Learning from Atheist books/videos to improve Christian Apologetics?

[quatona]

There are some, such as myself, and apparently these fellow Christian academics at Biola University (in the short 7 minute video below), who think it is possible to learn from atheistic media (books/video/articles, etc.) to improve our own Christian understanding in various ways.

This thread is intended for both Christians and Atheists/Skeptics to discuss (or debate) the merits of Atheistic literature in relation to the 'doing' of Christian Apologetics ...

One question we may think about is: "What have you learned from atheistic literature that has informed you in a beneficial and/or useful way for grappling with either your outlook on life or your Christian faith when you've engaged it?"

As an example of a response to this question above, I'd say that when I first read atheistic philosopher George H. Smith's book, Atheism: The Case Against God, nearly twenty years ago, I gained the insight that there is more than one degree or kind of atheistic outlook, more than one way that those who do not believe in Theism will designate and qualify their own view about the God question. In some ways, this is similar to the ways in which Christians qualify themselves by harboring within cognitive attachments to various denominations and their respective identities.

Another thing I learned was that there can be 'holes' in the thinking of atheists.

But, what else could be something we may fit under the umbrella of this inquiry?

Personally, I wouldn´t read a book that is explicitly "atheistic". My atheism - just an umbrella term to roughly give you an idea about what is not part of my worldview - has little to none significance to me.

On another note: Imo, if you want to offer something, you better work from the qualities of your offer, rather than trying to refute or tackle those who aren´t interested. However, when it comes to material items or services, you can improve your offer by changing it according to the needs of the majority. This doesn´t seem to be the case with God and unchanging truths and stuff.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Personally, I wouldn´t read a book that is explicitly "atheistic". My atheism - just an umbrella term to roughly give you an idea about what is not part of my worldview - has little to none significance to me.

Oh well, your 'loss,' I guess! You'll never know the satisfaction of reading an atheist's book and, after coming across a conceptual snafu, being able to yell out, "A-HA!!!" in a way similar to that in which some atheists do when they read a Christian Apologetics book and find a conceptual snafu expressed by someone like William Lane Craig.

On another note: Imo, if you want to offer something, you better work from the qualities of your offer, rather than trying to refute or tackle those who aren´t interested. However, when it comes to material items or services, you can improve your offer by changing it according to the needs of the majority. This doesn´t seem to be the case with God and unchanging truths and stuff.

You have my empathy and my sympathy, quatona, if you feel God ... has somehow failed to "deliver." If we're honest, I think we all have those feelings at some point, maybe even in an ongoing fashion, and they can be quite existentially sobering. However, as mentioned and discussed in the videos I've provided to @Silmarien above (and by proxy to others), does this seeming failure on God's part really mean there's no god at all, or no Jesus who, someday, could and will 'deliver'? I can't answer for others since we each have to answer this existential quandry on our own.

Moreover, is this what it all boils down to at the end of the day, despite all of the various permutations of criticism that we can all come up with: that the various versions and slices of the Problem of Evil somehow plays an aesthetic part in whether or not any one of us makes the final decision to jump over Lessing's Ditch and into the open arms (or Spirit, really) of Jesus?

 

[gaara4158]

It should go without saying that if you really want to persuade others away from their way of thinking, then you should make yourself intimately familiar with what it is they actually think. You wouldn't take someone's critique of the Bible seriously if they hadn't even read it, would you? The same is true for atheists if you don't take the time to understand their position. Reading from atheist authors will help you understand the way many atheists think, and it might even make an atheist out of you. So where's the downside?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It should go without saying that if you really want to persuade others away from their way of thinking, then you should make yourself intimately familiar with what it is they actually think. You wouldn't take someone's critique of the Bible seriously if they hadn't even read it, would you? The same is true for atheists if you don't take the time to understand their position. Reading from atheist authors will help you understand the way many atheists think, and it might even make an atheist out of you. So where's the downside?

The downside, I think, would be that even if a Christian reads and becomes familiar with much of the atheistic literature and with the arguments presently on the market, this will in no way guarantee that such a Christian will be able to persuade those who are already hood-winked by the atheistic mindset. On the other hand, the upshot in all of this for the Christian is that it could make it as hard as hell for an atheist to try to persuade the Christian who has thus been educated in this additional way ...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The downside, I think, would be that even if a Christian reads and becomes familiar with much of the atheistic literature and with the arguments presently on the market, this will in no way guarantee that such a Christian will be able to persuade those who are already hood-winked by the atheistic mindset. On the other hand, the upshot in all of this for the Christian is that it could make it as hard as hell for an atheist to try to persuade the Christian who has thus been educated in this additional way ...

You make it sound like there's actually something wrong with the reasoning process which leads to atheism. What is it? Can you point to a single flaw?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You make it sound like there's actually something wrong with the reasoning process which leads to atheism. What is it? Can you point to a single flaw?

...occasionally, there are holes in the thinking of various atheists. Sure, they make some good points, but they do so without always looking at their shortcomings. It kind of goes with the axiom that "no single human person knows everything." Need I say more? But as far as pointing to a single flaw--------------------I think I've already done plenty of that during the time I've been here on CF.

If you don't happen to remember my refutations, then pick a book and I'll see if I can get a copy of it so we can go through it page by page, paragraph by paragraph and have a good laugh with each other along the way ...

 

[quatona]

Oh well, your 'loss,' I guess! You'll never know the satisfaction of reading an atheist's book and, after coming across a conceptual snafu, being able to yell out, "A-HA!!!" in a way similar to that in which some atheists do when they read a Christian Apologetics book and find a conceptual snafu expressed by someone like William Lane Craig.

Yeah, shooting fish in a barrel can be fun, but only for so long.
The thing is, though: You don´t get a better apologists by pointing out some flaws in some atheists´argument. You still haven´t made a case for your particular branch of theism.

You have my empathy and my sympathy, quatona, if you feel God ... has somehow failed to "deliver."

There must be a misunderstanding. This wasn´t my point at all. We are talking about apologists trying to get better at delivering, not about God here, right? And I was talking about a particular problem: Unlike with other products (that a company can change and adjust to the actual needs of the people in order to raise the sales) God is allegedly unchanging. Thus, listening to the target group and checking out their actual needs (which is what every successful marketer will do) won´t help the apologist.

Moreover, is this what it all boils down to at the end of the day, despite all of the various permutations of criticism that we can all come up with: that the various versions and slices of the Problem of Evil somehow plays an aesthetic part in whether or not any one of us makes the final decision to jump over Lessing's Ditch and into the open arms (or Spirit, really) of Jesus?

Look, this is a good example why studying "professional" atheists´argument won´t help you (beyond getting the personal satisfaction you´ve been talking about) : Personally, I don´t think the PoE is a good argument against the existence of a God (maybe it is a good argument against certain god concepts). For me, the problem is that mainstream Christianity (and the proponents of the PoE) would us believe that there is a worthwhile existence in the absence of evil/suffering (IOW the entire discussion of the PoE is completely uninteresting to me - from both sides).

 

[gaara4158]

The downside, I think, would be that even if a Christian reads and becomes familiar with much of the atheistic literature and with the arguments presently on the market, this will in no way guarantee that such a Christian will be able to persuade those who are already hood-winked by the atheistic mindset. On the other hand, the upshot in all of this for the Christian is that it could make it as hard as hell for an atheist to try to persuade the Christian who has thus been educated in this additional way ...

So, it sounds like your biggest worry is that a lot of people might end up wasting their time. Maybe now you can sympathize with my hesitance to dive deeply into the Christian books you yourself often cite

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, shooting fish in a barrel can be fun, but only for so long.
The thing is, though: You don´t get a better apologists by pointing out some flaws in some atheists´argument. You still haven´t made a case for your particular branch of theism.

I'd have to moderately disagree with you on that one quatona. In philosophy (and much of the academic world, really) if a person wants to claim a position or present a 'thesis,' she typically not only hase to demonstrate and support herr view, but she also needa to show, at the least, why she thinks alternative views, or opposite views, are deficient. And some of this can be done by Christians in the area of Christian Apologetics by reading and analyzing atheistic literature.

There must be a misunderstanding. This wasn´t my point at all. We are talking about apologists trying to get better at delivering, not about God here, right? And I was talking about a particular problem: Unlike with other products (that a company can change and adjust to the actual needs of the people in order to raise the sales) God is allegedly unchanging. Thus, listening to the target group and checking out their actual needs (which is what every successful marketer will do) won´t help the apologist.

I think this will depend on the particular persons being interacted with; some it may help, and some it may not. So, yes and no to your view here. I don't think you're dead wrong, but your point need to be socially and psychologically qualified in considered the affect that analyses over various thought forms may have for each unique individual. For instance, you're a fairly 'different' thinker than the typical skeptic here on CF, so I'm under no illusions that a conversation with you would be of the same essence that it would be if I spoke to some of these other folks.

Anyway, I hear what you're saying, and I'll keep it in mind for further consideration. Don't take it as a dismissal of your point.

Look, this is a good example why studying "professional" atheists´argument won´t help you (beyond getting the personal satisfaction you´ve been talking about) : Personally, I don´t think the PoE is a good argument against the existence of a God (maybe it is a good argument against certain god concepts). For me, the problem is that mainstream Christianity (and the proponents of the PoE) would us believe that there is a worthwhile existence in the absence of evil/suffering (IOW the entire discussion of the PoE is completely uninteresting to me - from both sides).

Again, you're different, because I think we can honestly say that a ton of skeptical people today are so because of the PoE, even if it might not be the PoE alone that does at all times.

But, the floor is still open. Feel free to follow up with some additional thoughts if you wish.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, it sounds like your biggest worry is that a lot of people might end up wasting their time. Maybe now you can sympathize with my hesitance to dive deeply into the Christian books you yourself often cite

Uh........what you're citing would be a different 'kind' of wasting one's time. Do you see the difference in what I'm saying verses what you're supposedly giving as a personal view of your own psychology? I'm focusing on how a Christian might read some books and thereby be better able to converse, maybe even persuade, another person. Your statement instead focuses on how reading certain books may benefit the reader for his own sake and not for the sake of persuading others. These are two different, even if related, psycho-social dynamics.

If you want to truly be analogous in your statement, then what you might want to say is that by reading the books that 2PhiloVoid reads, YOU could be in a better position to persuade him that he's flat-out wrong since it's those sources/books/scholars/media which provide support for his alternative point of view. And I don't see any of you doing that very much; but you all sure like to 'dis' on William Lane Craig or easier targets like Norm Geisler type apologists.

 

[gaara4158]

Uh........what you're citing would be a different 'kind' of wasting one's time. Do you see the difference in what I'm saying verses what you're supposedly giving as a personal view of your own psychology? I'm focusing on how a Christian might read some books and thereby be better able to converse, maybe even persuade, another person. Your statement instead focuses on whether reading certain books may or may not benefit the reader for his own sake and not for persuading others. These are two different, even if related, psycho-social dynamics.

If you want to truly be analogous in your statement, then what you might want to say is that by reading the books that 2PhiloVoid reads, YOU might be in a better position to persuade him that he's flat-out wrong since it's those sources/books/scholars/media which provide support for his alternative point of view. And I don't see any of you doing that very much; but you all sure like to 'dis' on William Lane Craig or easier targets like Norm Geisler type apologists.

Well, that speaks to my earlier point that you’re generally better able to discuss the position of your opposition if you’re familiar with their thinking. If your concern about it not being very effective applies on your end, it applies on mine too. I suspect the main reason you don’t see as many atheists delving into the other side’s literature is because a) there’s so much of it and b) there’s no fundamental imperative in atheism to recruit and convert others as there is in Christianity. We’ll only read it if it interests us, and unfortunately being able to converse on a deeper level with a handful of learned theists online isn’t enough of an incentive to power through what we suspect is nonsense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, that speaks to my earlier point that you’re generally better able to discuss the position of your opposition if you’re familiar with their thinking. If your concern about it not being very effective applies on your end, it applies on mine too. I suspect the main reason you don’t see as many atheists delving into the other side’s literature is because a) there’s so much of it and b) there’s no fundamental imperative in atheism to recruit and convert others as there is in Christianity. We’ll only read it if it interests us, and unfortunately being able to converse on a deeper level with a handful of learned theists online isn’t enough of an incentive to power through what we suspect is nonsense.

And if you atheists/skeptics admit to harboring this kind of disposition, do you think that we Christians are really going to chase you by your coat-tails for very long? I mean..........at some point (and I don't think I've reached that point with you yet, and I hope I don't)...... all this ongoing debate, discussion and interlocution breaks down into more essential social and psychological components and becomes personal and political. This later part I try to stay out of, but if I get the inkling that someone I'm talking to has been pre-planning [scheming?] all along to not only dismiss out-of-hand most of what I have to offer, but to also fully resist engaging anything I could ever intend to bring up for the benefit of addressing their grievances, then why in the world would I stick around in the effort to try to help those skeptics 'see the light of Christ'? It's not my job as a Christian to do that.

At some point, this whole Christian Apologetics enterprise, as it is misconstrued in some ways by Christians today anyway, becomes a waste of time for everyone. And if the only reason some Christians and some atheists debate here is because they're seeing it as a final ditch BATTLE for their supposed political rights in our present legal setting, then I for one am not going to invest myself in attempts at friendship, alliances, or further enabling of what I see are diabolically inclined social tendencies on both sides. Besides, I'm actually here simply to try to educate and/or help those who are struggling in life and with what I see as misconstruals of the Christian faith.

 

[quatona]

I'd have to moderately disagree with you on that one quatona. In philosophy (and much of the academic world, really) if a person wants to claim a position or present a 'thesis,' she typically not only hase to demonstrate and support herr view, but she also needa to show, at the least, why she thinks alternative views, or opposite views, are deficient. And some of this can be done by Christians in the area of Christian Apologetics by reading and analyzing atheistic literature.

Well, further down you speak about the "typical skeptic". As far as I can tell, being skeptical about a claim isn´t a competing position, to begin with.
Thus, if we think of the "typical skeptic" that you want to persuade of the existence of the God of your concept - what do you think they expect from you? That´s an important question. Eg. will (if it can be done) the refutation of the PoE turn a skeptic a. into a theist and b. into a believer in your particular God concept? I don´t think so.

I think this will depend on the particular persons being interacted with; some it may help, and some it may not. So, yes and no to your view here. I don't think you're dead wrong, but your point need to be socially and psychologically qualified in considered the affect that analyses over various thought forms may have for each unique individual. For instance, you're a fairly 'different' thinker than the typical skeptic here on CF, so I'm under no illusions that a conversation with you would be of the same essence that it would be if I spoke to some of these other folks.

Ok, let´s get real then. How many atheists/skeptics have you, Philovoid, converted (of course with the help of the HS ) into theists (or even Christians, or even better, Christians of your particular brand) - online and/or in real life? What has been the most successful argument or method?

Anyway, it seems to me that (even though we see a lot of demand for "evidence" and stuff) the psychological and social reasons for not subscribing to some form theism is indifference rather than determined opposition. You´ll find a lot of skeptics/atheists who have no issue with e.g. a deist, pantheist or panentheistic God - alas, these Gods are more or less irrelevant for any given intent or purpose. Thus, arguing against (and finding flaws in) atheist/skeptic arguments and literature is miles apart from arguing for a particular (personal?) mono-God concept that would actually make a difference.

Again, you're different, because I think we can honestly say that a ton of skeptical people today are so because of the PoE, even if it might not be the PoE alone that does at all times.

Well, personally I am pretty convinced that all those (supposedly) rational arguments are more or less post-hoc rationalizations - on both sides. That, of course, is an assumption on my part. If I were a Christian Apologist, I would not pay much attention to "I have a great argument against God´s existence." - to me, most of the time it sounds more like "I have absolutely no need for this or that God concept.". If this my view is accurate it should be obvious that you need a different approach than the typical discussion, and - even more so - the attempt to refute atheist/skeptic arguments.

On another note, it´s really hard to argue for atheism - simply because there are so many substantially different Gods to address. That´s why I keep suggesting that the Apologist starts with answering the question "'God'? What do you mean??". Or else you are at the risk of exploiting a convienient and self-imposed vagueness (which, in the end, is often held against the unbelievers).[/quote]

 

[Uber Genius]

• The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God (1982), J.L. Mackey, Oxford University Press,
• Arguing About Gods, Graham Oppy, Cambridge University Press(2006),
• The Logic of Theism. J.H. Sobel, Cambridge University Press (2004),

All three deal with the problem of evil. Cosmological, teleological, moral and transcendent arguments are also engaged.

By examining the weakness of the critics one can assess the power of the theistic inference.

These are the top men in their field.

By engaging their claims one can see just how strong Christian knowledge claims are.

 

[gaara4158]

And if you atheists/skeptics admit to harboring this kind of disposition, do you think that we Christians are really going to chase you by your coat-tails for very long? I mean..........at some point (and I don't think I've reached that point with you yet, and I hope I don't)...... all this ongoing debate, discussion and interlocution breaks down into more essential social and psychological components and becomes personal and political. This later part I try to stay out of, but if I get the inkling that someone I'm talking to has been pre-planning [scheming?] all along to not only dismiss out-of-hand most of what I have to offer, but to also fully resist engaging anything I could ever intend to bring up for the benefit of addressing their grievances, then why in the world would I stick around in the effort to try to help those skeptics 'see the light of Christ'? It's not my job as a Christian to do that.

It's not likely you'll have to "chase down" such skeptics as those you describe, at least not here, seeing as it's usually the skeptic who jumps in or initiates the conversation, agenda in hand. You're welcome to opt out of conversations with them, and if you truly don't think there's anyone worth talking to about atheistic literature, you're welcome not to read it either.

At some point, this whole Christian Apologetics enterprise, as it is misconstrued in some ways by Christians today anyway, becomes a waste of time for everyone. And if the only reason some Christians and some atheists debate here is because they're seeing it as a final ditch BATTLE for their supposed political rights in our present legal setting, then I for one am not going to invest myself in attempts at friendship, alliances, or further enabling of what I see are diabolically inclined social tendencies on both sides. Besides, I'm actually here simply to try to educate and/or help those who are struggling in life and with what I see as misconstruals of the Christian faith.

Hear, hear! There may be a place for the civil rights battle concerning matters of theism, but this isn’t it. This is, above all, a community. I’m here to learn, teach, and laugh.

 

[Uber Genius]

t is hardly clear that replying on the character differences of those in covenant from those who are Islamic will lead to much differentiation

What have you learned from atheistic literature that has informed you in a beneficial and/or useful way for grappling with either your outlook on life or your Christian faith when you've engaged it?"

they're seeing it as a final ditch BATTLE for their supposed political rights in our present legal setting, then I for one am not going to invest myself in attempts at friendship, alliances, or further enabling of what I see are diabolically inclined social tendencies on both sides. Besides, I'm actually here simply to try to educate and/or help those who are struggling in life and with what I see as misconstruals of the Christian faith.

why not take truth claims and their defense at
face-value?

Two inferences:

God exists
God does not exist

What evidences suggests one is more likely true than the other.

Helping people would necessarily start with helping them shed life-long delusions about where they came from, how should they live their lives, where they go when they die, how do they relate to God if such a being exists?

These seem to be far more pressing than the political rights issues you raise. The answer would have profound implications to political rights to be sure but we first start
With the foundation before we build on it.

Apologetics is about the foundation and if we let supposed political consequences be our guide haven’t we just committed the fallacy of consequence!

Let’s focus on the question of if there is a god or not. That seems weighty enough for now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not likely you'll have to "chase down" such skeptics as those you describe, at least not here, seeing as it's usually the skeptic who jumps in or initiates the conversation, agenda in hand. You're welcome to opt out of conversations with them, and if you truly don't think there's anyone worth talking to about atheistic literature, you're welcome not to read it either.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but the truth is, I think most people here are very much worth talking to, even if I disagree with them, and this is partly why I'm even here on CF myself. Like others, I (mostly) enjoy conversations with a variety of people, except for those few who prove themselves to be utterly socio-pathic lunkheads. In those latter cases, I'll have to admit that I have my own human weakness in not wanting to put up with it for very long ...

Hear, hear! There may be a place for the civil rights battle concerning matters of theism, but this isn’t it.

Yeah, and that's one of the reasons I try to extricate my political views [which are more or less Purple] from my spiritual views as much as I can, and I realize this bifurcation of mine may be difficult for a number of people here to fathom since the two are so often seen as inextricably intertwined, especially these days.

This is, above all, a community. I’m here to learn, teach, and laugh.

Oh sure! Me too!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, further down you speak about the "typical skeptic". As far as I can tell, being skeptical about a claim isn´t a competing position, to begin with.
Thus, if we think of the "typical skeptic" that you want to persuade of the existence of the God of your concept - what do you think they expect from you? That´s an important question. Eg. will (if it can be done) the refutation of the PoE turn a skeptic a. into a theist and b. into a believer in your particular God concept? I don´t think so.

I'm thinking they want me to raise my hands and produce THIS!!!!:

Yeah, well! Good luck to them with getting any of that kind of thing!!! I'm too much of a Realist to expect this myself or to think that kind of thing should be happen'n left and right! Although, I must admit: It would be pretty cool!

Ok, let´s get real then. How many atheists/skeptics have you, Philovoid, converted (of course with the help of the HS ) into theists (or even Christians, or even better, Christians of your particular brand) - online and/or in real life? What has been the most successful argument or method?

None, yet.

Anyway, it seems to me that (even though we see a lot of demand for "evidence" and stuff) the psychological and social reasons for not subscribing to some form theism is indifference rather than determined opposition. You´ll find a lot of skeptics/atheists who have no issue with e.g. a deist, pantheist or panentheistic God - alas, these Gods are more or less irrelevant for any given intent or purpose. Thus, arguing against (and finding flaws in) atheist/skeptic arguments and literature is miles apart from arguing for a particular (personal?) mono-God concept that would actually make a difference.

....hmmmm? Maybe you have a point. I guess I do have a very, very "low-key," no frills monotheism.

Well, personally I am pretty convinced that all those (supposedly) rational arguments are more or less post-hoc rationalizations - on both sides. That, of course, is an assumption on my part. If I were a Christian Apologist, I would not pay much attention to "I have a great argument against God´s existence." - to me, most of the time it sounds more like "I have absolutely no need for this or that God concept.". If this my view is accurate it should be obvious that you need a different approach than the typical discussion, and - even more so - the attempt to refute atheist/skeptic arguments.

It would be interesting to see what other skeptics and atheists have to say in reply to this, Quatona.

On another note, it´s really hard to argue for atheism - simply because there are so many substantially different Gods to address. That´s why I keep suggesting that the Apologist starts with answering the question "'God'? What do you mean??". Or else you are at the risk of exploiting a convienient and self-imposed vagueness (which, in the end, is often held against the unbelievers).

Would you believe that--hermeneuticist that I am--I "mean" to refer to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob as the Father of Jesus of Nazareth? So, while I'm not trying to be offensive in what I'm about to say, I do think you question become a little bit on the 'begging' side of things when pressed too far.

If a person is wanting 'god' to defined by an a humanly significant object that can be pointed to empirically and expected to do a jigg and a dance for us, then I'll admit I'm all tapped out of that. I have almost nothing to offer in that regard. But, let's not pretend that the epistemic, conceptual differentiation and even the metaphysical act of identifying the God of the Israelites/Jews is an insurmountably difficult cognitive task. It's not "meaningless."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

why not take truth claims and their defense at
face-value?

Two inferences:

God exists
God does not exist

What evidences suggests one is more likely true than the other.

Helping people would necessarily start with helping them shed life-long delusions about where they came from, how should they live their lives, where they go when they die, how do they relate to God if such a being exists?

These seem to be far more pressing than the political rights issues you raise. The answer would have profound implications to political rights to be sure but we first start
With the foundation before we build on it.

Apologetics is about the foundation and if we let supposed political consequences be our guide haven’t we just committed the fallacy of consequence!

Let’s focus on the question of if there is a god or not. That seems weighty enough for now.

Ok. Uber, my friend. Haven't we had this conversation somewhere else already? No, this is a different thread for a different focus and topic.

So, what have you learned by reading or hearing some particular atheist book or video/podcast? REMEMBER what I mentioned about 'holes' in my OP? Surely, if anything, YOU as a Christian learned what those specific holes are, or at least you learned to become aware of some things that the atheists said that you thought were faulty from your own perspective, right? You might even have learned something constructive, like 'how do atheists think,' and so on. Obviously, you didn't learn about what might be wrong with your own view of the Christian Faith (not that there necessarily is), but I would expect a Christian to at least learn where some of his or her own shortcomings might be lurking within the recesses of his/her own apologetics.

[By the way, good to see you back!]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

...I see where this is all going social and politically, so guess what? It's time for me to start pulling the atheistic books off of my bookshelves ... !