This guy has one of the sharpest channels on YouTube, very un-PC. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he is outrageously popular.
Watch: (20 minutes) (H/T William)
This might be a very useful thing to show to pastors who favor socialist policies and big government redistribution. He actually says that the conservative policies that conservatives embrace attracted him to theism. I just think that is so hilarious… because all the pastors seem to want to embrace left-wing causes. Especially things like global warming, illegal immigration, redistribution of wealth, single payer health care, etc. Well, the kinds of atheists we like – the ones who believe in liberty, prosperity, security – don’t hold our small government politics against us.
No Christian presents their views through government – that’s why we are all crazy about apologetics. We love apologetics as much as secular leftists love big government. At least apologetics is non-coercive he says. But when atheists enforce their view through big government, backed by prisons and guns, that is coercive. His arguments about demographics, and being willing to marry, have kids for the good of society are terrific to illustrate the value of self-sacrifice within the Christian worldview. Far from being a liability, devotion to small government, low taxes and individual liberty is actually an asset when evangelizing. Just as pious pastors are all rushing to join the open borders, global warming, single-payer health care, radical feminism team, we find out that principled atheists are uncomfortable with many of those things. Maybe we should take note of that, instead of just blindly following the crowd.
Have a look at this video, and put THIS apologetic argument into your quiver. There is much, much more to evangelism and apologetics than what you read in books on apologetics. And this is why I work so hard to connect the Christian worldview to every other area of knowledge. You don’t always have to talk about old, boring William Lane Craig style apologetics with atheists. Sometimes, you can just talk to them about tax policy and free speech. Why not? Atheists are sometimes complicated people.
5 thoughts on “Stefan Molyneux: “why I was wrong about atheists””
He gives great, candid analysis. His video on why he rejects Christianity shows that he has not had the true Gospel presented to him, like so many unbelievers. That is the fault of us all, but mainly of popular preachers who do not present the actual Gospel.
It is a good idea. Basically connect and listen to people. Each person is different and you can do a witness in a different way depending on the individual.
Christianity encompasses all areas of our life so there are many proofs of it
Have you ever read Douglas Murray “The Strange Death of Europe”? He is also an atheist who sees the collapse of Faith leading to a collapse of Europe.
Building bridges is generally a great idea (it’s one of the two major paradigms that I have as an apologist). Being an engineer, I use engineer metaphors (“Building Bridges”, “Removing Roadblocks”).
On your other points:
In the churches that I’ve been to, the congregation has (more or less) told the pastor to stick to preaching of spiritual virtues/values and to stay out of talking about politics. Some churches I see, there definitely heavy activities by the SJW’s (yes, left-leaning causes).
Even on facebook, for whatever reason, I do get a lot of friends that post about SJW causes: allowing illegal immigrants, wholesale allowing refugees without being discerning, involuntary redistribution of wealth. IMHO, I also think there’s a lot of confusion between individual/personal responsibility, the responsibility of believers, and government responsibility.
Podcasts and sermons I listen to online or over the radio, some pastors do address political issues, including the economy. I’ve had some seminary professors who also were knowledgeable about some of these matters and at least pointed me in the right direction (of materials to read) and/or help me think about assumptions and provide a framework to think about these subjects.
For instance, from a Christian point of view, would we agree with assumptions that human nature is inherently good (i.e., people generally tend to do the right thing and what is best for everyone — and that crimes are rare/uncommon and are lapses of judgment or emotion?) or neutral (that we just need mechanisms to encourage right behaviors and restraint of wrong behaviors)? Or perhaps people are more inclined to be selfish and self-centered, choosing what is best for them and not necessary what is best for others?
[e.g., Seminary profs pointed me to some combination of Augustine’s “City of God”, John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” John Locke’s various works — to understand libertarianism and its assumptions, various books on ethics and virtue ethics, Christian analyses on the U.S. Constitution and Amendments, John Stapleford’s “Bears, Bulls, and Golden Calves” regarding economics, and so on.]
Do you have a YouTube channel Wintery Knight?