidence, and eventually move on. To the latter I would say bring it on. Let's not get fooled by the latter that is masquerading under the guise of the former. I find it difficult to believe that the atheists/agnostics/sceptics on this site that spend countless hours dedicated to railing against Christianity are here to be convinced or find truth. I doubt that they are here just for "fun" and do not have an agenda. I'm not that naive. I'd be very cautious about inviting such into my bed so to to speak.

3) What is the best response to claims from atheists that some force in the universe will punish us severely if we don't accept their belief that there is no God?

Christianity is what it is. As a Christian I'm not called to make it more palatable to an atheist. I'm called to deliver a message and have an answer for the hope that is within me. Damnation is part of that message whether Christians or non like it or not. We're not called to change the message. We're not called to reinterpret the message. We're not called to reconcile the message with other man made theories and so on.

Trying to answer these questions, I think, will make us more empathetic and better debaters (even if you don't personally do these things). I'm a big believer in the idea that we can't expect people who don't know God to come to our place of understanding on their own. Rather, its our job to understand their form of reasoning.

I do agree to an extent. My worry is when Christians are more concerned with how atheists view them. Some Christians seem to try coming off as being reasonable in the eyes of the world at the expense of compromising. Somehow they think this is helping Christianity. I don't see how it does.


You asked what we can do better.

Here's my short list:

1) Toughen up and stop being so nice to those attacking Christianity. (Be civil and don't get personal, but don't pull your punches either.)
2) Understand the atheist arguments and evidence as well or even better than they do. Read the links they give you. Understand the contents. Don't take it at face value. Do some research.
3) Take your time responding. Provide evidence and arguments not personal opinion posts.
4) Learn at least the basics of formal logic. These are the real "rules" in a debate.
5) Stop spending time defending what are ultimately non-Christian/atheistic positions. It's counter productive.

That's enough for now.

[Intrepidman]

...BTW, at first, I read your title as "Those Annoying Little Hobbits..."

taking the hobbits to isengard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE-1RPDqJAY

[Jester]

I agree with what you say. To effectively communicate, you need to understand the audience and where they are coming from. If you don't understand them, you'll never be able to get your message across. And unfortunately, most Christians are not able to speak on the same wavelength with non-Christians.

Very eloquent, I'm impressed.

BTW, at first, I read your title as "Those Annoying Little Hobbits..."

Well, I suppose that Pippin would get on my nerves after the first few weeks.

[Jester]

I don't think, as Christians, we should be too worried about the complaints levied against us by atheists/agnostics. I'm not about to compromise what I believe to make some overtly vocal atheists happy. I'm more concerned with what other Christians, that hold similar beliefes to me, think of me.

Hmmm... let me ponder this one a moment.
...
Okay, I think I have something.
I don't mean to suggest, in any way, that atheists or agnostics are the judges of our faith. I'd say that other Christians aren't either, and we really shouldn't be overly concerned about their opinions. God alone has that position. I meant only to suggest that, as people who are called to love atheists and agnostics (along with everyone else), we should seek to understand their point of view as best we can.

Haven't you ever had an atheist quote Richard Dawkins to you as "proof" that God doesn't exist? I have.

Yes indeed.

But to answer the question I'd provide counter evidence and arguments using reason and logic as to why the atheistic "scripture" was mistaken if I thought it was. I wouldn't reject it on the sole grounds it was written by an atheist. If I did then I'd be committing the same fallacy as all the sceptics that reject the Bible on the grounds it is written by believers. And that is an intellectually bankrupt position.

Okay, I'd completely agree with that as a response. Certainly, irrational skepticism does exist, and it does feel at times that most all of it is aimed at Christianity.
But I was really wondering if it might make us empathize a little bit with why atheists tend to get angry. If someone were quoting something that I thought to be wrong all the time (such as the bulk of Dawkins' comments), I might start to get irritable as well.

Let's make an important distinction here. There is, on the one hand, the sincere searching atheist/agnostic that simply does not believe. Then there is the evangelical atheist/agnostic that has an agenda to take down Christianity.

That is an important distinction. Each would need to be handled differently.

To the former I would say sorry to hear that, try to provide some answers and evidence, and eventually move on.

I'd like to think that I would continue to try with the person indefinitely. I'm not saying that I would, but I do like to think so.

To the latter I would say bring it on.

I love a good debate as well, and don't see that this wave of Dawkins fans have any real scientific support for their charges against religion. So, I don't really worry about debating the issues.
My real concern here is the fact that we are called to love our enemies. I'm wondering how to do that. Surely, I have to tell them the truth, but it is entirely possible to tell someone the truth in a cruel or hateful way. Rather, I want to tell them the truth in such a way that they would be inclined to see it for the real and beautiful thing that it is.

I find it difficult to believe that the atheists/agnostics/sceptics on this site that spend countless hours dedicated to railing against Christianity are here to be convinced or find truth.

I generally assume that they are here to convert others just as much as we. Still, I do want to know how best to love them.

I doubt that they are here just for "fun" and do not have an agenda. I'm not that naive. I'd be very cautious about inviting such into my bed so to to speak.

I agree that one should not be naive about such things, but I also feel that we have nothing to fear from attacks on our beliefs. Trying to see their point of view, if we are open to God's truth, won't lead us to accept it. Rather, I think it will only further our conviction in Christ. We'll catch a glimpse of what life is like without the spirit, and be renewed in our appreciation for God's grace.

Christianity is what it is. As a Christian I'm not called to make it more palatable to an atheist. I'm called to deliver a message and have an answer for the hope that is within me. Damnation is part of that message whether Christians or non like it or not. We're not called to change the message. We're not called to reinterpret the message. We're not called to reconcile the message with other man made theories and so on.

I definitely agree that there is no excuse for changing the message of God. I only worry that we are changing it - making it sound like damnation, rather than the Gospel, is the heart of the message. I'm thinking that it takes a lot of careful talk and prayer for an atheist to come to understand what we mean. I'm worried about throwing things out there recklessly, not because it is an uncomfortable truth, but because it might distort the truth. People might completely misunderstand, and I don't want carelessness on my part to be the reason that they don't come to see who Jesus really is.

Trying to answer these questions, I think, will make us more empathetic and better debaters (even if you don't personally do these things). I'm a big believer in the idea that we can't expect people who don't know God to come to our place of understanding on their own. Rather, its our job to understand their form of reasoning.

I do agree to an extent. My worry is when Christians are more concerned with how atheists view them. Some Christians seem to try coming off as being reasonable in the eyes of the world at the expense of compromising. Somehow they think this is helping Christianity. I don't see how it does.

That is a very real concern. I've seen it, and you do have a point.
Okay, I think this has made me see more what I'm getting at (thank you!).
I want to know exactly how the non-theists understand what we're saying. I keep reading their comments on Christianity, and am always hit by the fact that most don't seem to have much of a grasp of the concept. So, I suppose what I really want is to focus on getting them to see Christianity for what it is. I think that's why understanding their perspective is so important for me. Else, we'll just keep talking two different languages at each other.

1) Toughen up and stop being so nice to those attacking Christianity. (Be civil and don't get personal, but don't pull your punches either.)

I don't know about this one. I think we've shown the toughness, what I think they haven't seen is Christ's love for them. I think we should, without compromising anything about our beliefs, demonstrate that whenever we can.

2) Understand the atheist arguments and evidence as well or even better than they do. Read the links they give you. Understand the contents. Don't take it at face value. Do some research.

I agree here 100%. Really researching things has always led me back to God's truth.

3) Take your time responding. Provide evidence and arguments not personal opinion posts.

Good reminder there.

4) Learn at least the basics of formal logic. These are the real "rules" in a debate.

Again, I agree.

5) Stop spending time defending what are ultimately non-Christian/atheistic positions. It's counter productive.

I agree, and hope that I haven't left you with the impression that I defend their positions when I say that I want to understand them better.

Anyway, thanks. That made me think.

[Goose]

Hi Jester,

I think you and I agree on much and you have a very gentle yet strong spirit about you. You are a credit to our faith.

But I was really wondering if it might make us empathize a little bit with why atheists tend to get angry. If someone were quoting something that I thought to be wrong all the time (such as the bulk of Dawkins' comments), I might start to get irritable as well.

Perhaps atheists get angry when the Bible is quoted at them because they subconsciously recognize the truth. I don't think we should stop quoting it or relegate it to the nose bleed section because atheists don't like it. Maybe, eventually it will sink in. Food for thought.

But I do understand your general point. In certain types of debate I don't quote the Bible. I've been in the science and religion forum debating Evolution for the last few weeks and haven't quoted the Bible once.

To the [sincere non-believer] I would say sorry to hear that, try to provide some answers and evidence, and eventually move on.

I'd like to think that I would continue to try with the person indefinitely. I'm not saying that I would, but I do like to think so.

I would like to think I'd do the same. And probably would if it was a family member or someone very close to me. But practically speaking it is very difficult on forums like this.

My real concern here is the fact that we are called to love our enemies. I'm wondering how to do that. Surely, I have to tell them the truth, but it is entirely possible to tell someone the truth in a cruel or hateful way.

There's no reason to be hateful. And I'm not sure that quoting some scripture or even pulling the "damnation card" should be considered cruel or hateful. In forums like this we show our love for our enemies by simply engaging them. Atheists should be careful not to confuse the message with the style of the messenger. Some Christians are abrasive and even aggressive. Some are passive and gentle. How the message is delivered is not nearly as important as the content of that message.

Rather, I want to tell them the truth in such a way that they would be inclined to see it for the real and beautiful thing that it is.

Ah, this is a bit of a dilemma we have. Telling someone how beautiful Christianity is and showing them how beautiful it is are entirely different endeavours. And I'm not convinced telling them is enough. The evangelical atheist has the upper hand on these forums because everything is cerebral. The Christian has difficulty expressing Christ's love in a practical way here. So I'm not convinced that these forums are the best place to evangelise. I see them more as place to defend our beliefs and question theirs.

Christianity is what it is. As a Christian I'm not called to make it more palatable to an atheist. I'm called to deliver a message and have an answer for the hope that is within me. Damnation is part of that message whether Christians or non like it or not. We're not called to change the message. We're not called to reinterpret the message. We're not called to reconcile the message with other man made theories and so on.

I definitely agree that there is no excuse for changing the message of God. I only worry that we are changing it - making it sound like damnation, rather than the Gospel, is the heart of the message. I'm thinking that it takes a lot of careful talk and prayer for an atheist to come to understand what we mean. I'm worried about throwing things out there recklessly, not because it is an uncomfortable truth, but because it might distort the truth. People might completely misunderstand, and I don't want carelessness on my part to be the reason that they don't come to see who Jesus really is.

I understand your points. And they are good ones. I'm not sure how one would distort even if it were recklessly delivered or over emphasizing one aspect such as damnation. The truth is the truth. The Gospel necessarily contains the concept of damnation. Without it, why would we need the Gospel and need to be saved? My concern here, though, is that again it sounds like we are saying that the message must delivered in a particular format for an atheist to accept it. And that sounds more like we must be good sales people as Christians because the message itself cannot penetrate. Paul deals with this when he wrote the Corinthians:

1Co 2:1-5

And I, brothers, when I came to you, did not come with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

I think we should deliver the message, whether recklessly or with eloquence, and let God do the rest.

I want to know exactly how the non-theists understand what we're saying. I keep reading their comments on Christianity, and am always hit by the fact that most don't seem to have much of a grasp of the concept. So, I suppose what I really want is to focus on getting them to see Christianity for what it is. I think that's why understanding their perspective is so important for me. Else, we'll just keep talking two different languages at each other.

I understand. And Paul understood this principle (1Cor 9:19-23) too. Again, my concern here is that in our pride we begin to think that it is us and our intellect or oratory skills that win people rather the power of God. Dangerous territory.

1) Toughen up and stop being so nice to those attacking Christianity. (Be civil and don't get personal, but don't pull your punches either.)

I don't know about this one. I think we've shown the toughness, what I think they haven't seen is Christ's love for them. I think we should, without compromising anything about our beliefs, demonstrate that whenever we can.

Allow me to clarify. If I were to meet a sincere searching atheist in the street and begin to dialogue I would be very gentle, loving and understanding. But that is generally not the case in these forums. In these forums those attacking Christianity are given a voice. They have the potential opportunity to lead someone away from Christ. It almost happened to me years ago. Its not a joke. I don't think we need to be nicey-nice to those folks. I believe there is spiritual warfare so to speak taking place. We don't need to be hateful or abusive. But let's take off the kid gloves and be direct.

I agree, and hope that I haven't left you with the impression that I defend their positions when I say that I want to understand them better.

No not at all. I wasn't thinking of you. You are one of the finest Christians on this forum. And I hope I haven't come across as an intolerant burn'm at the stake Christian. I just think in these things we need Godly wisdom. Not that I have much of it.

[MagusYanam]

1) How would you respond if there were some kind of atheistic "scripture" that was quoted at you for evidence as "proof" that there was no God?
2) What would you say to an atheist who simply but sincerely maintained that he has faith that no God exists.
3) What is the best response to claims from atheists that some force in the universe will punish us severely if we don't accept their belief that there is no God?

1.) I generally wouldn't take it seriously. I agree with Goose that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do very little to sway me toward atheism, and I would employ similar tactics as Goose suggests. Additionally, I would attempt to point out to those quoting Dawkins or Hitchens that their positions seem rather weak, in that they want to keep all of the aesthetic and moral and social structures that theistic societies have built and kept, but they want to take out the belief in God that inspired them. The only real difference between Christendom and the society that they imagine is that the churches have all been turned into museums; that doesn't seem like a strong, creative or appealing vision to me.

2.) Well, everyone has a faith of some sort! Humans are inherently creative and religious creatures - we all have to have something to put our trust in, something to define ourselves by, whether it's something ultimately unhealthy (like money or security or a political or patriotic cause) or ultimately healthy (like, for example, the way of the Cross). I think with regard to such a genuine, sincere atheist, perhaps a parabolic or Socratic method - of asking them questions that give them time and space to think about where their own commitments lie - is called for.

3.) I think this point is well-taken. I don't think either liberals or conservatives have a very good way of dealing with issues of damnation. Jester is right that damnation is not the point of the Gospel - Jesus, after all, did not come to condemn but to save - and that we shouldn't use the concept of Hell to threaten or browbeat nonbelievers. I say this often, but I don't think the message ever really sinks in - Jesus reserved his harshest and most condemning language for the religious authorities, never for the Samaritans or the Gentiles.

I'm not sure how one would distort even if it were recklessly delivered or over emphasizing one aspect such as damnation. The truth is the truth. The Gospel necessarily contains the concept of damnation. Without it, why would we need the Gospel and need to be saved?

There are two kinds of heresy, or so my father says - the kind of heresy which invents something non-Scriptural or counter-Scriptural and makes it central, and the kind of heresy which takes something Scriptural and places an improper emphasis or lack of emphasis on it.

Nothing goes untouched by the presence of God - this is made abundantly clear in Scripture. In addition, Jesus said the only sin which would not find forgiveness is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - that is, denial of the presence of God within oneself, such that awareness of the presence of God becomes an all-consuming (what Kierkegaard would call demonic) agony of despair. If we are to accept these as true, the overuse or reckless use of the language of damnation becomes a stumbling-block to faith, and may actually be counter-productive, encouraging these demonic impulses within people to existentially set oneself at war with oneself. The Gospel may be read as the revelation by God-as-man in history, in the person of Jesus Christ, of the saving relation, God-in-man in the form of the Holy Spirit, through the Cross. (Alternately, the Gospel may be read as the articulation of a political strategy of non-violent theistic socialism, but that's another matter.)

[Intrepidman]

I thought it might be a good idea to look at a few of the complaints we Christians tend to get in terms of our debating. I've been trying to picture my opponents doing something similar, even if it's not the sort of thing that would ever happen. I think it might be enlightening for us to answer some of these questions.
And feel free to add some of your own, but can we make complaints about the irritating things our opponents do out-of-bounds for this one?

1) How would you respond if there were some kind of atheistic "scripture" that was quoted at you for evidence as "proof" that there was no God?

It is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. To prove there is no God one would have to be in all places of the universe at the same time, and have knowledge of all places in the universe at the same time, Just in case God is hiding somewhere. But oops, if one were everywhere are once, and knew about everything that would make one omnipresent, and omniscience. Borderline on being god himself.

Seriously, I can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not hiding at the far side of the sun, I just have faith he doesn't exist.

2) What would you say to an atheist who simply but sincerely maintained that he has faith that no God exists.

That's cool. I pray that all atheists live long, healthy, happy lives. I can't force anyone into heaven. I respect their choice of final destination.

3) What is the best response to claims from atheists that some force in the universe will punish us severely if we don't accept their belief that there is no God?

How could that force in the universe not be considered God? If an atheist maintains that such a force exists, then I would argue that they are not an atheist at all, but just have a different God.

[bambi]

Psalm 53:1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

People who don't believe in God have to convince their heart that there is no God. That is why on this verse I stated they have to tell their heart that there is no God.

1) How would you respond if there were some kind of atheistic "scripture" that was quoted at you for evidence as "proof" that there was no God?

Proverbs 26:4-5 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

you have to be careful on how you answer don't go to what he is pointing at instead let him go to where you want him to go.

2) What would you say to an atheist who simply but sincerely maintained that he has faith that no God exists.

You don't have to convince them and you don't have to worry if they are not convince just say what you believe in and don't be moved.

3) What is the best response to claims from atheists that some force in the universe will punish us severely if we don't accept their belief that there is no God?

Be strong in faith up to the end of everything there will be people who will remain unbeliever.

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death