Learning from Atheist books/videos to improve Christian Apologetics?

[FireDragon76]

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.

Don't read those kinds of books looking for a way to find some dirt on atheists, some flaw in their logic to persuade. That's robbing yourself of the potential to learn something, which is never a waste of time. Even if it's just learning about what other people think about a particular topic, that's positive content.

I really think sometimes we are too dismissive of other peoples perspectives. As long as it doesn't entail obvious harm to other people or ourselves, we should be more open-minded.

 

[FireDragon76]

BTW, I watched a documentary earlier and it had a quote by His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. He said that listening is better than speech, because when you speak, you only say things you already know, but when you listen you can potentially hear things you did not know".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don't read those kinds of books looking for a way to find some dirt on atheists, some flaw in their logic to persuade. That's robbing yourself of the potential to learn something, which is never a waste of time. Even if it's just learning about what other people think about a particular topic, that's positive content.

I really think sometimes we are too dismissive of other peoples perspectives. As long as it doesn't entail obvious harm to other people or ourselves, we should be more open-minded.

I quite agree. I've learned quite a bit from various atheists over the years, especially when I took my undergrad in Philosophy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

BTW, I watched a documentary earlier and it had a quote by His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. He said that listening is better than speech, because when you speak, you only say things you already know, but when you listen you can potentially hear things you did not know".

That's a wise saying, and I can appreciate it, but for me, Jesus trumps every other voice, even that of either the Dalai Lama or Trump.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's a wise saying, and I can appreciate it, but for me, Jesus trumps every other voice, even that of either the Dalai Lama or Trump.

Well, I'm not a Tibetan Buddhist myself, but I still think it's a wise saying.

 

[Uber Genius]

I really think sometimes we are too dismissive of other peoples perspectives. As long as it doesn't entail obvious harm to other people or ourselves, we should be more open-minded.

Now that is enlightened! No appeals to snobbery, or ad hominem attacks. The statement appears to agree with the OP that engaging other world views to fully understand their respective claims is a good idea.

 

[Uber Genius]

Don't read those kinds of books looking for a way to find some dirt on atheists, some flaw in their logic to persuade. That's robbing yourself of the potential to learn something, which is never a waste of time. Even if it's just learning about what other people think about a particular topic, that's positive content.

I really think sometimes we are too dismissive of other peoples perspectives. As long as it doesn't entail obvious harm to other people or ourselves, we should be more open-minded.

It is both and not either or!

We try to accurately assess the premises and arguments. We engage them for understanding and clarity THEN we analyze them to see if they are logically sound and finally if they are good arguments.

The OP didn't suggest "looking for a way to find dirt on athiests," that is your straw man!

Please stop misrepresenting other's views to take the moral high ground. This is very hypocritical.

Follow the OP and my method and everyone you engage will later say about the encounter, "I may not agree with their view, but they engaged my view, asked good questions trying to understand it, and were respectful in how they engaged the subject."

 

[muichimotsu]

Atheism is wrong though, silence is preferable. How to defend yourself from a man armed with a Banana.

As for holes in the thinking of the Atheist. The term itself is a hole and paradox, what more is there to say?

I mean, it's easier to just dismiss something rather than enumerate the problems you claim are there. A hole? A paradox? Even your signature betrays an oversimplification of atheism as being so damaging even though the contrary seems to be suggested in many atheists feeling that they were in an abusive situation with their Christian upbringing. You can find that liberation a surrender to sin, but you're showing a major cognitive bias in assuming your brand of theism is the ultimate truth without real critical thought

 

[FireDragon76]

Not exactly sure to what or whom you are referring? Fake Christians like Westburo Baptists?

That would be uncontroversial. Or is your comment focuesed at people who beleif Jesus when he affirms living a Godly life includes things like thou shalt not fornicate or commit adultery?

I don't consider divine command ethics valid as its inherently authoritarian and is also problematic from the standpoint of the Euthyphro Dilema. I'd rather look at ethics in terms of phenomenology and the obvious harm or benefits of specific acts that effect actual persons.

So yeah, I reject the Ten Commandments. Does that mean I think murder or theft is moral? Of course not. But I don't see the Ten Commandments as an adequate basis for morality, and on many points they betray a patriarchal, bronze age human attitude that fails to grant women, approximately half the population, full dignity with men.

 

[Uber Genius]

I don't consider divine command ethics valid as its inherently authoritarian and is also problematic from the standpoint of the Euthyphro Dilema. I'd rather look at ethics in terms of phenomenology and the obvious harm or benefits of specific acts that effect actual persons.

So yeah, I reject the Ten Commandments. Does that mean I think murder or theft is moral? Of course not. But I don't see the Ten Commandments as an adequate basis for morality, and on many points they betray a patriarchal, bronze age human attitude that fails to grant women, approximately half the population, full dignity with men.

"Betray a patriarchal, Bronze Age human attitude (this is a classic example of anachronism)."

You seemed to be constantly misrepresenting people's statements and then when asked for clarification lead the discussion on a red herring.

I'm not asking for your view on axiology. Or for bumper sticker rhetoric about the false dilemma of plato's Euthyphro.

You made a straw man out of the OP's post misrepresenting encouragement of Christians to fully understand the best arguments in favor of atheism, as,"Getting dirt on atheist."

This is more than uncharitable. It is a blatant example of attacking a straw man.

The point of the post is clear.

Christians need to be able to present what Aquinas called a steelman argument, that is an argument that stands up against the most fervent counter-arguments.

Help us understand why you are oppossed to this steelman argument and in favor instead of a strawman argument.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Betray a patriarchal, Bronze Age human attitude (this is a classic example of anachronism)."

You seemed to be constantly misrepresenting people's statements and then when asked for clarification lead the discussion on a red herring.

I don't think its misrepresenting the Christian perspective per se. I've had enough experience in Lutheranism to know the place of the Ten Commandments as a statement of morality... and yet it's obviously deficient, as I pointed out, it regards women as property.

 

[Uber Genius]

I don't think its misrepresenting the Christian perspective per se. I've had enough experience in Lutheranism to know the place of the Ten Commandments as a statement of morality... and yet it's obviously deficient, as I pointed out, it regards women as property.

Frustrating.

The point continues to be your misreprestation of the OP as digging up dirt on atheist. Not going down any rabbit trails with you.

A simple Yes or No will suffice:

Do you agree that it is best to familiarize oneself with opposing worldviews in order to properly represent them and argue your own view in a logically coherent and objective fashion?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't consider divine command ethics valid as its inherently authoritarian and is also problematic from the standpoint of the Euthyphro Dilema. I'd rather look at ethics in terms of phenomenology and the obvious harm or benefits of specific acts that effect actual persons.

So yeah, I reject the Ten Commandments. Does that mean I think murder or theft is moral? Of course not. But I don't see the Ten Commandments as an adequate basis for morality, and on many points they betray a patriarchal, bronze age human attitude that fails to grant women, approximately half the population, full dignity with men.

And I reject the Euthyphro Dilemma being applied to the biblical concept of God ...

In fact, just to play hard-ball, I also reject the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since it, as it is currently construed, is essentially based upon utter wishful thinking and chocolate frosting on an angel-food cake! (And I think we all know that angel-food cake doesn't really count as 'real' cake, kind of like how the UDHR doesn't really count as 'real' morality since it's rather full of E--M--P--T--Y metaphysics).

 

[FireDragon76]

Frustrating.

The point continues to be your misreprestation of the OP as digging up dirt on atheist. Not going down any rabbit trails with you.

A simple Yes or No will suffice:

Do you agree that it is best to familiarize oneself with opposing worldviews in order to properly represent them and argue your own view in a logically coherent and objective fashion?

I'm not a rationalist.

I don't even know what you mean by "opposing worldviews". There's nothing "opposing" about your worldview, as far as I'm concerned.