• Idols leave us empty; they cannot fill the God-shaped void in our hearts.
• "The Force" has far less explanatory value than the Old Man in the Sky, since impersonal energy cannot account for personality, morality, or intelligence.
• Nothing has the right to claim our total loyalty, except for God himself, which means that Christians can never go along with totalitarianism.
• New Age mysticism is silly. We are not God, despite the divine claims of those flattered by this elitist fantasy. 
• All "gods" are doomed to fail; they aren't real, nor does it makes sense to serve them. The true God, however, whom we know from the Bible and through Jesus Christ, is rational (the biblical concept makes sense), relational (he's not just a power, but a being who interacts with his creatures), and righteous (since he's holy, his will often does not gibe with our own selfish preferences).

Coming to terms

• Type 1: Most atheists simply assert that there is no God; they haven't really thought the matter through, and when challenged for their reasons, they either change the subject or plead ignorance.
• Type 2: Others have given the matter some thought. Most type 2 atheists resort to a blend of the various criticisms we have previously addressed, often with ad hominem attacks on believers. Yet such an approach hardly disproves God. Harping on the faults of Christians, insinuating that modern science overturns Scripture, or bringing up the scandal of the Crusades doesn't amount to much of an argument. They may well discredit some Christians, but this hardly discredits Christianity.
• Type 3: A small minority of atheists are serious thinkers, for instance several whom I have debated. In order to win their respect -- and hopefully nudge them towards a biblical understanding of God -- you'll need to be familiar with the wide spectrum of Christian apologetics.

• Hard agnosticism: "God is unknowable." This is the more philosophical of the two versions, yet it makes some unwarranted assumptions. It rules out experience of God -- supernatural experience is simply explained away. Agnosticism correctly recognizes that a God would be infinitely above the comprehension of finite man, yet it fails to consider that the infinite God might purpose to reach down to us humans (John 1:1-2,14). Christians agree that God is unknowable exhaustively, yet they have experienced him in part. There is a difference between (some) knowledge of God and comprehensive, exhaustive knowledge of him. To illustrate, I have been married 30 years, but in one sense I'm still getting to know my wife. How much more is this the case in knowing the infinite God! 
• Soft agnosticism: "I dunno if there's a God." This is seldom little more than lazy thinking. Of course there's one exception: the agnostic actively seeking answers, aiming to put together the pieces. In this case soon enough he or she will come to a conclusion, relinquishing the state of temporary ignorance. Oddly enough, I've met many (soft) agnostics who fancy themselves to be seekers, yet are not seeking in the biblical sense (Matt 7:7-8; Heb 11:6). We should distinguish between between intellectual modesty (I don't have all the answers) and intellectual lethargy (I may make a short-lived effort to seek now and again).

• Theism: belief in a personal God. Christians and Jews are theists.
• Deism: belief in an impersonal God who created the cosmos but then stepped back and is no longer involved. He neither works miracles nor answers prayers. This was the position of many Enlightenment thinkers, as well as of many of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
• Pantheism: God is everywhere and everything; the world itself is divine. This is the view espoused by the New Age Movement, borrowed from such Eastern Religions as Hinduism and Buddhism.
• Polytheism: belief in many gods.
• Monotheism: belief in one god.

• Find out how long he's been an atheist, and why he thinks as he does. Has he lost his faith, or never had it? What does he think about "church people"? Ask lots of questions, and listen. 
• Where appropriate, utilize the information in this week's bulletin, and draw on other material in the Answering Skeptics series.
• Inquire about his relationship with his parents, especially his father. Most of us conceive of God as a heavenly father, extrapolating from our perception of our earthly parent. A harsh or distant father doesn't model God as he truly is. Warm, nourishing father relationships (1 Thess 2:6-12) create climates in which faith easily grows.
• If he/she asks you a tough question, don't change the subject. Answer it, or else admit that you don't know -- though you'll get back to him later with an answer.

• Some of the responses above may be appropriate for your agnostic friends.
• Hard agnostics: Agree that in some sense God would be unknowable had he not taken the initiative to communicate with us. The Bible informs us that certain things may be known about God from nature, but other qualities are only known from scripture, his relationship with Israel in the Old Testament, and the life and death of Jesus Christ. Show them from the scriptures that in Christ God has personally taken the initiative.
• Soft agnostics: Since they admit that their ignorance, ask them, "Why not sort this out?" Offer your help in guiding them through the issues.

• Expose them to the biblical storyline. Help them to realize that the Bible isn't a book of rules, but an (unfinished) story about God, humans, and our place in his world.
• Patiently build a relationship with your atheist friend. Although Christianity has an intellectual side -- and we are to relate to God with all our mind -- it is the relational aspect that wins most people to Christ. 
• Pascal's Wager may come in handy. The philosopher reasoned: It makes sense to believe in God, for if it turns out that there is a God yet we haven't believed in him, we stand to lose everything; if there isn't a God and we believe in him, in the long term we have lost nothing; yet if we believe in him and he exists, we have gained everything. Nothing to lose, everything to gain -- I found the Wager especially useful in evangelism during my university years. Of course a biblical leap of faith isn't a decision to believe in spite of the lack of evidence; faith is in part a response to evidence.
• Remind them of what Jesus said in John 7:17. We won't find the answers through discussion alone; we must be willing to act on the evidence. Ask your friend, "If it turns out that what Jesus taught is true, would you be wiling to live the rest of your life for him?" If he/she cannot instantly reply in the affirmative, you know the bottom-line issue isn't intellectual. It's moral.