Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
495
149
43
#21
Having cited three unavoidable or axiomatic beliefs, my intent now is to discuss the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning. (A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.) Nevertheless, let us begin by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice).

Imagine that you have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, your immediate concern would be meeting your survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would you not wonder why you were “born”, how you should behave, and what you ought to accomplish with your life?

What are two qualitatively different answers to these questions?
I realize that I am thinking along lines that not many have explored, so I will go ahead and post some more of my logical train of thought:

Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions. One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative (cf. Part IV), although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. MT 13:14-15).
I call the first type of answer cosmaterialism, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses, implying a perpetual history of KOTH. I call the second way of believing moralism, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense (cf. Part III) that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (which means for ending KOTH:).

The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. GN 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide, although the analogy breaks down at the points the various oceans connect. (Watershed divide: Moralism or Nihilism?) A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Again, until and unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.

Are y'all tracking?...
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,999
4,309
113
#22
I have come to believe there is no such thing as an atheist.

1. they believe they are god or a god
2. they are angry, and they blame God for something that has happened in their life that hurt them, like the death of Charles Darwin's daughter.
3. they live in a controlling sin. They do not want to give up, so the idea of No God allows them to do what they want without reservation. It might make it right.
 

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
495
149
43
#23
What do you mean by accept Christ?
I mean what the NT means, to satisfy God's requirement for salvation. Please join us on The Kerygma thread to discuss this in detail.
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
18,729
6,437
113
62
#24
I mean what the NT means, to satisfy God's requirement for salvation. Please join us on The Kerygma thread to discuss this in detail.
Where in the NT is such a requirement listed?
 

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
495
149
43
#25
I have come to believe there is no such thing as an atheist.

1. they believe they are god or a god
2. they are angry, and they blame God for something that has happened in their life that hurt them, like the death of Charles Darwin's daughter.
3. they live in a controlling sin. They do not want to give up, so the idea of No God allows them to do what they want without reservation. It might make it right.
You are rushing me! I intend to get there re #1&2 if y'all will hang with me. I am laying out a logical train of thought a few ideas at a time so as not to dump the whole load on folks all at once. :^)
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,999
4,309
113
#27
You are rushing me! I intend to get there re #1&2 if y'all will hang with me. I am laying out a logical train of thought a few ideas at a time so as not to dump the whole load on folks all at once. :^)

LOL, hey, Brother, time is short, man. LOL, you have some heavyweights in here.
 

rrcn

Active member
Oct 15, 2023
419
134
43
#28
[
I am trying to explain a logical reason for atheists to accept Christ. If the RC Church has some helpful ideas, please share them.
I don’t have any use for the RC church, nor any of their doctrines. It is a world loving church which promotes a man made religion.

Regarding your quest to convert atheists —
Good luck with that. I had an acquaintance who was an avowed atheist, we would discuss our respective religions and I always answered his points with an explanation and a scriptural reference explaining the Biblical principal. He was unmoved to say the least.
Then one day he was in the Gulf of Mexico deep sea fishing when his boat began to take on water. He got off a distress call as the boat went under water. A nearby boater fished the occupants out about 30 minutes in fairly high seas.
The next time I saw him at work, I guess I would say he sought me out, walked up and told me that when the boat went down he never had a thought of God. This confirmed for him that he would always be a atheist. Years later his wife told me that before that I had almost convinced him to start reading the Bible.

This is a world of pain and heartbreak.


Psa 14:1-3 KJV] 1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.
[2Co 4:3-5 KJV] 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
 

rrcn

Active member
Oct 15, 2023
419
134
43
#29
I don't think Catholics do philosophy. Catholics did the whole 'take one verse out of the Bible and built a church around it' by taking the "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" verse and creating the Pope.
I know that this might come as a surprise to many here but it's the Protestants who do philosophy by treating the Bible as a crossword puzzle that needs to be solved in the verse vs verse format.
The Bible is explained in these verses, it is written in code:
[Isa 28:10, 13 KJV] 10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little: ... 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
 

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
495
149
43
#31
[


I don’t have any use for the RC church, nor any of their doctrines. It is a world loving church which promotes a man made religion.

Regarding your quest to convert atheists —
Good luck with that. I had an acquaintance who was an avowed atheist, we would discuss our respective religions and I always answered his points with an explanation and a scriptural reference explaining the Biblical principal. He was unmoved to say the least.
Then one day he was in the Gulf of Mexico deep sea fishing when his boat began to take on water. He got off a distress call as the boat went under water. A nearby boater fished the occupants out about 30 minutes in fairly high seas.
The next time I saw him at work, I guess I would say he sought me out, walked up and told me that when the boat went down he never had a thought of God. This confirmed for him that he would always be a atheist. Years later his wife told me that before that I had almost convinced him to start reading the Bible.

This is a world of pain and heartbreak.


Psa 14:1-3 KJV] 1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.
[2Co 4:3-5 KJV] 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
Yes, and include the lament of Jesus regarding Jerusalem in this vein.
There are a lot of MAGA Catholics, though', so at least they aren't promoting the Dem destructive policies.
 

jacko

Well-known member
Sep 2, 2024
695
386
63
#32
Atheist need to be shown love.. .. I don’t believe shouting at them with a megaphone from a corner while standing on a perch is effective.. I have seen preachers go up to individuals one on one asking them if there was anything in their life they needed a prayer for, now that can be effective. Buying a homeless dude a hot meal, will, open their hearts.
 

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
495
149
43
#33
Atheist need to be shown love.. .. I don’t believe shouting at them with a megaphone from a corner while standing on a perch is effective.. I have seen preachers go up to individuals one on one asking them if there was anything in their life they needed a prayer for, now that can be effective. Buying a homeless dude a hot meal, will, open their hearts.
Yes they do, As CS1 said, "they are angry, and they blame God for something that has happened in their life that hurt them".

And we should speak the truth in love.
 

jacko

Well-known member
Sep 2, 2024
695
386
63
#34
Yes they do, As CSI said, "they are angry, and they blame God for something that has happened in their life that hurt them".

And we should speak the truth in love.

Better yet show them love…
 

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
495
149
43
#35
I realize that I am thinking along lines that not many have explored, so I will go ahead and post some more of my logical train of thought:

Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions. One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative (cf. Part IV), although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. MT 13:14-15).
I call the first type of answer cosmaterialism, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses, implying a perpetual history of KOTH. I call the second way of believing moralism, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (which means for ending KOTH:).

The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. GN 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide, although the analogy breaks down at the points the various oceans connect. (Watershed divide: Moralism or Nihilism?) A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Again, until and unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.

Are y'all tracking?...
Okay, then.
The second watershed decision flows immediately and implicitly from the moralist viewpoint (like major rivers from one side of the Divide)—choosing what (or who) to believe gives existence meaning and under-girds moral conscience. As one analyzes the variety of moralistic beliefs, there seem to be four main viewpoints: the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. GN 11:4), there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. GL 6:7), there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. RM 2:14), or a supernatural Supreme Being exists, who has a moral will for humanity, with which humans may cooperate or not (biblical and especially NT monotheism or simply theism or belief in one God, cf. GN 17:1.

Humanism has three denominations including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?) The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.

Over...
 

homwardbound

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2012
16,382
432
83
#36
Romans 8:16, 1st John 5:13 & 1st John 3:24. there are more though.
God just loves us all period, thank you, even those yet still in unbelief
people continue to say show me God and I will believe you
God replies believe me and I will show you, even through adversities I will show you, I say to God, thank you. For God has shown me through my adversities and I am still not perfect yet God is my substitution in risen Son that changes(d) me to love as in 1Cor 13:4-7. Which I have learned can only get imputed in us as born again by God, to do that truth, taking no credit in doing it ever.
 

homwardbound

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2012
16,382
432
83
#37
It would seem that John was sentient when he leaped. I am trying to state a logical basis for converting from birthism to something closer to conceptionism. Sentientism by the 3rd month moves six months closer and should be easy to achieve if we would simply teach fetal development to every high school student.
Okay< thank you
i compare second birth, born again by God
using a caterpillar, that spins a cocoon and nine months later that cocoon breaks and out comes a butterfly. No more worm, no more crawling on the ground. A brand new creation born new
I know when I see a butterfly, I never say did you see that old converted worm?
‘God’s amazing born again grace floors me in thanksgiving and praise, in deep appreciation, I can’t hurt anyonepurposely ever.
the first birth that you are talking of is to have the knowledge of good and evil.to choose which one< anyone will do
we are not born sinners, we choose to be after one day one, anyone sees and chooses God to be born new by God or not in risen Son or not.
tolearn to not trust feelings to lead them any longer as in first birth does that to us all over troubles we all experience at least me thanking God to be my trainer and not self or any other flesh either. Phil 3
thank you for your view
 
Oct 19, 2024
495
149
43
#38
Okay, then.
The second watershed decision flows immediately and implicitly from the moralist viewpoint (like major rivers from one side of the Divide)—choosing what (or who) to believe gives existence meaning and under-girds moral conscience. As one analyzes the variety of moralistic beliefs, there seem to be four main viewpoints: the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. GN 11:4), there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. GL 6:7), there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. RM 2:14), or a supernatural Supreme Being exists, who has a moral will for humanity, with which humans may cooperate or not (biblical and especially NT monotheism or simply theism or belief in one God, cf. GN 17:1.

Humanism has three denominations including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?) The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.

Over...
I remind you that I am exploring the logic of Paul in RM 1:20 when he says that creation reveals God's power and loving nature.
I began the logical train of thought by citing three unavoidable beliefs and then two qualitatively opposite answers to the question regarding the meaning of life. Next I posited that sane or non-nihilistic people choose to believe that life has meaning or a moral dimension, and I noted four flavors regarding what warrants such faith, beginning with humanism. Now I will share thoughts about karmaism, naturalism and theism.

Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality, but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient adult in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).

The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. MT 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH.

Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in MT 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (MT 28:5-7, if it occurred) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.

The only viable alternative to atheism is NT theism, which reformed the OT concept by revealing that the one almighty God is also all-loving. (The NT concept of God is described more fully in Parts III and IV, but at this point see 1TM 2:3-7.) It views God as creating and communicating by means of His Word (Logos in JN 1:1), and it affirms that the world is created intentionally rather than accidentally “banged” from a “singularity” (RM 1:25).
 
Oct 24, 2012
16,382
432
83
#39
I see this: you are straining out Gnats, I am watching out to not swallow any camels, thanks for the view(s) you are sharing, be careful watch out for the Leaven