"Scientific criticism and biblical scholarship are always changing with the philosophies change. Shift in philosophy leads to new science theory, changing the generally accepted picture of world and way facts are interpeted. New philosophy often precedes new science...Revolutionary new discoveries appear with regularity. Any scientific book that is in agreement with current scholarship undoubtedly contains errors that will become obvious as time goes by(Saal,Reaching Moslems For Christ, 93)."
The following are mistakes that people can make when witnessing to atheists and agnostics.
Mistake 1: Assuming that lack of a response means agreement.
If you believe this about yourself, then you will never have any peace when they spout nonsense at you. If you believe this about them, don't make the mistake of telling them about it, or they'll give you their response from both barrels.
Mistake 2: Assuming that your argumentation can change a stubborn mind.
If they don't want to believe, they won't believe. This site is the result of a series of debates I had with an agnostic, whom I currently have chosen to argue less with, due to this very reason. I put a lot of work into it, so I decided to share it. This site is addressed to either Christians who face the objections of atheists and agnostics, Christians that have doubts about their faith, possibly some open minded Jewish people who stumble across it, and maybe some atheists and agnostics who are not so full of themselves that they can actually take the time to read the bible and my words carefully instead of jumping to an arrogant conclusion prematurely. From my experience of debating with an agnostic, I realize that a person can be so full of his or her own opinions that he or she won't really care what you say. They'll just skip around to a part that `interests them' because they can attack it. At least, a few half sentences here and there.
Mistake 3: Arguing without calmness or respect.
The word `persuasion' means `with sweetness.' This site isn't a very good example of this, but basically you should be calm and respectful as much as possible when answering objections. Prayer is extremely helpful in this regard. You should also build a good friendship with them. Atheists and agnostics are often self centered and/or self absorbed, so to be an effective witness means to avoid destroying their ego with insults or accusations.
Mistake 4: Not listening.
As I've been wading through my old e-mails, I see how incredibly bad at listening I was. Actually, how bad at reading I was. Instead of answering his objections, a lot of times I rambled on about something completely off topic, wasting his time and mine. All because I didn't read carefully. Eventually, I came to this startling realization: the guy had alienated a lot of his friends because of his attitude problem, and the best Christian service I was providing was not trying to change his mind, but rather merely listening to him ramble!
Mistake 5: Being quick to answer.
The New Testament says we should be quick to listen, slow to respond. I've noticed that if I leave e-mail messages sitting on my desktop long enough, I either change my mind or God gives me a better idea to replace it. Remember that an atheist has no patience because they believe `this is it,' they only got one life and they don't want to waste their time. We Christians, on the other hand, have an eternity with God, so we can afford to be patient. When I get upset about what someone says about my religion, I can let the message sit on my desktop while I go walk the dogs or something, praying as I do so, and God will give me an answer to the objection eventually.
Mistake 6: Attempting to answer a compound objection as a whole.
Examples can be found below. A favorite among atheists and agnostics is to base a compound argument on a circular premise, like "because God doesn't exist, this and that must be false(true)."
Mistake 7: Answering objections that the atheist or agnostic fails to substantiate.
One time, I went on a long religious spiel about a point someone made based on a scientific article they couldn't quote and didn't actually have in their possession. The objection was, "Between the old and new testament era, there was a huge change in the brain worldwide." The guy might someday find the article, but it was pointless for me to argue it at the time because there wasn't anything there for me to work with. Here's another: "There was at least one other `Messiah' who went through almost the same ordeals as Jesus - but is virtually unknown."
Mistake 8: Involving yourself in someone else's arguments.
The agnostic I corresponded with would constantly throw incomplete e-mails from debates he'd have with other unbelievers or people who can only loosely be described as `Christian.' I'd get these messages like, "Those people are like the computers in that one science fiction story, where they burn out and malfunction when trying to convince themselves that they have souls," or "I want to scream at him, `He's the one who buried her, you ninny!'" As much as I'd like to comment on it, I haven't the foggiest what spurred on the conversation in the first place! Who is burned out? Why are we talking about robots? Why did the agnostic think this was an interesting thing to share with me? If they didn't ask for it, or if you didn't ask for it, if you don't know what they're talking about, and if you have no idea what spurred on the conversation to begin with, leave the argument alone. Like the book of Proverbs says, to involve yourself in someone else's quarrel is like grabbing a passing dog by the ears.
Mistake 9: Assuming "they must be angry at God."
Some people aren't mad at God, they just don't believe He exists. This is problematic because most of the materials I have that address the objections of atheists and agnostics make this assumption. Quite a few Touched By An Angel episodes do the same thing. The problem is that not everyone has this problem. Not everyone blames God, or is trying to get even with Him by rejecting him. There are other factors. Friends may have influenced their thinking. They may have picked up their skepticism in college philosophy courses. They are often poorly grounded in the bible to begin with. Basically, the parable of the sower(Matthew 13) applies to the situation. Satan or the cares of the world, or their shallowness made the seed of God's word unfruitful. The agnostic said, "I think it is a lot easier when there is no one to blame."
Mistake 10: Assuming that souls, the afterlife or the threat of hell mean anything to them.
If a person has a strong opinion about hell, heaven, the afterlife or spirits not existing, it's tough to argue anything compelling about it with them. It's doubtful you can do very much but pray about it.
Mistake 11: Arguing that God will answer all their questions and objections in heaven.
They will only respond, "but then it will be too late!" Choose another strategy.
Mistake 12: Arguing that God's mind is too sacred to be comprehended or questioned.
While I didn't actually make this mistake, I couldn't hear the end of it. My personal stance is that God's mind is just too complicated to be comprehended by our puny little brains, not that it's sinful to probe its depths. Let them question as much as they want. They'll do it anyway without you.
Mistake 13: Not praying, assuming that you can answer all the atheist's objections without God's help.
You have one advantage over them. Prayer. Prayer can be more effective than a million essays. If something they say troubles you, and causes you to have serious doubts, you can pray about it. You don't have to accept everything they say, or be fooled by their faulty reasoning. Pray to God for guidance on how to respond to their objection, or at least how to keep your own soul from being troubled. I know from experience that I don't have all the answers. But God can provide adequate responses if they are needed. Sometimes God will tell you that a response is unmerited. Sometimes the Lord will show you that you don't really need to answer their objection because the reasoning is faulty.
Mistake 14: Going off topic.
When you change the subject and don't answer the objection, you only open up a new can of worms. Don't give them something they didn't ask for. If they merely voice an objection to the concept of free will, don't start arguing about evolution, unless it has a 1-1 correspondence with the topic. You will end up with a large, untidy debate with too many loose ends. They will also brainstorm in a similar fashion, bringing you objections that you don't want. They will also argue that your logic is circular because you didn't answer the question, even though much of their logic is also circular.
Mistake 15: Weak metaphors, analogies and hypothetical situations.
One slip of the tongue and it's possible you'll never hear the end of it. Craft your responses carefully before you send them. I once suggested something called a "100% Convincing Book." My argument was that such a book would cause certain people to be arrogant hypocrites with God complexes. Unfortunately, the agnostic threw that one back in my face by arguing that `there'd be worldwide peace because everyone would be convinced.' It was a stupid idea to begin with, and I never would have gotten into the stupid debate if I hadn't been so stupid as to suggest it.
Mistake 16: Information overload.
The agnostic or atheist will disregard a large portion of what you say unless you can condense it into manageable portions. You should see what this site was like before I revised it.
Mistake 17: Being too simplistic when turning the objection around.
One complaint the agnostic had about the preachers that would visit him was that they didn't try hard enough to answer his questions. They merely "turned the question around on him." Despite his complaint, I think this is actually a good idea, but the execution needed a bit of work.
Mistake 18: Assuming they are loose living, head banging, debauched, Devil worshipping pagans.
A lot of them are concerned about being good citizens, avoiding disease and death, and `not feeling like a louse,' even though they don't believe in God or related things. They believe in `treating other human beings the best they can.' And many think the biblical commandments are a `good idea,' at least, the ones that don't mention God (certainly eases their mind a bit, doesn't it? They've eliminated at least half of the 613 commandments). The agnostic I talked to actually didn't listen to heavy metal at all, but preferred `the militia man channel,' in other words, radio talk shows headed by groups of paranoid right wing Christians. The atheist said, "I'm secular, but that doesn't automatically equate (as you just did) to `liberal'. Not everyone who thinks religion is bad thinks `anything goes' is good."
Mistake 19: Overtly stating that you have correctly judged their character.
Keep it to yourself. For example, "I know what you think about such - and - such." Even if you hit the nail on the head, and gave a perfect 1-1 correspondence to what they were thinking, they will deny it just to contradict you. Basically, don't assume too much about the person's character, especially if you don't know them that well.
Mistake 20: Assuming that they worship at the Church of The Silver Screen.
Not every atheist spends forty hours a week in a movie theater (that is, if they don't work there). So, don't assume you can persuade them using ideas from various movies. Arguments from popular media only work if they have actually watched the movies you're talking about. If the agnostic or atheist has taken a strange vow of abstinance from cinema, you won't be able to argue anything compellingly from them. I tried a couple arguments based on the Signs,Final Destination, and Ben, all of which backfired because the guy doesn't watch movies. At other times, this will backfire for a different reason - because the idea is old. The Matrix, for example, is basically Plato's theory of the cave.
Mistake 21: Arguing that if you behave like a good Christian, you will have your bases covered in all other religions.
The agnostic I argued with brought up several points that made me realize that I'm doomed in other religions. Islamic people believe Christians are doomed to hell. Buddhists believe we're doomed to an infinity of reincarnations because we follow truth that comes from outside ourself (the bible, God, God's word) rather than the truth that is supposedly within us. There are too many other ones to waste time mentioning. I just want to reinforce the point that you shouldn't argue that your bases are covered in other religions. Say that all the other religions are false. Say anything, just don't try this one.
Mistake 22: Arguing that "fact (or truth) is relative" or "reality is perception," or "reality is subjective."
The agnostic will pick out passages about `truth' in the bible and argue the same thing you're arguing about his `facts.' It's easy to do this because it doesn't require anyone to be wrong, so you can stop arguing, you think. But it won't convince your target and it's not logically satisfying to say that `all truth is relative.' To do that, you have to presuppose that the statement `all truth is relative' is absolute truth. And to say it is a relative truth that all truth is relative would be meaningless. (The Challenge of Cults and New Religions, Ron Rhodes, 183).
Mistake 23: Exposing the weaknesses of your faith, and your own doubts.
The agnostic wants you to be convinced that his or her beliefs are the correct ones. If you were guarding a castle, would you point out the weak parts of your defenses to the enemy? True, the agnostic may appear to be your friend, but they hold a double standard. They want you to be a super perfect, super happy, faithful, undoubting Christian, otherwise they won't be convinced. They want to tear down the walls of your faith. Don't help them with it. They have more than enough doubt to replace those doubts you aren't sharing. You'll get lines like this: "Maybe only a matter of how you phrased it, but to me it implies that you find Christianity so unsatisfying and questionable that you have to force yourself to continue."
Mistake 24: Arguing that their unbelief will result in an eternity away from God.
No matter how true this is, it's not convincing to agnostics because they will argue that it "will be the same as it is now."
Mistake 25: Doing too much work for them.
Don't type out bible passages for them. Just list the verses. It saves your time, and encourages them to study the bible independently of your guidance, which will natually be a bit inadequate anyway. If they're serious about the Lord (often times this is not the case), they will spend the time required to look up the verses. If they don't care enough to look them up, it's a sign that they are ignoring most of what you say, and they just want to argue with you.
Mistake 26: "According to the bible."
You don't know how much you find yourself saying this phrase in a heated debate with an atheist or agnostic. Don't. This is what will happen.
Mistake 27: Assuming that they have a sin they don't.
I spent a great deal of time debating the biblical view on homosexuality with the agnostic, when he was straight (heterosexual). He really didn't need that information. That was a waste of time.
Mistake 28: Arguing that science is a religion.
Atheists and agnostics may treat science as a religion, but it's not a religion. A Christian can study science if they choose, and it doesn't make them any less of a Christian for doing so. A more appropriate argument is that atheist scientific theories are a religion, and are dogmatized to the point of being a religion.
Mistake 29: Using the flaws in Darwin's theory to attempt to argue for the existence of God.
I got a DVD from a group of Theist scientists who pointed out a series of faults with Darwinian theory. This is what happened when I mailed it to my agnostic correspondent: "A couple biologists said that the parts of Darwin's evolutionary theory fail to explain complex `machinery' of cells, that won't work if one part is missing. The answer to how the whole thing got there? `God did it!' Uhhh, how about `Darwin's theory needs work!?'"
Mistake 30: Arguing that Jesus is God because of his words, or because of the results of his words.
The agnostic found this line of reasoning in the book, More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell. His response was, "And getting back to the book, one line that nearly made me eat the plate was the comment that Jesus must have been God because his words, where ever proclaimed, cause sinners to reform, drunks to sober up, the depressed to see new purpose in life, etc."
Mistake 31: Arguing that "the entire bible is literally true."
Take a long, hard look at Revelation, Daniel and Ezekiel and tell me that it's literal. While they may be true prophecies of things, they are filled with symbolic language or `metaphors,' even. That doesn't mean the whole bible is like that, though.
Mistake 32: Arguing that "if Jesus is not God, he's not a good moral teacher."
Another reason why I do not recommend Josh McDowell's More Than a Carpenter. The atheist didn't believe in God, so he figured that divinity had nothing to do with one's moral character. Certainly, Josh could drive a point home with non-messianic Jews by arguing that Jesus wouldn't be following the commandments if he were blaspheming by calling himself the son of God, but what is that to an atheist?
Mistake 33: Arguing that Christianity cannot be wrong because there are so many believers.
India has many Hindus. Buddhism has many followers. While it may be helpful to be in a crowd of other believers, it's not compelling to argue that `because there are so many Christians, the religion must be true.' There should be a better argument than this. I know it doesn't work because when I tried this on the agnostic, he said, "I think you believe what your religion tells you because the history and trappings and other believers make it easy for you to convince yourself that indeed `100,000 Frenchmen Must Be Right'."
Mistake 34: "God wants us to be holy, not happy."
Even though we probably had Oral Torah since the beginning of humanity, we can't back it up with documents. It was oral. So, on first appearances (which atheists consider to be the `only' and `best' ones), it seems as if that argument is a bad one. What that means is that we need to think of a better argument, not that the idea is bad. The agnostic replied, "then Hinduism and Budhism and very old Chinese beliefs should be even better."
Mistake 36: Arguing from personal visions and dreams.
They may be God's messages, but they're for you, not the atheist. The atheist will just pick them apart, dismiss them as something your mind made up, and say stuff like, "Why would God torture you like that?"
Mistake 37: Defending religion in general terms.
Frankly, as a Christian, you don't need to defend Hinduism and Buddhism and Islam. That isn't neccessary. In fact, it's a counterproductive waste of time, because you want them to be Christian, not some other faith. Just stick to defending Judeo-Christianity.
Mistake 38: Arguing that your love for them is a sign of God's influence.
While it is definitely true, they won't believe it if they don't want to. When I told the agnostic I stayed up until 5 A.M. writing responses to his messages, he argued, "An artist can be in the throes of a creative passion, which causes lack of sleep and gets them really motivated." It didn't mean anything to him. It may have impressed him, but certainly it didn't make him believe in God.
Mistake 39: Rejecting what they like because they like it.
Certain things are enjoyable. It's easy to reject everything an atheist likes. But then you end up having no likes at all, because the atheist `ruins' them. Carefully examine your likes and dislikes and see if you're rejecting theirs for the right reasons.
Mistake 40: Assuming they don't know that Christ was crucified.
Getting them to understand the ressurrection is the tough part.
Mistake 41: Assuming that the misleading and confusing message by the atheist is an attack on religion.
Sometimes, it can turn out to be a muddled statement in support of religion, or something unrelated to anything religious, which you can probably agree with them or ignore if you choose. Don't make the mistake of arguing against it before you understand what it is they're saying.
Mistake 42: Assuming that they're open - mindedly discussing religion with you because they want to be saved.
After awhile, you will realize that it's foolish to constantly check for mail from your atheist correspondent for signs of an overwhelming need to convert. You'd just as well be waiting for them to turn into a tree. It might take a few years for them to convert, if they do at all. You might not even be there to see them convert. My correspondent has proven time and time again that he's just playing with religion like a cat fidgeting with a catnip toy. Maybe some time he'll shape up. "Does my imagination consider religion? Sure, or I would have told you to take a hike long ago! But is it important, central, critical or even just `serious'? Only as a curiosity and an intellectual exercise."
Mistake 43: Asking what their god is before explaining what it means.
The atheist replied, "`What is my God'. Until I know what you mean by a `god', my answer would probably be way off base, or seem frivolous. People throw the word `god' around too loosly. It seems to mean anything from idols to money to sex to one's work, so I need to know more about what you are asking. If it is just what I do most that keeps me going, probably `breathing' is the winner, but I doubt you mean that!"
Mistake 44: Blaming it all on Adam.
Unfortunately, this website is sorely guilty of this particular offense. Mea culpa. A large amount of the free will argument rests on Adam and Eve and how they supposedly are the source of ALL evil. This denies the existence of personal responsibility of individuals. Adam did not unleash a pandora's box of evil. To say so would put all the blame on Adam's shoulders, and none on our own.
If you thought the mistakes above were far from `common,' these below are even more so.
Bad idea #1: Basing God the Father too much on your father.
God is not like human fathers, so the following fatherly arguments, if attributed to God, are not going to wash with agnostics. "Yours is not to question why, but to do or die," "Why? Because I said so, that's why!" "If you don't like it, you can leave." When I argued something like this to the agnostic, he replied, "I certainly hope you don't intend to use this argument to make people like the guy!"
Bad idea #2: "Grand scheme of things."
The agnostic pointed out that this phrase implies divinity. So he shrugged it off.
Bad idea #3: Arguing that science can't accurately perceive anything.
While atheists and agnostics offhandedly dismiss anything they can't see, taste, touch, smell or put in a test tube, that doesn't mean that they don't have a firm grasp on what they can perceive. There are better ways to argue for the existence of God than trying to say that science really doesn't know the atomic number of Boron. As the agnostic stated, "if you mean our senses are so poor that we are unable to perceive the physical world, I totally disagree."
Bad idea #4: Trying to manipulate them by using one of their assumptions against them to prove a point.
They won't `get it.' I tried to argue a point using their "you'll go to hell if you don't go to church every sunday" idea. All that ended up doing was getting them to argue further against religion in the grain of that same line of reasoning. "Well, I don't believe in a God who is so petty as to condemn you to hell for not going to church on Sunday!" If you like opening cans of worms, try it. I don't really like doing that myself.
Bad idea #5: Arguing that life is like a video game that God put together.
There are better arguments than this. Agnostic: "One would expect the designer of the whole flippin UNIVERSE to be able to put together a better `game' to relieve His boredom!...A bad example. There is no blood or pain for simulated characters." Even though there could be a weak case for "we don't know if they don't feel pain," I wouldn't advise this argument.
Bad idea #6: "God as a drill sargent."
While God uses the bad events in our life as training against other conflicts with evil, it's no practice run. We are actually in the thick of a spiritual war with Satan. If misinterpreted, the atheist will respond with something like this: "God as a drill sargent training us for war? I expect better from a GOD. As described, yours is different in only one way from the ancient pagan ones that screwed up peoples lives for the fun of it - this time, it is supposedly for our own good."
Bad idea #7: Saying "evil exists because God wants us to be broken and cry out to Him for all our needs and wants, to be open vessels for Him, before he can work through us."
While the situations of life cause us to cry out to God for help and strength, and while our desires for fame and glory might be broken by God to make us better Christians, it's not the same thing as God sending us an escaped convict to torture us and chain us up in the basement. This is why the agnostic replied, "...That sentence is more like one the Devil would use to prove God is destructive and vain."
Bad idea #8: Arguing that the reason that children die prematurely is that "it might be good for the baby to go to heaven immediately, to do a special job there."
There's probably a better argument than this one. It would probably be a good line if you omitted the part about God causing the death to happen. The agnostic replied, "this makes sense only if the whole purpose of putting an immortal soul in a doomed baby (only to yank it back to Heaven), is for something so important that making the parents go thru `hell' is worth it. Unless God can't create souls (requiring this round - about way of obtaining one), doing things this way is cruel. Unless God doesn't regard us highly enough to call it `cruel'. Maybe we are just disposable incubators for souls, God's version of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers."
Bad idea #9: Saying, "I can go to a youth gathering, with thousands of people in it, and completely trust all the people there...."
Doesn't really say anything definitive about your religion. Agnostic: "Probably also true for other religions' gatherings."
Bad idea #10: Arguing that they should not `believe in human philosophy or empty deceits, according to elemental spirits (or principles) of the universe(reference to Colossians 2:8).'
Even though this is a quotation from the New Testament, you need a reason for them to be convinced about it. You can't just argue that they shouldn't believe in atheism. Plus, the phrase `elemental principles' makes it sound like the bible is Aristotilian, i.e. ancient, bad science. The idea behind the source of this argument, found in the New Testament, is to not be deceived by science. But, overall, it's a better argument for a believer, to not be sucked into atheism, and other science religions.
Bad idea #11: Trying to impress the Gentile atheist by adhering to a non-messianic Jewish standard of adhering to the third commandment, i.e. "G-d."
"By the way, you needn't avoid spelling out God as G-d - for either reason. To me it is just a word. To your God, I doubt He's offended either way ( - better not be! That would be quite small of Him!)."
Bad idea #12: "Free will was created to make us interesting."
There's probably better arguments than this. The atheist responded, "`Free will is to make us interesting.'...To torture people to make things interesting."
Bad idea #13: Saying that "God's seeming absence is a test to see whether or not we believe in Him."
Read John 1. No one has seen God. We only see God in Jesus. And we see Jesus in other people. The atheist wrote, "Why would God be so petty as to test us that way? To test to see if we believe in Him?" A better answer is that the person is too dull and not pure in heart enough to see God.
Bad idea #14: Assuming they are suicidal.
The thing is, many atheists are just too afraid of death to do that. Or they would have done it already, since they have no fear of hell.
Bad idea #15: "If you believe in evolution it would affect your life because your only goal would be to eat, sleep, and reproduce yourself."
The agnostic wrote, "Your restrictive analysis is like me saying that because you believe God planned everything, one must do nothing but eat, sleep, and reproduce...because that is obviously His plan - as proven by all life on this planet, so any other activity or thought (besides worship) is prohibited."
Bad idea #16: "The Bible instructs me on several things. [No porn, zoo, homo, etc] Those would not be a problem for an atheist. You would just do what feels good."
The atheist wrote, "Only if the atheist is a fool. The risk of disease and social consequences should be enough to stop anyone who thinks about it. That works for me because the consequences would definitely not `feel good'!" The thing is, they probably can't think of a single good `health reason' not to look at skin mags. ("Just hide them from your parents!")
Bad idea #17: "Anything to which one devotes a lot of time is one's god."
Not exactly the best phrasing. The atheist replied, "Then by that definition, sleep is my god and I even have a shrine to it - my bed."
Bad idea #18: "Would you prefer if God worshipped you?"
The atheist replied, "No, for 2 reasons: I havent done anything worthy of it; In God's position, I would know bragging would be from an unfair advantage and the praise of incredibly under-underlings would be worthless."
Bad idea #19: Calling a last minute conversion a `play.'
The atheist wrote, "`Play' is why I don't trust it. It seldom lasts."
Like Hick's Problem of Evil, atheists and agnostics like whipping up nasty compound trick questions and misleadingly phrased objections. A lot of times, they are merely compoundings of objections they presented in other arguments, as well as the results of deliberately and carelessly ignoring the major points you are communicating. If you don't think about these hard enough, they tend to either make you ramble, address the wrong problem, or succomb to a heavy amount of doubt. But if you examine them carefully, you'll see they're nothing to worry about.
"You say God grants humans free will, but (assuming God exists) we are expected to make decisions that affect eternity without adequate information on which to decide - only faith in old stories, the validity of which must be taken on faith because they say so!"
This argument is full of loaded phrases, tricky statements and unsupported premisses. In order to adequately respond to it, we have to break the statement down into its component assumptions, which I will answer individually in sections following this one.
Mistake 35: Arguing that Christianity should be believed because of its age.
Bad Ideas
Examples of compound objections
"The Bible, the Koran, and all the others are also novels. Loaded with ancient history and law for versimilitude - but wishful thinking and self deluding misinterpretation of poorly remembered events and old stories."