It can often be entertaining (though ultimately it is really and truly sad) to observe unbelievers flinching at the utter absurdity of their own worldview when they are asked direct questions about even their most basic beliefs. For example, while being grilled on such topics as morality Dan Barker has been known to appeal to the audience and imply that his opponent is too dumb to know right from wrong as he did in his debate with Doug Wilson. Or, recall Barker’s debate with Paul Manata where he responds to Manata’s questions by saying, “You’re not serious about that” to which Manata replies, “No, I am”. I would be embarrassed about my answers to questions like this if I believed, as Dan Barker does, that all we are is cosmic broccoli. Since we mentioned Manata, let us not forget about Derek Sansone repeatedly dodging Paul’s direct questions during that debate. By the end of the affair Sansone was trying to convince the audience that the answers to Paul’s questions are really not all that important, after all, “Logic is fluff”. During one of my public debates with an atheist I asked why it would be wrong to light a baby on fire and watch the baby burn to death. During his rebuttal time, my opponent brought the question up, scoffed at it, and answered matter-of-factly, “Killing babies is wrong because the government says that it is wrong”. Yikes! Not only should we recognize that the government does not say that killing babies is wrong, we should further understand this gentleman’s confusion about the difference between what is lawful and what is ethical and pray that he never takes this understanding with him into political office! It is in such absurd answers that I would suggest we find the reason for a tendency amongst unbelievers to try and reinterpret questions that they cannot reasonably answer as evidencing an inability on the part of the inquirer to answer the question on his or her own.
Enter Nocterro and Punchy Bloke who have been commenting on the post found here. It did not take long, once some of their beliefs were challenged, to start dodging my questions and doubting my sincerity. Punchy Bloke first suggests I may be “trolling”.
I’m starting to think that Bolt is trolling here. Are you trolling nocterro, here? or are you serious in all of the things you’ve said?
Then Nocterro makes a similar suggestion.
One must wonder if you are even being serious anymore. I suspect that you are merely nitpicking me, and know very well what is wrong with accepting every idea one is presented with. But if you truly think there is nothing wrong with this, allow me to present some ideas for you to accept…
Of course, I never said that I do not know what is wrong with accepting every idea one is presented with. Rather, I asked Nocterro what is wrong with accepting every idea one is presented with and he gave me no answer. Does Nocterro really think that the reason I ask him questions is for my own epistemological benefit? When someone asks questions it does not follow that the person asking them does not already have answers to those questions. The way that Nocterro responds seems peculiar but perhaps it is not if his response is understood as an attempt to shift the spotlight off of the absurdity inherent in his own position.
It is particularly telling that Nocterro and Punchy Bloke would demand “evidence” from me as though it is clear what kind of evidence they are looking for and even more telling that when I ask why they need evidence in order to accept claims it is interpreted as “trolling” and “nitpicking”. Rather than answering questions about his absurd position, Nocterro insists that we forget about all of the issues that he raised and begin our discussion again.
OK, Chris…This is rapidly descending into absurdity, so let’s start over and get back to the claim you made in the original post.
I agree with Nocterro that a closer look at the unbelieving worldview descends rapidly into absurdity. I do not understand why more unbelievers are not willing to just embrace this absurdity. Many have. Perhaps the gods of unbelievers like Nocterro and Punchy Bloke forbid critical thought concerning ultimate matters, but then, why are these gentlemen so hasty to try and use such critical thought with respect to Christianity?