This is intended to be a question of general applicability, but in all honesty, I'm asking inspired by concrete YouTube channels that promote atheism and skepticism, most notably, [CosmicSkeptic](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7kIy8fZavEni8Gzl8NLjOQ) and [RationalityRules](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqZMgLgGlYAWvSU8lZ9xiVg) . These are examples of a special category of atheists that stand out for their remarkable understanding of philosophy, logical thinking, and skepticism, as well as their outstanding debating skills, even against renowned Christian apologists. Just to give you an idea, Alex O'Connor, the founder of CosmicSkeptic, has debated [William Lane Craig](https://youtu.be/eOfVBqGPwi0) , [Frank Turek](https://youtu.be/b5a3MxIqZOs) , [Jonathan McLatchie](https://youtu.be/woqy13ZkeqM) , [Trent Horn](https://youtu.be/5PF1JgXOKDQ) and several other defenders of the faith. When it comes to atheists of this caliber, I see no possible way of evangelizing them through purely intellectual/argumentative means. Not even the best apologists have managed to do so. If I were asked my honest opinion, I would say that the only thing that can turn them around would be a supernatural, "road to Damascus" kind of experience. I see no other way. But leaving my personal opinions aside, I would like to know if there are any denominations that provide official advice on how to evangelize highly intellectual and well-spoken atheists and skeptics. What recommendations do they give to win strong atheists for Christ? Or is this category of atheists simply a lost cause and the only thing that we can do is to throw up our hands, leave them alone and hope for the best?

[Christian atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism) is the practice of following the teaching of the Christian bible, or Jesus, without believing in the existance of God or that Jesus is the son of God. Do Christian atheists have denominations, and if so, what are those denominations? I will accept *either* actual denominations of Christian atheists, or denominations of Christians who believe in God but who nevertheless have members who identify as Christian atheists, however, I am primarily interested in the former.

## Short version I'm specifically referring to [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) 's paper [An Argument for Atheism from Naturalism](https://philarchive.org/rec/OPPAAF) : > **Abstract** This paper outlines an argument for atheism from naturalism that I have developed in more detail elsewhere (in particular, in *The Best Argument against God*). The overall shape of the argument is as follows: first, naturalism is simpler than theism; second, there is no data that naturalism does not explain at least as well as theism; and, third, naturalism entails atheism; so we have good reason to prefer atheism to theism. Note that this statement of the shape of the argument is NOT a statement of the argument itself. In short, Oppy argues that *naturalism is simpler than theism*, and that, all else being equal, we should always rationally prefer a simpler explanation of the data. How do Christians rebut Graham Oppy's position? ## Longer version A few relevant quotes from the [paper](https://philpapers.org/archive/OPPAAF.pdf) : > Theists differ in the ways that they depart from naturalism. Some theists believe in a God who created our universe ex nihilo. Some theists believe in a God whose actions preserve our universe in existence. Some theists believe in a God who inhabits an eternal realm that has no spatiotemporal relation to our universe. Some theists believe in an intelligent and active God who is neither a natural organism nor an artificial intelligence created by natural organisms. Some theists believe in a God that is a non-personal supernatural power or supernatural force that exerts influence on our universe. Some theists believe that the universe possesses the non-natural property of being divine, or that the non-natural property of being divine ‘permeates’ the universe. And so on. > > **Although theists differ in the ways in which they depart from naturalism, there is a common feature** **to theistic departures from naturalism. In every case, theists differ from naturalists by believing in** **something additional**: either believing in one or more additional intelligent agents, or believing in one or more additional forces or powers, or believing in one or more additional non-natural properties of the universe. > > > Suppose that we are comparing a particular version of theism with a particular version of naturalism. Suppose, further, that these versions of theism and naturalism agree in their beliefs about which natural entities, and natural powers, and natural forces, and natural properties, and natural laws there are. In this case, it’s not just that the theist has beliefs in something over and above the things the atheist believes in; it’s also the case that the naturalist does not have beliefs in anything over and above the things the theist believes in. **From the standpoint of the naturalist, the theistic beliefs** **of the theist are pure addition; and, from the standpoint of the theist, the naturalistic beliefs of the** **naturalist are pure subtraction**. > > **In this case, if all else is no better than equal, then there is clear reason to prefer naturalism to** **theism. For, if all else is no better than equal, then there is no reason to have the additional theistic beliefs**. Hence, in this case, in order to decide between theism and naturalism, we just need to determine whether all else is no better than equal. ... > **The burden of the rest of this chapter is to argue that there are no features of the natural universe** **that have a better explanation on theism than they do on naturalism**. Of course, I won’t be able to examine every feature of the natural universe that might be thought to have a better explanation on theism than it does on naturalism. However, I shall try to examine all of the most prominent features of the natural universe that have been widely supposed to have a better explanation on theism than on naturalism. Given the treatment of the cases that I do discuss, it should be obvious how to extend the discussion to features of the natural universe that I do not examine here. He then goes on to explain how 8 features of the world commonly used to argue for theism can be better accounted for under naturalism. Namely: - Existence - Causation - Fine-Tuning - Morality - Consciousness - Miracles - Religious Experiences - Meaning and Purpose > 9\. **Conclusion** > As I mentioned at the outset, I cannot claim to have considered all of the data that bears on the decision between theism and naturalism (and not can I claim to have given a fully adequate assessment of any of the data that I have considered). However, I hope that I have done enough to indicate how my argument for naturalism would look if it were set out in full and complete detail. (I give a fuller—but still incomplete—exposition of the argument in The Best Argument against God, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2013.) > > 10\. **Note about Evil** > Of course, there is data that at least some theists suppose favours naturalism over theism—e.g. data about horrendous suffering, data about non-belief, and data about the scale of our universe. Some naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering is logically inconsistent with theism. As Epicurus argued long ago: >> Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? > > Other naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering renders theism highly improbable: given the major horrors of the twentieth century alone, isn’t it incredible to suppose that our universe is the work of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good being? I have focussed on data that many theists suppose favour theism over naturalism because my argument requires only that, on any piece of data, naturalism does at least as well as theism in explaining that data. Even if it is true, for example, that naturalism affords a better explanation of horrendous suffering in our universe than is given by theism, that truth makes no contribution to the argument that I have been advancing here. --- **NOTE**: Graham Oppy's formulation of the argument is arguably one of the strongest available in the literature, given Oppy's reputation as one of the most respected contemporary atheist philosophers. For instance, William Lane Craig once said about Oppy's book *Arguing about Gods*: > Oppy's book is not merely recommended but essential reading for anyone interested in natural theology today. No one can pretend to a successful theistic argument unless he has dealt with Oppy's criticisms first. ([source](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/arguing-successfully-about-god-a-review-essay-of-graham-oppys-arguing-about)) However, the claim that naturalism is "simpler" than theism is thrown around quite frequently in informal discussions with atheists. For example, take a look at some of the answers to [Could Occam's Razor ever favor theism?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110026/66156) .

Lately I came across [What are Christian responses to the atheistic argument that God is an unnecessary and overly complicated extra step?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/100680/what-are-christian-responses-to-the-atheistic-argument-that-god-is-an-unnecessar) and posted [an answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100704/65150) to it. Although I wrote my post in response to the question, it was a bit out of place as it didn't exactly answer the question. So I rewrote things (quite) a bit and now post my own question. I think we can say that nowadays the main challenge for apologetics is justifying faith in the face of atheism. In fact, there are two challenges. One is justifying faith for ourselves. The other is justifying faith for others. The goal of justifying faith for ourselves is to protect our own faith. We can't avoid being confronted with arguments against God's existence. But we want to keep our faith plausible. So for each of those arguments, we must find a satisfying counterargument. Finding satisfying counterarguments may be hard, but we only need to satisfy our own intellect. The goal of justifying faith for others is to help them overcome their objections and accept faith. Then it often won't do to just take certain arguments against God's existence and counter those. One must engage in dialogue, listen carefully, try sincerely to understand their objections, and try to see where those objections come from, what's behind them, and what's driving them. Only then one can address their objections in a helpful way. Allow me to explain. I think many atheists would claim their view is based on objective facts and rational arguments. Now facts in themselves may be objective, but how we search for them and how we filter, interpret, and explain them is very subjective, as that depends on certain deeper convictions in ourselves. In the same way, our rational arguments also depend on our deeper convictions. This counts for atheists and believers alike. We all live with such deeper convictions. They feel so familiar though that we're hardly aware of them until perhaps confronted with incompatible convictions. We have many deeper convictions based on character, culture, upbringing, experiences, or whatever. These convictions also determine how we look at God. For some people, a deeper conviction might be a strong longing for autonomy. They would be less inclined to submit to some god dictating to them what (not) to do. Other people may long for security. They would be more inclined to hope for some god protecting them. With that in mind, I'd not be surprised if large parts of atheism are rooted in (perhaps valid) resentment against church and religion and religious upbringing. Some atheist arguments could just be rational expressions of the underlying resentment. Or perhaps more precisely, some atheist arguments may serve to rationally dissociate oneself from the underlying resentment. The strongest way to dissociate oneself from resentment against religion is by denying God himself. Now if we'd only bothered countering rational atheist arguments, then we'd satisfied our own intellects but failed to see what's behind those arguments. Once we see the deeper convictions driving atheism, however, it becomes clear that it doesn't help so much to carry a debate by scientific or philosophical arguments, unless you first check your own deeper convictions as well as the convictions of your atheist opponents. So here's the question: should apologetics **focus on rational arguments only**, or should it **take into account deeper convictions behind rational arguments as well**? After @SuperFlash's [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/103830/65150) down below, I realized I need to make my question more specific. My question is not whether apologetics should find a rational argument for or against any possible personal conviction or experience or feeling. It's more whether apologetics should take into account the role of deeper convictions in general. So let's make my question more specific: 1. Should apologetics **acknowledge the plain possibility that there might be deeper convictions driving rational arguments**? Regardless of what specific convictions may look like? 2. If so, should apologetics also **incorporate reasoning how deeper convictions in general may drive rational arguments about God**? Or perhaps more accurate **how rational arguments may serve to justify deeper convictions with relation to God**? 3. And again if so, should apologetics also **identify certain universal deeper convictions**? Like longing for autonomy or security?

What renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has claimed to be is looked at on this blog site, with the link to the video where he says it at the end of this question: https://possil.wordpress.com/2024/05/09/without-foundations-the-building-falls/ Renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has now declared himself to be a ‘cultural Christian’. He cherishes the cultural artifacts and traditions of Christianity, from hymns and Christmas carols to beautiful parish churches and old-fashioned liberalism. He ‘feels the Christian ethos’, and considers the UK a Christian country and that ‘to substitute any alternative religion would be truly dreadful’. How very nice of him to say so. But has the emergence of ‘Cultural Christianity’ muddied the once-clear waters as to what Christianity really is? How did we get from the martyrdom of 10 of Jesus’ Apostles for refusing to renounce belief in Christ, to atheists today saying they are cultural Christians? And could it be argued that the one word in their claim that should not be allowed is ‘Christian’? They could call themselves cultural atheists supporting the cultural side of Christianity, perhaps, but we all know that in this sound-bite era, a two-word designation goes down without question, while an exact designation has many people fast asleep halfway through reading it. All right. That’s not very nice of me to say so. Those questions still remain important, though: What have Christian artifacts and traditions got to do with claiming to be any kind of a Christian? Can an atheist ever claim to be any kind of a Christian? Does such a claim show the atheist has no real understanding of what it is to be a Christian? Has the emergence of ‘Cultural Christianity’ muddied the once-clear waters as to what it is to be a Christian? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COHgEFUFWyg Question addressed to atheists and Christians who have examined the logic behind such a claim.

The scripture does say that a person can deny the existence of God in their hearts, which I take to mean a ‘sincere disbelief’ not just the claim of disbelief: > 14 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” > They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; > there is none who does good. (Psalm 14 ESV) However, in many other places of scripture, it seems to declare that God’s basic nature is declared in a self-evident way. - Therefore is there such a thing as a real ‘pure atheist’ or is that just an imaginary person? - Is there anything in scripture that clarifies the tension between self-evident truth and the fool’s ability to deny that evidence? - To what degree is the denial possible? - Is there even such a thing as a real atheist?

Do any people in the Bible self identify as atheists? Or are they all theists, differing in *which* god they follow? Apparently at least some atheists existed, since David had heard of them: > The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” [Psalm 14:1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+14:1&version=NIV1984) and [Psalm 53:1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+53:1&version=NIV1984) .

In a Christian worldview, is Satan the main force behind atheism? If so, how exactly does this occur? I'm intrigued by this conundrum because if Satan actively influences individuals to adopt atheism, he must achieve two objectives simultaneously: 1. He (or his demonic agents) must intervene in the physical world somehow to convince a person to embrace atheism. 2. He must execute this influence in a masterfully subtle manner, ensuring the individual remains completely unaware of the spiritual manipulation prompting their atheistic beliefs. Think of notable atheists, such as [Richard Dawkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) , and notable agnostics, such as [Carl Sagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) . If Satan indeed played a role in shaping Dawkins' atheism and Sagan's agnosticism, this would suggest a sophisticated mastery of subliminal manipulation. Because both Dawkins and Sagan never acknowledged any Satanic influence behind their beliefs, and in fact, if they were presented with the hypothetical manipulation scenario I'm entertaining, they would likely dismiss it with a laugh, seeing it as nothing more than a far-fetched thought experiment. How do Satan and his demons manipulate individuals into embracing atheism (or agnosticism) while remaining completely undetected? What are the mechanisms behind this imperceptible and subconscious manipulation, and is there a means within Christianity to unveil and expose this influence, bringing it to the individual's conscious awareness?

From a Christian perspective, atheists are regarded as holding mistaken beliefs concerning the existence of God and spiritual truths. It is believed that they are deceived by Satan, an evil entity whose existence atheists typically also deny. Despite this, atheists remain oblivious to the spiritual realm and Satan's influence within it. The challenge then arises: how can atheists become aware of this deception and break free from it? According to Christian apologetics, how can atheists awaken to the reality of spiritual deception, particularly concerning Satan's influence in promoting false beliefs, including atheism itself? --- **Supporting Scripture** 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ESV > 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. Psalm 14:1 ESV > The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.

Notable examples include: - [Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o) - [The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig](https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg) - [Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/8WE1y00bwCU) - [Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke](https://youtu.be/a8NrTv-Durc) - [Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOs) - [William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum](https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8) - [DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM) - [DEBATE Matt Dillahunty Vs Cliffe Knechtle | Is Christianity True? | Podcast](https://youtu.be/aAg3H1LU1Yw) - [Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? Mike Winger vs. Matt Dillahunty](https://youtu.be/Z2FGgkubhZM) - [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) Given the well-established practice among (some) Christians of engaging in formal intellectual debates with atheists and skeptics to defend core tenets of the Christian faith, such as the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, through philosophical arguments, reason, and evidence (as the examples above illustrate), what is the biblical basis for this? The New Testament enumerates various spiritual gifts and ministries (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, Ephesians 4:11-13, Romans 12:6-8), but I am unaware of any ministry fitting the role of a "professional intellectual debater." --- **Note**: there is some overlap with my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679* , although the focus here is on the debate aspect, and the scope is broader in terms of what can be defended (resurrection of Jesus, miracles, etc.)

>"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20, ESV) The Apostle Paul here says that those who ignore God, who fail to worship him or give him thanks are without excuse because the Universe shows there is a Creator God with certain attributes, namely, that he is eternal and has a divine nature. My question is, in what way(s) does the existence of the Universe plainly demonstrate the existence and nature of God? Preferably, in your answer say what "eternal power" means, and show how the Universe demonstrates the eternal power of God? My question seeks answers mainly from a Trinitarian perspective. (If you answer from other perspectives please indicate this in your answer. Thanks.)

Is there anything in Christian canon that stipulates a belief in God is required to call oneself a Christian? Like in Islam, the shahada (profession of faith in Allah), is required to call oneself a Muslim. A reason an atheist would want to participate in Christian social frameworks, as I understand it, is if they compartmentalize the foundational dogma/mythology, which they find false or contrary to evidence, and the actual effect that resulting institutions have had on society, which would be positive. In a way, it would be the opposite from a person who believes in god but dislikes organized religion, a person who affirms the value churches and their social impact have imparted on society despite the fiction of its foundational narratives. A pragmatic Christian.

One presentation of this argument is put forward by Carl Sagan: > "If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct - what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created? How did that happen? In many cultures, a customary answer is that a "God" or "Gods" created the universe out of nothing, but if we wish to pursue this question courageously we must, of course, ask the next question - where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, **why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question**? Or if we say that God always existed, **why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed**? There's no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth." > > Source: https://genius.com/Carl-sagan-on-god-and-gods-annotated > Or watch: [The uncertainty of God (Carl Sagan in cosmos series) - YouTube](https://youtu.be/KNzlfYJaaCg) Richard Dawkins makes similar arguments: > "If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist, whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop, simply *postulates* an already existing being of prodigious intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation, we might as well make a job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we know it! ***The Blind Watchmaker*, Chapter 11 “Doomed Rivals”" (p. 316)** > >"A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe *cannot* be simple. His existence is going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right." ***The God Delusion* (p. 178)** > > "God, if he exists, would have to be a very, very, very complicated thing indeed. So to postulate a God as the beginning of the universe, as the answer to the riddle of the first cause, is to shoot yourself in the conceptual foot because you are immediately postulating something far far more complicated than that which you are trying to explain. [...] If you have problems seeing how matter could just come into existence - try thinking about how complex intelligent matter, or complex intelligent entities of any kind, could suddenly spring into existence, it's many many orders of magnitude harder to understand." **Lynchburg, Virginia, 23/10/2006** > > "In the case of the cosmos, [...] even if we don't understand how it came about, it's not helpful to postulate a creator, because the creator is the very kind of thing that needs an explanation - and although it's difficult enough to explain how a very simple origin of the universe came into being - how matter and energy, how one or two physical constants came into existence - although it's difficult enough to think how *simplicity* came into existence, it's a hell of a lot harder to think how something as complicated as a God comes into existence" ***"Has Science Buried God?"* Debate, Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox, 21/10/2008** > > Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins How do Christians respond to the atheistic argument that postulating a God introduces an unnecessary and overly complicated extra step? --- **Note**: there is an ongoing related discussion taking place on Philosophy Stack Exchange right now, [Is God’s very existence the ultimate miracle?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110945/66156)

The discoveries in modern science by Einstein and Hubble assert that the universe is expanding, and that if the "clock" were rolled back, the universe would come to a "Singularity Point." They stop, scientifically, and cannot speak as to where the "plasma" of that Point came from. But they do raise the inescapable need for a "Cause." The scientific Law requires one: *Every thing that came to be must have a Cause for its coming onto being.* (Law of Causation) And common sense dictates: *ex nihilo, nihil fit* (From nothing, nothing comes.) Of course, science does not name the Source (God) even though it does require a Cause with the attributes of a "Cause" that matches the Christian God. **In the Beginning God** is the beginning of the revelation by God to mankind. In this statement lies the Cause, purpose, and meaning of all creation! And this revelatory FACT is the basis for the Christian doctrine in Christianity. This query asks nothing about the mode or method of Creation nor the process of speciation, nor the development of stars, planes, galaxies, etc. But only focuses on the original **Source, Cause, Creator** of this vast universe. And if modern science gives any **factual input** that would help settle this dilemma that perplexes the human mind. This question asks neither for opinion or traditional folklore, but only for the application of **scientific Laws** recognized by modern researchers, that confirm the biblical Doctrine of Creation. This question is ***neither philosophical nor sociological*** but references well-accepted *scientific facts* in relates them to well-taught *Christian doctrines* in Christianity.

I've encountered discussions, such as the one linked [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/107665/66156) , where certain Christians assert that atheists inherently acknowledge God's existence, often relying on certain interpretations of Romans 1:18-25. I'm keen to explore this interpretation further, examining its prevalence among Christians and investigating alternative exegeses that might support divergent perspectives. Are there theological or philosophical arguments within Christianity that present nuanced readings of Romans chapter 1, challenging the blanket assertion that all atheists, deep down, possess an inherent awareness of God's existence? --- The following are quotes from different sources presenting the viewpoint I'm calling into question: >*Believe No One Who Calls Himself an Atheist* > > **If what Paul says in Romans 1 is true, there is ultimately no such thing as an atheist**. Anyone who calls himself one is wrong on at least three fronts. > > First, someone who claims to be an atheist is suppressing the truth he knows. According to Romans 1, “What can be known about God is plain to them” (v. 19), and their denial is an expression of the fact that they are among those “men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v. 18). Therefore, whatever they believe about themselves, the God who made them says otherwise, and we must believe God rather than man. [...] > > (Source: [Why There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist](https://www.crossway.org/articles/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-an-atheist/)) > Many people who say they are atheists will say those who believe in God are stupid, or foolish. Ironically, Scripture says they are the fools. Professing to be wise they became fools. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. Their foolish hearts were darkened. Indeed, Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”” > > **So, when you speak to someone who says he’s an atheist, he is 1) lying, and 2) a fool. He is like a person who says he doesn’t believe in gravity. He sees how it works, he experiences its effects, but denies it exists. Truly, such a person is a fool.** > > How do we as Christians answer the atheist? **I have come to the conclusion that we simply tell them that they really do believe that God exists, because the Bible says they do**. **Even though they may deny it, they know in their heart that they do believe it**. In other words, there really are no atheists. We tell them that they are suppressing this truth in unrighteousness, just as Scripture says. They may call you names, mock you, and hate you, all because you are telling them the truth. Most importantly, we give them the gospel. We should never think we are better, because God tells us “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11) May the Lord grant the atheists we meet the same grace He has given us. > > (Source: [There Are No Atheists](https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/there-are-no-atheists)) > *There really are no atheists defense* > > **This is the argument that all true atheists are at heart lying so that they may live in a way that is contrary to God's commands (as seen in particular interpretations of Romans 1:18-25)**. Critics note that there are atheists who are not lying and are not using their atheism as an escape to sin. Proponents note, however, that they could just as easily still be lying, perhaps not to others anymore but themselves (i.e. loving the wrong woman argument). Some have claimed this argument, however, fails to account for Stephen Maitzen's point on the demographics of theism. If all atheists are liars, why are people in some societies so much more likely to lie than in others? Finally, some have also claimed this argument fails to account for Jason Marsh's point on natural nonbelief in early humans. Since there was quite plausibly such a thing as natural nonbelief in early humans, then it does not make much sense to say that said nonbelief is self-deceptive. That is because natural nonbelief entails nonresistant nonbelief. > > (Source: [Argument from nonbelief#There_really_are_no_atheists_defense - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief#There_really_are_no_atheists_defense))

In essence I'm asking that if there was nothing after death, but we believed that God existed, would there be any reason for us to worship God. It then seems like humans are coerced into worship, which is immoral. You may say that life is a gift from God, but a lot of people who go through hardships (torture, abuse, etc.) will disagree.

Romans 1:18-25 ESV > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 **For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them**. 20 **For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse**. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Psalm 139:7-10 ESV > 7 **Where shall I go from your Spirit?** **Or where shall I flee from your presence?** 8 If I ascend to heaven, **you are there**! If I make my bed in Sheol, **you are there**! 9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 10 **even there** your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. Paul argues that the universe clearly points to an Almighty Creator, in a way that is clearly perceived by everyone. The psalmist complements this by adding that the presence of God can be perceived anywhere, no matter where one goes. Combining both descriptions, the picture one gets is that the existence and presence of God ought to be undeniably obvious. However, these conclusions are challenged by an increasingly popular argument known as the *Argument from Divine Hiddenness*. The following are handy sources to learn about this argument: - https://iep.utm.edu/divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/ The argument in question was in fact brought up in a recent [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/106261/66156) to [*Is Romans 1:19-20 philosophically sound?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/106259/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange: > Aside from a lack of philosophical argument in the verse you posted > (which I’m sure someone else will answer), there is actually a > philosophical debate about how God is *hidden*, rather than being > “clearly perceived”: if God exists, why is he hidden from us? > > Here is a summary from the [IEP > article](https://iep.utm.edu/divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence/) > for it: > > > these arguments try to demonstrate that, if God existed, He would (or would likely) make the truth of His existence more obvious to > everyone than it is. Since the truth of God’s existence is not as > obvious to everyone as it should be if God existed, proponents of > arguments from divine hiddenness conclude that God must not (or > probably does not) exist. > > As the article explains, the problem rests on the assumption that God > has hidden his existence from us, or at the very least been reluctant > to give evidence that point towards his existence. If there were clear > signs towards his existence, nonbelief would be less prevalent than it > currently is. > > There are some good arguments against the Atheist position (which you > can find in the article), but since there is an ongoing debate about > the hiddenness of God I would say the argument in the verses you > posted doesn’t hold up philosophically. If the existence and presence of God are unmistakably and undeniably evident, how do we explain the traction and impact that the *argument from divine hiddenness* seems to be gaining among atheists? **Note**: Attempts to trivialize the question by answering *"because they are atheists"* are out of scope, because such answers would fail to explain why the individuals in question are atheists in the first place (which should be surprising given the fact that, according to Romans 1:19-20 and Psalm 139:7-10 and similar passages, theism should be undeniably evident to everyone).

GK Chesterton (famous Catholic apologist) writes in his popular book Orthodoxy: > Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist. GK Chesterton seems to be saying that Jesus was an atheist, at least for a moment. Is this actually orthodox, i.e. consistent with what most Christians thought in most times and places? Before reading Orthodoxy I'd never heard of such an idea.

What does the Christian religion find more objectionable: the worship of Satan, or the non-belief in a God.

Is Saint Doubting Thomas the Patron Saint of any of the following: 1. Rational Theology 2. Science 3. Skepticism (religious [atheism] and others) *Deus Magnus Est*