I’ve had a pretty long debate stretching over two days with my atheist friends. I have some observations I’d like to make… they are generalisations so come with the standard general disclaimer.
- Atheists being branded as they are will always immediately dismiss Christianity on the basis that they’ve made the debate occur a step before Christianity – this means not engaging with any Christian material (ie the Bible)…
- They’re a-theist not a-Christian. If you argue the questions from a Christian perspective they dismiss them immediately because you’re not tackling the issue at the root.
- They will also refer to God as “it” and remove any Christian terminology from the argument – which makes arguing from a Christian perspective difficult. The Christian then becomes an apologist for Islam, and any other theistic world view in the process. In fact, by doing this they bring in every non-credible and crazy religion and ask you to defend them on equal footing – which is why the “atheist movement” for want of better nomenclature – have invented the Flying Spaghetti Monster and describe Jesus as a Zombie Carpenter…
- In attacking the rhetoric this way they’ve moved the goal posts – and apologists must adjust accordingly.
- The fundamental differences between the two positions are, in my mind best expressed as follows: Theists look at a complex universe and say a big creator must have made this, atheists look at the complex universe and say it’s too complex for a big creator, it must have been small particles accidentally colliding, or its complexity is a product of infinite possibilities occurring in infinite time. Alternatively, as expressed by one of the atheists in the discussion:
Theism uses the impossible to explain the rational.
Science uses the possible to explain the irrational.
Where somehow, if I understand that point correctly, science is equal to atheism. Which comes as a surprise to me, and no doubt to many Christian scientists.