Any suggestions to refute atheism

[duckbill]

If you were going to give a book to an atheist, in order to refute atheism, which book would you give and why?

I’ve read GK Chesteron’s The Everlasting Man and was impressed with his logic. If anyone has read Chesterton and someone else, which did you like better.

It may seem like a shock but I think you have to attack evolution according to Darwin. I have only had success in opening people up to the possibility of the existence of God by showing this "dogma"is not absolutely true. Now I know that as a Catholic we have an end round by accepting it with conditions bu this will not help your friend to come to the Faith. I am speaking from a completely practicle process of helping to remove obstacles to Grace.
It works! I debated atheists for years trying every argument from Peter Kreeft, C.S. Lewis etc… They don’t work.

What I did, was I edited out the Catholic and religious parts of this article which was in old Envoy Magizine. catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0038.html
that was the intro. to whet their appetite.
Then give them the book “Darwin on Trial” This book is not as technical as some other books and doesn’t attempt to give an alternate theory and doesn’t support the Creationist Theory. You don’t want to fall into the false principle that since you prove it false you need to replace it with another theory. This is a false principle. If something is proved false there is NO obligation to replace it with an alternate theory. This makes no sense. Don’t fall into this trap. (e.g.We may not have enough info for another theory for example.)

Don’t ask me why this works but I have seen AMAZING results. Destroying Darwin’s Theory is similar to the effect would be on a Christian finding the bones of Jesus (proving no resurrection) to a Christian they FREAK!

Again I’m talking from a practice experience. Liar, Lunatic, or Lord is nice to read but a reasonably intelligent atheist will rip that to shreds. The logical arguments also don’t work and I don’t know why. They make perfect sense but atheist just don’t accept them. Again this is my practical experience from debating 100’s of atheists.

Once you debunk Darwin then depending on the person they are usually open to studying almost all the above authors.

PS I almost forgot, challenge the person to experiment and have them pray " God if you exist show me" This is important. Many atheist won’t do it (I was surprised. They would say they would do it but never did) This is important for them to open themselves up to Grace, because without grace there will be no conversion. Tell them that if God exists he will do something and if he doesn’t then nothing will happen.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

If you were going to give a book to an atheist, in order to refute atheism, which book would you give and why?

I’ve read GK Chesteron’s The Everlasting Man and was impressed with his logic. If anyone has read Chesterton and someone else, which did you like better.

“If There Is No God: Meditations On Believing” on amazon.

Some implication of atheism are:

1. no unique human value
2. no objective morality
3. no objective meaning of human life

Because one can observe that complex mechanisms are the result of human intelligence, it is reasonable to conclude that the complex mechanisms observed in the universe are the result of non-human intelligence.

 

[Shredderbeam]

JimO: Have you heard of the “burden of proof”?

Daniel: We believe that mechanical objects are designed by human intelligence because in our experience, mechanical objects do not occur naturally, whereas certain complex systems do.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

JimO: Have you heard of the “burden of proof”?

Daniel: We believe that mechanical objects are designed by human intelligence because in our experience, mechanical objects do not occur naturally, whereas certain complex systems do.

I am not sure if you are agreeing or not. My point here is that we know from observation that complex systems are produced by human intelligence. Therefore when we see non-human complex systems in the universe, we can reasonably conclude that some kind of non-human “superior reasoning Power” is behind it. This was the conclusion of Einstein in 1955, the year of his death:

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

A related thought is that intelligence (human) is part of the universe, so even if one takes a purely naturalistic view, one is forced to conclude that intelligence is one of the characteristics of the universe.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I am not sure if you are agreeing or not. My point here is that we know from observation that complex systems are produced by human intelligence. Therefore when we see non-human complex systems in the universe, we can reasonably conclude that some kind of non-human “superior reasoning Power” is behind it. This was the conclusion of Einstein in 1955, the year of his death:

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

A related thought is that intelligence (human) is part of the universe, so even if one takes a purely naturalistic view, one is forced to conclude that intelligence is one of the characteristics of the universe.

I am not agreeing. I argue that complexity does not necessarily imply an intelligent designer, and that we draw our conclusions about whether an object was designed or not by whether it occurs naturally. Watches, drills, televisions, etc. do not occur naturally, and we have large amounts of evidence to show how they do form. Complex biological systems do seem to occur naturally, and we have large amounts of evidence showing how that comes about also.

Intelligence isn’t a thing in and of itself. It’s the ability of a brain to process information, draw conclusions, etc. It’s simply the sum effect of interacting brain cells.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I am not agreeing. I argue that complexity does not necessarily imply an intelligent designer, and that we draw our conclusions about whether an object was designed or not by whether it occurs naturally. Watches, drills, televisions, etc. do not occur naturally, and we have large amounts of evidence to show how they do form. Complex biological systems do seem to occur naturally, and we have large amounts of evidence showing how that comes about also.

Intelligence isn’t a thing in and of itself. It’s the ability of a brain to process information, draw conclusions, etc. It’s simply the sum effect of interacting brain cells.

The flaw in your reasoning is the FALSE DICHOTOMY of human versus natural. If there is no god, then EVERYTHING occurs naturally, and there is not anything that does not occur NATURALLY: including human intelligence and all its products: watches, drills, computers and rockets to the moon, The logically valid dichotomy is therefore human versus non-human complex systems and intelligence.

Therefore, INTELLIGENCE IS NATURAL.to the universe, and since intelligence can be observed to produce complex systems in humans, it is reasonable to conclude non-human intelligence is involved in non-human complex systems.

 

[Maranatha33]

It works! I debated atheists for years trying every argument from Peter Kreeft, C.S. Lewis etc… They don’t work.

I am not sure of your difficulties with the Lord, liar, or lunatic trilemma. I have used it for years and have never had anybody “get out of the box.” Once you force them to acknowledge the fallacy of liar and lunatic, they have no valid escape. Dont let them start “rabbit trails” These are very direct questions, and require a direct answer.

In Christ Jesus,

M33

 

[DeoSalvatoreMeo]

I’m really limited to skimming transcripts of debates - I don’t have a lot of free time and I need to keep my sanity.

I understand. You only have an hour to call in and vote for your favorite American Idol, so I can see how less pressing issues like “Is there a God?” have to take a back seat…

 

[DeoSalvatoreMeo]

That God cannot be observed is certainly something I can agree with.

Not being observed is entirely consistent with his not existing.

It’s also the simplest explanation for his non observed-ness.

Why would anyone wish to dream up more complicated explanations?

The fact that we see Creation is entirely consistent with having a Creator. I’ve never spoken to an atheist who had even the foggiest idea of where all of the materials that “spontaneously” came together to create the earth and life came from. Something cannot come from nothing. What was the cause?

 

[Shredderbeam]

The flaw in your reasoning is the FALSE DICHOTOMY of human versus natural. If there is no god, then EVERYTHING occurs naturally, and there is not anything that does not occur NATURALLY: including human intelligence and all its products: watches, drills, computers and rockets to the moon, The logically valid dichotomy is therefore human versus non-human complex systems and intelligence.

That’s not what I’m getting at. I am trying to make the point that we do not conclude that watches, etc. are created by an intelligence because they are complex, but because we have a large amount of evidence to show that humans create them. With regard to complex natural phenomena, the evidence suggests that they can occur naturally, without an intelligent designer.
"Daniel Keeran:

Therefore, INTELLIGENCE IS NATURAL.to the universe, and since intelligence can be observed to produce complex systems in humans, it is reasonable to conclude non-human intelligence is involved in non-human complex systems.

It’s tempting to make that conclusion, but it’s not a valid one. It’s very important to consider where the evidence points. For example, consider a termite’s nest: A great feat of engineering, certainly, but constructed by insects obeying simple rules, not a grand architect.

I understand. You only have an hour to call in and vote for your favorite American Idol, so I can see how less pressing issues like “Is there a God?” have to take a back seat…

Rest assured, I watch perhaps two to three hours of television per week.

I am confident in my unbelief, to the same degree as you or other Catholic who believes themselves to be correct. For me, this is an interesting academic subject, but not something I can spend excessive time on.

 

[miguel]

How to refute atheism?

Show us a god.

Architectures are evidence of an architect.

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi DeoSalvatireMeo,

The fact that we see Creation is entirely consistent with having a Creator. I’ve never spoken to an atheist who had even the foggiest idea of where all of the materials that “spontaneously” came together to create the earth and life came from. Something cannot come from nothing. What was the cause?

I have never met a theist who even has the foggiest idea of where God came from.

If you call what we see “Creation” then you are begging the question. It is only “creation” if it has a creator … since you haven’t established that there is a creator you can’t argue from the premise that you call it “creation” to the existence of a creator.

Regards,

Marcus

 

[Marcus_Red]

Architectures are evidence of an architect.

Yes, so I could reasonably ask to see the architect, or his grave. Where’s God?

 

[Tomster]

Yes, so I could reasonably ask to see the architect, or his grave. Where’s God?

The apostle Thomas, loyal and courageous but distrustful of mere hearsay, was absent from the previous appearance of the risen Christ. Nothing would induce him to credit it. “Until I have seen the mark of the nails on his hands, until I have put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hand into his side, you will never make me believe” (John 20:25). Jesus is very tender with this doubting but much loved disciple. Eight days later he appeared again, when Thomas was present. "Then he said to Thomas, “Let me have thy finger; see here are my hands. Let me have thy hand; put it into my side. Cease thy doubting and believe” (John 20:27). We are more than compensated for this moment of scepticism. In the post-resurrection faith of the doubting Thomas the New Testament records the authentic expression of the Church’s belief in the Person of Jesus Christ: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Nevertheless, it remained faith and was not vision; since what Thomas saw the risen humanity of Jesus, but what he believed in was his divinity. Still, he had been at fault; for he should have accepted this, as millions were to receive it afterwards, on the testimony of accredited witnesses. This is what Christ impresses upon him, in the words of forgiveness and gentle reproach: “Thou hast learned to believe, Thomas, because thou hast seen me. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have learned to believe” (John 20:28). He calls Thomas, and through him every unbelieving soul, to open his own heart and to receive the full assurance of the Resurrection.

Happy Easter!

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

That’s not what I’m getting at. I am trying to make the point that we do not conclude that watches, etc. are created by an intelligence because they are complex, but because we have a large amount of evidence to show that humans create them. With regard to complex natural phenomena, the evidence suggests that they can occur naturally, without an intelligent designer.

It’s tempting to make that conclusion, but it’s not a valid one. It’s very important to consider where the evidence points. For example, consider a termite’s nest: A great feat of engineering, certainly, but constructed by insects obeying simple rules, not a grand architect.

The nonhuman technology observed in the universe is far more complex than anything humans have created. Humans have yet to create a cell wall or a single cell, let alone something like a flying insect such as a gnat or the termite with its ability to create a nest.

You still want to stick to the dichotomy of complex natural phenomona versus non-natural human. But human IS natural. The major hurdle for the atheist is to explain how human intelligence as a NATURAL phenomenon can be observed to create complex technology, yet immensely greater nonhuman complex technology must be the result of something WITHOUT intelligence! The latter concept requires more faith than the former. Einstein understood this.

 

[DustinM]

Most atheists are such because of the lack of evidence for God. (Note: Most atheists are not 100% certain there is no God; usually something closer to 99.X%, equivalent uncertainly to invisible pink unicorns.)

So to convince an atheist, you need to present evidence. I’d start with reading science books that explain what counts as evidence. Lack of alternative explanations does not count as evidence (or a good argument), for example, and many (not all) religious people don’t seem to get that for some reason.

Then I’d move on to books written about atheism by atheists so you can see where they are coming from. This should help to avoid any straw-man arguments about atheism. I’d go with the best-sellers for this, like The God Delusion.

 

[Marcus_Red]

Still, he had been at fault; for he should have accepted this, as millions were to receive it afterwards, on the testimony of accredited witnesses.

So, what you are saying is that it is a confounded cheek for an atheist to expect to see any evidence for anything claimed by a theist, and that the atheist should just be convinced by someone who merely asserts that God exists.

How does one establish the accreditation of an “accredited witness” btw?

 

[duckbill]

I am not sure of your difficulties with the Lord, liar, or lunatic trilemma. I have used it for years and have never had anybody “get out of the box.” Once you force them to acknowledge the fallacy of liar and lunatic, they have no valid escape. Dont let them start “rabbit trails” These are very direct questions, and require a direct answer.

In Christ Jesus,

M33

Well my atheists may have had sharper minds and more knowledge than yours because it was my experience . While I don’t remember every argument. Here is one " Jesus curses a fig tree because it has no fruit but even the Gospel says the apostles were confuse by this because it wasn’t the time for figs. This seems like the actions of a crazy man to me. To cures a tree out of season for not having fruit"
Remember they don’t need to prove everything wrong they are satisfied to prove one thing wrong.

 

[Shredderbeam]

The nonhuman technology observed in the universe is far more complex than anything humans have created. Humans have yet to create a cell wall or a single cell, let alone something like a flying insect such as a gnat or the termite with its ability to create a nest.

Yet the non-human complexity in the universe is not irreducibly complex. It has a natural way of arising.
Daniel Keeran:

You still want to stick to the dichotomy of complex natural phenomona versus non-natural human. But human IS natural. The major hurdle for the atheist is to explain how human intelligence as a NATURAL phenomenon can be observed to create complex technology, yet immensely greater nonhuman complex technology must be the result of something WITHOUT intelligence! The latter concept requires more faith than the former. Einstein understood this.

Other complex structures could have a creator or designer - depending on what they are. If they have no mechanism for being created naturally, without an intelligence, then sure, they could be designed.

The evidence demonstrates that complex examples of technology are created by humans. The evidence does not demonstrate that an intelligence designed cells.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Yet the non-human complexity in the universe is not irreducibly complex. It has a natural way of arising.

Other complex structures could have a creator or designer - depending on what they are. If they have no mechanism for being created naturally, without an intelligence, then sure, they could be designed.

The evidence demonstrates that complex examples of technology are created by humans. The evidence does not demonstrate that an intelligence designed cells.

The idea that the immense non-human complexity in the universe has a “natural way of arising” is precisely what is at issue. If such immense complexity can arise without intelligence yet produce everything that exists including human intelligence that in turn produces complex technology, then there is the assumption that the basic random elements of the universe have the ability through a completely non-intelligent process, without planning or purpose, to organize themselves to build universities and rockets to the moon. It is much easier to believe in God than to accept such a theory.