I didn't see this. Well, here's my $.02
I start not by arguing positively for the faith, but by breaking down the defenses and presuppositions held by a skeptic. This is key. I don't argue my worldview against theirs. I argue my worldview against a vacuous emptiness where it happens to fit perfectly. This is called arguing by antinome. In a scenario where there are two options and one is wrong, the other is the only choice. I will focus this post on dismantling Atheism and some of its larger objections to Christianity. Later I may or may not decide to make a case for the faith, however this is not my area of expertise. I stick mostly to deconstructionism.
In the case of Hard Atheism (the assertion that God does not, in fact, exist), they are simply wrong. The problem of induction proves that God is fundamentally unknowable, if he exists, and rejection of the worldview must come as a result of insufficiency rather than a priori conclusions. We will instead be discrediting Soft Atheism.
First we must discredit Atheism, and to do this we make the case that Atheism is an intensely undesirable way to live life and seems to clash with many of our notions of good and evil.
MoralityPart 1: Consequentialism/UtilitarianismRegardless of whether people profess to believe in objective morality, most people do or at least think in terms of it. It's natural and seemingly built into humans. The skeptic will attempt to argue a consequentialist (or utilitarian) view of morality where they explain its origin and therefore explain its significance. They place morality as a primitive alternative instinct in the human race which was developed as it allowed humans to interact on a large scale and form civilizations. Atheists use this in hopes the person they are arguing against is too dull to pick up that the explanation of something's existence is hardly persuasive enough to argue for its value and preservation.
For example, suggesting we ought to obey conventional morality as we experience it because it is genetically coded for the good of society is equivalent to declaring we ought not to remove our appendixes or wisdom teeth as they have been extant in the human genetic code since its inception. Atheists will attempt to object that wisdom teeth and appendixes have no benefit to our bodies or to society, however this is a pointless observation. What they are attempting to establish is that since morality, although a biological imperative and in no way externally real, happens to preserve society, it is somehow desirable and enforceable on others. This is circular logic, however. Our morality insists that we care about the greater survivability of civilization which insists we care about morality which insists we care about the greater survivability of civilization which insists..........and on and on into infinity.
At the end of the day, all Utilitarians can do is suggest that the consequences of morality are positive, and they can explain how it came into existence, therefore it is to be preferred. This of course ignores the presupposition of what is positive (this can be reduced to destroy the idea of Utilitarian ethics or consequentialism) which is in no way established or can be established by a secular worldview. To put it bluntly, Atheism is the parent that, when pressed for explanation of the rules by the inquisitive child, is forced to answer, "Because I say so." (This accusation is also heaved at Christianity, however an objective preestablished rule-book is more tantamount to the parent saying "This is wrong, it is against the law. That is why not.") For a more exhaustive look at this, if you have a decent knowledge-base of philosophy, read the work of David Hume.
Part 2: No Free WillHard-line Calvinists in both the Presbyterian and Southern Baptist denominations hold that there is no free will, but they're wrong and we will ignore them. That's another case for another day. It may come as more of a surprise that Atheism holds no account for free will. I proposed as much to a group of Atheists I was speaking to, however they scorned me. Moments later, they were not laughing.
I asked one of them, "Do you believe that ever decision and thought is accountable to explanation based on their existence as chemical, biological process," to which he answered "Yes." I then asked, "Then is it not a logical continuation to conclude that all human action and even thought is entirely predictable and even controllable based on these processes?" to which he had to respond, "Yes."
Atheism cannot provide an adequate platform for such existential topics as free will. The ideas are completely contradictory and any issue of consciousness of decisions or of morality begs the question of a higher level of consciousness, confirming the necessity of God.
ConclusionTo hold true to Atheism, one must be a nihilist. Very few people are capable of believing this, and almost everybody feels the burden of morality and the calling of some sort of virtue pressing upon them. In the Atheist universe, there are no rules. You are trapped within the cage of your own mind, your path decided from the moment you were conceived. This is what inspired Camus' famous declaration "The greatest philosophical question which one must first answer, is whether or not to kill oneself."
Objections To ChristianitySuffering in the world/Original SinI have encountered a few people who claim to have lost their faith upon witnessing horrors and suffering. They conclude that a just God could never allow such things to happen to people. One even went so far, upon hearing my explanation, to declare that she would sacrifice her free will and the free will of the world around her to end suffering. My jaw dropped (due to the fact this was a conference for
Libertarians).
The problem she, and many others make is that they consider themselves and the people who suffer removed and above the suffering of others. This is fundamentally untrue. We are all complicit in the suffering of others. Even blighted saints contribute to human misery and suffering of others by their existence and natural thoughts. And yes, even children contribute to the suffering of the world. In light of this, no human has the right to reject the circumstances of the game. It's like buying rounds at a bar, and when it's finally your turn to pay, you give a strong and lengthy discourse on the evils of alcohol and go home. It doesn't work like that.
We are all invested in the suffering of one another. This is inevitable. The only solution is to practice the love of Christ. We are invested in the well-being of one another as well.
God, to be fair, must reveal himself and give proofThis is a very whiny protest and the equivalent would be, when offered a free lotto ticket, to demand to know the winning numbers in advance. No guarantees.
Faith and love are intertwined. If one is to obey God's commandment and love him, it must be free from force. Forced good actions are not virtuous. The only way someone can have faith and truly love God is to make the choice to do so. It's not much of a choice when you know God exists and the only other alternative is burning in Hell. In short, free will trumps proof, and it must be so. This is not the same as saying there is no evidence for God. There will always be things to suggest God's existence such as the coherency and viability of the testimonies in the Bible. But if you are looking for a priori proof of God's existence, you will be sorely disappointed and embittered. Both Theist and Atheist have wasted their lives away in search of this.
The Bible Teaches Bad MoralsThis bogus claim is often supported, ironically, by Muslims who hope to turn the attention away from their terrible excuse for moral authority and think pointing out similar "flaws" in Christianity is tantamount to vindicating their simian stone-age religion. There are some supposed things in the NT, but most of the big objections come from the OT. What a surprise. Let's tackle a few. I'm not going to cite Biblical evidence because these claims and defenses are already well documented and I am simply reiterating them. It doesn't merit original research.
The Bible supports slaveryWrong. The problem with this contention is the misuse of the word "slave." The Bible had an injunction against capturing people and forcing them to work for you. That's the definition of slavery we operate off of today. It did, however, encourage people to work off debt or earn a living by entering into servitude to somebody. Note this is strictly voluntary (and some might argue more humane than the debtors prisons of Dickens' time).
The Bible prescribes marriage as a reward for rapeWrong. The Bible forces the man responsible for rape to "marry" his victim. What this actually means is that he must provide financially for his victim for the rest of her life whether she wants him or not. Remarriage was problematic as virginity was held in high esteem, but that was the culture. Actually, this seems more humane to me than simply throwing the rapist in jail and forcing the woman to work things out on her own. In this, the man is punished and the woman benefits.
The Bible endorses genocideGod issued specific orders at specific times to kill specific people(s). This is not like the Koran which is filled with open-ended calls to genocide.
You may think that these acts of obliteration were uncalled for, however these cultures were bad news for everybody. In the most extreme cases which mandated eradication, everybody was brainwashed so deeply into the culture of human sacrifice and degradation that no consciousness exposed to this debauchery could survive in the world (Reavers, if you've ever seen Firefly). They were all complicit in the suffering around them and the horror it caused. Notice the Bible commands the death of men, women, and children. Infants are not on the list. They, lacking consciousness and complicity, could be saved.
I'm often puzzled to hear feminists decrying these events as the societies the Hebrews eradicated subsisted almost entirely on the enslavement and objectification of women (even by Feminism's already disapproving scope of the Hebrew standard).
Feminism is incompatible with the BibleWrong. Feminism is incompatible with Atheism. In Atheism (reduced and deconstructed as I did above), women gain their only value from reproductive capability in ensuring that the next generation. In this manner, they become confined to an identity as a sexual object rather than an individual. It is altogether foolish to believe that Atheism could ascribe value to anything.
The Bible's stance on homosexuality is intolerableWrong, although complicated. I'd like to point out famous Nihilst Adolf Hitler's stance on homosexuality was not nearly as kind and understanding as Paul's. Thus far, secular dictatorships have killed more homosexuals than Christianity (I guess that's what happens when you define people's value in terms of reproductive capabilities alone).
In reality, homosexuality is a tough topic to speak on. Beliefs on both sides are deeply ground in and have emotional cords lodged within. That said, one side is wrong. Although sometimes the people arguing against homosexuality are far more despicable than the simple ongoing sin of fornication, they happen to be right. It doesn't help that their attitude sucks.
I guess I'll conclude this by saying that nobody treats homosexuals well. Christianity, however, is the only doctrine that suggests that people can transcend their physical urges and faults in order to have a higher relationship with God.
ConclusionBy this time, any Atheist has either left the room in a rabid fury drooling and cursing me for the next month, will be changing their facebook religion status to "Agnostic" in the next week, or simply didn't process the information.
The only possible reaction short of an acceptance of Nihilism (and a hypocritical attempt to live in an objective reality), is a recantation of Atheist views and an acceptance of Agnosticism at the very least. Here is where the real work begins in providing an argument for the sufficiency of Christianity. As I said, I have less experience in this. I just happen to be better at tearing things apart rather than building them up.
EDIT: Added headings to help the TL;DR problem.
