Atheist’s Arguments Against Christianity

Atheist’s Arguments Against Christianity April 6, 2015

Atheistic arguments ultimately fail.

Atheists are determined to disprove the existence of God. They attempt to promote arguments that suggest there is evidence that God does not exist. A reader, in the comment section of one of my articles, supplied me with several of these arguments. While everyone will not accept all of my reasons, they are offered in the spirit of love with the hope that those who are truly seeking answers will realize that they do exist for these challenges and that believing in God is not unreasonable.

The omnipotence argument.

Atheist Argument: The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: “Can God create a rock so big that He cannot move it?” or “If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself?”

Response: This argument proves that the atheist asking them does not truly want an answer. These are simply smokescreens meant to muddy up real discussion about God, His character, and His attributes. J. Warner Wallace writes, “When someone asks, “Can the all-powerful Christian God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?” they are asking a logically incoherent question. It is the equivalent of asking, “Can God create a ‘square circle’?” Circles and squares are mutually exclusive by their very definition. As a result, the question nonsensically queries the creation of something similarly nonsensical. God cannot create square circles for the same reason He cannot sin; He acts dependably in a manner consistent with His moral and logical nature, and our universe is the beneficiary of God’s dependable nature. Those who ask logically incoherent questions of this kind are requiring God to violate His nature (His logical coherency) in order to demonstrate His nature (His power)” [1]. Logic is a reflection of God’s unchanging nature; therefore, He will act in a logical manner. Although God is omnipotent, the Bible does say that there are certain things He cannot do. He cannot sin (James 1:3); He cannot change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17); He cannot deny Himself (II Timothy 2:13). Does this mean God is not omnipotent? No, it simply means that He acts according to His nature.

The omniscience argument.

Atheist Argument: The Omniscience paradox. “If God is omnipotent, then he should be able to change the future to an “alternate future” that is unknown to him, conflicting with his omniscience” Similarly, an omniscient God would know the position of all atoms in the universe over its ~14 billion-year history as well as its infinite future. To know that, God’s memory needs to be bigger than the infinite set of possible states in the current Universe.

Response: Simply because we cannot comprehend the immense power and ability of God does not mean He does not/cannot exist. It makes good sense to consider that God, Who is capable of creating the universe, is able to do far more than we are able to wrap our minds around. The argument about an omniscient (all-knowing) God creating something He does not know is a self-defeating argument; much like “can God create something that is uncreated”, simply an exercise in word play…nothing more. There are also many unfounded assumptions contained in this argument: the universe has not been proven to be 14 billion years old, yet this argument makes that assumption in an attempt to bolster its case. One could also contend that humans do not know how big God’s memory needs to be to do anything. These are meaningless shots in the dark that do not contain facts, only fantasy.

Ain’t got no reason argument.

Atheist Argument: The “No Reason” Argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient God would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because He would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. Since the Universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist.

Response: The only reason God has for acting in a certain way is simply because He chooses to act in that way. It is amazing that we sometimes think we have the right to declare how God should or should not act. If God cannot act as He chooses, He is not God. Humanity shows its arrogance when we says that we have decided, using our fallible reasoning capabilities, that God should have done this or that He shouldn’t have done that. God asked Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding…” (Job 38:4 NASB). God is pointing out the fact that He did not ask our opinion when He created the universe and everything in it; therefore, who do we think we are to question Him?

As to the idea that ‘need, wants or desires’ are ‘subjectively human’; is it reasonable to believe that an all mighty God has no feelings? The Bible clearly says that God loves us, it speaks of His anger and His wrath against sin and evil doers, He can grieve…are these not feelings? He certainly would have no needs because He is God, but we know He has desires because the Bible clearly says so, “God, our savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Timothy 2:3-4 NASB). Whereas many of our wants and desires are sinful, God has no wants or desires that are contrary to His holy nature. But it is not we who decide God’s nature; He created us, not the other way around.

There will come a time when we are all judged by God, are you ready? “…the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified…” (II Thessalonians 1:7-10 NASB).

Article by Robert Driskell

Additional Resources:


"Some people believe that breath meditation can be a more valuable tool that helps some ..."

What Does The Bible Say About ..."
"That's he "present" when children are being abused? Is he there passively watching the ..."

What Does The Bible Say About ..."
"There goes Joe D. cherry picking again! You folks debate issues on focus and interpretation ..."

What Do Coptic Christians Believe?
"BOOM! Thats what he was looking for! /S"

What Do Coptic Christians Believe?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jeff

    Except that I’ve never once encountered any atheist that has ever wasted time asking idiotic questions such as these. All you’ve done is create still yet another straw man argument (do born-againers have any other kind?) while STILL providing laughably amateurish responses to your own questions.

    When your very first inclination is to write “This argument proves that the atheist asking them does not truly want an answer”, you’ve automatically revealed your inability to engage in genuine debate, although I’m sure your third-grade semantics work just fine in fundie churches, where human logic and intelligence are seen as proof of the devil’s existence.

    • Von

      Actually the person that wrote,”This argument proves that the atheist asking them does not truly want an answer”, used to be an atheist.
      An amateurish response is one that is preceded by implying that if you don’t personally encounter something, it doesn’t exist or it is idiotic. Is fundie your nickname for fundamentalist?

      • John Jones

        Von, you are right if one hasn’t personally encounter something, it does NOT prove its non-existence. Also doesn’t prove its existence. Either way it proves nothing. So where is you proof FOR existence?

        If someone states that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Spaghetti Monster really exist, or he/she is, in fact, really Napoleon Bonaparte or Cleopatra reincarnated – then it is up to THAT PERSON to prove it, otherwise I have no reason to believe it at all. It is not up to disprove anything.

        And I am not obligated to believe what someone say on just his/her word of honor or because it says so in a book or because people have believed it for centuries or because he/she claims to have had a revelation.

        There needs to be strong proof for such strong claims.

        If anyone told you these things would you have to believe it because you can’t “prove” them wrong?

        This is what atheists say about all the gods. Where is the convincing proof?

    • Robert Driskell

      Thank you for commenting.

  • JGravelle

    “Atheists are determined to disprove the existence of God.”

    False premise.

    Most have simply grown weary waiting for proof OF such existence which, despite thousands of years of waiting, has not been forthcoming…


    • Von

      66 books that were written over thousands of years, with the earliest writings prophetically referring to the most recent writings, and modern archaeology and science supporting the claims of all of them, is a reasonable premise for further study. For the most part, a Christians stance is based on this study and not the argument of any man. The word that Christians believe also speaks accurately about the current state of the world and the gap between mankind and the creator.
      I’m not saying “Atheists are determined to disprove the existence of God” but I’m wondering what convinces them that there isn’t one?

      • Jehova

        I’m wondering what convinces them that there isn’t one?

        For me, the evidence for these reported supernatural, intangible, invisible, non-physical, atemporal, conscious entities is either non existent or terrible. Do you have good evidence? What is your definition of god or gods anyway?

      • JGravelle

        Ad Populi Fallacy.

        A quick Amazon search returned 64,014 books about Santa, 3,958 books about the Easter Bunny, and 13,162 books about Mother Goose.

        Our natural incredulity toward Leprechauns, fairies, gnomes, elves, and Spiderman is the same propensity that makes one skeptical about Gods…


        • Robert Driskell

          Maybe we have a ‘natural incredulity’ because there is truly Someone out there that we are drawn too…we just focus on our own creations instead of the Creator

          • JGravelle

            …for whom we should be willing to shelve our incredulity and become inexplicably credulous?

            Sure, “maybe” there are gods. And dragons. And unicorns. Maybe.

            But anybody insisting that there ARE certainly has their work cut out before the rest of us buy into the notion…


          • Robert Driskell

            You definitely have the choice to believe what you want to believe. Thank you for commenting.

          • JGravelle

            With due respect sir, I do not.

            I cannot simply will myself to believe whatever I’d like. I’d love to see and speak with my dead father again, but no amount of wishing for it to be true can convince me that a supernatural overseer can or will ever make that happen.

            The best I could do is pretend to believe it. But I refuse to be that person. I’m hopeful that you’d rather deal with an honest me than a guy who simply pays lip service to popular beliefs just to get along with others like yourself…



          • Robert Driskell

            Your honesty is appreciated. I am sorry for your loss. It is not my intent that people “get along with me”. I am here to present biblical truth in the hope that others will gain eternal life.

          • JGravelle

            As is yours.

            I’m always open to that which is demonstrably true, though I’ll admit to getting more than a little impatient with the plethora of metaphysical assertions that lack sufficient evidence to accept them…


          • Robert Driskell

            Well, it’s ‘demonstrably true’ that we are here. I think it is important to think about ‘why’ we are here as well as ‘how’. Are we here by accident? Or did a Creator create? Thank you for your comments.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            All great questions, but sometimes we need to determine what the correct questions are to ask. I think many people, religious or otherwise, tend to overlook this step. It begins with observation.

            Much of the pondering about God starts with the assumption he exists, such as “intelligent design” arguments. With the assumption he exists, every question we have has an answer. The problem lies with assumption. When we assume something, the answer becomes hypothetical. This can be seen in algebra. In any given equation, we can plug a number in for a variable, and it might work. It may even be right. However, that is a shortcut that ignores the steps to get to the correct answer. Even when the number that was plugged in works, it may still be an incorrect answer or an incomplete answer.

            God can not by definition be observed. Instead you rely on the works that are assumed to be done by him as some kind of proof he exists. Rational thoughts do not work this way. If you start with the observation of the world without the assumptions, then the conclusion suggests natural order that does not point toward a supernatural explanation.

          • JGravelle

            Agreed, with a few caveats.
            Much of the confusion stems from conflating the “how” and “why” questions. Asking “why” lightning strikes implies a motive, thus a motivated agent, ergo Zeus did it, and that’s the end of the discussion.

            But asking “how” leads to further inquiry, observation, experimentation and, eventually, the right answer[s] about the nature of electro-chemical storm phenomena. Zeus goes by the wayside. There’s no need for him in the equation. And the answer to “why” becomes “such are the demonstrable properties of weather systems that result in lightning”.

            As lightning bolts, and earthquakes, and volcano eruptions, and plagues and such have all be explained as emergent natural phenomena, we’ve abandoned the notion of, and need for, petty vengeful gods as their cause.

            So too with the universe itself. Whereas once we had no answer for “Why is there lightning?” we’re now faced with “Why is there a universe?” and among our choices are:

            – shrugging our shoulders and opining that Yahweh did it; or
            – a thorough examination of the phenomenon of existence itself.
            I don’t blame anybody for satisfying themselves with either option. It’s when either camp demands the other enjoin them that we run into trouble…


      • TheMarsCydonia .

        “I’m not saying “Atheists are determined to disprove the existence of God” but I’m wondering what convinces them that there isn’t one?”

        I am not convinced that there is no gods, I am simply not convince there is one, much less a precise one with claims that have been demonstrated to be untrue unless taken metaphorically.

    • Robert Driskell

      The proof is all around you. I think you grow weary of denying the obvious. Is it really easier to believe that everything came into being by accident, chance, random oooopses? I call that a fairy tale. Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

      • Jansmt7

        That’s just ridiculous. Everybody knows Love was born out of Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells. From Love emerged Light, followed by Gaea, the earth.

        The proof is all around you. I think you grow weary of denying the obvious.

        • Robert Driskell

          Thank you for your comment.

      • JGravelle

        Straw Man Fallacy.

        Nowhere did I propose accident, nor chance, nor random “oopses.”

        It’s “easier to believe” that Zeus hurls thunderbolts rather than accept the buildup of an invisible electrical charges within a cloud build to a maximum capacity/potential before being ionically discharged between that body and the Earth. But that’s what REALLY happens.

        By natural means. Not by god[s].

        We have a plethora of phenomena formerly ascribed to deities now recognized as products of nature. Germs, not demons, cause sickness. Plate tectonics, not wrathful deities, cause earthquakes. And volcanoes. And on, and on, and on.

        There’s no reason to think that existence itself is anything other than a natural phenomenon. Whether it is or not, those who insist upon their supernatural explanations bear the burden of proving the case to the rest of us, as you’ve tried to do (unsuccessfully) for thousands of years.

        BTW, Genesis 2 contradicts the chronology of your Genesis 1 account. Maybe try getting all the devout on the same page before pitching the rest of us on that song and dance…


        • Robert Driskell

          You didn’t have to ‘propose’ anything. There are only two explanations for our existence: Someone did it or nothing did it. Atheists choose to believe that nothing did it. Christians choose to believe God did it. Each of us makes that choice. Thank you for commenting.

          • JGravelle

            That’s a false dichotomy.

            Proper adherence to the laws of logic (in this case the first; the law of contradiction) your proposition properly stated would be either:

            – someone did it; or
            – someone did NOT do it.

            The negative is the default position, for reasons that should be clear. If I’d proposed that a unicorn did it, you’d be justified in maintaining that, unless and until I proved there WAS a unicorn and that he DID do it, the skeptical position was the most rational.

            So the task before anybody who insists upon the affirmative is to simply prove the hypothesized supernatural someone exists, and that s/he DID create everything.

            I’m willing to have my mind changed, and I sincerely appreciate your effort toward fulfilling your obligation in 1 Peter 3:15 to do so…


      • Sven2547

        The proof is all around you.

        Let’s see… what is “all around me”?

        In the sky I can see ten-thousand-year-old stars with the naked eye, 1.5 million-year-old stars with binoculars, and 12 billion-year-old stars with the Hubble Telescope (in stark contrast to the scriptural narrative that the universe was made in the same week as humanity).

        On the Earth I see life spread out in a tree of common ancestry (unlike the baramin “kinds” you hear about in creationism).

        On the ground I see no evidence of a global Flood, but instead the tested-and-proven layers of sedimentary formations that built up over billions of years, again in defiance to anything you’ll find in Genesis.

        In humanity I see that ethical people base their decisions upon empathy, compassion, reason, and philosophy. I see Christians on both sides of every major political and moral debate, calling into question this supposed universal, absolute morality I hear so much about.

        And the coolest part is: it all makes sense in the absence of divine intervention. In contrast, there are many things that would make significantly less sense if we presuppose the existence of a compassionate omnipotent being.

        • Robert Driskell

          And therein lies a major point in this entire discussion: we interpret the exact same evidence according to differing presuppositions. You interpret everything according to a naturalistic/materialistic worldview, while I realize that there is far more to this universe than matter. (By the way, the interpretation you present in your comment is ONE theory, it is not the ONLY theory). Thank you for your comment.

          • Sven2547

            It’s more than just “worldview”. Real science is testable and falsifiable. It makes predictions. It informs further discovery. That’s what makes it a theory.

            Creationism has none of these features. It doesn’t even meet the standard of a hypothesis, much less a theory.

          • Robert Driskell

            Operational science is testable, historical science is not. Both creation scientists and evolution scientists have exactly the same evidence to interpret. Creation science attributes what we see to God, evolutionists attribute it to processes. Neither group was there, one group has God’s word as an eye witness account. Again, we each make the choice whether to take the Bible’s claims seriously or to bow down to the god of humanism. Thank you for commenting.

          • Sven2547

            Operational science is testable, historical science is not.

            There are not two different things: there is just science.

            Let me give you an example: Marsupial fossils, dating to around 80 million years ago, have been found in North America. Fossils of marsupial mammals in South America have been found dating to 40 million years ago. The earliest evidence for the presence of marsupials in their current primary habitat, Australia, dates to about 30 million years ago.

            Between 30 and 40 million years ago, Australia and South America were connected by a continental land bridge, which is now Antarctica, to form the supercontinent known as Gondwana. Therefore, if evolution and plate tectonics are true, we can infer, we ought to find evidence for marsupial migration from South America to Australia via Antarctica, dating to the Eocene period when they were connected. And, indeed, fossils of various species of marsupial, dating to 35-40 million years ago in the Eocene period, have been identified on Antarctica.

            This finding is not a matter of “worldview” or “interpretation” or a priori assumptions or making decisions regarding the validity of the Bible. Scientists made a testable prediction about the past and they were right.

            That’s forensics. That’s using the scientific method to learn objective facts about the past.

          • Robert Driskell

            Operational science (or give it any name you want) is observable, testable, falsifiable, etc. in the present. Historical science (or whatever name you give it) happened in the past and, while theories may abound, cannot be re-observed. (And I’ll not mention the myriad of presuppositions on which you based your entire comment (millions of years, fossil dating, etc.). The animal fossils, and their placement, can just as easily be explained by the biblical account of creation and the flood. Thank you for commenting.

          • Sven2547

            Operational science (or give it any name you want) is observable, testable, falsifiable, etc. in the present. Historical science (or whatever name you give it) happened in the past and, while theories may abound, cannot be re-observed.

            You still say this even after I just gave you a crystal-clear example of using science to confirm facts about the past?! What, you think the scientists just randomly stumbled upon Eocene marsupial fossils in Antarctica, exactly as predicted? They just got lucky?

            And I’ll not mention the myriad of presuppositions on which you based your entire comment (millions of years, fossil dating, etc.)

            That’s just it: these aren’t presuppositions. Just like the example I gave you, radiometric dating and geology aren’t just guesses, they have been repeatedly and exhaustively confirmed by actual tests. What creationist test or experiment has ever been run in the history of “creation science”?

            The animal fossils, and their placement, can just as easily be explained by the biblical account of creation and the flood.

            It’s not enough to say “the flood could explain this”. If the (magical, physics-defying) Flood has any merit, get out there, try to use it to make predicted observations, and do actual science. Why did the Flood drop American marsupials in Cretacious rock yet dropped Antarctic marsupials in Eocene rock? The Flood isn’t an explanatory framework at all, it’s just an unfalsifiable, untestable catch-all excuse. That’s why it’s not science.

            I’m not just being rhetorical. I’d like a real answer to the question I posed here about marsupial fossils.

          • Jollycoptor

            This is how Robert *Always* replies. You ask him to give evidence, you expose something wrong with what he says, and then he just ignores you, or he quotes bible scripture. A broken record. It’s all in his posts.

          • Sven2547

            For someone who has the nerve to make a blog post that “arguments against Christianity ultimately fail”, I expected him to have the integrity to address these things.

          • Sven2547

            Hello? It’s been a week, and I’d like you to address my question regarding marsupial fossils, as well as providing a hypothetical observation that would falsify the Flood hypothesis.

          • Brian K

            “Operational science is testable, historical science is not.” Ken Ham quote makes me realize I can cease futile reasoning.

  • dave

    The entire article is a collection of strawmen fallacies … those of us who reject the various and vastly diverse god claims do so due to the complete lack of any credible evidence from those making such claims … it really is that easy … if you have a god claim, just serve up with credible evidence.

    • morgan

      I agree. And then “they”(Christians) try to hold up their MORALITY to us and they fail miserably. This article proves the immorality of the writer.

      • Robert Driskell

        “This article proves the immorality of the writer.” How so?

        • Hrafn

          Because the author has ignored many stronger arguments against Christianity (e.g. the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations) to focus purely on the weakest and most caricatured arguments.

          In doing so he misrepresents his opponents.

          I would note that not one of these pathetic pretenses of an argument even makes it onto

    • Robert Driskell

      Those ‘strawman fallacies’ came straight from a professing atheist. Just FYI

      • Jefferson_Lebowski

        Still no evidence for belief man. Might as well worship the Tooth Fairy.

        • Robert Driskell

          I see you’ve thoroughly thought it through.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            We’ve had thousands of years to think it through and still no evidence to sift through….

          • Robert Driskell

            “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (II Corinthians 4:3-4 NASB).

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            And that proves…….?

            I have a quote too…

            “Curious indeed how these things happen. The wand chooses the wizard, remember…I think we must expect great things from you, Mr. Potter… After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things — terrible, yes, but great.”

            ― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

            One fictional story deserves another.

          • Robert Driskell

            Thank you for commenting.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            Superstitious Nonsense.

          • Robert Driskell

            A pleasure as always. Thank you for commenting.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            You are quite welcome….

      • dave

        The posting claims implicitly that all atheists assert such claims (they don’t), and that these are the reasons why atheists reject god claims (they are not).

        It would be a tad less confusing to prefix it all by explaining that you recently held a one-on-one conversation with one person who presented these arguments.

        I would advise avoiding sweeping statements such as …
        – All Christians believe X
        – All Atheists claim Y

        … it is never that simple.

        • Robert Driskell

          Stated in the first paragraph of the article. Did you read it?

          • dave

            you are right and I was wrong … my apologies.

            But the initial observation still stands … people do not find evidence for the god claim … that is the key criticism being raised by most commenters including myself.

          • Robert Driskell

            I understand what you, and others are saying, I was there once too…really. Aside from the supernatural aspect of Christianity, one of the most compelling arguments to me is that either someone created all this or it just happened by itself. Given the existence of things like justice, love, logic, etc. (which, as far as I’ve heard, can’t form out of matter) it makes more sense that the source of our existence is a personal being. This personal being would have to be extremely powerful, outside of time, etc. The Bible presents a God with these attributes.
            I know that many won’t agree with me, I’m used to that; however, if one person were to begin a relationship with Jesus Christ because I have done what He has asked, then all the mocking and ridicule leveled at me would have been worth it.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            “It all just happened by itself” should be changed to “we don’t know how it happened, but we are trying to find out”.

            Logic is not specific to humanity. Some animals have shown basic problem solving (such as tool use).

            Love and Justice are things we attribute to humanity and are very subjective. It is one of the reasons why it makes more sense that humans created a God in our image, not the other way around. If there were a God outside of space and time, he would likely be nothing like us and would be completely uncomprehendable. He likely wouldn’t care about human things like worship or moral structures.

            All that is mental gymnastics though. Without proof, we really are just making up what we want to believe. Same with trying to test out a new way of looking at religion. It just becomes the 40,001st denomination.

          • Robert Driskell

            Philosophically, atheists say “It all just happened by itself”. Of course we can’t prove creation in a test tube, neither can evolution be proven in such a manner. Both creationists and evolutionist rely on faith in their interpretations…evolution (as an answer to our existence) is no more ‘proven’ than creation. Thank you for commenting.

          • dave

            // Philosophically, atheists say “It all just happened by itself”//
            Some might indeed claim that, but for most such as myself, I find that “I don’t know” is the most honest answer I have.

            As for evolution … I personally do not “believe” in evolution, I never have, but I do accept the evidence that confirms it all. (anyway, let’s not open this specific can of worms … perhaps it is best to put this to one side)

            Robert, you are clearly deeply invested emotionally in the belief, I get that, I truly do. Now here is a thought, there are 1.6 billion deeply devoted Muslims on the planet today and you would quite rightly label their belief as wrong, and I would agree with you on that. They believe what they believe because that is the cultural context they were born into. In a similar manner you also have a belief, one that says a great deal about the cultural context you reside within, and no doubt those 1.6 billion Muslims would label your belief as wrong.

            This is all very much the way things are … beliefs tell us a great deal about geography plus culture and little else … so in what way is your specific belief different, given that it completely conforms to this ever so common human pattern?

            To distill all that down, to a very simple question … “why do you actually believe what you believe?”. (This is perhaps a question for you to personally ponder over, and not engage in a heated debate about.)

          • Chase

            Let me answer that for him. I believe what I believe in because I can see the possibilities of an afterlife. I can see the scripture behind what I think. If the wind blows I know it is there, not because I can see it, but because I can feel it. Have you ever felt like you can’t move on from the pain and anguish and the next minute you move on from it. That is God, keeping you safe. Everything happens for a reason and I know this. We all were brought to this website for a specific purpose. It is not our job to understand, sometimes we just have to sit back and listen. Instead of popping off at the mouth.

          • dave

            Chase … what you describe is quite universal and almost every believer within almost every distinctly different variation of religious belief would say something similar.

            As for the specific observation regarding pain and anguish, humans regardless of their specific beliefs and non-belief all experience something very similar, there is nothing really supernatural going on. It is of course also universal for cultural reasons to attribute such emotional experiences to something supernatural and align them with whatever cultural beliefs prevail.

            It is the way we as a species are, and none of it actually verifies that such claims are true. To illustrate that point, right now there are individual Muslims who face considerable anguish and pain because their father, mother, brother, son, daughter has been slaughtered, blown up at the hands of some violent extremist … and they will, and do, and have always found that Allah enables them to move on from what has happened and to even forgive … yet you would (I suspect) dismiss their specific belief as false, and yet when you describe the same, would deem it to be confirmation truth.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Your “it happened all by itself” is only one of the possible origins. There are more possibilities that scientists consider, and more that we can not fathom because we simply do not understand everything yet. Our “faith” is based on evidence that leads to a conclusion. Considering theories are always tested and tested again, we live in a world where nothing is 100% known, but instead live in the world of the probable.

            Every time we assume we know everything about something, we are found out to be wrong. This includes religion. It existed before Christianity, and was replaced by other beliefs, that was replaced by other beliefs, etc. Just look at the branching tree that is Christianity. Judaism lead to Muslims and Christians lead to the 30,000 to 40,000 different denominations that exist today.

            If Christians can even figure out what they believe, then the odds are the premise they began with is false.

          • Barbara

            I have a born-again friend who makes sweeping, universal, negative assertions about non-Christians, particularly agnostics/atheists. It’s very annoying, especially when he knows I don’t fit the assertion. When people who have a voice in the public sphere make an assertion that begins with “atheists say” I see where he gets it. There are millions of atheists. Like Christians, they don’t all or even mostly “say” the same thing. It matters, because Christians who read your blog may believe and act on what you write. Your intent may be to lead people to Jesus, but the result includes perpetuating unfair stereotypes.

          • Robert, I deeply understand your compassionate motivation… your desire to help people find “a relationship with Jesus Christ” (and salvation). I’ve had that “relationship” for 60 years (from age 6). From adolescence to age 45, it was fully within an Evangelical framework, with dedication and sincerely pursued “relationship” of prayer, worship, deep study of the Bible (including M.Div., Talbot), church and other ministry, etc.

            But about 20 years ago it gradually changed to less “personal” relationship as ongoing study and life experience led me to understand God as still “personal” but not as supernaturally manipulating things in my life or the world (a Process conception often called panentheism, as you may know describes fairly well the best way I can now conceive God)… And with that, I do not feel any need to convince atheists to become “believers” in the orthodox sense, because much of what they are resisting I no longer can hold to myself and consider damaging… only potentially for some people but actually for many others. Such things as belief in the “penal substitutionary atonement” theory and the usually-linked concept of “justification by faith” and eternal punishment for lack of “saving faith”…

            A “progressive” (or Process) Xn such as myself can have a vital, sustaining faith and find that Jesus, as pictured in the NT, provides direction for where a fully non-coercive, non-violent God is trying to move each of us and the world, via “love”, or the lure of grace. Such a God does not need to and apparently does not and did not “intervene” by breaking “laws of nature” with miracles then (Heb. Bible, Greek NT) or now. Still, “his” presence can seem very real, especially at critical times, and God’s (Holy) Spirit IS very near. In my view that includes powerful “gifts of the Spirit” which can seem to be supernatural “signs and wonders”, provide physical and emotional healing, etc.

            In other words, all this is to say, experiential evidence of a gracious and “close, personal” God can be validly “real” to many, and sustaining. But it does not equate nor lead by valid logical steps to needing to believe any of the supposedly fundamental (or core, required) doctrines of orthodoxy… for reasons you know about and I won’t go into, other than to say that the Bible is a valuable collection of books and letters, sometimes “inspired” it would appear, but not the very “Word of God.”

      • Hrafn

        Those ‘strawman fallacies’ came straight from a professing atheist. Just FYI

        WHO? Citation please!

        • Chase

          Aren’t you doing the same thing? You are choosing someone who you think can be discredited easily? The fact of the matter remains, this atheist said those things. You are doing exactly what he said you would do. You are muddying up the actual case at hand. You are focused on who said it, instead of what was being said. “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” That was Socrates. Are you going to try to disprove him too?

          • Hrafn

            No, I’m not “doing the same thing:

            1) I’m arguing against the actual arguments of an actual, named apologist, not some putative arguments of some unnamed (and likely hypothetical) atheist.

            2) I’ve pointed out far stronger arguments against theism that he’s neglected.

            3) I’ve also argued against Alvin Plantinga’s arguments in the past (particularly his awful, but ever-popular, Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism). I don’t just cherry-pick the weakest.

  • Jehova

    The majority of atheists I know are so because there is zero/terrible evidence and arguments for the claim gods exists.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      I’m here because I was promised cookies.

      Seriously, I don’t think the author has had a real discussion with an Atheist.

      • Robert Driskell

        You are wrong, about me, about Christianity, etc. But you have that God-given right also.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          A non-existant god doesn’t give me rights or take them away.

          Also my cookie statement said nothing about Christianity (that was elsewhere).

  • morgan

    Another ‘straw man” argument from a Christian deceiver.
    Good job.
    As an Atheist I am NOT determined to disprove your god, simply because the concept can neither be proven nor disproven. It’s conjecture.
    I choose to reject your concept. Why do you care?

  • Danny Jarman

    “Atheists are determined to disprove the existence of God.”

    You had me at strawman.

    • Von

      I don’t think anyone is saying atheists are determined to disprove the existence of God, but they are asking what convinced the atheists that there isn’t a God. If you don’t know, you’re probably not an atheist, you’re actually an agnostic.

      • Unrepentant Atheist

        Except the author of this article which said so in the mentioned quote.

        Most Atheists are also agnostic.

      • Barbara

        I am an agnostic atheist. I wasn’t “convinced…that there isn’t a god;” rather, I was never convinced that there is a god or indeed, of the existence of the supernatural. Mr. Driskell’s atheist sounds rather immature and ignorant, so I wonder at either his small circle of non-Christian acquaintances or his motives for this piece. It isn’t fair to either Christians or to the majority of agnostics, atheists and non-believers who are their good neighbors, co-workers, friends and family to perpetuate this facile characterization as the norm.

  • Unrepentant Atheist

    I wonder if you ever met or read about an Atheist before.

    Those arguments do not address the existence of God, but instead challenge his definition. It is also very much a philosophical argument and not one based of evidence or lack thereof.

    There is one major reason why Atheists do not believe in God, and that is there is no reason to believe he exists with the evidence that is currently available. What can be asserted without proof can be denied without proof. So the onus is on the believers to prove their God exists. If not, you would believe in every God since none of them can be proven.

    This article put zero thought into it, unless its main goal was to get Christians feel better about their faith but placing a false weak argument that they believe they can win at for once, instead of relying on faith alone.

    • Von

      Your words,”This article put zero thought into it, unless its main goal was to get Christians feel better about their faith but placing a false weak argument that they believe they can win at for once, instead of relyin…”.
      The premise of your response is based on an assumption that the author hasn’t engaged in a discussion with an atheist and that Christians are only encouraged in their faith by someone who stands up to the “Atheist Goliath”.
      66 books that were written over thousands of years, with the earliest writings prophetically referring to the most recent writings. and modern archaeology and science supporting the claims of all of them, is a reasonable premise for further study. For the most part, a Christians stance is based on this study and not the argument of any man.

      • Unrepentant Atheist

        You have it backwards. I make my assumption that he hasn’t argued with any Atheists because his post exhibits a severe misunderstanding of the Atheist argument. Instead, he takes part in what amounts to mental masturbation and argues with his non existing Atheist in his head.

        I laugh at your “Atheist Goliath” reference. Demographic put us much more in the position of David in your referenced fable. Yours is not the only holy text out there, why are there’s not truth and yours is?

        the issue with most of the Christians arguments are that they choose sides that are logical but take the illogical approach when it comes to their own religion.

        • Von

          I gave you the basis of my belief. I already get that you don’t believe what I believe. You believe that everything originated from nothing. “Goliath” refers to the atheists innate belief that there isn’t a God in response to an atheists comment that another man’s argument against atheism will increase their faith. You are the Goliath in the analogy. What has convinced you that there isn’t a God.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Atheism is the conclusion that there is no evidence to support a god or gods. Therefore there is no reason to believe one exists.

            Christians rely on faith and belief to support their claims on God.

            Essentially it is a logic vs emotion argument.

            My original statement was one possibility of intent of the author. If you negate that possibility, then my statement stands that the article was lacking with a broader audience than fellow Christians.

            The “believe that something came from nothing” statement is overused and non-factual. I follow the origins of the universe back to the point where we no longer know, then understand that the answer is “I don’t know” until we learn more. Your argument is the God of the gaps. God used to live above us in the heavens. Now he is some place else because we discovered space. As we learn more, God retreats.

          • Zeke

            Atheists: We are trying to learn more about the origins of the universe and life.
            Christians: Why bother looking? We already know.

        • Robert Driskell

          You shouldn’t assume. Those ‘atheist arguments’ came from an atheist (as it says at the beginnning of the article…did you actually read it?). Look, everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe. It just seems intelligent for one to investigate his or her possible eternal destinations.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Your “Atheist” argument is a philophical exercise that is performed in high school level philosophy classes and is not restricted to Atheists. It is the mental exercise to imagine a omnipotent being that can create something more powerful that itself.

            It is a philosophical question, and one that has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, but instead challenges the definition of God.

            I don’t need to challenge Christianity. You created a straw man argument within your post. It is flawed and ill informed. Do more research next time.

            If your so called Atheist made this argument to you via a blog, maybe linking it would make your point make more sense. At least then i’d only question why you wasted your time on someone that couldn’t argue their own belief well.

          • Robert Driskell

            I merely wrote an article responding to a self-proclaimed atheist. I never said that every atheist believed his or her claims. But I can see where it is easier to focus on that than on the real issue: atheist’s rebellion against God. Romans 1:18-23 (among others) tells me that every human old enough to think knows that God exists and that they are responsible to Him. I choose to believe the Bible; therefore, those who continue to reject God do so in the face of evidence to the contrary. I presented some of that evidence in the article. My objective is certainly not to force you to become a Christian, that is not up to me. However, the responses show that these objections to Christianity/God/Theism (whatever you choose to call it) don’t carry as much philosophical weight as skeptics would like.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            By writing the article, you opened yourself up to critique.

            Atheists do not “rebel against God”. That might be more in the realm of Anti-Theists (those that believe that religion damages society/people).

            “… tells me that every human old enough to think knows that God exists”.

            False. People are born without any knowledge of a God. It is something that needs to be taught. Hence why there has been a steady push by Christians to get their teachings in public schools.

            Those questions would only make me question whether or not God is capable of existing as an omnipotent being. Philosophy is more of the art of coming up with the questions though then actually answering them. That is more sciences realm.

          • Robert Driskell

            Yes, UA, I realize that I became a target the minute the article was posted. It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last…the idea that God is real is irritating to many. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine; however, to simply reply “False” to a biblical assertion (or any other assertion, for that matter) doesn’t negate it. Thank you for commenting.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            The problem is that the book only has meaning within the religion. Atheists do not recognize the credibility of the book. So saying a book, written by man, is the exactly word of God, has no standing in our eyes. Any more than Harry Potter has any credibility outside entertainment.

          • Robert Driskell

            Unless it is the truth, which means it is authoritative over everything. I know you disagree, that’s fine, you have that option, but have you truly considered the biblical alternative? It’s your choice…but it certainly appears to be an important one. Thank you for commenting.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I was raised Catholic and received Communion, so I have the general idea. I have read the Bible thoroughly. The interesting thing about the truth is it doesn’t change depending on what we want to believe, which is why we must seek it using our own mental faculties. Critical thinking and evidence must be applied to try to come to the proper answer. The Bible has many issues as a source of reference. First, there are many contradictions in it. Often this is because it consists of first person accounts and third person accounts of events that were only written down long after the events supposedly took place. On top of that, it was thoroughly edited and even had entire books removed by a select group of people. Too many “cooks” so to say. So relying on the Bible is relying on someones opinion on what someone else wrote on someone else’s “Word”. There is also very little outside the Bible to corroborate the events that take place in its supposed history. The events that do match up in history are on the broadest scale and do not mention any specific religious event. Partner that with the hijacking of most pagan holidays (Solstice and Equinox) and frequent similarities with religions that came before it and everything points to the religion being man made.

            While the belief is opinion, facts are not. You can believe God exists, but you can not claim that he does. Claiming he does requires evidence.

            The best and most honest answer I ever get from Christians is that it is a personal experience. Unfortunately that is something that will not convince me, as it is emotion driven and not logical.

  • Von

    On both sides of the theism debate, you’ll find the loudest and rudest are the most ignorant. The learned will understand why there is a debate. The ones that seek will find the answer.

  • John Jones

    Why is it that Christians are atheists when it comes to the thousands of gods that mankind has believed in the past? Gods who were creators, who had sacred books, who performed miracles, had revelations, and were / are centuries older than Christianity?

    Moreover, since there are 30,000 Christian religions who cannot agree upon what god did and said and how god wants us to behave and what happens if we don’t follow their version of him, why should anyone believe in any of these versions of god?

    Some Christians cite the Bible as “the word of god”, which if read by their interpretation, will guide one to the truth. They fail to notice that the Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Lutherans, Mormons, Muslims, and Jews all have more or less books in their bible than the others and with different words and different interpretations too. How does one determine which is THE correct bible and contains the word of god – if any?

    They can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong. And if only one is right, how does one know which?

    A-Theists simply say that no god has been proven true. Likewise A-Santa Claus-ists, and A-Easter Bunny-ists, and A-Tooth Fairy-ists say there is no proof either for these beings – just like Christians who say that there is no proof for ALL of the thousands of gods that mankind has believed in for centuries.

    Only THEIR god as mentioned in THEIR holy book as interpreted by THEIR minister of THEIR church who performed revelations to THEIR followers is really true.

    Atheists aren’t convinced as the only evidence that religious people offer are THEIR books, THEIR traditions, THEIR revelations, THEIR miracles, THEIR authorities, and THEIR personal feelings. According to them the books, traditions, revelations, miracles, authorities, and personal feelings of other religions are obviously man-made and invented.

    • Von

      You can’t be convinced of anything if you’re waiting to be spoon fed with your mind closed. Your words only demonstrate why there was a reformation, many denominations and many religions. It’s because people won’t look for the truth, but will accept whatever’s convenient within their comfort zone.

    • Von

      By definition you are an agnostic. Look it up for yourself. An atheist does not believe any God exists. Christians believe that the one God that claims to have created the heavens and the earth actually exists because of the intrinsic qualifications in the centuries of writings, archeological support, secular reports and the fact that the claims have never been disproven. The alternatives are to believe in one of the less evidentially supported religions that make no claim to creation, or believe that everything that exists resulted from nothing. The most logical one for me is Christianity. The Proof you are looking for cannot come from any man but by searching through the word of God yourself.

      • Unrepentant Atheist

        Agnosticism and Atheism are compatible. So you can be an agnostic atheist.

      • John Jones

        A quick Google search says that an Atheists is “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods”. An Agnostic “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.” So I will change my statement to say “Why
        is it that Christians are atheists / agnostics / non-believers when it comes to the thousands of gods that mankind has believed in the past?”.

        I’d like to see a Christian “disprove” any other religion that also claims to have centuries of writings, archeological support, and secular reports which they claim supports the truth of their religion. For example, the Mormons have all of these “proofs” as do the Muslims, Jews, and Scientologists. And if they can’t “disprove” or don’t bother to do so, does it follow that the other religions are “true”? I think not: The burden of proof is on the believers in god, Santa, Vishnu, or UFOs.

        I repeat that most Christians can plainly see that these religions are obviously man-made and can’t see that theirs is also.

        It is Christianity that claims their god created everything from nothing by just his word. Being an agnostic or atheist does NOTE mean that one supports the Big Bang, or that universe always existed, or a multi-parallel universe theory, or any other scientific theory. In any event these theories are supported by evidence whereas Judeo-Chrisitianity’s hypothesis is only supported by books written by unknown authors who were living in the Bronze age. Their idea on how everything began was only based on myth and conflicts with known facts that we have today.

        Atheist do state that there is NO good evidence that a god
        or gods or a turtle on an elephant’s back or aliens or any WHO (being) created everything whether from nothing or existing material. Just because we don’t know, does not automatically mean that a religion’s explanation is therefore correct.

        Finally, even if one were to admit of a “creator” being rather than a process or energy/matter, then was it a deist, Yahweh, multiple creator gods, one of the Hindu gods, the Trinity, or beings from another planet?

  • Robert Landbeck

    “There will come a time when we are all judged by God,” and that judgement may include the uncomfortable discovery that both sides of this intellectual conflict are well off the mark. That in fact human nature itself exists in a complete unknowing of that reality and what makes up religious tradition is no more that vain imagination! As for atheists, they may be more honest superficially, but when that draw the conclusion that there is no God, they become no more than the obverse side of the same coin of ignorance. All is mere prejudice and chasing after wind!

    For the first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the ‘promise’ of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called ‘the first Resurrection’ in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods’ willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

    Thus ‘faith’ becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His ‘Word’ of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, “correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries.”

    So like it or no, and many won’t, a new religious teaching, a wisdom not of human intellectual origin, empirical, metaphysical and transcendent, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious/spiritual revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      Christianity was built upon the pagan beliefs that came before it so I don’t find anything about it being “radically different”.

      • Robert Landbeck

        I’m already TESTING this new teaching for myself. That in itself distinguishes this from anything that has ever been known to exist.

  • momtarkle

    No one can prove that anything does not exist.

  • These are not representative of arguments against the existence of various gods.

    I would point you to the arguments advanced by Justin Scheiber such as the evidential problem of evil, the problem of non-god objects (which is similar to your no reason argument) the problem of non-resistant unbelievers. The teleological problem. And of course the many refutations of the reasons advanced to believe in a god.

    You can read my response to cold case Christianity on my blog. There are much better apologists than J. Warner Wallace, see Randall Rauser, Plantinga, even William Lane Craig.

    • Robert Driskell

      These arguments were submitted to me by a self-professed atheist. I simply responded to them. Who would be some of these ‘better apologists’, in your opinion. Thank you for commenting.

      • As noted above, Randall Rauser, Alvin Plantinga, even William Lane Craig. You might also check out Peter van Inwagen. The podcast “unbelievable” from the UK, often has decent discussions. There was a fantastic one recently on the Ontological argument.

        • Sven2547

          I’ve never heard Rauser’s stuff. WLC is great at talking but bad at logic. And I have no idea how Plantinga has any respect anywhere, the guy is a dunce.

          • Well obviously I would agree they are not convincing and fallacious. But they’re a step above J Warner Wallace. I might lose Craig from the list. maybe add Edward Feser.

  • Hi Robert, as a former Evangelical missionary, church planter, and pastor, I have to disagree with your initial sentence. Although I know only a limited number of fellow atheists, I cannot think of one who tries to disprove the existence of God. We know it cannot be done. In my case, digging more deeply into the Bible and church history, such as the accounts of the early church councils, simply but thoroughly undermined pretty much all of traditional theology. Thanks for your desire to interact in love.

    • Robert Driskell

      Based on my observations on the internet, not to mention personal encounters, I must disagree with your disagreement. There are many atheists who are rabidly attempting to disprove God, and convince others that He does not exist. My article is not based on the assumption that every atheist believes any, or all, of the arguments included. I was responding to a particular person who claimed that those arguments were formidable. Thanks for commenting.

    • Mark, I appreciate this comment. I’m not an atheist but have no problem with that position, nor with agnosticism. I consider myself a “pan-en-theist” of Christian Process type (thus a “Christian” but not as so defined by most orthodox folk). Indeed, the Bible itself, when studied objectively and comparatively book-to-book, undercuts the traditional concepts of inspiration and authority and of the myth of early and agree-upon “orthodoxy” (implying the ability to spot and excise “heresy”)… That process only gradually emerged, and solidly only after politically-sponsored “councils” gradually and ever-so-humanly defined “orthodoxy”. Of all this most Christians, unfortunately, know almost nothing. Nor do most of the supposedly “enlightened” spiritual-but-not-religious.

  • Robert Driskell

    One final post and I’ll be moving on. I want to thank many of you with whom I’ve
    interacted, I hope I haven’t seemed uncivil toward anyone, that was not my
    intention. As I mentioned earlier, if one person recognizes and responds to the Truth [“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6 NASB)], my efforts have not been wasted.

    My intention was simply to present the Gospel and to motivate a bit of thinking about its ramifications. I’ve been a Christian long enough to have developed thick skin; not because I’m tough but because I’ve been shown repeatedly that God is real, God is good, and He is faithful to take care of those who trust Him.

    Humanity was created to love God (Matthew 22:27; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). The Bible says that mankind has rebelled against a holy God; thus separating
    ourselves from the fullness of His love (Romans 3:23). By sinning against Him, we are condemned under His judgment (II Thessalonians 1:9).

    However, God did not leave us in this situation but provided the means whereby we may be reunited with Him. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on a cross for our sins (I John 2:2, 4:10). This offer of forgiveness is open to anyone (Romans 6:23).

    “…if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed”” (Romans 10:9-11 NASB).

    I leave you with the words of Moses, “…I have set before you life and death…So choose life in order that you may live…” (Deuteronomy 30:19 NASB).

    May the grace of God fill your hearts and minds.

  • plankbob

    Ludicrous piece for the most part, starting with the first sentence, which makes a claim that isn’t true at all for many atheists, including me. I spend NO time trying to disprove the existence of any god.

  • Aaron Rational

    You’re trying to be slick, aren’t you?

    There are many hurdles to get past, and you try and sneak past one or two and then claim victory…ridiculous.

    First, you need to show evidence of ANY creator. So even if you can convince yourself of an argument for Intelligent Design, you’re still no closer to the God of the Old or New Testament.

    Then you need to get past the hurdle of the mass of contradictions, evil, barbarism and insanity that is held aloft as high ideals in the old testament. You need to prove to yourself that it’s not a collection of old stories, many of which came from previous, even more ancient cultures.

    Even if you get past all of those hurdles–and you haven’t even begun to do so–you still need to get to the New Testament, the authenticity of the writings, the gaps between the time Jesus lived and when the stories about him were written down.

    You have to explain away all the inconsistencies between books, and then you have to try and figure out why there’s such limited authentication of Jesus’s existence and importance outside the New Testament. There were records kept of his peers, and yet he is hardly even a blip on the radar in contemporary records of the day.

    After all of that, you must try and verify the resurrection as something other than a fairy tale believed by children. Why should we believe it?

    How can you possibly connect your personal God of Jesus with the Intelligent Designer who created the universe (assuming you were able to provide evidence for such a designer)?

    You get past one small hurdle–which you haven’t–and you proclaim yourself victorious.

    Indeed, that’s like a teenager playing pickup basketball, making a layup, and proclaiming himself better than LeBron James.

    With that kind of logic, I can now crown myself king of the known universe because I dismantled your arguments so easily here.

  • Jollycoptor

    I stopped reading after “Atheists are determined to disprove the existence of God”.

  • butmuncher

    i agree dave

  • butmuncher

    sven2547 is a weird name and his profile pic is link……… that’s just wrong

  • Emma

    Many atheists have ended up turning to God. these people include C.S. Lewis, Peter Hitchens and Philip Vander Elst.
    this article is just answering the questions the author was asked. Also with the morality thing, we Christians are people as well, we do not act like we are God and those who do have a false faith. Christians who write about their faith have as much freedom to do so as a gay man has to write about his feelings for another man. But I have a question for you. Atheist hate/don’t believe in God right, well if so how can someone hate something that doesn’t exist? I got this quote from the movie God’s not dead. check it out, it might help you understand.

  • Alan G Phillips Jr

    It is interesting to me that the “New” Atheism gained ascendancy in colleges, entertainment and media at approximately the same time that global trade centered on courting large secular economies like China. Also, I do not think it is an accident that increased pressure for acceptance of non-Christian faiths like Hinduism and Islam comes at a time when global elites seek to mainain trade relations with countries embracing both moderate and radical forms of these faiths. Underlying much current hostility against a traditional Judeo-Christan worldview is the worship of a global economy that has decided to economically court nations with other religious commitments.

    Beneath much of the overt hostility against Christians and Jews today is the love of money over principles, trade over tradition and finances over faith. Mammon trumps the God of the Bible. It is the prevailing deity in America today.