How to Talk to a Difficult Atheist (Video)

I’m currently in discussion with an atheist who is nice, but extremely prideful and condescending. Is it worth trying to engage someone in conversation who is civil but sees himself as infallible and makes assumptions about my intellect simply because I’m Christian?

Comments

[Rick]

What makes you think most atheists haven't got a well thought out position and haven't already considered any position a christian might bring up?

There is a positive correlation between intelligence and atheism.

[RonH]

Why does the Christian Questioner think the atheist is 'prideful and condescending'?

Why does the CQ think the atheist sees himself as infallible?

How does the CQ know the atheist makes assumptions about the CQ's intellect simply because the CQ is a Christian?

Without knowing something of the answers to the above, isn't it possible that the problem lies partly, even mainly, with the CQ?

Isn't it possible the atheist is just right (or less wrong) in this particular dialog?

Why assume one way or the other? We don't know any particulars of the dialog.

When people describe disputes to third parties, do they normally place the blame on themselves or on the other party to the dispute? Why is the CQ different?

So, in this situation, "not everybody deserves an answer", was not a good way to begin the response.

But, the part about 'the best way to address that is to prove him wrong' is great.

The CQ's real challenge will come when, even after he's been 'a student of STR for a while', he's defeated in a dialog with an atheist.

Will that atheist then be 'prideful and condescending'?

RonH

[Trent]

"Why does the Christian Questioner think the atheist is 'prideful and condescending'?

Why does the CQ think the atheist sees himself as infallible?

How does the CQ know the atheist makes assumptions about the CQ's intellect simply because the CQ is a Christian?
"

Experience I don't know this particular conversation, but the current tone is quickly becoming, the christers are stupid and intolerant and need to keep their ideas to themselves and away from the voting booths. I've seen posts where the claim is that the poster has never met a christian, despite lots of travel, that wasn't mentally retarded. It sounds like this conversation hasn't gone that far yet.

"So, in this situation, "not everybody deserves an answer", was not a good way to begin the response. "

Didn't Richard Dawkins, in a televised debate in Mexico, make the statement that some questions simply don't deserve an answer? Particularly anyone who asks the silly question Why?

[LoveHimselfRescuedMe]

Trent,

Mr. Dawkins may have said that. (I don't know that he did) If he did, then, well, obviously to disagree with him is to be silly-minded. I've run into that charge against my own personal intelligence a lot from others merely for asking a (genuine) question with a hint of non-specific theism in it. The attack comes hard and fast, or so it feels when you are on the receiving end. I use to do it to others a lot too. Although, I can honestly say that I have now gotten to place where Love's work is actually making a dent in me and I pretty much do not do that to others anymore. Repentance away from dark and towards light is both hard and rewarding. Love, it seems, ultimately brings better things than this ridiculous, violent, and nonsensical Now.

There is no response other than to follow God, Love Himself. I think if we start there, and work hard at it, the rest will become less concerning.

[Trent]

The question was rhetorical. You can find it online. It was a panel debate with William Lane Craig on the other side. He was quite clear that just because you can create a sentance in the form of a question does not mean that there is any entitlement to an answer.

It is the Holy Spirit's role to convince. My role is simply to discuss, and clear up some issues if I can. God will choose whom he chooses for whatever reasons he wishes to choose. My opinion is not important.

I still like the response from Michio Kaku, whom Dawkins replaced as Kaku decided not to debate, although he did show up and comment at the end. His response was that science says nothing about God, for or against. If science was the only tool being used, we'd all be here in 100 years arguing the same thing. It is "Undecidable"

[LoveHimselfRescuedME]

I do think that [CHALLENGING] someone by spelling out, as best as one can, what one thinks is an inconsistent part of another's view, can be done well, and without implying that that other person you are talking to is not thoughtful.

If they are not thoughtful, or haven't thought-through, they will taste/feel it themelves, but we need not think it of them, nor try to make such a notion or implication be felt by them or heard by them. If a series of self-negating statements or nuances come up and they hold to them, then, well, they'll get it, and we need not point our finger and shout: you see you really are stupid! Rather, I think we draw [THE STATEMENTS] and juxtapose them to show that they on some level seem to contradict either each other or logic, while, at the same time, communicate to [THE PERSON] what had better be a real sense of [INTRINSIC WORTH] which they are in fully loaded with.

But, Love is hard.

I find this hard. This is just hard. I want to win. To come out on top. The toughest survive. Me first. Self first. The Self who wins is King.

Christ wanted to lose. To come out on the bottom. Other first. The Self who dies is King.

There is no response other than to follow God, Love Himself. I think if we start there, and work hard at it, the rest will become less concerning.

[Trent]

I think you are giving people too much credit.

In my experience, the presupposition that you are simply wrong is often overriding. Even if you can point out some errors, you may be more likely to be met with thhe other person saying they aren't expressing things well enough. Regardless of the argument some people simply "know" that you are wrong so they can see your attempts as that of a delusional person who is trying to use tools they aren't able to fully understand. After all, if you really understood logic, you would be an atheist.

Simply pointing out a logical error only works if the other person reached their position in a purely intellectual path, rather than an emotional one.

[RonH]

Trent,

My mistake.

The CQ didn't mention Richard Dawkins, so I assumed the atheist was someone else.

How did you know?

RonH

[LHRM]

Trent I know....and it's frustrating ;)

I think we all have [BOTH] the existential/felt reality as well as the intellectual reality both weighing in on HOW/WHY we THINK/BELIEVE etc.... so that is certainly there. And, when met with "Well, I know I'm right, it's just that I can't quite explain it good enough right now" all we can do is avoid our own inner tempations towards verbal violence, or even simply felt violence, or anger, or frustration, and follow God and leave the Hard-Work of Change to Him.....

The Atheist will push hard, b/c in their view the Self who survives is King, ultimately.

But Christ tells us the Self who dies is King, ultimately.

These two world views are antithetical, and we need not think they will find a real bridge. The Atheist must Kill to survive. The Christian must Die to survive.

Love Love Himself and love all men.....

[Trent]

RonH,
I am not saying the other person was Richard Dawkins because I don't know.

I'm merely pointing out that proponents of both points of view have taken that stance, and it would be unfair to demand that the Christian answer anything put to them while the Atheist can pick and choose what they think is worth their bother to respond to. Just setting a level playing field.

[RonH]

Trent,

Not all atheists are like Richard Dawkins.

The CQ might be resorting to ad hominem attacks because he is chronically stumped and frustrated. Perhaps he is chronically stumped and frustrated because he is getting legitimate rebuttal he's not prepared for.

Greg touches on this possibility. He should have lead with it.

RonH

[Trent]

True, not all Christians are like Benny Hinn, but the point is still valid.

I must have missed the point about the CQ resorting to ad hominem. Unless you see the CQ stating observed behavior as being an attack. You also seem to be assuming the atheist is giving legitimate rebuttals without knowing what they are. I'll have to go back and listen again.

I have dealt with atheists who act as described, and I think the point of the video is to make a judgement call over when you are just wasting your time even having a conversation because you are just fighting an entrenched position.

It is not my place to have more patience than Jesus had. If a member of the Trinity doesn't want to get into it with someone, I have better things to do.

[volker]

...it's always interesting how our fellow "critics" like RonH or Rick can just ignore what was really said by Craig and make it into something, that they "maybe"? wish he would have said ....is he talking about Atheists in general? Is he suggesting that Theists, or specifically the Theists that read his stuff, are better informed, have a better thought out position, than Atheists?
The answer is NO.
He is talking about SPECIFIC Atheists. And he is right. You might want to defend these atheistic "bullies" who give the real intellectual / well informed Atheist a bad name, but don't expect any sympathy.
You don't see Craig defending Christians/theists who make uninformed/stupid statements, who call all Atheists "evil" or "stupid" or "immoral" ....the opposite is the case ....being ignorant is not something, that is owned by one side or the other ...
....so why do Atheists like you guys defend Atheists who think of all Theists as "delusional, stupid, bigot ...people" who we should make fun of and laugh at them whenever we can?
I would never defend a theist who would make general statements like that about atheists and neither would Craig ...is it possible for you to criticize "bad" forms of atheism? Or is any form of atheism acceptable for you?
....can't wait to hear from you...

[Brian]

RonH,

Broadly, I agree with your thesis, that just because one is stymied in an argument does not mean that the other person is being obstructionist or insincere. We might be well served to stop and ask ourselves, is this a good point? If I made the counterpoint, would I think it a good one? I think this is a characteristic of someone who is "winsome" in their conversation with others. However, it seems you hold the CQ up to a higher standard than yourself. You began your original post chastising those who assume some things to be factual rather than knowing them to be factual.

(from original post)
"Why does the Christian Questioner think the atheist is 'prideful and condescending'?

Why does the CQ think the atheist sees himself as infallible?

How does the CQ know the atheist makes assumptions about the CQ's intellect simply because the CQ is a Christian?"

"Why assume one way or the other? We don't know any particulars of the dialog."

Then, in your final statements you state:

"The CQ's real challenge will come when, even after he's been 'a student of STR for a while', he's defeated in a dialog with an atheist."

I'm confused now. You chastise CQ and apparently other STR "ambassadors" for making assumptions about atheists, but it appears you have done the same? How do you know that the STR "ambassadors" will be defeated? You don't express this as a possibility. You express it as statement of fact ("when....he's defeated...")

I believe we should all be more circumspect in our assessments of these types of interactions. I have recently been in dialogue with one atheist in particular. In the end the atheist accused me of being an obstructionist, not interested in an authentic dialogue. I would not characterize my part of the discussion that way, but would characterize my atheist interlocutor as... lacking critical thinking skills. Who is correct? What is the truth? How does one "know"? difficult questions, but I don't think it should stop us from dialoguing graciously.

[Trent]

RonH does seem to be starting from the assumption that the atheist is right and scoring points, and the Christian is being again frustrated by being trounced without knowing any of the details of the conversation.

It sort of sounds like he's not debunking the original description.

[Mary]

I recently listened to a podcast at Apologetics315 with an ex-athiest who came to the Lord through an atheist website. How? A Christian posted there. He answered all of the atheists' questions sincerely, politely, honestly, rationally no matter how nasty and insulting and arrogant they got.

To make a long story short, the ex-atheist compared the Christian's attitude to that of the atheists, saw the difference and knew which one was healthier. That started him on a journey that ended in his connecting with the Lord.

I have no idea how much prayer went behind that Christian's interaction with atheists, but I bet it was a lot!

It's hard to take the constant vitriol from some of them and I am overjoyed (and also surprised) when I encounter an atheist who is really interested in intelligent discussion and is able to carry on a conversation without getting nasty. I think a lot of them hide behind insults because they really don't have any answers and they don't want to admit that.

I usually find that, when I start repeating myself, that's when it's time for the conversation to end. At that point, I give them lots of refernce sources for further reading and bid them good-bye.

[Damian]

I have found athiest tend ot toquestion or justify thier stating points.

[RonH]

Brian,

I'm not assumptions about the CQ and his atheist. Let me explain.

The first thing I ever saw of apologetics was Lewis's Trilemma. I was camping and had only Mere Christianity.

The argument didn't smell right but I honestly didn't know what to make of it. These woods had no library or internet.

There was a certain amount of panic. :)

That was years ago now and I don't remember if I worked out any answers on my own or had to look some up.

Either way, Lewis's Trilemma doesn't impress me now. Nor does Craig's Kalām. Etc. Etc.

Since then, I've studied and thought through my position pretty well. And that is where my 'final statements' came from.

I was not assuming anything about the match between the CQ and his current interlocutor; I was imagining meeting the CQ myself. I'll respect him and I'm prepared. I don't think any amount of time at STR will help him.

volker,

I don't like name calling on either side.
Dawkins does it.

Plus a Craig-Dawkins debate would result in various parts of Dawkins strewn about the stage.

How's that?

RonH

[RonH]

Well STR will help the CQ but not enough.

[Trent]

Sorry, RonH

How are you not claiming to take the position that this unknown atheist is being described as taking, and you are describing the description of as ad hominem?

I can't say I've ever heard atheist arguments that have impressed me yet. Does that mean that I think that atheists will automatically lose any argument? That would be silly.

Your post appears to me to be little more than chest pounding.

I can't say that I am impressed.

[Trent]

I do agree that it is possible that no amount of STR may help. Some people are just unwilling to consider the possibility that they might be wrong ( on both sides ).

[Brad B]

Oh dont worry Trent, RonH will soon impress you with his opinion of the world according to his sense perception and reason. These he holds in higher regard than the laws of logic.

[Trent]

We'll see, unless I get bored first.

[Daron]

Is RonH a chest-pounder? You bet.
He says he is impressed by no apologetic arguments (although he accepts that, for instance, the Gospel of Mark was written within a generation of Jesus' death) and offers this as a test of his reasoning abilities here:

The key word here is 'convincing'. What if the problem is I'm not convincable? Well, all I can do is ask myself: How is my performance elsewhere? Am I frequently a good or bad judge of evidence? The answer is by many accounts: good. Am I able to come to unpleasant conclusions if necessary? The answer is: Yes, I consciously avoid fooling myself.

Fortunately, I had handy an immediate test case of this claim. If interested, read the comment and the link in the one that followed (or the rest of either thread). There we saw RonH having to claim, in the face of copious evidence, that a fine is not a punishment in order to support his position. Or you can just continue along in the first thread linked to see if he passes his own test.

[Daron]

More recently, RonH fallaciously accused STR of using an appeal to consequences as a defeater for an argument. Before he finally admitted to SteveK his error he continually used William Lane Craig's existential argument as evidence that STR's moral argument is an appeal to consequences.

[Trent]

He states he is consciously avoids fooling himself, and that is his proof of his position?

If I am right, and I believe that I am otherwise I wouldn't hold that position, the fact that he disagrees would tend to indicate that he is fooling himself. The assumption requires that he has ALL possible relevant information, and has ALL required skills to properly analyze the information, and he actually properly analyzes it with NO bias or presupposition. This looks like it isn't an accurate description.

If he is fooling himself, would he know? If he knew, he wouldn't actually be fooling himself, but attempting to fool us.

[Trent]

"The key word here is 'convincing'. What if the problem is I'm not convincable? Well, all I can do is ask myself: How is my performance elsewhere? Am I frequently a good or bad judge of evidence? The answer is by many accounts: good. Am I able to come to unpleasant conclusions if necessary? The answer is: Yes, I consciously avoid fooling myself."

Interesting. This makes an assumption that if you are good at one thing, you are good at another. This is the same mistake Dawkins makes. He is good as a zoologist, therefore he must be good at philosophy and theology.

Maybe because I am generally good in the engineering field, I must also be good at belly dancing or Chinese calligraphy.

After all, what is the conceptual difference between connecting a diode to a flip-flop circuit and dancing half naked painting Chinese characters on the side of a vase?

Note: In case I am being too subtle, I am being sarcastic and pointing out that just because you have good judgement in one thing does not mean that you have good judgement in another unrelated thing.

[Brian]

Sorry RonH,
I didn't mean to start a "free-for-all" about you. Thank you for your explanation. I believe you explained yourself well.

Let me continue our discussion. You did say that you were not impressed by many of the arguments put forth by Christians. That's fine with me. I'm not impressed with many of the arguments/counter arguments put forth by non-believers. However, in my mind the first question is "is the argument rational (reasonable - though not necessarily without flaws). Would you say that these arguments that fail to impress you are rational or do you consider them to be mostly nonsense?

[RonH]

Hi All,
I've read what you've written.
RonH

[Bob Seidensticker]

I like it. Condescending speech doesn’t help the conversation.

But just know that many atheists will be better versed in the Bible than you are. Or will have thought through the apologetics arguments more thoroughly.

Simple Christian pablum (as I noticed in some of the comments here) won’t be helpful.

[RonH]

Thanks Brian,

Your first question looks good to me.

The next question might be:

What answers have been given?

And then:

How are the answers responded to?

And so forth, until the best from both sides had been seen. Then weigh it all up.

Rational or nonsense?

Rational. My experience with Lewis's Trilemma is typical. I don't think I should call something that once 'panicked' me 'nonsense'.

Make sense?

RonH

[Trent]

I have my doubts about the last bit.

I find that many atheist tend to target people who they can corner and avoid people who might know the bible as well as they do.

I also have talked to atheists who have very poorly thought out positions.

I am not convinced the statement is true, and am not ready to accept something that runs counter to my experience so simply. Again, sweeping generalizations about the atheist being intellectually superior in a situation where there is no other information than one side is atheist and the other is christian does sound a bit as if it is confirming the observation that was originally offered about the difficult atheist who was "infallible" and making assumptions of the others intellect on the mere basis that they are Christian.

Just to clarify, is the point here to show that that description is unfair or that it is just sour grapes because the Christian isn't smart enough to understand that the atheist is merely " right" whatever actually was said because the Christian would obviously have been wrong?

[RonH]

Hey Bob,

I didn't know pablum. Nice.

Trent,

Last bit of what comment?

[Trent]

The last bit statement was written before your post.

The statement that many atheists will be better versed than the christian may be true if you mean that there is a large number in general. Just in my experience, many does not mean the majority that you will meet, as I have met just as many clueless atheists as clueless Christians.

My issue is the assumption being made that in the conversation, the atheist was automatically the victor and the poor Christian just isn't prepared simply because they are christian.

It seems to just reenforce the opinion stated by the writer as being plausible when I read the remarks being made

[Brad B]

"But just know that many atheists will be better versed in the Bible than you are. Or will have thought through the apologetics arguments more thoroughly."

Hi Bob, I have a hard time taking your statement seriously as a warning to restrain from sarcasm in answering fools according to their folly, but it does have a stinging truth that cuts deeper than words of sarcasm and that is the glaring truth that many Christians are poorly prepared to defend the faith. And we all reason poorly if we're not careful to challenge every proposition for soundness[valid and true].

However the "pablum" you refer to has some history behind it and the dispensers of said pablum would likely not suffer to endure the sting of your prophesy and are only hoping to find well reasoning atheists who actually do know the biblical doctrines enough to challenge the real McCoy. Thus far, it seems that there are no atheists who can ground ethics, or account for knowledge outside of their own experience which is no grounding at all.

So, let us come and reason together, even the Lord God Almighty asks this of men, only we ask that it be done well of ourselves and others.

[The Meister]

Funny how the second you become an atheist, you are suddenly a scientific genius and a top level biblical scholar. It seems an almost universal and instantaneous.

Unforetunately, for many knowledge seems to come from copying and pasting from antitheist rant sites, beefed up with Wikipedia.

Infallible and condescending? Seen it in people with legitimate issues with Christianity. Seen it on people who wanted to charge every publishing house who ever published a bible with crimes against humanity and start a worldwide campaign to castrate every living clergyman.

[Rick]

That seems a bit offensive to Atheists.

You can't have spoken to many Atheists, as I know nobody like that.

[Trent]

Poor baby, Rick.

How is it any more offensive than referring to Christians all being babies ( pablum being baby food)?

And how come whenever someone describes some atheist behavior which is a little over the top or just plain jerky, no atheist has ever seen that happen, but any character flaw that is seen in a Christian is a deep seated issue fundamental to Christianity because all Christians are just clones?

[Alex]

Bob,

Interesting how you say condescending comments don't help, and then go on to be condescending. Or is it only bad when a Christian does it?

[SteveK]

Greg touches on this possibility. He should have lead with it

You should get your own blog, RonH, so you can do things your way. As for STR, Greg should keep doing it his way.

[G'Kar]

I guess a few guys decided they can't converse without affirming the observations of the writer.

[Rick]

Why would you assume that? I see no evidence that any poster acts the way the writer describes.