A Rational & Civil Dialogue With An Atheist

By Shane Kastler

Recently I had a dialogue with an atheist over the internet. I started out conversing with several, but eventually it was whittled down to one. I thought our conversation was profitable, rational, and civil; and decided to post the transcript of it here. Perhaps other Christians (or even atheists) might find it helpful and/or interesting.

My basic approach to defending the faith (aka: apologetics) is “presuppositional” in nature. Which is to say that all people must “presuppose” something in order to know anything. Indeed, I believe the Christian God must be presupposed for anything to make sense. As a believer, I “presuppose” God to be supreme and His word to be infallible; and I make no apologies for that. Even when talking to an unbeliever, I refuse to jettison my faith in order to appear “neutral” to the unbeliever. I'm not “neutral.” I'm a Christian. The unbeliever is not “neutral” either. Like me, he has presuppositions which he clings to (knowingly or unknowingly) and he looks to sources outside himself for knowledge. All people do this; they just differ on who/what they look to.

With all that said, I do not believe I can change any unbeliever's mind. Only God can. But I am called (as all Christians are) to defend the faith, evangelize, and “give a reason for the hope that is within me” (1 Peter 3:15) The Apostle Paul “reasoned” with the Jews in the synagogue and the Gentiles in the marketplace. And he presented the gospel and refuted unbelieving philosophies in Athens on Mars Hill (see Acts 17). With the result being that many insulted him, some put him off until a later time, and some believed. This is evidence of God's grace upon the unbeliever. If an unbeliever (atheist or otherwise) wants to simply engage in a name-calling, ridicule contest.....I am not interested. That can easily fall into a Christian being guilty of “answering the fool according to his folly” (Proverbs 26:4). But genuine rational discourse is always welcome. The atheist might think I'm completely insane for believing the way I do; but if they are willing to discuss spiritual matters with such a “fool” as I, then I am game. Here is our exchange. Keep in mind that this took place on Twitter, so we were limited to comments of 120 characters or less. That's hard to do, but not impossible:

1. Scott: Which deity are you advocating?

2. Shane Kastler: The Christian God.

3. Scott: So you thumb your nose at other gods. Thor will be much displeased with you in your afterlife.

4. Shane Kastler: Ha ha. Good one. Christians have a sense of humor too ya know.

5. Scott: I have never doubted that about Christians, but how do you know that your god is the correct one?

6. Shane Kastler: I haven't found other conceptions of God to be logically coherent. Logic plays a part along w/ faith

7. Scott: Intuiting a deity makes sense to me. Reasoning to a deity makes nonsense to me. Can you define god?

8. Shane Kastler: Everyone intuits a deity by nature. Reasoning to atheism makes nonsense to me. Suffice it to say, we view world differently

   A good definition would be found in Acts 17:24-28. I believe in the Triune God of the Bible. Eternal, invisible, all-powerful.

9. Scott: That's a poor definition also. It's actions of, not description of. Give me the applicant, not the resume.

10. Shane Kastler: I gave you definition. Just because you don't personally like it doesn't mean it's "poor." I stand with Paul contra Athens.

11. Scott: Let's work on it then. I want to know what your deity 'is'. I already know what you believe it did.

12. Shane Kastler: Hard to separate acts from being. Harder still to define infinite in 120 characters....or less.

13. Scott: Hard to explain in a book when you think about it. Essential ground of being? Sounds like pantheism. Abba? Paternalism.

    What do you believe 'in'?

14. Shane Kastler: Not pantheism nor paternalism. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I'm a Christian. You KNOW what I believe. And WHO I believe in.

15. Scott: I'm trying to give you an appreciation for unbelievers. If I knew these things I'd agree with you. I can't feel/sense a deity.

16. Shane Kastler: I suspect you know what Christians believe. Though you don't believe it yourself. I was once an unbeliever too.

17. Scott: Can you show me the same respect as the apostles showed Thomas in John 20:24. Was his doubt legitimate or genuine?

18. Shane Kastler: His doubt was genuine. Everyone doubts & disbelieves by nature. Only God can truly reveal spiritual truth. Still we reason.

19. Scott: "Everyone intuits a deity by nature." "Everyone doubt's and disbelieves by nature." Gotta settle on one of these don't you?

20. Shane Kastler: Good question. All believe in God's existence by nature, yet do not "believe" in sense of submission. We're natural rebels.

    People know God is there, but do not honor or glorify him as such. Go to the remotest tribe and they believe in SOME form of god.

21. Scott: Your abusing the word "know". Indigenous peoples don't seem to have the same ambiguities between belief and knowledge.

22. Shane Kastler: I appreciate your courteous tone. Very rare on twitter. RE: knowledge, there are many different types and levels.

    I "know" Obama in a much different way than I know my wife. I believe Obama exists, though I've never physically seen him.

23. Scott: From Aristotelian epistemology view, knowledge is justified true belief. Undemonstrated belief isn't knowledge. We know Obama.

24. Shane Kastler: We all have presuppositions. And we all claim knowledge from other sources. You cite Aristotle. I cite Jesus.

    Maybe u know Obama. I don't. I assume he exists based on TV and news reports. I must presuppose the accuracy of the TV.

    What's true is true. Regardless of whether or not you or I believe it. Demonstrated or not.

25. Scott: To be true, a claim has to be verifiable.

26. Shane Kastler: It must be verifiable to be verified. But its true regardless. Stars exist lite years from us; that won't be "verified"

    The truth of their existence has nothing to do with our verification of them. It might be nice to verify. But not necessary

27. Scott: You're equivocating the divinity of Christ with the existence of the stars?

28. Shane Kastler: I believe both are true. Though I can prove neither with a test tube. Do you believe stars exist that you will never see?

29. Scott: Verifiable in astrophysics is relative to education and math skills. Verifiable in theology is a cognitive illusion.

30. Shane Kastler: Astrophysics aside....You didn't answer my question. Do you believe stars exist, even if no one will ever see/verify them?

31. Scott: Of course.

32. Shane Kastler: Earlier you said it can't be true unless verified. You changed your view? You now believe things can exist, we can't see?

33. Scott: That's a mash up. I said had to be verified 2b true, and, to verify stars requires education. I take the word of experts.

34. Shane Kastler: So you accept the testimony of someone else.....by faith. I do the same. You have your "experts"- And I have mine.

35. Scott: Your headed the wrong way on this limb. I accept the consensus of astronomers research. They're conclusions aren't divination.

36. Shane Kastler: We both believe in the unseen based on another's testimony. Your faith is in astronomers word. Mine is in the apostles.

37. Scott: Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Faith is not required for methodological naturalism. That's kind of the point. And, I've seen stars

38. Shane Kastler: Faith involves believing in what you can't see. And you haven't seen ALL the stars. Enjoyed visiting w/ you. Must go 4now.

39. Scott: You never specified 'all' the stars. Be well. Enjoyed it.