Practical Apologetics/OT Question

[Guest]

Asimov wrote:

Good to know you're catching people off-guard with pseudo-epistemology and then entrapping them emotionally.

And here I expected our resident atheist to agree with me.

Could you possibly expound on what you've written above? Was it the part about me living in accordance with my profession that you found objectionable? Maybe the part about me using basic logic? Should I instead rely on theories that are over the heads of those with whom I'm talking? That's certainly not entrapment.

I was mostly kidding, JC. It was the mention of presuppositionalism that caused me to respond.

I'd agree that ones actions betray a lie, and it's not uncommon to see that, so I'm glad that you attempt consistency in your belief system. It's much better to see someone who acts on what they believe than someone who speaks what they believe and doesn't act.

[Guest]

Ugh. I didn't know Asimov was an atheist, and I completely missed the facetious character of his question to me earlier in this discussion. Obviously my serious answer was non-responsive. My bad, Asimov.

CThomas

Please don't get me wrong, Thomas. Believe it or not, my response was in all seriousness. I felt it would be the correct response that a Christian would be able to relate to, if Christianity were true.

Don't think yourself dense, I'm glad you took it seriously.

[Guest]

I was mostly kidding, JC. It was the mention of presuppositionalism that caused me to respond.

The type of presuppositionalism I use is not your garden variety. Rather, I simply think a person's beliefs are primarily preference-based, with a few objective facts thrown in for mortar. No one admits that this is the case... it's just something I've observed. When an atheist tells me he doesn't believe in God, I just have a hard time believing that. To me, if a person doesn't believe the gospel message it's because they don't like the gospel message or the Christian God. We'd all like to think we're completely objective and base everything on facts but human nature will always interfere.

You're not a Christian but you spend some of your valuable time on a Christian discussion forum. If it's merely for entertainment, I'd imagine there are more appealing forms of entertainment to the non-religious. Or perhaps there's something you find attractive about the Jesus we preach? I'm not asking you to answer this, but it seems your preference at this time is to spend time with Christians. And frankly, I'm glad.... nice to see you here.

[Guest]

The type of presuppositionalism I use is not your garden variety. Rather, I simply think a person's beliefs are primarily preference-based, with a few objective facts thrown in for mortar. No one admits that this is the case... it's just something I've observed.

"Given proper motivation, people will believe a lie because they want it to be true or are afraid that it is true."

When an atheist tells me he doesn't believe in God, I just have a hard time believing that.

Why? I don't believe in God.

To me, if a person doesn't believe the gospel message it's because they don't like the gospel message or the Christian God. We'd all like to think we're completely objective and base everything on facts but human nature will always interfere.

That's the thing, I don't see much in the way of facts when someone tells me about God or about Christianity. I know I'm not completely objective, but the proper focus in most discussions should be "do you have proper justification for what you believe?" And that focus is not what brings out "truth" or "objectivity", but it allows us to think a little harder about what we usually take for granted.

You're not a Christian but you spend some of your valuable time on a Christian discussion forum. If it's merely for entertainment, I'd imagine there are more appealing forms of entertainment to the non-religious.

I spend mostly my "off-time" discussing on any number of forums. Off-time is usually in the morning before work or before bed in order for me to wind down.

There is nothing more appealing than intellectual discussion when I don't want to get up.

Or perhaps there's something you find attractive about the Jesus we preach? I'm not asking you to answer this, but it seems your preference at this time is to spend time with Christians. And frankly, I'm glad.... nice to see you here.

I think discussing with people of differing viewpoints is a lot of fun. Some people in my family think I'm weird.

[_Rick_C]

Since we're sort of just discussing "apologetics"...even though I don't normally use them much myself...I recall liking this lecture:

bethinking.org
"Conversational Apologetics"
by Michael Ramsden

'Haven't heard this one in a while but what impressed me was it's about, like: How To Talk With People (and stuff like that). 'Don't think there's much about "rational proofs" and so on in this lecture (if I remember it right). 'Just things like how Jesus met folks where they were at...and was totally interested in them and the details of their lives.
Then, he talked with them.....

(I think I'll give this one a re-listen)
TC all,
Rick

[_Rick_C]

Asimov,

You weren't posting to me but good to meet you. I also have family members who think I'm weird...because I study stuff they don't (They often ask, "What does that have to do with anything?" etc.): It could be anything....

To me anything might have something to do with everything (and vice versa)....
So I try to learn something new every day..."You never know"...till you......know, lol
Rick

[Guest]

I guess there's always one weirdo in the family, eh? Hehehe

[_Rick_C]

Asimov,

Yeah, prolly so....runs in the family, maybe?

Which reminds me:
Once, I came home and no one else was there. And someone had broken in and stolen everything! -- but they replaced it with exact duplicates. When my brother came home I told him what happened. He looked at me weird-like and said, "Um, excuse me, but have we met?" (a modified Steven Wright joke).

All,

I just re-listened to Ramsden's lecture. It's kind of long (1 hour and a few). He goes into Jesus' method of answering questions...by asking further questions.

A disciple asks:
"Rabbi, Why do people answer a question with another question?"
Rabbi:
"Why do they do it? How would I know? So why do you ask?"
(or something like that)....

Come to think of it, I've 'used' this conversational method a lot lately but didn't realize it till this re-listen (didn't know I'd taken that much in from Ramsden's talk), Cool.
Check it out if you can, he's thought provoking and funny sometimes too
Rick

[Guest]

Quote:
When an atheist tells me he doesn't believe in God, I just have a hard time believing that.

Why? I don't believe in God.

I don't know how to answer that without coming off condescending. When someone tells me they don't believe in God it sounds like "I don't believe in common sense." Now here's what I mean by that... life begets life, according to biogenesis. So we take a basic rule of science and couple it with philisophy (prime mover) and now we have a foundation for what Christians call God. However, I've met some very simple individuals who understood these principles intrinsicly, without even knowing there are academic arguments that support them. It just seems nonsensical to me when someone says they believe that everything came from nothing and ultimately ends in nothing. To assert that non-life gave birth to life and nothingness gave way to intelligence is akin to saying "I don't believe in cats and dogs because I don't like the way they smell."

That's the thing, I don't see much in the way of facts when someone tells me about God or about Christianity. I know I'm not completely objective, but the proper focus in most discussions should be "do you have proper justification for what you believe?" And that focus is not what brings out "truth" or "objectivity", but it allows us to think a little harder about what we usually take for granted.

Sure. You and I start from different suppositions, which is why my current view of apologetics starts and ends there. You see a lack of evidence for what we claim and I see a lack of evidence for what naturalists claim. That's our starting point. But let's say we have an equal measure of "proof" for our positions. I know you don't think this is the case... just go with me here. So the theist and the atheist have hit a stalemate in terms of argumentation. What now is the deciding factor? Is it not personal preference? I sometimes wonder why an atheist will jump at any perceived flaw in the theist/Christian position, rather than waiting to see if the "flaw" actually pans out. Only a personal preference would elicit such a "gut reaction" response. It's the more passive, agnostic-type atheist that I think is actually looking for truth.

There is nothing more appealing than intellectual discussion when I don't want to get up.

I have a similar bent myself. However, I tend to only gravitate toward discussions that will ultimately have an impact on the way I live my life. Call me a pragmatist. 8)

[Guest]

[
I don't know how to answer that without coming off condescending. When someone tells me they don't believe in God it sounds like "I don't believe in common sense."

I don't believe in common sense. Appeals to common sense are ways for someone to attempt to justify his own beliefs without providing any reasoning for them.

Now here's what I mean by that... life begets life, according to biogenesis. So we take a basic rule of science and couple it with philisophy (prime mover) and now we have a foundation for what Christians call God.

I agree to a certain degree. It is documented that life cannot arise spontaneously, as Pasteur fairly easily disproved. I don't see how that translates into ideas of abiogenesis which has a different approach in discussing how life may have formed on Earth.

Are you arguing that God is a physical being who fits the standard scientific definition of life? That would seem a little unorthodox, to me, if I'm right in where you're pointing.

I don't see how "prime mover" is an adequate philosophy that can be coupled with science. Science is naturally a methodology which assumes that all things empirical are explainable through the laws of nature.

In short, your foundation isn't built on solid grounds.

However, I've met some very simple individuals who understood these principles intrinsicly, without even knowing there are academic arguments that support them. It just seems nonsensical to me when someone says they believe that everything came from nothing and ultimately ends in nothing.

I don't really know any atheists who believe that everything came from nothing and ultimately ends in nothing. That appears to be a usual strawman that I've noticed theists enjoy positing on many atheists. It would be like me assuming that you are a Muslim because you claim you believe in God.

To assert that non-life gave birth to life and nothingness gave way to intelligence is akin to saying "I don't believe in cats and dogs because I don't like the way they smell."

Unless one has adequate reasoning for what they believe, which you obviously don't take into consideration.

I personally don't believe in God, but I don't claim to know how life arose, because I don't. My presumption is God didn't create life by proxy that I don't believe he exists. I don't think it's proper to beg the question that because life exists, God must exist because you believe only God could have created life.

I also don't believe that nothingness gave way to intelligence, which doesn't seem to be a very accurate criticism of atheism either.

I see a lack of evidence for what naturalists claim.

I'm not a strict naturalist, by any means, but I wonder that since your examples of what you think naturalists claim appears to be a little off that your criticisms of naturalism are unfounded. And it also depends on which naturalistic philosophy one adheres to, because those are varied as well.

Suffice it to say, you're painting atheists (and naturalists) with a very broad and unfounded brush.

What now is the deciding factor? Is it not personal preference?

Logic would dictate that parsimony would be the deciding factor.

I sometimes wonder why an atheist will jump at any perceived flaw in the theist/Christian position, rather than waiting to see if the "flaw" actually pans out. Only a personal preference would elicit such a "gut reaction" response. It's the more passive, agnostic-type atheist that I think is actually looking for truth.

I sometimes wonder why a theist will jump at any perceived flaw in the atheist position, rather than waiting to see if the "flaw" actually pans out. I will actually cite you as an example. You see the flaw through your foundation of "biogenesis" and "prime mover".

And I would wonder, are you a passive, agnostic-type theist?

I have a similar bent myself. However, I tend to only gravitate toward discussions that will ultimately have an impact on the way I live my life. Call me a pragmatist. 8)

If there is any truth to be found in Christianity, it will have an impact on the way I live my life.