If you asked an atheist...

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If you asked an atheist if he thought that Jesus died for his sins and is the way to his salvation, would he agree with you?
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
No you better be prepared to convince him with the Word
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No you better be prepared to convince him with the Word

Since an Atheist doesn't agree then he won't ever make a choice to believe. Not unless God intervenes and changes the Atheist's mind. Then he's not an Atheist but believer.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If you asked an atheist if he thought that Jesus died for his sins and is the way to his salvation, would he agree with you?

Atheists hold that there is no supernatural, no divine. And thus no salvation.

So, no, by definition, the answer would be no.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Atheists hold that there is no supernatural, no divine. And thus no salvation.

So, no, by definition, the answer would be no.

So they would never choose God without God changing their mind right?
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If you asked an atheist if he thought that Jesus died for his sins and is the way to his salvation, would he agree with you?

Hard to say, since "an atheist" could encompass all sorts of belief systems.

Many of the atheists I have known over the years wouldn't care, on the basis they don't feel any need for salvation. Salvation is nothing unless you're being saved from something, and if you don't even believe the something exists then what value would you place on salvation from it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRT

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So they would never choose God without God changing their mind right?

That's a tough one to call.

I don't see any reason why an atheist shouldn't look at life and think "there must be more than this", then set about looking to find out what the "something more" actually is. It wouldn't be surprising if they explored a number of the world's religions, and might not be entirely surprising if they ended up with their own custom "faith". If they are intellectually honest they can't sensibly build a religion that essentially creates a god in their image and then claim they have found "something more", when really all they have done is elevated self and made it a god.

Of course we could speculate endlessly as to the reasons for people thinking "there must be more than this".
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
They don't believe in the concept of sin to begin with. I had an atheist friend who told me she was sinless because she doesn't believe in sin and is therefore without it.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
They don't believe in the concept of sin to begin with. I had an atheist friend who told me she was sinless because she doesn't believe in sin and is therefore without it.

This sort of concept highlights how just getting through can be a battle, especially if we fall back on quoting a book the other person doesn't even accept as having any relevance to them.

How can someone have sin, unless they have sinned against someone or something? We can talk about things like an occasional drifting over the speed limit but to then argue that such an event qualifies someone for hellfire does little to establish credibility. Refusing to believe something exists doesn't mean we don't have it - I'm not sure how many medics would offer denial as an effective form of treatment for any condition - but it does highlight how the first step has to be to break through the denial.

Salvation is meaningless if someone doesn't see any need to be saved. If you don't believe that hell exists, why would you need to be saved from it? If you don't believe that heaven exists, what value is the chance to spend eternity there? If you believe you get your time on earth and then become worm food, what does it matter what other people believe happens after you're gone?

That's the part where people sometimes like to play Pascal's Wager, but even that doesn't work because the most it can achieve is to argue that maybe people should believe in a god. When presenting with conflicting claims of Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, not to mention a host of other smaller religions, Pascal's Wager falls flat because it offers no guidance other than to try and appease them all. And yet just comparing the three Abrahamic religions indicates that appeasing them all is impossible - how can one accept the claims of Christianity and Islam and combine them? Either Jesus is divine or he isn't - if he is then Muslims are wrong and if he is not then Christians are wrong - how can anyone appease both? And of course if it turns out the Hare Krishnas were right all along then we're all hosed. Well, except the guys in bright orange jump suits and funny haircuts.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
This sort of concept highlights how just getting through can be a battle, especially if we fall back on quoting a book the other person doesn't even accept as having any relevance to them.

How can someone have sin, unless they have sinned against someone or something? We can talk about things like an occasional drifting over the speed limit but to then argue that such an event qualifies someone for hellfire does little to establish credibility. Refusing to believe something exists doesn't mean we don't have it - I'm not sure how many medics would offer denial as an effective form of treatment for any condition - but it does highlight how the first step has to be to break through the denial.

Salvation is meaningless if someone doesn't see any need to be saved. If you don't believe that hell exists, why would you need to be saved from it? If you don't believe that heaven exists, what value is the chance to spend eternity there? If you believe you get your time on earth and then become worm food, what does it matter what other people believe happens after you're gone?

That's the part where people sometimes like to play Pascal's Wager, but even that doesn't work because the most it can achieve is to argue that maybe people should believe in a god. When presenting with conflicting claims of Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, not to mention a host of other smaller religions, Pascal's Wager falls flat because it offers no guidance other than to try and appease them all. And yet just comparing the three Abrahamic religions indicates that appeasing them all is impossible - how can one accept the claims of Christianity and Islam and combine them? Either Jesus is divine or he isn't - if he is then Muslims are wrong and if he is not then Christians are wrong - how can anyone appease both? And of course if it turns out the Hare Krishnas were right all along then we're all hosed. Well, except the guys in bright orange jump suits and funny haircuts.
I agree, I used to watch a guy on YouTube who did an amazing job at convincing atheist that there is a God... but then I saw a Muslim video that would use those same arguments to convert Atheist to Islam..
I personally ask them questions and sit back and listen to their views, I then ask about death and if they are afraid of where they would go when considering any guilt or regret they may fill remorse for.
I used to be an Atheist, and I can usually get them on level with me by saying "if everything including life came out of nowhere randomly just once... how can you be certain that this could never be possible a second time? Or more? Considering given enough time anything is possible?"
Then they become excited and think "yeah, maybe, I dunno, Wow"
"Who had control over your next life?"
And then it's all theological from their and when they ask me questions I give them biblical answers and they don't run away just then but they still deny it, and so it goes back and forth.. never converted one that I know of but it got them thinking and they became it more respectful about my beliefs at least.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
This is a really good point - it's easy for Christians to fall back on lines like "I know in my heart this is true" but the exact same argument could be used to "support" absolutely any argument.

I think one of the biggest issues when discussing with atheists is how easy it is to make assumptions about what it is they believe rather than letting them explain where they are coming from. A while back on here there was a discussion about different terminology and when someone should be called an atheist and when they should be called an agnostic. Then you get into agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism, people who identify as atheists even if we might prefer to think of them as agnostics, and so on. Specifically I think there's a huge amount of scope to get lost somewhere between the stances "I do not believe god exists" and "I believe god does not exist" (small g intentional, using "god" in a generic sense here).

Sometimes it's tempting to fall back on the notion of "god of the gaps", although I think attempts to explain our origins in the absence of god is just as guilty in its own way. We have evolution theory but that can't explain how the first living thing appeared so it passes the buck to the concept of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis may some day come up with a theory as to how some kind of non-living thing came to life (and how it managed to stay alive long enough to reproduce) but can't explain how the non-living thing that came to life came to be there. So from there you get to things like the Big Bang theory but can only speculate as to what triggered the bang. Although "god of the gaps" is a handy way of arguing that every scientific advance makes god a little smaller I can't help thinking each theory that gets so far before making an assumption and passing the buck to another theory leaves the playing field wide open.

It reminds me of the cartoon about a scientist trying to prove that God was no longer relevant because we could create life. So God challenged him to a contest to create living things. As the scientist scooped up some earth to make his first living thing God stopped him and said "hold on a minute, you'd better start by creating your own earth to use".
 

JRT

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
780
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I used to be an Atheist, and I can usually get them on level with me by saying "if everything including life came out of nowhere randomly just once... how can you be certain that this could never be possible a second time? Or more? Considering given enough time anything is possible?"

Actually I strongly suspect that life developed multiple times only to be overwhelmed either by nature itself or to be eaten by the original form of life.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Actually I strongly suspect that life developed multiple times only to be overwhelmed either by nature itself or to be eaten by the original form of life.
Could you further elaborate on your theory?
Are to talking about prior extinctions of planet life or of an entire universe?
I used to believe that the universe expands cools and retracts and then starts all over again and that we live once per universe.
 
Top Bottom