Any suggestions to refute atheism

[Logos385]

I asked you to support your assertion by providing some empirical, scientific evidence. You made a claim about science…
Again, that statement is not true because of empirical evidence but because of the acceptance of a philosophical system.

I now see what you are saying, excuse me because it was vague before.

If you are asking for evidence that the base scientific method is reasonable/provable, which I think you are, I can point you to every successful experiment ever enacted. The scientific method is a hypothesis that has proven itself time and time again. The scientific method of hypothesis, prediction, procedure… etc etc, have resulted in concrete things such as computers, cures for disease, cars, etc. If the scientific method did not work, science could not provide any advancements. In this way, the scientific method is shown verifiable through naturalistic, not metaphysical, means. If I misunderstood you once again, I apologize deeply, and would hope that I will get your meaning next time. Thanks for the continued discussion.

Ok, offering counter-points is a good thing, but that is different than ridiculing Catholic theology, which both you and spectrm just did. That kind of thing is not only off-topic, but it’s actually against the rules on CAF and enough for a moderator warning.

How did I ridicule Catholic theology? I don’t agree with it, but I don’t think I ridiculed it. I apologize if I did: but I seem to remember me being ridiculed for a supposed young age?
Edit: Spectrm, below, addresses this discussion much better than I have thus far.

 

[spectrm]

The divine science is on a higher order than natural science because its subject is that of intellect and being which are above that of the natural/material world.

Natural science cannot function without a metaphysical foundation – and as such, it is not capable of producing it’s own foundation.

As I observe atheistic responses to challenges, I see the best refutations of atheism (so far) are with Causality, cosmological fine tuning, the denial of metaphysics and reason (as above) and “the moral argument”. There are many other good ones as well – miracles, the Gospels, religious sense in human beings … but those first few seem to be the best.

The post is nice, and the logic flows decently, except that it presupposes a need for a creator and also makes the false statement that it was Christianity that created the field of science…I’ve never heard a more preposterous idea. Scientific inquiry was clearly around long before christianity - herb tonics, metallurgy, alchemy, et al were scientific ventures that pre-date christianity, even abrahmism as whole. To assume that the people who carried these practices based their hypotheses and results directly upon faith, while unprovable either way (boy, a time machine would be nice), is flying in the face of everything we know about humankind.

You are right - neither scripture nor personal accounts of religious sensations or miracles have every been able to make me say anything but “I certainly believe you believe you experienced this and that it’s significant to you in some powerful way”. Let it be understood, I’m not trying to debase the value of these events or feelings to the individual, but they are hardly conclusive, either.

As for the other arguments:
cosmological: any sequence of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ logically has an initial ‘cause’ (perpetual reductionism)
response: but this would even fly in the face of a godhead as a sentience surely requires an explanation as hit ITS metaphysical properties. Furthermore, there is no reason to suspect a godhead as responsible for the universe to begin with. Funny how people who openly accept that ‘alpha-omeganess’ of a ethereal sentience have trouble accepting the ‘alpha-omeganess’ of a non-sentient ‘would-be’ god. Any arguments about ‘fine-tuning’ can all be abated by simply stating “each level of a system is inherently confined by the level above it and interdependent upon other items in it’s strata”.
moralist: the existence of objective morality necessitates a god
response: this has already been contended with. Plato demonstrated how morality (in practice) is socially derived long before christianity, and it was supported even further by Hobbes, Locke, and Hume - not to mention various other theologians and social thinkers. The concept that morality is inherently objective has no real support and plays more on the emotions and convictions (in establishing the premise) of people rather than real reason. Find a source of this morality that was not communicated from a human being and you’ll have something truly convincing.

But as for metaphysics and it’s relation to science:
(for the sake of this paragraph, metaphysics refers to the models we construct to explain and understand the nature world around us - REAL metaphysics alludes to that nature itself)
Regardless of the perception of metaphysics that a person has, science can only operate and display information inside the singular REAL metaphysical world. In this sense, science is separate from metaphysics, since a view of metaphysics will not change the objective happenings - and peer review and reproducibility exist to weed out perceptive bias. On the other hand, science is clearly constrained by whatever properties that REAL metaphysics holds. By definition (and this is a fallacy you have drawn), a system or sub-system cannot explain/justify itself or any systems superior to it. The corollary is is that a system can only truly be explained/justified by the strata above it. This is why those of faith will never be able to properly prove (empirically) the existence of the judeo-christian god.

 

[Logos385]

That is why Revelation is necessary.

You mean divine communication with a natural brain? We should be able to test this neurological process: which we have never found evidence for. This is what I am speaking about- testing and attempting to verify supernatural claims that claim to affect the natural world. Revelation is one of these natural-world affecting claims.

 

[Logos385]

Those are good questions, but we can see that scientists make conclusions on aspects of nature that we cannot possibly experience also. This is true for evolutionary theory where no one can witness what happened in the past, as well as for quantum states which cannot be directly experienced.

This is what I mean when I say that science can go far beyond our 5 natural senses.

Evolutionary theory is well-supported by almost 200 years of evidence, and the claims it makes have been tested and supported every time. If you are looking for evidence of this: www.talkorigins.org is a good place to start. As for quantum states, quantum physics has predicted many realities that have been compounded by recent evidentiary discoveries. The double slit experiment and many others have and are being done to examine the quantum world.

 

[buffalo]

You mean divine communication with a natural brain? We should be able to test this neurological process: which we have never found evidence for. This is what I am speaking about- testing and attempting to verify supernatural claims that claim to affect the natural world. Revelation is one of these natural-world affecting claims.

Why should you be able to test a one-time event? Empirical science has to be able to rest, repeat and predict.

Since we agree the supernatural cannot be empirically tested why keep asking that it be tested?

Actually the Revelation I was referring to is the Revelation that ended with the Apostles. The Bible is Divine Revelation, God coming to meet man. Revelation is done by witnessing not testing in a lab.

 

[Logos385]

Why should you be able to test a one-time event? Empirical science has to be able to rest, repeat and predict.

Since we agree the supernatural cannot be empirically tested why keep asking that it be tested?

Actually the Revelation I was referring to is the Revelation that ended with the Apostles. The Bible is Divine Revelation, God coming to meet man. Revelation is done by witnessing not testing in a lab.

Once again, what you just made is a supernatural claim that has an effect on the natural world. Thus, we should be able to empirically verify at least the natural world effect of your claim: that a perfect, divinely-inscribed book called “The Bible” exists.

“The Bible” exists, but it is far from perfect or “divine,” rather it is another book dictating one worldview being forced upon many- yet this one is particularly pernicious due to its bronze-age philosophy dealing with slavery, mass genocide and the subjugation of women. A book with these traits would seem, empirically, to not be supernatural in origin.

I demand a test, because as long as it is claimed that a supernatural entity affects the natural world, a test is available. We can empirically verify any supposed effects your deity would have on the natural world by examining the natural world. The religious refuse the test(s) for fear of disproving their particular supernatural claim.

You claim revelation was a one-time occurrence… yet how do you know then that it is truly Revelation? If there is no evidence for it, then this supernatural effect on the natural world cannot be verified, thus neither can your scripture.

 

[HereticAmI]

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.

You need to be more specific, since we need to know the particular atheist in question. If he or she understands what I will call higher physics, simply deal with the matter in terms of the concept or notion of “potential field”. That’s all it boils to down, well, potential field versus Potential Field. Ask the soul to explain consciousness. The fact of consciousness alone is why I believe in PF rather than pf. I take this approach since most of the arguments against are flawed. My favorite is, how could your God exist for eternity and how did your God come into being? My answer is, take out God, and ask yourself, how did this universe come into existence, and if it didn’t and existed forever, then how can that be? So as I said initially, the only dispute here is potential field versus Potential Field. The fact of consciousness strongly implies Potential Field, i.e., a potential field that is conscious, like us. The related way of putting the matter is simply that you could add up all the synaptic data and get a brain, but you wouldn’t get an intimation of mind if you didn’t already have one. So maybe we are more than our biology and synapses.

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi reggieM,

You’ve accepted a definition of “science” for some reason. I was just wondering how you accepted the definition.

I don’t think that I have even mentioned the word “science”.

:ehh:

This is an interesting and good question. I’ve been reading some philosophical letters by Cyril Joad and he asks something similar.

I would ask in reply however:

What use is it for a student to believe that his teacher will help him to succeed when thus far all he has done is fail? What use is it to trust your coach who says that some day you could run a mile when today you can only run a half a mile? What use is it for a man to think that his wife loves him when today she didn’t answer the phone?

These questions all have good, obvious answers. Asking what is the use of believing prayers will be granted if you can’t rely on it is of a different type. Prayers are regularly not granted. It’s more like asking what’s the use of trusting that I will win the lottery. It’s perfectly possible that I might win (or would be if I bought a ticket), but there’s no point in relying on it, so there is no point believing it either.

The requests of prayer are a two-way street. It’s a reflection on the person asking as much as the Giver, giving.

Prayer is a one-way street, prayers go out and there is no reply. Sometimes a prayer is “granted” and sometimes not. We never hear about the non-granted prayers because the sailors who prayed to be saved from the storm and weren’t are unable to testify.

Regards,

Marcus

 

[Thing]

Logos385:

I demand a test, because as long as it is claimed that a supernatural entity affects the natural world, a test is available. We can empirically verify any supposed effects your deity would have on the natural world by examining the natural world. The religious refuse the test(s) for fear of disproving their particular supernatural claim.

Why don’t you go ahead and test for a supernatural entity? Talk is cheap. Mostly all you’ll hear from atheists are questions; …How do I know?, …Can you prove it to me?.. etc. etc…
So I’m going to ask you a question; why don’t *you *go ahead and test for a supernatural entity, if you won’t believe anyone else, perhaps you will believe yourself.

 

[Logos385]

Why don’t you go ahead and test for a supernatural entity? Talk is cheap. Mostly all you’ll hear from atheists are questions; …How do I know?, …Can you prove it to me?.. etc. etc…
So I’m going to ask you a question; why don’t *you *go ahead and test for a supernatural entity, if you won’t believe anyone else, perhaps you will believe yourself.

The problem is that it doesn’t work that way : ). As I have explained numerous times, a direct test for the supernatural world under the scientific umbrella (or any other for that matter) is impossible. The only test that can be made requires a preexisting claim about a supernatural action or quality that has a specific effect on the natural world. In this way, a certain description of a deity can be disproven, but no commentary can be made on the overarching concept of the supernatural. That is because the supernatural cannot be within the realm of science.

I’m the one asking the question because you are the one making the baseless claims .

 

[reggieM]

The post is nice, and the logic flows decently, except that it presupposes a need for a creator and also makes the false statement that it was Christianity that created the field of science… I’ve never heard a more preposterous idea.

Thanks for a good reply, spectrm. But on your first point here, you must be exaggerating for effect. This cannot be the most preposterous idea you ever heard. For example, one of the most preposterous things I’ve ever heard is that there are people living on the moon who dress like Quakers. Now when I go to find out about this topic, even the people who should defend it deny that it was ever spoken. They try to cover it up. There are no scientific or historical papers to support it. Now your “most preposterous idea” however is very widely supported. You make it sound like I just invented this, or it is so absurd that nobody could possibly believe it, or that there is no scholarship to support it.

In all of these cases though, it’s not correct. There are entire books written on the unique and foundational role that Christian theology played in the origination of science. Here are a couple of papers I found on a quick search:

Christian Influences on the Sciences
Christianity and the Birth of Science

I don’t post these to try to convince you that they’re correct but merely to point out that your comment about how you have “never heard a more preposterous idea” cannot be true.

You are right - neither scripture nor personal accounts of religious sensations or miracles have every been able to make me say anything but “I certainly believe you believe you experienced this and that it’s significant to you in some powerful way”. Let it be understood, I’m not trying to debase the value of these events or feelings to the individual, but they are hardly conclusive, either.

Actually, miracles offer powerful evidence for the existence of God. For reasons you give here and others, I don’t think miracles are the best argument to use to convince an atheist, but the evidence is strong enough to refute atheistic arguments (“refuting” does not mean that atheists will be converted when they see the argument, but that Catholics will see no challenge to their faith offered by the atheistic argument since it is refuted by the evidence). As I see it, atheists do not want to look at the evidence for miracles, so it’s not worth presenting that argument. For the materialistic-atheist, the solid evidence of just one miracle is all that is required to refute metaphysical-naturalism.

So to do the research, atheists would have to investigate the Catholic claims for miracles, for example. This would include not only the miracles and resurrection of Christ and the miracles of the apostles as recorded in Scripture – but the entire catalogue of miracles recorded by the Chuch over the past 2000 years. This includes thousands of miracles by saints in every era. Then there are the miracles of Lourdes and Fatima. There is the miracle of the sun, for example, witnessed by over 70,000 people. There are the healings that people experience – healings of incurable illnesses, the growth of new bone tissue and many other things like that. Many of the millions of pilgrims to Lourdes go there, not seeking a miracle – but merely to offer thanks for the miracles they experienced.

The atheist reply to these millions of events through history is that all of the people that experienced them, and all of the saints who worked them were “deluded” or “mistaken”. This is a radical skepticism that does not align with the testimonies given. It’s clearly not open to the reality of what occurred. Again, all it requires is one miracle for atheistic-materialism to be refuted. Here we have claims of millions of miracles from people of all walks of life in all geographic areas and of various kinds. We have scientists who attest to the belief in miracles.

But atheists will dismiss all of this and not enter into a serious study of the miraculous.

One atheistic-materialist recently did investigate claims of the supernatural:

The Miracle Detective: An Investigation of Holy Visions

and during his research, he was converted. He became a believer in God and the supernatural. But this is what materialists need to do. Investigate these cases. Again, all it takes is one miracle to prove that metaphysical naturalism is false.

But all that said, I know that atheists do not want to think about such things. It’s obvious by the way the miraculous is dismissed. Millions of claims through the centuries are dismissed without investigation. This is because of the a priori belief that miracles cannot and do not happen.

Any arguments about ‘fine-tuning’ can all be abated by simply stating “each level of a system is inherently confined by the level above it and interdependent upon other items in it’s strata”.

Cosmological fine tuning would have to be the result of purely accidental, chance events in the universe.

moralist: the existence of objective morality necessitates a god
response: this has already been contended with. Plato demonstrated how morality (in practice) is socially derived long before christianity, and it was supported even further by Hobbes, Locke, and Hume - not to mention various other theologians and social thinkers. The concept that morality is inherently objective has no real support and plays more on the emotions and convictions (in establishing the premise) of people rather than real reason. Find a source of this morality that was not communicated from a human being and you’ll have something truly convincing.

There are a couple of things here – first, Plato believed in God and believed that morality was a matter of seeking to interpret the Divine Will. This is obviously a problem for materialist-atheism. But more importantly, nature cannot command or forbid any human action. Material-nature is “all there is” and it is the source and origin of human beings. There can be no moral commands emerging from this. It only affirms the common saying: “if atheism is true, then everything is permitted”. You do not seem to disagree with this.

 

[buffalo]

Once again, what you just made is a supernatural claim that has an effect on the natural world. Thus, we should be able to empirically verify at least the natural world effect of your claim: that a perfect, divinely-inscribed book called “The Bible” exists.

“The Bible” exists, but it is far from perfect or “divine,” rather it is another book dictating one worldview being forced upon many- yet this one is particularly pernicious due to its bronze-age philosophy dealing with slavery, mass genocide and the subjugation of women. A book with these traits would seem, empirically, to not be supernatural in origin.

I demand a test, because as long as it is claimed that a supernatural entity affects the natural world, a test is available. We can empirically verify any supposed effects your deity would have on the natural world by examining the natural world. The religious refuse the test(s) for fear of disproving their particular supernatural claim.

You claim revelation was a one-time occurrence… yet how do you know then that it is truly Revelation? If there is no evidence for it, then this supernatural effect on the natural world cannot be verified, thus neither can your scripture.

And this supernatural effect has had an effect on the world. See How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

We can see and measure it in the lives of the Saints. We can see and measure it right in creation. From the quantum view we know we cannot see outside our own frame of reference, which means someone else can.

We can see it in language and DNA.

 

[Logos385]

But more importantly, nature cannot command or forbid any human action. Material-nature is “all there is” and it is the source and origin of human beings. There can be no moral commands emerging from this. It only affirms the common saying: “if atheism is true, then everything is permitted”. You do not seem to disagree with this.

I’m going to leave everything but this to spectrm, because it seems like your discussion shall take a different direction than ours was going to.

On this point though, you are quite mistaken. You are completely dismissing the moral component of both evolutionary biology and societal groupings. It is in the best interest of the individual organism to have base moral requirements when dealing with a communal group. There is a clear and outright evolutionary advantage to the emergence of morality, and this doesn’t apply only to humans. Think about when a group of piranhas is worked into a frenzy: they don’t attack each other. They have such a strong form of communal morality that their wild, instinctual feeding frenzy doesn’t cause them to attack within the community, only intruders or prey.

In this same way, human beings have morality, as it is an extreme advantage to a society (and the individuals within it) as well as an outright evolutionary boon.

 

[Logos385]

And this supernatural effect has had an effect on the world. See How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

We can see and measure it in the lives of the Saints. We can see and measure it right in creation. From the quantum view we know we cannot see outside our own frame of reference, which means someone else can.

We can see it in language and DNA.

I appreciate a Catholic man writing a Catholic book about how Catholicism is awesome, but you can see why it doesn’t sway my opinion too much.

In the lives of the saints… evidence please?
In creation? Please don’t claim natural things, like the world, as evidence for supernatural.
Quantum Physics has never and does not currently claim that. Source?
Language… this doesn’t even make sense to me.
DNA… what???

 

[Thing]

The problem is that it doesn’t work that way : ). As I have explained numerous times, a direct test for the supernatural world under the scientific umbrella (or any other for that matter) is impossible. The only test that can be made requires a preexisting claim about a supernatural action or quality that has a specific effect on the natural world. In this way, a certain description of a deity can be disproven, but no commentary can be made on the overarching concept of the supernatural. That is because the supernatural cannot be within the realm of science.

I’m the one asking the question because you are the one making the baseless claims .

Talk, nothing but talk. The claim is that a supernatural, a particular supernatural entity, has an effect on the natural world, i.e. on you and the testable world. If your last question was ‘How do I, as a natural creature, test for the super-natural?’, if that was your question, the answer then is as simple as the claim. You are the answer, You are how you test the claim. It is not impossible to test for the super-natural, or there would be no claim of a super-natural. You are the instrument. And you, as the instrument, must grind yourself up, disolve yourself, burn yourself over the bunsen flame, and condense an answer that will satisfy you.
Remember, you are the instrument, you want to know, go and use yourself - do a destruct test or something, but if you are serious you can find a way forward otherwise you are condemned to repeating and repeating, I say, repeating the same old question, ‘?How do I know?’

Go find out.

 

[buffalo]

I appreciate a Catholic man writing a Catholic book about how Catholicism is awesome, but you can see why it doesn’t sway my opinion too much.

In the lives of the saints… evidence please?
In creation? Please don’t claim natural things, like the world, as evidence for supernatural.
Quantum Physics has never and does not currently claim that. Source?
Language… this doesn’t even make sense to me.
DNA… what???

Quantum Physics has never and does not currently claim that. Source?
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

The DNA language is a coding system. All codes come from a mind.

 

[reggieM]

It is in the best interest of the individual organism to have base moral requirements when dealing with a communal group. There is a clear and outright evolutionary advantage to the emergence of morality, and this doesn’t apply only to humans.

Logos – here’s the point. Nature does not command or forbid any human action. You point out that “it is in the best interest”. There is no command here, no obligation or responsiblity – no action is forbidden by nature. It is in the best interests of Nazis to wage the holocaust. There is nothing in metaphysical-naturalism to forbid this. Nature is all that there is. Material-nature simply “is” – it does not command obligations. Nowhere does it state that any actions from human beings are forbidden – it cannot do so because it is unintelligent nature. It has no moral component.

The point remains – if atheism is true, everything is permitted. This is due to the fact (supposedly) that everything emerged from non-intelligent, amoral natural processes and blind matter.

One cannot infer an “ought” from blind, unintelligent matter.

In this same way, human beings have morality, as it is an extreme advantage to a society (and the individuals within it) as well as an outright evolutionary boon.

Again, material nature does not command or forbid any human action. Anything and everything is permitted for whatever reason. Nature imposes no moral condemnations of any actions – whether with piranah or with human beings.

Again, given your response which is not even close to answering the problem, I do believe this is one of the very best arguments against atheism.

I don’t direct this at you, personally. I’ve seen many atheists try to answer this and thus far I’ve never seen an argument against it. Eventually, I see atheists simply accept the point – if atheism is true, material-nature permits every and any human action. Nature does not command or forbid any human action at all.

 

[Logos385]

Talk, nothing but talk.

Yes. This does happen to be a theoretical discussion.

The claim is that a supernatural, a particular supernatural entity, has an effect on the natural world, i.e. you and the testable world. If your last question was ‘How do I, as a natural creature, test for the super-natural?’, if that was your question, the answer then is as simple as the claim. You are the answer, You are how you test the claim…
if you are serious you can find a way forward otherwise you are condemned to repeating and repeating, Isay, repeating the same old question, ‘?How do I know?’
Go find out.

I had quite the long, fleshed out response to this… but decided it was useless. You have now repeatedly ignored what I have been saying, and simply are telling me to search for a deity, when we both know I can’t find one under any legitimate means. If you want to invoke faith, feel free, but I don’t.

As long as your only retort is to not discuss and to attempt to inspire me to go on a fruitless search, there is no point to this discussion.

 

[Thing]

Yes. This does happen to be a theoretical discussion.

I had quite the long, fleshed out response to this… but decided it was useless. You have now repeatedly ignored what I have been saying, and simply are telling me to search for a deity, when we both know I can’t find one under any legitimate means. If you want to invoke faith, feel free, but I don’t.

As long as your only retort is to not discuss and to attempt to inspire me to go on a fruitless search, there is no point to this discussion.

Ok, forget this ‘super-natural entity’ nonsense. Lets be brave and face it, we are talking about God. God talks to man. The only way man can know about God is if God talks to man.

If, as you are saying, you are not interested in using this only method you have of knowing if God exists or not, then any talk about God is ultimately pointless, as you are starting from the position of not wanting to know if God exists and asking another person if God exists and how do they know.

 

[reggieM]

Hi Marcus Red - thanks for your reply.

I don’t think that I have even mentioned the word “science”.

Well, the reason I’ve been probing your views on science are because when I said that there was logical evidence for the existence of God, you said:

Good, same as science. Let’s see some then.

So, you compared the kind of evidence science uses with the evidence of reasoning. My questions to you were about how you proved what the true nature of science is. It’s the same question I asked Logos385 and he referred me to a dictionary. The point here is that you accept the definition and nature of your own philosophical structure (scientism, or metaphysical naturalism) based on authority of non-scientific proofs. Do you accept the same for the arguments in favor of the existence of God? It didn’t seem so because you said “Good, same as science”.

These questions all have good, obvious answers. Asking what is the use of believing prayers will be granted if you can’t rely on it is of a different type. Prayers are regularly not granted. It’s more like asking what’s the use of trusting that I will win the lottery. It’s perfectly possible that I might win (or would be if I bought a ticket), but there’s no point in relying on it, so there is no point believing it either.

Ok, there are three things here. One – I would like to hear more about the good, obvious answers to the questions I posed. Second, isn’t it true that requests of parents, coach, instructors, loved-ones are not granted? Additionally, what about the millions of people who attest that their prayers were answered? I can say myself that my prayers have been answered and many gifts granted to me by God. Thirdly, God engages with human beings in a personal way – prayer is a personal communication with God. Comparing this with the lottery is an inaccurate analogy. It is posing God as a blind, unintelligent, random process like the luck of lottery. Again, there are millions of people – many highly intelligent, many who are scientists and philosophers who attest to God’s communication to them through prayer. How do you factor this in?

The Catholic method and teaching on prayer is not that every whim of a request or unworthy prayer is granted by God. Prayer requires preparation, attitude and consciousness – we are, after all, communicating with our Creator, the Supreme Being. So, there are time-tested methods for prayer. There are saints who had amazing results from prayer. I don’t see how anyone could talk about the ineffectiveness of prayer without fully studying those who had remarkable claims about prayer. This is all evidence that has to be investigated. Otherwise, you’re dismissing the topic without really caring about it.

Prayer is a one-way street, prayers go out and there is no reply. Sometimes a prayer is “granted” and sometimes not. We never hear about the non-granted prayers because the sailors who prayed to be saved from the storm and weren’t are unable to testify.

Prayer of petition is not the only kind of prayer. There is prayer of repentance, of thanksgiving and of adoration. We do hear of non-granted prayers – how about Christ in the Garden? Let this cup pass from me … But we know that an answer to prayer is sometimes not the granting of a temporal favor but of strength to deal with life.

Prayer does not prevent us from having to die. But it prepares us to have a “happy death”. This is another important thing that atheism cannot do. It provides no hope for those with loved-ones who are dying, or those on their deathbed, and especially those dying with serious sins on their conscience.