The greatest irony of atheism is that while its adherents often claim to be the most intelligent and enlightened people, their arguments in favor of their position tend to be significantly weaker than any other group. From experience, most Christians wouldn't know that there are actually some very intelligent atheists out there, simply because they tend to keep quiet, whereas the ones with the least intelligent things to say are not shy about saying them.
As an example, I recently discovered an atheist troll page, on which I found a meme in the comments saying "If your God was real, He wouldn't need you to argue His existence". This is an unintelligent argument that loses its power the moment we apply intelligent thought. But the atheist does have one advantage: It sounds smart.
Historically speaking, atheism has been quite unappealing to humanity. Isaac Newton said it best: "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." This is because all they had back then was reason, and reason leads away from atheism. But by sounding reasonable, along with the added element of peer pressure, atheists finally managed to gain a foothold.
The phrase "if your God was real, He wouldn't need you to argue His existence" is a well-loaded one. It carries with it a number of assumptions. It sounds reasonable because it gives lip service to objectivity. But it's not reasonable, because it is based on several faulty premises.
To begin with, it assumes all things are equally self evident. If someone doubted, for example, that I existed, that disbelief would, in theory, dissipate the moment I walked into the room. Now, why do I say "in theory"? Simply because, since I am not God, I could show up in all my glory, and some numpty could still say "well, this could be any dude, where's the proof that this is actually Brian?" A truly stubborn skeptic could even point to my arm, on which there is a tattoo with my real name, and rule out the possibility that I am Bible Brian. This, I contend, is what atheists do consistently, and indeed this very argument is an example of them doing that.
See, not all things are equally self evident. There are many things, including things atheists believe in, that do require arguing with dissenters about. Take, for example, the mythical Oort cloud. The Oort cloud is an imaginary concept designed to rescue Stellar Evolution from the headache caused by comets. If, as Scripture says, the heavens and the Earth were formed approximately 6,000 years ago, it makes sense that we still have comets. If, however, it is billions of years old, all comets would have been destroyed long before we could observe them. Thus, the Oort cloud, named after its inventor Jan Oort, was proposed as a solution. Comets still exist because the Oort cloud still forms them.
Now, I feel rather confident in asserting that the Oort cloud does not exist. There is no evidence for it, no one has ever seen it, it's supposed to be too far away that we could even be reasonably expected to see it, and it was literally made up to explain away the existence of comets in a solar system older than the Bible says it is. Thus, even though I can't prove its non-existence, I can make a fairly strong case.
Of course, this article is not intended as a refutation of the Oort cloud. Many atheists reading it probably haven't even heard of such things before today, much less believe it actually exists. However, the ones that do will argue for it quite firmly. Is it wise for me to therefore say "if the Oort cloud existed, it wouldn't need you to argue for its existence"? Such is the case with many things in atheism. In fact, many things in life in general. A thing does not have to be made up by an atheist in order for us to dispute their existence.
A particularly interesting example is the Hittites. The Hittites are an ancient culture that effectively disappeared from the face of the Earth. For centuries, the Bible was the sole surviving source describing them. Based on this, atheists claimed the Bible must have made them up. It was thought to be unfathomable that an entire human culture could vanish without a trace. Well, it turns out, they didn't: We just didn't know where those traces were until 1906. This is when we found Hattusas, the Hittite capital city. In the modern day, we have so much evidence for the Hittites that a historian can dedicate their entire lives to the study of their culture. In other words, in 1906, the Bible was vindicated (again).
Now, as I am not a Hittite historian, I'm not actually sure if we have any physical remains of the Hittites themselves. For sake of argument, let's assume every Hittite that ever lived has since rotted away, as human bodies tend to do. Having found their capital city, is there ever a point where "if the Hittites existed, they wouldn't need you to argue their existence" can be considered a sensible argument? Only a fool would say yes. When you find a man-made object, even if it's something as simple as a carved stone, that is concrete proof that the man exists. He doesn't have to show up before you, assuming he is even still alive, for a reasonable man to believe in him. If you then go on to deny his existence, you have actually invented a brand new claim of your own, simply because you now have to explain how the creation exists without the creator. That is, you must now posit a new creator!
Just as man made objects are evidence of man, so also are God made objects evidence of God. God does not have to show up for a reasonable man to believe in Him. This is why Scripture tells us "...what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20).
The creation in which we live, up to and including our very bodies, are strong evidence of God. When you deny the existence of our Creator, you are actually positing the existence of another, be it a magical explosion and a slimey pond, or some other fanciful tale. And of course, if you have the good sense to reject the Big Bang and Evolution, you have the bigger problem of your view not even being formed yet. If you want to argue that God must be so self evident that He "doesn't need" human beings to argue for Him, then how is it that your truth isn't held to the same standard? Not that atheism and consistency are good friends...
But ultimately, the atheist does have one thing right. God doesn't need us to argue His existence. Not just because it is evident from creation, but because He is quite capable of showing up wherever and whenever He wants. He does not do this on our terms. Why should He? Thousands of atheists have converted based on the evidence they saw. What makes any atheist so special that they should receive more?
But obviously, some people have received more. Famously, there is "doubting Thomas". But for thousands of years, there have been examples of God being seen by individuals or groups. So now, at the very least, it's their word against the atheist's. But I would say their word carries more weight. First of all because they were there. They are in a position to tell you what happened. An atheist, living thousands of years after the fact, not so much.
My guess is the vast majority of atheists are also unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. See, as human beings, we tend to focus more on the carnal side of our nature. We do have an interest in the spiritual, but given the choice, most of us would continue this life, rather than focus on the next. This isn't an entirely bad thing. Aside from the fact this life is a good thing, whereas death is an enemy, it's also quite helpful to the continuation thereof. If you seek to preserve this life, you generally will.
But this can come at a cost. What if lying will preserve our lives? What if pretending we believe something is the only way to survive? Put it this way: There are countries in this world, right now, where atheism is illegal. Yet, there are atheists in these countries. We know this because when they think they are safe, they admit it. An atheist will, at the very least, keep quiet about their atheism, if not pretend to be Theistic, in order to preserve their lives.
The Apostles didn't.
In truth, the entire Bible is a book of martyrs. Every word, on every page, was written by men who would have given their very lives for what they wrote, and many of them even did. Most people will not die for the truth, yet in order to contend that God does not exist, an atheist must contend they died for something they knew was a lie. Now I'll repeat, lest I run into the common straw man "anyone can die for a lie", they died for something they knew was a lie. It's not hundreds of years later, they were born, and brainwashed, and eventually they were ready to fly planes into buildings. They believed they saw these things.
But just as they saw God, one day, so will all atheists. As I write this article, Rishi Sunak is currently the prime minister of my home country, the UK. I have never met Rishi Sunak. I frankly have no desire to, either. In fact, he has done me such deep and personal wrongs with his policy that I don't imagine I would be a free man were such a meeting to occur. In my entire life, with the exception of one MP who visited my college, I have never met anyone with legislative authority. Now imagine I used that lack of experience to dismiss the law. Am I going to live a long and happy life, or am I going to jail?
An atheist is within God's grace. In time, it is inevitable that they will meet Him, but for now, anyone with the arrogance to deny His existence so flippantly can be grateful they have yet to meet Him. But this delay is temporary. It's also optional for Him. Should He desire, there is no reason He couldn't show up in front of an atheist. Depending on how powerfully He appeared, atheists like Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins admit they still wouldn't believe, because ultimately, it's not about the evidence. It never was. But He could do it nevertheless. But He doesn't owe it to them, any more than Mike Tyson owes me a boxing match. It's a stupid argument, and it is pride that will go before a very nasty fall.
Barring rapture, we're all going to die. It's inevitable. This century will not close before almost every single atheist on this planet right now becomes a Theist. The question is, will they be wise, and follow the evidence regardless of how direct it is, or will they spend this life looking at a house and pretending there is no architect? The former may lead to salvation. To be clear, intellectual assent is not enough. It is faith that activates the gift of salvation. But our condemnation was active from our very first sin. Hell isn't worth it. Get saved.