Atheism
CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Dealing with atheists is actually easy to do. They don't have any evidence for their atheism, and they can't logically prove there is no God. They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God. But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it. It takes practice, but you can do it.
The following statements are for copying and pasting into chat rooms. Use them to see how atheists react. Use them to learn how to respond better to atheists. Please understand that these are not "stoppers." But, they can be challenging to atheists. Also, see how long it takes before they become condescending. Do not return their condescension. Instead, ask them to give rational reasons for their positions. In the process of interacting with them, learn how to argue with them better.
- Ways to Attack Atheism
- By asking questions
- Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?
- If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?
- If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.
- If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?
- By using logic
- How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?
- This approach is a bit more complicated. If you use this one, first be familiar with The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic.
- First of all, when using logic, you should be familiar with basic laws of logic and logical fallacies. It is very useful to point out the various logical fallacies to atheists as they commit them. Therefore, please be familiar with Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation.
- The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?
- Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can't that be God?
- Examples of logical absolutes:
- Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.
- If atheism is true: The universe has laws. These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life.
- Human constructs?
- If the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily? If they are produced from human minds, and human minds are mutually contradictory, then how can the constructs be absolute? Therefore, the laws of logic are not human constructs.
- The Universe exists
- The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.
- What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
- The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
- Uncaused Cause
- Objection: If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence. Answer: Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause.
- All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
- Responding to Atheist Statements about God
- "I lack belief in a God."
- If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
- Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God, or you do not, or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief."
- If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don't you go around attacking that idea?
- "I believe there is no God."
- On what basis do you believe there is no God?
- "I don't believe there is a God."
- Why don't you believe there is no God?
- "There is no God."
- You cannot logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is no God.
- "There is no proof that God exists"
- To say "there is no proof for God's existence" is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn't yet seen.
- "All of Science has never found any evidence for God."
- That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.
- Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
- Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
- "What is God?" or "Define God."
- God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.
- "Prove your God is real."
- I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
- I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence because your presuppositions don't allow it.
- The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
- When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don't count.
- Responding to Atheist Statements about the Bible
- "The Bible is full of contradictions."
- Saying the Bible is full of contradictions does not mean it is so. Can you provide a contradiction that we can examine in context? There are many websites that address alleged contradictions. Here is one: CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.
- Responding to Atheist Statements about Evolution and Naturalism
- "Evolution is a fact."
- That depends on if it is micro or macro. Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speciation) have not been observed. The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted. Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.
- Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
- "Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God."
- Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
- Responding to Atheist Statements about Truth
- "There are no absolute truths."
- To say there are no absolute truths is an attempt to state an absolute truth. If your statement is true, then it is self-contradictory and not true, and you are wrong.
I think you would do a much better job of it if you paid more attention to the classical proofs or arguments from God's existence, the rebuttals, and then the answers to the rebuttals. Also, I'd suggest you take a closer look at science and evolution. For example, the micro-macro distinction is largely used by religious fundamentalists, not by scientists. Also, your statement that macro-evolution has never been observed is incorrect. It has been created in the lab, using bacteria. I can send you the title of this scientific paper if you wish. Even if it had never been observed in the lab, that has nothing to do whatsoever with the validity of evolution. Also, your above statement about "absolute truth" needs some qualifiers. The whole idea here is that we have only very limited window into our distant past and also into the far reaches of the universe. hence, much of what we say entails some real degree of speculation. That, in turn, means we deal in probabilities of something being true n or not, not in terms of absolute certainties. At present, odds are the correct age of teh earth being 4.5 billion years are far, far grater than it having been created in six days starting in 4004 BC. Absolute truth, in a strict scientific sense, means you have direct, immediate sensory observation to support your hypothesis. Truth is, we generally don't, given any scientific concept.
When it comes to atheism, you need to tread more carefully. You need to explore more why people embrace atheism. Often, the problem is that the churches have presented such a contradictory image of God. On one hand, God is said to be loving; on the other, God is said to be void of all emotion, including compassion, and the author of all evil. Before going after the other guy, make sure you own house is in order. Much atheism has been church generated.
