All Comments for: Answering the Atheists | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > November

Christianity Today, November, 2007 |

Foolish Things

Answering the Atheists

A Reader's Digest version of why I am a Christian.

Stan Guthrie | posted 11/13/2007 08:33AM

Let's face it: Atheism is in. Not since Nietzsche have disbelievers enjoyed such a ready public reception to their godless message—and such near-miraculous royalties. But even that hasn't put them ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 122 comments.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Show All

Steve Schlicht

Posted: November 25, 2007 5:28 PM

I'm an atheist because there has not been any evidence to support the existence of any one of them. Despite continued claims of religious adherents throughout history that Gods, Goddesses and their respective antagonists exist in the shadow realms beyond space and time, there still hasn't been the first shred of empirical evidence that proves these claims. Christians are simply one more class of believers in talking snakes, human sacrifice, virgin births, water-walking wizards, incestuous heroes and genocidal tyrants who love only their special tribe that have presented themselves over the history of humankind. In time we'll learn that Oz never gave nothing to the tin man that he didn't already have.

NKNWN

Posted: November 25, 2007 12:01 AM


TO ALL NONBELIEVERS: Don't just say, "There is no GOD." Dare to dig in for "Yourself" and really, really, really prove, "There is no GOD." In the name of JESUS. AMEN.

J. J. Ramsey

Posted: November 24, 2007 2:15 PM

Some of these arguments are bad arguments, and some of them are non sequiturs. The fine-tuning argument was dealt with above, so I'll deal with some of the Scriptural arguments: * Yes, we have a lot of copies of the NT. This doesn't help if the original manuscripts were filled with half-truth or worse to start with. Even if you get past the apologetics, the texts still show serious errors in chronology and geography. So why should we rely on their more extraordinary claims? * "the Bible gives us the good, the bad, and the ugly of its heroes." It does not follow that we should believe that David slew Goliath because the author who tells us this also tells us that he committed murder by proxy and adultery.

LetUsRatiocinate

Posted: November 23, 2007 12:21 AM

Joe Taylor writes, "Can you at least make it fair and try to understand Christian theology? Most of you profess to be smarter than the "ignorant, childish Christians". It's kind of amusing when you take that stance and then ruin the illusion by using an argument against Christianity that has been refuted over and over again." I would be quite interested, Joe, in your alleged refutation of an argument against Christianity. Could you share one with me? Also, in my experience, there are many more atheists who promoted themselves out of the christian quagmire because they FULLY understood christian theology than those who started out as nonbelievers. I would go so far as to say many, if not most atheists, know christian theology and history much better than most professing christians. That's why we left christianity behind. RE: an earlier comment: Doubting your doubts is a cool phrase, but not a rational one in the absence of credible abrogating evidence as a reason to doubt your doubts.

Happy Skeptic

Posted: November 23, 2007 12:05 AM

non-apologist ken writes: >>Without Christians, a whole bunches of schools and hospitals day-care centers wouldn't even exist. How many of those had been established from atheists?<< Probably very few. Christians are massively organized and funded -- which is possible because they have a relatively coherent identity. Atheists have no coherent identity. The single defining characteristic that atheists share is we are certain the christian god does not exist and have exceedingly strong doubts about any other gods. We are everywhere, but not organized like churches are. There are no churches for atheists that found orphanages. Each of us takes on charitable tasks as we are able. Last Saturday, when I was volunteering (for a christian-founded social service agency,) I told the folks my group was helping that I was merely "doing my atheistic duty." It would be erroneous to assume atheists do not care about anyone but themselves just because we don't have Atheist Mercy hospitals.

Joe Taylor

Posted: November 22, 2007 9:37 PM

Nice article, sums up some good reasons to be a Christian. Some reasons are more disputable than others (as shown by some of the other comments), but overall I agree with everything you say. What disturbs me, though, is how so many of these negative posts miss the point entirely. Atheists, although many Christians remain ignorant, some of us actually do read and understand atheist arguments and world views (although we obviously don't agree with much of it). Can you at least make it fair and try to understand Christian theology? Most of you profess to be smarter than the "ignorant, childish Christians". It's kind of amusing when you take that stance and then ruin the illusion by using an argument against Christianity that has been refuted over and over again.

lilelfwoman

Posted: November 22, 2007 3:45 PM

One day you will need God. The wonderful thing to me is that if you believe in Him or not he loves you and will be there when you need Him. You're all reading the wrong books you atheists. Read the bible and get it straight from God. He has all the answers all you have to do is ask and he will answer you. It's very convenient not to believe in God because that makes you accountable to no one. Good luck (don,t suppose you believe in that either) all of you because you're certainly going to need it quite soon!

DCoder

Posted: November 21, 2007 3:14 PM

Somone sez: "You are right. The atheists should be challenged to show what they have done for humanity. Talk is very cheap. Where are the atheist schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc." I am only my own person. It is irresponsible of me to fee better of myself as an atheist because someone else did the heavy lifting for me. But since you asked ... the two largest philanthropists the world has seen are both atheist/agnostic. Bill Gates (~ $30 billion). Warren Buffet (~ $40 billion). Other well-known activists who fit the bill are Lance Armstrong and Christopher Reeve. And of course there was Pat Tillman who gave up a $9 million contract with the NFL so he could die fighting for your freedom .... even if you chose to use that freedom to slander his beliefs.

Spacejunkie

Posted: November 21, 2007 12:36 PM

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Matthew 7:1-5

Happy Skeptic

Posted: November 21, 2007 12:57 AM

There was once a puddle of water who looked about and exclaimed, "Wow! Isn't it amazing how the earth on which I rest was so PERFECTLY created to fit my boundaries! There must be a creator god!" To which the earth replied, "Oh, dry up, you ignorant drip! I was here first. You perfectly adapted to me." My dad is a fundamentalist christian minister who loves to read apologetics like Christianity Today. He is deeply saddened that I have grown past fundamentalist strictures and irrationalities. He and my mother hope I'll finally come to admit that I'm merely rebelling against them and their god. And, presumably, reclothe myself in the mantle of ignorance and faith. I hardly see this happening. Firstly, I'm not rebelling against them and realize their god is imaginary. My agnostic atheism would be compelled to change and believe if there were credible evidence to recommend such a change. Stan Guthrie provides none. The pro christian babble here does not convince. I'm happy, moral and free!

Marco

Posted: November 20, 2007 4:19 PM


"Beauty: Beethoven's Ninth, a snowflake, the sweet smell of a baby who has been sleeping, and a sunset beyond the dunes of Lake Michigan all point to a magnificent and loving Creator." So then death, violence, war, and gore point to what exactly? Okay it's a trick question- if you were to answer this rationally you'd go against the Bible's teachings.

E favorite

Posted: November 20, 2007 1:49 PM

Regarding Stan Guthrie's "Answering the Atheists," posted 11/13/07, Please provide the source for his quote. "A feuding Richard Dawkins suggests that believers 'just shut up.' Apparently, they didn't get the tolerance memo." I found only one, and it was "source unknown": http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it. -- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown). In contrast, when googling <"just shut up" Dawkins> I found numerous fully attributed sources of Christians suggesting that Dawkins should "just shut up" about Christianity. Perhaps they didn't get the tolerance memo either?

Anonymous

Posted: November 20, 2007 9:42 AM

"Scripture: Unlike other religious texts, the Bible gives us the good, the bad, and the ugly of its heroes: Abraham, Jacob, David, and Peter among them. Further, Scripture's message rings true. It has been said that human depravity is the only religious doctrine empirically verified on a daily basis. And the Bible's gracious solution to our predicament, Christ's atoning death on the Cross, uniquely emphasizes what God has done, not what we must do, for our rescue." Scripture's foremosts revelations are about it's one heroe and his depravities. Scripture, the OT, describes a very cruel god, the fictional flood would have been the biggest mass murder ever, the massacre of the Israelites describes rape and atrocious murders on the specific demand of Yahweh, the massacre of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah would be called genocide nowadays and than suddenly God has to die to change a rule that he himself implemented, not that this death is a big sacrifice, he resurrects shortly after.

Epoch

Posted: November 20, 2007 7:41 AM


snore

AskWhy Books

Posted: November 19, 2007 1:39 PM

It is a terrible article, offering a mass of already refuted arguments (see for example our website at: http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/ ) for belief in Christianity, as Samantha implies. The fact is that Mr Guthrie just believes, and these arguments are irrelevant to his belief. What is interesting is to know the real reason why he believes. A big component is sure to be that he cannot bear the idea of dying, and Christianity offers a false hope that death to anyone deluded enough to believe it. He is even neurotic enough to think that atheism is a threat to Christianity because a few books critical of Christianity have recently been published. Atheism is still a minority interest, and the fear and loathing Christians show towards it simply betrays the frailty of their belief.

Logan

Posted: November 19, 2007 1:24 PM

Much as Mr. Guthrie would like to encapsulate The God Delusion with the out-of-context phrase "just shut up", Dawkins does not call for religious folk to be forbidden from speaking their mind. He only brings up the point that theistic commentary should not enjoy any special status among other commentators. By and large, the universe IS in fact barren and inhospitable. I don't understand how a God who fashioned the universe so that we are perched on a knife edge with oblivion on either side could be said to be benevolent. By the same reasoning, a vast desert with a small oasis in the middle is more desirable than a lush forest or jungle. It's really the ultimate case of the old trick where someone pushes you then catches you at the last second and says "Saved your life, now you owe me $50". New Testament reliability is very obvious backward reasoning. If the Iliad was people's holy book instead of the Bible, there would be thousands of manuscripts of that and little of the Bible.

Johnny

Posted: November 19, 2007 11:00 AM

Being popular never equal to being right or be the truth, this thing both theists and atheists agree. Let's face it: Jesus and Christianity are NOT popular, Jesus got rejected and cruxified, Christians got prosecuted and mocked everywhere. I argue atheism is actually more appealing than Christianity because it's man made nature, and would sound more sweet to flawed human being. Non of the so-called contradictories of the bible or Jesus's character really stand with the challenges of rationality and evidence. Without Christianity rationalism would not even exist! Argument never win converts, Christianity don't need atheists nor arguments to survive, but not the other way around.

Eliot

Posted: November 19, 2007 9:29 AM

Indeed, tolerance is important for all people, theists or not. For those who are exceptionally rude, I apologize. For those who were misquoted or taken out of context, I hang my head. The point remains, theists and nontheists alike should attempt to come to a peaceful understanding of each other; a great way to do this is through logical examinations of each side's tenets. This is, sadly, where I find your article lacking. The beauty argument proves nothing, for indeed the design/designer argument is heavily flawed. So too are the arguments of NT reliability, scripture, Jesus, testimonies, and the resurrection, for they beg the question and are circular. Personal experience is hardly objective proof, and would that I had the space to explain the inherent faults of Lewis' trilemma! Finally, the argument of progress is simply strength in numbers... and just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right! (I can hear it now: "If everyone else jumped off a cross, would you do it?"

Writer@Large

Posted: November 19, 2007 8:52 AM

For someone who's so aware of the "New Atheism," you seem to be woefully unaware of what they're saying. Otherwise, you would not trot out so many Christian PRATTs. I mean, come on, the old Lewis Trilema argument? That was refuted when C.S. Lewis was still alive. Repeating them may make you feel better about your faith, but you're a fool if you think they're any serious challenge to the arguments of atheists.

Teci Pulido

Posted: November 19, 2007 2:40 AM

To Drake Scott: I understand where you're coming from and it seems awful from that perspective. But on the contrary, Christianity talks of a maturity from fear to love. But it is understandable that new believers, and even those who have yet to believe, would think that it's all about do-this-and-get-that. Think about it: God becomes man and dies for us REGARDLESS of whether we turn to Him or not. He loves us WITHOUT imposing that He be loved back. In the end, it's not punishment for a belief so much as perfect justice. I had to realize that I was a really wretched sinner before being thankful that Christ already took on my punishment so I can be free. In a world of tit-for-tat justice, we all should be punished. But because of the love that He gives us (that we are free to accept or reject), there is then a way for all to be saved. "For God did not give you a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind." I hope this helps :)

Steve Schlicht

Posted: November 18, 2007 9:22 PM

Well, atheists have rated the article in assorted ways and articulated the reasons why they find the article fails. The website actually requires a rating prior to posting and so atheists shouldn’t bear the blame for that. Atheists I know are very caring and consistently provide comfort and charity to the greater human family. I’ll state again, the word “atheism” only depicts one facet of a person. Any other generalized claim made of atheists is unfounded and most often a reflection of religious bias. Christians claim the absolutes of religious dogma. Atheists merely refute their claims and seek answers that don’t begin with “The God(s)ess(es) did it”. There are many secular charities atheists donate time and effort to. Atheism is nothing other than a methodology and not an ideology. Schools and hospitals all over the world don’t require “Christianity” and many scholars and intellectuals existed prior to the Christian mythos.

Non-apologist Ken

Posted: November 18, 2007 6:18 PM

Whatever article or books that are written by Christians or apologists that defend their faith or challenge the rationale of atheism, armies of atheists would come and put one star in order to discredit that. It's so familiar, in CT, in amazon etc. Seems like atheists never really do what they claims as "caring for the humanity and society" besides ranting and trolling online or at amazon. No intention to insult atheists, geninue Christians are simply humble to admit their limitation on knowledge and rationality, and realize that more they know, more is yet to be known, and submit themselves to Christ that can guide them truth, love and joy. Without Christians, a whole bunches of schools and hospitals day-care centers wouldn't even exist. How many of those had been established from atheists? Why atheists hate Pascal Wager so much? because they can only live under their wishful thing and never ever have a chance to celebrate their "victory"!

Joe Skiles

Posted: November 18, 2007 12:37 PM

Sorry, but this is a pretty facile article. There are far more eloquent and compelling defenses of Christianity than the above, which is nothing more than a retread of similar messages to what can be heard at thousands of churches across America every Sunday. Unsourced historical assertions without context or perspective (save for "according to historian X"), tired proclamations about experiencing beauty, and childishly antagonizing atheists by suggesting they're all irrationally bitter and angry because they aren't part of shared Christian joy are just some of the reasons people often refuse to take Christianity seriously in the first place. Claiming divine province over something as singularly human as Beethoven's achievements is the capstone of stupidity on an article that projects a level of analysis barely out of place with a teenager's proclamation of faith. Can we get a bit beyond the now cliched obsession with C.S. Lewis and dogmatically pointing to the resurrection?

Patrick

Posted: November 18, 2007 11:25 AM

James and Tippy, Let's say that you lived where 80% of your neighbors believed in Nargal. He supposedly created the Earth in six hours on a bet. It's mostly a harmless belief. They even have this holiday where everyone brings food and plays poker for two days. But not all of their beliefs are benign. They think to be a moral person one has to believe in Nargal, so they all view you with suspicion. They also all think that when they die, their souls will be taken to a great casino where they can be with Nargal at the craps tables forever. Souls of non-believers however will be locked in a box and thrown into a bottomless pit, forever falling. They spend an awful lot of time trying to "save" you from the Box by trying to convert you to this nonsense. They don't have any evidence besides a book written thousands of years ago and poorly translated a dozen times that contradicts itself in hundreds of places. Might you get angry eventually, even though you really don't believe in Nargal?

Alphaman

Posted: November 18, 2007 11:08 AM


Pathetic, tired, old, apologist arguments, full of strawmen, begging the question, false dilemmas, and many other logical fallacies. All of these have been made, discounted, and have no bearing on atheism other than to continue to try and oppress the minority atheist viewpoint. Find something new to try. These are worn out.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment