Atheism the lack of belief in god or gods. Period. Full stop. End of story. The article "Responses to atheist claims" is founded on a false premise before it even says anything. There are no claims that are inherent to atheism. None at all. But I will take a swing at it nonetheless...
1) "You don't believe in Zeus, Thor and all the other gods. I just go one god more than you, and reject the Christian God. The problem with this idea is that 'gods' such as Zeus and Thor are not comparable with the biblical understanding of God."
Atheists fully realize that there is a difference in the way Abrahamic monotheists view the word "god" and the way that ancient polytheists did. This, however, is completely beside the point. The reason atheists bring this up is to help the theist understand where they are coming from. Its essentially to say "Look, you dont believe in these gods that other people either do or at some point have believed in. You and I have very similar reasons for not believing in those gods and that is why I also dont believe in yours". Usually this is to debunk the notion that atheists somehow single out Christianity or the god thereof as the object of their criticism. Nope. Not true. We dont believe in any gods. Yours included.
2) "Science has explained everything, and it doesn't include God."
Sorry, but this is just silly. Atheists do NOT say that "science has explained everything". There may be a few I suppose but the vast majority fully realize that there are plenty of gaps in our knowledge of the universe provided by science. This is just false.
3) "Science is opposed to God."
Hmm, yeah actually I do say that. There is a reason that scientists tend to (generally...there are plenty of exceptions) not believe in god(s). The kind of skepticism that science promotes is highly corrosive to religious faith...and thats a good thing.
4) "You can't prove that there is a God."
Oh great, playing semantics with what is meant by the word "proof". Not buying it. Its pretty obvious what we mean by proof. Tangible empirical evidence that can be scientifically analyzed and proven.
5) "Faith is believing without any evidence."
Yeah, I do agree that faith is defined as belief without evidence and Hebrews 11:1, in so many words, is where I get that idea from. The Bible, thus, itself defines faith as that which is hoped for and unseen. So, therefore, faith is belief without evidence. Very simple really. The Bible can be considered evidence, of a kind, but not particularly good evidence. Let me put it this way. The Bible is as much proof of its truth claims as a comic book is proof that Batman is real.
6) "Faith is a delusion. I'd no more believe in God than I would in the Easter Bunny, Father Christmas or the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
Yep, I agree with this point. A delusion is a false belief that is held to regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
7) "Christianity claims to be true, but there loads of denominations and they all disagree with each other, so it must be false."
No, this is not something that atheists say. When we bring this up its merely to point out that the reality of there being literally thousands of Christian denominations, most of whom have competing and mutually exculsive doctrinal positions on a variety of positions does seem to speak against how the Bible defines god in 1 Corinthians 14:33 in which it says that god isnt the author of confusion. So god wants his message of salvation to not be confused at all and yet there is little to no element of Christianity in which one group of Christians doesnt vehemently disagree with another Christian group about. If god is so concerned about his message not being muddled with petty doctrinal disputes then why not do something about it? Perhaps because there isnt a god and religion is a human construct?
8) "The Bible is immoral."
Yep, any book that says genocide, rape, theft, murder, and slavery is ok (as long as god says so!) is not a moral book.
9) "Surely you don't take the Bible literally?"
Yes, some people are far too literal but I would argue that most atheists DO understand that much of the Bible is poetic, metaphorical, and allegory and not every part is to be taken literally. Unfortunately many believers do take it literally and these tend to be the more dangerous ones, people whose rhetoric is the most vile and needs to be opposed.
10) "What is the evidence for God?"
So the sophist theologian (and he is a sophist. Im familiar with the theologian Mr. Lennox. The guy simply doesnt have it within him to honestly engage with atheists and this article is merely one of many examples) COULD give us evidence for gods existence but he thinks we atheists wont accept it and believe even if he does. What an obvious attempt to shift burden of proof unto the skeptics. It doesnt work that way. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. "There is a god" is a positive claim. Those that look at the evidence (or complete absence thereof) and say "Sorry but there is insufficient reason to accept your claim, please prove it" are NOT making a positive claim, they simply are not accepting the claim that is made by the believer. Sorry Mr theologian but the ball is still in your court, and that of all other believers.
What a stupid article