As a scientist who is Christian, I often get requests to help other Christians in their arguments with atheist friends and relatives. These requests are usually borne of desperation, because Christians often don’t know how to respond to scientific objections to Christian belief. However, enlisting the help of someone like me is almost always doomed to failure in these cases, and I’ll explain why.
Years ago, when I was a freshly-converted Christian, I got into a protracted argument with a militant atheist who was a retired engineer. For months, we went back and forth about the scientific validity of Genesis, about the reasonableness of miracles, about the historical evidence for Jesus. To my frustration, it went absolutely nowhere. I finally realized he wasn’t merely devoid of belief, as he claimed, but was deeply invested in the idea of the Bible being false. He’d read countless books purporting to debunk Christianity, which struck me as a bit odd for someone who insisted he simply lacked belief. He also got noticeably angry when talking about God, which, as I would gradually realize over many arguments, was a big tell. After months of arguing, I discovered the reason for his anger. His father and grandfather were bad men who had treated him very harshly when he was a young boy, and both died when he was still young. He recalled asking his Christian mother if his father and grandfather were going to heaven or hell. When she told him they were going to heaven and closed off all further discussion, he became angry and resentful. He never forgave God for failing to administer justice to his bad father and grandfather, and an atheist was born.
Many atheists have had similarly bad childhood experiences with religion, and became atheists when they were young. This is because children have a highly tuned sense of justice, and without a wise adult to help them put pain and disappointment into perspective, it can turn into anger and resentment toward God. Anything that is perceived as an injustice on the part of God — a failure to act on their behalf in a time of distress, a failure to punish someone for wrongdoing, or the failure to prevent a parent from abandoning them — is paid back with anger and denial. The scientific arguments against God are just cover for the anger, to give it an air of intellectualism.
The reason logical arguments don’t work against militant atheists is that you can’t logic someone out of an emotional belief.
My engineer acquaintance expressed his anger with God by actively rejecting anything to do with God and trying to convince others to do the same. That was the reason for the books debunking the Bible, the scientific arguments against God, and so on, in spite of his professed “mere lack of belief.” And that was the reason my rational arguments in favor of God and the Bible were ineffective with this man.
However, this is not true of all atheists. I was an atheist for many years, and my lack of belief wasn’t rooted in pain and anger, but in arrogance that was founded on childhood experiences. Growing up in a secular country with atheist parents, what little I observed of Christianity was from a great distance, it was extremely limited, and it was filtered through an adolescent mind. It left me thinking Christianity was silly and for the weak-minded. It took some maturing to humble my attitude, but mostly I came to believe in God by being exposed to evidence that Christianity was intellectually deep and consistent with what I observed in the world around me.
To be effective in an argument with an atheist, you have to first discern what forms the basis of his disbelief. Is it a casual sort of atheism that’s based on lack of convincing evidence? If so, present him with evidence. Is it an arrogant atheism based on preconceived but false ideas? If so, knock down the false ideas. If it’s an angry atheism based on a deep-rooted emotional experience, then you will not be able to convince him through even the most rational arguments and powerful evidence. But that doesn’t mean there is nothing you can do with an angry atheist.
One of my colleagues is a converted Christian who says that in his angry atheist days, his favorite thing to do when arguing with Christians was to knock them off balance. He knew he couldn’t dissuade them from their beliefs with his arguments, so instead he’d try to get them to doubt just a little, knowing it would be a growing source of consternation to them. Christians can take a page from his book and likewise knock atheists off balance.
Most angry atheists like to assume a stance of intellectual superiority over Christians, so you can use that to knock them off balance. Present them with this list of Christians who are in science and tech and note how many of them are also Nobel laureates. Present them with this collection of quotes about God and religion by great scientific minds (not all of them Christian). The reaction will be to wave their hands and say that it just goes to show it’s possible to be smart and believe stupid things, but that’s okay. You will have planted the seed of doubt, and it will grow.
There are other ways to knock atheists off balance, but it requires some skill in rhetoric. Rhetoric is an argument that appeals to the emotions rather than to the intellect, and with most people it has far greater power to convince than rational arguments. This is why so much of politics and advertising is based on rhetoric. So, don’t bother with rational arguments when dealing with an angry atheist — rhetoric is what you should use. If you want to master it, start with Aristotle.
Remember, always respond to atheists in a way that addresses the real problem:
- respond to lack of evidence with evidence
- respond to false notions with truth
- respond to anger and superiority by knocking off balance and with rhetoric, and let God take care of the rest.
SixDay Science 
This is a great post!
I enjoyed it very much.
Nevertheless, the atheist world view is now the coin of the realm with Christianity’s influence waning by the day.
The argument against atheism must be made to restore the realm.
It must become like the air, as atheism is now like the air.
“The reason logical arguments don’t work against militant atheists (or Christians) is that you can’t logic someone out of an emotional belief.” The exact same case can be made for many believers. When you use “many atheists” or “all atheists” your credibility becomes questionable. Many of your conclusions here are not founded on evidence, but are fallacious conclusions often jumped to by believers. Otherwise, good post.
When you say “many believers” your credibility becomes questionable. Your observation is devoid of originality, wit, or intelligence. Otherwise, good comment.
LOL, how original of you.
Outspoken atheists, or skeptics or whatever you want to call yourselves, wonder why nobody trusts you, not even other atheists. Could have something to do with the fact that you are sneaky, dishonest, intellectually lazy, and apparently irony impaired.
“You will have planted the seed of doubt, and it will grow.”
Or a seed of faith :)
So this is how you should argue with atheists? Just string as many insults together as you can? See, you claim this atheist in the story was angry after months of conversations, but just one of your comments reveals why. You also still have no evidence “many atheists” experience anything in their youth, not to mention the claim is extremely similar to pseudoscientific claims about atheism being rooted in bad experiences with fathers. So either present evidence for you claims or accept pluviolover was right.
It has been my experience in talking with atheists that while they claim their faith that God does not exist is based on science, they actually know very little of the real science upon which their belief is supposedly based. Sure, some like your Engineer probably have a fair scientific knowledge, many like the folks I have spoken with have a level of knowledge perhaps only slightly better than public averages. They know enough to claim that science has shown life formed spontaneously on its own, but little of the actual science and chemistry of abiogenesis and how bleak the outlook is in that field. They are unaware how what we have learned in the last 60 years shows that life is incredibly and irreducibly complex. They will claim that the fossil record proves TENS, but know little of what the fossil record actually shows, the conflicts the record has with TENS and the divisions about how TENS works between the biochemists who insist it must happen slowly and steadily as opposed to Geologists who say that the fossil record clearly demonstrates it happened in a series of large jumps (which incidentally look exactly as one would expect a series of creation events to look like in the fossil record). Similar claims get made about cosmology and other aspects of science.
It is also my experience with the atheists to whom I have spoken to that they hold their faith in no God by emotions and definitely not as the result of some serious scientific inquiry as commonly claimed. They also have no interest in learning more about the science – it is enough to claim it, they don’t want to actually understand it.
As you point out, there are some atheists with more open minds (as you were) who want to learn and are open to see that other possibilities do exist. I only wish there were more of them.
I sort of represent the other end of the scale as a Christian who is open to seeing other possibilities. I have felt challenged by my own internal honesty to look more deeply into the science and see where it points. Similarly I have felt challenged to look into the origins of the Christian and Hebrew scriptures (NT and OT) and see what is indicated there. I have faced times of doubt, but after digging into the science and the history, I am more confident than ever that the real world truly does point to the Hand of God working to accomplish His purposes in this world.
“Just string as many insults together as you can?”
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it?
I see you are following her tips very well, Russell! Why exactly are you questioning my reading comprehension skills?
Your “proof” that Sarah is not credible is a parsing of how many atheists constitute “many” ? Wow, I could not imagine a weaker argument!
You are correct in observing that many believers also hold their faith in an emotional way. Your observance of the similarity of the two is an excellent demonstration by you that Atheism is a belief held by faith, the same way a person who does believe in God also holds their beliefs by faith (faith being a belief in something that cannot be proven – as per the dictionary.).
Let me re-quote yourself “Just string as many insults together as you can?”
I shouldn’t be surprised you doubled down on the very same problem I highlighted.
Oh, good grief! All that I intended to convey is that after the god issue, atheists tend to have varied opinions–no scripture or dogma, no shared beliefs, and nothing to bind together. Even Muslims, Christians, and Jews share Abraham and some concept of and belief in a god. Sorry to upset folks so much. I’m gunna bow out of this one due to the string of insulting comments. “Devoid?” Really? ROFL My a apologies for sticking my nose in where it is not wanted.
Russell, repeating your response does absolutely nothing to clarify it.
Pointing out that “many” is not actually a quantifiable amount is worth pointing out. What does man mean? 90% of them? 2 of them? If there is a large amount of them then surely there is evidence which can be presented.
How exactly do you go from “People who take stances about X have some similarities” to “So they all take stance X on faith”?
Q.E.D.
After reading the article and everyone’s comments, I have a few questions or concerns…
What is the goal of the article? To persuade atheists and/or agnostics to believe or convert to Christianity? Or to tell Christians not to bother with ‘militant’ or ‘angry’ atheists (I prefer ‘not to cast your pearls before the swine’ type of thinking when dealing with these ‘types of atheists.’)? I thought the goal, in conversion purposes, was to be ‘wise as serpents, but to be harmless as doves’ (Matthew 10:6)?
In the past, I have ‘went’ after all types of atheists, including going to their websites, and ‘blasting’ (including providing evidence for my Christian beliefs….I found this to be very hard to do this, after I have hurt their feelings) them for their beliefs without thinking about what Jesus did:
Matthew 10:11-14 ‘Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.’ (NKJV: shaking off the dust meant, to me, not to compromise with, fellowship/hanging out with, etc).
Hence, I apologize for any comments that I have made on this blog when confronting atheists, agnostics, etc. My goal will be try to convert one to believe in Christ, by using ‘evidence’, logic and reasoning, and emotions, without trying to hurt anyone’s feelings.
Then, if this doesn’t work, then I will simply have to privately ‘shake the dust off of my feet’ with and to pray for them (Matthew 5:44).
So this is how you should argue with atheists? Just string as many insults together as you can?
1. Commenters set the tone. If someone comes here and takes issue with what I’ve said in a straightforward way and presents a case for his argument, I respect that. However, if someone begins the conversation with lies, distortions, sneakiness, and unsupported accusations, then I will respond appropriately. 2. It is not an insult to point out the truth.
See, you claim this atheist in the story was angry after months of conversations, but just one of your comments reveals why.
Just because you’re angered by one of my statements, doesn’t mean everyone is as sensitive as you are. You have no idea what you’re talking about with respect to the engineer. Russell knows who I’m talking about. The man in question initiated the conversation, he and I were on friendly terms for a long time before I converted, and he wanted to continue even after I was no longer interested.
You also still have no evidence “many atheists” experience anything in their youth, not to mention the claim is extremely similar to pseudoscientific claims about atheism being rooted in bad experiences with fathers. So either present evidence for you claims or accept pluviolover was right.
My own personal experiences are evidence. I was an atheist for many years, I participated in an explicitly atheist organization for many years, and I am repeatedly contacted by militant atheists through my ministry work. I notice the same patterns emerge repeatedly. pluviolover is wrong. If you and he are so convinced he’s right, then back your claims up with evidence or don’t bother commenting here again.
RWL, the point of the article is to be discerning when arguing with atheists. It is a complete waste of time to present evidence and rational arguments to someone whose unbelief is rooted in emotion, which is without a doubt the case with many atheists, particularly the militant kind. The only thing that will work with them, if indeed anything will work at all, is emotion-based arguments, i.e. rhetoric.
I’ll give you two recent examples of what I’m talking about. A couple of weeks ago, I was involved in a conversation with a man in the medical profession. He had several detailed questions about science and scripture, and he was eager to have me answer them, but he was also hostile and arrogant. I answered him in a straightforward way, but every answer was met with derision, mockery, and skepticism. I finally told him there was no point in continuing, because it was obvious his problem with Christianity was not on a rational level but on an emotional one. Turns out I was right. I learned through a long-time friend of his that he was abandoned as a young boy, and his atheism has a lot to do with that. It just wasn’t worth my time to try to break through that emotional barrier to reach him, since he has friends who can do that.
On the flip side, a few months ago, an atheist contacted me with several questions about science and faith. I directed him to my online materials and answered some of his questions directly. He came back to me a while later and said he’d converted to Christianity. He was honestly seeking answers, and was dealing with the final obstacle to faith — how science fits into the Christian worldview. Once he was able to overcome that obstacle, he was ready to embrace faith. It was well worth the time to address his questions, because, unlike the other guy, they were coming from a place of honest inquiry.
RWL, you have always been civil on this blog, so no worries there. What I am advocating is that sometimes it is necessary to be “rude.” We are to treat atheists with the love that Jesus commanded, but sometimes that involves hurting their feelings with blunt truth to break their arrogance and bring them to a place of humility. That’s why you will sometimes see me responding harshly to people here. If a person’s unbelief is rooted in the emotional, he will not be shaken out of it by anything but emotional responses.
Pointing out that “many” is not actually a quantifiable amount is worth pointing out.
No, its an irrelevant distraction. If it is 20% or 80% what difference does that make to the original discussion? Many is not a claim of a majority by definition of the word. As Sarah pointed out in her reply, her experience is very consistent with her comments, and I will add that mine is as well.
How exactly do you go from “People who take stances about X have some similarities” to “So they all take stance X on faith”?
It was plainly stated on the original post: “faith being a belief in something that cannot be proven – as per the dictionary.” You cannot prove God does not exist any more than I can prove he does – ergo, by the very definition of the word “faith”, your position that God does not exist is a belief taken on faith.
pluviolover, I welcome people of all worldviews here, as long as they are honest. Perhaps you are not cognizant of it, but you were dishonest in your initial comment, and that’s one thing I don’t tolerate here. You insinuated I said things I did not, accused me of doing something that undermined my credibility while doing the exact same thing yourself, and then, after stating that my conclusions were fallacious (without demonstrating why), you said it was an otherwise good article. These are all dishonest things.
I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my premises or conclusions, but do it in a straightforward and honest way.
There is no point in talking with someone who thinks personal experience is evidence.
But Ill do it anyway.
“Commenters set the tone. ” – This is an excuse kids in kindergarten use. “He started it”. Maybe as a grown adult you should be better than that?
“However, if someone begins the conversation with lies, distortions, sneakiness, and unsupported accusations, then I will respond appropriately. ” – Which was not done at all. He pointed out the truth: that your claim of what “many” atheists is not supported by evidence. There was no distortion, and there certainly was no “sneakiness”.
“It is not an insult to point out the truth.” – You did absolutely nothing to establish that is the truth.
“Just because you’re angered by one of my statements, doesn’t mean everyone is as sensitive as you are. ” – I am not angered, I am shocked by how irrational your response has been. Besides, personal experience is evidence now, as you claim, and I can tell you that many others are shocked as well. Very convincing, right?
“My own personal experiences are evidence. ” – No, personal experience is not evidence. Like pluviolover pointed out before you started insulting him you can say the very same thing about any group of people, or really anything at all. “In my personal experience Sarah is irrational”. Is this evidence of you being irrational?
Ant the part I truly cannot believe::
“pluviolover is wrong. If you and he are so convinced he’s right, then back your claims up with evidence or don’t bother commenting here again.” – In what strange world do we need to provide evidence of your empty claim being wrong? Since your personal experience is evidence that “many” atheists are like that, then my personal experience can be evidence that the vast majority of them are completely different.
Spawnofmagic,
Personal experience can be used as evidence. Historians and Law enforcement personnel use personal experiences of eyewitnesses to a certain crime, event, circumstance, etc. all the time. If I personally experience (or eyewitness testimony…basically it’s similar terminology) my wife killing my next door neighbor, watching MLK, Jr march in Alabama, or even my wife beating on me, then my testimony can be used as evidence to the event, crime, etc. to determine if the crime or event transpired. However, sometimes (not all the time) more evidence is needed to corroborate the personal experience of eyewitnesses’ testimony of the event, crime, etc.
A similar parallelism can be used for eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ Disciples and the 1st & 2nd century followers of the early church (especially, if we were living In the 1st &/or 2nd century Of the Roman Empire-and I told you that I saw a man named Jesus who was dead and is alive! Then, I begin to go around telling people about this, including the message that He taught before, and after He was crucified even to the extent that I am willing to put my life on the line).
For more on this, please read the following book ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospel as Eyewitness Testimony’ by Richard Bauckham, 2006 Ed.
To see how evidence is used in supporting Christianity, then please visit former atheist, now a Christian, website by J. Warner Wallace entitled Cold Case Christianity. Wallace (a former police officer/detective) has 2 outstanding books (God’s Crime Scene & Cold Case Christianity) that show the numerous types of evidence (including personal experiences) can (and has been) be used to solve certain crimes and provide support for the transpiration of certain events (e.g. The Resurrection of Jesus, God’s Creation of the Universe, etc.).
My favorite is Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig, 2008 edition (If you are truly interested in surveying the evidence-science, philosophy, mathematics, statistics-for God’s existence, then, Dr. Craig’s book is great text, but a little scholarly.).
God Bless!
I forgot to add: the Disciples’, Apostle Paul’s, and 1st & 2nd century Christian followers’ personal experiences of Christ have grown the church from a small village of followers to billions (especially, if you’re including followers from 1st century up until now) in the year of 2016.
How?
‘The birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church…..remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself.’–Moule.
“Commenters set the tone. ” – This is an excuse kids in kindergarten use. “He started it”. Maybe as a grown adult you should be better than that?
It’s called the “Tit for tat” game theory.
Maybe you should stop worrying about what other people say and do?
“No, personal experience is not evidence. ”
Says the woman with poor reading comprehension.
This isn’t rigorous treatment that will be published. It’s a blog. Personal experience is evidence, so says the courts. Just because you are too emotional involved doesn’t mean you can discount things that make you uncomfortable.
“In what strange world do we need to provide evidence of your empty claim being wrong?”
You’ve assumed the position Sarah’s wrong, but offer nothing besides “Nuh-uh” and you wonder why she won’t entertain your blathering as nothing more than anklebiting?
You’re too short for this ride.
spawnofmagic, you aren’t nearly as clever as you think you are. Find something else to do besides tone-police the comments here.
Oh good grief but this is terrible.
Here’s one reason why atheists like myself reject Christianity. Because the very idea that the Creator of the Universe, 13.8 billion years ago, decided 2,000 years ago to turn itself into a man and trot around among a small group of ignorant peasants in the Middle East desert for the primary purpose of allowing his own creation to hang him to a chunk of wood and savagely beat himself to death as a blood atonement for their sins is, without a doubt, the most preposterous pile of caveman bullshit that the human mind has ever concocted in our entire history on planet Earth!!
Blood sacrifices up to the invisible Diety in the sky!?
Ho. Lee. Shit!
But Christians like Sarah rarely ever actually address the Dark Age insanity of blood sacrifice for atonement. She acts as though it’s the most natural thing to accept that kind of primitive lunacy.
And here’s just one good critique of Sarah’s incoherent story of her “conversion”.
http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless/2015/11/14/smart-christians-the-curious-case-of-sarah-salviander/
Wow! Cursing and foul language is really going to get your point across? I will make sure that I pray for you!
God bless!
Here’s one reason why atheists like myself reject Christianity.
Nobody cares, Larry. What you think about Christianity is irrelevant.
Atheists like you are neurologically atypical, and as a group you’re so distrusted that even atheists don’t trust other atheists.
And here’s just one good critique of Sarah’s incoherent story of her “conversion”.
I’ve already addressed that inept “critique” here and here.
Sarah, if you think my rejection of Christianity as a steaming pile of Dark Age lunacy is atypical, then you have raised the bar for religious delusion.
Enjoy your fairy tales. The weak minded seem to need them.
Larry,
You apparently didn’t see the debate between Criag (Christian) vs Hitchens (atheist whom you pictured above). If you haven’t, then here is an analysis by an atheist blog, stating that ‘Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.’
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230
Larry,
I forgot to add the debate, so you can see for yourself how the late Hitchens (Died of throat cancer in his 60s…I hoped he changed his views before he died, but his wife said that he didn’t) became ‘unwired’ (in his own words) against Craig:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-craig-vs-hitchens-apr-2009
Larry,
If you really want to know ‘how good’ Dr. William Lane Craig (Christian Professor/Apologist) is at debating atheists, then please read the following atheist’s blog (Yes, I am a Christian giving you an atheist source to let you see how unbiased I am):
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392
Or better yet, here is a liberal, higher educational source about ‘how good’ Dr. Craig is when it comes to defending and explaining Christianity:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/
Sarah, if you think my rejection of Christianity as a steaming pile of Dark Age lunacy is atypical, then you have raised the bar for religious delusion.
For you, it absolutely does have to do with your atypicality. And the Dark Ages are a myth. Now, go away.
[Larry, go work out your personal issues somewhere else. -Ed.]
Larry: ‘See his debate with physicists Sean Carroll…..’
Did you even read the transcripts of (or even the personal comments by Carroll & Craig on their individual blogs about how they each felt about how they did in the debate) or watch the 2+hours of the debate? Or are you going by what others are stating about the debates?
Carroll comments (about the debate): ‘I think it went well, although I can easily think of several ways that I could have done better.’ This includes ‘bypassing some of his (Craig’s) arguments because I thought they were irrelevant, and wanted to focus on the important issues; he might feel differently’ (e.g. issues that he-Carroll-felt were important, but who cares what Craig felt was important?!?!? Is this how debate and/or prepare for Dr. Craig by avoiding what Dr. Craig thinks is important, but only focusing on what you believe is important?).
Other atheists, who debated Craig, informed Carroll to use this tactic against Craig (all this is from Carroll’s own blog/lips). At first, Carroll stated that he wasn’t going to do this (he wanted to challenged Craig ‘head on’), but then he did do this! How can anyone say that Carroll ‘won the debate’ after this omission?!?!?
Finally, Carroll made a statement in his conclusion: ‘The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions.’
Carroll completely has forgotten his American history 101 course:
‘As early as 1788, the religious orientation of the American colleges provided a climate in which pioneer science could be effectively nurtured, for it was not really necessary for the orthodox to capture or constrain science. The early scientists on the whole were men of religious conviction who could pursue their studies of the natural world without involving their deeply held belief in the supernatural. The evangelical saw science as a useful tool in demonstrating the wondrous ways of God. Science, therefore, gained entry into the American college not as a course of vocational study but as the hand-maiden of religion.’
(In other words, science and religion were best buddies, from the early 1600s up until the mid 19th century. They always made compatible conclusions!)
–The American College & University: A History by Frederick Rudolph
For a great book, on the changes since then (and why), please read ‘The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality by Julie A. Reuben.
Correction: the date should be 1636, not 1788. My apologies!
[I’ve already told you to go away, Larry. I’m going to spam your comments from now on. -Ed.]
Larry,
This will be the last time that I will respond to you due to the fact that you continue prove Sarah right about your conduct, and your lack of reading comprehension.
The link, that you provided, is where I mentioned everything that I quoted above. But I guess that I have to spell it out for you:
Every atheistic scholar, who debates WLC, walks away with the same comments: ‘I’ve could have done better’, or ‘I made a few mistakes’ or they (atheists’ debaters) simply, but purposely misquote a particular scholar to prove their point.
Let’s see if Carroll does this (remember this is all from the link that you sent me):
‘I think it went well, although I can easily think of several ways I could have done better.’
‘While I’m lingering over my mistakes, I made a related one….’
Finally, did Carroll misquote Alan Guth, theoretical physicists and cosmologist, on Carroll’s own blog, to prove a point to his blog followers, about WLC’s main points? Let’s see what Carroll said about Guth:
‘ He (WLC) will not start adding in the fact that Guth thinks the universe is probably eternal,’
Let’s see what Guth thinks about the universe eternality (http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/didth-frame.html):
‘So, as is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning…..’
Finally, Did Carroll try to address all Craig’s points head on, as he stated in his blog? Or did he, like every atheists who debated Craig, try to avoid them and focus on other stuff?
Carroll: ‘ I was honestly a bit surprised at the lack of real-time interaction, since one of Craig’s supporters’ biggest complaints is that his opponents don’t ever directly respond to his points, and I tried hard to do exactly that. To be fair, I bypassed some of his arguments (see below) because I thought they were irrelevant, and wanted to focus on the important issues; he might feel differently.’
How can you say WLC lost this debate when even Carroll himself stated that he made mistakes, wished he could’ve done better, and purposely misquoted Guth (knowing that none of his bloggers were going to fact check him on this)? Carroll even stated, on his blog, that this debate didn’t (and will not) change anyone from being an atheist to becoming a Christian and vice versa (since Christians are saying that WLC won & atheists are stating Carroll won).
But he is wrong (about changing atheists to Christians). Did you know that by the year 2030, China will probably be the largest Christian nation on Earth? For more on this please read the following:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10787236/Beijing-attacks-claim-China-could-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation.html
You find WLC’s response to Carroll’s blog posts and the debate here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/some-reflections-on-the-sean-carroll-debate
God bless, and I will be praying for you!
Larry is no longer permitted to comment here due to intellectual incontinence, i.e. he violated the stated commenting rules.
I was an atheist until age 30. Having a hard science and philosophy background, I saw Christianity as a just another life philosophy and not as truth. Unlike some who appear to have come to Christ by someone presenting a reasoned argument, I came by what some would call ‘revelation’ ( I know several will scoff at this ). A minister gave me a Bible and asked me if I would read the Gospels and decide for myself if Jesus was who He claimed to be. I agreed and began reading Matthew. I forced myself to read through the virgin birth, miracles, etc ( everything I considered nonsense) – taking the entire week to finish. The next Sunday as I grudgingly walked down the aisle to a pew I distinctly ‘heard’ God say: “Everything you read is true.” I answered an alter call that day and volunteered to be a Sunday School helper the following week. Since that day I have been convinced that living for God is the only life there is – God’s word is the true reality. That was 37+ years ago. Many may ridicule my story as emotionalism (even though it was’t), but I think we need to remember that it is not all about understanding facts or arguments. The Holy Spirit is present in every conversion bearing witness and enabling, and we can never fully describe the process of going from unbelief to belief in human terms.