Answering Atheism

[Lanolin]

Basically Jesus told the saduccees who were asking him stupid questions trying to bait him that they didnt know the power of God.

If you do go in with athiests you need to demonstrate the gospel with power as they not gonna believe you otherwise...and even then when miracles happen many will scoff.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Well if they ask sure..Jesus always answered his detractors except when they were mocking him on the cross them he didnt say anything. He didnt need to. Well he couldnt as he was dying.

What do I grow? Oh all things I like flowers, herbs, veges, ..maybe come chat with others on the gardening forum here.

I don't have any space for growing where I live at the moment, but where I grew up, my mom was heavily into gardening. She grew a ton of herbs, but today she is more invested in veggies and fruits. Although I did grow up doing a lot of cooking (just for the fun of it) and often used items from the garden. I especially loved cooking with Lemon Thyme which is very difficult to find in most grocery stores it seems.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Basically Jesus told the saduccees who were asking him stupid questions trying to bait him that they didnt know the power of God.

If you do go in with athiests you need to demonstrate the gospel with power as they not gonna believe you otherwise...and even then when miracles happen many will scoff.

Absolutely, many times they will. If you're expressing skepticism that minds will be changed after one conversation, then I'm with you. Of course it's not impossible, but highly improbably. However, it is seeds being sown and the best case scenario is for the discussion to be revisited many times -- not to try and ware them down, but so that each discussion, they can enter it with a bit more understanding than before. It could take years and years before a conversion takes place...often times, that's what happens.

 

[Lanolin]

well, up to you.
If you want to wait years and years to make just one disciple or throw your seed in good soil where the people just crying out to hear the gospel and receive it gladly..if were me I'd want the 30, 60, hundred-fold harvest not the measly seedlings that just gonna die straight away with no soil or get it stolen again and again by the angry birds of Satan.

 

[Euphemia]

well, up to you.
If you want to wait years and years to make just one disciple or throw your seed in good soil where the people just crying out to hear the gospel and receive it gladly..if were me I'd want the 30, 60, hundred-fold harvest not the measly seedlings that just gonna die straight away with no soil or get it stolen again and again by the angry birds of Satan.

I am certain that you have misunderstood LS. He is correct that more often than not, it takes the hearing of the gospel many times before a person experiences a revelation of the truth of the gospel message. That is why we are told to keep on sowing seed, while God is busy by His Spirit tilling the soil of people's hearts. In the real world, the wise farmer has a responsibility to make sure his valuable seed is sown in arable, fertile soil, but in the spiritual realm, God is the one who prepares hearts to receive it.

Statistical research has shown that it takes anywhere from one to eighteen hearings of the Good News of Jesus Christ before one receives Christ.

We in western culture are a spiritually spoiled and jaded bunch, having the gospel always available in the readily available bible, and on television, radio and the internet, but it is the third world countries and those closed by radical regimes to Christianity that have hearts just bursting with gratitude and joy at receiving the gospel message at first hearing!

 

[Abdicate]

Amen! Why is it in India, Africa, or Burma they have great movements of the Spirit - real ones, healings, raising the dead - and most of the Western church don't even believe in miracles. Because they don't know the law - church law that is. What is church law? Ask most pastors. They just don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

well, up to you.
If you want to wait years and years to make just one disciple or throw your seed in good soil where the people just crying out to hear the gospel and receive it gladly..if were me I'd want the 30, 60, hundred-fold harvest not the measly seedlings that just gonna die straight away with no soil or get it stolen again and again by the angry birds of Satan.

If I have the opportunity to wait 90 years for one soul to embrace Christ, I would...

 

[Lanolin]

Well, that one soul must be very precious to you. If thats what The Lord has asked you to do then by all means keep pressing on.

 

[/]

Amen! Why is it in India, Africa, or Burma they have great movements of the Spirit - real ones, healings, raising the dead - and most of the Western church don't even believe in miracles. Because they don't know the law - church law that is. What is church law? Ask most pastors. They just don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit.

You wouldn't think it from a Pastor would you, almost ignoring the wonders of the Holy Spirit?

 

[KingJ]

, 1. but I don't know if I'd call it dumb -- perhaps ignorant at most. 2. I know many Christians who absolutely believe in God, but explaining his existence is something they would have trouble with. It doesn't mean they are dumb for it. 3. Many, many Christians find God through their own suffering and struggles but have not once questioned the cosmos or concept of Logos.

4. Are there dumb arguments out there? Absolutely. But I don't think that just because there are dumb arguments out there means that everything presented in the discussion is going to be dumb. I don't think wrong automatically means dumb either.

5. By no means am I trying to give credit to Atheism -- I think we're all on board how wrong it is (there can't even be just a little bit of valid Atheism), but I do want to try and approach this discussion with a bit more understanding than I have in the past. I don't think boldness and sheer truth can be compromised in recognizing the rationale behind their argument, even if their rationale fallows something false.

Does that make sense?

1. If I said the burden of proof in gravity is on your shoulders, you would say I am dumb . Perhaps it is politer to rather say 'you are not using any grey matter between ears, none whatsoever'. God is like gravity. That knowing that its there / ability to test it by jumping up is on par with grasping our heart is beating and started beating outside the laws of physics.

2. Christians are tricked into explaining their God's existence. God and Jesus / logos are to be separate discussions with them. Belief in no God = dumb. Belief in Jesus / the word / grasping the word = forgiveable / partially ignorant.

3. That's because Christians ''''find''' God. Someone in another religion will be better equipped at answering 'dumb' questions.

4. Of course not. There is only one dumb statement and sadly for atheists it is in the dictionary definition of their title.

5. Well lets first just grasp that discussion is always going to be annoying / frustrating for the theist as long as they hold too 'God does not exist / burden of proof is on us'....when they using an amazing mind to state that, the mind kept alive by an amazing heart, a heart that starting beating by a miracle of life. Life and complexity pointing as clear as daylight to the existence of a Being not limited by the laws of physics.

Now what is interesting about atheists / we just need to open a Richard Dawkins book on almost any page to see, that it is mostly an attack on Christianity. Now those arguments they raise can make for an interesting discussion / thoughts that can strengthen or weaken our belief and confidence in the goodness (not existence) of our God / sanity level of our faith. We should always be open to discussion on impeccable logic. Evil = evil. Mad = mad. Sane = sane. Good = good. We should be able to defend God from scripture as 'good'. Now what is interesting is that God wants us to grasp that He is good Eph 3:19, Psalm 136:1. That tells me He wants us to be able to answer those atheist type questions that suggest otherwise.

A good discussion to be had with atheists is to explain the faith of Abraham. Abraham's faith was not in God's existence but in how good He was. He knew that such a good God must have a really good reason for such a mad / evil suggestion. That is truly amazing faith in God.

 

[Abdicate]

You wouldn't think it from a Pastor would you, almost ignoring the wonders of the Holy Spirit?

I would name names but it's against the rules, but they do. Some pastors are Christians. Some are not. Some are pastors because they felt like it. Others are pastors because they nothing better to do. Still some are truly called by God and they answered. Charles Finney was an ordained minister until he got saved and became an evangelist! His own testimony.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

1. If I said the burden of proof in gravity is on your shoulders, you would say I am dumb . Perhaps it is politer to rather say 'you are not using any grey matter between ears, none whatsoever'. God is like gravity. That knowing that its there / ability to test it by jumping up is on par with grasping our heart is beating and started beating outside the laws of physics.

2. Christians are tricked into explaining their God's existence. God and Jesus / logos are to be separate discussions with them. Belief in no God = dumb. Belief in Jesus / the word / grasping the word = forgiveable / partially ignorant.

3. That's because Christians ''''find''' God. Someone in another religion will be better equipped at answering 'dumb' questions.

4. Of course not. There is only one dumb statement and sadly for atheists it is in the dictionary definition of their title.

5. Well lets first just grasp that discussion is always going to be annoying / frustrating for the theist as long as they hold too 'God does not exist / burden of proof is on us'....when they using an amazing mind to state that, the mind kept alive by an amazing heart, a heart that starting beating by a miracle of life. Life and complexity pointing as clear as daylight to the existence of a Being not limited by the laws of physics.

Now what is interesting about atheists / we just need to open a Richard Dawkins book on almost any page to see, that it is mostly an attack on Christianity. Now those arguments they raise can make for an interesting discussion / thoughts that can strengthen or weaken our belief and confidence in the goodness (not existence) of our God / sanity level of our faith. We should always be open to discussion on impeccable logic. Evil = evil. Mad = mad. Sane = sane. Good = good. We should be able to defend God from scripture as 'good'. Now what is interesting is that God wants us to grasp that He is good Eph 3:19, Psalm 136:1. That tells me He wants us to be able to answer those atheist type questions that suggest otherwise.

A good discussion to be had with atheists is to explain the faith of Abraham. Abraham's faith was not in God's existence but in how good He was. He knew that such a good God must have a really good reason for such a mad / evil suggestion. That is truly amazing faith in God.

AWESOME response, KingJ. You never let me down.

I don't know if I mislead you to thinking that I reject the "dumb" aspect because it is impolite. I don't think it's that I reject it because it may hurt someone's feelings, but rather I honestly don't think the discussion itself is dumb. However, a final conclusion to not accepting God can be dumb, without question. Statements like "I don't see him, therefore he doesn't exist." is a dumb conclusion based on a logical fallacy. So it's possible that I am making my case poorly -- a conclusion can be dumb, and so can an argument, but I don't think that means that every time the discussion is had, it will be dumb. I think sometimes reasonable arguments are made, even if there is an even more reasonable rebuttal.

With Christians who find God (as many may find him on different paths), it is still possible for an argument for God's existence to be off-center or poor or even dumb, even though the conclusion is right. "God exists because the universe is so old, it required God to come into existence to take care of it." This is a real argument I've heard, and I would never agree with it because she suggested that the universe is eternal and God is bound in time because he came into existence...but she's still right in knowing that God is real even if it is a childish understanding of God (when I was little, I literally believe God lived in the clouds).

I could be going off track with that one. I hope I'm still making sense (heck, I hope I was making sense from the start).

I'm trying to figure out whether you are right or wrong in saying there is only one dumb statement and it is embedded in their title. I realized we're not discussing whether or not Atheists or right or wrong -- we agree they're wrong. It looks like we're discussing the definition of the word "dumb." While I think it can be quite often (the discussion I mean), I think it is sometimes instead just misguided. I think it's possible to be misguided and still not dumb at the same time. Although that isn't to say every individual is being misguided -- some are in fact responding in a dumb way.

Dawkins is an interesting character. He isn't the single voice of Atheism, though he is probably the loudest and is the sort of darling of "New Atheism." Opposite Atheist voices, I'd say, would be writers like Scott Aiken and Robert Talisse who do hold strongly to their Atheistic opinions, but are very sympathetic and respectful to theists, even if they don't respect theism itself enough to believe it. But regardless of which color of Atheist we're discussing with, I'm not sure using the Scriptures to make a case for God would work only because believing in the Bible is lead by believing in God (though a non-believer can agree with aspects in the Bible like the Ex. 20:13 or Ex. 20:15). Although if I made a case like "Abraham believe in God's goodness, therefore God exists," that wouldn't make sense to an Atheist because he'd most likely respond "Just because Abraham believe that God is good doesn't mean that God exists. Abraham could have believe that God didn't care and it still wouldn't be a case for God's existence."

If a Muslim were to say "The Quran says that Abrahan believe that Allah was just, therefore Islam's understanding of Allah is the right one," that wouldn't make sense. Both scenarios are people making a circular argument. If I argued with a Muslim and said "Abraham believe in the Judeo God because it says so in the Bible," and the Muslim responded, "But the Quran says that Abrahan believed in Allah of our book," then we both haven't gotten to the heart of the matter; which book is the book of truth? We are each expecting the other person to already accept the other person's book as fact when our argument is supposed to lead up to which person's book is factual.

By no means am I saying that the Bible can't be used in a discussion of God's existence -- we can use examples from the Scriptures to reference what we understand mercy and justice to be and then explain how God is both merciful and just (since some Atheists use that as an argument against God: "How can God be both just and merciful?").

I may be opening up so much more in this thread than intended I sure hope I'm not.

 

[Lanolin]

Hmm I thought charles Finney was a lawyer.
I read that somewhere.
Nevermind. Not all pastors are evangelists. I think they are two distinctly different roles, but no matter.

Well, of course not to name names but there is a movie that is about this problem in america called Elmer Gentry. Have you seen it? Based on the novel, which although fictionalised, was obviously based on real life.

Some preach Christ for material gain and their god is their belly. Ive seen books on how to run a church like a corporation, or business. Some guy wrote it, not naming him, because he thought he wanted to help churches to run better and earn the pastor a comfortable living. I was really shocked when I read this book and how popular its teachings became and you see it in lots of churches now unashamed of using this book and pastors teaching as a model, instead of being led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lanolin]

Lysander you can always tell people about Jesus, as he was a real man living on earth at certain timeand evidence for his existence historically is all around, like its not made up at all. Theres an empty tomb, for example.
Then when these people curious to know bout a great guy named Jesus, thats when you say he was the son of God and we can know God through Jesus.

You can say your testimony..cos athiests cannot argue against your personal experience.
Paul spoke to athiests but did not use scripture as they knew nothing ..in Athens. So he used an eyeopener like the inscription to an unknown God, and expounded on how...these athenians really desired to know God after all and now we CAN know him.

 

[KingJ]

AWESOME response, KingJ. You never let me down.

I don't know if I mislead you to thinking that I reject the "dumb" aspect because it is impolite. I don't think it's that I reject it because it may hurt someone's feelings, but rather I honestly don't think the discussion itself is dumb. However, a final conclusion to not accepting God can be dumb, without question. Statements like "I don't see him, therefore he doesn't exist." is a dumb conclusion based on a logical fallacy. So it's possible that I am making my case poorly -- a conclusion can be dumb, and so can an argument, but I don't think that means that every time the discussion is had, it will be dumb. I think sometimes reasonable arguments are made, even if there is an even more reasonable rebuttal.

With Christians who find God (as many may find him on different paths), it is still possible for an argument for God's existence to be off-center or poor or even dumb, even though the conclusion is right. "God exists because the universe is so old, it required God to come into existence to take care of it." This is a real argument I've heard, and I would never agree with it because she suggested that the universe is eternal and God is bound in time because he came into existence...but she's still right in knowing that God is real even if it is a childish understanding of God (when I was little, I literally believe God lived in the clouds).

I could be going off track with that one. I hope I'm still making sense (heck, I hope I was making sense from the start).

I'm trying to figure out whether you are right or wrong in saying there is only one dumb statement and it is embedded in their title. I realized we're not discussing whether or not Atheists or right or wrong -- we agree they're wrong. It looks like we're discussing the definition of the word "dumb." While I think it can be quite often (the discussion I mean), I think it is sometimes instead just misguided. I think it's possible to be misguided and still not dumb at the same time. Although that isn't to say every individual is being misguided -- some are in fact responding in a dumb way.

Dawkins is an interesting character. He isn't the single voice of Atheism, though he is probably the loudest and is the sort of darling of "New Atheism." Opposite Atheist voices, I'd say, would be writers like Scott Aiken and Robert Talisse who do hold strongly to their Atheistic opinions, but are very sympathetic and respectful to theists, even if they don't respect theism itself enough to believe it. But regardless of which color of Atheist we're discussing with, I'm not sure using the Scriptures to make a case for God would work only because believing in the Bible is lead by believing in God (though a non-believer can agree with aspects in the Bible like the Ex. 20:13 or Ex. 20:15). Although if I made a case like "Abraham believe in God's goodness, therefore God exists," that wouldn't make sense to an Atheist because he'd most likely respond "Just because Abraham believe that God is good doesn't mean that God exists. Abraham could have believe that God didn't care and it still wouldn't be a case for God's existence."

If a Muslim were to say "The Quran says that Abrahan believe that Allah was just, therefore Islam's understanding of Allah is the right one," that wouldn't make sense. Both scenarios are people making a circular argument. If I argued with a Muslim and said "Abraham believe in the Judeo God because it says so in the Bible," and the Muslim responded, "But the Quran says that Abrahan believed in Allah of our book," then we both haven't gotten to the heart of the matter; which book is the book of truth? We are each expecting the other person to already accept the other person's book as fact when our argument is supposed to lead up to which person's book is factual.

By no means am I saying that the Bible can't be used in a discussion of God's existence -- we can use examples from the Scriptures to reference what we understand mercy and justice to be and then explain how God is both merciful and just (since some Atheists use that as an argument against God: "How can God be both just and merciful?").

I may be opening up so much more in this thread than intended I sure hope I'm not.

When someone's heart is hardened by God, does God literally harden their heart or is it rather a case of 'He stops delivering them from evil'? Their pride that causes the hardened heart VS God's partiality? If its their pride then we have a conundrum on the statement by Jesus when He died 'forgive them Father for they know not what they do'. Did they ''really'' not know? I believe we harden our heart. Those that crucified Jesus may not have 'fully' grasped the significance of the matter hence Jesus said what He said....but their hard self consumed / prideful hearts blinded them to sanity / intelligence and wanted Him to be crucified ... albeit they knew He was innocent and had much evidence supporting His claims. Were they dumb, yes. Are they dumb, no. Why were they dumb? Jesus harmed nobody + many eye witnesses of Him ...walking on water + healing all He touched + raising a dead man + feeding 5000 + teaching extreme love for others = clearly He was greater then any 'man'. Clearly their was huge odds in favor of His claims being true. Killing Him should have been the last thing in any sane persons mind. Making a discussion on his innocence = dumb discussion.

Your strongest argument I think would be that ''God of the universe comes to earth and people who have studied Him their whole lives with centuries of passed down knowledge don't grasp its Him, not because they are dumb but rather ignorant / blinded'. My argument is that they did grasp its Him, but rejected Him John 1:11. This rejection leads to blindness / hearts hardened / no more delivering from sin...which in turn leads to nonsensical decisions / evil / dumb discussions....on par with God's existence.

Openly claiming to be an atheist / claiming a disbelief or lack of belief in God or god's is dumb, as every atom existing points to a Creator from a realm not limited by physics. Are atheists dumb, no. So why have a title that suggests they are. Well it is from pride and arrogance. It is a title to stomp on theists. A title that any God basher will gladly wear. An honest and sincere person would say 'the unknown God'.

My quoting Abraham is not meant to prove God's existence, rather provide crystal clear clarity on a Christians position regarding their faith in God. Though a very strong argument can be made for Abraham / existence and survival of the Jews when surrounded by enemies for centuries being evidence of God. For Abraham, faith in God's existence was clearly a ''given''. We, like Abraham need to have faith IN God. We need to try steer discussion with atheists in that direction.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

When someone's heart is hardened by God, does God literally harden their heart or is it rather a case of 'He stops delivering them from evil'? Their pride that causes the hardened heart VS God's partiality? If its their pride then we have a conundrum on the statement by Jesus when He died 'forgive them Father for they know not what they do'. Did they ''really'' not know? I believe we harden our heart. Those that crucified Jesus may not have 'fully' grasped the significance of the matter hence Jesus said what He said....but their hard self consumed / prideful hearts blinded them to sanity / intelligence and wanted Him to be crucified ... albeit they knew He was innocent and had much evidence supporting His claims. Were they dumb, yes. Are they dumb, no. Why were they dumb? Jesus harmed nobody + many eye witnesses of Him ...walking on water + healing all He touched + raising a dead man + feeding 5000 + teaching extreme love for others = clearly He was greater then any 'man'. Clearly their was huge odds in favor of His claims being true. Killing Him should have been the last thing in any sane persons mind. Making a discussion on his innocence = dumb discussion.

Your strongest argument I think would be that ''God of the universe comes to earth and people who have studied Him their whole lives with centuries of passed down knowledge don't grasp its Him, not because they are dumb but rather ignorant / blinded'. My argument is that they did grasp its Him, but rejected Him John 1:11. This rejection leads to blindness / hearts hardened / no more delivering from sin...which in turn leads to nonsensical decisions / evil / dumb discussions....on par with God's existence.

Openly claiming to be an atheist / claiming a disbelief or lack of belief in God or god's is dumb, as every atom existing points to a Creator from a realm not limited by physics. Are atheists dumb, no. So why have a title that suggests they are. Well it is from pride and arrogance. It is a title to stomp on theists. A title that any God basher will gladly wear. An honest and sincere person would say 'the unknown God'.

My quoting Abraham is not meant to prove God's existence, rather provide crystal clear clarity on a Christians position regarding their faith in God. Though a very strong argument can be made for Abraham / existence and survival of the Jews when surrounded by enemies for centuries being evidence of God. For Abraham, faith in God's existence was clearly a ''given''. We, like Abraham need to have faith IN God. We need to try steer discussion with atheists in that direction.

I wouldn't for a moment suggest that God is responsible for one's disbelief -- I think we'd both agree that's illogical and thus not in His nature. He's too loving to even begin doing that.

That said, maybe I'm not understanding your case. From what I'm understanding, I don't think I'd disagree for a second that a case of sheer rejection despite intuition is a case for so many...but I'm not sure it's the case in every instance. In fact, I suspect that's not the case in a lot of instances.

It sounds like I'm sending mixed messages with my point in all this. God isn't to blame for disbelief, and it is man's own reasoning that distances them from belief in God (even though God gave them the gift of reasoning -- they just use it against Him, like "cutting off the branch you're sitting on" as C.S. Lewis put it). I suppose where I'm getting at is that because of our own imperfections, with so much distance mankind has put between himself and God, and the mistranslation people have offered when explaining faith (a lot of people, even Christians, suggest it's belief in something that goes against reason), it's not entirely surprising if people are having a tough time cutting through the misunderstanding to understand God's existence.

 

[KingJ]

1. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that God is responsible for one's disbelief -- I think we'd both agree that's illogical and thus not in His nature. He's too loving to even begin doing that.

2. That said, maybe I'm not understanding your case. From what I'm understanding, I don't think I'd disagree for a second that a case of sheer rejection despite intuition is a case for so many...but I'm not sure it's the case in every instance. In fact, I suspect that's not the case in a lot of instances.

3. It sounds like I'm sending mixed messages with my point in all this. God isn't to blame for disbelief, and it is man's own reasoning that distances them from belief in God (even though God gave them the gift of reasoning -- they just use it against Him, like "cutting off the branch you're sitting on" as C.S. Lewis put it). I suppose where I'm getting at is that because of our own imperfections, with so much distance mankind has put between himself and God, and the mistranslation people have offered when explaining faith (a lot of people, even Christians, suggest it's belief in something that goes against reason), it's not entirely surprising if people are having a tough time cutting through the misunderstanding to understand God's existence.

1. Definitely agree.

2. Pride causes blindness which causes a silly belief. Discussing a silly belief is silly. The manner in which evidence is scrutinized to prove God's existence is almost on par with the depth of honesty / digging the mob did to defend Jesus. We have to grasp that atheists are a mob that mercilessly / biasedly jump on theists toes.

3. Nice quote from CS Lewis, I must remember that. I would rephrase it as 'having a tough time getting through to the real God'. Not 'God'. Nobody can blame anyone / thing but themselves for such ignorance.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

1. Definitely agree.

2. Pride causes blindness which causes a silly belief. Discussing a silly belief is silly. The manner in which evidence is scrutinized to prove God's existence is almost on par with the depth of honesty / digging the mob did to defend Jesus. We have to grasp that atheists are a mob that mercilessly / biasedly jump on theists toes.

3. Nice quote from CS Lewis, I must remember that. I would rephrase it as 'having a tough time getting through to the real God'. Not 'God'. Nobody can blame anyone / thing but themselves for such ignorance.

I guess another question is are we talking strictly about Atheists or are we using the word "Atheist" broadly? I think I'm using it a bit too broadly because I'm also including Agnostics (both soft Agnostics and strong Agnostics). I don't know if I'd say that Atheists (even strict Atheists--not Agnostics) are always jumping on theists' toes...if by that you mean attacking and degrading. It's definitely become especially popular in this generation, even though every generation since before Christ has had their share of aggressive non-believers...but I can name quite a few famous Atheists who wright heavily their case who are at the same time pretty sympathetic toward theists and even their beliefs, even though they don't agree with them. However, such atheists aren't the popular, loud voices. Those guys would be folks like Harris and Dawkins and Fry and Kraus.

I may be using too many words too broadly in fact. When I say discuss, I'm thinking such a discussion would be Evangelism/Apologetics from the theist's side. Although, to be fair, you never said defense of God is dumb, you said that defense of no God is dumb. I'm still not sure I'd count it entirely dumb in every single case -- just wrong and misguided in all cases whether it is also dumb or not. I think asking questions like "Why is there suffering in the world" is a poignant question. We have an answer for it within theology, but it's a question even some of the most learned theologians review from time to time.

So I'm still not sure I'm ready to count every single discussion on the existence of God to be dumb, or even every single defense for God's non-existence even though I would count every single defense to be flawed and refutable, and therefore wrong. And when it boils down to it, I do think many times their own pride keeps them blind to seeing the truth, just as it often does even with us Christians. Sometimes I can be so full of myself that what I may be doing or saying neglects the heart of the matter.

And yes, C.S. Lewis is VERY quotable. If only I had the ability to come up with his pithy way of talking -- I feel like I could make my points so much stronger...or even have a point at all

 

[KingJ]

Do you agree that the burden of proof is 100% on them?

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Do you agree that the burden of proof is 100% on them?

No, I do not agree that the burden of proof is 100% on Atheists. That doesn't mean that I believe the burden of proof isn't on them either. If they have a claim (which they do), they must offer evidence to support it. But if we have a claim (which we do), we have a responsibility to offer evidence for that in our defense of God, even though our burden of proof points to truth and theirs does not. We are still making a claim and thus have a reason to defend it. The good news is that it's hardly a burden since we hold the right position that God is real and good.

Burden of proof can be on the side that holds objective truth. We see this in ethics and math all the time.

I guess if the burden of proof was 100% on any other group outside of Christianity, would 1 Peter 3:15 be an invalid passage?