DIALOGUING WITH THE MILITANT ATHEIST

The Bible provides the militant atheist (MA) with a big juicy target. Meanwhile, the MAs conveniently deny that they have any target at all, and that they merely believe that there is not enough evidence to believe in God. They will not even declare that God does not exist, lest someone might counter, "Prove it."

This puts the Christian exactly where the MA wants him to be - on the defensive. And MAs have many challenges in their arsenal:

1. What was God going before He created?

2. How could God be good if he destroyed the Canaanites along with their children?

3. Why doesn't God save everyone?

4. Why does the Bible condone slavery and even rape?

If you are talking to an MA, you need to recognize this. Why? You need to know that your answers will never be able to satisfy him. Besides, we cannot answer these questions, and many like them, comprehensively.

Of course, the MA will triumphantly proclaim:

·       "You see, you cannot make sense out of what doesn't make sense. Therefore, your faith is bankrupt."

How do you respond? First, you need to see it is their conclusion that is bankrupt. How? It assumes that understanding must be complete in order to be viable.

This is not true. In all areas, we only understand in part. Take science where we admittedly don't even understand the basics, like time, space, matter, and energy. However, despite our uncertainty about these things, no one would reject science.

To apply this principle to Christianity -- it is not at all reasonable to reject it because there is much we don't understand. However, this should not become an excuse to not have to seek wisdom as we ought.

Here is a similar challenge. The MA will hurl at you many alleged Bible contradictions, and when you can't reconcile them, the MA will taunt you:

·       "You see, the Bible must be the errant words of men."

Here is the simplest way to respond:

·       "Can you prove that this alleged contradiction cannot be resolved?"

Of course, they cannot prove anything of the sort. But beware, they will try to shift the responsibility for proof back on you to demonstrate that these verses cannot be reconciled.

Nevertheless, for our own edification, we should meditate on Scripture until we can possibly find a solution. When we leave many loose ends untied, it becomes difficult to form a cohesive Christian worldview at the expense of our confidence.

Tactics in Dialoguing with Militant Atheists

After I posted this brief essay (below), an atheist reiterated the same challenge that many do: “Well, you first have to prove your god exists!” 

If you’ve have tried to present proofs to militant atheists, you know how disappointing this can be. No matter how weighty your proof, the atheist can still quibble with it. This might not reflect a problem with your proof but a problem with all proofs in general – that none are ever airtight and unassailable.

Rather than engaging in this frustrating process, in many cases I’ve opted by placing the burden of proof on the atheist: “First prove that you exist! This will prove to me that it is even worthwhile for me to attempt to prove that God exists.” Of course, they never can prove this to my satisfaction. The dialogue that follows this post illustrates this fact.

You ask for proof of God’s existence. I’ve answered that the proof is all around us – in the stars, the trees, the laws of nature, our bodies and feelings - available for the seeing. However, I prefer contextualized proof – the proof that arises by itself in the very midst of our conversation. Let me take an example.

You vilify Christians. I’m not talking about you specifically but about the treatment that Christians uniformly receive in the blog-Facebook world. How do we understand such behavior among people who strenuously insist that they are good without God? These are also people who boast of being tolerant and open-minded – people who pride themselves on being open to all forms of lifestyles! Why then the disconnect? The hypocrisy?

Let’s add to this another observation – the need to prove or justify ourselves, often by putting others down. Is there a simple and parsimonious way to explain these observations? Our awareness of our guilt, shame, and sense that we deserve judgment – the very things that the Bible claims we know! These are our underlying motivators – the causes of our inconsistencies – and also those things that serve to justify the biblical worldview.

We Christians serve as reminders of this reality. You project your guilt and shame on us as if we are the cause of them.  This is what happened to our Lord Jesus. He explained that He was hated because He revealed the truth to people about themselves, and He was crucified for this. Jesus warned that this would also become our fate.

But I say this, not to condemn you, but to shed some light upon your plight and the remedy we all have through our Savior who died for us, paying the price for our sins.

ATHEIST: You still have not shown me any evidence that god exists.

ME:  Well, if you prove you exist, I'll prove God exists.

ATHEIST: I asked for evidence not proof. And when I say evidence, I mean real evidence, not bad logical arguments.

ME:  "Proof?"  "Evidence?" The same problem still adheres to both - that all of your evidence for your own existence remains assailable in the same way that my evidence for God remains assailable to the quibbler… Nevertheless, there were many substantial reasons that this Jew adopted a faith in Christ, one of which was an encounter with Christ.

ATHEIST:  Daniel, do you honestly think that there is a direct comparison between whether I exist, and whether god or Jesus exists? Clearly you have more evidence for me existing than for god or Jesus.

ME:   Then prove yourself! Prove that you are not simply a bio-chemical robot. Or perhaps you are just an expression of a Buddhist matrix. Consistent with this, please define your use of the word "I." What is this thing you call "I?"

ATHEIST: Why do I have to prove that I'm not a bio-chemical robot in order for you to be convinced that I exist? Why couldn't "I" be that bio-chemical robot.

ME:  First, you have to define the "I" before you can prove that this "I" exists. Please understand, in the case that you are robotic, we must cease this dialogue immediately, since I do not correspond with robots. Therefore, your proof represents more than just a passing interest.

ATHEIST:  Just think of everything that you normally think of when thinking of a human being, minus the invisible soul that we have no evidence for and that makes little sense.    Can you prove to me that anyone has a soul? We know our physical bodies exist, but we don't have any evidence for a soul, therefore the burden of proof is on you to put forth evidence of the existence of the soul.

ME:   So you will not even try to prove that you exist? Fine, but don't even dare to challenge us for a proof or evidence that God exists!!!

ATHEIST:  Daniel, is this a silly attempt to absolve yourself from having to provide proof that god exists? It's rather juvenile. Why is it that you don't think I exist?

ME:  As I believe that God exists, I also believe that you exist. However, we are talking about proof. Once again, if you refuse to prove that you exist, you are not in any position to taunt me that I cannot prove that God exists.

Atheists, Billboards and “Hate Speech”

The American Atheists (AA) just erected billboard in Times Square reading, “Who needs Christ during Christmas?” with an “X” through “Christ.” While I defend their right to be offensive, I can still take issue with their message.

Even though the West is quickly abandoning their former secular roots and the freedom of speech in favor of repressing what is now deemed “hate speech,” we are on a dangerous trajectory, granting government additional power to suppress speech deemed “offensive.”

Nevertheless, I think that the AA message is needlessly offensive and even hypocritical. It is needlessly offensive because it offends without providing any off-setting content. It represents nothing more than mindless sloganeering. It contributes no substance, edification, inspiration, or illumination, just crass intolerance towards the Christian faith. It offers nothing but offense!

It is also offensive because of what it represents – an attempt to eliminate Christianity! I have dialogued with many militant atheists, and they have made no secret of the fact that they think that the world will be a better place without Christianity, and for this they labor! It is worthy of note that they are little different from their infamous forebears:

• Karl Marx: "In simple truth, I harbour hate 'gainst all the Gods."

• Nikolai Lenin: "Every religious idea, every idea of god, even every flirtation with the idea of God, is unutterable vileness."

• Nikita Khrushchev: "We, Communists ... are atheists ... Public education, the dissemination of scientific knowledge, and the study of the laws of nature, leave no place for belief in God ... We consider that belief in God contradicts our Communist outlook." "We remain the atheists that we have always been; we are doing all we can to liberate those people who are still under the spell of this religious opiate."

These atheistic luminaries were not content to merely speak against the Christian faith. They strenuously  sought to eliminate it along with those who practiced it. Do we have cause to be offended by this modern crop of militant atheists? Without a doubt!

In addition to the offense, the AA billboard also represents hypocrisy. Their website announces their purpose:

• American Atheists, Inc., is organized

·         to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices;

·         to encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society;

Although the AAs claim that their purpose is “to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry,” their billboard is designed to accomplish the very opposite thing - to silence and discredit any real thought or discussion. This parallels my own experience with the militants. I have challenged them to public debates on numerous occasions, but they have always declined.

They also claim that they want “to encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people.” However, instead of fostering “mutual sympathy,” their billboard fosters blatant intolerance and an utter lack of “sympathy.” Instead of wanting to work along with us to improve society, the AA clearly wants to eliminate us. What else could “Christ” with an “X” through Him connote!

Meanwhile, the militants have hypocritically accused me of intolerance, when I have simply referenced surveys and studies that have demonstrated the ill effects of the gay lifestyle. They have labeled my “homophobe,” “bigot,” “hate-monger” and even “sexist” – nothing to promote their goal of “freedom of thought and inquiry.”

The AA’s claim that they are trying to work for a “humane ethical system,” while they are exhibiting the height of “Christophobia!” While they bash us for our alleged intolerance, they model the very behavior they claim to reject! However, they are known by the fruits that they bear.