Good meme though I don't agree with calling anyone an idiot

I myself blend religion in science. I believe in the universe, but also in heaven

No argument from me. Elijah was sent to battle them and he did.

As a Creationist, same

Then your religion is primarily Scientific Humanistic Evolution, correct? If so, thats the original religion that the Serpent presented to Eve in the garden—Evolution and the ascent of man.

The serpent also believed God existed as you likely do. Is that more or less accurate?

Yes it does. Its not a new religion, its arguably the oldest pagan religion. It also has branches into ancient eastern mysticism. Darwin knew it too.

Thats a minor tenet of evolution, the major ones are mentioned and discarded as diabolical.

That's neither the means nor the end of evolutionary theory, but merely a by-product of evolutionary theory that is not exclusive to evolution, but is part of creationism as well; because it demands an intentional purpose-driven will to live that is common in all intelligent species.

Yes more accurate

I believe god created evolution

You truly think an intelligent purposeful all-knowing God created an unintelligent purposeless unguided world?
Is that even logically possible?

And btw, if thats your religion, then you follow the serpents religion. Not so good.

Job 11:12 NASB20 - 12 "An idiot will become intelligent when a wild donkey is born a human.

Pretty much sums up atheism and evolution at the same time lol.

Many intelligent people can also be extremely foolish. It's more lacking in a wisdom that matters. And I didn't say ..or mean to say they are ..fundamentally intelligent. The IQ they have, high or low, keeps them lost. We don't know how God will reach anyone. I would guess insults would not be a way.

IQ is a secular standard for intelligence, not a scriptural one. So its moot.
Fearing God on the other hand, is the foundation of true wisdom.
I would argue the smartest EVIL being in the world is the devil, and even he knows God exists.

If you dont first both acknowledge and fear the All-powerful God, youre dumber than demons:
Jas 2:19 NKJV - 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!

And insults are not meant for those seeking God the wrong way, or are of little faith.
That would be hurting the little ones of Gods flock.

However, mockers are in a different category:
One example is how Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal and Astaroth and God answered him mightily.

Pro 3:34 NLT - 34 The LORD mocks the mockers but is gracious to the humble.

To be fair to the atheists, Christianity relies on blind faith as well

I would disagree with you on that. Christianity does require faith, but it is by no means blind. The Apostles preached Jesus risen, but the people didn't just take their word for it--the Apostles backed it up with miracles and wonders in those days. The people did not believe blindly. Faith is essentially trust, and there is good reason to trust in Him, as well as plenty of evidence that Jesus was who He said He was and that He rose from the dead.

I won't delve much deeper into that, but my point is one can rationally and reasonably believe in Christianity. Also, the Holy Spirit dwells in believers and they develop a relationship with God as they continue their walk with Him. I would say this makes it much more personal than blind.

Both Christianity and Atheism have plenty of evidence, for sure. What matters is which explanation best fits the facts. That's something one has to determine for themselves in the end.

Anyway, sorry if any of this comes off a bit uncomfortably argumentative, I'm not looking to start a heated debate or something. I just don't agree with your statement and felt the need to clarify on it. God bless!

No no, I think we’re on the same page. The thing that makes me uncomfortable is when someone calls someone else an idiot without looking at their point of view. I’m a devoted Christian but I go to a school where not many others are. I also take a TOK (theory of knowledge) class where the teacher of that class is devotedly atheist, and has presented a lot of evidence that supports his views. I still do not believe in nothing, but I hate the fact that the creator of this meme straight up said “atheists are idiots”. What I have seen has clearly demonstrated the opposite. Mr. Glenn is highly intelligent but he has arrived at a different conclusion than I have.

Going to school with heathens who find any reason to disbelieve, despise or discredit God and the Scriptures is a surefire way to destroy what faith you have acquired thus far.
I went through that too, and it seems you need to study harder to defend your faith if you think your TOK teacher has any shred of a clue what hes talking about. I went through that too, and these anti-theists only have so many arguments against scripture, so listen to each one and then take time to dismantle them all. Gods wisdom always prevails.

Besides, being a 'devoted atheist' means he is a close-minded individual with no intention of changing his mind regardless of the counter-evidence to his beliefs. Blind faith in a nutshell right there.

The Apostle Paul has some advice for you:
1Co 15:33 NIV - 33 Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character."

Yes it does. Being devoted is a religious characteristic.

When its an "ism" they are being to devoted to, it does.

Clearly I agree with your comment here. Since I posted a similar comment before reading yours.

Atheism at its foundation has faith..in...nothing. Think about that. Atheism is an 'ism' meaning a worldview and philosophy that believes in the supremacy of Unintelligent Randomness.

Its no big stretch to say that people who idolize unintelligence are positing faith in stupidity.

In other words, atheists have faith that no eternal God exists; or, faith that nothing really exists—that everything is meaningless and will pass away eventually to nothingness again.
Im not sure theres a more foolish philosophy on planet earth. Not even the devil himself is as stupid to believe that no God exists—and hes as evil as it gets!

It absolutely does concern the meaning of life. If God does not exist, all we are are chemical accidents who may be unique but are only here because of a completely random, unintelligent, unguided series of cosmic coincidences. There is no hope or meaning to anything we do. Everything we have done, are doing, and will do, good or bad, means absolutely nothing, and no matter how important we think we or anything we have made are, we all turn to dust and pass away entirely, and one day the earth will too. There's no absolute morality, no meaning, nothing. It's all an accident.

"What I'm saying is that atheism doesn't say anything about the meaning of life. It's only about whether or not somebody believes in God."

These may not be the central proclamation of atheism, but what I'm saying is if atheism is true, these things also have to be true. Even if atheists may not explain their case with this, it is what they believe. If these things are implicit in the words "There is no God", and they believe such words, then yes, atheism does say this about the meaning of life. Also, you said, "It has nothing to do with the meaning of life or the afterlife," not "atheism says nothing about this". I would argue those statements are distinct. Yet clearly, as I have demonstrated and you appear to be conceding with your "So?"s, it absolutely does have massive implications about both of these things, so both of those statements are false anyway.

"So? Just because you may find that depressing doesn't mean it's not true." You're making a logical fallacy called 'appealing to consequences'. You're basically saying that if something isn't true, then the result is very depressing or undesirable, therefore it must be true."

Except that isn't what I'm saying. I'm not arguing against your atheism in that message, and I didn't type any of what I said to prove that atheism was false. I was responding to that last bit about atheism having nothing to do with the meaning of life or an afterlife. That is all my message was.

"That is false. It has meaning to the people involved. You could say it has no meaning on the grand cosmic scale, but so what?"

And yet whatever meaning they have ascribed to it will pass away with them, and even if they think it means anything, it does not. If the universe is all it is, just something that exists, everything, EVERYTHING, will pass away, and anything that exists is just there and nothing more. Someone steals something you value, you will feel angry at that person, you feel sad you lost it, you feel comforted by the people who feel sorry for you. That's nice. Maybe that person is brought to justice and your valued item is returned. But that person who stole from you dies. That thing you lost turns to dust. The people who comfort you are completely temporary. YOU are temporary. Whatever impact anything has, no matter how long-lasting, passes away with time. The impact can last hundreds, thousands, millions of years, but eventually it disappears forever and is forgotten. Meaning in itself means nothing. (1/?)

Oh, definitely. Sorry, when it comes to these conversations I kinda tend to write essays! Take the time you need.

"What do you mean by absolute morality? And how do you know absolute morality exists?"

By absolute morality, I mean the concept of objective good and evil. If the universe is an accident and there is no God, there is no morality. The impact our actions and thoughts have are meaningless too. Our morals are what we want them to be. If there is no objective morality, then the only reason we have laws to stop people from stealing or killing is just because we don't like it. We think it's bad, and demonstrably it hurts people. But if morality is subjective, it doesn't matter if it hurts people. Hurting someone isn't objectively bad, it's just an action, and as I have shown, an action with no meaning. Who's to say hurting someone is wrong? Some guy over there? What makes what he thinks more important than anyone else's? He's in the same universe as all of us.

Morality keeps our societies together and peaceful, sure, but who is to say that is good? It all passes away too. The universe isn't a being, just matter, it couldn't care less. Society means nothing at all. If there is no objective morality, peace is just a thing. We like it, but even if we break it, the universe won't be swayed. It won't change its stance on anything, it doesn't have one. It's just an existing thing. The breaking of peace may have massive impact, it could kill thousands of people through war, but whatever impact that has doesn't last forever either, and it too passes away, as does everything bound by time.

As for whether it actually exists, that feels like another can of worms. I think the fact that we do react positively or negatively to typical good and evil respectively shows we have some sort of conscience, one that says "Hey, this thing you did is bad. You should stop." What I'm getting at here is that I think our conscience shows we have an inherent desire for good and disgust of evil. We may decide to switch what we think is good or evil around, but even sometimes our conscience can speak to the evil of what we think is good at times, and ultimately that desire/disgust for good/evil is still there. Sometimes we may not hear our conscience, maybe because we are consumed by evil or want to ignore it for whatever reason, but I don't think I could say it's ever gone. Perhaps even without the conscience, the good or evil of an act is demonstrably shown in the consequences.

(2/?)

That is basically consistent with the Bible, which says that the law of God is written on our hearts, and that our conscience bears witness to it (Romans 2:15). I think another thing that is interesting is that we even listen to it. In fact, from what I can tell, basically the majority of humanity does. Most societies seem to agree that theft, murder, and various other actions considered illegal are quite wrong, because they break the peace of society. I suppose we should ask ourselves, why do we think that? Have we all convinced each other that it's wrong, or is something else speaking to the fact that hurt and the breaking of peace is wrong? Why are humans consistently offended by, say, insults?

Maybe one could argue it's all based on survival, but we don't seem to think of it like maintaining survival. It seems to go deeper than that. We want to see what we think is good and right. We don't want just survival, we want complete peace, because we think it is good. Why do we think that? If good is not an objective thing, why do we want it so badly?

But then let's consider the fact that *not* everyone wants good. Some people prefer what we think is bad because it is more entertaining, or because they think of that evil as good instead, or vice versa. Yet still, we desire what we think is good, either for ourselves or the larger society as a whole.

Now, one might argue, if morality is objective, why do we want bad things anyway? If we know what is right, why do we desire what isn't? The fact is it's because we are not inherently good. We lie, we steal, we hurt. And if you think about it, we have all broken the peace on some scale, hugely or not. Could be a small lie, taking something of the most minimal value that wasn't yours, or just a tiny lustful thought about some person walking down the street. These things have a bad impact on those involved, whether we realize it or not. As you noted, they have meaning to us. A lot of what I said about meaning earlier may have sounded harsh, and that is because I was greatly emphasizing my point, but really the fact we find meaning in something *is* interesting. Why do we find that? Is it wishful thinking, a simply wrong view of life, or is it because there is something that says to us, whether we recognize it as a thing or not, "This means something."

(3/4)

By the way, by "greatly emphasizing," I mean in terms of magnitude, not quality. Maybe you didn't take it that way anyway, but I just wanted to clarify.

One wonders what messed us up this much that we do evil, what left us so fundamentally broken. From the Christian point of view, it all started in the Garden, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and defined what good and evil was for themselves. They failed the test, allowing sin to corrupt them and their seed. That sin twisted everything it touched, corrupted and consumed our minds, and left us lost. We have become acquainted with something so evil to the point that it has been given the death sentence by God, one that could only temporarily be passed on to a pure lamb through sacrifice. Yet the only way to truly destroy such sin in us is for a man, a being among those who are afflicted by such iniquity, who would go through the experiences every human goes through, who would never once fail the tests we fail every day or do the wrong we have and, to be killed in our place instead

As God prophesied to the serpent in Genesis 3:15, written thousands of years before the birth of such a man: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and your offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

You and I may disagree on this being the case for our wrongdoing. That's OK. I am just sharing my view there, and I will not force you to believe it if you are not convinced. But I would say the other stuff, our conscience and the fact we even listen to it at all, is an interesting and, I would say, strong piece of evidence when considering the existence of objective morality. And if objective morality exists, there would have to be an objective, thinking being who knows for a fact what is good and evil, and has put that knowledge on our hearts.

I hope you and I have a better understanding of each other's arguments and objections now, and that, if we continue to converse, it continues to be productive. I think this conversation is good, even if we may not have the same conclusions. Thanks for reading, God bless.

It sure is. 'Not' believing in theism is, in fact, believing in the antithesis. Any 'ism' by definition is an outlook that shapes your life, ie. A religion.

And any religion such as atheism that disbelieves in God must eventually, and inevitably believe in the opposite high power—the devil, or Satan.

Thats why famous longtime atheists such as AronRa came out as a closet Satanist.

Surprise surprise. Why?
Because no one can devote their life to believing in nothing.

Not false. Not being convinced of an "ism" means you arent devoted to it, and it does not shape the way you think about life and the status quo.

There is not a strong antithesis to patriotism, athleticism, or consumerism as there is to theism, so its not an equal comparison. Theism and atheism both must answer eternal questions about life that other 'ism's' you mentioned are not concerned with.

However, those -ism's still are followed religiously by many, and there are many patriots, athletes and consumers who seemingly worship their country, sports, and material goods above all else—in a religious way that shapes their thinking and worldviews the same way that atheism does.

The faith of the follower of Jesus isn't precisely 'blind'. Unseen, yes. None of us 'see' air and it can be classified as unseen. We trust that air exists everywhere within our atmosphere in varying amounts because we have experienced it. We see an elevator and have faith that it will go up and down safely, without watching it do so because we have experienced it. Our faith, our trust in the promises made by God is, for the follower of Jesus, based on similar principles.

I like this one

Faith builds with personal experience. If we trust God and he comes through for us, we trust more and more—like a child has ever increasing faith and security with his parents as he sees them care for him through his young life.

Conversely, athiests CANNOT have ever-increasing faith in anything they believe, for their faith is purely blind from its foundation, because it is a state of denial that any God exists.

In other words, they have faith that nothing exists. like, smh.

They must place faith only in what godless scientists say about an ancient time that has no relevance to us today, and which we do not experience (such as life from unintelligent non-life).

It must be a very sad existence for those atheists who have blind faith in nothing at all.

And no hope..nothing lasting

No. Atheism is not simply 'not being convinced' God exists—thats agnosticism.

Atheism is a firm religious conviction God does not exist.
However, Science cannot ever prove God does not exist, therefore Atheists cannot claim Science as a foundation for their beliefs, just imagination and hope.

Again, thats why atheism has only a blind religious faith to uphold it, like having two feet firmly planted in mid-air.

[image deleted] You said it: atheism is a belief.

Science has proven God exists, for nothing comes from nothing.
Intelligent designs must come from Intelligent Designers—also a scientific indisputable fact of life. Thus, every hypothesis should start with a very, very smart Creator. Unguided random processes like evolution should be scrapped without question.

Atheistic evolution is an unscientific illogical theory of imagination—likely for people who hate God rather than just believe Hes not there.

It does. God is a being who desires to know His people. Christians have a relationship with Him and have been transformed by His grace. The effects of God's love and grace can be seen in such people. If He is indeed a personal being, then we can talk to Him, commune with Him, and relate to Him. The effects of God absolutely can be seen, and therefore it is applicable.

Just so you know, I plan to respond to this in a bit, but at the moment I write, other things require my attention. Also, I need some time to gather my thoughts. Please bear with me there! But yes, good questions and I hope to answer them soon. God bless!

Jesus condemned blind faith and wouldn't have said this if he allowed blind faith to lead his followers:
Mat 15:14 NLT - 14 so ignore them. They are blind guides leading the blind, and if one blind person guides another, they will both fall into a ditch."

Atleast we have faith to something

As do the atheists, they have faith in science. They’re not idiots. Abraham was once pagan, but he was counted as righteous because when God called him he answered. Paul outright persecuted Christians but he was considered righteous, and he also wrote several books of the Bible

I do not count those that claim to be atheists as: dumb, stupid, idiotic, etc. Indeed many are quite brilliant. The Bible titles them as rebellious. Reducing them to being less than intelligent does not address their inherent worth of being made in the image of God. I would rather see fewer attacks on intellect and more appeals to loving all people. The lost cannot be found through insults. I do find it difficult to comprehend the continued rebellion against God but that is a choice offered to each of us. As followers of Jesus, we will be hated, attacked, and the mocked until there are none of left upon the earth. The reason Jesus equated hating others, even without saying it, as murder; was to dissuade us from believing the unbelievers deserved to die in their sins and deserving of eternal punishment. Without Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, we would also be destined for eternal punishment. The grace of God is the only thing separating us from that deserved fate. We must, in love, offer the knowledge that all have that same option available to them.

Well said

With respect, if you claim atheists to be fundamentally intelligent, then you do not share the same opinion as Scripture does.

This passage refers to atheists as fools who can do no true goodness, although modern preachers wrongly claim this is speaking about all of God’s people as well:
Psalm 53: 1 NLT – Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!

With respect, while I can understand what you are trying to say, the way you have worded many of your messages and talk about other people has been very rude, unnecessarily so, I think. Yes, some truths are hard and may have to be conveyed bluntly, but remember that the mission we have as Christians is to represent Christ in all our ways, and to follow the Scriptures. Can you honestly and genuinely say that in these messages you are embodying the character of Christ in how you speak and treat people?

Remember what 1 Peter 3:15-16 says: "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with *gentleness* and *respect*, having a good conscience so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame." (ESV, emphasis mine)

Remember the people you argue with are just that, people, created in God's image and loved by Him. They may think differently, they may have come to different conclusions, heck, some of them may truly be fools. But that should not make them exempt from the commandment to love other people and to, at the very least, treat them with gentleness and respect, moreso than yourself. You aren't going to convince someone that God is real, loves them, and has changed you if you're spouting attacks on their beliefs, character, and ideas. You are actually going to do just the opposite, and it is counterproductive to the kingdom of God. Please keep that in mind. We are ambassadors for Christ, not just believers in Him. If you can't show Jesus in you, don't expect people to believe He is Lord at your word.

1Co 3:19 NLT - 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, "He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness."

I am not being rude, I am mostly quoting Jesus in my points, as well as other Scriptures. To represent Christ is not to give everyone highfives, hugs and chestbumps. Its not being rude to point out the errors and intentions of God's enemies, anymore than it is cruel for a surgeon to draw blood by cutting your flesh open to remove cancerous cells. If an atheist has any understanding, then they will take the rebuke to heart and search it out for themselves later on.

Pro 17:10 NLT - 10 A single rebuke does more for a person of understanding than a hundred lashes on the back of a fool.

Many churchgoers have a habit of thinking that treating wolves like sheep will inevitably turn them into sheep. This is a mistake, and it hasn't worked, for a whole generation has turned away from the faith because the atheists are studying anti-biblical literature exponentially more than Christians study their bibles. This is utterly absurd.

Sometimes, the only way to straighten out a bent stick is to bend it just as forcefully in the opposite direction.

I agree with you, it isn't rude to speak God's Word, and I conceded that sometimes you do have to be a bit blunt with some points because it's the only way you'll get through. I just want to make sure you aren't losing sight of the point of any of it. We don't want to keep people away from Jesus, we want them to know Him. Some people will react differently than others, but if you aren't being careful, your defense or arguments can come off as attacks rather than the truth being spoken out of love, and that can be counterproductive. Good luck with your further activities, God bless!

Thanks, you too! Most of God's enemies don't give us lenience in their insults, so its the language they understand anyways.

Pro 26:5 NLT - Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools, or they will become wise in their own estimation.

And keep in mind you aren't commissioned to make friends with sinners—that's just another devil's trick to flood the church with goats.

Pro 28:23 NLT - In the end, people appreciate honest criticism far more than flattery.

Hey, need to sleep, but before I do, I just want to say I hope to write my response to this soon, I am just not great at managing my time to be completely honest, so I haven't found the time quite yet to write it all down, as is the case for some of the other replies I need to write in this comment section. Anyway, thank you for showing me more of your perspective. May the conversation continue to be fruitful. God bless!

"Most of God's enemies don't give us lenience in their insults, so it's the language they understand anyways."

That shouldn't matter. How other people treat you shouldn't be a factor in how you treat other people. The Bible says, in fact, to respond to aggression with kindness, and to love others as you would love yourself. Both of us know that. And remember what the passage from 1 Peter said, to be ready to give a defense, but to do so in gentleness and respect. Paul wrote in Romans 12:2 to not be conformed to the pattern of this world. I would argue that responding to rude comments with that same level of absent lenience is a worldly pattern, and one that ultimately makes conversations like these so much more difficult to grapple with. We're called to be different, and it's hard for people to think we're different if we're not showing it. Responding in the same way they respond to you does not help your case. If the language they understand is insults and evil, then why should we speak such a language in response? Would that not be hypocritical, since that kind of language is condemned by the Bible in the first place?

God was willing to show lenience to us while we were still sinners. Jesus said we should be willing to do the same, because if we do not show lenience then why should we expect lenience from our Father in heaven? That was the whole message of the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:21-35)! If we are, in fact, not showing mercy to other people, even when they are sinners and mistreating you, are we actually being representative of God?

Do you object to any of what I've written so far?

"And keep in mind you aren't commissioned to make friends with sinners--that's just another devil's trick to flood the church with goats."

You're certainly not going to be making disciples of all nations if you're making enemies with them instead. The disciples were sinners. Sure, they were with Jesus, but they consistently showed that they had plenty of selfish ambition and seemed to be conflicted with a lot of what Jesus said at first. Plus, Jesus had not been crucified for our sins yet. But they listened to Him because He spoke with authority and was in every way different from the world. He got angry and spoke bluntly *sometimes*, yes, but it was because He loved people and wanted them to be saved. He was not angry in all cases.

(1/2)

(I can't reply to my second reply here for some reason, so this is 3/3)

I'm sorry if I misrepresent your intentions. I'm just feeling concerned about some of your attitudes in this thread, and I really want a clearer picture of your understanding of all this, and of the Scriptures in general regarding how we treat people. I hope we'll both learn. Regardless, I wish you grace and peace. God bless!

First off, I do appreciate your concern. I really do, and I hope we can both benefit from this somehow.

When I said they offer no leniency, I mean they do not mince words, like many Christians do in an effort to display holiness which the ungodly neither understand nor appreciate:
Mat 7:6 NLT - 6 "Don't waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don't throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

I do object to your statement: " How other people treat you shouldn't be a factor in how you treat other people." Heres why, because Im not responding based on how IM treated,
but how the Biblical Christian faith is treated (especially in a Christian chatroom).

Can you imagine John the baptist telling the preachers and atheists (pharisees and sadducees) that 'they are sons of snakes and shouldnt be too proud of their Jewish heritage because God could replace them with rocks'? Sounds rude too, but its cutting to the point of their contention with the gospel.
Jesus called those same people later on in John 8 "spawns of Satan".

Yet, to those who were broken and contrite, Jesus was tender and gracious. To the proud, not so much. Thats why how other people treat GOD should be a major factor in how we treat them.
God resists/opposes/scorns the proud. Its not repaying evil with evil to resist and rebuke mockers. However, it is evil to flatter and amuse them in order to convince them to come to church.

Thats another mistake the churches have made nowadays, which is why they are flooded with goats and wolves who are told they are really misunderstood sheep.

This is a believers chatroom, so to have atheists (even those who are disguised as believers) in our midst is tantamount to Paul telling us to 'judge those within the church'; and to criticize their anti-biblical worldview with clear and concise criticism is necessary so they cannot brush it off as religious wordplay.

God does not tolerate the sins of the wicked, and he expects His churches to do the same:
Revelation 2:2 NLT — “I know all the things you do. I have seen your hard work and your patient endurance. I know you don’t tolerate evil people (who are in the church)....

Unfortunately, thats where some of the most evil people can be found nowadays.

People recognized that fundamental difference from them in Him, and that's what made His message so much more effective.

Not that it's either/or here. One can be an acquaintance with someone rather than a friend or an enemy, but that doesn't change the fact love has to be part of the equation still. The disciples were sinners, yet they were Jesus' friends. Jesus ate with sinners. He was, indeed, friendly to them. If we're not being friendly to sinners in that same way, is that not a failure to represent Him too?

My point is this. The Bible says to put on Christ (Romans 13:14). The Apostle John wrote: "Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk as he walked." (1 John 2:16) The Apostle Paul wrote: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:1) He wrote again: "And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Colossians 3:17) We need to be like Him in almost every way, and it's not just because it's going to get us into Heaven, but also because it's going to show other people what God is like. They're not going to be compelled to follow God if they're not seeing Him in us. We're preaching Christ not just with words but with actions and thoughts. These things all have to work in tandem. If we aren't doing that, if we aren't striving in every way to be like Christ, then we're failing to represent Him to others. What we do and say affects other people, so we better make sure it is affecting people in a way that will move their souls. By treating others the same way they treat us, that is, with anger or a lack of lenience, we're doing the opposite. We're being like them, not Christ.

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13 that if we're not doing anything out of love, it's worthless. So, my question: do you say what you do out of love for their souls or because you want to win an argument? Forgive me if that sounds accusatory, but I really am unsure of what your goal has been in this thread at this point. Are you trying to squash atheism or win a soul for Christ? Perhaps you can do both, but which of these is your higher priority? What we do matters and affects people, and their very souls are at stake. If someone isn't coming away thinking, "This person cares for me," even if you're in some heated argument with them anyway, I think something is wrong with the way we treat people.

(nvm, 2/3)

Psa 1:1, 5 NLT - 1 Oh, the joys of those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or stand around with sinners, or join in with mockers. ... 5 They will be condemned at the time of judgment. Sinners will have no place among the godly.

Oh, no please tell me your preacher hasnt told you youre a sinner. I think thats a guilt-tripping tactic to keep you weak and controllable—however its unscriptural. You canNOT be both a sinner and a saint.

From what I can tell by the fruit of your convo is YOU ARE NOT A SINNER. You are a saint who may sin, but thats largely irrelevant because of the fruit of your life and dedication to pleasing the Lord. You are the ones he has forgiveness and mercy for—like David. For his eye was always singular in glory to God alone. Notice how David admitted sinfulness, but also declared innocent before God.

Psalm 40:12 NLT - For troubles surround me--too many to count! MY SINS pile up so high I can't see my way out. They outnumber the hairs on my head. I have lost all courage.

Psalm 41:12 NLT - You have preserved my life BECAUSE I AM INNOCENT; you have brought me into your presence forever.

However to ever call yourself a sinner after having believed in God for a time is silly and unbiblical, for He would never call you that now, neither would he listen to your prayers if you were:

Jhn 9:31 NASB20 - 31 "We know that God does not listen to sinners; but if someone is God-fearing and does His will, He listens to him.

***
"You're certainly not going to be making disciples of all nations if you're making enemies with them instead."

Why not? having an enemy who shows concern for your eternal soul is what loving them is all about. Jesus said to "love your enemies"— not to become their friends.

And Jesus considered calling him a "friend of sinners" as an insult, for he was never their friend, but their saviour. And for preachers to allow enemies of God to fill their pews is why many of the true sheep of God have wandered away from the church.

Psa 25:14 NLT - The LORD is a friend to those who fear him.(not to sinners who hate him)

Jas 4:4 NLT - If you want to be a friend of the world (or people of the world), you make yourself an enemy of God.

You cant be both a friend of God and a friend of sinners. One reason why theres so much confusion in the church nowadays.

Or, the verse is exactly true and the good deeds atheists do are nothing but an enlightened self-interest.

Christianity: “Be kind to those in need.”
Atheism: “Be kind to those you need.”

Notice the stark contrast between the two versions of kindness stated above—albeit with only a single word. Christians are taught to be kind to those who need help, regardless of when or if they will be repaid for their kindness.

Conversely, atheists are kind to those they expect something from, or will only do ‘good deeds’ when they feel they will be recompensed in some way. This is what is meant by an enlightened self-interest. It is a feigned good deed that is done for personal advantage. This is essentially all the kindness that atheists are capable of performing, is when they feel an urge to get something for their efforts—be it money, praise, fame, etc.

Driven by an inner zeal to obtain the high opinion of others, or by a selfish craving to be considered a good person, or to obtain the moral high ground in a controversy, atheists can only and ever will be ‘kind’ when it serves them a turn. This proves that their good deeds to others are really and truly ultimately benefiting themselves.

I don’t agree. You can’t rope all people into one category. There are certainly Christians out there driven by selfish ambition, just as there are atheists who are truly selfless.

Then they arent Christians, but in fact practical closet atheists living by atheistic philosophy. Thats nothing new.

But if there are self-proclaimed 'atheistic' people genuinely living to serve others in a selfless way, then they arent living by atheistic principles, but by theistic ones.

Why? because its the theists with the rulebook that aligns with selfless acts of morality, while atheists must necessarily live for the sole purpose of benefiting themselves—being their own supreme ruler, and writing their own mental rulebook as they go along.

Yeah, have to agree with you here. If Christians are not driven by Christ but rather themselves and their ambition, they aren't Christians. Doesn't mean we don't make selfish mistakes, of course, but if they are not centering their ambitions on Christ and are not willing to acknowledge that, then are they Christians to begin with? Just because someone says they are something does not mean they are. The Bible says when someone is truly a Christian, it will show.

Yes, they very well may be Christians at the start, but have fallen away, as many have, do, and will in the future:
Heb 10:38 NLT - 38 And my righteous ones will live by faith. But I will take no pleasure in anyone who turns away."

So the warning is clear to those who are still holding the faith:
Colossians 2:5-6 NLT — ..And I rejoice that you are living as you should and that your faith in Christ is strong. And now, just as you accepted Christ Jesus as your Lord, you *must continue* to follow him.

However, many believers will fall away, and they cant say they werent warned:
Zephaniah 1:6 NLT – 6 And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings."

Atheists ridicule Christians for believing what men wrote in a book, or publicly declared about the world we live in, and yet they themselves literally believe what men (scientists) wrote in”holy books” (science journals, textbooks, etc.) or declare on the television for the world to see.
And, the same way they mock Christians for believing what has been written in the Bible, atheists believe the mainstream experts (prophets) without question, not because the atheists witnessed evolution personally, but because the evolutionary scientists cohesively believe and declare the same thing. One can clearly see there is a pattern of religious belief from both sides of this debate.

Atheists have no logical or rational grounds to be good to anyone, its in their own evolutionary philosophy of the strong dominating the weak, not helping them (unless theres an ulterior motive which benefits themselves indirectly)

As you said, theres no atheist rulebook, which is precisely why an atheist must necessarily become their own God of their own universe, making their own rules as they go.

As the true God says of himself "I am God, and there is no other—all glory belongs to me"
This is what atheists must by definition say about themselves, for they are their own God— which provides ample philosophical proof of a self-serving existence that all atheists must pursue.

Can you appeal to any atheistic philosophy that speaks to the contrary?

Yes, you have faith in the conclusions. You trust in them. That's faith, absolutely, that is all it is. Trust.

That is not the definition of faith. Here is the definition of faith:

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

The first definition is what I refer to when I say you do have faith in the conclusions of science. You have trust and confidence in it. They are synonymous in this regard. Similarly, Christians place their faith in Jesus because they have trust and confidence in Him, and they believe He is trustworthy.

For the second definition, note that it says that the belief is based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, but this does not automatically exclude proof from the equation. This definition describes the means by which one develops faith, and it does not say they have no evidence or thst they exclude or disregard evidence. It is just that their belief is based on faith. Christians' beliefs are based on faith, but the evidence for Christianity serves to further support and supplant that faith, and makes that faith even stronger and more reliable.

Take the elevator example from another comment of yours. When you go on one, you have faith that it will take you to where you need to go and function properly without breaking down. You may believe that just at face-value, but then you can look and see that the elevator and building is well-designed and sound, and you can see that the other people who go on it are being safely transported. Thus, your faith in the elevator is strengthened and you have good reason for that faith.

Similarly, some Christians may base their beliefs on just faith at first, but as they learn more about the evidence for their beliefs and the arguments for Christ, their faith is made stronger, and they find that their trust is well-supported. Whether you and I agree the evidence is actually good is another conversation, though, and not my point. Simply put, the belief is built on faith, which makes sense because faith saves in Christianity, and that faith is further built on evidence. That's how we see it.

So yes, you have faith in science and its conclusions. I do not think that is wrong, although you and I have different levels of trust in science, of course. Anyway, God bless!