How would u respond if someone put this statement to u. "Because of God, Atheists exist.
Without God, atheism would no longer exist."
IMO...Atheism has always existed...it just never required a 'label' to define it until god & religion were created to upset the balance.
You are assuming that a god does exist, and you have yet to prove this god's existence, so until you do, this argument is null and void. Although, in a way, you are correct, if we knew for a fact that there was no god, there would no longer be a need for atheism...and there would also no loner be a need for theism.
I would say that is a self-serving and circular argument. It predisposes that Atheism is some kind of “faith” or “religion”. It is nether. It is the absents of “faith”, “religion” or a “god”. It would exist if the fanciful belief in an imaginary friend existed or not. It just wouldn't be called Atheism it would just be called “normal”.
I would probably just blow them off and say" yeah, whatever". There is no discussion about it. If someone is so arrogant and closed minded to say something like this, they are not discussing, they are pronouncing.
Before you make your statement,you will first have to porove the existence of a God.
Belief does not equal existence. It's not the existence of god that created atheists, but the belief in god by some. Religious people are atheists about all others gods than the one they hold as "true". As others have said, it's best not to engage these folks. You are not going to change a deeply held belief with a smart reply.
Good answer, you beat me too it. Belief in gods exists, gods do not.
I'd say
Because of man, gods were invented/speculated.
If a god would definitively show it's self, then atheism would be decimated... (Except I'd have to put it simpler or go step by step through a bunch of arguments with them)
I wouldn't respond because who ever would make such a statement would be someone of such low intelligence that it would be a lesson in futility in responding.
Without these pesky "gawds", atheism would be the norm!
My usual response to close minded people who want to change my mind: You might be right.
End of conversation.
Why the need to 'beat" them? That is how they believe. Leave them to it. We will all encounter the same end - we merely choose our path to get there.
If I bothered responding at all (someone who’d argue on that basis is too stupid to debate with), I would explain that their argument is ridiculous, being forever circular and impossible to resolve.