My point was that presuppositions matter. If the Christian starts a dialogue with an atheist and assumes that the atheist is morally neutral, then his starting point is flawed. We shouldn't start from a base of "evidence leads to God", because the atheist will almost always refute the evidence you present. Rather, we start from our presupposition of the triune God that scripture reveals and force the atheist to give an account for his worldview of hedonism/naturalism.Perry wrote:I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
I think it's important to try, as best we can, to meet people where they are.
It's impossible to give the atheist an equal footing, since he's wrong. I do think it's valid to demonstrate that, starting from his presuppositions, you can't really get anywhere. You can also show that his own behavior is inconsistent with his presupposition. That opens the door for starting with a different presupposition.
In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis starts with hardly any presuppositions at all. In Letters from a Skeptic Greg Boyd meets his dad at the place where his dad is (i.e. that there is some "force" in the universe, but that it's not necessarily a personal God.)
The atheist is never going have a fair fight. The weight of reality is against him.
On a personal note, I think that any form of evangelism is valid as long as the gospel is being preached...Even by some who have bad motifs(Phill 1:15-16)