Conversations--with atheists

Atheists do not form an homogeneous group. When you have a conversation with one it is essential to know which type of 'atheist' you are talking to.

1--Atheist proper: this person denies that there is such a thing as 'god' of any type. The 'a' before 'theist' means precisely that. It is a statement about reality.

The strategy I'd use here is simply to ask why? What reason do they have for their claim, then seek clarification on particulars that need it.

Then go to paragraph three under point 2, below, starting 'If they are genuine'.

2--Fake atheist: this person simply does not believe in god. They have a 'non-belief' in any god, but usually, particularly the Creator God proclaimed by Christians These are non-theists. They express an internal belief state that is theirs. It is not a claim about reality. About reality they may be either indifferent, or actually agnostic; if they are genuine, of course. Yet, we have to assume genuineness, or gently test for it.

The test for genuineness is not, I think, at least in most cases, asking if there was sufficient evidence, or reason, would they consider the call of Christ to repent. Of course, using relevant vernacular that would make sense to the listener. The question  would be, how would you evaluate evidence or reasoning that might establish, on balance, that the existence of God was more likely than not...because that's all we get in this world.

If they, on the other hand persist in their non-theism, I'd probe why they think that their internal state (of disbelief) is of any interest to anyone.

If they are genuine, I'd ask about the consequences of their belief in terms of the actual state of the world, or how their belief makes sense of the actual state of the world: how knowledge is possible, what drives their 'meta-ethic', how they establish real value in states of affairs, what is love, really, if merely chemical collisions, is your consciousness real or merely a random result of the evolution of chemicals, etc. along the lines of Plantinga's naturalism's self refutation.

3--Uncertain atheist, or, properly, agnostic. If this person is genuine, they show a level of honesty that must be respected. BUT, you have to check this out first, IMO.

Because an agnostic is like a non-theist, but less determined, see the third paragraph above.

In any case, I'd suggest avoiding the evangelical 'secret sauce' of a personal 'testimony', unless it becomes really relevant, or if it is asked for; such as 'tell me, why are you Christian?' or, 'how did you become a Christian?'

The reason to avoid a 'testimony', is because it is personal: far better to discuss objective reasons in the shared reality of the objective world.