Clarifying preamble: Upon proof reading this article, I realise I have worded it in a way that may give off a completely different message than I intend. Rather than re-write it, I wish to set the context here: I do not mean I don't believe in intelligent atheists. Rather, I treat each person as an individual, trying to set them apart from stereotypes. If I meet an atheist, I have no guarantee that individual can think, thus my assumption that he can is a blind one.
Contrary to the standard atheist narrative, Christianity is not a blind faith. It is based on a wealth of evidence, and is actually the only religion that can account for both human reason and objective morality. Such a religion actually takes more blind faith to reject than to accept.
Of course, that does not mean all atheists are idiots. In fact, the Bible describes unbelievers as often being "wise according to the flesh" (1 Corinthians 1:26). The natural world, contrary to some philosophies, is not evil, but there is a distinction between the natural and spiritual worlds. Thus, the natural world has difficulty discerning the spiritual. Not that it cannot perceive it at all, for creation itself testifies so clearly of God that those who reject Him are without excuse (Romans 1:18-23).
But that same passage describes how unbelievers profess themselves to be wise, yet become fools. In Scripture, foolishness is not actually seen as a lack of intelligence. Rather, it is a comment on someone's moral character. The misuse of intelligence, however great that intelligence may be, is foolish. You can be a very smart atheist, yet ultimately, your atheism is what makes you, in the ultimate sense, a fool (Psalm 14:1).
But obviously, atheists don't think this way. If they knew rejecting God was foolish, they probably wouldn't do it. For this reason, when I meet an atheist, I tend to automatically assume, with no evidence (i.e. blind faith), that they are capable of thinking rationally. Even if the first thing they have said to me is so incredibly stupid that I want to pull my beard out, I like to assume an intelligent response will alter their behavior. One might call this the "benefit of the doubt". Yet, this rarely happens. Go to the comments section of any forum on which a man may post freely and you'll see what I mean. Whereas atheists love to brag about their intelligence while downplaying both the intelligence and moral character of "religious people", they so rarely show any depth of thought.
Of course, that isn't to say Christians are always much better. I've seen nominal Christians cuss out atheists completely unprovoked, and I take this opportunity to unequivocally condemn this unacceptable behavior. The point of this article is not to basically say "no, you are the ones who can't think". Quite the opposite, my atheist friends, I believe, even without evidence, that you can. And that is my point. I believe you can think, and so the point of this article is to ask you to do so. Whether you're the silent type who can think but prefers not to speak, or even the type of troll whose mouth is disconnected from his brain and has taken on a life of its own, I want you to think about Christianity.
So, let me ask you a question. Suppose you're walking in the park one snowy winter's morning and happen across a snowman. It's a small snowman, barely as tall as your shin, and the detail on it is minimal. It has no carrot nose, its face has been "drawn" on by simply removing the snow. Even one of the arms has fallen off. You are alone, there is no one else here. Tell me, is it blind faith to assume it was built by a human?
Though you are alone, you know automatically that this snowman has a designer. You might even make assumptions about the type of person who built it. Perhaps it was a child. This would explain the size, and lack of skill. Is this blind faith? Is this a "child of the gaps"? Should you come up with a naturalistic explanation, like maybe two sticks fell on the snow, then a lot of the snow melted, leaving only this pillar, which even explains why one of the arms is not attached anymore? Would you say "a human would have given it a proper face", and use that as an excuse to reject all arguments for intelligent design?
It gets worse if you add a witness or two. Imagine two men come along and say "oh yes, that was built by our friend Ted". Well, now you have reliable witness testimony about exactly who built the snowman! "Well, I don't see your friend", you say. "Why would he even bother building it?" you ask. "There are nearly 8 billion people on Earth, why should your friend be the one who built the snowman?"
If any of this sounds familiar, it's because it's exactly the kind of absurd reasoning atheists use to push back against the very possibility of a designer god. Remember, atheism, while it is typically framed as a push back against Christianity, rejects all Theistic religions. How is this not blind faith? When we look at something as simple as a poorly constructed snowman, we immediately have some idea of where it came from. Yet, when we look at something as specifically and irreducibly complex as a single celled organism, an atheist will say the burden of proof lies on the one who claims a designer, not with the one who denies it.
Do you now see the folly of atheism? It's actually quite ironic. On the one hand, they will say the one making the claim is the one with the burden of proof, yet on the other hand, they will say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". These two common atheist statements cannot coexist. See, when it comes to stating the obvious, even the one making the claim does not have to prove the claim as much as the one making an extraordinary objection does.
The appearance of design is quite readily confessed by atheists. For example, in his book The Blind Watchmaker (the very title implying the appearance of design), Richard Dawkins wrote: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose...”. Why, then, should the burden of proof be on those who acknowledge that this appearance is legitimate, and not on those who argue it is in appearance only?
To be clear, I am not suggesting religious people should be freed from the burden of proof. Indeed, given the number of religions that are contrary to Christianity, that would be asinine. But what I am saying is that even going by atheism's own standard, atheism is the extraordinary claim that things which, by their own admission, look designed, are in fact not designed. Therefore, not only do they bear a burden of proof, but that burden must be fulfilled in extraordinary fashion.
But what of a Christian's burden of proof? Of course, I believe we have it. But I also believe we have fulfilled it. First, though, let's challenge the standard atheistic criteria. After all, since they cannot fulfill it themselves, why should Christians be bound to it? Let's jettison the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" nonsense. After all, the claim itself is a tacit confession that the ordinary evidence we do have is enough to convince an ordinary mind.
And it is. We might well skip over the evidence for Theism, both to save time, and because the design argument has already been heavily hinted at in this article. The evidence for Christianity is a little less obvious. You can look at the world and conclude it is designed, but no amount of looking will tell you who that designer is. Unless, of course, you know what you're looking for.
When you look at a car, there are ways of figuring out who designed it. Most cars, for example, will have a prominently displayed brand logo on the front and back of the car. So you see this car was made by Ford, that car was made by BMW, the one sitting over on that driveway was made by Mazda etc. But even this won't tell you much. In fact, as I write this article, I know very little about any of these companies. I know a little about Henry Ford, and I can tell you that the Volkswagen originated from Hitler's desire to make an affordable car for the people (hence the name "Volkswagen", or "people's car" in English), but I can't tell you if Ford is an English or American company. I don't know where BMW comes from, I can't tell you when Mazda was founded, I don't have a clue how many people work for Porsche, I can't tell you anything about any car company beyond what I've already said in this paragraph. And just by looking at the cars themselves, neither can you.
But history can, and it just so happens this history is easily accessible with the touch of a few buttons. So, with a quick Duck Duck Go search, I can now tell you that Ford is... an American company, founded in 1903 in Dearborn, Michigan. I didn't know that before looking it up, I didn't really need to know that, but it helps my point: To understand the creation, look at science. To understand the Creator, look at history.
History is where Christianity truly flourishes. It is from history that we get to know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God who guided Moses and the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and placed them in the land of the evil Canaanites, whose iniquity was finally "complete". The God who many times protected Israel from threats internal and external. The God who again and again foretold the future in advance. The God who promised a Messiah, and delivered on that promise when He Himself walked the Earth in human flesh, died at the hands of sinners, and by power of God, rose again.
The primary record for this is, of course, Scripture. This is where atheists start to cry out "circular reasoning", but actually, denying the historical value of Scripture is the extraordinary claim. This is simply because even if you reject divine inspiration, Scripture should be treated as any other historical document. It is, after all, a collection of eyewitness testimony, among other things. It is also corroborated by other witnesses, friendly and hostile. Sometimes, even denial is a confession in disguise. When ancient Jewish sources attribute Jesus' miracles to the devil, for example, they are admitting that Jesus did miracles.
Without going too deep into it here, the historical evidence for Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is very strong. For this reason, Jesus is by far the best candidate to be God. No one fulfills the Old Testament like He does. No one did miracles like He did. No one else, even people whose existence atheists take for granted, is as historically verified as He is. And no one else uses death as a tooth pick like He does.
So my atheist friends, my question is, are you able and willing to think about that? I know you can babble about sky fairies and talking snakes. I know you can insist there is no evidence for God convincing enough to you until you see Him, personally. I know you can stick your fingers in your ears and sing ging gang goo. But I do not know that you are capable of thinking beyond that. This is something I hope for, but not something I have seen. Thus, I have more reason to believe God exists than that you are able to think about Him. Show me that you can think, and I will show you the evidence worth thinking about.