[Migraine]

been around longer than most people think

Yes, I'd say so. 1000 BC David was saying, "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'".

[Rich21IE]

Debating an Atheist is a total waste of time.

[LittleBillyInfidel]

There’s no need to debate an atheist, because they are of the lowest intellectual form. To be an atheist, one cannot acknowledge that “he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know”. He cannot even wrap his mind around this simple concept.

[joshua c]

Atheists have religious beliefs. Negative religious beliefs.

In the world of numbers, they are not zero. They are negative one. Christians are number one.

So when a STATE official stops a citizen from expressing his religious beliefs, for example, a valedictorian, they are supporting one side against the other. They are not being neutral.

Atheism is the official STATE religion in contradiction of the US Constitution.

[xzins]

A very long article. And involved.

Thanks for posting.

[Migraine]

Atheists cheat. They have more “yeah-buts” than the pages in War and Peace.
For instance: The Bible says in at least 55 places that God would scatter Israel around the world for their disobedience, but would bring them back to their land. Against all odds, He made that happen in 1948, and even resurrected their once-dead language, Hebrew.
But the atheist, not believing in miracles, says, “those prophecies don’t mean what you say they mean; anyway, they were written after an earlier regathering had already happened.”
So atheists reject good evidence.
From my perspective, though, I think such evidence is strong enough to be considered a seed planted. Maybe it will germinate; but I will not hold my breath.

[Yaelle]

From Dennis Prager “Believers in Gd have to explain His existence. Atheists have to explain everything else.” Love it.

[IronJack]

There are actually two ways.

1) Put the burden on them. Force them to prove that God does NOT exist.

2) Demure to the argument. And then say that it doesn't matter, because belief in God -- Faith -- is not arguable. That I BELIEVE God exists doesn't depend on whether He does or not. That accomplishes the same thing as 1, but renders their argument irrelevant.

[CptnObvious]

How to Debate an Atheist: PRAY BEFOREHAND.

Ask that you be a good Ambassador to God before him.

Ask that you present a love that he cannot refute because the Atheist sees love in you.

I believe this is how I went from being an Atheist to a Believer. Because peoplee were praying this and for my Salvation from the dead.

[demkicker]

Saving for later - thanks.

[Agamemnon]

An atheist has to be able to provide a deliberative reason for why he exists at all. By definition he must be his own creator, yet can't explain:

1. how he did it

2. why he did it

3. why he can't duplicate in a controlled lab what he was supposed to have designed and created himself in an uncontrolled environment all powered by his will and random chance in the first place.

Atheists are merely arrogant cartoons of internally self-contradictory "intellect."

Fact is that in truth there is no such thing as a atheist. An honest atheist will have to admit that he merely worships himself. He together with his elevated sense of self-worth is his own little god.

And how small minded and and intellectually impoverished is that powerless little "god."

FReegards!

[onedoug]

The believer in a moral God must account for one thing, unjust suffering, while the atheist must account for the existence of everything else. --attr GK Chesterson(?)

[ronniesgal]

why would you bother? Leave people to their own beliefs, and they will probably return the favor.

[PigRigger]

Aetheist have faith... Faith in one day man will be able to explain how matter appeared from nothing or was here eternally...

Both defy the laws governing our universe...

[CincyRichieRich]

1Peter 3:15; there really isn’t a case for debating non-believers; most will out debate you and an observer won’t be able to tell the difference between a fool and not a fool...love them into the Kingdom. It’s God’s job to work on their heart, not mine.

[Redwood71]

The real problem with atheism is that they have faith only in things they cannot feel is perfect. So their life is flawed and expected to be so.

rwood

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Atheists bow before then smallest god - themselves.

[Bob434]

It depends- is the atheist truly willing to set aside personal subjective opinion and look critically at the issues in an intellectual manner? Are you willing to do the same? Are you both willing to take a look at your side’s most vulnerable positions? Will the atheist be willing to take hte opposite side and try to refute his own position with critical thinking? Or are they locked into non critical pat answer atheism?

Christians have had to defend their position against a whole slew of objections (ie: Bible is just a book written by fallible men- prone to myriad errors, The bible is full of contradicitons- Creation didn’t happen in 6 literal days, There is no official records of Christ dying on the cross- the miracles spoken of were nothing but mass hallucinations/hysteria- If God can create a rock to big to pick up, then He’s not all powerful- No physical evidence for God- Etc etc etc), But atheists haven’t had to really defend against a slew of objections to their beliefs-

Can you both set your own personal beliefs aside and look critically at evidences? Remembering that psychological certainty and confidence do not necessarily = truth, but rather just opinion?

Most people on both sides can not do this- pride and prejudiced too often mar the conversation, and the conversations almost always devolve into finger pointing and accusations-

A good honest discussion would involve either side to pose an answer, AND also an honest counter argument to that answer (ie ‘playing devil’s advocate’) - this helps develop a deep honest critical thinking conversation

Your goal- BOTH sides, —SHOULD BE—, to weed through subjective certainties, and get to the truth, or at the very least, critically question WHY you have come to believe what you believe- whether it is the actual objective truth or not

Ultimately- both sides should approach the conversation knowing that their opinions are just assumptions- based partly on evidence, and partly on personal subjective opinion. The goal —SHOULD BE— to find out which side/opinion has the the stronger set of objective truth attached to it- Too often BOTH sides present their opinion in an adamant angry exclamation as though the opinion were absolute truth- Learning to recognize when subjective opinion is present, will go a long way towards keeping a conversation civil- assumptions are not facts- They —CAN BE— based on facts, but often they are are only partially based on facts- don’t present them though they are absolute truths- recognize that a large part of our conversations are based on subjective opinion and assumptions

Arrogant elitism and ‘holier than thou’ attitudes on BOTH sides is a discussion killer- period- evaluate your opponent, and if they express these attitudes- politely ask to keep the discussion objective and civil- Sadly though- folks on both sides often are too steeped in their own pride to take a critical look at issues they disagree with

The object of the discussion should be to take a critical deep thinking look at the issues- NOT to engage in a pissing contest

Can you accept that they will very likely not aCCept anything you say? Not many people can- most folks feel a need to convince the other side of their point- This often leads to a rapid break down of the discussion. We forget that the opposition has sensations and experiences that they have lived that have led them to their decisions- sensations and experiences that have shaped their subjective beliefs- just as we have-

Too often when ‘discussing’ such issues- the swords come out immediately- Rather than asking the opponent to examine both sides of the issue so that we can take a good objective look at why we have come to our subjective conclusions- we parry and thrust- trying to knock our opponent off balance- It seems we take immediate offense when someone doesn’t agree with us as it hurts our pride- and too often go on the offense- it’s very hard to have a neutral, civil meeting of the minds. We Christians have a tendency to take immediate offense to the opinion of atheists that God is a myth- and feel we must ‘battle for God’

“How to Debate an Atheist”

We probably shouldn’t UNLESS we can learn to do so tenderly, carefully, and are willing to learn the high art of critical thinking, and UNLESS we run across HONEST atheist who is genuinely interested in civilly discussing their position, and who isn’t just out to criticism, ridicule and malign Christians- God tells us to ‘shake the dust from our sandals’ (IE have nothing to do with those who refuse to listen honestly)

We must learn humility, and learn to consider our discussion opponent’s side, and learn to honestly evaluate BOTH sides of the issue

[Chicory]

The problem with all these evidences for God is that too many Christians behave as if once they have presented one or more, the Christian God is proved. but that is not the case. these proofs only prove or are evidence of an Intelligent Designer. If an atheist were to be convinced by this type of argument, it would still be necessary to explain how we get from, “Someone created all this,” to Christianity.

[PCPOET7]

every active atheist (those trying to recruit) I have met over the years have one thing in common. a deep anger at there core. if you spend any time debating them on the issue you find out that a lot of there belief is a faith into itself. I have a lot nore respect for the agnostic because at least they no that they have no way of knowing and that for those that believe and disbelieve it is a mater of faith.