I try be to careful about what debates/discussions I get myself into and actually, it is not so much about “what” but how many. Conducting research, writing, posting regularly and of course, working full time, caring for my family, etc., etc., etc. leaves precious little time to get involved in online dialogues most of which are never ending—at least until one person stops replying for whatever reason.
For example, I went out of state for about a week and a half and when I saw the number of comments awaiting me upon my return on Google+, on Facebook, on YouTube not to mention emails well, it was overwhelming and so most of it went unread and un-replied to.
With that in mind, I just wanted to offer replies that I made to two Atheists. The first one did not reply, the second had a little back and forth.
The issue was this segment of my lecture Atheism Explained and Exposed.
Here is the first comment:
I viewed the video and I have come to the conclusion that you sir, are intellectually dishonest, and perhaps just a little too much in love with the sound of your own voice.
You conflate the lack of a belief in God and dictatorships as if they were one and the same. Atheism did not kill millions of Jews under Hitler, or millions of Soviets under Stalin, or millions of North Koreans under Kim Jung Il, their lust for power and hegemony did.I am a good father, husband, son, who volunteers locally to help the poor, and works tirelessly on behalf of women’s causes and the less fortunate. I also happen to believe God is a man-made concept, invented for the sole purpose of holding power over the less fortunate. How dare you attempt to paint me as evil. It’s self-righteous people such as yourself that are just as much the problem as those you would disparage.
I suggest that you focus your blame somewhere else, and perhaps put down your bible and take a good, long look in the mirror for once.
Here was my reply:
Friend, when I read your comment the first thing I thought was that I did not state the things to which you are replying. Since I presented that lecture twice I actually watched my own video just to ensure what I did and did not state and indeed, I am unaware of what you speak. Thus, I note that you provided no reply whatsoever to any of my points but mere assert that I am “intellectually dishonest” without evidence. Also, if you knew how introverted I am you would know that the last thing with which I am in love is the sound of my own voice. Then I thought that yours was a canned generic response and you actually did not watch the video and here is why: I said nothing which conflated the lack of a belief in God and dictatorships. I also said nothing that would lead one to believe that I was painting Atheists as evil. Now, you seem to condemn being intellectually dishonest, conflating the lack of a belief in God and dictatorships, lust for power and hegemony, holding power over the less fortunate, painting you as evil, self-righteousness, etc. yet, upon what premise do you do so?
Conversely, you seem to praise being a good father, husband, son, volunteering, working on behalf of women’s causes and the less fortunate, etc. yet, upon what premise do you do so?
Here is the other comment:
This has to be the second to worst attempt to get around the problem of evil. At least he didn’t do the usual “you’re an atheist, so you don’t believe in evil.” Also atheism says nothing about what is good and evil. The least a person who is supposedly explaining and exposing atheism could do is actually look at what the vast majority of atheists do believe as opposed to assuming or taking the most extreme examples to generalise all atheists by. Very disingenuous. So let’s say that God allows suffering for our benefit. What is that benefit? You don’t just get to make up excuses for God with no substance or verification.
Non-answers are not answers.
Here was my reply:
Friend, merely asserting that which is bad or worse in accordance to your undisclosed subjective standards is no refutation. You merely assert that I “attempt[ed] to get around the problem of evil” even whilst I was putting it into perspective. Also, as an FYI: I have taken in a tremendous amount of information about that which Atheists subjectively claim on the matter although you appear to be referencing some uncited survey which resulted in that which you claim is that view of the “vast majority of atheists.”
Now, if I may ask a question about the entire issue including why you thought comment: my first question is “Who cares?” as in “Why do you care to even comment on the issues. Secondly, upon what premised do you condemn “evil.” Lastly, do you condemn me for allowing my newborn baby to experience pain and suffering?
The Atheist replied thusly:
These are bad arguments because that are full of logical fallacies and have been heavily debunked, over and over. It is actually embarrassing that people still try to use them. You are clearly trying to get around the problem of evil. But you fail to do so, because you make assertions yet neglect to support them, even with Christian doctrine. You can claim to have done all the research in the world when it comes to atheism, however what you’re saying, doesn’t support or demonstrate that. When you make claims that atheism teaches a type of Darwinian morality – survival of the fittest, this is categorically false. Atheism is only an answer on a single question (the negative response to “do you believe in a god?”), it’s not a system of beliefs. I don’t need to conduct or source any survey, for the simple fact that the most prominent philosophy associated with atheism, Humanism, explicitly rejects such an ethical stance. Atheist tend to lean more towards socialism too. Atheists are also unrepresented in prisons and they generally don’t conduct themselves in a manner to destroy any competition in a Darwinian fashion. Obviously, you’ll always be able to find the few atheists that take a very Darwinian stance on what they consider good and evil, but anecdotal examples do not present a representation. Ironically though, you haven’t provided any survey or given any compelling argument yourself for your assertion. I have an academic interest in theology. Why would you ask? It almost seems that you think I shouldn’t, but that may be me just reading way too much into what you’re saying. Would you prefer a circle jerk type echo chamber, where your ideas aren’t challenged? If you have any interest in improving your arguments, where necessary, you should actually be thanking people like me for critiquing your arguments. I view morality in relation to what is harmful to individuals and society in general. How I personally view morality though, is irrelevant to the problem of evil, as it is an internal evaluation of different concepts of theism. Do I condemn you for allowing your newborn to experience pain? No, because the pain was necessary for checking if there were any potential health problems. Claiming God does allows pain for our benefit though, is a very empty statement due to the concept of salvation and an afterlife. If the saved will be conformed to the image of Christ in the next age, then any trails they experience in this age are irrelevant. Also beneficial suffering only addresses the saved, why would an all powerful, all knowing, loving god create people that he knows will not be saved?
If you’re a Calvinist, then you could refer to Romans 9, but that makes God a monster. Instead it would seem that God is incompetent, but then that defies what God is. And thus the problem of evil, continues.
Here was my reply:
Friend, now I see what you mean; you have misunderstood me. 1) Just because you subjectively assert that I employ logical fallacies that have been heavily debunked does not make it so. 2) If you are not aware that a tremendous number of Atheists claim that morality “evolved” then I can only urge you to keep up with Atheists’ statements on this matter. A type of “Darwinian morality – survival of the fittest” is one of the logical conclusion; one away from which many Atheists run and yet one that is perfectly in keeping with mere animals engaging activities which some have subjectively decided to call moral and others immoral—this is exactly why Dawkins (both an Atheist and Darwinist) states that when it comes to morality, he is an anti-Darwinist, he understands and admits this. 3) I am unsure whence you get the authority to speak for all Atheists by defining that which Atheism is as, for example, the Atheist activist Michael Newdow claims that Atheism is a religion. Also, of course, your negative response to “do you believe in a god?” is a statement of beliefs—I would assume that if you did not believe your negative response then you would not state rely as you do. 4) Indeed, Atheists tend to lean more towards socialism and many leaned towards social Darwinism. 5) Rather than guessing at why I ask why you care you may want to ask. If we are merely animals that are the result of a long series of blind unguided accidents than what do you care about how I interpret biochemical reactions within my gray matter vs. how you interpret yours (I am referring to our thoughts, beliefs, etc.). 6) You assert that you “view morality in relation to what is harmful to individuals and society in general” but why? 7) How you personally view morality is most certainly relevant to the problem of evil because you appear to condemn “evil” but why do you do so? 8) Since you do not condemn me for allowing my newborn to experience pain even though he had no idea why it occurred and that I allowed it because I knew better then you cannot, by the very same standards, condemn God for the very same scenario. You presented a non-sequitur regarding the afterlife wherein the saved will be conformed to the image of Christ for two reasons: 1) the here and now is still the here and now and those experiences shape and mold us and 2) conformed to the image of Christ does not mean that, that which made us who we are is done away with and we become Christ clones.
9) If you want to discuss soteriology you will have to wait or go elsewhere as our focus is the problem of evil.
Thus, these have been some ideas on how to handle such objections and how to keep the focus upon the objector’s point of view and not being constantly on the defense yourself.