Debating atheist friends
If you’re like me, then all too often you but heads against an atheist.
Often it starts by the Atheist putting the Christian on the defense, which is understandable because a thinking person may find many flaws with it, all of which can be defended by a thinking Christian.
No matter how well we debate the issues we’re often stuck in the defense during the entire discussion. Tactics in Defending the Faith (Audio CD) (5) taught me that when someone chooses some belief over Christianity then they need to explain why their belief is more reasonable than Christianity. Here is a tactic I use in turning the tides and put the Atheist on the defensive.
(I got this idea and a few of the arguments from listening to Ravi Zacharias. Ravi is an apologetic who speaks mostly on the philosophical level. I highly recommend downloading a few of his MP3′s, especially the one titled “Why I Am Not an Atheist.”)
Almost every single one of these debates touches on the Crusades. As soon as it does here is how I recommend you proceed.
The Crusades are an unfortunate part of the Christian history. However, the Crusades were in direct contradiction of Christ’s teachings. Yes, many were killed in the name of Christianity, but how many were killed in the name of Atheism? How many people did Joseph Stalin kill? You see, when a Christian goes against Christ’s teachings they are going against their nature. When an atheist does it, such as Stalin, they are just following their nature.
At this point we put the Atheist on the defensive and we can attack at will.
- Question their morals
- Meaning in life
The line I sometimes take after Stalin is that Christians have a set of moral rules to go by. Atheists on the other hand do not have moral rules to follow. Ask an atheist if they were starving and saw a child eating a cheeseburger, would they steal that cheeseburger? If they are honest they will probably say yes. If they say no then isn’t that in direct contradiction with their view of Evolution, survival of the fittest?
Going after the meaning of life is somewhat of a low blow. However, if needed this is how I normally proceed. I first say that if Evolution is true and there is no life after death then what meaning is their in life? Life is then filled with day-to-day activities that we give tiny little meanings that ultimately have no meaning. Sure, you can live life and have fun, but what does that matter 100 years after you’re gone? Chances are nobody will remember you.
Laws. If life is a process of random mutation and natural selection, then what happens if someone commits a murder when they are 18, but 30 years later they are found guilty. Should the 48 year old be charged with murder? Physically and mentally they are different. What happens if 20 years from now they find some gene that guarantees someone will commit murder, something in their very DNA that causes an irresistible urge to commit murder. Should we lock them up and throw away the key before they commit the murder? If someone is a complete drain on society should we execute them?
Christians sometimes have difficult questions to answers. However, so do Atheists. There is often value in making them defend their Atheistic world view.
Tactics in Defending the Faith (Audio CD) (5)