according to an atheist

four days ago a colleague was discussing on atheism over lunch. many points were brought up of why he doesn't believe in a god. his definition of an atheist is simply a person who lacks belief in a god, not necessarily a belief that there's no god. he also thinks that all humans are born as atheists without any fore-knowledge of god. therefore, atheism is a valid proposition since it's the baseline at which life begins. in other words, all religions are simply human's made-up beliefs which validity need questioning.

i have to make a remark that he was polite from the start until the end and his tone of voice wasn't raised as we discussed, a very decent and thinking atheist indeed. he even apologised a couple of times that he wasn't meant to be offensive in anything that he said. eh?

with regard to the cn God, here are some of his objections (loosely quoted):

• what sort of God would allow such cruelty that Jesus who did no wrong was punished harshly for other people's wrong doings.
• God creates evil. why does He allow fatal things to happen to innocent people (i.e. babies killed/abused). this kind of God doesn't deserve to be worshipped.
• if God is a powerful and omniscience God, why didn't He prevent adam and eve from sinning at the first place. it's only fair that He created them so they sinned and deserving punishment. if He foreknew all things, wouldn't that mean that everything is pre-determined, including the fall of humans. God is unfair.
• if there is a God, why doesn't He just show Himself to humans in a way that people can understand or verify of His existence.

other comments:

• the fact that there're more religious people in the world than the atheists doesn't make religions to be right or its validity need not questioning. rather, people are brought up and taught in life of the things that make them feel they need something to believe in. as for me, i don't see that need.
• the Bible was written by humans. we can't believe it to be God's word that we should take everything written as the truth. why believe in miracles anyway, the accounts were written by a person and we can't verify whether they truly happened or not.
• as for the criteria of the evidences that i'm looking for, they need to be something reasonable to the mind and can be personally experienced.
• religions create problematic society. they breed killings and wars.

by the end of the convos, he was given a pamphlet of 'Jesus for the Sceptics' by the Matthias Media and Josh McDowell's More Than a Carpenter. as for how i went through the experience, it was automatical that my mind was kept busy trying to form answers to the objections. this can be unproductive since it halves my learning ability to attend to the things put forward by the other end. and it felt as if i haven't got all the opportunities to answer each objection properly. so it's kinda rushly which has the potential that the other party might not get a full picture and easily digestable responses.

ps. i see that he was moving from 'i lack belief in a god' to 'i don't believe there's a god', whether he realised and liked it or not, have i wrongly assessed? if this is the case, no matter what responses or evidences are given, the person will dismiss them as unqualified evidences.

2 Cor. 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.