Answering Common Arguements Against The Faith

[Samwise21]

So these aren’t new questions in any way, shape or form, but I’ve seen other websites give short but to the point apologetic answers to these so I was wondering about how the common layperson would answer these as opposed to a professional apologist.

1. Science gives us definitive answers to how the world works, there is no need for a God.
2. The Bible is irrelevant in a modern progressive age and those who follow it are praddlers of medieval superstition.
3. The Bible is not historically reliable. Too many centuries have passed and with it too many translations make it dubious at best. There is no evidence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, let alone a mass migration. No evidence of a global flood, either.
4. The Catholic Church persecutes gays and women.
5. Eternal damnation is immoral.
6. There was no real Jesus of Nazareth. No definitive evidence exists.
7. Same as number 6 only with Heaven, Hell and God.
8. If God is so all knowing, all powerful and all loving, evil should not exist.
9. Evolution rules out Original Sin, itself an egregious concept.
10. The God of the Old Testament is a bully, a tyrant, and a condoner of mass murder.
11. “Blessed are those who have not seen and believe” supports irrationality and blind faith.
12. The Catholic Church lets pedophilic priests simply be removed from their position rather than sent to a court of law and tried for their crimes.
13. The Catholic Church assisted the Nazis during the Holocaust.
14. Miracles can always be explained through science. And whatever ones have not yet been explained, they will be.
15. Mankind invented God during the Stone Age because of a lack of understanding of the world and a fear of death, making Catholicism no different than Scientology. A man made religion based off of nothing true.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

#1 & #9 have some problems with the premise itself. IMO science does not and for the most part cannot state much regarding the God or spiritual matters. Simply because He is commonly defined in a way that’s beyond the reach of science.

 

[Bradski]

It might be better to back the truck up a little and tackle one problem at a time.

 

[Crusaderbear]

It might be better to back the truck up a little and tackle one problem at a time.

Actually good advice. Pick one topic and learn all you can about it… I personally don’t like to argue faith. I have mine and am comfortable, others have theirs and are likewise comfortable. If I am asked a honest question, I’ll try and provide an answer, if attacked, I will walk away so as not to destroy them !

 

[reggieM]

So these aren’t new questions in any way, shape or form, but I’ve seen other websites give short but to the point apologetic answers to these so I was wondering about how the common layperson would answer these as opposed to a professional apologist.

1. Science gives us definitive answers to how the world works, there is no need for a God.

Science relies on consistent, stable natural laws, the origin of which science cannot explain, Thus there is need for a law-maker. Thus there is need for God.

1. The Bible is irrelevant in a modern progressive age and those who follow it are praddlers of medieval superstition.

That sounds like “The Bible is old so it is no good”. As for “medieval” that’s a confusion of historical eras.

1. The Bible is not historically reliable. Too many centuries have passed and with it too many translations make it dubious at best. There is no evidence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, let alone a mass migration. No evidence of a global flood, either.

Jewish people living today on earth are evidence of a religious community founded as the Bible explained.

 

[Wesrock]

1. Science gives us definitive answers to how the world works, there is no need for a God.

God isn’t an explanation for the mechanical hows of the world. Why do you [whoever uses this objection] say that the empirical method means we don’t need God?

1. The Bible is irrelevant in a modern progressive age and those who follow it are praddlers of medieval superstition.

That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

1. The Bible is not historically reliable. Too many centuries have passed and with it too many translations make it dubious at best. There is no evidence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, let alone a mass migration. No evidence of a global flood, either.

The Bible isn’t a historical text book, nor are all the books even within the historical genre. What historical narratives are in the Bible are also not always strict, literal history. It’s representative of cultural history and traditions.

1. The Catholic Church persecutes gays and women.

“No it doesn’t.”

1. Eternal damnation is immoral.

Why do you say so? Pkease explain your logic.

1. There was no real Jesus of Nazareth. No definitive evidence exists.

This doesn’t even represent the current majority secular opinion.

1. Same as number 6 only with Heaven, Hell and God.

Heaven and Hell are known by divine revelation, not natural knowledge, so its irrelevant. As for God, there are no empirically falsifiable tests, but there are arguments based on our knowledge of the natural world that provide sufficient reason to know there is a good.

1. If God is so all knowing, all powerful and all loving, evil should not exist.

It doesn’t follow that “evil should not exist.”

1. Evolution rules out Original Sin, itself an egregious concept.

Please explain.

1. The God of the Old Testament is a bully, a tyrant, and a condoner of mass murder.

There is only one God, and the narrative must be read as being filtered through the understanding of the Israelite and Jewish culture of the times, and not something dictated word for word by God. Furthermore, the Old Testament should not be read alone, but interpreted in line with Christ’s revelation.

1. “Blessed are those who have not seen and believe” supports irrationality and blind faith.

Why? Why not just accuse the people saying this of irrational skepticism?

1. The Catholic Church lets pedophilic priests simply be removed from their position rather than sent to a court of law and tried for their crimes.

“Lets” implies it still goes on. It was a terrible, terrible tragedy, and the men handled it poorly. There was a different understanding of psychological treatment then, but that’s insufficient. But what’s the point of this objection? Yes, men in the Church have sometimes done horrendous things. So?

[quote13. The Catholic Church assisted the Nazis during the Holocaust.
[/quote]

This is just an anti-Catholic lie.

1. Miracles can always be explained through science. And whatever ones have not yet been explained, they will be.

Please prove.

1. Mankind invented God during the Stone Age because of a lack of understanding of the world and a fear of death, making Catholicism no different than Scientology. A man made religion based off of nothing true.

Some objections are just so infantile they’re not worth responding to. Prove it.
Bradski is right that these should be tackled in depth individually. You can’t just rattle off a list too quick to respond to.*

 

[tony12356]

So these aren’t new questions in any way, shape or form, but I’ve seen other websites give short but to the point apologetic answers to these so I was wondering about how the common layperson would answer these as opposed to a professional apologist.

1. Science gives us definitive answers to how the world works, there is no need for a God.
2. The Bible is irrelevant in a modern progressive age and those who follow it are praddlers of medieval superstition.
3. The Bible is not historically reliable. Too many centuries have passed and with it too many translations make it dubious at best. There is no evidence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, let alone a mass migration. No evidence of a global flood, either.
4. The Catholic Church persecutes gays and women.
5. Eternal damnation is immoral.
6. There was no real Jesus of Nazareth. No definitive evidence exists.
7. Same as number 6 only with Heaven, Hell and God.
8. If God is so all knowing, all powerful and all loving, evil should not exist.
9. Evolution rules out Original Sin, itself an egregious concept.
10. The God of the Old Testament is a bully, a tyrant, and a condoner of mass murder.
11. “Blessed are those who have not seen and believe” supports irrationality and blind faith.
12. The Catholic Church lets pedophilic priests simply be removed from their position rather than sent to a court of law and tried for their crimes.
13. The Catholic Church assisted the Nazis during the Holocaust.
14. Miracles can always be explained through science. And whatever ones have not yet been explained, they will be.
15. Mankind invented God during the Stone Age because of a lack of understanding of the world and a fear of death, making Catholicism no different than Scientology. A man made religion based off of nothing true.

Most of these arguments are horrible. There is only one question that should be asked. “What evidence do you have that demonstrates your religion to be true?”

 

[tonyrey]

Most of these arguments are horrible. There is only one question that should be asked. “What evidence do you have that demonstrates your religion to be true?”

What evidence do you have that your atheistic doctrine is true? What does it explain? Precisely nothing!

 

[tonyrey]

#1 & #9 have some problems with the premise itself. IMO science does not and for the most part cannot state much regarding the God or spiritual matters. Simply because He is commonly defined in a way that’s beyond the reach of science.

Science cannot explain itself let alone everything else!

 

[tonyrey]

God isn’t an explanation for the mechanical hows of the world. Why do you [whoever uses this objection] say that the empirical method means we don’t need God?

That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

The Bible isn’t a historical text book, nor are all the books even within the historical genre. What historical narratives are in the Bible are also not always strict, literal history. It’s representative of cultural history and traditions.

“No it doesn’t.”

Why do you say so? Pkease explain your logic.

This doesn’t even represent the current majority secular opinion.

Heaven and Hell are known by divine revelation, not natural knowledge, so its irrelevant. As for God, there are no empirically falsifiable tests, but there are arguments based on our knowledge of the natural world that provide sufficient reason to know there is a good.

It doesn’t follow that “evil should not exist.”

Please explain.

There is only one God, and the narrative must be read as being filtered through the understanding of the Israelite and Jewish culture of the times, and not something dictated word for word by God. Furthermore, the Old Testament should not be read alone, but interpreted in line with Christ’s revelation.

Why? Why not just accuse the people saying this of irrational skepticism?

“Lets” implies it still goes on. It was a terrible, terrible tragedy, and the men handled it poorly. There was a different understanding of psychological treatment then, but that’s insufficient. But what’s the point of this objection? Yes, men in the Church have sometimes done horrendous things. So?

[quote13. The Catholic Church assisted the Nazis during the Holocaust.

This is just an anti-Catholic lie.

Please prove.

Some objections are just so infantile they’re not worth responding to. Prove it.
Bradski is right that these should be tackled in depth individually. You can’t just rattle off a list too quick to respond to.*
A barrage of questions which are expected to impress by their quantity rather than quality!
[/quote]

 

[IWantGod]

So these aren’t new questions in any way, shape or form, but I’ve seen other websites give short but to the point apologetic answers to these so I was wondering about how the common layperson would answer these as opposed to a professional apologist.

I will answers some of them.

1. Science gives us definitive answers to how the world works, there is no need for a God.

There is no need to propose God’s divine intervention if one can provide a natural explanation.

1. The Bible is irrelevant in a modern progressive age and those who follow it are praddlers of medieval superstition.

Catholics had a hand in giving birth to the scientific age. I would say they are progressive.

1. The Bible is not historically reliable. Too many centuries have passed and with it too many translations make it dubious at best. There is no evidence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, let alone a mass migration. No evidence of a global flood, either.

Not everything is meant to be taken literally. But absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

1. The Catholic Church persecutes gays and women.

The Catholic Church recognizes the proper function of what it means to be a man and a women. On this account the Church says that homosexuality is intrinsically and essentially disordered. However the Church commands that we love all our brothers and sisters. We must not persecute them.

1. Eternal damnation is immoral.

If you reject love you cannot possibly enjoy the fruits that it produces. Ultimately you will suffer an existence without the fruits of Love.

1. There was no real Jesus of Nazareth. No definitive evidence exists.

Most historians agree that Jesus existed.

1. Same as number 6 only with Heaven, Hell and God.

While there is no evidence for heaven and hell, God’s existence can be metaphysically demonstrated. Whether you accept these arguments or not depends on whether or not you agree that metaphysical knowledge is sufficient evidence.

1. If God is so all knowing, all powerful and all loving, evil should not exist.

Freewill exists, a loving God would give us freewill, and thus the potential for evil exists.