Greg the atheist

[Greg]

Hello all. To start, I appreciate this forum and how it gives the ability to respond point by point.

Back in the 80's and 90's I studied the bible as a conservative Trinitarian Protestant. Couldn't listen to enough Walter Martin tapes! I kept suppressing academic questions, thinking they were just Satan's clever way to steal my joy in the Lord. I was a Calvinist. After several years of debating Christians and others, I grew irreversibly tired of the "god's ways are mysterious" excuse, and accordingly gave up the faith.

My approach is different. I do not "prove God doesn't exist", I don't prove Jesus stayed dead and I don't prove that biblical inerrancy is a false doctrine. Instead, I prove that I can be reasonable to see theism, Jesus' resurrection, and bible inerrancy as false doctrines. There's a world of difference between "this doctrine is false" and "in my opinion, this doctrine is false".

My goal is to convince fundamentalists that in their zeal, they may have overlooked key realities, and in the process, falsely started thinking that there is simply no way anybody who heard the gospel could possibly be reasonable to reject it. If they are true Christians, have the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) and yet end up conceding that a person who hears the gospel could possibly be reasonable to reject it, I'll be willing to take the risk that this is also what the Holy Spirit was conceding through them, and therefore, God will not be giving me any different story on any "judgment day". Fundamentalists throw around "you are unreaosnable to interpret the bible that way" as if their opponent were on the level of dolts who deny the existence of trees. If we knew just how broad and forgiving objective criteria of reasonableness really are, many fundamentalists would probably stop acting like quoting Paul on Justification by Faith is equal to proving the existence of cars by pointing to traffic.

I have no problem with Christianity per se. My problem is the fundamentalists who cannot seem to set forth the apologetics case without overstating how wonderfully powerful it is. I specialize in addressing the Calvinist form of apologetics called presuppositionalism (but my posts here will presume Evidentialism unless specified otherwise).

Here's a list of some of my approaches:

1 - Reasonableness is far less exacting than "truth", therefore, there may be times when the view of the unbeliever will achieve reasonableness even if it is ultimately false. It can only be a bigot who pretends that unreasonableness necessarily inheres in all ultimately false beliefs.

2 - I agree with fundamenalists on the correspondence theory of truth.

3 - I reject the canonical hermeneutic, aka "rule of faith" aka using inerrancy as a hermeneutic. This also appears under the rubric "we need to take in the whole counsel of God and not merely one little part". If my interpretation of a bible verse appears reasonably consonant with what can be known about the verse's grammar, immediate context, and the ancient Semitic context he wrote in, I'm not going to abandon such interpretation merely because it would conflict with something the bible says elsewhere. That's why I find open-theism to be supported in Genesis 6:6, and I'm not going to abandon that interpretation merely because another part of the bible says God is infinitely wise.

4 - A strong case against apostle Paul's credibility and apostolic qualifications can be made from the bible.

5 - For any ancient historical source, including the bible, when I accept parts of it, I have objective reasons for this. When I consider other parts to be unreliable, I have objective reasons for this too. "You either believe all of it or reject all of it" is not an argument but an assertion. It might be rhetorically effective on Sunday morning, but what causes fundamentalists to clap rapidly, doesn't always equal effective argument.

6 - Just like you can be reasonable to ignore a theory that has only weak supporting argument despite the fact that it might ultimately be true, I can reasonably reject theism, Jesus' resurrection, biblical inerrancy and most of the exclusively Christian doctrines, despite the fact that they may prove ultimately true. Once again, reasonableness can possibly exist even where correctness doesn't. If then fundamentalists realize that not everything they deem "unbiblical" must be automatically unreasonable, the hateful insinuations so characteristic of Christian v. Christian and Christian v. unbeliever dialogue, and the splitting of one denomination into two, would probably occur less frequently.

 

[John Bauer]

Oh, I’m going to have some fun with you, methinks. I went in the other direction, from atheist to Calvinist. I am even a presuppositionalist. I think you and I could have some interesting and revealing exchanges.

Dude, welcome to the gauntlet. I can’t promise your objections a comfortable stay.

 

[Greg]

I look forward to it. I've started a new thread about a specific argument, but I will answer any challenge you put forth.

 

[makesends]

I look forward to it. I've started a new thread about a specific argument, but I will answer any challenge you put forth.

Are you referring to the Paul question, or is there another thread I missed?

Later. Oh, nevermind, I found it.

 

[Arial]

My approach is different. I do not "prove God doesn't exist", I don't prove Jesus stayed dead and I don't prove that biblical inerrancy is a false doctrine. Instead, I prove that I can be reasonable to see theism, Jesus' resurrection, and bible inerrancy as false doctrines. There's a world of difference between "this doctrine is false" and "in my opinion, this doctrine is false".

There is also a world of difference between " in my opinion this doctrine is false" and "in my opinion this doctrine is false because---".

 

[JesusFan]

Hello all. To start, I appreciate this forum and how it gives the ability to respond point by point.

Back in the 80's and 90's I studied the bible as a conservative Trinitarian Protestant. Couldn't listen to enough Walter Martin tapes! I kept suppressing academic questions, thinking they were just Satan's clever way to steal my joy in the Lord. I was a Calvinist. After several years of debating Christians and others, I grew irreversibly tired of the "god's ways are mysterious" excuse, and accordingly gave up the faith.

My approach is different. I do not "prove God doesn't exist", I don't prove Jesus stayed dead and I don't prove that biblical inerrancy is a false doctrine. Instead, I prove that I can be reasonable to see theism, Jesus' resurrection, and bible inerrancy as false doctrines. There's a world of difference between "this doctrine is false" and "in my opinion, this doctrine is false".

My goal is to convince fundamentalists that in their zeal, they may have overlooked key realities, and in the process, falsely started thinking that there is simply no way anybody who heard the gospel could possibly be reasonable to reject it. If they are true Christians, have the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) and yet end up conceding that a person who hears the gospel could possibly be reasonable to reject it, I'll be willing to take the risk that this is also what the Holy Spirit was conceding through them, and therefore, God will not be giving me any different story on any "judgment day". Fundamentalists throw around "you are unreaosnable to interpret the bible that way" as if their opponent were on the level of dolts who deny the existence of trees. If we knew just how broad and forgiving objective criteria of reasonableness really are, many fundamentalists would probably stop acting like quoting Paul on Justification by Faith is equal to proving the existence of cars by pointing to traffic.

I have no problem with Christianity per se. My problem is the fundamentalists who cannot seem to set forth the apologetics case without overstating how wonderfully powerful it is. I specialize in addressing the Calvinist form of apologetics called presuppositionalism (but my posts here will presume Evidentialism unless specified otherwise).

Here's a list of some of my approaches:

1 - Reasonableness is far less exacting than "truth", therefore, there may be times when the view of the unbeliever will achieve reasonableness even if it is ultimately false. It can only be a bigot who pretends that unreasonableness necessarily inheres in all ultimately false beliefs.

2 - I agree with fundamenalists on the correspondence theory of truth.

3 - I reject the canonical hermeneutic, aka "rule of faith" aka using inerrancy as a hermeneutic. This also appears under the rubric "we need to take in the whole counsel of God and not merely one little part". If my interpretation of a bible verse appears reasonably consonant with what can be known about the verse's grammar, immediate context, and the ancient Semitic context he wrote in, I'm not going to abandon such interpretation merely because it would conflict with something the bible says elsewhere. That's why I find open-theism to be supported in Genesis 6:6, and I'm not going to abandon that interpretation merely because another part of the bible says God is infinitely wise.

4 - A strong case against apostle Paul's credibility and apostolic qualifications can be made from the bible.

5 - For any ancient historical source, including the bible, when I accept parts of it, I have objective reasons for this. When I consider other parts to be unreliable, I have objective reasons for this too. "You either believe all of it or reject all of it" is not an argument but an assertion. It might be rhetorically effective on Sunday morning, but what causes fundamentalists to clap rapidly, doesn't always equal effective argument.

6 - Just like you can be reasonable to ignore a theory that has only weak supporting argument despite the fact that it might ultimately be true, I can reasonably reject theism, Jesus' resurrection, biblical inerrancy and most of the exclusively Christian doctrines, despite the fact that they may prove ultimately true. Once again, reasonableness can possibly exist even where correctness doesn't. If then fundamentalists realize that not everything they deem "unbiblical" must be automatically unreasonable, the hateful insinuations so characteristic of Christian v. Christian and Christian v. unbeliever dialogue, and the splitting of one denomination into two, would probably occur less frequently.

Are you atheist or agnostic?

 

[Arial]

My goal is to convince fundamentalists that in their zeal, they may have overlooked key realities, and in the process, falsely started thinking that there is simply no way anybody who heard the gospel could possibly be reasonable to reject it.

That may be a statement that is applicable to non-Reformed/Calvinists but not to R/C. They already know that only the elect and only in God's timing, and only by the power and grace of God will any believe the gospel. And that it is equally true that the gospel is to go out to all the world and cannot be believed if it is not heard. Here are just two scriptures that tell them those things.

1 Cor 2:12-14 Now we (Paul writing to believers) have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Romans 1014 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed: And how are they to believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

If they are true Christians, have the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) and yet end up conceding that a person who hears the gospel could possibly be reasonable to reject it, I'll be willing to take the risk that this is also what the Holy Spirit was conceding through them,

It is conceding nothing to say that Reformed Christian theology stands soundly with Scripture that it is normal for the unregenerate to reject the gospel and therefore it is reasonable that they would. They are only acting according to their nature. It is only in the regenerate that rejecting not only becomes unreasonable it becomes impossible. Why impossible? Because they believe.

So, the unregenerate ate to reject the gospel inevitably, but this does not entail that their rejection is rationally justified. Their cognitive faculties are not neutral; they are affected by sin so what is psychologically or theologically expected is not therefore epistemically sound.

To say they have reasons for rejecting the gospel and with arguments they take to be persuasive, is not the same as saying their rejection is reasonable in a normative sense. Having internally coherent reasons and being epistemically justified are distinct categories.

In addition, your assertion that if Christians concede X then the Holy Spirit is conceding X assumes a one-to-one reliability between a believer's statement and divine endorsement. That is equating epistemic reasonableness with theological truth and then attributing human judgements directly to divine authority. A great big confusion of categories.

 

[makesends]

Greg said:
If they are true Christians, have the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) and yet end up conceding that a person who hears the gospel could possibly be reasonable to reject it, I'll be willing to take the risk that this is also what the Holy Spirit was conceding through them,

It is conceding nothing to say that Reformed Christian theology stands soundly with Scripture that it is normal for the unregenerate to reject the gospel and therefore it is reasonable that they would. They are only acting according to their nature. It is only in the regenerate that rejecting not only becomes unreasonable it becomes impossible. Why impossible? Because they believe.

So, the unregenerate ate to reject the gospel inevitably, but this does not entail that their rejection is rationally justified. Their cognitive faculties are not neutral; they are affected by sin so what is psychologically or theologically expected is not therefore epistemically sound.

To say they have reasons for rejecting the gospel and with arguments they take to be persuasive, is not the same as saying their rejection is reasonable in a normative sense. Having internally coherent reasons and being epistemically justified are distinct categories.

In addition, your assertion that if Christians concede X then the Holy Spirit is conceding X assumes a one-to-one reliability between a believer's statement and divine endorsement. That is equating epistemic reasonableness with theological truth and then attributing human judgements directly to divine authority. A great big confusion of categories.

Greg,
1) do you think that a person can become convinced of the existence of God, by mere reason?
2) do you think that one can become convinced of the truth of the Gospel and know themselves to be outside its hold?
3) do you think that a person can believe in God salvifically, their faith attained through reason and generated from their own choice?
4) do you see two kinds of faith? Or are all mentions of "faith" referring to the same thing?

 

[Greg]

That may be a statement that is applicable to non-Reformed/Calvinists but not to R/C. They already know that only the elect and only in God's timing, and only by the power and grace of God will any believe the gospel. And that it is equally true that the gospel is to go out to all the world and cannot be believed if it is not heard. Here are just two scriptures that tell them those things.

1 Cor 2:12-14 Now we (Paul writing to believers) have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Romans 1014 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed: And how are they to believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

It is conceding nothing to say that Reformed Christian theology stands soundly with Scripture that it is normal for the unregenerate to reject the gospel and therefore it is reasonable that they would. They are only acting according to their nature. It is only in the regenerate that rejecting not only becomes unreasonable it becomes impossible. Why impossible? Because they believe.

So, the unregenerate ate to reject the gospel inevitably, but this does not entail that their rejection is rationally justified. Their cognitive faculties are not neutral; they are affected by sin so what is psychologically or theologically expected is not therefore epistemically sound.

To say they have reasons for rejecting the gospel and with arguments they take to be persuasive, is not the same as saying their rejection is reasonable in a normative sense. Having internally coherent reasons and being epistemically justified are distinct categories.

In addition, your assertion that if Christians concede X then the Holy Spirit is conceding X assumes a one-to-one reliability between a believer's statement and divine endorsement. That is equating epistemic reasonableness with theological truth and then attributing human judgements directly to divine authority. A great big confusion of categories.

In addition, your assertion that if Christians concede X then the Holy Spirit is conceding X assumes a one-to-one reliability between a believer's statement and divine endorsement.

If you are correct, then the descriptor in Romans 8:9 is little more than a substanceless pep talk. But we might be going down a rabbit hole here anyway, since the fact declared in Romans 8:9 cannot be verified to be true of any particular Christian. Statements about Americans, which cannot be proven true about any specific American, have no defensible significance.

That is equating epistemic reasonableness with theological truth and then attributing human judgements directly to divine authority. A great big confusion of categories.

Lots of human judgments in the bible are characterized as stemming from divine authority. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Greg]

Are you atheist or agnostic?

Atheist. That means I do what the vast majority of Christians do...and disagree with the presuppositionalist's interpretation of Romans 1:20.

 

[Greg]

Greg said:
If they are true Christians, have the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) and yet end up conceding that a person who hears the gospel could possibly be reasonable to reject it, I'll be willing to take the risk that this is also what the Holy Spirit was conceding through them,

Greg,
1) do you think that a person can become convinced of the existence of God, by mere reason?
2) do you think that one can become convinced of the truth of the Gospel and know themselves to be outside its hold?
3) do you think that a person can believe in God salvifically, their faith attained through reason and generated from their own choice?
4) do you see two kinds of faith? Or are all mentions of "faith" referring to the same thing?

Ahh, carrying on Sye Bruggencate's helpful tradition of "we don't do bible studies with unbelievers because we refuse to allow them to become judges over God's word". Nice touch. In my experience, here's how that works: the more ignorant my objections, the longer the bible study. But if I use strong arguments to justify disagreeing with a biblical author, then suddenly, "we will not allow you to become a judge over God's word". I'd like to criticize what you said with something Jesus said, but for the life of me, I cannot find a verse in any canonical gospel in which Jesus is admonishing unbelievers to study the OT. And so the Roman Catholic apologists remind us that even Reformed advocates of sola scriptura have their own extra-biblical traditions.

1) do you think that a person can become convinced of the existence of God, by mere reason?

Yes, but my confidence level on this drops the more times a Calvinist defends some point of classical theism. "Intelligent design"? Possibly. "Lives outside of time" (!?) Have a nice day.

2) do you think that one can become convinced of the truth of the Gospel and know themselves to be outside its hold?

Not sure what this means. If you mean "recognize the gospel is true at a time when they refuse to submit to it", then yes, humans are capable of denying in thought and action certain things which their other thoughts tell them are true. Such as the faithful wife of an abusive husband. She knows he is wrong, but her other thoughts strongly motivate her to blame only herself for the abuse. Cognitive Dissonance.

3) do you think that a person can believe in God salvifically, their faith attained through reason and generated from their own choice?

Well I don't believe "salvifically" refers to any actually true event or process. But one of the reasons I left Christianity after becoming a Calvinist was because I found that the bible also teaches libertarian freewill and thus contradicts itself.

4) do you see two kinds of faith? Or are all mentions of "faith" referring to the same thing?

Not sure if you are talking about the nature of faith or the object of faith. From the context, apparently you mean a faith arrived at solely by human reason, and a faith arising solely from spiritual regeneration. I'm an unbeliever, I don't believe in any such thing as spiritual regeneration.

 

[makesends]

Ahh, carrying on Sye Bruggencate's helpful tradition of "we don't do bible studies with unbelievers because we refuse to allow them to become judges over God's word". Nice touch. In my experience, here's how that works: the more ignorant my objections, the longer the bible study. But if I use strong arguments to justify disagreeing with a biblical author, then suddenly, "we will not allow you to become a judge over God's word". I'd like to criticize what you said with something Jesus said, but for the life of me, I cannot find a verse in any canonical gospel in which Jesus is admonishing unbelievers to study the OT. And so the Roman Catholic apologists remind us that even Reformed advocates of sola scriptura have their own extra-biblical traditions.

That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? In retrospect, I suppose, I should admit that depending on what you answered it may have come to that. But it isn't my method in talking with Atheists. I was just genuinely curious about your thinking and about that of other atheists. Believe it or not, I have several as friends, and one or two who agree with me on pretty much everything except religion-related application/uses of the obvious facts. Eg, they don't know what to do, and don't answer me about mere existence except by what I mentioned in my questions to you concerning 'existence'. "I don't need to know that." is the most common. "It is irrelevant" is somewhat less common.

1) do you think that a person can become convinced of the existence of God, by mere reason?​

Yes, but my confidence level on this drops the more times a Calvinist defends some point of classical theism. "Intelligent design"? Possibly. "Lives outside of time" (!?) Have a nice day.

So you consider time absolute, or, at least necessary to reason? I.e. no causation sequence without time sequence, events?

2) do you think that one can become convinced of the truth of the Gospel and know themselves to be outside its hold?​

Not sure what this means. If you mean "recognize the gospel is true at a time when they refuse to submit to it", then yes, humans are capable of denying in thought and action certain things which their other thoughts tell them are true. Such as the faithful wife of an abusive husband. She knows he is wrong, but her other thoughts strongly motivate her to blame only herself for the abuse. Cognitive Dissonance.

Good answer. That was all I was asking, though my word, "hold" implies something further I did not mean to force on the question.

3) do you think that a person can believe in God salvifically, their faith attained through reason and generated from their own choice?​

Well I don't believe "salvifically" refers to any actually true event or process. But one of the reasons I left Christianity after becoming a Calvinist was because I found that the bible also teaches libertarian freewill and thus contradicts itself.

When you have time, I would like to discuss that with you. I disagree it teaches that, and would like to know why you think it does. I read you somewhere to say things that, to me, anyway, put you (in your past) into a rather different non-representative Calvinistic mentality, not entirely Biblical.

4) do you see two kinds of faith? Or are all mentions of "faith" referring to the same thing?​

Not sure if you are talking about the nature of faith or the object of faith. From the context, apparently you mean a faith arrived at solely by human reason, and a faith arising solely from spiritual regeneration. I'm an unbeliever, I don't believe in any such thing as spiritual regeneration.

So, at least you are familiar with the two notions. Good. The object of faith, if valid, is also the source of that faith. But I would be digressive to dig further into that.

 

[Arial]

If you are correct, then the descriptor in Romans 8:9 is little more than a substanceless pep talk. But we might be going down a rabbit hole here anyway, since the fact declared in Romans 8:9 cannot be verified to be true of any particular Christian. Statements about Americans, which cannot be proven true about any specific American, have no defensible significance.

Neither can it be verified to be false. But whether it is or it isn't your assertion once again commits category errors. That passage does not say that "Since the Christian has the Spirit dwelling in them everything the Christian says or thinks is what the Spirit says or thinks." It says anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.