You Can Lead Atheists To Water, But You Can’t Make Them Think
Posted in Atheism, Blogosphere, Logic, Religion, Responses, Thinking Critically on | 6 minutes | No Comments →*Comments are closed on this post because it was moved here.
For the past weeks, I've foregone Rebutting Atheist Universe to debate Deacon Duncan (DD) from EvangelicalRealism over his series, which for some still-undisclosed reason he's titled Evidence Against Christianity. It was bad enough when DD gave Dominic Saltarelli (not arguing as a believer) credit for making the exact same argument three people (all arguing as believers, incidentally) made in the first two weeks of the discussion. It was bad enough when DD denied that his GH was Christianity, yet absolutely refuses to this date to explain why it consists of distinctly Christian pre-conceptions about God. It was bad enough when DD claimed that all people who apply the tools of reason consistently and without bias in biblical exegesis are skeptics. It's bad enough that many of DD's commenters are so on the man's nuts that they can't see clearly and end up focusing near-exclusively on me. It was bad enough when DD eschewed my invitation to one-on-one, real-time debate.
It was bad enough when DD crafted an entire sub-series titled The Loser's Compromise in direct response to his perceptions of my arguments, then denied that the posts were aimed at me. Now, folks – as if it wasn't bad enough already, as if it could get any worse – DD's latest "argument" has left me truly baffled.
In parts 1 & 2, I established beyond a reasonable doubt that DD denied his GH was Christianity in response to strawman charges from Jayman, Facilis and myself. I also established beyond a reasonable doubt that DD's GH consists entirely of Christian pre-conceptions about God. Here's a quick review:
I’m proposing, as the Gospel hypothesis, a God Who loves us enough to die for our sins so that we can be together for all eternity. In order to call that a "straw man," you have to point out what it is that I’m saying that’s not true. Does God not love us? Is He not willing to die on our behalf to save us from our sins? Is it not His goal to gather His children to Himself to fellowship in Heaven with Him forever? Are these matters insignificant and irrelevant to the Gospel? Where’s the “straw” in this so-called straw man? (DD)
I've asked before, and I'll ask again: How does DD's claim that his GH isn't Christianity parse against the following strings he also typed?
..omni-X deity Who loves us enough to become human and die for us so that He and we can enjoy an eternal personal relationship together..
..God wants [is] an eternal, loving relationship with each of us..
..Gospel Hypothesis, by contrast, proposes that the Christian Creator God does exist, and further, that the Christian faith originated as a result of God loving mankind enough to become human Himself, and to die for us as a cleansing sacrifice so that He could enjoy fellowship with us (and vice versa) for all eternity..
..willing to die on our behalf to save us from our sins..
..salvation and eternal personal relationship..
..evidence against the Christian God..
Folks, let's talk reality for just a moment here: If DD's GH is not Christianity, doesn't it follow that his MH cannot possibly constitute evidence against the Christian God? If DD’s GH is not Christianity, don’t you think he’s misnamed at least that particular hypothesis and potentially his entire series? If DD’s GH is not Christianity, why doesn’t it include descriptions of God that aren’t Christian? We hear no mention of Shiva and Vishnu. No mention of Allah. No mention of Kali. No mention of anything but a so-called Gospel Hypothesis which entails distinctly Christian pre-conceptions of God, followed by denial that said hypothesis is Christianity.
I asked DD several times to address these questions, in his Troll Watch Forum, in threads at his blog, and here on my blog. To date, he hasn't, and yesterday the guy had the nerve to pull this:
We can know the truth, but we have to want to know the truth. If we don’t want to know the truth, then the Loser’s Compromise is waiting to serve us. And we can make whatever bogus objections we like in order to defend it. (DD)
I want to know the truth, and this is just another reason I’m not an atheist. (cl)
I have documented the real-world facts that any reasonable person can verify for themselves and that demonstrate that reality is more consistent with the Myth Hypothesis than with the Gospel Hypothesis. This constitutes a reasonable basis for rejecting the truth claims of Christianity. (DD, bold mine)
Really? What's more baffling is that at least four highly-intelligent commenters who claim to have been following the discussion all put their 2¢ in after this exchange, and not one of them spotted the elephant in the room.
Let's recap. DD dealt with strawman claims from three people in the first two weeks of his Evidence Against Christianity by flatly denying that his GH was Christianity, then has the nerve to turn around and tell me that his silly little caricature called Evidence Against Christianity constitutes a reasonable basis for rejecting the truth claims of Christianity? Again, if DD's GH is not Christianity, doesn't it follow that his MH cannot possibly constitute a reasonable basis for rejecting the truth claims of Christianity?
I'm nothing short of offended. DD is either blatantly lying because he's on the ropes and he feels it, or he's badly deluded perhaps due to the elitist undercurrents that tend to drive his arguments. As far as other possible options, I don't buy that DD's not intelligent, articulate or methodical enough to see the problem, and I can't think of anything else that would explain such glaring contradiction.
Of course, that doesn't mean I'm right, but is there anyone who would say I've not sufficiently argued my case?
*NOTE: Comments are temporarily closed on this post and will open once TWIM's Power Commenters have reviewed the material and offered their preliminary considerations, to which I will respond.