Bananas keep longer in the refrigerator, but it makes the skins turn black. It’s visually unappealing (hehe) by the fruit is fine.
My Uncle fought in WWII, and survived some hair raising stories. He once spoke about man’s inhumanity to man. He remained a church goer his whole life, AFAIK.
Not that I am aware. I’ve never encountered atheists discussing this as a problem - but arguments with the person changing their mind can be found.
AND be prepared to talk about Bananas!!! 
I thought that was Ray Comfort’s territory 
Speaking from personal experience, I was exposed to atheism since I was in my early teens basically, the moment I picked up a book about philosophy questioning the rationality of belief in God. It caused a mild crisis of faith but made me very interested to learn about philosophy, science, theology, history, and apologetics. Thus, by the time I arrived in college I was not shocked by much, despite the fact that most of my professors and fellow students were not believers.
It seems to me that this interview implies Christian parents should not stick their head in the sand and deny the obvious (old earth/descent with modification, borrowing the muslim doctrine of inspiration of scripture and applying it to the bible), be able to explain the central tenets of our faith and give reasons for them (the resurrection, belief in God), and more than anything else, be open and receptive/non-shaming towards ANY questions or feelings our children express about faith. And of course, MODEL the Christian life by praying, staying involved in Church and…struggling to become by grace what Christ is by nature.
Yes?
This sounds interesting, and not really intuitive to me anyway. Not to pry, but can you tell us more?
I don’t know a lot of details and I don’t think my uncle did either. Apparently the radar device he operated for a time was some sort of improvement—and it was to be kept out of German hands at all costs. So there were extra soldiers assigned to protect it and a thermite charge was attached so that it could be melted (to prevent reverse engineering) if and when there was any danger of capture.
My uncle was an atheist at the time. He said that he was continually aware of various technologies which had been invented by Germans (e.g., the magnetron) but which had largely been ignored by Hitler and those who could have further developed such inventions toward their war effort. My uncle became aware of scriptures which spoke of God “blinding the eyes” and confusing the enemy. He would say, “The Germans so often did things that made no sense. They ignored the very things which could have turned the tide before America even entered the conflict. And that helped the Allies win the war.” He eventually decided that the God he hadn’t previously believed existed had been aiding the Allies to defeat evil.
I wasn’t born yet but relatives told me that he left for the war a very hard-headed and “rough cuss” fellow but came home entirely changed. Within months he became a full-fledged Christ-follower and quite an active evangelist for the Gospel message during his free time.
That’s about all I know.
The Germans wasted resources on futuristic things like a rocket-propelled interceptor fighter, which was virtually useless. They did make the Me-262 jet fighter, which would have been a game-changer had they developed it a little earlier and in greater quantities - fortunately it was too little, too late. Hitler resisted having his troops supplied with a modern semi-automatic rifle and seemed not to be very interested in having his side develop one. The Americans had a very good semi-auto rifle that was fielded in large quantities while the Germans mostly had bolt-action rifles that were little changed from WWI.
Giving this more thought. All of the example I can think of are people who went back to religion after taking some time off (Not Playing Golf). Given the diversity among atheists, each of these stories is probably different, and I don’t see any common attractor of atheists to religion. The few I can think of claimed they found the science of evolution unconvincing, but it’s hard to know what these people really think and feel.
It is my impression, that atheists who return to Christianity do so because they miss the community.
I haven’t seen them explicitly say that, but it seems to fit in the cases that I know.
I’d love to see that as a poll question for all who have returned to Christianity (and other faiths for that matter.) Of course, with some very strict fundamentalist families, that return can be a virtual requirement for having routine and harmonious contact with their family.
Catching up on much delayed posts on this forum and surprised to see this was one of them. To answer @swamidass and @nwrickert from my own experience: Community was not a motivation for me. In fact, quite the opposite, I was bothered by the tight-knit nature of Christian fellowship and it took quite some time for me to appreciate the value of it. Technically, I wasn’t returning to Christianity from atheism, but rather arriving for the first time after leaving a heretical sect (Christian Science) for atheism, and then leaving atheism for Christianity. Certainly, every individual is different and there may be some who have community motivations, but historically I don’t think that is typically the case. Atheism has also offered a good deal of community and other benefits. I recall a book that came out in around 1998, which was a very interesting study of nineteenth and twentieth century intellectuals who departed Christianity for atheism or free thinking and then returned. (I wish I remember the title.) As I recall, intellectual reason were a major theme. My view is that atheism makes a first impression of being intellectually more respectable and tough minded, rather than relying on ‘faith,’ which is assumed to be anti-intellectual. But in truth, there is a great number of real intellectual questions about the real nature of our universe that atheism typically doesn’t engage.
Which ones? I hear many atheists engaging many questions all the time.
@John_Dalton One would be the existence of real moral absolutes. For example, whether rape is really wrong or just wrong in a relative or constructed sense. Because of the unacceptable alternatives, most atheist intellectuals punt to a sort of Platonism on this one and live with inconsistency. There aren’t a lot of Peter Singers out there. (Thankfully, since about the only thing that can be said for Singer is that he is consistent.) The problem of ultimate origins and infinite regress is another. Quantum mechanics presents others. On these that standard approach is pretty much non-engagement as unknown or unknowable. Other examples would be belief in consciousness, reason, free will, love, the fundamental value of the human individual, etc. as ontologically real and not merely appearances. It is pretty hard to live as if these aren’t real or shake the belief that they are, regardless of the necessity if atheism is the case. Do some atheists engage these things. Sure. But the reality is that most seem to recognize it isn’t fruitful ground for creating a cogent and compelling philosophy and so disengage from these to focus on areas that better accord.
Yep. I know Justin well. It’s a good book. I know Justin no longer endorses one of the arguments he presented in that book
Wielenberg
Certainly that’s a topic that comes up a lot. Atheists that think about such things have almost definitely considered it. That may well not be the majority of atheists even, but then again, do the majority of religious people think about such things at any length?
That you’re not happy with the way atheists tend to think about this doesn’t really mean atheists “don’t engage” with the issue 
Does it? To put a point on that, I’m unaware of any superior consistency that religious interpretations are able to bring here.
Certainly often considered as well. I find it interesting that you’re pointing to this type of basically insoluble problem that no one has conclusive answers to, atheist or religious.
This one’s above my pay scale though
It may be indeed be that this is something that is more important to you than many atheists. There do tend to be differing conceptions of what constitute “real intellectual questions about the real nature of our universe”.
I wouldn’t put it that way! You make it sound like people are avoiding such issues to reach the end of “creating a cogent and compelling philosophy”, when that isn’t the case. I think the reality is that there are different ideas about the importance of certain conceptions of them.
But God is not a satisfactory solution to any of the big questions you bring up. It’s just, as you say, punting. God doesn’t explain moral absolutes, or solve the problem of ultimate origins, or quantum mechanics, or consciousness, or free will. He’s just an excuse to stop thinking about the problem, a sort of “get out of problem free” card.
There aren’t any, as far as I can tell.
When I look around, I notice that Christians are moral relativists. Yes, they declare themselves to be moral absolutists, but they are relativists in spite of such declarations.
The God revealed by the Bible is not the sort humans would “invent” just to avoid troubling questions in life. I do not believe in God because He helps me into an easy existence, but because the transcendent yet immanent God Who is already there makes it all cohere, while maintaining authority over my life. For too many people, it’s that aspect of being ultimately answerable to a Person outside of and beyond oneself that makes it unpalatable. For me, however, and for those who follow Christ, the One Who knows us the best loves us the most, and takes the onus of reconciliation upon Himself.