Debating an Atheist

[TrumanSmith]

However,it all makes sense from a naturalistic worldview, so I left the faith for reasons like that.

From a naturalistic evolutionary point of view it would seem that pain, suffering, death, the strong attacking the weak, etc. would all be seen to be a good and beneficial thing, survival of the fittest being the creating power that it is. Even Hitler could be seen as well intentioned, just trying to hurry the "improvement" along.

Biological evolution is science that explains how species emerge from other species. It is not moral philosophy. Someone like Hitler can use evolution as their morality, but that is his choice. As for myself, as I stated, I use these principles for moral reasoning: consequentialism, reciprocity, and individual rights.

Now if you want to posit there's an all-loving, all-good God that chose to create everything through evolution, then that's your problem to explain. That's the chore for Francis Collins, and his opinion is that there's no satisfactory answer for it, even though theologians have been struggling with it for years and years. The struggle is simply because there's a contradiction between an all-loving and all-good God and what that God designed as a system for creation that looks to be so evil... the struggle and fight for survival (natural selection) is a major part of what fuels evolutionary change.

[TrumanSmith]

Plus, I would justify it as not merely an entertainment but also as an educational exercise insofar as it is a view into a particular psyche that may not, sadly, be entirely unique to Truman.

Now you're starting to get it... the reason for conversation with outsiders to your faith. If you want to reach them, you have to know where their head is at. I know, there's a strong Christian tradition in just preaching without listening.

[TrumanSmith]

In church, I have taught on the 'soul' many times... as a side issue. I've presented the monist, dichotomist, and trichotomist options. I've given people the various Scriptures that might sound like each option. I've taught them about the Hebrew view of humankind (various aspects) verses the Greek view of humankind (various parts). I've given them the material with which to think for themselves. My point being, it is not a subject I've avoided.

In a way, you have taken a stand on it, and that stand is not to care. Of course, then there will be no ramifications of what science says against your opinion, because you have no opinion. I'm sorry you think it is unimportant... I'll have to talk with others who do think it is important. Everyone has their own opinion of what's important. Some people even claim to be a Christian but they say the resurrection isn't important.

You might want to consider whether the logical fallacy of "academic detachment" applies to you. From the web:

Academic Detachment ~

Example: "I’ve heard many arguments in favor of the Republican candidate and just as many for the Democratic. Hence I don’t find any reason to prefer one over the other, so I’m going to stay home and not vote for either one".

Meaning: We refuse to commit ourselves when decision or action is demanded. In a situation requiring a stand to be taken, we see (or think we see) persuasive arguments on both sides. But certain situations (e.g., voting) require decision and action of one kind or another. Here, instead of trying to remain neutral, we must make a decision on the basis of which side seems to have the greater weight of evidence.

[TrumanSmith]

It is not essential to Christianity. Resurrection is essential. Resurrection is the core of Christianity, not the existence of the 'soul' in the intermediate state.

Tell me briefly what your belief is about the resurrection, in a few sentences, and I'll see if I can shed some light on that. Everyone has their own beliefs, so tell me your particular one. Or is yours also "could be this... could be that...?"

[TrumanSmith]

You spend most of your time stating what the 'problem' is. Then, you state that the typical response of Christians is the free will defense. Then you critique the free will defense on 2 fronts:

1. The free will defense only covers moral and not natural evil
2. The bible says free will isn't important to God

Claim 1 is an assertion without argumentation. The Bible suggests that sin led to consequences not only for humankind, but also for the ground/earth. God's creation is all connected.

OK- so you are saying that tsunamis and earthquakes (from tectonic plate shifts) never happened until after the fall? Tectonic plate movement wasn't part of God's 6 day creation? Therefore the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands, and displaced millions of people, can be blamed on the fall?

[mattrose]

In a way, you have taken a stand on it, and that stand is not to care. Of course, then there will be no ramifications of what science says against your opinion, because you have no opinion. I'm sorry you think it is unimportant... I'll have to talk with others who do think it is important. Everyone has their own opinion of what's important. Some people even claim to be a Christian but they say the resurrection isn't important.

You might want to consider whether the logical fallacy of "academic detachment" applies to you.

So studying something and then teaching on it is a sign that I do no care about that thing?

Stating my opinion but not being certain that I am right about it is having no opinion?

How could a genuine Christian think resurrection is unimportant when Paul says without it our faith is futile?

Your posts just don't make a lot of sense.

Tell me briefly what your belief is about the resurrection, in a few sentences, and I'll see if I can shed some light on that. Everyone has their own beliefs, so tell me your particular one. Or is yours also "could be this... could be that...?

Tell you what my belief is about resurrection??? My belief is that Jesus rose from the dead and that we all will do the same in the future.

OK- so you are saying that tsunamis and earthquakes (from tectonic plate shifts) never happened until after the fall? Tectonic plate movement wasn't part of God's 6 day creation? Therefore the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands, and displaced millions of people, can be blamed on the fall?

I don't know. The Bible doesn't address such issues and I don't know of any other witnesses to pre-fall conditions. I simply suggested that the Bible gives hints that creations problems may be connected to the Fall of Humanity. Creation is out of balance b/c the very people made to be stewards of it are corrupt.

[Homer]

Now if you want to posit there's an all-loving, all-good God that chose to create everything through evolution, then that's your problem to explain.

Not my problem, I'm not an evolutionist.

Biological evolution is science that explains how species emerge from other species. It is not moral philosophy.

But if atheism is true and we are nothing more than an accident of nature, morality makes no sense, only selfishness. I knew a man once, worked with him for years. He was an avowed atheist and the most selfish person I have ever known. Made total sense for him.

I'm curious why you even care about this issue? What difference does it make? If things are as you say, your life is meaningless and purposeless. Yet you strive to make "converts" to your position, even your avatar reveals a fanatic.

[TrumanSmith]

But if atheism is true and we are nothing more than an accident of nature, morality makes no sense, only selfishness. I knew a man once, worked with him for years. He was an avowed atheist and the most selfish person I have ever known. Made total sense for him.

That's illogical... like saying I heard of a Christian idiot that refused medical attention for their child and their child died, so therefore, Christianity leads to stupidity. It is a logical fallacy to pick one data-point and then draw a sweeping conclusion from it.

You might think that an atheist can be selfish, but then consider the consequences. Jail and ruined relationships do not make for a happy and fulfilling life. But if by selfish you mean that they live for themselves and not for an imaginary character, then yes, guilty as charged.

[TrumanSmith]

I don't know. The Bible doesn't address such issues and I don't know of any other witnesses to pre-fall conditions. I simply suggested that the Bible gives hints that creations problems may be connected to the Fall of Humanity. Creation is out of balance b/c the very people made to be stewards of it are corrupt.

You see, Steve Gregg says evolution isn't vital, but right there you talked about the fall as if it were a real event. If evolution were true, there was no fall. If evolution were true, you would not have that theology. This is how evolution can come into the discussion (one example of many). If evolution is true, there's no such thing as a "first human" so no such thing as a fall for the first human since there is no "first human."

[TrumanSmith]

So studying something and then teaching on it is a sign that I do no care about that thing? Stating my opinion but not being certain that I am right about it is having no opinion?

You are the one who specifically said you didn't care about it, even after teaching on it. You wrote literally:
" But it is such an unimportant issue in Christianity that I literally don't care. I don't much care about the intermediate state."