So I recently debated an Atheist, and it didn’t go so well…Here’s Why.

I recently went on a debate on a Channel called Deconstruction Zone, to say that it went poorly is an understatement. I want to share my experience and why.

First, how did I find this channel? I genuinely don’t know, it found me. The algorithm pushed it my way, and I saw that there was a way to participate on it, so I did. I thought it would be a good way for me to strengthen myself, and be exposed to contemporary deconstructionism, which is a form of atheism that has chosen to apostatize from Christianity. I went in good spirits, knowing that there was nothing I would say could change the host’s mind Justin. Personally, it was a fun exercise, I don’t remember the last time I was in a conversation like this one. It was clear from what led me to want to speak that he knew his Bible. I heard him mention before I went online that he was a Seminary graduate. I always find it fascinating, and saddening,  when someone who lived exposed to the truth can go as far as getting a degree in seminary only to end up an atheist.

What went well?

Other than my tone, probably nothing. I knew he knew his stuff, I just didn’t know which way he was going to go. From the start I noticed that he was excellent at controlling the conversation. It makes sense, considering he’s been doing this for a while, and he has formal education. We quickly dived into the most tough to accept passages from Scripture, and he was concerned with justice. We went back and forth, with him controlling the show, and me falling for the traps. They were excellent. My biggest enemy was myself, I was tired, way past my bedtime, and honestly speaking, I felt like I walked into a gunfight with a knife. I could see that he has had the same conversation multiple times, as he made arguments that came out of his mouth faster than I could process. This is the stuff I need. There were a couple of traps that he left for me to easily fall into, I just happened to need no help in falling for them, I walked right into them. As the night progressed his arguments kept getting redundant and we weren’t able to agree on anything, other than we both like the NASB1995 translation. Even there, we were going back and forth on the Greek of Ephesians 2:14. Something, I again believe he was taking entirely out of context. I was reminded of a Greco-Roman practice called Cento, done very well by the Gnostics of the first century, where the poets would grab a position and take out of context passages from the poets and the Bible to agree with their point of view. It’s impossible to argue like that, because as soon as you have a point, the topic changes.

The slight advantage I had.

The only time I was able to have a decent advantage was when I was finally able to have him explain why something is evil. That is because I was trying to expose that in an atheistic worldview there is no such thing as evil, because it’s all relative. I brought it down to the point where he admitted that he saw nothing wrong with people hurting themselves physically, and to ensure I’m not bearing false witness, I don’t mean that he believed that it was good for people to unalive themselves. But it was here that I was able to at least see how his argument that evil and good hinge on desire, but he wasn’t able to articulate why those desires where inherently good or evil. I think when he saw the trap I was setting up, he was very quick to move away from it and bring something else up. I did mention that he did that, but he did not concede. His comeback to me was that even in the Christian worldview, good and evil are subjective, because God decides what’s good and what’s evil. At least that’s how I understood his position. But I think that’s inaccurate, due to the fact that God is unequivocally good, meaning in substance, ontologically, He is good. It’s not that he is declaring or changing His mind, He is Good, and from his moral character we know what Good is, and also evil.

What benefit could this bring?

The benefit wasn’t really for him, it was for me. I didn’t realize how little I’ve thought about some of the most strange passages in Scripture. I also hadn’t had such a hostile person debate me before, but then again, I seldom debate anyone. It’s truly not my forte, at all. But I really wanted to put myself out there, to grow. I knew I was right, but his framing was so misconstrued, as he constantly played misdirection. At least that’s how I see it. Due to the fact that he was making an accusation against God’s moral and just laws, while claiming that there are laws that are unjust. These are valid arguments, and they ought to be examined. At some point I tried to express to him how he was painting God to be evil because of a series of premises he painted. When I said his argument on that specific subject was valid, and not sound, he corrected me in saying that his argument was sound. In actuality, his syllogism was valid, but the overall argument was not sound, as he would not permit more premises in his syllogism to help reduce the argument to absurdity and demonstrate that his argument was committing a fallacy of appealing to ignorance. He was coming at God being evil from a law that is apparently unjust. Meaning, it really gives no leeway from our vantage point as to how God would allow such a law. But that, which I tried to express multiple times, is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Meaning, he and I can’t see how that can be a good law, but that doesn’t mean that the law isn’t good, even if I have a hard time agreeing with it. But even greater than that, I gained greater insights on the mind of a deconstructionist, and that it’s true that the Devil knows the Bible. By no means do I think Justin is the Devil, but sadly he is working toward a goal that is demonic in nature. And even though he knows his stuff, his tactics aren’t aimed at discovering the truth, they are aimed at proving his point by any means necessary, and controlling the conversation was his strongest suit.

What damages could this bring?

Participating in his festive roasting of the Christian worldview and performing poorly, would only fuel his audience and make me look dumb. I recognize that he made me look dumb, and his viewers were in fact celebrating. I mentioned who I was, and gave him a way to find me online, this is truly my only regret. Only because he went on after I left to make fun of me, even though I was respectful to him the entire time. But what could I expect? He has built his platform mocking people who have surrendered to Christ. I wanted an honest conversation, at least amicable, it wasn’t. When he would catch that I wasn’t exactly agreeing with him, he constantly called me a liar. I’m not sure how that came about. Considering that I was not lying, though I did not give into his claims. He also mentioned after I left that he would use me, my name, and my church, to bring shame to me. Of that, I am sad, because I don’t want to give a misrepresentation of the ministries I serve under. However, I know God is gracious and merciful. My prayer is for him, and his viewers, who are blinded in their arrogance and hubris, that God would soften their hearts, and that any Christian watching that show would continue to be sharpened, to not fall for the traps, and to persevere.

Will this bring glory to God?

I don’t think this conversation can’t bring glory to God. Even if I was made to look like a fool in a channel that’s dedicated to make fools of Christians, I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:18 “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Truly the message sounds like foolishness to those who are perishing. I cannot control that. God will ultimately get the glory either way. The consequence of all of this will be for me to continue to grow in wisdom, even to know when to stop.

So why didn’t it go well?

I wasn’t as prepared as I thought I was. I wasn’t nearly as cognitively sharp. The adrenaline rush of being in a conversation clouded my coherence drastically. Frankly, I couldn’t articulate my way out of his easy traps. Good. I’m glad I fell. I’m glad I did it. If this brings me shame, so be it. Soli Deo Gloria.

Will we talk again?

Probably. Though I wouldn’t want to debate him, because I think it’s clear he’s a much better debater than me. I don’t need to keep feeding his ego, and keep his watchers actively engaged amounting him with more and more dollars with their super chats, as they eat their pop-corn and mock God. I would like to speak with him in a different setting, perhaps the podcast I cohost with Iggy. We could still talk about the points he brings up, but more than that. I want to know his story. I want to know how he got there. If there are points he brings up, I would say where I disagree, but I wouldn’t try to waste time to convince him otherwise or to win the argument. It would be futile. But the main reason why I would like to know his story through the podcast, is because I’m sure that there are a lot of people who wonder, like myself, what gets a person there, not because I want people to get there, but because I don’t want them to go there. I would hope that he would want to have an amicable conversation, non combative, he can clearly articulate how he got there, and Iggy and I can say why we disagree with his conclusions.