How do I turn the table on atheists?

[Imago_Dei3]

I’m reading the book the godless delusion, and it’s very helpful. I was just wondering if there is a good set of questions to ask atheists to maybe help them understand their view holds no ground and constantly contradict each other. Thanks

 

[davidv]

I’m reading the book the godless delusion, and it’s very helpful. I was just wondering if there is a good set of questions to ask atheists to maybe help them understand their view holds no ground and constantly contradict each other. Thanks

I think that any attempt to prove them wrong is more likely to harden their hearts further, rather than convert them. Love, not debate, wins souls.

 

[DefendingFaith]

I’m reading the book the godless delusion, and it’s very helpful. I was just wondering if there is a good set of questions to ask atheists to maybe help them understand their view holds no ground and constantly contradict each other. Thanks

Questions I usually ask Atheist tend to be in the realm of morality. Atheist main objection to God is the problem of evil and why God did certain things in the Bible. Questions you can ask them is how do they know what is evil when evil is none existent yet they affirm it exist but attempt to heed moral relavitism to get out of the topic so to do that they have to appeal to Christian ethics of objective morality. The main thing is much of Atheism lies within moral relavitism if you can show they can not live it out that they must appeal to objective morals you have them trapped and they will be forced to admit objective morality exist do to a moral law giver. Hope that helps.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I think we have an obligation to answer atheists, but in the same way they attack us.

They demand proof that there is a God. We demand proof that there is no God. They can never be certain there is no God since that is impossible to prove.

Moreover, the real proof of God is in the love of God. So it’s true that you are not going to “win” a debate with an atheist, because the atheist has not learned to love God. He has not learned to love God because he has not opened up his heart to God. Don’t try to probe him too much in that direction. As david insists above, he will only harden his heart further.

 

[Nimzovik]

Ask them what the end result of (a Godless) Evolution will be with the incorporation of mechanical devices and the CPU chips that Scientists are inserting into brains for improved memory etc. . Will we all end up like Darth Vader? Will we all end up as Cyborgs? Perhaps completely Robotic. I have discussed this with many Atheists and many think this is mighty fine with them.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I think that any attempt to prove them wrong is more likely to harden their hearts further, rather than convert them. Love, not debate, wins souls.

Yes, it is not with the heads, but with the actions.
If someone smokes, he will find 1 million reasons for smoking.
Force, lead him, persuade him, bribe him not to smoke and he will become the hardest anti-smoker guy in the whole county.

 

[catholictiger]

I think that any attempt to prove them wrong is more likely to harden their hearts further, rather than convert them. Love, not debate, wins souls.

yes amen

the way i see it is if they ask you why do you believe in something so stupid, or something along those lines

explain why you believe it show them its not so an illogical position to hold then from there treat them in a loving way don’t turn it into a back and forth, in an attempt to see who is smarter.

God will give the atheists the grace of faith your job is to prepare them.

 

[Nimzovik]

One question I usually put to the Atheist is ‘How do you define Good?’ It is interesting to see the answers on this point.

Also try to prompt them to extrapolate from the tenets of their faith (Yes - it can be argued that Atheism is indeed a faith.) If one really looks at what a Godless reality would be like - it is indeed a frightening prospect.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Charlemagne II,

Two observations to share:

1.) There have be atheists for a long time … King David even addressed these people Psalm 14:1-7! With such an established track record… it is obvious that some ideas will simply not go away on their own.

One initial idea is review the logical arguments presented by Stl Thomas. Here is a link: newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

2.) This concern for not using a logical argument (done naturally in a civil manner) but rather to use love should not be viewed as a passive approach to the objective evil of denying God’s existence. Look at St. Paul who boldly (and charitably) argued with those who would deny the Cross of Christ. Look at the early Church Fathers as they combated the heresies of Arius and Nestorius. Moving along historically with have St. Dominic and St. Ignatius Loyola fighting heresies - with love and with cogent arguments.

In my opinion, to worry about these atheists “…hardening their hearts…” is not our issue - it is God who does the hardening or the softening as the individual case may be. Look at what St. Paul says in Romans 12:17-21. if we are to feed and give drink - we certainly should give a reasoned position for our belief.

**17Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.o 18If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.19Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. 21Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good. **

I submit that we are to present the best argument we are capable of - and, to do so in a loving way. We are to love the sinner and hate the sin - and telling the sinner why atheism is evil seems like a very charitalbe activity. If they leave with a hardened heart then it is something they will be responsible for when they meet God for judgment - nothing we can do can stop that. If they convert because of what we have said in a loving manner - then we have won a soul for Christ. I see no virtue in not acting so as to bring about the blessed conversion of a sinner because of the potential he may dig a deeper hole for himself.

God bless

I think we have an obligation to answer atheists, but in the same way they attack us.

They demand proof that there is a God. We demand proof that there is no God. They can never be certain there is no God since that is impossible to prove.

Moreover, the real proof of God is in the love of God. So it’s true that you are not going to “win” a debate with an atheist, because the atheist has not learned to love God. He has not learned to love God because he has not opened up his heart to God. Don’t try to probe him too much in that direction. As david insists above, he will only harden his heart further.

 

[shoe]

I think that any attempt to prove them wrong is more likely to harden their hearts further, rather than convert them. Love, not debate, wins souls.

Agreed. Here are a few questions, though, but by no means arguments that will “turn the table on atheists,” for the atheist to ponder:

If God does not exist, then why does something exist instead of nothing? And how does something come from nothing, since something without existence is nothing and “nothing” cannot cause itself into existence?

How did atheism beneift people under the leaders of such atheists as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.? And under atheism, whose opinion decides right and wrong, and why does it?

How does atheism work out the problems of good, evil, and suffering? And without God, where do atheists go to for comfort?

And how does atheism explain the meaning and purpose in life? And why do people seem to have a deep spiritual longing for truth and direction and feel incomplete inside when they lack them or are denied them?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Ask them what the end result of (a Godless) Evolution will be with the incorporation of mechanical devices and the CPU chips that Scientists are inserting into brains for improved memory etc. . Will we all end up like Darth Vader? Will we all end up as Cyborgs? Perhaps completely Robotic. I have discussed this with many Atheists and many think this is mighty fine with them.

Perhaps we will end up answering the last question, as posed by Asimov: multivax.com/last_question.html

 

[tonyrey]

Ask them:

Do you really believe your power of reason has been magically produced by purposeless particles which don’t even know they exist, are incapable of controlling themselves and can’t even prove they have produced everything?!

 

[Shredderbeam]

I think that any attempt to prove them wrong is more likely to harden their hearts further, rather than convert them. Love, not debate, wins souls.

Maybe I’m alone, but this atheist would rather debate.

 

[ASimon]

Maybe I’m alone, but this atheist would rather debate.

You’re not alone.

And the reason debate doesn’t work is because the arguments presented in such debates are never particularly compelling. Not that “love” is going to get you very far, either.

 

[PJM]

=Imago Dei3;8547136]I’m reading the book the godless delusion, and it’s very helpful. I was just wondering if there is a good set of questions to ask atheists to maybe help them understand their view holds no ground and constantly contradict each other. Thanks

NOT OUR JOB!

God alone grants the grace necessary for faith to take hold. JUST know, live publically and share when asked. Then leave it up to God. If God wants your help. Pray for the grace to be able to discern HIS WILL

"Not MY will but THY WILL BE DONE oh LORD! AMEN!

Do not allow it to become an ego thing or a contest. No, No, not GOOD!

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I was just wondering if there is a good set of questions to ask atheists to maybe help them understand their view holds no ground and constantly contradict each other. Thanks

How about “are you free for lunch/dinner?” Will give you an opportunity to know the person behind the label and help create an environment in which you can exchange ideas with some one in a manner in which you can both discuss each others ideas. In the past few weeks some of my coworkers have been engaging in discussions on religion. (note: many of my coworkers are polytheistic or of other religions, so Yahweh isn’t the only god on the table).

Being genuinely friendly can go a long way. But also keep in mind you might not be the only person that has tried to engage in discussion. If you find that the person has no interest in discussing matters of religion you might want to do the same thing as I see many do when they speak to some one that has no interest in politics, Nascar, or some other topic and just move on to discussing something else.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shredderbeam,

Don’t wait for an invitation - - go to post #9 and click on the link to the proofs of God’s existence by St. Thomas Acquanis and give it your best shot.

I certainly want to see how you debate this…

God bless

Maybe I’m alone, but this atheist would rather debate.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Hi, Shredderbeam,

Don’t wait for an invitation - - go to post #9 and click on the link to the proofs of God’s existence by St. Thomas Acquanis and give it your best shot.

I certainly want to see how you debate this…

God bless

All right, I’ll give it a go.

(Just to make sure we’re on the same page, the arguments I’ll be replying to are these)

Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.

Supposing that I agreed that an infinite chain of movers was inconceivable, this argument doesn’t demonstrate that the prime mover has any of the qualities that we’d attribute to God - so why call it God?

For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.

My above argument applies here too. The argument doesn’t demonstrate that the first cause has any of God’s attributes.

The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.

Above argument applies.

The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.

Graduated perfections of what? And how do they demonstrate an external, absolute perfection?

The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that demonstrates that the universe was designed.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Ask them:

Do you really believe your power of reason has been magically produced by purposeless particles which don’t even know they exist, are incapable of controlling themselves and can’t even prove they have produced everything?!

There is no magic in reality, and reality is much more beautiful than magic.

 

[tdgesq]

Supposing that I agreed that an infinite chain of movers was inconceivable, this argument doesn’t demonstrate that the prime mover has any of the qualities that we’d attribute to God - so why call it God?

So “supposing” I concede this, that and the other thing . . . . Just come out and agree or disagree that an infinite series of causes (movers) is impossible. This isn’t that difficult.