Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Here’s a graphic I found that was made by an atheist explaining the rules of discussion to religious people. While I agree with the flowchart, it’s also the case that many atheists don’t play by them.
I rarely find atheists who follow that, especially on item 2 regarding moving on to new arguments once you’ve been shown to have used an inaccurate data point. You can refute their arguments in detail and they just move to the next item in their Big Book O’ Atheist Sound Bites. That’s when you know it is pearl holding / dust shaking time.
I think most atheists need to take a look at rule number 4.
I don’t agree with number 4. There are some things that are reasonable to believe without requiring evidence for them. That is unless the mere fact that we have a rational intuition about them counts as evidence, in which case I agree with number 4.
Agreed Sam. I thought the very same thing when I read this. Seems to assume the typical evidentialism so prevalent today, which we know, in the end, ends up defeating itself. I think I might have thought the same for a while. But after reading some Plantinga, I found myself rather persuaded by his ideas on this. But yeah, good call on that one.
Greg Bahnsen had some good arguments regarding evidence from a presuppositional stance.
One of my most favorite apologists and teacher of apologetics/philosophy. His big book on Van Til’s apologetic is excellent. And yes, his and Van Til’s insights I think would be relevant here to this graphic.