One argument I've used successfully with this type is to ask: In which God do you disbelieve?....there are so many, it must be a full time job proving them all false. Say, what ever happened to that popular attitude towards the "eastern religions", how do you feel about them, do you know much about them? Tell me why you believe tey are false....please....please.

If atheism is a "belief system" then it must have a common morality. If so, what is it and most important of all, "where did it come from"? Be careful with your answer.........it might lead you to the "G" word!

PS. Relativity is not a "belief system" because in it's lowest common denomenator it is a denial of anything absolute......even a "belief system".

IF atheism and its gospel, evolution, are in fact true, then nothing matters. What we believe, and what we do are meaningless. Helping a neigbor? For what? Protecting endangered Species? For what?Obtaining World Peace? For What? Saving the planet? For what? IF any animal including the Human Race goes extinct then Evolution is doing its Job. And We answer to no one for our wasteful descisions that lead to the death of this planet, which "they" tell us is inevidible anyway. I will eat and drink and do as I please until I die and if it harms anyone it does not matter at all for we are all dying and our planet is dying and our Solar system will burn out and WHO CARES!
This is the conclusion of Atheism.

Chesterton was writing articles whimsically debunking this stuff a century ago. The difference is now it has filtered down to the general population. Charity is always the watchword when I talk to non-believers...St. Francis' maxim of "Preach the Gospel always and when necessary use words" is a far more effective witness to the Faith when dealing with the hard headed or eye brow raisers.

As for the "New Atheists", they come off to me as bitter cranks...reactionaries. Listening to Christopher Hitchens talk about religion is excruciating, because its angry and profanity laced oftentimes. They lack the eloquence of the old 19th Century Skeptics.

The atheists I know aren't cranky or militant - they can sit calmly at my table and say contentedly, "everyone has different beliefs, Marjorie. I respect yours." This type of atheist does not hate God at all. For most of them, I find, the question is not divinity, it is the concept of Truth. I find the authors approach helpful - I think if you can ease people into the notion that there is a Truth about human nature, with rules that bind as surely as, say, gravity, the step to God is much easier. I can always discuss the state of youth ... everyone, including atheists, knows a suffering young person. Now, why would that be? "How many young people have been offered a hand which in the name of freedom or experience has led them to addiction, to moral or intellectual confusion, to hurt, to a loss of self-respect, even to despair and so tragically and sadly to the taking of their own life? Dear friends, truth is not an imposition. Nor is it simply a set of rules. It is a discovery of the One who never fails us; the One whom we can always trust. In seeking truth we come to live by belief because ultimately truth is a person: Jesus Christ. That is why authentic freedom is not an opting out. It is an opting in; nothing less than letting go of self and allowing oneself to be drawn into Christ’s very being for others (cf. Spe Salvi, 28)." Thank you, once again, Pope Benedict.

...though their faiths vary substantially.

What Is A "Religion?"

Lots of things which were merely Philosophies or merely Mythologies have gone under the heading of "Religion."

Even before Christianity, "religion" usually meant a systematic integration of three or more of the following items:

- Cosmological assertions
- Assertions about the supernatural
- Assertions about the nature of man
- Assertions of how man ought to behave
- Practices to transmit all of the above information to the next generation

After Christianity, which has all five bits and then some, the bar was raised, causing things like Confucianism to become a bit borderline (since it neither describes nor denies, but merely ignores, the supernatural).

Still, the list is a reasonable inventory of the working parts of a "religion."

Prepared Meal or Smorgasbord?

Now anyone but a mindless bore will have opinions about the Universe, the Supernatural, People, and Morality. And if he is a parent, a schoolteacher, or a concerned citizen, he'll also care about transmitting important truths and attitudes to future generations.

And Atheists, too, think and care about these topics.

But that means that your Atheist friend does, in effect, have a religion. He has opinions about cosmology (modern physics), about the supernatural (non-existent), about people (high-order animals), about morality (tolerance, liberty, and civic duty) and about teaching the youngsters (show 'em all the options, and let 'em choose, but bias the information through tone-of-voice so they're more likely to go where you want).

They have all the pieces of a religion, and these parts collectively serve in their lives the rolw of a religion.

The difference between your Atheist friend's religion and a "traditional faith" is that, instead of obtaining those pieces from one authoritative source, he picked them up from here or there.

Do The Pieces Fit?

Now it's technically possible to get a perfectly reasonable worldview through this smorgasbord approach, but you have to be careful.

After all, when all the pieces come from the same manufacturer, sold as a package, it's likely that they don't contradict one another. A computer manufacturer won't last if it habitually sells a PC made of incompatible components!

Which is why "traditional faiths," especially long-enduring ones held by intelligent, sincere, good persons over centuries, deserve respectful investigation by any thinking Atheist. If the pieces had obvious flaws, that brand of worldview would have been out of business long ago.

Similarly, it's shows why ideas picked up here or there from a popular book or a favorite college professor require extra scrutiny: The internal inconsistencies of such a hodgepodge may not be immediately apparent for decades or centuries. In traditional faiths, they'll have long since been called "heresies" and corrected; in a personal smorgasbord, it's up to the individual to find and correct them!

b]The Bias Of Selective Terminology

Finally, looking at "religion" this way can help the Atheist overcome a false dichotomy. He thinks of worldviews containing positive assertions of the supernatural as "religion" and his own worldview as something different.

They're not; they're philosophies and axioms which are either true, or false; helpful or harmful. They either contradict one another or not; they either fit the world around us or not.

If a man has not accumulated some kind of worldview which encompasses these topics, he is rudderless, a half-man. But if he has got such a worldview, then he might as well admit to having a religion, even if it's one he invented for himself.

Religion And Politics

The man who says "keep religion out of the public square" may be saying one of two things:

(1.) It's a bad idea to let the country be run by nobody but priests of a particular religion; or,

(2.) It's a bad idea to let the country be run by people who are influenced by their own cosmological, metaphysical, anthropsychological, moral, and traditional opinions.

Now of course everyone agrees with Item 1, or ought to. But Item 2 is obviously ludicrous. We want our leaders to bring their minds to the job; we want them to be real men with depth of character, not trousered apes or cardboard cutouts.

If a man's decisions were not influenced by some reasonable and laudable worldview in the areas of man, nature, and morality, then not only would I not deliver my country into his hands, I would not deliver my dog!

In Summary

Atheists can be helped to overcome their misunderstandings about religion in general via the approach described above. This is, at the very least, a more fruitful basis for conversation than waving a Bible in their face.

But of course this is all preparatory to the recognition that not every collection of the "worldview components" described above is equally good. Some are self-contradictory; some are contradicted by our observations of the universe and of people.

In any such further analysis, Christianity will come out as the most sensible creed, providing the sanest and most realistic worldview. So by allowing the Atheist to see worldviews in a reductionist way (something with which he's probably already comfortable), we also allow him to make a more sensible critique of his own.

And that is all to the good.

Steve Newark, your argument is staggeringly flawed. If its so bad denying ALL gods as you seem to think atheists must do, surely you have to do the same with all gods except your own?

To those of you who suggest the world will fall into ruin if everybody were atheist: you clearly show your shallowness. If you are only kind to your fellow men because you're scared of not going to heaven you are, in my opinion, morally bankrupt. Empathy is a stronger force to me than fear of divine retribution or reward.

"5. Explain the big picture. Familiarize yourself with the historical case for Christianity, and offer a high-level explanation of what makes this religion's claims compelling -- that Jesus' life and death fulfilled ancient scriptures that all historians agree existed before His time; that almost all the apostles were martyred for their faith; that Christianity spread like wildfire despite horrendous persecution. Study the writings of the earliest Christians, who were defending Christianity in a pagan world that was largely hostile to their beliefs (sound familiar?)."

1. That the scriptures existed is correct but whether or not Jesus did is an open question. That he was the child foretold in Isaiah is highly doubted. That the persecution was as horrendous as you suggest is not a foregone conclusion. If you believe all these things are as you tell them, then you have not done your homework. Or you have done it selectively to find what you wanted to find.
2. That Christianity is dying out and that atheism is taking over is simply false, though Christians love to put out that idea. They have to suffer persecution in order to qualify as followers of Christ. Thus, since there is no actual persecution, you have to invent it. That is disgusting at best and persecution of atheists at worst. Some of us are atheists because we have no choice other than being dishonest about sacred matters. I refuse to lie any longer about sacred matters.
3. You fail to explain exactly what you found in Christianity that was absent from your life. What doctrine or beliefs did you find that were helpful to you?
4. Also you refer to atheism as a belief system. Atheism is NOT a belief system. The fact that you got such a major fact so utterly wrong makes your entire story highly suspect. Perhaps you never were an atheist and you just say you were because it makes a good story.
5. What do you consider “victory” over an atheist in a debate? Do you realize that many atheists simply don’t bother arguing with Christians of your type because we know before we start that it’s a waste of effort? We know we’re right and you’re wrong but it’s not worth the energy to fight. Did you know that? Thus, you may think you won when in reality all you did was shout louder and longer than any self-respecting atheist could be bothered with. Unlike you, we have no eternal consequences to face for not “winning” the debate. All we have to live with is ourselves in this life.

It is to some, but not to all. Now what does this have to with the article? Is this just another opportunity to slam Christianity just because atheism is the topic of the article (even though the article was intended to be Christian supplement and not an opportunity for atheist bashing)?



A typical atheist assumption (Being a Christian = following arbitrary teachings on blind faith). Not all Christians are Christians based on blind faith. Some actually take the time to learn about Christianity even before they step into a church. Don't speak as if you know for sure that every single Christian is one based completely on blind faith (unless you're telling me you're God), including the authors of this article.



Correct, that Christianity (as in the number of Christians that practice) is not dying out, but it's influence is. Now, again, what does this have to do with the article, or is this just another opportunity to bash Christians?



Right, and those Christian converts in places such as Algeria (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Persecution/Default.aspx?id=159998) really are having a blast sharing their faith. I'm starting to see the gleaming light that is your expertise of Christianity.



Another atheist assumption (Christians are not the persecuted but the persecutors). When and where do you see Christians bombing atheist institutions (I remember atheists carpet bombing Orthodox churches but have never heard of Christians murdering atheists, even during the Enlightenment)? Or taking atheists to court for promoting their beliefs? Now, its true that atheists make up a minority group, but to say that they are being actively persecuted (the same way that Christians were and are still being persecuted) is a big fat lie at best and a load of crap at worst.

Atheism may not be a belief system to some, but is to others. You can't speak for all atheists on this matter, unless you do know for sure, beyond any shred of doubt, all atheists agree with you. Now, if you're arguing that the definition of atheism does not assume a belief system, then may be correct; however, I think the authors of this article meant to refer to the belief systems that atheists have (unless you say that atheists, including yourself, do not have belief systems and just believe in random things in an unstructured way, which most Christians may be convinced of).



They probably feel the same way. Some Christians know that it is a waste of effort to engage atheists in discussion because they always know that, no matter what they say, atheists will remain in their stubborn ways such as, for example, when they always insist how much of a tragedy it was for Galileo to be burned at the stake (he actually died under house arrest) and that religion, Christianity in particular, will always be at odds with science (even though 22% of the total number of all scientific findings can be attributed to the works of Jesuit scientists).



Like what you did here?



Yeah, as if it's really a requirement to win every debate with atheists in order to bring oneself into eternal glory. I think that's the eleventh commandment, right? ("Thou shalt defeat thy atheistic brethren in every epic debate or face eternal punishment"). Again, you're expertise on Christianity is really shining through.

When I see responses like R.S.Martin's, I have to sigh.

It is true that he hasn't yet reached the stage of knowing that there are things he doesn't know; and still farther off is the stage where he begins to identify some of the things he doesn't know, and beyond that lies the problem of actually learning them.

One cannot, therefore, expect informed debate from folks in his position. About them, Chesterton correctly wrote in The Everlasting Man that

All the same, I don't wish to bad-mouth him, but to advocate a gracious response to him.

He may have been treated poorly by Christians.

He quite likely was taught philosophical Naturalism when he thought he was being taught the Scientific Method.

He almost certainly has been taught so little about Christianity that what he does know is not sufficient for him to know what he doesn't know. He may know as much as a sixth-grader knows about of Quantum Mechanics...but the sixth-grader knows he doesn't know. The sixth-grader doesn't show up on Ed Witten's blog and start criticizing the regulars!

So it ought to be enough for us to follow the Dominical example with the R.S.Martins of this world: "Father, forgive them. They don't have a clue what they're doing."

My response to atheist comes straight from Seinfeld. When Elaine found out her boyfriend was a Christian, she asked him "does it bother you that I'm not"?

His reply to her was that "it doesn't bother me, cuz I'm not the one going to hell".

No use arguing with these folks, you might as well be agruing whether blue or red is a better color. It will solve nothing. Better to pray for them.

Having just encountered a devout atheist, i am very glad to hear from others who ahave been in the same situation. This person's initial approach was that Christians are naieve, and lacking in any sort of scientific background.
giving scientific responses, however, did little to gain any sort of headway with this person. Having followed the ddebates between Intelligent Design and those who object it really shows how hard some people are trying to deny the reality of God. I think that only god in the end will be able to convince some people, and yet He respects our free will....

this article is a joke. you may as well say, "well we can't back any of this up, and we swallow the fairy tale whole...we have faith" and just end it at that.

I often come across the following phrase... 'Christianity is responsible for countless wars and millions of deaths. While atheism is responsible for none.' I've been a Catholic all my life and know well about the atrocities perpetrated by the Spanish in South America using their faith as an excuse (although gold is what they really wanted, not converts). What are these other wars and atrocities that we often have thrown in our faces. I, as a rule, avoid contact with atheists as most of the ones I have met have been vicious in their attacks on Christianity, often attacking me personally for my beliefs.

I have many friends who are atheists, and a couple of them are very cool and like to have a good argument from time to time. Arguing is one of my favorite things to do. One of the things that really made an impression on my friends was my knowledge of history and science, and basic logic. I just graduated from college and there were so many instances of anti-Catholic bigotry in classes, I had to get good at arguing. Obviously quoting scripture at them wouldn't work - if they don't believe it to begin with, it won't convince them. But the idea of a contingent universe, for example, or the fact that Copernicus was a monk, impressed a few of my friends. As it says in the original article, knowing the reasons behind the Church's teaching is important. I have not convinced them of Catholicism yet, but they are open to the idea of religion, and think Catholicism makes the most sense. And they long ago gave up the idea that Christians are irrational or stupid. One of them in particular asks the hardest questions and makes me do all kinds of research. He does things like waiting until I'm running out the door to go to work and asking me to explain the Trinity. I'm a huge nerd so I like researching all this stuff anyway - science, religion, history and philosophy are the four coolest things as far as I'm concerned.

Especially on university campuses, there so many myths about the Church and the history of Christianity in general, and it definitely pays to know what they are, and be ready with the truth. Also be prepared to explain the exact same things to challenges from Protestants too.

Yeah I've heard the line about all the deaths Christianity is responsible for, and how atheism is responsible for none. Sometimes people are convinced by abortions counting as deaths, but if not I like to use Communism as an example.

I have never fully understood what the term "atheist" actually meant. I think before one can say "I don't believe in God" you need to define what or who God is. Steve Newark touched on the point but he got it backwards. If someone asks me if I believe in God my response is "which one?" After all there are so many with so many overlapping stories and mythologies. I also found that when people ask me if I believe in God they are actually asking "do you believe in my version of God?" The point is that without faith, i.e., belief without evidence, there is no religion. You either believe or you don't. Not believing in a Christian God does not make the experience of the wonder of creation any more or less awe inspiring. Devising an
anthropomorphic deity that created the universe, has a lingering responsibility to that creation and that requires constant adulation requires a lot of creative thinking and conjecture and for me diminishes the experience. It is that same imagination that saw the need to consider an enlightened rabbi who preached a message of hope. love and charity to be divine. Preaching a message of liberation to an oppressed people barely out of the Bronze Age would certainly be something of notice. Curious though that it took nearly 70 years after he died to cobble together oral traditions in the form of the gospels. Then determine that four similar type stories (heavy with mythology)should beat out all the others to be the definitive source. And then the crowning achievement to wait another 300 years for a temporal ruler to calm the competing factions and come up with the Nicene Creed.

No I am not an Atheist. Creation happened. I stand in awe of creation and I am blessed by being a part of it. However, the mysteries that lie behind it and define the energies that caused all of this can’t be known or understood by our puny little brains. I can’t begin to understand the incoherence and inconsistencies of creation and its merely conjecture if you try. Remember, Hitler was as much a part of creation as Mother Theresa and the only thing that they had in common was that they were both Catholic.

All we have is each other and that scares a lot of people. Whether the Christian version of God exists or not will not stop us from killing each other or being kind to each other.

I suppose I prefer the handle "agnostic" because I have the courage to say "I don't know." No one knows for sure and no one ever will. Forget the dogma and the rationalization - love one another, perform acts of charity and do no harm.

"Don't assume that your atheist friends are secretly angry at God... he or she simply has not seen any evidence that God exists."

Hear, hear! I've heard this particular assumption given voice on occasion, and it's a frustrating attitude to deal with. You're trivializing someone's beliefs by assuming this, and you'll do nothing but put someone on the defensive in an argument going nowhere.

Not that either side ever gains ground, really.

I also like #3 and #9. Quotes and catchphrases aren't something that most atheists are likely to take seriously. At all. You're better off explaining the concepts themselves... at the very least, your atheist friend will have a greater understanding of your own beliefs.

This is a refreshing piece in a sea of atheism vs. theism articles that are saying the same old thing, using the same arguments, and making the same assumptions. While I'm quite happy with my theological beliefs, ideas like these make the whole debate much less frustrating.

About the opening of the article? I have to say, I am QUITE happy that I can be open with my beliefs.

It's unfortunate that after such a promising article the comment section has become an arena mainly for repeating misconceptions about atheism and atheists. Hopefully someone will take this clarification in the spirit of the article.

Atheism is an opinion on one topic: Whether or not God (or gods) is imaginary. So is theism. Neither is a 'belief system', and I don't need to poll everyone and their aunt Harry to say that. A belief system necessarily involves multiple related and interlocking beliefs. The multiple and interlock part is what makes it a system.

Of course, atheists have belief systems, and atheism can be part of a belief system, but it is not a belief system itself. Incidentally, it is not a religion either...and neither is theism.

I think we should all be better off if both sides didn't bring up body counts until the other does.

Ummm...the Crusades, the Inquisition.

It was war which turned Christianity from a relative obscure cult into an official religion with Constantine's war to unite Rome (with him as sole emperor of course).

The two biggest religions in the world today, Christianity and Islam have both been spread by force or the threat of force all throughout their history. It hasn't changed today, its just taken on a different face (in the Western world at least).

I've really enjoyed reading all the comments posted in response to this article. I agree with most of what the article says. It is more important to be calm and speak intelligently about ones beliefs and ideas. It is less important for one view to be proven wrong over another. The important thing is that we never stop thinking. The worst thing a reasonable human being can do is to grow complacent in ones beliefs and not be able to defend them. I was raised Christian and am now an atheist. One of the things that really bothered me about religion was that everyone spoke with authority about things they could not support logically. I would never begrudge anyone their beliefs or belittle something that I know has brought a lot of purpose and comfort to so many, a lot of my family included. I encourage anyone, no matter what they believe, to do their reading. It always surprised me how many Christians I’ve met have never read the Bible. They quote it, convey the gist of what is written but don’t really know. It is refreshing to read someone of faith encouraging Christians to do their research. It is also important that you research and understand the opposing position. There are a lot of misconceptions about atheism. Some of them include “atheists believe in nothing so what the point to anything as far as their concerned” or “without God morality cannot exist”. Though I can’t speak for all atheists I believe I speak for a good number. I think there is definitely a point to living and that human beings need to take care of one another. I am a very moral person and agree with a lot of the churches teachings, not because that’s what the bible says but because I’ve logically reached the same conclusion through inquiry and contemplation. Again, thanks for the interesting read.