Well...THIS atheist is not nearsighted about reality: a reply to Nate Sala

This is my reply to an article emailed to me by Nate Sala, entitled

Why Atheists Are Nearsighted About Reality

by Nate Sala

Wed, Apr 10, 1:42 PM (2 days ago) 

 

snip

As Christian communicators, we sometimes come across people who raise objections to our belief in Jesus. As a matter of fact, atheists will often say, “I can’t get behind a god who allows so much suffering in the world,” and then describe emotionally compelling stories about children dying of cancer, for example, who suffered so much pain and then died way too soon. It's heartbreaking to hear stories like that, or to watch loved ones go through tragedy, or to even experience it ourselves. And for a lot of people it’s very compelling to doubt God in the face of suffering.

Then under the logic of Frank Turek's "moral argument for God", the popularity of this moral sentiment would reasonably imply a god who puts into your heart certain laws that blatantly contradict the sadistic morale seen in the OT YHWH.  Let's just say the god who causes your heart to cry out as you watch a preteen prostitute get burned to death, probably wasn't the god who authored Leviticus 21:9.

But here’s where atheists make a huge mistake: they’re spiritually nearsighted; that is, they can't see beyond their own existence. Friends, we have about 80 years on this earth before we die; but according to atheist belief, after that 80 year stretch is complete, there is no more existence. In other words, the 80 years we have on this earth is all that matters. Imagine what happens when tragedy or suffering or disease dramatically steals someone’s ability to live 80 years; that's unforgivable, isn’t it? For an atheist, the only shot they had has been stolen and they'll never get another one.

Which is why atheism makes life more precious than Christianity.

Friends, before Christ saved us we were all nearsighted. We couldn’t see past the 80 years in our own lifespan. But now that Christ has freed us,

 Typical meaningless talk.  This "freedom" is nothing but a word, and is about as discernably true as the "freedom" Mormons claim to experience after they converted to Mormonism.  It words wonders within the confines of their religious view, and it makes not a lick of sense otherwise.

and we no longer fear death (because we know that death is only the beginning),

More meaningless talk...plenty of Christians fear death.  There is nothing about Christianity that turns its followers into eager martyrs...lest you end up saying 99% of the church is comprised of false Christians?  That would make rejection of Christianity even more reasonable, we don't have 800 years to sift through all the linguistic games played by competing Christian scholars to figure out which denomination is "right".

our vision has been corrected. We have a clear lens that gives us the ability to see beyond our own lifetime… into eternity.

Perhaps that explains why no two Christians agree on all bible doctrine.

When you view the suffering that takes place in the here and now in light of eternity, it takes on an entirely different meaning!

And giving false hope to idiots is unfair and manipulative.

To know that the suffering and death of the physical body is not the suffering and death of the immortal soul, and to know that eternity dramatically overshadows 80 years into almost nothing, is to understand that suffering is a “momentary affliction that is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Corinthians 4:17).

Once again, no demonstration, these are just the hopes of the hopeless.  it's perfectly obvious that this life is full of unfairness and pain, so instead of realistically admiting "life's a bitch, then you die", you instead look to the sky, with glazed over eyes.  Feel free to believe what you will, but expect a reality-check if you get all cocky and start telling atheists how they're nearsighted about reality.

So when you’re in conversations with atheists who say, “I can’t get behind a god who would allow evil in this world,” I think it’s appropriate to point out that they're trying to evaluate the Christian worldview without fully adopting its framework.

 We are, because we've already shown reasonable empirical justification for rejecting the framework.  You've never shown convincing evidence that it is even meaningful to talk about life continuing after physical death.

In other words, they're nearsighted!

 You mean in the same way that we don't evaluate Mormon claims from within the context of Mormon belief?  Correct.

They are looking at suffering while at the same time refusing to see past their own lifetime.

 Precisely because the whole idea of non-physical life itself, and such a thing continuing after physical death, is incoherent.  Children are very capable of fantasizing and many adults retain that ability to deny reality whenever they think doing so would feel good.

Ask them, instead, to try on your Christian glasses. Ask them to evaluate suffering through the Christian framework.

 You mean like asking us to evaluate Mormon claims from within the Mormon framework?  No thank you, I already have sufficient reasons to reject both frameworks as premised on pure fantasy.

If people really want to evaluate a robust system of beliefs they must adopt the entire framework for those beliefs, step inside it (so to speak), and then look around to see if it really makes sense.

 Such method of analysis would make it impossible to conclude that Mormonism is nonsense.  No thank you.

If skeptics and non-believers would at least do that, they would have a better perspective by which to hear the good news of the Gospel they so desperately need.

I'm getting the feeling that what I've chosen to rebut has more to do with good words and fair speeches, and less to do with actual argument.  Dismissed.