Any suggestions to refute atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter jttierney1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marcus_Red said:
That is indeed what the Catholic Church claims, yes. Theology.
Click to expand...
Where does the Catholic Church claim that the New Testament is a book of theology?
Theology is the study of gods, theos = god, logos = word, like geology is the study of the Earth. Theology, of course, has no subject matter, so it needs to be invented. If all you have is a book, then all you can do is dream up interpretations of it (once you have compiled it, that is).
Click to expand...
I’d appreciate some reference for these ideas – from Catholic theology ideally, but at least from your own theological resources.
You asked me which work of Catholic theology I was most familiar with. What do you want now? A complete list of everything I have read? Please pay attention to your own questions.
Click to expand...
Ok – I’ll review what I asked you:
reggieM said:
Which works of Catholic theology are you most familiar with?
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t say which “work”. I asked for works. You provided one book which is not considered theology (unless you have a Catholic source that conflicts with that). Again, I think you made some wild assertions about theology and denied that it has a basis in logic and reason.
Really? And what will you be able to say that St Augustine was unable to explain? Are you now the official interpreter for St Theresa? You will be John Henry Newman’s expositor? Right.
Click to expand...
I’m not following your line of reasoning here. I’m not the official interpreter of the great spiritual writers but I’m familiar enough with their works that I could help provide some understanding of their thoughts if you’re interested.
No. In order to communicate with me you need to write in English sentences and talk sense.
Click to expand...
No need to make personal insults here.
You don’t need to know how I evaluate evidence, you need to present some.
Click to expand...
I can’t see why it’s a problem for you to answer the question I posed.
You’re now asking for scientific evidence that science requires evidence? What?
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m asking for the evidence you’ve gathered that supports your conclusion.
 
Originally Posted by mich2
Click to expand...
Why would the testimony of those who have witnessed the risen Christ be dismissed, while the interpretation of what scientists have observed and identified by the term neutron be immediatly accepted, if not for one’s faith in science and one’s lack of faith in christianity? Also, the claim of empirical evidence for the neutrons as existing, depends on ones definition of existance as such. To claim that atoms are made of electrons circling around a proton-neutron nucleus is used just as a type of analogy and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Shredderbeam
There are huge differences, HUGE differences between the millions of scientists who have discovered an empirical fact (and published their research results for anybody to peruse), and a handful of people 2,000 years ago who wrote a few books about a man rising from the dead (30-odd years after it happened).
Click to expand...
Well, there is Dalton, Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, Schrodinger…and I’m certain there are a few more, but,you said millions???
Tell me, which of these have observed an atom?

Andre
 
Marcus_Red said:
Um, yes it is. It was compiled by the Catholic Church from a large corpus of extant works pertaining to Jesus available in the patristic period. The Church selected the texts that accorded most with whatever the bishops decided they should accord with. Everything else was declared heresy. Some of those other texts have in fact come down to us, but many have only recently come to light.
Click to expand...
Marcus,
I failed to point that that this was an excellent summary of the background of the New Testament. I wrote too hastily and I didn’t intend to say that you don’t know what you’re talking about here since it is obvious that you do – certainly with more knowledge about the origin of the NT than most Christians today have, actually. Thanks for that.
 
Shredderbeam said:
I’m just wary of arriving at huge truths about the universe without examining the evidence.
Click to expand...
You avoided my question. According to your previous reasoning you don’t believe in any form of logic of which there is no empirical evidence. So explain yourself.
How is the universe evidence of a deity?
Click to expand...
The cosmological argument and so forth. However I’ve already seen your stubbornness in regards to this. If you want to repeat yourself go ahead, however my expertise is the argument from consciousness.
You might be interested to look into some of the work being done with distributed processing systems. Simple agents are given an ability to communicate, some basic rules, and a limited memory, and out of nowhere, they develop the ability to “hunt”, coordinate “attacks” on “prey”, and so on. In any case, you’re using the argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...
You gotta be kidding me, “out of nowhere”? You admitted yourself they are given those basic rules, memory and communication, this gives them that ability to hunt and coordinate. They’re nothing more than automatons. Besides how does that come even close to being an explanation for consciousness?
The fact is that there is no physically possible way for matter to produce consciousness which is why scientists know computers aren’t sentient, and why Sam Harris states that consciousness is a matter of reportability. The human mind is an abberation in this, hence it points to dualism of the mind.
Free will is just a question of context. From the point of view of an outsider, all of the matter in our bodies acts causally and free will doesn’t exist. From the point of view of humans, we think and feel that we have free will, and act as such.
Click to expand...
The fact is that free will doesn’t exist from the atheist point of view. I acknowledged that already.
 
Thought I’d add my two cents. Read this quote somewhere once, I believe its on here. (If its someones signature sorry I’m not giving you credit. I forget who’s it was)

“No God, no atheists.”
 
mich2 said:
You make a good point, AirLiner. However, I still tend to identify faith as something one accepts without having any direct personal proof of that which is accepted as true. If someone is accused of some type of mischief and I believe the suspect who tells me of his/her innocence, due to my faith in that person, which might be based on knowing that the mischief would be out of the individual’s character, then I have come to have faith in the individual without having direct knowledge of his/her innocence.
Click to expand...
You trust that person because you know from past experience that they wouldn’t do that type of mischief (evidence). Better evidence would be to actually prove that he’s innocent.
I understand that St Paul views the natural laws as being proof for the existance of God, however, this view doesn’t seem to stick anymore.
Click to expand...
No wonder people don’t take Christianity seriously these days.
While I do agree strongly that philosophy is a valid discipline, it can’t be the only discipline one is to use. Democritus’ philosophical idea of the atom existed alongside the idea that matter could be divided infinitely. Since no proof existed for either hypothesis, faith was needed in order to accept one over the other.This, however, does testify that faith is not simply a blind acceptance of anything one is being told to believe, but reason must be implied in order for the hypothesis to be properly supported.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t really faith, you see to accept the other infinite division theory would be to accept an infinite regress, which is obviously less logical, hence the other option was more reasonable. No I don’t know if he even used that reasoning, nor did it prove without a doubt that atoms existed, but I’m showing that there does have to be reason supporting every truth. And if it isn’t blindly accepted then wouldn’t that be reason?
I think you might have misunderstood. The faith I was talking about was directed towards an individual, who is not a scientist, and didn’t directly verify the observation of the atom, but simply took the word of the scientific community that atoms existed. I believe the same; however, I believe the scientific community in exactly the same way I believe the christian community concerning the witnesses to the risen Christ.
Click to expand...
The Christian community offered very good and valid historical records. Why do you think no self respecting historian accepts the Jesus-myth theory? So if you come to the logical conclusion that God exists, then believing the resurrection story isn’t really unreasonable, just like trusting historians or the scientific community. They leave good and valid records too.
I personally agree with your statement; however, what would be your reply to an unbeliever who would answer “Why should I acknowledge God as Truth”?
Click to expand...
Well, I’m doing that right now with the argument from consciousness.
 
This is my first post and I apologise for not having read the entire thread, but I would like to answer the original question in this thread.

I am an atheist with great respect for the catholic woman I married, her faith, and her family, who as you can guess, have done very much to convert me, which I truly appreciate. I am still searching, reading, thinking, talking, and posting on catholic.com to find answers and understanding. Her family have given me, and recommended for me, many great books, and some terrible ones that not only didnt help my search, but turned my progress around. I hope I don’t offend when I say, please do not recommend any Lee Strobel books to someone you wish to convert to Catholicism.

I have read some incredible books and essays in the last few years that have caused me to doubt my position, books that have made me spend days thinking about what I truly know about forgiveness, the nature of man, the soul, and many other subjects essential to understanding catholicism. Lee Strobel’s books did none of this. This post is not a place for a critique or insults, but please, do not recommend his books.
 
People respond differently to different writing styles and argumentative techniques. While this author may not have converted you, he may convert others (unless his books are clearly terrible).
 
davemcphee said:
This is my first post and I apologise for not having read the entire thread, but I would like to answer the original question in this thread.

I am an atheist with great respect for the catholic woman I married, her faith, and her family, who as you can guess, have done very much to convert me, which I truly appreciate. I am still searching, reading, thinking, talking, and posting on catholic.com to find answers and understanding. Her family have given me, and recommended for me, many great books, and some terrible ones that not only didnt help my search, but turned my progress around. I hope I don’t offend when I say, please do not recommend any Lee Strobel books to someone you wish to convert to Catholicism.

I have read some incredible books and essays in the last few years that have caused me to doubt my position, books that have made me spend days thinking about what I truly know about forgiveness, the nature of man, the soul, and many other subjects essential to understanding catholicism. Lee Strobel’s books did none of this. This post is not a place for a critique or insults, but please, do not recommend his books.
Click to expand...
Have you read Aquinas? His five proofs really got me thinking.

Honestly, you look to be on the right track. You’re searching for truth and being honest to yourself. I can only imagine that would be a good thing for you and those you know in the long run 🙂
 
davemcphee said:
I have read some incredible books and essays in the last few years that have caused me to doubt my position, books that have made me spend days thinking about what I truly know about forgiveness, the nature of man, the soul, and many other subjects essential to understanding catholicism.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the story of your journey thus far. Which books or authors made a good impression on you?

I would not consider Lee Strobel to be much of a thinker or a writer, myself. His books have some good concepts but I think he takes too many short-cuts and draws conclusions without first proving the arguments logically.
 
wasmit said:
I’m not sure what you are asking. Can you ask the question more clearly?

Also can you please help with this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5089183&postcount=123

thanks.
Click to expand...
The multi-verse theory postulates an infinite number of universes. That means each and every possible universe exists. Which one are we in? A fake one or one with God?

Toledoths - Yes indeed there is much here. The whole document should be read so it can be understood in context.
 
buffalo said:
The multi-verse theory postulates an infinite number of universes. That means each and every possible universe exists. Which one are we in? A fake one or one with God?

Toledoths - Yes indeed there is much here. The whole document should be read so it can be understood in context.
Click to expand...
Whoever came up with that one reads too many comic books
 
CWBetts said:
Multi-verse theory. Sounds like the X-Men and their “One of many possible futures”
Click to expand...
Yes it is a stretch. Since it is well accepted that this universe had a beginning and first cause) they want to get back to eternal Godless eternal universes though the multi-verse, but really haven’t thought it through.
 
Hi reggieM,
reggieM said:
Where does the Catholic Church claim that the New Testament is a book of theology?
Click to expand...
Paul’s letters are books of theology, the Gospels are books of theology, Revelation is a
book of theology, The Epistle to the Hebrews is a …

These books make claims about a god, they are therefore books of theology.

If the Catholic Church says that the NT is not composed of books of theology then the Catholic Church is wrong. Why, it even selected the books.
I’d appreciate some reference for these ideas – from Catholic theology ideally, but at least from your own theological resources.
Click to expand...
I have explained the basis on which I consider the NT to be theology. Are we just arguing over the definition of a word, or what? If you want to call the study of God something else, let me know what.
No need to make personal insults here.
Click to expand...
?
I can’t see why it’s a problem for you to answer the question I posed.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you are deflecting the argument away from you actually providing some evidence by attempting to engage in a Pilate-esque “what is truth” side-show.

FWIW I accept evidence that relies on something more than just the say-so of another human being for its verification, at least in principle.
Yes, I’m asking for the evidence you’ve gathered that supports your conclusion.
Click to expand...
IOW you would like to engage me in a “what is science” debate, rather than provide any evidence to refute atheism.

Obfuscation.

Regards,

Marcus
 
Marcus_Red said:
I have explained the basis on which I consider the NT to be theology. Are we just arguing over the definition of a word, or what? If you want to call the study of God something else, let me know what.
Click to expand...
You claimed that theology was “creative fiction” that makes up stories about gods. So, I was asking more about your definition.
The problem is that you are deflecting the argument away from you actually providing some evidence by attempting to engage in a Pilate-esque “what is truth” side-show.
Click to expand...
I was hoping to get some grounding in how you evaluate categories and what references you use to support your ideas. That’s why I was hoping to get more information from you before proceeding. You asked for evidence, but there’s no sense in providing evidence that you will dismiss as “fiction”.
FWIW I accept evidence that relies on something more than just the say-so of another human being for its verification, at least in principle.
Click to expand...
You do not accept corroborating, eye-witness accounts as evidence? That kind of evidence is enough to convict someone of a crime in U.S. courts. But this is why I’m asking these preliminary questions. It really depends first on what you consider to be evidence and how you evaluate the evidence you do accept. Your calling the New Testament “creative fiction” is a very bold statement. It’s not supported even by critics who do not accept the divine revelation of the NT. So, I was wondering how you arrived at the conclusion that the NT is fiction. What evidence did you weigh to arrive at that conclusion? What proofs did you find?
IOW you would like to engage me in a “what is science” debate, rather than provide any evidence to refute atheism.
Click to expand...
It’s not a bad guess, but that’s not what I was doing. Again, you seem to accept a definition of science on some basis. Usually, it’s because someone told you what science is, and you accept that. Beyond that, you may be a science-only (sola sciencia) materialist. I don’t know your background which is a disadvantage in a discussion. As a Catholic, I cannot conceal my beliefs, but since you haven’t defined yours I have no idea about how you view the world. You might think that science is the only method for attaining knowledge or of evaluating data. Therefore, I want to know how you arrived at that conclusion – it would have to be through a scientific means of some kind.

As I posted elsewhere, the proposal of multiverses is indirect evidence for the existence of God. The universe either had a beginning or it did not. Which of those proposals do consider to be true?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top