Atheism and a Christian Response

When speaking in God’s behalf as Christians it’s best to remember God is only going to take someone as deeply into faith towards him as they are willing to go.1 Since God knows our ultimate choice he usually reveals himself to humans that eventually choose to follow him, and stick with him. That means as ambassadors for Christ we cannot convince another person of God’s existence. Only God can reveal himself to them.2

So, when I interact with atheists I don’t try to convince them of God’s existence. What I do is point out places in their arguments that either are not factual, not truthful, or ideas that are illogical conclusions based on the facts they present. I don’t expect to change their mind. Only God can, if he chooses to. Instead I attempt to help observers from falling prey to the atheists’ illogical conclusions, while leaving the atheists with ideas to consider.

Atheists have exactly zero evidence to prove God nonexistent. It’s impossible to prove that. But here are some arguments they’ll likely bring into a debate on the subject:

Some atheists will state the burden to proof lies with you, as in this statement below directed to me by the Awesome American Atheist:

“That isn’t how it works. The burden of proof is on those asserting a positive. Not those who don’t accept it. Plus, if you can make an assertion without evidence, I can dismiss it without”

As I stated above, I look for anything that is not factual or illogical to respond to. Both are present in those statements addressed to me. There is not a fact in the Awesome American Atheist’s response that proves the burden of proof lies with me to prove God exists. Also, I said nothing to him claiming I accept that burden or that I feel obligated for any reason to do so. His statement is illogical, especially since he acknowledges I believe God exists. It’s illogical because if God is real who decides who the burden of proof lies with to confirm his existence, this responder or God? So I answered him pointing that out.

And I added that Christians do have evidence of God’s existence through testimonials. While atheists have exactly zero proof to God’s non-existence. The fact the atheist does not believe in testimonial evidence to God’s existence does not mean that evidence does not exist. Bringing out those points, I focused the burden of proof back at him, to which he remained silent. He had no facts to back his belief, which I already knew before I began the dialogue. Below was my response:

“Your assertion only applies if you are the top man on the totem pole. Only then can you decide “how it works,” and who the burden of proof falls on. However, your response does suggests you cannot prove your point, as I stated, the nonexistence of God is impossible to prove. Now suppose you are wrong, and though you don’t believe us God does exist? In that case who decides who the burden of proof lies on, you or God? Testimonials provided by Christians today and in historical records include eyewitness evidence to the existence of godly miracles, including personal contacts by God. Through such testimonials evidence that God exists is present today. While atheists can provide nothing but conjecture to support their belief. They attempt to point to science. Yet science can only explain what God has created; it can never disprove the existence of a god. So atheists only have their belief about God that was formulated by two things: persuasions by others that are in their same position, and their own thoughts, desires, and fears.”

Another argument frequently put forth to refute God’s existence is the evolutionary theory. This is an easy one to prove illogical. What does the evolutionary theory have to do with the existence or nonexistence of God? Nothing. Those are two unrelated ideas. So I just point that out to an atheist debater, which leaves them nowhere to logically go with that idea. Often they will continue to assert that correlation between a nonexistent god and the evolutionary theory, but when I am publically debating I am offering ideas for the thinkers in the audience; and whether those observers process information at lightning speed or at a turtle’s pace, God has to reveal truth about himself to them. I only pass on parts of his message. So I don’t spend a lot of time on this point. If they raise it again, I ask them to explain how that proves God’s nonexistence.

Most Christians I’ve heard discuss this point attempt to refute the evolutionary theory by bringing up the Bible claim God created life forms according to their own kind. And some Christians add scientific evidence to back that claim. I see that as a mistake. First, the atheist doesn’t believe in the Bible. And second, most scientists support the evolutionary theory. Also, the Bible states God created life forms according to their kind; but the Bible doesn’t say how God did that, what process he used. So I see that argument as a dead-end. I just ask the atheist to prove the correlation between God’s nonexistence and the evolutionary theory. Logically it cannot be done. So they are left with an opinion. If the conversation lasts, I will probably tell them they hold nothing but an opinion that is not backed by evidence, because those claims have no correlation.

Another argument atheists present is the extreme suffering in the world. Some ex-Christians develop a hatred for God and the Bible while they claim God does not exist. Some of these ex-Christians bring up the killing done at the command of the biblical god in the Old Testament, as the reason they hate God. I’ll bring out, since they believe in God’s nonexistence, who should they hold responsible for all that killing, God or people? That’s similar to the idea an actor playing a student offered his teacher, in the movie, God’s Not Dead. His argument was, “How can you hate a God that doesn’t exist?”

I’m sharing some of the main arguments for atheism I’ve personally encountered and debated. I’ll leave you with this last argument. The atheist might say something similar to this: “How about the crazy man in (list any place), that claims to be Jesus Christ?” I remind the atheist that his world holds many people who claim to have personally experienced God in much higher esteem than his world holds him. Let’s name one of those people. How about Jesus Christ? Jesus is the most prominent character in the most widely published book in the history of the atheist’s world. And Jesus is a character whose existence is not refuted. How does the atheist’s world characterize Christ’s mark on humanity in comparison to that atheist’s mark on humanity? If he wants to imply we are all crazy, without directly saying that, I let him know that his world holds many of us in higher esteem than it does him. Fact or fiction? Fact.


#1 Isaiah 6:8Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying:

“Whom shall I send?

Who will go for Us?”

#2 1Corinthians 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.


What Must I Do to Get Saved?

Let’s start with Acts chapter 16. Note these scriptures are copied from the New World Translation, Watchtower’s Bible translation, the Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why I chose that translation will become apparent in the article. Chapter 16 of Acts starting at verse 29 reads:

29 So he (a jailer) asked for lights and rushed in, and seized with trembling, he fell down before Paul and Silas.30 He brought them outside and said: “Sirs, what must I do to get saved?”31 They said: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will get saved, you and your household.”32 Then they spoke the word of Jehovah * [literally the Lord not Jehovah], to him together with all those in his house.33 And he took them along in that hour of the night and washed their wounds. Then he and his entire household were baptized without delay.34 He brought them into his house and set a table before them, and he rejoiced greatly with all his household now that he had believed in God.”

It was Paul and Silas that were asked the question, “what must I do to get saved?” Since Paul wrote more New Testament scriptures than any other Christian, we should trust his answer. So what was his answer? Both he and Silas answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will get saved, you and your household.”

What does it mean to believe in Lord Jesus? It means accepting his position as God over us doesn’t it? Note that verse 34 of the New World Translation states, “he (the jailer) rejoiced greatly with all his household now that he had believed in God.” So Luke, the author of Acts, appears to have claimed the man believed Lord Jesus was God. His God right? The implication is very strong, yet I am confident that would be denied by Watchtower, since Watchtower teaches Christ is not God.

But look, first the jailer was told he needed to believe in Lord Jesus; and then we are told he had believed in God after he was told about the Lord. What Lord? That ambiguity is the reason Watchtower substituted the Greek word for Lord with the name Jehovah, who Watchtower teaches is the Father. So why did Watchtower translate the Greek word for lord in vs 34 as Jehovah, who Watchtower claims is the Father? Because whoever’s words the jailer heard, that are referred to in vs 32, caused that jailer to believe in the god of vs 34. If those words were the Father’s words referenced in vs 32, then Watchtower could logically assert the god the jailer believed in, per verse 34, was the Father and not Lord Jesus.

However, since Paul had initially told the jailer to believe in the Lord Jesus to attain salvation, it seems most likely Paul was sharing words from Christ and about Christ, which caused the jailer to accept Christ as his god, along with the Father.

Evidence that the jailer heard of and accepted Christ’s words was the jailer’s baptism, in compliance with Christ’s directions at Matthew 28: 18, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

So after listening to words spoken about Christ the jailer submitted to the authority Christ claimed to have in Matthew chapter 28. How long did it take the jailer to get saved after hearing words about Christ? It seems not long at all. Verse 33 reads, “Then he and his entire household were baptized without delay.”

Factors leading to his salvation were:

1. His desire to get saved. “Sirs, what must I do to get saved?”

2. Someone to share the message about Christ. “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him.”

3. His decision to accept what he was told and act upon it. “He rejoiced greatly with all his household now that he had believed in God.”

It’s quite apparent one prerequisite Jehovah’s Witnesses require of their members preceding baptism is absent, proving its presence is unnecessary to receive salvation, according to scripture. The absent circumstance is a lengthy study of the scriptures. Because the jailer was baptized without delay. That’s not a rare occurrence in Bible scriptures. It’s the norm. Watchtower teaches that wasn’t required of ancient Jews because they already knew God. However, that argument is invalid in this case. The jailer was a Roman citizen, not a Jew.

Footnote *In vs 32 the Greek word is kyriou. It really translates to Lord, and not Jehovah, as the New World Translation replaced it in verse 32, which actually should read, “they spoke to him the word of the Lord,” which is the literal word to word translation from Greek to English. It’s very apparent Paul and Silas were giving the jailer and his family information about Jesus’ words. So unless Watchtower now identifies Jesus as the person of Jehovah, and I know they don’t, then their translation would have been more accurate if they typed in the correct English word in verse 32, instead of substituting the name Jehovah.

To learn more about this important topic click this link to the article:

Is Christ God Over Angels And Men Or An Archangel?


If You Think We All Must Believe the Same Things Read This

Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth John 17:17

Romans 14:1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions.a 2For one person has faith to eat all things, while another, who is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One person regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes a special day does so to the Lord;b he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

7For none of us lives to himself alone, and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this reason Christ died and returned to life, that He might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10Why, then, do you judge your brother? Or why do you belittle your brother?

The refusing to eat meat Paul references in verse two has to do with that Christian’s religious beliefs, as does the abstaining from observing certain days in verse five. In these verses Paul’s direction to Christians is not to judge other Christians who have different beliefs about scripture, up to a point, even if we know they are wrong. So do you have to believe everything your pastor, your elders, your church Father, your Pope, or your denomination teaches about scripture in order to retain God’s favor? Not according to these scriptures. And like Christ you can choose to sit next to other followers of God who share opposing views on biblical topics. To say you cannot is unchristian, because even Christ did that.

At 1 Corinthians 1:10 Paul was not contradicting what he wrote to the congregation in Rome. The speaking in agreement and being of like mind he wrote about had to do with not forming factions inside the church groups by raising one Christian teacher over another. His words related to that behavior only, as you can see here:

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree together, so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be united in mind and conviction. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?”1 Corinthians 1:10-13

You are not alone. If you do not believe everything about scripture your denomination is teaching, someone sitting next to you might share your same thought. And Christ might share your view, not theirs. But if not, Paul’s letter to the congregation in Rome shows Christ does not abandon you for having an incorrect view on applying scripture.


Must You Believe in the Trinity to Be Christian?

I submitted an article explaining the New Testament meaning of “last days” to a Christian website that posts articles and comments from guests, There I was told they wouldn’t publish my article because I might believe in the Trinity. They don’t publish articles written by trinitarians. Their response included the statement they were making no assertion claiming I am a trinitarian, but just that the possibility exists I might be one. So the possibility I might be one prohibits them from publishing any article I write.

Now the article I submitted made no mention of the Trinity or anything related to it. My article only considered the meaning of the “last days,” as the phrase is used in New Testament scriptures. I published the same article here on debate scripture. You’re invited to review it here.

Last Days and Return of Christ When?

Also, later I was ordered by their site administrator to change my tone and if not I would be bounced off his site. My recollection is that I was never rude to any of his writers or guests, while some of them were rude to me when I brought up points that contradicted what they were teaching. Deciding it wasn’t my tone that was the objection but rather the content of my comments, I decided to withdraw my participation there. My beliefs and comments will not change because of someone else’s tone, although my participation in their project might, as it did there. How does that experience relate to this article? One of the topics we debated on that website was whether Christ is God or not. I supported the thought Christ is God over angels and men, but the site’s authors and other commenters believe Christ is not God.

On a completely different Christian website one commenter stated, “the Father is God, Christ the Son is God, but whether or not the Holy Spirit is God is debatable.” After another guest belittled his comment, I responded claiming scriptures do claim the Father is God and the Son is God, but in Revelation chapter five the seven spirits of God that go out into all the earth are seen as the eyes and horns of the lamb, showing Holy Spirit is part of the lamb in that verse. And the lamb there pictures Christ. So scriptures show Holy Spirit is part of Christ in those scriptures. Other scriptures in Revelation chapter one claim the seven Spirits of God are before the throne of the one who is, was , and is to come (God). And so it is possible Holy Spirit is part of the Father and part of the Son, and not a third person as the Trinity claims. It’s possible just the Father and Son are God while Holy Spirit is part of their very being, as our arms are part of us.

That comment of mine was turned in to administrators of that website, which then banned me from making further comments until I agreed to be questioned by its administrators. I was told they must inquire into my beliefs about the Trinity doctrine, as only believers in that doctrine are allowed to comment. I refused to submit to their inquisition, and so I am forever banned from commenting on their site. banned me for claiming Holy Spirit might be part of the nature of the Father and Son, instead of existing as its own separate personality. In that way being God the Father or God the Son.

The Trinity doctrine is the primary doctrine many denominational Christians hold to while making the claim that Christians with opposing viewpoints are not real Christians. I have heard several Bible teachers on Christian Satellite Network claim Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult because they don’t accept the Trinity. On the other hand Jehovah’s Witnesses use the Trinity belief held by denominational Christianity to claim every other denomination is apostate Christianity, because they believe in the Trinity.

I’ll post a few scriptures relevant to this topic below. Because of the finger pointing and slanderous accusations made against members and denominations on opposing sides of this belief, I advise you dispense with their rhetoric and make up your own mind from a clean slate, while allowing scriptures to write on it and not denominational rhetoric.

With regard to the Father being God and the Son being God, I direct you to my article on that subject (Is Christ God over Angels and Men or an Archangel). No need to repeat the same information here. So the scriptures below will focus on the Holy Spirit. My belief is that the Father is God, per scripture, the Son is God per scripture, but it is most likely Holy Spirit is part of the Father and Son, and not a separate person with a separate personality.

I know pronouns are often used when speaking of the Holy Spirit in scripture. But if he is not a separate person from the Father and Son there could be two explanations for that. The first explanation is that if he is part of Christ and part of the Father, as our arms are part of us, then speaking of Holy Spirit as a pronoun is appropriate. Because “he” could be the Father in some scriptures and the Son in other scriptures. Of course the Father and Son could individually be referred to as “he.”

The apostle John referred to himself in the third person inside his gospel. He called himself the disciple Christ loved. He never said he spoke of himself while using that phrase. In the same way Christ might have spoken of Holy Spirit in the third person while referring to actions taken by himself, and also when speaking of actions taken by the Father.

For those who would argue my arm is not me, and I have engaged with Christians who assert that, then the literary device of personification could account for the use of pronouns referring to the Holy Spirit. However, anyone elbowed by my arm would know it was me and not just an arm.

It’s my belief that anyone contacted by God will know that Holy Spirit is God the Father, or Christ the Son. I base that belief on my own personal experiences and all the biblical responses by other people who were contacted by God. When God contacts a person, he does so either through his Holy Spirit or by sending an angel to communicate. It’s always been that way. See the scriptures below this line.


Revelation 1:4-5 reads, “To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from Him who is and was and is to come, and from the seven Spirits before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.”

Revelation 5:6 reads, “The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 

Zechariah 4:6 reads, “Then he said to me, ‘This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.’”