How To Convert An Atheist?

Photograph of a female Monarch Butterfly en ( ...

Photograph of a female Monarch Butterfly en ( Danaus plexippus en ) on a hybrid Milkweed en ( Asclepias tuberosa en x Asclepias incarnata en ). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If only my words and arguments could convert  one atheist, I would be more than happy and fulfilled. I am aware that this is an extremely hard task, but hopefully my words will reach their hearts and minds.

In my book, I often address atheists in an attempt to establish a conversation with them and, who knows, convince them that their attitude toward God’s existence is totally inappropriate and senseless. Atheists do not admit it whatsoever, but they are blind to the Truth, and their blindness hinders any effort that we, believers, try to do in order to convert them.

So, in today’s post, I am going to share an excerpt of my book, once again looking to achieve my main goal.

“Now, I would like to question my dear atheists, still blinded by the veil of materialism: If nothing else besides the  matter existed, if life were pure chance acting over that matter, and we, human beings, were the last and most perfect product of random evolution, then who could have been here, well before us? Who used his intelligence, knowledge, and ability to do the things that we today are unable to accomplish and are unlikely to accomplish in a predictable future despite our scientific knowledge, technological breakthroughs, and our bright intelligence?

If we are the most perfect, organized handful of dust, if we are the vanguard of evolution and intelligence, who, holding such abilities, was there millions of years before us?

Well, I suppose I may answer on behalf of my proud, reckless fellow disbelievers, for I have been among them, and just like them, I despised all the evidence. As an atheist and materialist, I would have said, “Obviously, there w

as no one there. Only matter existed and it evolved millennium after millennium. Matter, time, fortune and the survival law of the fittest did it all. Your evidence is too weak – insignificant, indeed. It is only vague, uncertain evidence. It proves nothing. There can’t be absolute proof, as this is fallacy. You, like all believers, are trying to prove the existence of the nonexistent. It is impossible. It is ridiculous! Give it up!”

Today, however, that piece of evidence, along with many others, constitutes absolute proof to me. It is impossible to imagine the universe without an intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent cause. It is also impossible to imagine the atm; the molecule; the genome; the cell; the egg;  fecundation; the gestation period; germination; hatching; metamorphosis; the migration of the sea turtle, the salmon, and the Monarch-butterfly; the self-defense tricks of the owl butterfly and

Owl Butterfly

Owl Butterfly (Photo credit: Michelle Bartsch)

the chameleon; the unique and providential behavior of water; the indispensable ozone layer; the permanent and continuous orbit of the Earth, traveling through the chaotic Universe for billions of years, crossing a potentially destructive rain of celestial bodies. And an infinite number of other phenomena happening commonly, naturally, permanently within the reach of stubborn, rational beings who  can see and hear but don’t admit that they see and hear. They have neither eyes that can see nor ears that can hear, because they are blind people who do not want to see; they are deaf people who do not want to hear. And they rejoice in their blindness and deafness.

As we observe and think about these phenomena and their unsolved mysteries, we start feeling as we felt when we imagined we had reached the Universe shell. In the same way that we are obliged to admit the infinite nature of space although it is hard and seemingly impossible to do, we must admit the existence of an intelligent cause to explain the Universe, life, creation, the owl-butterfly, everything. And this cause must contain the wisdom that is inherent in everything and must be superior and anterior to everything. Consequently, this cause cannot be anterior to itself only because it must be eternal. It must have existed forever.”

Now, what can you say about that? Do you think my ideas are convincingly argued? Will I be able to convert one atheist?

Advertisements

37 comments

  1. Your entire belief is based upon supposed writings inspired by a god who continually gets jealous, vengeful, murderous, and acts like an abusive husband towards women in general. That is not a belief system I would subscribe to.

    1. In order for you to understand my point, you should unbind God from any religion. Religions cause more harm than good.

  2. It’s prettily written, but it’s not a convincing argument. I suggest that when trying to argue with someone with atheistic views, don’t use the word “imagine.” Can you imagine all this diversity springing from something other than intelligent design? Why, yes, actually. It’s not that hard to imagine, no harder than it is to imagine that an omnipotent being created everything. Humans are not “perfect.” That’s an arbitrary standard. There is no such thing as perfection; there is just “being.”

    Believing in a higher power like the God of Christianity takes too much leaping over gaps.

    Interesting post.

    1. You are absolutely right. Humans are not perfect at all. Perfection is a concept we, humans, have created to describe the natural wonders around us (within us as well: from the point of view of their functioning, our bodies are perfect machines), many of which we are still unable to replicate.

  3. “the permanent and continuous orbit of the Earth…”

    Seems you don’t really understand the meaning of the word, “permanent.”

    “They have neither eyes that can see nor ears that can hear, because they are blind people who do not want to see; they are deaf people who do not want to hear. And they rejoice in their blindness and deafness.”

    What an absolute load of trollop. Please, show me a single discovery made by ANY church anywhere on the planet in the last 300 years.

    1. In reply to your comment, I would like to quote Dr.Francis Collins, the physician and geneticist known for spearheading the Human Genome Project and for his landmark discoveries of disease genes:”I urge us all to step back from the conflict and look soberly at the truth of both of God’s books: the book of God’s words and the book of God’s works. As people dedicated to truth, let us resolve to move beyond a theology of defensiveness to a theology that celebrates God’s goodness and creative power”. Being a scientific authority, Dr. Francis Collins and his views on this issue must be seen seriously.

      1. You didn’t answer my question.

      2. The God I believe in is above any religion. As I said in reply to Tolerant Atheist, religions do more harm than good.

      3. Not another god!? Which god is this one… there are just so many! 🙂

        If you’re anti-religious then why do you want to “convert” atheists?

      4. There is ONE God, a Superior Intelligence, a Superior Being. And you might call Him Father, Allah, Tupã…it’s up to you. My intent is to convert atheists so that they may find life more meaningful, more purposeful.

      5. “There is ONE God, a Superior Intelligence, a Superior Being.”

        Sounds great… prove it

      6. Can you disprove it?

      7. I don’t have to. You’re the one making the positive claim. A positive claim (unicorns exist) requires evidence. A negative claim (unicorns do not exist) requires a complete lack of evidence. As no evidence exists for unicorns the positive claim (unicorns exist) must be considered false until proven true. This is only rational. The negative is however easily falsifiable. All the unicorn believer needs is one solitary piece of reasonable (even inferable) evidence for the existence of unicorns to shift the entire burden of proof requirement onto the non-believer. Said in another way, any un-falsifiable claim (unicorns, spacefaring turtles, gods) must be read as false before being proven true. It follows then that there is no need for atheism to prove the non-existence of the gods, nor indeed for naturalism to prove the non-existence of the supernatural. Unicorns, spacefaring turtles and gods are not natural, they are the aberration, and should a theist wish to be accepted as a rational human being then it falls to them to present the evidence needed to substantiate the claim. Until such allegations can be supported all positive claims must be considered deviant and abnormal.

        So, over to you… prove it

      8. This debate will take us nowhere. You have your own views on this issue…I’ve got my faith, and I’m happy with it. You have your arguments, and I respect them because I know what it feels like not believing in God. In my youth, I didn’t believe either. However, the Truth unfolded in front of my eyes as I experienced some events that can only be attributed to a Superior Being. Science is still unable to explain them although there are some scientists who have tried to do so. Perhaps some day they will succeed, who knows? When and if that occurs, I might reconsider my opinion and my beliefs. Blessings!

      9. So, you can’t give me the method you use to dismiss the Slavic god, Veles? That’s a pity…

      10. I’m so sorry, but I can’t…That’s one of my secrets!

      11. Ahhh, another religious secret. 🙂

      12. Actually, it’s a little disingenuous, don’t you think. You’ve gone out of your way to actually name your blog, Why I believe in God. Atheism: A Self-Delusion…. And yet you are an atheist. I think you should be able to explain and justify your atheism. Don’t you? Do you doubt you’re an atheist? You deny Veles. Tell me why you dismiss this god?

      13. My blog was named after the book I got published last year. In the book I describe how I got converted and discuss some of Richard Dawkins’s ideas from his best-seller The God Delusion. So, I WAS an atheist; now I’m a believer. I do believe in God Almighty!

      14. Right… so you’re actually an even stronger atheist today because you’re certain a god does exists. That means you deny the existences of tens of thousands of gods. So, you must have a method you use to KNOW these gods aren’t real. I’d like to use it. Tell me…

      15. Unlike I said the other day this discussion is getting interesting…tens of thousands of gods…lol

      16. Well there’s actually 330 million gods if you count the Vedic Ishvaras. You didn’t know this?

        so yes, every day you deny the existence of over 330 million other gods. I’d like to know how you do it with such confidence. I’m only 99% certain no gods exist.

      17. BTW, congrats on having your book published. It’s not an easy thing to do. Well done. (and yes, I mean that)

      18. Thanks! Do I feel a bit of sarcasm there?

    2. I apologize for my delay replying to this. Well, the dictionary I use defines “permanent” as “lasting for a long time or for all time in the future; existing all the time”. This was the meaning I tried to convey when I used the word “permanent”. I can’t understand your remark, and I’d appreciate it if you could explain it to me.Thanks!

  4. “Will I be able to convert one atheist?” – I fear not….Your initial paragraph starts by calling atheists blind and their views inappropriate. Such an insulting assertive beginning does not engender much desire to give the rest much thought….

    “and we, human beings, were the last and most perfect product of random evolution” – who says we are the last and most perfect result of evolution? Evolution is a continuous process. The future may well give rise to much ‘better’ than us depending on your subjective definition of such. There is a good argument that we’re not even the most ‘perfect’ species around right now. Most insects have out-evolved us in evolutionary terms for millions of years now.

    “if we are the vanguard of evolution and intelligence, who, holding such abilities, was there millions of years before us?” – Again, you are ‘blindly’ asserting that we are some kind of final product of evolution. There is no evidence for that and no real reason (beyond arrogance) to assume so. And no, there doesn’t need to have been anyone prior to anything with any abilities. Evolution doesn’t require there to have been any driving force beyond itself, and nor does particle physics.

    “It is impossible to imagine the universe without an intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent cause. It is also impossible to imagine the atm; the molecule; the genome…” – The biggest failing in this type of argument: Basically, your personal lack of imagination does not add up to even a hint of being evidence of anything. I and many others can understand what we can of the universe and see the natural laws governing it as perfectly adequate without a ‘need’ for any special magic hanging around in the background.

    I hope this helps you craft some new arguments to your views.

    QR

    1. I may have sounded a bit rude…but I didn’t mean to insult anyone. As a former atheist I know that I too was blind to spiritual reality, not allowing myself to see God’s presence anywhere.Luckily, I was saved just in time. I am deeply inspired by Francis Collins’s words:”For believers, there is the additional problem of fitting together the concept of the creator God and the imago Dei, or image of God, with the words of Scripture and a process that seems so random. But does this struggle need to exist? Suppose God chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create animals like us, knowing this process would lead to big-brained creatures with the capacity to think, ask questions about our own origins, discover the truth about the universe and discover pointers toward the One who provides meaning to life. Who are we to say that’s not how we would have done it? If you believe that God is the creator, how could the truths about nature we discover through science be a threat to God? For many scientists who believe in God — including me — it’s just the opposite. Everything we learn about the natural world only increases our awe of the God the creator.” No further comments!

  5. Wow…atheists always get so angry? Has never really made any sense to me – if you don’t believe in God, why does he always work you up?

    1. On the surface, they might not believe in God, but deep inside they know there’s a Higher Intelligence guiding us.

      1. You’d be doing yourself an intellectual favour if you didn’t try to presuppose what other people think.

      2. I’m not presupposing anything. Could you please tell me why people who have regarded themselves as atheists all their lives call for God or turn to God when they are dying?

      3. You’re not “presupposing anything” but you find it perfectly OK to say: “they might not believe in God, but deep inside they know.”

        Quite a sweeping statement, lots of use of “they.” Do you know “they”?

        “why people who have regarded themselves as atheists all their lives call for God or turn to God when they are dying?”

        What people? When? Where? Please, show me the empirical data you’re evidently in possession of to make such an outlandish, patently ludicrous statement…

      4. You ask me whether I know “they”. Of course I do. After reaching over 70 years of age, I can say that I have witnessed many many deathbed (convenient?) conversions. Therefore, as you can see, my statement has been empirically well-founded.

      5. What a load of trollop.

      6. Well…if you say so…I keep my convictions, though. And I’m happy about them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: