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
Sorry I couldn’t fit all of my post in one…
I used to be an atheist myself so I think I understand the atheist mindset. (Even though I was not a militant atheist)
Surely, they have to know that there are good reasons to believe in God and in Jesus as sent by God., but ultimately it’s a matter of the will.
I know for myself, one of the biggest reasons I didn’t want there to be a God and --especially not Jesus --was because I didn’t want to have to submit my sexuality to God. I grew up doing whatever I wanted in that area and believing that there was nothing wrong with it. So I think it might be safe to assume in our sex obsessed world, that that is probably a factor as well. I think we can challenge them on the sex issue maybe not even as part of our defense of the faith but simply in conversation. Try to emphasis that free sex doesn’t bring happiness long term, give examples of rock stars who didn’t find any satisfaction in it either and settled down to marriage, give statistics from the CDC about the STD epidemic --that kind of thing. (I think that the Theology of the Body can help us here. Many people just don’t know that there is a purpose to sex. I know it was one of the biggest reasons for my conversion. ) Although I think one has to be more open to God to receive this teaching.
It seems that many atheists have been warped by a fundamentalist mindset at some point, or have been harmed by a Christian in their life, many times by parents who were not very loving with them.
They see Christianity as silly and repressive and joyless. I think we can help them here just by being as charitable as we can be. And patient. And also just be real. Non-believers need to see Christians just being real and happy!
Personally I wanted to believe in God but all I knew of Christianity was you either go to hell or heaven. All those who don’t know Christ are going to hell. There seemed to be a lack of mercy there.I didn’t know anything of purgatory, so when I discovered it, I found that mercy and understanding of God that I had heard about. Purgatory at least gives us hope that those who don’t know Christ can still be saved as the CCC says. So if we can help them see that this doesn’t have to be the case that would be a good thing.
It is also by belief that many of them deep down really want to believe but they don’t know how and even harbor a sense of envy for those who do believe, which usually manifests as hostility.
I would also point out that Dawkins while claiming to be logical rationalist is really not. Others have taken him to task for his lack of logic.
I think there is no better example of this than what he says in the God Delusion regarding the reason that there is a universe at all:
It may even be a superhuman designer [italics mine]—but, if so, it will most certainly not be a designer who just popped into existence, or who always existed.” 186
I don’t know if he realizes this or not, but using his logic it seems he should allow for the existence of not only God, but also demons and angelic beings. (which of course he wouldn’t)
In the God Delusion, Dawkins outlines four ways that he believes morality developed. He uses examples from the animal world. The only problem is that the examples he uses can be explained by instinct. In fact the highest his examples go is to a reciprocal type of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” type of morality. But these examples don’t explain where in the world Christian morality would have come from.
Atheists usually explain morality as coming from “our social group” We naturally learn to be kind, loyal etc. from our tribe, family, etc. But what about those tribes, families, bent on murder and plunder? Saying that we learn it from our social group doesn’t say why we should choose the good. It doesn’t explain why or how humans out of all the other animals would have come to see that it is wrong to kill other members of our species for survival as lions and monkeys do? We don’t have to deny evolution in this argument— the fact is that evolution does not tell the whole story. It does not explain how in the world something immaterial like human consciousness, one of the chief mysteries in all of science would have come from that which is material? Is that logical?
How do they explain the rise of this uniquely human ability—well, they say, we just had a greater need for communication.
Ok, why? Why did only humans have such a need? Science and Christianity seem to agree on one thing–humans seem to be unique, set apart from the rest.
Also, we could challenge them on the afterlife. It is a fact that researchers who have studied things like near death experiences are convinced that there is some sort of existence after this life. The evidence is overwhelming. One of them even commented that the burden of proof now lies with those who don’t believe in an afterlife. Dinesh D’ Souza wrote a book about this.
It’s not logical to write off everyone who’s experiences this type of thing as simply hallucinating or crazy or hungry for attention.
Finally, we could also challenge them on the reliability and the uniqueness of the Bible, and how archaeology has helped show this. Also, the logic of the resurrection. (Peter Kreeft has written about this extensively in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics), and the role of Christianity in the development of the scientific method. (check out How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization)
Many of them will try to say too, that Jesus probably never existed. That is foolishness. There is more proof for his existence than anyone’s in history.
) actually denying that they have been created by God.
This is the second time I am asking for references to support your claim - if you can not provide them, then just say so… or just continue not to provide them… I can take a hint… 
