Would any respond to the following from a philosophical standpoint:
Atheists insist that there is no God and that the finite and physical is all that exists. Reality is no more than atoms or their component parts in space. That which is conceived as supernatural is to the atheist the nonsense of ignoramuses. Atheist theories are empiricism, naturalism, secularism, or humanism, and all theology is fabrication, dishonesty, deceit, and superstition.
Atheists put the onus on the theists to prove the existence of God, but the atheists keep themselves from having to prove anything. The atheist’s worldview is frequently connected to evolution, which claims that molecules became people by a natural process over millions or billions of years. This is a belief system about the world and the state of reality. It is a philosophical and metaphysical worldview. For this reason atheistic evolution is rightly described as Naturalism. A molecules-to-man, no God involved worldview. The knowledgeable theist will agree that the existence of God cannot be proven by science; it is not the theistic answer, and it is also not giving up the argument.
A worthy reply would be: If the atheist’s position is true, we cannot have logic, philosophy, morality, or geometry, either, because Nature does not provide these things. The atheist’s position—that Nature gives us truth—cannot be tested by sensation, or any empirical or scientific method.
To the Atheist, if it cannot be felt with the hands, observed by the eye, or known by any other sensory organ, it doesn’t exist. But this is not logically deduced from Nature. It is the atheist’s axiom that cannot be demonstrated.
The atheist must be challenged on his axiom–truth is derived from Nature–by providing the proof.
If he cannot, then the atheist should not object to the Christian axiom that there is a God who has spoken in an inerrant Word, the 66 books of the Bible.
Why should the atheist be allowed his axiom while denying the Christian his own?