I've decided to share with you an online discussion I had recently with a supposed 'atheist'. We'll call him Roger. He came out fighting and threw some pretty stout punches. I'll leave it to you to determine the effectiveness of my replies. Put yourself in this situation. How would you reply? Without further ado...
The following transcript is an unedited, harsh, and illuminating trip into the mind of 'intelligent' atheism.

Roger's first reply to my first reply.
> Wow, you're jumping right into this with more enthusiasm than I am
> accustomed to! That's encouraging. Most theists I have encountered
> give up after just a few replies.
>
> On Apr 13, 2004, at 11:47 PM, Bill Vanderbush wrote:
I bet you've asked this of people before and likely have gotten the standard
cliché answers. I'll attempt to avoid that.

> Thanks, I appreciate your desire to give my questions genuine
> consideration.

bill - I speak for nobody but myself in this. I believe in God for the same reason
I believe in my wife. I have experienced the depth and reality of her
presence and her love. I can say the same for the presence and love
of God (Jesus Christ).

> I should probably let you know that I was raised as a fairly devout
> Christian, and have also experienced "God" through profound emotion.
> However, I no longer trust emotional justifications for belief, for
> reasons that may become clear as we continue.
>
bill - You know, man's chief argument against God is that the universe seems so
cruel and unjust. But how does one come upon the idea of just and unjust?
One can't call a line crooked unless he has some idea of what a straight line is. Where does one derive the idea of justice apart from intelligent universal design?

> I am surprised you decided to bring up the Problem of Evil so soon, as
> it is pretty harsh on theism.
>
> No matter how "evil" is defined, and no matter whether God exists or
> not, we can be certain that no being in existence is consistently
> willing and able to prevent, say, the rape of children -- because it
> happens! If God is not even able to give help to children when they
> need it most, then he is clearly irrelevant with respect to our daily
> lives. If God is able to get involved but choses not to, then he is
> either apathetic or downright malevolent. In no case is any proposed
> God worthy of our trust or respect, let alone our worship. As long as
> bad things continue to happen, it is rational to conclude that no
> loving, powerful God exists. Only irrelevant or untrustworthy deities
> are logically possible.
>
> As for the origins of human morality, I believe it derives from our
> nature as a social species. We are not only self-aware, but aware that
> others are self-aware. When bad things happen to others, we empathize
> with them. When an action is observed to have negative consequences,
> we remember that and avoid taking that action in the future. As "good"
> for one person is frequently "bad" for another, many moral positions
> cannot be absolute. Fortunately, with the advent of generalized
> language, we became capable of combining our collective experiences to
> balance our competing needs and produce complex social contracts with
> each other. So morality, at its core, is the result of subjective
> social consensus. Evidence of this lies in the observation that
> morality differs widely among cultures from different times and places.
> (To emphasize this point, I ask you to show me a verse in the Bible --
> just one will do -- that specifically condemns the sexual molestation
> of children!)
>
> We could also look at this from a purely philosophical perspective.
> Suppose a set of absolute moral positions exists. Each element of such
> a set either has a good reason behind it, or it doesn't. If there is
> no good reason for a moral position, there is no need to follow it,
> independent of who established the set. If there is a good reason for
> a moral position, that reason is sufficient to justify the position,
> independent of who established the set. In all cases, sound reasoning
> is equal or superior to any set of moral absolutes. So again, it is
> better to behave rationally than to believe in a moral God.
>
> I could support this conclusion empirically by going on about religious
> justifications for human atrocities throughout history, prison
> population statistics showing disproportionately few atheists, the
> relative success of secular governments vs. theocracies, and so on, but
> it may be sufficient to simply point out that theism is not necessary
> for good social behavior, and religion may actually cause more harm
> than good. (But... a solid education does improve social behavior!)
>
bill - Another question. If the whole universe has no meaning
then how did we find that out?
>
> But... we don't know whether or not the universe has any "meaning"
> external to itself. In principle, we may never be able to know. By
> definition, we can only observe that which is contained within the
> observable universe.
>
bill - ...You are asking questions. How is it that you
have discovered that there are questions to ask?
>
> Observation.
>
bill - Life is too complicated to be an accident and atheism is too simple to
be a solution.
>
> I am not entirely sure I understand what you are getting at here, but
> I'll take a stab at it anyway. Let me know if I am mistaken.
>
> Complex life is no "accident", but theism provides only a superficial
> illusion of a solution. Before we get sidetracked in a largely
> irrelevant origins debate (what matters is whether or not God is
> relevant here and now), I would like to summarize by saying, impersonal
> evolutionary processes are plenty capable of producing "intelligent
> designs", without need of an Intelligent Designer.
>
> "Atheism", by itself, is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in
> any gods. (Of all the gods proposed throughout human history, I lack
> belief in only one more than you do!) Certainly, we all have to
> develop or adopt some guiding philosophy to live by. You favor faith
> in God (and, presumably, the Bible), while I favor reason and
> observation.
>
bill - In keeping with the Socratic method, why should anyone not believe in
God?
>
> Concisely: truth matters, but theism is inherently irrational.
>
> -Roger
>

MY REPLY TO ROGER'S REPLY - April 14, 2004

Roger says...
"I should probably let you know that I was raised as a fairly devout Christian, and >have also experienced "God" through profound emotion. However, I no longer >trust emotional justifications for belief, for reasons that may become clear as we >continue."

bill says - I agree that emotional justification won't fly. However, I don’t think I mentioned emotion. I believe I used the word 'experience' which is far deeper. Where you experienced God through profound emotion, I have experienced God through profound contact. You'll just have to take my word on that one.

I've got a couple of things going on in my head here. On one hand, I have reason to believe that you're actually a genuine Christian with some time on your hands and a desire to test one (or perhaps many) who are pastoring. Hence your searching out a church website and requesting an audience with the resident 'teacher'. If so, I'm willing to go along with it as an exercise in apologetics. I say this because you're a well thought and intelligent writer. But anyone of reasonable intelligence and some theological savvy knows that atheism isn't for the intelligent. The best you can be is an agnostic. For you to be a true atheist you would have to prove that God does not exist which is impossible. So your belief is based upon something you cannot prove, just like mine. But to have faith enough to proclaim that there is no God is pretty major. In that respect, you have more faith than I do. Immense faith. Since, by your writing, I believe you to be intelligent, I'm not sure that I buy your story of atheistic profession.

On the other hand, assuming you're an actual atheist, you and I passed somewhere on the road to answering the grand question of reality and God. I was an unbeliever who became a believer. You were a believer who became an unbeliever. Correct? Scripture declares that those who believe have "passed from death to life". Could I then deduce that those who reject belief have passed from life to death? What good thing has your current system of belief bestowed upon you? Answers? Or perhaps more questions. The question of whether or not God exists is one that we won't answer in a lifetime of email. Faith in Him is the issue at hand and therein lies the problem. I can't grant you this. Only God can. As I said before, you have immense faith. It's just aimed in the direction of unbelief. If you're right, what have you gained? If I'm wrong, what have I lost?

There was a writer for the New Yorker (I think) awhile back who wrote about the fact that for the past decade, in NYC none of the buttons for the 'walk/don't walk' signs work. Everything is computerized. Yet thousands of people blindly push them daily. He wrote of the sadness that he felt at their blindness. More profound than that though was that he wrote of his envy for their 'blind faith', which he felt he had lost somewhere. The thing about this story that parallels our discussion is that I have staked my life on my foundation of faith. You have staked your life on your foundation of intellect and observation. No offense, but your head (and mine) is a pretty weak pedestal to stand one's life on. But the thing about this story that doesn't fit with our discussion is that, unlike the reporter's insider knowledge, you can't prove to me that God doesn't exist, just as I can't prove to you that He does. So we're at a gridlock of sorts. Which leads me to my next question.

What exactly do you want? A healthy dialog? A magic formula? A miracle?

Moving on to the issues...

Roger - "No matter how "evil" is defined, and no matter whether God exists or
> not, we can be certain that no being in existence is consistently
> willing and able to prevent, say, the rape of children -- because it
> happens! If God is not even able to give help to children when they
> need it most, then he is clearly irrelevant with respect to our daily
> lives. If God is able to get involved but choses not to, then he is
> either apathetic or downright malevolent. In no case is any proposed
> God worthy of our trust or respect, let alone our worship. As long as
> bad things continue to happen, it is rational to conclude that no
> loving, powerful God exists. Only irrelevant or untrustworthy deities
> are logically possible."

bill - Surely you must be joking. Atheists don't believe in evil or good, right and wrong, etc... (further making me wonder if my first assertion is correct)
Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good. Man's rejection of God is the core of evil. God's goodness is evident in His desire for relationship, not control. Hence the creation and purpose of you and I. I live in a world where some accept Him and some reject Him. His involvement in my life yet absence in yours doesn't negate your or my right to choose. Do you want a cosmic police officer who drops the hammer on every person who wrongs another? His trust in us to listen to His voice and respond appropriately is a staggering display of love. It's those who don't or won't listen who give the world such a moral headache. Not His perceived noninvolvement in our lives. Voila! A God that is both relevant and trustworthy.

Roger - "So morality, at its core, is the result of subjective
> social consensus. Evidence of this lies in the observation that
> morality differs widely among cultures from different times and places.
> (To emphasize this point, I ask you to show me a verse in the Bible --
> just one will do -- that specifically condemns the sexual molestation
> of children!)"

bill - There is no verse prohibiting Chinese water torture but most would agree that's wrong. Again, how did you get the idea that wrong even exists apart from God? Furthemore, Scripture is effective in it's outline of principles rather than specifics. I don't expect my son to put his hand in the lawnmower or push his sister down the stairs although I haven't specifically directed him to abstain from either activity. My instruction of the principle of personal stewardship and proper treatment of others suffices.

Roger - If there is
> no good reason for a moral position, there is no need to follow it,
> independent of who established the set. If there is a good reason for
> a moral position, that reason is sufficient to justify the position,
> independent of who established the set. In all cases, sound reasoning
> is equal or superior to any set of moral absolutes. So again, it is
> better to behave rationally than to believe in a moral God.

bill - Why must it be one or the other? How bout both?

Roger > I could support this conclusion empirically by going on about religious
> justifications for human atrocities throughout history, prison
> population statistics showing disproportionately few atheists, the
> relative success of secular governments vs. theocracies, and so on,

bill - Agreed on the first point [see below for further clarification]. Lost on the second. Unsure of your definition of success on the third.

Roger - theism is not necessary
> for good social behavior, and religion may actually cause more harm
> than good. (But... a solid education does improve social behavior!)

bill - Good point and I fully agree. Religion is a cancer and frankly is manmade. God never instituted religion. He has, in fact, initiated relationship. Also you're right in asserting that one does not have to believe in God in order to be nice to others. Scripture says that even satan and demons believe and tremble. Some professed Christians can't even say they do as much. Again, faith is the issue, and faith and belief are not exactly the same thing.
As for the solid education, what information is that based upon? Nazi Germany and the Roman empire were both built on a foundation of solid academic excellence. Great social behavior there. Nothing against education. You must take into account though the topic of the education, the bent of the educator, and the subject being educated.

Roger - Certainly, we all have to
> develop or adopt some guiding philosophy to live by. You favor faith
> in God (and, presumably, the Bible), while I favor reason and
> observation.

bill - I too favor reason and observation. Both of which have led me to where I am now. The difference, (and this is key) is that what I believe makes me what I am. You make what you believe.

Roger > Concisely: truth matters, but theism is inherently irrational.

bill - God never claims to be rational. In fact throughout the majority of Scripture He is quite the opposite. "His ways are past finding out"

I want to address each of your points and will, as time allows.

Unfortunately, I've just run out for the moment.

bill

"If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small." Scripture is so encouraging that way. My translation? "Hey there loser. When the going gets tough, the tough get tougher!" Or going, or whatever. If Scripture does anything it exposes how very weak we are and how strong Christ is. I'll be the first to say, "Small strength folks will gather over here and bring your prozac to share." The funny thing about the Word of God (in the division of soul and spirit) is it starves your soul to the point of death and when it does decide to get the paddles out and shock you to life it does so in your spirit. This is why you can read the word and be starving in soul but spiritually energized. The strange thing about the nature of man is that God can pour his strength into our weakness and use us without our conscious involvement. It's a beautiful thing. The active part is the flesh, which is not often willing to submit to the spirit but would much rather pander to the soulish. So herein lies the discipline of our rotten stinking bodies. I believe that this would be a far better world if one would simply spend their life in the confines of a five foot box and keep your eyes, ears, and hands to yourself. Sounds like prison though. And truly it is. Grant prisoners freedom and first thing many would do is abuse it for personal gain, revenge, control, pleasure, or whatever carnal evil is ruling them. Yet this is what God does to us and for us and challenges us to live in freedom. The submission is in the realization that without the fullness of His spirit invading our soulishness, we are as out of control as those prisoners. Legalism would slam the cell door shut once and for all. God desires neither. He surely gives us freedom as a gift and not as a snare. If then we are free then the challenge is to learn how to be free in a manner that brings glory to Jesus. I wonder if eternity is long enough to get that done?