The Games Skeptics Play

[Rania]

THE GAMES SKEPTICS PLAY

by A.S.A. Jones

I would like to make a distinction between skeptics and rabid, drooling anti-Christian intellectuals. Ordinary skeptics aren't driven to skepticism by a hatred of Christianity. There are many atheists who sincerely don't believe in the existence of god for a variety of reasons. Some have even expressed the desire to believe in that which they honestly can't intellectually accept. When a skeptic, who doesn't have an axe to grind, sees sense in your argument, he will acknowledge it. When an anti-Christian intellectual sees sense in your argument, he'll do anything he can to shut you up, including making threats and following through with them. That said, the term 'Skeptic', as it appears in this essay, refers to the anti-Christian intellectual.

Conversely, there are Christians who desire no real intellectual exchange but who are motivated to 'debate' by the prospect of man-handling their beliefs into their opponent's minds. Throwing scriptures at people who don't believe in God is not only illogical, it is ineffective. Condemning people who don't believe in hell to hell, is not only illogical and ineffective, it's also hypocritical because the Bible has made it very clear that this type of judgment is reserved for God. Just like their skeptic counterparts, Christians, who resort to these tactics, thwart attempts for real understanding to take place. In this manner, the tactics described in the remainder of this essay also apply to Christians fitting the previous description.

When I debated as a skeptic, I had no desire to learn from Christians. My only purpose was to try and show them how illogical and absurd their belief in God was. It didn't matter if their arguments made sense. My arguments made sense, too! I was on a mission to destroy faith in God because I perceived Christianity as a direct threat to my individual rights and freedom. I thought that if enough Christians were elected in our government, it would only be a matter of time before the legal system would make us slaves to the morality of the Judeo-Christian religion. This hokey 'god' was going to infringe upon my rights to screw with other consenting adults outside of marriage! It was going to force women to carry their babies to term! It was going to demand that I wake up every Sunday morning and attend church, and if I refused, no respectable business in town would have me as an employee. I wasn't interested in any TRUTH! If there was even the smallest possibility that truth would interfere with my all out war against Jesus Christ & Company, I did not want to hear it. I wanted to destroy the enemy.

THE ILLUSION OF WINNING A DEBATE

My goal in debate was to make the intelligent Christians look stupid. The stupid Christians didn't need my help, but there were some who were smart enough to be an encouragement to others and this really irked me. Most of the time, I didn't have to find real problems with their arguments; I just found ways to psychologically undermine their audience's confidence in the Christian who was presenting those arguments. While I couldn't dissuade the superior Christian thinker from his well thought out belief, his audience was fair game.

If it is done skillfully, intellectual intimidation and ridicule can generate an uneven psychological playing field. Politeness can be mistaken for submissiveness when it takes place in an atmosphere of subtle (or not so subtle!) condescension and this can then have the effect of making another's argument APPEAR weak, not that it actually is. I created this illusion by taking advantage of the stigma of hypocrisy that Christians try to avoid. Not many Christians were willing to stoop as low as me, but when they did, I quickly lost the psychological edge. When both participants do an equally good job of discrediting the thinking of the other, the audience is forced to examine the argument itself. In light of this, I ask Christians to not be too critical of their brothers or sisters who adopt the 'tit for tat' method of debate. It could very well be that they are not speaking out from mean-spiritedness, but from recognizing the need of an even playing field. Proverbs 26:4-5 states, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Sometimes, an arrogant fool needs to be ridiculed and belittled in order to see how ridiculous and obnoxious he is. Of course, when my opponent would do this, I would jump all over them for being a poor representation of Jesus and I was overjoyed when his own flock would do the same!

The hardcore skeptics know this game of audience manipulation and that's why they post victorious titles to any argument, regardless of outcome. To declare victory is to create the appearance of having actually won. If your newspaper accurately reported the news but slanted the headlines, it could easily deceive the casual browser who didn't take time to read the entire article. Pay no attention to declarations of victory; focus on the actual arguments.

THE ILLUSION OF LOGIC

You may find yourself locked in debate with a skeptic and know that there is something about his argument that doesn't fit, despite his references to logic. In other words, it will sound as if this fellow knows all about logic yet has come up with a conclusion that is completely washed of any common sense. Usually, this person is either being stupid or deceitful.

There's an old adage that states, "You can't kid a kidder." In debate, you can't deceive a deceiver! If you are seriously considering making debate a hobby, I suggest Nicholas Capaldi's "The Art of Deception" as a very good introduction.

THE GAME

The real fun of the game begins at a level where both participants have some knowledge of both subject matter and logic. Mr. Owl shall now prove to you that your God does NOT exist!

*God is 'giving' punishment or wrath in the following arguments:

MR OWL -

1. God is an all-just judge, giving to each exactly what they deserve, no more and no less.

2. God is an all-merciful judge, giving to each less than what they deserve.

3. God can't give to each exactly what they deserve while at the same time giving them less than what they deserve.

4. Therefore, your God violates the law of non-contradiction and can't exist!

EX-SKEPTIC -

I shall now prove to you that my God isn't violating the law of non-contradiction. Note that I did not say that I shall prove that my God exists.

1.The nature of my God is described in the Bible.

2. The Bible never states explicitly or implicitly that my God is an 'all-just judge' or an 'all-merciful' judge.

3. Therefore, the God you have disproved is not my God.

Now you can see how important it is to know your bible inside and out! God is described as both merciful and just but never with the word 'all' attached; there are no scriptures that say things like, "God is an all just-judge all the time". Even if the word 'all' were to be present, this is a common literary device known as a hyperbole and it is used for effect, not accuracy. However, the hyper-analytical skeptic has to forget any college reading skills he may have had and ignore these devices so that he can pretend that the bible doesn't make sense when he encounters such things as metaphor, simile, or hyperbole. This is why I refer to debate as a card trick with words! If there was a statement that defined God as 'all-just', the skeptic tries to enforce a rigid literalism upon the text that will allow him to use logic in demonstrating that such a statement would be to the exclusion of God exhibiting mercy. When the skeptic adds 'all' to the description, he is stacking the deck and then wants you to be astounded when he pulls out all 5 aces. Let's continue with our game:

EX-SKEPTIC -

1. God's nature is described as both just AND merciful.

2. Therefore, God is just to some - that is to say He gives some exactly what they deserve.

3. Therefore, God is merciful to some - that is to say He gives them less than what they deserve.

4. While God can't logically treat the same person at the same time in a manner that contradicts, He can certainly treat different people differently without violating the law of non-contradiction.

MR OWL -

1. God is immutable - the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Therefore, God can't change.

2. Sometimes God acts as a merciful judge.

3. Sometimes God acts as a just judge.

4. Therefore, God changes.

5. Therefore God violates his own property of immutability and cannot exist!

EX-SKEPTIC -

1. God is immutable inasmuch as His NATURE never changes.

2. God's nature is described in the bible as ALTERNATING between being both a just judge and a merciful judge.

3. Therefore, when God acts either mercifully or justly, he is acting according to His nature.

4. If God is acting according to His nature, He is not changing His nature.

A. example

1. Charlie will never change his nature.

2. It is Charlie's nature to be both violent and romantic.

3. Charlie comes home from work, slaps his wife around and then buys her roses.

4. Still the same old Charlie!

Now, if Charlie one day decided to never do violence again, he would indeed be guilty of changing his nature. Likewise, if Charlie never treated his wife in a romantic manner, he would be changing his nature. However, it is Charlie's nature to be BOTH violent and romantic.

I would also like to note that 'immutability' is only mentioned in the bible twice, in Hebrews 6: 17-18, and in no way can it be taken to mean that God's nature prohibits Him from being both merciful and just.

MR. OWL -

These descriptions of your God being an immutable, all-just and all-merciful God come from YOUR theologians!

EX-SKEPTIC -

Frankly, I don't care where these descriptions come from. If they don't describe God in the manner in which the Bible describes Him, I'd say that's a good reason not to listen to these theologians who say such stupid things.

We find that MR. OWL has just constructed a straw man - a bogus representation - and then burned it down. He didn't disprove our God; He created a distortion of our God, slapped the 'Yahweh' label on it, and then disproved the distortion.

MR OWL -

Fine. I didn't disprove your God's existence. I disproved His fairness! Your God is not good!

1. To be just, one must give to another exactly what that individual deserves to get, no more and no less.

2. To be fair, one must treat everyone equally.

3. To be merciful is to give an individual more than what they deserve to get (in reward) or less than what they deserve to get (in punishment).

4. Being merciful is therefore unjust.

5. Unless everyone can be treated with the same degree of mercy or kindness, to be merciful or kind to any one person is to be unfair.

EX-SKEPTIC -

Now we finally get down to opinions of the heart. Mr. Owl seems to think that treating some people with mercy is unfair and therefore not good. This subject is addressed in Matthew 20:1-16, in the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

1. Two people are guilty to the same degree.

2. One person is sentenced justly; he gets exactly what he deserves.

3. The other person is sentenced mercifully; he gets less than what he deserves.

Is this fair? Of course not. Is this good? It all depends on the heart, not the logic in the head of the person making the value decision.

If you were the person who is being judged justly, if you had any love for the other person who was judged mercifully, you would rejoice that this person received a more lenient sentence. If your heart was good, you would see the unfairness but recognize the goodness of the judge out of the love you have for your brother. If you have no love for your brother, you would only see the unfairness and your bitterness over his lenient sentence would cause you to see the mercy in the judgment as bad.

If you are the person who was granted a lenient sentence, if you had any love for the person who was sentenced justly, you may experience guilt over your lighter sentence but even though the judgment was unfair, justice is being served because the other person is getting exactly what they deserve.

Justice without mercy leads a society to brutal self-righteousness. Mercy without justice leads a society to lawlessness. Life isn't supposed to be fair!

As a side note, this encounter with Mr. Owl was based on a real life debate with a professor of philosophy! What does this prove? Well... we've heard the saying, 'Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach.' Let's analyze this in relation to Mr. Owl!

1. Those who can do 'x', do 'x'.

2.Those who cannot do 'x', teach 'x'.

3. Philosophy is a subject that teaches students how to think.

4. Those who can think, don't teach it.

5. Therefore, Mr. Owl, who can't think logically, is attempting to teach children what he himself is incapable of doing.

Is it any wonder our educational system has failed us??? For those of you who will feel inclined to e-mail me on the validity of the first two premises in the above argument, I suggest that you keep your two cents and purchase a sense of humor.

IGNORING CULTURAL CONTEXT

Skeptics enjoy asking questions, but they aren't really interested in hearing answers. They would like to forget that the Bible was written 2000 years ago and in a culture very different from our own because it gives them the advantage in twisting scripture. When a Christian apologist tries to explain biblical passages within their cultural context, skeptics will accuse them of presenting 'couldabeens'. This type of ignorance, and the ludicrousness that follows it, can only be fully appreciated when one is aware of the culture that is being discussed. Take the following, for example:

RABID SKEPTIC: I say, there, Big Gun Apologist. There's a fella I talk to on the Internet who must be stupider than me! He can't even spell worth a lick. Always making mistakes like 'judgement' and 'realise' and 'humour'.

BIG GUN APOLOGIST: It isn't that he's illiterate, RABID. He's probably from England. Those spellings are correct British variations.

RABID SKEPTIC: Oh, yeah, yeah, he MAY be from England but he's still stupid! He tells me he drives his car on the wrong side of the road!

BIG GUN APOLOGIST: Um...In England, the wrong side of the road is the right side of the road...

RABID SKEPTIC: Say what? Now you aren't making any sense at all, ya big Jesus Freak! This fella's a moron! A complete fool! He rides on the roof of the bus for crying out sakes!

BIG GUN APOLOGIST: But Rabid, the buses in England have two tiers. You misunderstood what he was saying.

RABID SKEPTIC: Oh, go on with your ridiculous excuses for him, I still say he's a bigger fool than me!

BIG GUN APOLOGIST: (sigh)

SUMMARY

Debate is a skill, not unlike dancing. Its outcome isn't necessarily based on the strength of one's argument, but the skill of the one who is presenting that argument. More about presentation than a quest for truth, debate becomes a matter of positioning; the participant who knows how to assume the lead, can waltz his opponent across the dance floor. If after a few dances, you find that you are continually tripping over yourself, you may just have to admit that you don't have the grace that it takes to be a good dancer. Your inability to defend your position may not be indicative that your position is indefensible.

Actively participating in debate can provide ample motivation to learn more about the subjects of which we speak. There is nothing more exhilarating than being able to intellectually engage in gunfight and shoot your opponent's argument full of holes. However, all too often, we shoot off our mouths before we have taken the time to load our weapon. Don't get caught with your hammer back and no bullets in your barrel. Do the research and the reading and the thinking first, before you engage yourself in debate.

CONFESSION

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to any Christians who may have suffered doubt because of my intentional deceit in playing this game for eight years. I couldn't know what faith in Christ was until I found it for myself. I ask the Kingdom of God to forgive me and I pray that our Lord can take my experience and use it for His good.

[jamie]

Absolutely true 'totallyatpeace'...I post on a forum that fits so many aspects of the that article.

I no longer 'debate', as I finally learned it only produces quarrels that usually ends up in a battle of ego.

I think I am a litttle better at asking myself, "will my words bring any glory to God" than I used to be. Debates are usually a no win situation, plus they aren't scriptural. Pride plays a large role also.

I can relate to everything you've said 2thepoint, you've given me something to chew on.

For now i'm gonna try to stop 'debating', and do a little more glorifying God.

It takes a personal relationship and a good rapport with someone before they are willing to listen to what you have to say...Jesus knew this.

[Rania]

Unfortunately, this article came to me from a good friend after I had already fallen into the traps and been ripped up one side and down the other as a Christian.

Though the article is filled with good suggestions and sheds new light, my New Years resolution is to stay out of debate with Atheists this entire year. My goal this year, and hopefully every year from now on, is to develop my relationship with God instead of attempting to prove an Atheist wrong.

Tap

[Rania]

It sounds like you have a real gift in this area. I'd like to be watching on the sidelines sometime.

Tap

[justme7]

I wish all Christians could take elementary logic courses, but even that isn't for everyone. We all need to know our strengths and weaknesses, our gifts and callings, and not get distracted. That way, the logicians can do their thing and the prayer warriers can do theirs, etc. We need to act more like parts of the Body and less like a single-celled organism. Too often we defeat ourselves by reprimanding other believers for not doing what we think they should.

[justme7]

this was certainly an interesting read. it is unique that you have such a knowledge about debate. i had no idea. i have found myself in so many spontaneous debates and in my mind i thought it was all about being ready and able to answer for your faith. i never thought of it as an intricate dance at all. obviously you know what you are talking about. i for one am glad that you have come to know the LORD and can do your dance for HIM now. i am sure that by your testimony alone the LORD will use you to reach others who are now like you were. again, that is very interesting.

[Rania]

Hi, everyone.

It's important that you see right underneath the title, that this is an article I posted and the author's name is there. As much as I would love to take credit for the article...... I can't.

It was sent to me from a friend so feel free to use it or re-post it elsewhere but please include the author's name. It is exceptionally well written.

Thanks!

Tap

[Rania]

This is what I found on the author.

Tap

http://www.ex-atheist.com/6.html

[Arthur Durnan]

As I've always maintained, an "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a police officer.

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Rania]

As I've always maintained, an "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a police officer.

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

That's a good one!