Discussions with atheists

[Ladybug823]

This is somewhat of a general question but I am wondering about everyone's experiences with atheists and what they see as the best way to handle discussions with them. As I am in college at the moment I have no doubt I will eventually run into some kind of discussions with atheists while I am here and I guess I would like to learn from others experience before I am directly faced with those discussions.

[RBerman]

1) Love them. A consistent Christian life is usually the most successful argument for the truth of Christianity.
2) Be honest about your own failings, and the things about Christianity that you don't understand but take on faith. Christianity is not a religion about having it all together or all figured out. Such candor can be refreshing.
3) Don't expect to convince them in a single conversation. Don't get mad when they don't agree.
4) Pray.
5) Try to get them to read the Bible, perhaps starting with John, 1 John, and Romans. God's Word is the most effective message.

[Ladybug823]

Where would you propose beginning a discussion, as far as topic goes?

[Darth Executor]

5) Try to get them to read the Bible, perhaps starting with John, 1 John, and Romans. God's Word is the most effective message.

No real qualms with the rest, but that's pretty funny. A lot of atheists suggest this to other atheists as a conversion tool to atheism.

[Adrift]

Where would you propose beginning a discussion, as far as topic goes?

I think sharing your own personal testimony is sometimes a good place to start. I also think asking open questions can be a good place to start too. Questions like, does my/your life have purpose? Is there intrinsic value to life? What do you think love is? What first led you to your current worldview? etc.

Basically, you want to talk to people like they're people and not someone to practice apologetics on. Also, by keeping the questions loose and non-judgmental people won't put up walls like they normally do when talking about religion or politics, and are more willing to hear you out on what you have to say.

For me, the best approach to sharing my faith is simply touching on issues of the heart. Forums like these can tend to be cold and analytical sometimes because people have time to formulate answers in the comfort of anonymity, but in the real world, people tend to be more heart driven, so talking about passion, desires, love, loneliness, peace, innocence, why we cry, why we laugh, etc... these are important to people. Undergirding all this, though, should be a solid apologetic and doctrinal foundation. Always be prepared to give an answer, and if you don't have the answer, let them know that you don't have one now, but you will look for it and get back with them.

I don't know your background or what you've read and what you haven't, but I suggest, if you haven't already, picking up and absorbing books by popular theologians and apologetic authors like Lee Strobel, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, CS Lewis, JP Moreland, Gary Habermas, Tim Keller, Norm Geisler, NT Wright, Michael Licona, etc. For me, Ravi Zacharias' approach, specifically, is great for dealing with non-Christians in the real world, because rather than answering skeptical questions head on (which he can usually easily do) he attempts to figure out why a person asks the question they ask in the first place. What's at the root of this question? What's in this person's heart?

RBerman's advice to love them is the key to all of this. And being real with people is important. If the conversation becomes heated, its time to move on. Don't be baited into an argument, because that's not going to help anyone.

[Adrift]

No real qualms with the rest, but that's pretty funny. A lot of atheists suggest this to other atheists as a conversion tool to atheism.

They usually mean by this, reading out of context "atrocities" in the Old Testament, or decontextualized passages about hell in the NT they've been directed to by other atheist or pro-skeptic websites. I don't think most people sit down and read the Bible and then become atheists. I think quite the opposite happens actually. But there is a good point here. Because of the scope of the Bible one needs to rightly divide its truth, as Paul puts it, "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!'" So yeah, I think its important that people not only read the Bible but understand what they're reading, and you usually can't do that right off the bat unless someone is able to guide you through it.

[RBerman]

No real qualms with the rest, but that's pretty funny. A lot of atheists suggest this to other atheists as a conversion tool to atheism.

They can bring it on! Many more people have converted to Christianity than to atheism after reading the Bible. A couple of weeks ago I was reading a testimony from a former Muslim who became a Christian while reading the Bible, trying but failing to rebut it. But I agree with Adrift that Scripture reading is more fruitful in the context of the community of faith than as a Lone Ranger, or in the community of unbelief.

[RBerman]

Where would you propose beginning a discussion, as far as topic goes?

I'm leery of a one-size-fits-all approach. Mostly at first you need to do a lot of listening, and ask questions like:

1) What was your upbringing like?
2) What has been your experience of Christians?
3) How familiar are you with Christianity?
4) What do you see as its central teachings?

Those should give you a good start on exactly where to start. In America, most atheists are at least familiar with basic claims of Christianity like "There is a God, and the Bible is his message to us." Some will see the core of Christianity in ethics, e.g. the Golden Rule. Some are aware that Christian ethics are really secondary to the doctrines of man's sin and God's provision in Christ's person and work. Some need to hear why you think the Bible is true; some need to hear why you think there's such a thing as truth in the first place.

[fm93]

This is somewhat of a general question but I am wondering about everyone's experiences with atheists and what they see as the best way to handle discussions with them. As I am in college at the moment I have no doubt I will eventually run into some kind of discussions with atheists while I am here and I guess I would like to learn from others experience before I am directly faced with those discussions.

I'm going to assume, for the time being, that you're intellectually equipped to answer the objections that might be thrown at you. Given this...

If you're going against someone like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris (or Tassman and bertatberts, to mention a few TWebbers), you'll have to develop some thick skin. These types of atheists aren't interested in fruitful discussion. They've pre-decided that they'll stick with fundamentalist atheism no matter what, and they'll denounce religion (although the vast majority of the time, it's actually people that they're attacking) with every opportunity that they get. Remember: their goal isn't to learn or even defend atheism, but rather to attack theists and religions. You can easily identify such an atheist--he/she will be on a furious, foaming-at-the-mouth rampage against religion while demonstrating an obvious and complete lack of understanding of what he's talking about. (i.e, he'll say "Religion is a mind-virus" and show that he has no clue about the context or nature of the Bible and apologetic arguments). So to address these people, you'll have to be emotionally and mentally tough enough to put up with the venom and harsh language thrown your way. You can certainly hope, but don't expect them to open their minds and discuss things productively. You may need to use the discussion primarily to knock them down a few pegs.

On the other hand, if you're going against a respectful, honest atheist, then take Adrift's advice.

The thing to understand is, as I said, that different types of people call for different approaches. You indeed don't want to treat honest-seeker type atheists as practice punching bags for apologetics, but when you're going up against the wolves, it becomes necessary to be more forceful and hard-hitting.

There is, of course, a line to draw between driving away the wolves and just being insulting...but that's a different matter.

[Adrift]

I'm going to assume, for the time being, that you're intellectually equipped to answer the objections that might be thrown at you. Given this...

If you're going against someone like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris (or Tassman and bertatberts, to mention a few TWebbers), you'll have to develop some thick skin. These types of atheists aren't interested in fruitful discussion. They've pre-decided that they'll stick with fundamentalist atheism no matter what, and they'll denounce religion (although the vast majority of the time, it's actually people that they're attacking) with every opportunity that they get. Remember: their goal isn't to learn or even defend atheism, but rather to attack theists and religions. You can easily identify such an atheist--he/she will be on a furious, foaming-at-the-mouth rampage against religion while demonstrating an obvious and complete lack of understanding of what he's talking about. (i.e, he'll say "Religion is a mind-virus" and show that he has no clue about the context or nature of the Bible and apologetic arguments). So to address these people, you'll have to be emotionally and mentally tough enough to put up with the venom and harsh language thrown your way. You can certainly hope, but don't expect them to open their minds and discuss things productively. You may need to use the discussion primarily to knock them down a few pegs.

On the other hand, if you're going against a respectful, honest atheist, then take Adrift's advice.

The thing to understand is, as I said, that different types of people call for different approaches. You indeed don't want to treat honest-seeker type atheists as practice punching bags for apologetics, but when you're going up against the wolves, it becomes necessary to be more forceful and hard-hitting.

There is, of course, a line to draw between driving away the wolves and just being insulting...but that's a different matter.

In a one on one confrontation on a college campus with the sort of atheist you describe here... the Dawkins/Tassman type, do you think it would even be productive dialoguing with them? Jesus didn't stick around to argue with people when he found their hearts were hardened and he wasn't welcomed. The Apostles including Paul would go to proclaim the Gospel in places it normally wasn't accepted, but they didn't get into shouting matches with people who denied Christ.

I think a lot of tact needs to be displayed for those putting on a thick skin and getting down in the dirt with those throwing insults at the Gospel. Fighting fire with fire is probably not usually the best approach. In fact we're specifically instructed not to return evil for evil, or insult for insult. Its often very worldly, very fleshy thinking to want to bring oneself down to the level of the accuser, and in practice it often goes against what Jesus taught about humility, turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. And let's be honest, very few people can put themselves into situations where they go on the verbal offence without getting emotionally invested. It typically results is people talking out of anger, frustration, fear, doubt, and hate, rather than out of a place of love, patience, faith, and good will.

I also think its very important to consider the motivation of certain attacks on the Gospel. What's at the root? Our struggle is not with flesh, and blood, but against spiritual wickedness.

This doesn't mean that Christians need to be doormats, but we should rely on wisdom and the Holy Spirit to guide our speech and our actions rather than simply looking to knock people down pegs. People cuss out and attempt to knock down Tassman on this forum on a regular basis. He hasn't left yet, and I don't think he's going to either. To be honest, he probably won't leave until people just plain ignore him.

That said, I know the passages in the Bible where Jesus, Paul, and others used harsh language against their critics. I've mentioned elsewhere that it was primarily by the authority granted them they were able to say the things they did. but I don't want to debate that again here. What we have to keep in mind is that we're talking about someone on a college campus who will probably be dealing with skeptical and non-believing peers and professors. Ladybug823 isn't going to be in a forum type atmosphere where she's an anonymous face in a crowd who has time to articulate her replies. And in a classroom setting it might not be advisable for her to set herself against a room full of raving anti-Christians by belittling people and calling them "dumbass".

[Hamster]

Develop a sense of humor. It inspires confidence in allies, intimidates aggressors, helps people trust you, makes people more open to your ideas, and gives you a set of psychological armor to neutralize rhetoric and insults. It also makes people think you're ten times more intelligent than you actually are which has always been useful to me

[fm93]

In a one on one confrontation on a college campus with the sort of atheist you describe here... the Dawkins/Tassman type, do you think it would even be productive dialoguing with them? Jesus didn't stick around to argue with people when he found their hearts were hardened and he wasn't welcomed. The Apostles including Paul would go to proclaim the Gospel in places it normally wasn't accepted, but they didn't get into shouting matches with people who denied Christ.

I think a lot of tact needs to be displayed for those putting on a thick skin and getting down in the dirt with those throwing insults at the Gospel. Fighting fire with fire is probably not usually the best approach. In fact we're specifically instructed not to return evil for evil, or insult for insult. Its often very worldly, very fleshy thinking to want to bring oneself down to the level of the accuser, and in practice it often goes against what Jesus taught about humility, turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. And let's be honest, very few people can put themselves into situations where they go on the verbal offence without getting emotionally invested. It typically results is people talking out of anger, frustration, fear, doubt, and hate, rather than out of a place of love, patience, faith, and good will.

I also think its very important to consider the motivation of certain attacks on the Gospel. What's at the root? Our struggle is not with flesh, and blood, but against spiritual wickedness.

This doesn't mean that Christians need to be doormats, but we should rely on wisdom and the Holy Spirit to guide our speech and our actions rather than simply looking to knock people down pegs. People cuss out and attempt to knock down Tassman on this forum on a regular basis. He hasn't left yet, and I don't think he's going to either. To be honest, he probably won't leave until people just plain ignore him.

That said, I know the passages in the Bible where Jesus, Paul, and others used harsh language against their critics. I've mentioned elsewhere that it was primarily by the authority granted them they were able to say the things they did. but I don't want to debate that again here. What we have to keep in mind is that we're talking about someone on a college campus who will probably be dealing with skeptical and non-believing peers and professors. Ladybug823 isn't going to be in a forum type atmosphere where she's an anonymous face in a crowd who has time to articulate her replies. And in a classroom setting it might not be advisable for her to set herself against a room full of raving anti-Christians by belittling people and calling them "dumbass".

You're reading too much into my post. I never suggested that she insult them. I was thinking more along the lines of what she should do if she comes across some atheist rally group on the campus or something, or if some atheist starts attacking other students' faith. In these cases, the proper thing to do, I think, is to speak up and be stern and forceful, but that by no means necessitates the use of insults. Neither does the phrase "knock them down a few pegs" refer to abusive language, but rather exposing their ignorance and thereby lowering their threat to others and perhaps their confidence as well.


For example:

Rickbert Tasskins: Christ-tards and their worship of their skydaddy and Bronze Age Jesus, who somehow are the same person, are the most delusional group of hatemongering, intolerant, uncritical sheep in the history of the world. But all religious people, of course, are deluded. They're a scourge on the Earth, and if we continue to let them preach around, they'll send us back to the Dark Ages and inhibit rational thought and progress. If only more people read the Bible, they'd all convert to atheism. The Bible and Richard Dawkins--that's all we need for a religionless world of free rational inquiry and exaltation of man.

Ladybug823: Stop blindly accepting everything Dawkins spoonfeeds you and learn to think for yourself. You have no right to smear and broad-brush a large demographic of people with language like "Christ-tards," then call them intolerant and hateful. And your claims evince shocking ignorance on your part. The Bronze Age ended around the 1200s BC, so claiming that Jesus was of the Bronze Age doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Furthermore, how can Christians be the scourge of the Earth and a hindrance to free rational inquiry and progress when Christians were the ones who sparked the Scientific Revolution and preserved classical writings through the monastic system and nursed the ill and starving during plagues and famines? For that matter, historians don't even refer to the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages any more, because they've found that there was a significant amount of technological and artistic development during that time. Finally, doesn't it at all bother you that you claim to strive to exalt man and humanism, yet you simultaneously slander the vast majority of people alive today and who have ever lived as delusional. Furthermore, you obviously have no understanding of Christian doctrine, yet you insult it with such hatred and venom. Attacking a position without even taking the time to understand it is a decidedly IRRATIONAL thing to do.

Rickbert Tasskins: Bu-bu-bu Christians have always been promoting slavery! And no one can even agree on what Christianity even is. The only reason anyone thinks Jebus is God is that the Council of Nicaea made it up and voted on it, and it would've been too close to call if it'd happened today. Besides, the Council of NIcaea was notoriously biased--there were millions of competing gospels, but they only chose a few, and probably by flipping a coin to determine its acceptance.

Ladybug823: More ignorance on your part. Christians were the first ones to protest against slavery. And the canon wasn't decided at the Council of Nicaea, and there were explicit criteria for determining which books would be accepted, primarily the criterion of apostolic authority--it had to be provably written by an apostle of student of the apostle. Also, stop blindly accepting whatever Dan Brown tells you--Christ's deity is expressed throughout the gospels and epistles, Nicaea met to more precisely define the doctrine, and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of it--there were about 300 people in attendance, and only about two disagreed. So drop the pretenses of rationality, and actually investigate these issues for yourself. Otherwise, everyone will know that you're talking out of your rear end.

Rickbert Tasskins: Blah! Whatever you say, Christ-tard. I'm not gonna bother with you anymore. I'm heading to a strip club to add another notch on my bedpost and complain about how Christianity denigrates women.

[Adrift]

You're reading too much into my post. I never suggested that she insult them. I was thinking more along the lines of what she should do if she comes across some atheist rally group on the campus or something, or if some atheist starts attacking other students' faith. In these cases, the proper thing to do, I think, is to speak up and be stern and forceful, but that by no means necessitates the use of insults. Neither does the phrase "knock them down a few pegs" refer to abusive language, but rather exposing their ignorance and thereby lowering their threat to others and perhaps their confidence as well.

Fair enough. I think in real life things don't always work out so tidy where the big bad atheist sort of sulks away at the end of the conversation. In real life it seems you usually end up with a bunch of people yelling over one another, and in a college atmosphere, the theist is probably going to be out numbered, or may have to deal with immature or under-prepared Christians who's arguments hinder rather than help. Not every fool deserves a response. There's a time and a place for everything. Ultimately, I suppose it'll depend on the circumstances, and what the Holy Spirit guides you to do.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Develop a sense of humor. It inspires confidence in allies, intimidates aggressors, helps people trust you, makes people more open to your ideas, and gives you a set of psychological armor to neutralize rhetoric and insults. It also makes people think you're ten times more intelligent than you actually are which has always been useful to me

So an atheist walks into a bar......lives out the rest of his meaningless life then dies. Eventually, the universe implodes.

[siliconwafer]

This is somewhat of a general question but I am wondering about everyone's experiences with atheists and what they see as the best way to handle discussions with them. As I am in college at the moment I have no doubt I will eventually run into some kind of discussions with atheists while I am here and I guess I would like to learn from others experience before I am directly faced with those discussions.

Pray that God would change their hearts and be loving towards them. Ask what they know about Christianity.

Romans 1 says that everyone knows God. I would not give an argument in favor of God's existence unless they ask you how you know that God exists. If they refuse to admit that God exists, then show them that they use things or believe in things that presuppose God's existence. If the atheist uses the laws of logic to make objections to Christianity, then you can show him how the laws of logic presuppose God's existence. If the atheist thinks that there are objective moral values, then you can show him how moral values presuppose God's existence.