How to debate an Atheist

[_3ToedSloth]

MAD Style.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/47730-friendly-atheist-debate/page__gopid__1208794744&

[_Blixa]

While I once again gave in to the temptation to read that board, I was this time rewarded with a hearty laugh.

[_EAllusion]

Heh. I like how the OP offers a basic cosmological argument, and more than one person advises while the argument is sound, you probably shouldn't bother trying to bring that up with an atheist.

Two points that probably should be pointed out without addressing the argument proper:

1) That cosmological argument doesn't seem consistent with a theology that proposes God exists within the universe and is contingent upon it in some way. That is a standard view in the LDS tradition.

2) To whomever said it was a Kalaam argument, it isn't. That specifically rests on the reality of the big bang to argue that the universe has a temporal first cause. The OP didn't make that specific argument. It's more vague.

If I were replying to the argument, I'd probably go one of my standard routes and point out that that you don't need to argue with atheists to find people who will dispute that argument. I'd then link Wes Morriston's comprehensive papers on first cause arguments.

[_Sethbag]

I notice CDowis is emphasizing the Millet Doctrine approach to the whole debate.

The Millet Doctrine is not a discussion technique. It's a discussion killing technique.

I think the Mighty Curelom covered all that really needed to be said by the atheist side, right there in the second post of the thread. Everything after that is redundant.

[_3ToedSloth]

1) That cosmological argument doesn't seem consistent with a theology that proposes God exists within the universe and is contingent upon it in some way. That is a standard view in the LDS tradition.

Jeff K is already all over it..

Mormons think He is both.

If I were replying to the argument, I'd probably go one of my standard routes and point out that that you don't need to argue with atheists to find people who will dispute that argument. I'd then link Wes Morriston's comprehensive papers on first cause arguments.

The OP has a blog. When you take a peek at this guy's reading list, you'll understand why he isn't aware of Wes Morriston or Graham Oppy.

Books I’m Reading:

Do Hard Things by Alex and Brett Harris

Revolution in World Missions by K.P. Yohannan

Books I Want to Read:

Crazy Love by Francis Chan

Your First Two Years in Youth Ministry by Doug Fields

Books I’ve Read:

How to Know God Exists by Ray Comfort

One Heartbeat Away by Mark Cahill

More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell

Speaking my Mind by Tony Campolo

Questioning Evangelism by Randy Newman

Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment Upside Down by Kaylene Johnson

Sharing your Faith with Friends adn Family by Michael Green

The One Thing you Can’t do in Heaven by Mark Cahill

The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren

The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren

The Way of the Master by Ray Comfort

Why I am a Baptist edited by Tom J. Nettles and Russell Moore

101 Ways to Reach Your Community by Steve Sjogren

[_3ToedSloth]

I notice CDowis is emphasizing the Millet Doctrine approach to the whole debate.

The Millet Doctrine is not a discussion technique. It's a discussion killing technique.

Is that what the Millet doctrine is? I thought it was the worst idea in the entire thread.

[_Sethbag]

I notice CDowis is emphasizing the Millet Doctrine approach to the whole debate.

The Millet Doctrine is not a discussion technique. It's a discussion killing technique.

Is that what the Millet doctrine is? I thought it was the worst idea in the entire thread.

There's a video you can find of Millet telling a class what they should do when someone asks questions about the church whose answers are sensitive or tough, "don't answer the question they asked, answer the question they should have asked", ie: change the subject and turn it into an opportunity to get Mormon missionary talking points across.

[_Sethbag]

Sloth, here's the video of Robert Millet explaining this particular approach to discussion.

[_3ToedSloth]

Sloth, here's the video of Robert Millet explaining this particular approach to discussion.

Wow......

Thank you for showing me this.

[_Sethbag]

An observation that I hadn't noticed before was that Millet says this is his approach for dealing with "antagonistic" questions, and then his example was somebody asking him if Mormons believe they can become like God. What does this say about his apologetic mindset that this question is "antagonistic"?