In “How should we think about atheists who have no problem with atheism?” I presented a simple argument. It goes like this. Some atheists do not have an existential problem with the implications of atheism, and at least some of those atheists seem to infer from this fact that the theist is wrong if she has an existential problem with the implications of atheism. The simple point I was making was that this doesn’t follow, for the Christian can simply conclude that the atheist ought to have an existential problem with the implications of atheism.
Perhaps some people took offense to the fact that I described the problem with the analogy of the smell of sewage. But the point is supposed to be shocking. After all, from that Christian’s perspective we’re talking about nihilism. What do you want the olfactory analogy to be? Roses?
Suffice it to say, the atheist can obviously respond in kind. I took this point to be obvious, but I guess it should be spelled out. The mere fact that the Christian does have an existential problem with atheism doesn’t mean the atheist necessarily should as well. In the same manner that the Christian concludes “You are failing to smell that pungent aroma!” so the atheist can offer the rejoinder “You are smelling something that just isn’t there. The air is fine in here.”
I remain mystified that some folks find something uncharitable or even offensive about this point. It merely comes back to the proper framing of what is, and isn’t a putative support and/or defeater for one’s position.