UNREFUTED | UNANSWERED | TRICKS | BIAS | EVIL | VERSUS | EHRMAN | HOME
Arguing with Atheists
All my friends advised me against it. They said it would be a waste of time. But since I used to be an atheist, they have a special place in my heart. I talked to them until they got tired of me.
In May, 2007 I visited an atheist web site, in search for some material for an apologetics course, that I was writing. One of the things I was looking for was a positive statement of beliefs. I could not find one, so I sent the author of a particularly comprehensive site an e-mail asking him, where on his site I could find what he did believe, instead of what he did not believe. That got me involved in a e-mail exchange with him, and about forty of his friends, for the next several months. Perhaps half of them were active with me in the exchange at different times. What I discovered was that they were experts at nitpicking, but seemed to be so completely lacking in introspection that they had no idea where their own beliefs came from. As a result I was able to make several arguments to which they were never able to respond. I am posting this information here in hopes that it might help you if you should get in a discussion with an atheist.
This particular set were fond of using logical fallacies. Their favorite was the straw man. This usually took the form of bringing up something that some other so-called Christian had said or done and try to get me to defend it. Another favorite was the red herring. This took many forms but probably the one most often used was to bring up some other religion, myth or legend that had some similarity to Christianity and pretend that disproving that other religion, myth, or legend was disproving Christianity. I was seldom able to get them to look at my evidence on its own merits. Their anti-supernatural bias was so strong that they seemed to be incapable of it.
Typically their replies were laced with insults and demeaning remarks. A few maintained a veneer of politeness for a while but their arguments still dripped with contempt by either condescendingly assuming I was ignorant and unread or by making demeaning remarks about my cherished beliefs - like calling Christianity a fairy-tale or myth. Unfortunately I allowed them to get my goat a few times and answered in kind. To their credit most of them overlooked this and continued the discussions. Some of them hypocritically quit the discussion at one of these points.
I tried to organize the discussion a couple of times and tried to get them to tone down the rhetoric. I have taught classes of fourth graders with more natural decorum. They seemed to resent any attempt to bring order to the chaotic discussion as if I was tyrant or something. [Click here to see one of my attempts to do this.] Then I just went along with them. I answered their questions for three months. Finally, I got weary of them always attacking the Bible, Christianity (real and imagined), and me. I insisted on them taking a position and refused to answer any more attacks until they did. [Click here to see this challenge] I told them that any attack on the Bible necessarily encumbered them with the responsibility for coming up with an alternative description of reality that was better. Mostly they just yelled a few parting insults and disappeared. A few tried to come up with something. Mostly these were pathetic platitudes. A couple of them engaged me in real discussions which as of this writing are still on-going. I can only guess at their motives.
They would claim that atheists can be moral. I never denied this, but I challenged them over and over again to produce some rational explanation for their morality. They were never able to answer this challenge. The problem they have, and could never solve, was how to claim there are laws without admitting there is a lawgiver. On several occasions we had lengthy discussions but they were never able to show that their concept of right and wrong was different from personal preference.
I dealt with the logical fallacies as I encountered them sometimes by name, sometimes with a simple refutation. For the most part they seemed incapable of learning from their mistakes. They would keep making the same fallacious arguments over and over again. I can not recall a single time a valid refutation of mine was acknowledged. Unfortunately my e-mail service provider was bought out by a group of incompetents during this time and I lost many of the e-mails, so I am unable to speak with certainty on this point. I did save enough of my arguments that I think I have created a reasonably comprehensive and accurate representation of the arguments I made that were never refuted and the questions I asked that were never answered.
I do not have permission to include any of their material so I have summarized it from composites of several things they said, or just included my side of the argument which should make it clear from context the gist of what they had said.
Debate Game Tricks they liked to use
Chrisitanity vs. the Others Comparing Chrisitanity with nonsense as if the association made Christianity look like it was also nonsense.
Anti-supernatural Bias that blinds them
Bart Ehrman book - Misquoting Jesus
I sent an e-mail to all of them that said this:
I have summarized my contact with you for the last three months at
http://www.tntcarden.com/atheist/index.htm
If you want to post a refutation on the site just make it clear in your answer that I have your permission to publish your e-mail and I will post it here. I will NOT include your e-mail address unless you specifically ask me to. (Nov 29, 2007 After posting a couple of emotional rants I am adding the stipulation that the posts had to be logical fallacy free and have something to do with the topic at hand.)
If you want me to put a link to your site on my site I will be happy to do so, if you will put a link on your site to this page.
Here are their answers so far:
September 16, 2007
[Erban says:] Your report, "Arguing with Atheists", is totally inaccurate,
demeaning, filled with false statements, lies, and deception. It breaks
your righteous mask and shows you as the disgraced, debased, shameful, and
dishonorable man that you are. If you were a true Christian, you'd
immediately get down on your knees and ask your god to forgive you. Or did
your god lead you into this condition? That is a question for you to ponder
and not to respond with a written statement. I already know it's from your
distorted perspective of reality.
Be gone and darken our doors no more!
Include this in the visitor comments section of your website.
MY RESPONSE: This is pretty typical of the kinds of e-mails they send. Notice the numerous accusations without evidence. Notice the way he presumes to know how a Christian should act. Notice the loaded question. Apparently he is so frustrated by his own inablity to articulate a reasonable response he simply shouts insults.
September 16, 2007
Dear Thor,
Addressing only the first part of your critique of Ehrman's book, it is easy to see why he is fascinated with the Bible. He began his intellectual life as a fundamentalist Christian, sought to examine the Bible as carefully as he could, and the further he penetrated into the history of the Bible, the more problems he found. _Misquoting Jesus_ is one of his many books, a later book in a long series of books, and is not intended to be an explanation of the personal life of Bart Ehrman. If you wish answers to why he used his brilliance to study a book that he finally decided to be untrustworthy, you need only read an interview or two with him from a popular magazine, such as Newsweek, or another of his books or lectures.
It should not be odd that anyone, whatever his religious tradition, or lack of it, should want to give some study to the history of the Bible. It's influence on Western Civilization has been profound. Until fairly lately in history, Westerners would critique the Bible only at risk to their lives. Even today, I would critique the Bible at work only at risk to my job. It is fortunate for skeptical minds that the truth is insistent and persistent, demanding a hearing even after centuries of repression.
Please don't limit yourself to one book of criticism, or only to one author. I don't. I would also never limit myself to study only one side of a burning issue.
Please feel free to use my e-mail address (kanajlo@yahoo.com) to identify me as a person who does not find the Bible trustworthy.
MY RESPONSE: In stark contrast we have this very reasonable response from another member of the panel. It would please me no end if I could get more of these.
Erhman has proven himself to be a consummate propagandist. I can not imagine being interested in anything else he might have to say. I do read widely on this topic and have even studied New Testament Greek so that I could investigate many of the arguments for myself. This is information you have been given before so I wonder that you continue to suggest I am ignorant or myopic. As far as justifying his interest you may be right, at least, initially. It seems clear to me that his interest is now in exploiting his skepticism for money. That people stupidly kill each other over their beliefs can not be denied. But ask yourself this question: how many places in the world today would it be dangerous for you to declare your religious views vs. how many places in the world today it would be dangerous for a Christian to declare Christianity?
September 24, 2007
Another atheist pointed out that, since I had not established the falsifiablity of my beliefs, my arguments in its favor could not be considered valid. This, it turns out, is a valid point. To see my response Click Here.
November 24, 2007
A response to the problem of evil was recieved. Click here to read it.
December 8, 2007
In early December, 2007, Carlos attempted a refutation of two of my web pages:
Unrefuted Arguments
A Call for a Rational Alternative
To see his e-mail unedited click here. My responses to his e-mail are found at:
Unrefuted Arguments remain unrefuted
A Call for a Rational Alternative is ignored again
UNREFUTED | UNANSWERED | TRICKS | BIAS | EVIL | VERSUS | EHRMAN | HOME