Share on
Apologetics for the Masses #533 - Conversation With An Atheist (Part 5)
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Topic
A "dialogue," of sorts, with an atheist about the reasonableness of considering God.
General Comments
Hey folks,
This will be the last newsletter of 2025. Next scheduled newsletter will be the week of January 5, 2026. I'm going to take a few weeks off from writing, get a little vacation/holiday time in with the family, and will also be working on setting up my "studio" for my podcast. After talking about it for a few years now, it seems like it's about to happen. All the equipment is in, some of it is set up, and I hope to have the rest of it up and running the first full week of January. The plan is to start slow with some very short videos to post to Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc., and then slowly build from there as I get used to using the equipment and working with the editing software and so on.
In the meantime, I hope all of you have a happy, healthy, and holy Christmas!
And one more thing...thank you for all the prayers for Janel. Her blood pressure is way down and under control, and she's feeling much better!
Introduction
One more round, probably the last to be published, with Barry the Atheist. He's kind of gone off the rails. Here's the link to the last newsletter if you want to read it over to get the context for what he says in this one: Apologetics for the Masses #532. Although, it doesn't give you much context, as he completely ignores my response to him. Anyway, as usual, I'll print his latest reply below in its entirety, and then repeat it with my comments interspersed.
Challenge/Response/Strategy
Barry the Atheist
Can I be reasonable to refrain from seriously considering the gospel-preaching from any person until I can confirm they are authentically born-again? Or would that attitude indicate that I view the consequences of heresy and false teachers to be far more serious than the bible says they are?
We can go at this in two different ways:
1) I can grant, solely for the sake of argument, your premise that God is the most important question facing the unbeliever, and then, having resolved that particular question, I can then ask the legitimate follow up question: If indeed us unbelievers aren't necessarily "sinning" when we neglect to think about God, then do you have a way for unbelievers to recognize when their neglect to think about God is and isn't sinful, yes or no?
2) If you think option # 1 represents "moving the goal-posts" or "changing the question" or "running away" or whatever other bit of dishonesty you think it is, then I directly disagree that "god" is the most important question facing the unbeliever, and I disagree partially because this premise of yours is nothing but rhetoric. You would have to make a prima facie case for it before I became obligated to care about it. You cannot just nail your 95 theses to the Wittenberg Castle door, and then view all detractors as Satanists.
If you choose option # 2, then any fool can check our previous correspondence and see that you in no way, shape or form, established a prima facie case that god is the most important subject facing the unbeliever. If I'm wrong, and you did make such prima facie case, I cannot find it, so please remind me of the first premise of such alleged prima facie case, and I will respond.
Gee, does this sound like somebody who is trying to twist something away from what is was?
And I will be asking you new questions in new emails, there is no "rule" that says I have to finish trifling with you about one subject before I hit you with another.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barry the Atheist
Can I be reasonable to refrain from seriously considering the gospel-preaching from any person until I can confirm they are authentically born-again? Or would that attitude indicate that I view the consequences of heresy and false teachers to be far more serious than the bible says they are?
My Response
Well, it's pretty obvious to me that you rely way too much on Protestant theology for your "knowledge" of all things Christian.
1) Do you by any chance know what it means to be "born again"? I.e., exactly how it is one is "born again"?
2) How do you propose to go about "confirm[ing]" if someone is "authentically born-again"?
3) You don't think the Bible views the consequences of heresy and false teachers to be all that serious? Upon what do you base that opinion?
My Strategy
What's going on here? Once again, Barry the Atheist has simply ignored the questions/arguments I posed in my last response to him. He keeps moving further and further away from my response to his original argument - why it wouldn't be reasonable for him to ever search for "gospel truth" - because he has no response to my counter-arguments.
What he is also telling me with his response here, is that he actually has no interest in hearing, much less considering what I have to say - i.e., carrying on a productive dialogue - on the subject of the reasonableness of a person considering the question of whether or not God exists. I mean, think about it. He has already concluded, per his original argument, that it is not reasonable for him to consider "gospel truth" (i.e., the question of God's existence). Yet, here he is, once again, coming back to me to talk about things related to the existence of God. Well, Barry, if it's unreasonable for you to spend any time whatsoever in the consideration of whether or not God exists, then why do you keep sending me emails that demonstrate you are indeed spending time on the consideration of whether or not God exists?! According to his own argument, he is being exceedingly unreasonable by spending so much time thinking about the question of whether or not God exists.
So why is he doing it? This is a game to him. Barry is trying to "prove" his intellectual superiority to me. He's trying to maneuver me into a corner out of which he believes I cannot remove myself without doing serious damage to the reasonableness of my logic and/or my beliefs. The problem is, he's not very good at it. You guys have been reading his replies/arguments and what I've heard from you is, basically: "He's not making any sense!" Exactly right.
One of his major problems, though, is his conflating of Protestant and Catholic theology. He, an atheist, is trying to come at me to disprove Catholic theology while asking questions that would be pertinent to ask of a Protestant, but not a Catholic. Should he seriously consider the "gospel preaching" of anyone until he can confirm they are "authentically born-again"? That question makes no sense, at all, to ask of a Catholic. As I stated in my first reply to him, the question is not one of whether or not you should consider the preaching of any given individual, the question, rather, is whether or not the claims of the Catholic Church are true. When you are talking with atheists about religion, they will quite often mix Protestant theology with Catholic theology, and not really know there is a difference. Generally, they've been exposed to Protestant theology, and not so much to Catholic theology. So keep that in mind should you get into such a conversation.
And all of that is why I asked him the first two questions above about what it means to be "born again" and how can one "confirm" a person is "authentically" born again. The third question I asked is because his sentence above about him viewing the consequences of heresy and false teachers to be "far more serious than the Bible says they are". As if something could be more serious than eternal damnation? The Bible considers the consequences of heresy and false teachers to be, for the most part, eternal damnation. See for instance: 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Peter 2:1; Matt 7:15, 24:11,24; Mark 13:22; 2 Cor 11:13-15; and I could go on and on. I don't know how he could consider the consequences of heresy and false teachers to be more serious than the Bible does. I can't really think of anything more serious than eternal damnation. So, basically I asked him what the heck he is referring to in the Bible that could make him think that way.
Barry the Atheist
We can go at this in two different ways:
1) I can grant, solely for the sake of argument, your premise that God is the most important question facing the unbeliever, and then, having resolved that particular question, I can then ask the legitimate follow up question: If indeed us unbelievers aren't necessarily "sinning" when we neglect to think about God, then do you have a way for unbelievers to recognize when their neglect to think about God is and isn't sinful, yes or no?
My Response
When did I say anything about unbelievers "sinning" or not sinning in regard to the time they spend on the contemplation of whether or not God exists? "Oh, it's a sin if you don't spend at least 60 minutes a day thinking about God." Sorry, but that is not a "legitimate" follow up question. Not believing in God is objectively wrong. It is a sin. However, the culpability of the person who does not have faith in God is dependent upon each person's situation, and this is generally known only unto God, "I am He Who searches mind and heart," (Rev 2:23). Here's the thing, if a person is an "unbeliever," if they lack faith in God, then they are, generally speaking, in a state of mortal sin - assuming they have heard of God and have rejected His existence or, even if they believe in His existence, but they have rejected Him as having any power and influence over their lives. If they are in a state of mortal sin, they can "think" about the question of God's existence all day long and still be in a state of mortal sin.
So, yes, I have a way for unbelievers to recognize when their neglect to think about God is or isn't sinful. If you don't believe in God, then whether you neglect to think about God or not, is immaterial vis-a-vis your sinfulness. You are in a state of sin, regardless. That's pretty easy to understand, isn't it, Mr. Unbeliever?
My Strategy
Barry the Atheist simply does not understand Catholic theology. He thinks he does, but he doesn't. Don't get thrown off by folks like this. No matter how much he insists his question is legitimate, it's not. Again, what he is doing here, is trying to back me into the Corner of Contradiction. Sorry, but in order for Barry to play that game, he first needs to have a better understanding of exactly what it is the Catholic Church teaches. Do not let people get away with asking questions that don't really make any sense. You can correct them by answering a question that would have actually made sense, if they had asked it, or by explaining where it is they are getting Catholic teaching wrong. Or, if you don't follow exactly what it is they're asking, then just ask them to explain.
Barry the Atheist
2) If you think option #1 represents "moving the goal-posts" or "changing the question" or "running away" or whatever other bit of dishonesty you think it is, then I directly disagree that "god" is the most important question facing the unbeliever, and I disagree partially because this premise of yours is nothing but rhetoric. You would have to make a prima facie case for it before I became obligated to care about it. You cannot just nail your 95 theses to the Wittenberg Castle door, and then view all detractors as Satanists.
My Response
Wow! Into rhetorical flourishes, are we? Well, yes, Option #1 is indeed "moving the goalposts". Your original argument was, essentially, that you, as a "spiritually dead" atheist, have no rational reason to try and discern "gospel truth" because of the disagreements between "spiritually alive" Catholics and Protestants on the meaning of Scripture. You argued that Catholics would be fools to think that you could individually discern "gospel truth" if "spiritually alive" people - Catholic or Protestant - are unable to agree on what is or is not "gospel truth". I stated that the Catholic Church does not expect you to individually discern "gospel truth" by reading and interpreting Scripture on your own and, therefore, Catholics are not fools to consider it reasonable for you to search for "gospel truth". Which means, in essence, that the question in regard to expecting accurate discernment from a spiritually dead person is irrelevant. The better question for you to answer instead is: Does God exist?
Now in Option #1 above, you are asking, essentially, if there is a way that nonbelievers can recognize how much time they have to contemplate God in order not to sin. I know the connection you're trying to make, but, given Catholic theology, your latest question again falls into the irrelevant category vis-a-vis your original argument. This latest question, like your previous arguments, is based on bad assumptions and/or false premises.
Now, regarding your Option #2, I don't know what you're referring to when you say you "disagree" with my premise because it is "nothing but rhetoric". To which premise are you referring? To recap: In response to your argument about it being impossible for "spiritually dead" you to discern the "gospel truth," therefore, it is not reasonable for you to try, I simply stated that your premise about the disagreements between Catholics and Protestants is flawed and that, yes, given Catholic teaching, it is indeed reasonable to expect you to search for "gospel truth" and to contemplate the question: "Does God exist?" I did not; however, attempt to directly make the argument for the existence of God or for why it is the most important question of our existence. I will make the beginning of such an argument below.
My Strategy
Well he's trying to take me to task for not having made an argument for why the question of God's existence is the most important question for man to consider, even though he never asked me about it. So, I'll just give him the essential core of why I consider that to be the most important question of man's existence.
Barry the Atheist
If you choose option # 2, then any fool can check our previous correspondence and see that you in no way, shape or form, established a prima facie case that god is the most important subject facing the unbeliever. If I'm wrong, and you did make such prima facie case, I cannot find it, so please remind me of the first premise of such alleged prima facie case, and I will respond.
My Response
Well, I in "no way, shape, or form" tried to make a case for why I believe God is the "most important subject facing the unbeliever" because that was not the argument I was addressing previously. But I will lay out a simple and straightforward argument right here, right now: I argue, simply from logic, that if there is a Supreme Being (aka God) and whether or not you believe in this God could result in your eternal joy and happiness in Heaven, or your eternal punishment in Hell, then, unless you can think of some negative consequence greater than eternal punishment or some reward greater than eternal joy and happiness, the question of the existence of God is indeed the most important question a person can consider. That's it in a nutshell. Now, if you want the arguments for why I believe God does indeed exist, you need but ask.
My Strategy
Just give him what he asks for. Which is what I've been doing all along. Answering his questions, responding to his arguments. Unfortunately, he has not reciprocated with respect to my questions and arguments.
Barry the Atheist
Gee, does this sound like somebody who is trying to twist something away from what is was?
My Response
Well, actually, yes, it does. Will you admit that, given Catholic teaching, it is not unreasonable for Catholics to expect you, or anyone for that matter, to search for "gospel truth" and to give consideration to the question of God's existence?
Barry the Atheist
And I will be asking you new questions in new emails, there is no "rule" that says I have to finish trifling with you about one subject before I hit you with another.
My Response
And there it is. The admission that you are attempting to "trifle" with me as opposed to a sincere and serious exchange of thoughts and ideas between adults. Given that that is your attitude, don't bother with further correspondence unless, and until, such time as you are willing to listen and learn, instead of simply preach, and trying to ensnare me in some sort of logical or theological trap you think you have craftily devised. You can show me your earnestness if, in your next email, you go back and actually respond to the arguments I made in reply to your initial email to me on this subject. If you don't, anything you send me goes straight to the trash.
My Strategy
It's not my job to convert this person. Not my responsibility to bring him to the "gospel truth". That's up to the Holy Spirit. And, until such time as he opens up his heart and mind and sincerely desires to find the truth, wherever it might lead, then any seeds I would try to plant are simply falling among the briars and brambles. Time to shake the dust off my sandals.
Closing Comments
I hope and pray all of you have a wonderful time with your loved ones this Christmas and that you have a happy and joyous New Year's. Please keep us in your prayers. I pray for all of you and your families daily. See you next year!
Donations
The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations
or send a check to:
Bible Christian Society
PO Box 424
Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.
Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Share this newsletter on:
