How Do You Respond to Atheists?

[April_Rose]

Hello. Is there something specific that atheists are saying that is giving you trouble? Keep in mind also that the majority of atheists in this forum are not interested at all if you make a good point, they are just in love with arguing.

Good point but I think you already know since you're a part of the topic that I'm referring to. (PM me if you really don't know.)

 

[Jipsah]

I share with them the story of my life and how my faith has helped me..

The problem with there is that almost everyone can give an account of something that has helped them, be it Christianity, Islam, meditation, diet, exercise, communing with or escaping from nature, pets, sex, abstinence fron sex, yodeling, ad infinitum. The atheist isn't saying that the Christian faith isn't beneficial, he's saying that it isn't true. Arguing that you found that Christianity makes you happy means nothing, a few good friends and a bottle of Laphroaig may do that. The atheist is arguing that God doesn't exist, for good or ill.

And for good or ill, my response to atheism is to laugh it to scorn. The idea that the universe is simply a vast collection of particles and energies that came from nowhere is, on its face, absurd.

In the beginning, there was nothing. The universe didn't exist. Then there was a singularity. The singularity wasn't anywhere, because there wasn't yet anywhere for it to be. How the singularity came to be is unknown, it simply happened. Then, for some unknown reason, the singularity exploded in The Big Bang, creating the universe and everything in it. How all that universe stuff that wasn't anywhere came to be there is unknown, but it is an article of faith in the atheist religion. Following the Big Bang, all the random particles and energies that constituted the universe began to organize themselves into more and more complex forms. Why this would have happened is unknown, but it is an article of faith in the atheist religion. Over trillions of years, the random coalescense of universe stuff had organized itself into stars, which organized themselves into galaxies, threw off planets, collected their planets around themselves, and formed solar systems. All these wheels within wheels arranged themselves in such a way that they moved within and around each other with clockwork precision. How all this could have takem place by sheer happenstance is unknown, but it is an article of faith in the atheist religion.

Once the mechanism had sufficiently "evolved" (i.e., accidentally fallen into place), it began to grow ever more complex. Roaming particles formed themselves into more and more complex structures, creating amino acids and crude proteins. Some of these proteins, when stimulated by random energies, and in the presense of certain other randomly formed chemical environments, became self-replicating, and began forming themselves into ever more complex organisms. These organisms, in the presense of the necessary particles and energies, "evolved" into increasingly complex forms, ultimately becoming plants and animals. How this may have happened is unknown, but it is an article of faith in the atheist religion.

In the course, of another few quintillian years, the original primitive lifeforms had evolved into Higher Animals. These animals randomly acquired properties that affected their immediate environment, with results that either caused or prevented the animals from producing copies of themselves. The ones that produced copies did so. and the copies also produced copies. The copies of copies did the same, adapting, or failing to adapt, to their ambient environment as then did so. So these packets of random particles and energies made more, and better, packets of particles and energies, each generation becoming increasingly more complex and increasingly more improbable, until they culminated in the Great Apes, and from there to Human Beings.

All the lower lower animals are variations on a theme - programmable boxes that create more programmable boxes for as long as the environment supports them, at which point the more capable ones move around until they hit an evironment that doesn't kill them, or they die. They are "smart" clusters of particles and energies. The next higher animals have more advanced programability, and can "learn" by storing different responses to different stimuli. So the dog may find and store the observation that if it sits down when it hears a specific sound it will receive food. In the end, it's still a collection of particles and energies collected at random and groiuped into a form we call "dog".

Human beings are simply the most advanced programmable units of energy and matter. Their computing power is such that they can store a great deal of data about their surrounding that allows them to adapt to a wide variety of environments. They're capable of a great many amazing tricks. But in the end, they are still masses of randomly collected particles and energies. Everything they do, everything they say, everything they know, everything they believe, everything they don't believe, All that you touch and all that you see
All that you taste, all you feel And all that you love and all that you hate
All you distrust, all you save And all that you give and all that you deal
And all that you buy, beg, borrow, or steal And all you create and all you destroy
And all that you do and all that you say (apologies to Pink Floyd) are simply responses to stimuli.

We are our environment. There is no such thing as objectivity, there is no such thing as a disinterested observer. We are phenomena, and just as much products of our environment as any other phenomenon. To say "I am right and you are wrong" is meaningless, neither of us is anything at all, save a bunch of charged particles. There is no God, but then again there is no "you" either. The idea that you're "talking" with "someone else" is jabberwocky. The idea that you know anything at all is an illusion. A=A is a meaningless as ramalamadingdong. Everything, everything, is the product of random chance. If you believe that humans are, or can be, objective observers of the universe, then you are accepting a myth, a myth that would have you believe that you have ever had, or will have, a single thought that didn't result from the ambient temperature, or how much sleep you had, or what you had to eat or drink, the phase of the moon, or what sox you put on this morning. You are a mechanism, with as much Free Will as an office doorknob.

Athiests, of course, are really no such thing. They make humanity, or themselves, into their own deities. The believe they stand apart from the universe, objective and untouched, and able to pronounce on matters of Truth and falsehood, Right and Wrong, as gods in their own realm. If fact, it; their wretched religiuon was true, they'd be trapped inside their own skulls, in a solipsistic universe, populated only by themselves and the ghosts of their imagination. Atheism is, in fact, the only self-refuting religion.

 

[rturner76]

Who question you on how you base your beliefs on faith and not actual facts? Cause I'm having that problem in another topic and I feel like I'm not a strong Christian when they tell me that I'm basing my faith on a bunch of lies and I can go to the library and find out they're right and my faith feels so weak. I love Jesus and I want to have strong faith in Him,.. but it's making me question and doubt myself of the possibility that they might be right and I'm scared of losing my salvation again.

Some people will disagree with this but you are not necessarily required to take all of Genesis literally. The six-day creation actually follows along the same lines as evolution but it is written that it took six days. The materials that our bodies are made of are found in the Earth so we can assume we are made of the Earth as it says in the Bible.

IMO (and my church), The books that make up the Bible are historical accounts, prophecy, instruction, and parables, Not all of it is littoral. In Christianity, I think how you behave, treat people, study, and pray is much more important than forcing yourself to believe that creation lore is pure fact.

More to the point of the OP, atheists usually think more in terms of science, which can be proven or observed. To that, I ask if they believe in cause and effect. The answer is always yes is fundamental. Every effect is the result of a cause and every cause has an effect. I believe "reality" or Earth is a creation. That is a result or an effect of God's will which is the cause. Basic cause and effect model at work.

They usually jeep going with "how was God created?" We know God is the Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end of everything. I don't engage much past that and they have never given me a scenario that makes more sense to me.

Great question for all of us to consider.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How Do You Respond to Atheists?

To answer the question of the thread:

Well, I make it a point now to never debate with atheists or agnostics. They are only looking to destroy your faith. That is their goal. So don't listen to them. Shut them down. Turn them off. They will never be convinced by any amount of evidence you show them unless something changes in their life that makes them open to the truth (Which is rare). Pray for them. But do not let them speak or make a point about anything.

Just preach the good news to them.

Preach the gospel message as mentioned 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and tell them to seek forgiveness with the Lord Jesus Christ and accept Him as their Savior. Beyond this is a waste of time. Remember, Matthew 10:14 says,

“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” (Matthew 10:14).

In other words, if they will not hear you, move on.
We walk by faith (in God's Word), and not by sight. We are not always going to have all the answers in this life.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@April_Rose

Jeffrey Dahmer (who was once an atheist) essentially said that if a person thinks there is no God, then there is no good reason to modify one's behavior. He also essentially stated in an interview that he has changed because he accepted Jesus. You can check out the interview here:

 

[mmksparbud]

Who question you on how you base your beliefs on faith and not actual facts? Cause I'm having that problem in another topic and I feel like I'm not a strong Christian when they tell me that I'm basing my faith on a bunch of lies and I can go to the library and find out they're right and my faith feels so weak. I love Jesus and I want to have strong faith in Him,.. but it's making me question and doubt myself of the possibility that they might be right and I'm scared of losing my salvation again.

LOL!!! But I did not respond very well on the last thread I was on!! I called one of them stupid and the mods dinged me for it! I tried! But they really do think we are total idiots for having faith in a "non-existent" God. Don't let them fool, He is real, and they will find out---it won't be pleasant for them. I've had way too many answered prayers to have one of them put one tiny bit of doubt in my mind. There are more and more real scientists who have "jumped ships" and are now on our side. Do not let go of Him. Even if we are wrong---we have a future to look forward to, they have nothing at all. They have no purpose for ever having been born and do not think they need any. We have a God that loves us so much He gave His life for us---they have nothing. I'd rather be wrong believing in my God than be right believing in nothing.

 

[coffee4u]

LOL!!! But I did not respond very well on the last thread I was on!! I called one of them stupid and the mods dinged me for it! I tried! But they really do think we are total idiots for having faith in a "non-existent" God. Don't let them fool, He is real, and they will find out---it won't be pleasant for them. I've had way too many answered prayers to have one of them put one tiny bit of doubt in my mind. There are more and more real scientists who have "jumped ships" and are now on our side. Do not let go of Him. Even if we are wrong---we have a future to look forward to, they have nothing at all. They have no purpose for ever having been born and do not think they need any. We have a God that loves us so much He gave His life for us---they have nothing. I'd rather be wrong believing in my God than be right believing in nothing.

Yes, I got dinged for my driving towards a cliff analogy. Had a couple of posts modified and I had called no one stupid.

 

[johneb]

I found this of interest,

ephen Meyer: God and the Origin of the Universe - YouTube

 

[Jok]

Good point but I think you already know since you're a part of the topic that I'm referring to. (PM me if you really don't know.)

I wasn’t sure if you were referring to a different discussion from a different website or something because to me it didn’t look like you were bothered by the atheists in that thread. But ok.

Atheists love to make people feel like their version of evidence is the only version of evidence that is valid, and if you don’t agree with their version then you don’t understand what evidence is. But evidence comes in more forms than just science, but more importantly in regards to science...

Science makes 2 completely separate claims, the first claim is a claim about how reality operates and how to accurately predict that operation, and also how to beneficially manipulate reality. The 2nd claim is to expand upon that first claim about how reality operates and to insist that it also reveals the truth about WHAT ultimate reality is. These two claims are TOTALLY SEPARATE CLAIMS, and in the earlier days of the scientific revolution and Enlightenment it was much more common for people to understand that these were separate claims, but today it is very common for people to act like they are the same thing!

Did you ever wonder why people argue about the scientific theory of evolution but why nobody is arguing about the science of how to build bridges, or the science behind airplane designs? It’s because building bridges & airplanes is the science of observing how things work and manipulating how things work to generate technology, whereas the scientific theory of evolution is trying to make a truth claim about ultimate reality.

A theory is accurately called a “Successful Theory” if it can make correct predictions, and it may also lead to technological applications THAT WORK, yet it could still be wrong about describing reality!! For example Copernicus’ theory lead to better and more accurate calendars, it doesn’t matter it was still proven to be wrong about describing reality. It can be the case that Newtonian mechanics and Galileo’s equations work when applied to problems, and to engineering mechanics, and to building structures...yet still be wrong about describing what reality is.

We historically know that you can have the first set of criteria satisfied, yet not have the follow up claim about reality be true. One famous case of a scientist pointing out the distinction was Joseph Fourier and his theory of heat, he made it very clear that his theory was independent of WHAT heat is. “Who cares WHAT heat is?” he said. “That’s not a scientific question at all it’s a metaphysical question! My equations tell you how heat behaves, they allow you to predict the flow of heat in something depending on its thermal conductivity, etc. What else do you want from a theory of heat?” Fourier said I don’t wanna get involved in the Ontological argument, I’m NOT giving you a picture of reality, I’m just giving you a picture that describes Heat BEHAVIORALLY!! Again, to call a theory successful you don’t need to say that it corresponds to the way reality IS. The theory can work at the level of experience, but still not make accurate ontological claims about reality.

Isaac Newton said - I frame no hypothesis (about the why), I do not know how the underlying force operates, I only know that this is the equation for which it is accurately described, and the equation may be used to predict outcomes. Newton provided an account of the phenomena, a mathematical formula that describes behavior and interactions...BUT, did his theory provide an “Explanation” for reality? No. If we don’t know the mechanism by which the pull is pulled or the push is pushed, has his theory of Universal Gravitation and mechanics explained WHY the planets move in ellipses? Does it explain WHY the Earth is flat at the poles and bulging in the middle? Has it “Explained” anything, or has it just predicted or retrodicted it? Newton himself thought that his theory did not explain anything besides explanations of motion. God was the cause of it all for Newton.

 

[ChristServant]

Who question you on how you base your beliefs on faith and not actual facts? Cause I'm having that problem in another topic and I feel like I'm not a strong Christian when they tell me that I'm basing my faith on a bunch of lies and I can go to the library and find out they're right and my faith feels so weak. I love Jesus and I want to have strong faith in Him,.. but it's making me question and doubt myself of the possibility that they might be right and I'm scared of losing my salvation again.

I don't think any unchristian person should be allowed on Christian forums because all their there to do is cause conflict and draw people away from GOD. I had a few things to say to one on this forum and my post was withdrawn and a warning given. We are not suppose to have too much contact with unbelievers full stop. Science does not disprove GOD, quite the opposite. The Bible tells us the earth was a sphere long before we found out with science. The Bible talks about mist going up from the earth, this was later found out by scientist to form clouds and give rain. Genesis 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living" This passage has only come to light not too long ago. Scientist say now we all come from one mother. There are so many truths in the Bible and over the years more and more is coming to light.
Evolution is fake, a scientific impossibility, there is no evidence to support it. Science is based on knowledge but only the knowledge at a certain point in time. Even scientist are disputing evolution because it's too complex and precise but this information will not go out to the world because it does not suit the world's purpose. These humanist and atheist will lie or do anything to manipulate any situation, in the past these types of ungodly people have even fabricated things to fit their theories to lead people away from the faith.

Peace be with all those in the body of Christ

God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

We no longer look to be served. We look to serve and give our lives for others. No longer fight for privilege, influence and status. We esteem others better than ourselves and put their interests above our own.

 

[April_Rose]

I wasn’t sure if you were referring to a different discussion from a different website or something because to me it didn’t look like you were bothered by the atheists in that thread. But ok.

Atheists love to make people feel like their version of evidence is the only version of evidence that is valid, and if you don’t agree with their version then you don’t understand what evidence is. But evidence comes in more forms than just science, but more importantly in regards to science...

Science makes 2 completely separate claims, the first claim is a claim about how reality operates and how to accurately predict that operation, and also how to beneficially manipulate reality. The 2nd claim is to expand upon that first claim about how reality operates and to insist that it also reveals the truth about WHAT ultimate reality is. These two claims are TOTALLY SEPARATE CLAIMS, and in the earlier days of the scientific revolution and Enlightenment it was much more common for people to understand that these were separate claims, but today it is very common for people to act like they are the same thing!

Did you ever wonder why people argue about the scientific theory of evolution but why nobody is arguing about the science of how to build bridges, or the science behind airplane designs? It’s because building bridges & airplanes is the science of observing how things work and manipulating how things work to generate technology, whereas the scientific theory of evolution is trying to make a truth claim about ultimate reality.

A theory is accurately called a “Successful Theory” if it can make correct predictions, and it may also lead to technological applications THAT WORK, yet it could still be wrong about describing reality!! For example Copernicus’ theory lead to better and more accurate calendars, it doesn’t matter it was still proven to be wrong about describing reality. It can be the case that Newtonian mechanics and Galileo’s equations work when applied to problems, and to engineering mechanics, and to building structures...yet still be wrong about describing what reality is.

We historically know that you can have the first set of criteria satisfied, yet not have the follow up claim about reality be true. One famous case of a scientist pointing out the distinction was Joseph Fourier and his theory of heat, he made it very clear that his theory was independent of WHAT heat is. “Who cares WHAT heat is?” he said. “That’s not a scientific question at all it’s a metaphysical question! My equations tell you how heat behaves, they allow you to predict the flow of heat in something depending on its thermal conductivity, etc. What else do you want from a theory of heat?” Fourier said I don’t wanna get involved in the Ontological argument, I’m NOT giving you a picture of reality, I’m just giving you a picture that describes Heat BEHAVIORALLY!! Again, to call a theory successful you don’t need to say that it corresponds to the way reality IS. The theory can work at the level of experience, but still not make accurate ontological claims about reality.

Isaac Newton said - I frame no hypothesis (about the why), I do not know how the underlying force operates, I only know that this is the equation for which it is accurately described, and the equation may be used to predict outcomes. Newton provided an account of the phenomena, a mathematical formula that describes behavior and interactions...BUT, did his theory provide an “Explanation” for reality? No. If we don’t know the mechanism by which the pull is pulled or the push is pushed, has his theory of Universal Gravitation and mechanics explained WHY the planets move in ellipses? Does it explain WHY the Earth is flat at the poles and bulging in the middle? Has it “Explained” anything, or has it just predicted or retrodicted it? Newton himself thought that his theory did not explain anything besides explanations of motion. God was the cause of it all for Newton.

Sorry, but I'm afraid that I didn't get most of that. :/

 

[Jok]

Sorry, but I'm afraid that I didn't get most of that. :/

If you observe things that happen every single day you could start to accurately predict how they will continue to happen, because you understand the patterns. But when you start to say to yourself “The reason that this is happening is because of...” you are doing something totally different. You are no longer just observing the behavior of things and predicting how the patterns will continue, you are instead trying to say what is causing these things to happen. Those two claims are totally different claims.

 

[April_Rose]

If you observe things that happen every single day you could start to accurately predict how they will continue to happen, because you understand the patterns. But when you start to say to yourself “The reason that this is happening is because of...” you are doing something totally different. You are no longer just observing the behavior of things and predicting how the patterns will continue, you are instead trying to say what is causing these things to happen. Those two claims are totally different claims.

Okay thanks that made a lot more sense.

 

[CGB3928]

One particular atheist I know comes to mind. His IQ puts him in the most intelligent 1% and he has a very good understanding of science. He is gay and has been brought up being taught that God hates gay's so of course has a disposition that he wants to be able to "prove" God isnt real. He has come up with lots of "evidence" that God isnt real, sich as the half life of carbon proves that carbon dating is accurate and prove the dinosaurs are millions of years old and therefore couldnt have been created by God. All I felt that I as a Chrsistian had to do was challenge his opinion that it meant God couldnt have created them.

I used the old God could have created everything over time in the process that has been interpreted as evolution. Once I had agreement that if God can do anything he could have done that I said I dont believe that and got into quite an involved discussion about who God is and His love for everyone, that we are all sinners and fall short and He has given us all a way to come into a relationship with Him that has nothing to do with us. I turned it into a discussion on who God is and His love for us.

I also like the discussion on the "we know the big bang is true". Thats quite an easy one. What we know is the universe is expanding out from a central point, that is what we can see and obsereve. What we cant see is what caused the universe to expand from that point and the big bang theory is seen as true because the only thing scientists know that could have the power to expand with such force is an explosion. They then added dark matter as what they see shows the big bang theory doesnt work by itself. Dark matter cant be seen, felt or measured in any way and we can move through it with no interaction with it whatsoever. The only way we "know" it exists is because what we can observe doesnt fit with the laws of nature without it. My argument is a simple, my Bible says God flung the stars into space; sounds like a central point to be. God nature is to create and we continue to see Gods creative nature in action. I find it a lot easier to accept a creative God than an explosion out of nothing and matter that is there but we have no way of provong its there.

I also like to throw in things we have experienced that cant be explained by science including our own experience of God and the multiple healings I have witnessed including nodules on figures from arthritis disappearing and them being healed and 6 people (I think thats right) I have prayed for, but always with other people, who have been healed of cancer, some diagnosed as terminal. And on I was praying for who had been give one month to live and 9 months later was still going. Then one day I felt God saying it was time to stop praying. Two days later she went to heaven and when I spoke to her husband several day later I mentioned it, intending to comfort him in knowing it was Gods will. We worked out it would have been about an hour after she said to him that she was ready to "go home". The preciseness of Gods will was a comfort to him.

I'd better stop there.

The science of today all but concludes the chances of life happening by random means is impossible. Atheists can try to use science as a basis for their beliefs but all they have are emotions and wild hypothesis/theories. They will not try and use the latest scientific information because modern science Refutes their beliefs.

 

[Heartofsilver]

I befriend them and tell them about Jesus. I also ask what they believe and just listen. I also hang out with them from time to time and they get to see Christ in the way that I live.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

The science of today all but concludes the chances of life happening by random means is impossible. Atheists can try to use science as a basis for their beliefs but all they have are emotions and wild hypothesis/theories. They will not try and use the latest scientific information because modern science Refutes their beliefs.

Most atheists who's religion is science are very aggresive when a Christian tries to question theo faith. One of the most aggressively hateful of Christians is David Attenborough. I would say he hates God, but what he hates is the idea of God because of his faith in science and God not existing Any evidence to support GOd is just dismissed with a hate filled vitriol.

 

[CGB3928]

Most atheists who's religion is science are very aggresive when a Christian tries to question theo faith. One of the most aggressively hateful of Christians is David Attenborough. I would say he hates God, but what he hates is the idea of God because of his faith in science and God not existing Any evidence to support GOd is just dismissed with a hate filled vitriol.

Of course they get angry. People that reject God does not want any accountability over their words actions and deeds. So if an atheist relies on science for their comfort the latest 2020 science and scientists will refute them. Atheism cannot stand up to the latest science. It's no coincidence you see the world getting more and more bitter angry and hateful.

 

[Heartofsilver]

Of course they get angry. People that reject God does not want any accountability over their words actions and deeds. So if an atheist relies on science for their comfort the latest 2020 science and scientists will refute them. Atheism cannot stand up to the latest science. It's no coincidence you see the world getting more and more bitter angry and hateful.

Hmm, so this could be why there is a rise of the "nones".

 

[April_Rose]

Hmm, so this could be why there is a rise of the "nones".

Oh I'm sorry,.. you said the rise of the nones I read that wrong my bad.

 

[Heartofsilver]

I found this of interest,

ephen Meyer: God and the Origin of the Universe - YouTube

This does sound interesting, I should definitely check it out sometime. It actually does make me think of a documentary that I watched called "God of Wonders".