Addressing atheists without a strawman

[Roman57]

I am a Christian. However, I must say that Christians oftentimes use strawman arguments when dealing with atheists. If anything, it only hurts their case. I think it is very important to deal with things logically, admit where the other person's opinion comes from, and then address it.

This being said, one strawman argument Christians use is the following. They say that atheists must really hate God in order to say that God doesn't exist. They say that they don't even hate Stalin and Hitler as much as they hate God. Because they don't deny Stalin's and Hitler's existence, yet they deny God's existence.

I think this claim is simply not true. 99% of people would hate Stalin and Hitler more than God. Just ask them and see The reason they deny God's existence but they don't deny Hitler's and Stalin's existence is very simple. Hitler and Stalin made their existence tangible. God didn't. Hating Stalin and Hitler won't make people want to deny their existence: on the contrary their survival instinct would make them want to acknowledge their existence so that they can hide from them (at least if they lived at their time). But in Gods case its exact opposite because, unlike them, God doesn't make His existence known and tangible.

By the way, this is also the real honest reason as to why people prefer material things over praying. Material things are tangible. Prayer isn't. So it has nothing to do with liking material things more than liking God. If God were to speak in audible voice, the way He spoke in Genesis, maybe God would be more important than various material things. But since God doesn't speak in audible voice the way He used to, nor does He provide anything else tangible the way He used to, then its no wonder why people put him far from the top of their priority list.

And even the whole business with calling Christians bigots is related to this too. Most people don't call nutritionists bigots when they are telling them not to eat sweets, yet they call Christians bigots when they tell them something that would keep them out of hell. Christians would make a strawman argument that its because they hate God. No its not. The real reason is because if someone doesn't listen to nutritionists, they can come back 20 years later with a big regret about it. But if someone doesn't listen to Christians, they will only regret it once they go to hell, and at that point they can't come back from hell to tell about it.

Again, to reiterate: I am a Christian. The only reason I sound like an atheist in the above arguments is because I don't believe in using strawman arguments. I think it is very important to understand that atheists do have a point, in order to intelligently address it.

Now, lets address the above arguments (without strawman) from a Christian viewpoint. So, the key point in the above examples is that the root of atheism is the fact that God is not tangible. Now, ask yourself: why is that? Bible provides an answer. God used to be tangible in the early days, but then He became intangible due to human sin. So now we have a vicious cycle. Human sin makes God choose to be intangible, God being intangible makes people doubt His existence, which in turn causes people to sin even more, which in turn causes God to be even more intangible, and so forth. Now, that is biblical. The extreme version of this is when God makes it outright impossible for people to believe in Him by sending strong delusion (2 Thess 2:11). Now, like I just said, "strong delusion" is an extreme case. But then there are other cases, less extreme, when God doesn't make it "impossible" to believe, but simply makes it "harder". One example of this would be Jesus speaking in parables. A lot of people assume He spoke in parables in order to make it easier to understand. But if you read the plain text of Matthew 13:10-16, you will see that Jesus said that its the exact opposite: He spoke in parables in order to purposely hide the true meaning of what He was trying to say. Does it make it impossible to believe when true meaning is hidden? Not necessarily. One can still believe and say its a mystery to pray about (and we hear a lot of Christians saying they believe yet admitting that things like trinity and some other stuff are mysteries). But it certainly makes it harder to believe. Similarly, when God gives people over to depraved mind in Romans 1:24-28, it doesn't necesserely makes it impossible for them to believe either: after all, Paul then proceeds to offering them the solution of how to escape said depraved mind (in contrast to strong delusion in 2 Thess 2:11 when there is no solution since at that point its too late). Did God have to do it this way? Not necessarily. But it is Gods choice to punish non-belief/disobedience by making it progressively harder and harder to believe until, finally, one reaches a point of no return (either by getting strong delusion of 2 Thess 2:11 or by dying).

So then we see why God is not tangible (both to nonbelievers and believers): because, clearly, we are a lot more sinful than people used to be. And the fact that believers don't have tangible encounters with God is an evidenc in that direction. But the fact that believers have some sort of spiritual experience while atheists do not is simply saying that atheists disobeyed God more so God punished them more. In other words, atheism is not necesserely a choice but instead it is God's punishment for person's disobedience in other ways. Now, atheism does have a component of a choice. Because an atheist can say "yes, it is hard to believe in God because I never had any encounters, but I am going to make a free will decision to believe anyway" (which is possible to do, since Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is a belief in things not seen). However, God made it harder for atheists by withdrawing Himself from them. So while its possible to believe in things not seen, it is certainly harder to do than to believe in things seen. So while atheists "can" believe in God if they "really" try super hard, its harder for them to do so than to Christians from whom God didn't withdraw. Thats why I would say atheism is a combination of human choice to be an atheist and Gods choice to withdraw Himself due to other since (not involving atheism). So to say its only the former and not the latter is a strawman. On the flipside you have Calvinists that say its the latter and not the former. That would be unfair. I say its a combination of both.

And this also can be extended to homosexuality. Christians argue that homosexuality is a choice. That doesn't make sense. First of all, as someone straight, I can't choose to be gay. So I don't see how it can be a choice for someone else, unless that other person happened to be bisexual (and bisexuality isn't a choice either, since I can't choose to be bisexual even if I wanted to). Secondly, even if it was a choice, I don't see why would someone want to choose to be gay anyway, particularly since gays are looked down upon. I guess some might make that choice out of rebellion (like satanists do) but then homosexuality would be a lot less common than it is. Now, here is a real, biblical, reason for homosexuality, that doesn't involve choice to be gay. And it is at the end of Romans 1. If you read the end of Romans 1, what you find is that people were involved in some other sins and then, as a punishment for those other sins, God gave them over to depraved mind which, among other things, caused them to become gay. One example of other sins Bible mentions is worshipping creation rather than creator. So picture the following. Someone, who is straight, decides to worship idols. God repeatedly warns that person against idolatry, but that person persists. Then eventually God punishes that person by making that person gay. So then that person didn't choose to be gay: that person chose to worship idols. But God made that person gay in response to that person's choice to worshipping idols. So was that person born gay? No, because that person didn't have a chance to worship idols in their mothers womb. Yet, that person didn't choose to be gay either: being gay is God's punishment for that person's idolatry. And by the way its not my theory; this is something I read directly out of Romans 1. I don't see why other Christians not notice it.

Now, would this thread prove to atheists they are wrong? No. Because atheists can still argue that there is no God altogether and the above theory is just a convenient way for Christians to explain why what they claim to exist isn't tangible. However, at the same time, this thread would disprove atheist argument that Christians are wrong. In other words, we now have two logical possibilities. One logical possibility is that atheists are right and this whole thing is just explaining away of why we don't see God. But the other possibility is that Christians are right and the reason we can't see God is God's choice to respond to our sins. So since we still have those two logial possibilities, we still have to look at other arguments on both sides that are beyond the scope of this thread. But at least this thread will show atheists that there is a logical possibility that Christians are right, even though its at a level of logical possibility rather than certainty.

 

[d taylor]

-

​

What is the deal with atheist, do christian think they score more points with God if they conquer an atheist.

There are thousands of people looking for God's free gift of Eternal Life. they just need believers who can tell them how to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life (by belief in Jesus). Too bad many are being over looked because Christians want to go after the big prizes.

 

[Roman57]

-

​

What is the deal with atheist, do christian think they score more points with God if they conquer an atheist.

There are thousands of people looking for God's free gift of Eternal Life. they just need believers who can tell them how to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life (by belief in Jesus). Too bad many are being over looked because Christians want to go after the big prizes.

I can't speak for others, but in my case I am a theoretical physicist so I need everything to be nice and logical in order to get myself to believe in it. I will be honest. I chose to believe in God out of fear of hell. But then I ran into all those intellectual obstacles against it. So I had to address those obstacles to find a way to get myself to believe. So, if there is someone else who is a seeker with similar mindset as me, the above discussion would be helpful.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am a Christian. However, I must say that Christians oftentimes use strawman arguments when dealing with atheists. If anything, it only hurts their case. I think it is very important to deal with things logically, admit where the other person's opinion comes from, and then address it.

True enough.

This being said, one strawman argument Christians use is the following. They say that atheists must really hate God in order to say that God doesn't exist. They say that they don't even hate Stalin and Hitler as much as they hate God. Because they don't deny Stalin's and Hitler's existence, yet they deny God's existence.

I think this claim is simply not true. 99% of people would hate Stalin and Hitler more than God. Just ask them and see The reason they deny God's existence but they don't deny Hitler's and Stalin's existence is very simple. Hitler and Stalin made their existence tangible. God didn't. Hating Stalin and Hitler won't make people want to deny their existence: on the contrary their survival instinct would make them want to acknowledge their existence so that they can hide from them (at least if they lived at their time). But in Gods case its exact opposite because, unlike them, God doesn't make His existence known and tangible.

There's something to this that you say, though I could easily enough show the claim is true, according to Scripture. The problem is that the atheist will see it as false. They have no concept of what 'enmity with God' entails. To them, God is only another of many concepts, that they are able to consider at their leisure, that must fit their ability to conceive of and, for many of them, their ability to describe. To them, yes, the claim is a strawman.

By the way, this is also the real honest reason as to why people prefer material things over praying. Material things are tangible. Prayer isn't. So it has nothing to do with liking material things more than liking God. If God were to speak in audible voice, the way He spoke in Genesis, maybe God would be more important than various material things. But since God doesn't speak in audible voice the way He used to, nor does He provide anything else tangible the way He used to, then its no wonder why people put him far from the top of their priority list.

Well, it's one of the reasons, anyway. Seems to me a bit simplistic to say that it is THE reason.

And even the whole business with calling Christians bigots is related to this too. Most people don't call nutritionists bigots when they are telling them not to eat sweets, yet they call Christians bigots when they tell them something that would keep them out of hell. Christians would make a strawman argument that its because they hate God. No its not. The real reason is because if someone doesn't listen to nutritionists, they can come back 20 years later with a big regret about it. But if someone doesn't listen to Christians, they will only regret it once they go to hell, and at that point they can't come back from hell to tell about it.

Again, to reiterate: I am a Christian. The only reason I sound like an atheist in the above arguments is because I don't believe in using strawman arguments. I think it is very important to understand that atheists do have a point, in order to intelligently address it.

Now, lets address the above arguments (without strawman) from a Christian viewpoint. So, the key point in the above examples is that the root of atheism is the fact that God is not tangible.

Well, no. That is what they say (and think) is at the root. But it is far more insidious than that. Atheists are not merely rational creatures.

Now, ask yourself: why is that? Bible provides an answer. God used to be tangible in the early days, but then He became intangible due to human sin. So now we have a vicious cycle. Human sin makes God choose to be intangible, God being intangible makes people doubt His existence, which in turn causes people to sin even more, which in turn causes God to be even more intangible, and so forth. Now, that is biblical. The extreme version of this is when God makes it outright impossible for people to believe in Him by sending strong delusion (2 Thess 2:11). Now, like I just said, "strong delusion" is an extreme case. But then there are other cases, less extreme, when God doesn't make it "impossible" to believe, but simply makes it "harder". One example of this would be Jesus speaking in parables. A lot of people assume He spoke in parables in order to make it easier to understand. But if you read the plain text of Matthew 13:10-16, you will see that Jesus said that its the exact opposite: He spoke in parables in order to purposely hide the true meaning of what He was trying to say. Does it make it impossible to believe when true meaning is hidden? Not necessarily. One can still believe and say its a mystery to pray about (and we hear a lot of Christians saying they believe yet admitting that things like trinity and some other stuff are mysteries). But it certainly makes it harder to believe. Similarly, when God gives people over to depraved mind in Romans 1:24-28, it doesn't necesserely makes it impossible for them to believe either: after all, Paul then proceeds to offering them the solution of how to escape said depraved mind (in contrast to strong delusion in 2 Thess 2:11 when there is no solution since at that point its too late). Did God have to do it this way? Not necessarily. But it is Gods choice to punish non-belief/disobedience by making it progressively harder and harder to believe until, finally, one reaches a point of no return (either by getting strong delusion of 2 Thess 2:11 or by dying).

So then we see why God is not tangible (both to nonbelievers and believers): because, clearly, we are a lot more sinful than people used to be. And the fact that believers don't have tangible encounters with God is an evidenc in that direction. But the fact that believers have some sort of spiritual experience while atheists do not is simply saying that atheists disobeyed God more so God punished them more. In other words, atheism is not necesserely a choice but instead it is God's punishment for person's disobedience in other ways. Now, atheism does have a component of a choice. Because an atheist can say "yes, it is hard to believe in God because I never had any encounters, but I am going to make a free will decision to believe anyway" (which is possible to do, since Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is a belief in things not seen). However, God made it harder for atheists by withdrawing Himself from them. So while its possible to believe in things not seen, it is certainly harder to do than to believe in things seen. So while atheists "can" believe in God if they "really" try super hard, its harder for them to do so than to Christians from whom God didn't withdraw. Thats why I would say atheism is a combination of human choice to be an atheist and Gods choice to withdraw Himself due to other since (not involving atheism). So to say its only the former and not the latter is a strawman. On the flipside you have Calvinists that say its the latter and not the former. That would be unfair. I say its a combination of both.

And this also can be extended to homosexuality. Christians argue that homosexuality is a choice. That doesn't make sense. First of all, as someone straight, I can't choose to be gay. So I don't see how it can be a choice for someone else, unless that other person happened to be bisexual (and bisexuality isn't a choice either, since I can't choose to be bisexual even if I wanted to). Secondly, even if it was a choice, I don't see why would someone want to choose to be gay anyway, particularly since gays are looked down upon. I guess some might make that choice out of rebellion (like satanists do) but then homosexuality would be a lot less common than it is. Now, here is a real, biblical, reason for homosexuality, that doesn't involve choice to be gay. And it is at the end of Romans 1. If you read the end of Romans 1, what you find is that people were involved in some other sins and then, as a punishment for those other sins, God gave them over to depraved mind which, among other things, caused them to become gay. One example of other sins Bible mentions is worshipping creation rather than creator. So picture the following. Someone, who is straight, decides to worship idols. God repeatedly warns that person against idolatry, but that person persists. Then eventually God punishes that person by making that person gay. So then that person didn't choose to be gay: that person chose to worship idols. But God made that person gay in response to that person's choice to worshipping idols. So was that person born gay? No, because that person didn't have a chance to worship idols in their mothers womb. Yet, that person didn't choose to be gay either: being gay is God's punishment for that person's idolatry. And by the way its not my theory; this is something I read directly out of Romans 1. I don't see why other Christians not notice it.

That's also rather simplistic. What the Bible condemns outright is the homosexual act —not so much what a person feels or is attracted to. (And, no, I don't say this at all to condone the modern notion that because a thing is [supposedly] natural, that it is not to be blamed or condemned, but rather celebrated and supported.) If I see a man behaving effeminately purposely, it doesn't mean he is doing the deed, but if he is pursuing that lifestyle, contrary to God's command, then yes, I call him homosexual, but even then, only God knows his heart and can rightly judge him.

Now, would this thread prove to atheists they are wrong? No. Because atheists can still argue that there is no God altogether and the above theory is just a convenient way for Christians to explain why what they claim to exist isn't tangible. However, at the same time, this thread would disprove atheist argument that Christians are wrong. In other words, we now have two logical possibilities. One logical possibility is that atheists are right and this whole thing is just explaining away of why we don't see God. But the other possibility is that Christians are right and the reason we can't see God is God's choice to respond to our sins. So since we still have those two logial possibilities, we still have to look at other arguments on both sides that are beyond the scope of this thread. But at least this thread will show atheists that there is a logical possibility that Christians are right, even though its at a level of logical possibility rather than certainty.

One thing Christians often say concerning atheists, that atheists would consider a strawman, is nevertheless a valid point; Christians will quote verses to the effect (in different passages and in different ways) that the things of God are foolishness to men, and the wisdom of man is foolishness to God. It is true —not a strawman— but useless in logical presentations against atheism, except in one that I find entirely logical: Most atheistic arguments against theism are based in naturalism, and more specifically, based in the notions of the centrality and importance of the human being: self-determinism; the worthiness of the human's epistemic reasoning and assumptions, and related, but most outrageous, perhaps, the notion that words actually are THE description of a thing, carrying validity of their own. You hear, "Words mean things", but according to God, our words are silly. We are clueless. "The babble we think we mean", is an apt phrase from CS Lewis.

But most ironic is the fact that the atheist is unable to consider a scenario in which the "raw", or "default" fact, from which all other fact descends, is God himself. Philosophically (i.e. logically), the atheist should be able to admit this —that if God exists, then our reasoning is blind grasping, and relatively meaningless, and from a wrong point-of-view. FACT is only what God sees —not what humans see.

Related, and as a side note to accompany your point concerning strawman arguments, is the notion that Atheists present in attempting to slip out of the Christian claim that atheists hate God, is their claim of neutrality: "We don't believe there is no God", they say, "we only fail to believe there is a God." Well, I'm sorry, but that is a false presentation. They think they are actually capable of neutral thought, but that is not so, according to Scripture.

One thing I like to tell such people, is that what they take for intellectual integrity, rarely goes so far as to acknowledge the logical implication, that if God does exist, then we are subject to and answerable to him. They always, but for the grace of God, turn away from honest thoughts of God any way they can.

One more thing. There are theists, deists, and 'Christians', who are in fact worse than atheists. It is not God that they believe in, but theory and concepts of their own making. Constructs that even may melt their heart, and produce vehement strong emotions, but are only idols. There are others whose systematic theology rules their heart. And these too, only God judges in the end; their peers cannot judge them. Like some atheists, what they say is not a good representation of what they think, and they may be hiding what is in their heart, for whatever reasons. Only God knows.

 

[d taylor]

I can't speak for others, but in my case I am a theoretical physicist so I need everything to be nice and logical in order to get myself to believe in it. I will be honest. I chose to believe in God out of fear of hell. But then I ran into all those intellectual obstacles against it. So I had to address those obstacles to find a way to get myself to believe. So, if there is someone else who is a seeker with similar mindset as me, the above discussion would be helpful.

-
​

But that is not what God is offering a get out of hell ticket and becoming a Christian out of fear of hell you may actually miss what God is offering.

Which is the free gift of Eternal Life. This gift is not receive by becoming a christian out of fear of hell.

It is received when a person believes Jesus is who He says He is (the name). Which is the promised Messiah/Son of God, the resurrection and the life. When a person believes this truth about Jesus then and only then do they become a born again child of God and immediately at the moment of faith in Jesus cross over from death to life.

So no proof of science will be of help in this matter. It is basically a black and white issue, a person either after reading The Bible's testimony about Jesus and who He (Jesus) says He is. Does the person believe The Bible's witness.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Roman57 said:
I can't speak for others, but in my case I am a theoretical physicist so I need everything to be nice and logical in order to get myself to believe in it. I will be honest. I chose to believe in God out of fear of hell. But then I ran into all those intellectual obstacles against it. So I had to address those obstacles to find a way to get myself to believe. So, if there is someone else who is a seeker with similar mindset as me, the above discussion would be helpful.

But that is not what God is offering a get out of hell ticket and becoming a Christian out of fear of hell you may actually miss what God is offering.


Which is the free gift of Eternal Life. This gift is not receive by becoming a christian out of fear of hell.

It is received when a person believes Jesus is who He says He is (the name). Which is the promised Messiah/Son of God, the resurrection and the life. When a person believes this truth about Jesus then and only then do they become a born again child of God and immediately at the moment of faith in Jesus cross over from death to life.

So no proof of science will be of help in this matter. It is basically a black and white issue, a person either after reading The Bible's testimony about Jesus and who he says He is. Does the person believe The Bible's witness.

@Roman57 , don't let him frighten you. One is born again by the grace of God, the work of God, the Spirit of God, and not by human decision. Your (and @d taylor's) epistemological experiences are not trustworthy evidence of HOW a person is saved. The epistemological experiences may be evidence of the fact of salvation, but not the cause of it.

 

[zippy2006]

This being said, one strawman argument Christians use is the following. They say that atheists must really hate God in order to say that God doesn't exist. They say that they don't even hate Stalin and Hitler as much as they hate God. Because they don't deny Stalin's and Hitler's existence, yet they deny God's existence.

This seems to be a strawman you are engaged in. I have never seen such a thing.

A strawman is the attribution of a facile argument to your interlocutor, which they themselves do not hold. What you are doing in this post is a kind of strawman or meta-strawman. The way to avoid such a thing is to talk and listen to real people, and not to make up positions in your head and then attribute those positions to those you are speaking to. When you address Christians and say, "You argue that atheists must hate God more than Stalin or Hitler," you are engaged in a strawman. I would suggest responding to objections you find problematic without attributing those objections to the people you are engaged with.

 

[Roman57]

This seems to be a strawman you are engaged in. I have never seen such a thing.

A strawman is the attribution of a facile argument to your interlocutor, which they themselves do not hold. What you are doing in this post is a kind of strawman or meta-strawman. The way to avoid such a thing is to talk and listen to real people, and not to make up positions in your head and then attribute those positions to those you are speaking to. When you address Christians and say, "You argue that atheists must hate God more than Stalin or Hitler," you are engaged in a strawman. I would suggest responding to objections you find problematic without attributing those objections to the people you are engaged with.

I actually heard them using that argument, its just less common than other arguments. The reason I didn't cite my sources is that it was a long time ago and I don't remember when it was.

Now I can see why you might assume they only made that argument rhetorically and not literally. However, I have another example when I assumed an argument was rhetoric but it turned out to be literal. I remember a sermon (possibly the same one I mentioned earlier, actually) when a pastor said "look at how they hate God that they use God as a cuss word; they don't even hate Hitler or Stalin to that extend since they aren't using Hitler or Stalin as a cuss word". I took it as rhetoric, because I didn't realize there are Christians who literally avoid using O-M-G expression. I assumed everyone uses O-M-G that pastor including, he was just making a rhetoric point. Then few years later, I had a big fight with my then-girlfriend over my saying O-M-G. I was thinking she isn't realizing I wasn't literally talking of God and it was just a big misunderstanding between me and her. But then the next day when I finally calmed down and looked it up, I realized that there is a group of Christians who hold that view that one shouldn't say O-M-G and I was the one who didn't know it because I was raised Jewish.

So maybe the comparisons between God, Stalin and Hitler are also more literal than they seem. But even if they aren't; at the very least, Christians do claim that atheists hate God.

 

[Ted-01]

How do you harmonize this idea:

But in Gods case its exact opposite because, unlike them, God doesn't make His existence known and tangible.

With this one:

Romans 1:18-20 ESV
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

[Roman57]

How do you harmonize this idea:



With this one:

Romans 1:18-20 ESV
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

I would say that there are different levels of knowledge. On one level God made Himself apparent, yet on a different level He didn't.

One of my favorite videos is this:

I am not talking about the second part, not even the end of the first part (by that point he makes lots of extra assumptions that ruins the beauty of the logic he started out with). But I am super-impressed with the beginning of that video, just the logic of it. Because he says that the Jews "lie" that they believe in the Old Testament, yet they don't -- and he provides the evidence that they don't based off of how they answer various questions about its various parts when they say they are symbolic and so forth. But, wait a second, if they supposedly lie that they believe in it, why would they honestly admit that they don't when they answer the questions he cited them answering? I thought liars would continue lying if you probe them further. Especially since it wasn't a "slip of a tongue" but rather its the way they consistently answer those questions, not just when he asked that one time, but its part of Jewish thought in general? What this underscores is that there is a different level of lying. They are not lying in a usual sense (so I don't get mad at them the way I would get mad at people who lie in your usual way) yet they lie in a different way. And that is precisely what I like about that video. Because he doesn't make a strawman argument. He acknowledges they aren't lying, yet he says they still are, because the notion of a lying is defined differently.

So now with this in mind I can go back to answer your question about Romans 1. I guess God made his presence known in some level but not in the other level. So non-believers are honest that they don't believe in God, yet on a different level they are lying, while in our usual sense they don't.

In fact, the verse he starts out with, "who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ", is about that very question. On the surface, this verse seems to imply that non-believers know perfectly well that Jesus is the Christ, they just lie when they say otherwise. And this idea seems absurd because I know lots of non-believers who sound honest and I don't think they are lying to me. But that video addresses it beautifully. He never once said that Jews know Jesus is the Christ and lie that he isn't. Instead, he said they lie about lots of other things, all pertaining to Old testament, not the new. And also his definition of a lie is different from secular definition of a lie because, from secular viewpoint, they aren't lying, as evident from him having honest conversation with them that he cites.

Since the "lie" of non-believer is logically linked to God making his presence plain, then I can argue that just like non-believer lies in a figurative way but not in our secular sense, in the same way God's presence is plain in some other level but not in the usual secular understanding of something being plain.

 

[eleos1954]

I am a Christian. However, I must say that Christians oftentimes use strawman arguments when dealing with atheists. If anything, it only hurts their case. I think it is very important to deal with things logically, admit where the other person's opinion comes from, and then address it.

This being said, one strawman argument Christians use is the following. They say that atheists must really hate God in order to say that God doesn't exist. They say that they don't even hate Stalin and Hitler as much as they hate God. Because they don't deny Stalin's and Hitler's existence, yet they deny God's existence.

I think this claim is simply not true. 99% of people would hate Stalin and Hitler more than God. Just ask them and see The reason they deny God's existence but they don't deny Hitler's and Stalin's existence is very simple. Hitler and Stalin made their existence tangible. God didn't. Hating Stalin and Hitler won't make people want to deny their existence: on the contrary their survival instinct would make them want to acknowledge their existence so that they can hide from them (at least if they lived at their time). But in Gods case its exact opposite because, unlike them, God doesn't make His existence known and tangible.

By the way, this is also the real honest reason as to why people prefer material things over praying. Material things are tangible. Prayer isn't. So it has nothing to do with liking material things more than liking God. If God were to speak in audible voice, the way He spoke in Genesis, maybe God would be more important than various material things. But since God doesn't speak in audible voice the way He used to, nor does He provide anything else tangible the way He used to, then its no wonder why people put him far from the top of their priority list.

And even the whole business with calling Christians bigots is related to this too. Most people don't call nutritionists bigots when they are telling them not to eat sweets, yet they call Christians bigots when they tell them something that would keep them out of hell. Christians would make a strawman argument that its because they hate God. No its not. The real reason is because if someone doesn't listen to nutritionists, they can come back 20 years later with a big regret about it. But if someone doesn't listen to Christians, they will only regret it once they go to hell, and at that point they can't come back from hell to tell about it.

Again, to reiterate: I am a Christian. The only reason I sound like an atheist in the above arguments is because I don't believe in using strawman arguments. I think it is very important to understand that atheists do have a point, in order to intelligently address it.

Now, lets address the above arguments (without strawman) from a Christian viewpoint. So, the key point in the above examples is that the root of atheism is the fact that God is not tangible. Now, ask yourself: why is that? Bible provides an answer. God used to be tangible in the early days, but then He became intangible due to human sin. So now we have a vicious cycle. Human sin makes God choose to be intangible, God being intangible makes people doubt His existence, which in turn causes people to sin even more, which in turn causes God to be even more intangible, and so forth. Now, that is biblical. The extreme version of this is when God makes it outright impossible for people to believe in Him by sending strong delusion (2 Thess 2:11). Now, like I just said, "strong delusion" is an extreme case. But then there are other cases, less extreme, when God doesn't make it "impossible" to believe, but simply makes it "harder". One example of this would be Jesus speaking in parables. A lot of people assume He spoke in parables in order to make it easier to understand. But if you read the plain text of Matthew 13:10-16, you will see that Jesus said that its the exact opposite: He spoke in parables in order to purposely hide the true meaning of what He was trying to say. Does it make it impossible to believe when true meaning is hidden? Not necessarily. One can still believe and say its a mystery to pray about (and we hear a lot of Christians saying they believe yet admitting that things like trinity and some other stuff are mysteries). But it certainly makes it harder to believe. Similarly, when God gives people over to depraved mind in Romans 1:24-28, it doesn't necesserely makes it impossible for them to believe either: after all, Paul then proceeds to offering them the solution of how to escape said depraved mind (in contrast to strong delusion in 2 Thess 2:11 when there is no solution since at that point its too late). Did God have to do it this way? Not necessarily. But it is Gods choice to punish non-belief/disobedience by making it progressively harder and harder to believe until, finally, one reaches a point of no return (either by getting strong delusion of 2 Thess 2:11 or by dying).

So then we see why God is not tangible (both to nonbelievers and believers): because, clearly, we are a lot more sinful than people used to be. And the fact that believers don't have tangible encounters with God is an evidenc in that direction. But the fact that believers have some sort of spiritual experience while atheists do not is simply saying that atheists disobeyed God more so God punished them more. In other words, atheism is not necesserely a choice but instead it is God's punishment for person's disobedience in other ways. Now, atheism does have a component of a choice. Because an atheist can say "yes, it is hard to believe in God because I never had any encounters, but I am going to make a free will decision to believe anyway" (which is possible to do, since Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is a belief in things not seen). However, God made it harder for atheists by withdrawing Himself from them. So while its possible to believe in things not seen, it is certainly harder to do than to believe in things seen. So while atheists "can" believe in God if they "really" try super hard, its harder for them to do so than to Christians from whom God didn't withdraw. Thats why I would say atheism is a combination of human choice to be an atheist and Gods choice to withdraw Himself due to other since (not involving atheism). So to say its only the former and not the latter is a strawman. On the flipside you have Calvinists that say its the latter and not the former. That would be unfair. I say its a combination of both.

And this also can be extended to homosexuality. Christians argue that homosexuality is a choice. That doesn't make sense. First of all, as someone straight, I can't choose to be gay. So I don't see how it can be a choice for someone else, unless that other person happened to be bisexual (and bisexuality isn't a choice either, since I can't choose to be bisexual even if I wanted to). Secondly, even if it was a choice, I don't see why would someone want to choose to be gay anyway, particularly since gays are looked down upon. I guess some might make that choice out of rebellion (like satanists do) but then homosexuality would be a lot less common than it is. Now, here is a real, biblical, reason for homosexuality, that doesn't involve choice to be gay. And it is at the end of Romans 1. If you read the end of Romans 1, what you find is that people were involved in some other sins and then, as a punishment for those other sins, God gave them over to depraved mind which, among other things, caused them to become gay. One example of other sins Bible mentions is worshipping creation rather than creator. So picture the following. Someone, who is straight, decides to worship idols. God repeatedly warns that person against idolatry, but that person persists. Then eventually God punishes that person by making that person gay. So then that person didn't choose to be gay: that person chose to worship idols. But God made that person gay in response to that person's choice to worshipping idols. So was that person born gay? No, because that person didn't have a chance to worship idols in their mothers womb. Yet, that person didn't choose to be gay either: being gay is God's punishment for that person's idolatry. And by the way its not my theory; this is something I read directly out of Romans 1. I don't see why other Christians not notice it.

Now, would this thread prove to atheists they are wrong? No. Because atheists can still argue that there is no God altogether and the above theory is just a convenient way for Christians to explain why what they claim to exist isn't tangible. However, at the same time, this thread would disprove atheist argument that Christians are wrong. In other words, we now have two logical possibilities. One logical possibility is that atheists are right and this whole thing is just explaining away of why we don't see God. But the other possibility is that Christians are right and the reason we can't see God is God's choice to respond to our sins. So since we still have those two logial possibilities, we still have to look at other arguments on both sides that are beyond the scope of this thread. But at least this thread will show atheists that there is a logical possibility that Christians are right, even though its at a level of logical possibility rather than certainty.

It's about creation (as described in Genesis) or evolution.

If there is a creator (God) then there is accountability to that creator ... if not ... then basically anything goes. Now that is not to say that all atheists do not have moral values .... many of them do (their conscience). The truly lost do not have a moral conscience nor belief in God and these are the folks that will do diabolic things ... this group also includes some "professed" believers in God .... wolves in sheeps clothing.

The gospel is nearly complete to going out to the entire world and people are in decision mode .... when all decisions have been made the Lord will return. He will allow a significant amount of pain and suffering because He wants to give everyone time to make a decision. We have very painful and very difficult times ahead, until His return.

Regardless ... Ours is to keep getting the message out to the world ... who does or does not accept the message is up to them.

I look forward to His return and ends this mess for eternity.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Many/some atheist are ex-church goers, some may even be a born again child of God. just one that has fallen away from the faith and God. So these atheist that are born again, can not receive The Life of God. As they already have it, but a believer may restore them back into fellowship with God their Father.

Science does not revel God's creation (the one in The Bible) science revels the creation man (science) has created.

 

[dogs4thewin]

MOD HAT on

thread moved to a better forum

Mod hat off

 

[Derf]

-

​

What is the deal with atheist, do christian think they score more points with God if they conquer an atheist.

There are thousands of people looking for God's free gift of Eternal Life. they just need believers who can tell them how to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life (by belief in Jesus). Too bad many are being over looked because Christians want to go after the big prizes.

An atheist has to stop being an atheist in order to legitimately receive any of God's gifts.
Hebrews 11:6 KJV — But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[d taylor]

An atheist has to stop being an atheist in order to legitimately receive any of God's gifts.
Hebrews 11:6 KJV — But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

-
​

Yes to believe in Jesus for Eternal Life they would have to believe in The God of The Bible. I do not think i ever said an atheist can receive God's free gift of Eternal Life and not believe in The God of The Bible.

 

[Derf]

-
​

Yes to believe in Jesus for Eternal Life they would have to believe in The God of The Bible. I do not think i ever said an atheist can receive God's free gift of Eternal Life and not believe in The God of The Bible.

So, to convert an atheist includes making him not an atheist. But that's not much different than converting a murderer--he has to acknowledge his sin and repent.

 

[d taylor]

So, to convert an atheist includes making him not an atheist. But that's not much different than converting a murderer--he has to acknowledge his sin and repent.

-
​

Nope not the same. The murder may believe in The God of The Bible, he just may have never believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life. Repentance is not a condition to become a born again child of God.

The atheist has to move from unbelief to belief that The God of The Bible is The true God. So what the atheist has to do is to view the evidence The Bible presents about God/Jesus as being true and not as being untrue as he/she currently believes.

When the atheist comes to believe the evidence The Bible is presenting (about God/Jesus) is true and has been correctly taught that to receive Eternal Life is by believing in Jesus. Believing Jesus is who He says He is The promised Messiah/Son of God, the resurrection and the life. Then they simply become a born again child of God because they now view the evidence presented by The Bible as true. So when a person views evidence as true, they already believe. They do not have to decide to believe.

Now an atheist can come to believe in God (of The Bible) and believe God exist and is real, but if the atheist never believes in Jesus. Believing in God and that there is a God is no good in receiving Eternal life.

 

[Niels]

It seems to me that straw man fallacies are often unintentional. What one side calls a strawman may genuinely be what the other side believes to be the opposing position. Perhaps based on previous discussions with different people who aren't part of the present conversation, or maybe based on a book they read.

In order to minimize using a strawman, you need to know not only your own position but the specific positions of the individuals that you're interacting with. You need to know their position well enough that they will agree that what you say is, in fact, their position. Know and express their best argument as they would like it to be presented. This is called a steelman. See if they can likewise articulate yours.

If both you and the Atheist can steelman each other's positions, that lowers (but doesn't totally eliminate) the odds that one will accuse the other of using a strawman. Sometimes, a successful discussion simply amounts to understanding each others' positions.

As with Christians, not all Atheists arrive at their conclusions the same way. People have wide ranging life experiences and prioritize different things. What may be considered important by one may not be considered important by another. This can also influence what one considers a strawman to be. For instance, if one side misrepresents something as crucial to the other side's argument but the other side couldn't care less about that thing.

 

[Roman57]

It seems to me that straw man fallacies are often unintentional. What one side calls a strawman may genuinely be what the other side believes to be the opposing position. Perhaps based on previous discussions with different people who aren't part of the present conversation, or maybe based on a book they read.

I agree and thats super frustrating. I am not atheist, but I experienced that same sort of thing when people assume stuff because I am foreigner or because I have Asperger.

"Perhaps based on previous discussions with different people" WOW. So I am supposed to continue a discussion I wasn't a part of??? I am not those other people, I am my own unique person!

"Or maybe based on a book they read". Then show me a book and ask me if it applies to me! Don't just assume!

 

[Derf]

-
​

Nope not the same. The murder may believe in The God of The Bible, he just may have never believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life. Repentance is not a condition to become a born again child of God.

The atheist has to move from unbelief to belief that The God of The Bible is The true God. So what the atheist has to do is to view the evidence The Bible presents about God/Jesus as being true and not as being untrue as he/she currently believes.

When the atheist comes to believe the evidence The Bible is presenting (about God/Jesus) is true and has been correctly taught that to receive Eternal Life is by believing in Jesus. Believing Jesus is who He says He is The promised Messiah/Son of God, the resurrection and the life. Then they simply become a born again child of God because they now view the evidence presented by The Bible as true. So when a person views evidence as true, they already believe. They do not have to decide to believe.

Now an atheist can come to believe in God (of The Bible) and believe God exist and is real, but if the atheist never believes in Jesus. Believing in God and that there is a God is no good in receiving Eternal life.

I didn't say it was the same, just similar. But a murderer doesn't acknowledge God's rule over his actions, but chooses to be a god unto himself, choosing for himself what is right v wrong. That part is the same as the atheist, and the same as Adam and Eve in the Garden.