Atheist looking for answers

[wjp984]

how can you find an answer to something you can’t prove. I don’t understand how any of you think you can convince an athiest of the existence of God, nor can I undertand how and athiest can convince a beleiver to the contrary. There is just no way to prove it so why try to argue with evidecne in a scientific way. People have done that for years and it goes nowhere.

It is all based on a matter of faith. I love gambling so I like the odds argument best. Beleiveing in God sets the odds in my favor since the penalty for being wrong is going through life with a false hope that at least provided some happiness and comfort in all the time of suffering one must endure. I die and that is the end of it.
However, if I am right then the reward is eternal life

Now what if I play the other side. I willingly choose not to believe. I go through life miserable knowing that is the end of it and each day leads to my ineveiteble death so I get mroe and more depressed as I get older. Not to menton there is no comfort in my already deopressed states in life when I am suffering or feel alone. I realy don’t see the need to help anyone in a meaningful way since what does it matter anyways. I might as well enjpy life’s pleasures to the fullest and live anyway I choose since I am ionly going to be aroudn a short time anyways. Is that really a happy life? I already don’t care for life much as it is but if I didn’t have the comfort of God than I wouldn’t like life at all and wouldn’t see any need to better myself and obtain happiness in ways that actualyl matter.

 

[twf]

Fulfilled prophecy and miracles are two other great pieces of evidence for the existence of God. Someone has already mentioned the Fatima incident (which is a powerful testimony to the supernatural, with 70 000 witnesses). Mary’s appearance in Egypt in the 1960s (see touregypt.net/featurestories/vmary.htm for some info) at Zeitoun was witnessed by roughly a million people (at various points), most of whom were Muslim. Thousands of miracles of various sorts are reported all the time. Many of them are undocumented, and many are, of course, hoaxes (or unexplained phenomena of a scientific nature). Either way many have been examined by scientists and have defied naturalistic explanations. Take, for example, the well documented Lanciano Eucharistic miracle. A priest doubting the real presence of Chrst in the Eucharist was startled to discover, as he celebrated the Divine Liturgy, that the bread had turned visibly into human flesh. Centuries later the flesh is still supernaturally preserved and has been examined by medical experts. (therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html)).

christian-thinktank.com/fabprof0.html provides a detailed discussion on the Messianic prophecies, providing evidence that these were all fullfilled by Jesus. (This is an Evangelical Protestant site, but that is not relevant, for the most part, in this particular case).

I also highly recommend Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ (which examines the historical case for Christ and his claims) and The Case for a Creator. Lee Strobel is a Protestant, but the premise of both these books (that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and that the Judeo-Christian God created the universe) is accepted by all Christians, Catholics included. (It should be noted that Strobel accepts only Scripture as a doctrinal authority, while we Catholics adhere to both Scripture and Tradition).

God bless.

 

[StCsDavid]

Daedalus:

I am an atheist and have been for a while now. I have lost my faith do to a lack evidence and inconsistencies in its founding. I beleive that religion is a means of control and a way for man to deal with death, nothing more. I am only 15 but I grew up in a predominanty cathloc family and yet still managed to come out atheist. I guess I think too much and lack the ability to do something without trying to figure out why. I cannot worship someone who I have never seen or heard from and whos only indication of existence is written in a book whos only claim to legitimacy is written in the book its self!? Basically what I am looking for here is a discussion with people who know something about the faith. So give it your best shot to convert me and I will do my best to be open minded through it all. be prepared to argue though because I live for debate

Not to anger you, but at 15, you haven’t finished developing.

Second, if you were truly athiest, you wouldn’t be seeking to be converted. Oh, you can pawn this off as an intellectual exercise, but deep in your heart you know God exists…it’s the not knowing the “why?” of your own existence that nags at you. Also, you’ve been baptised so you’ve already been claimed by Him. You can choose not to believe it, but the truth is written on your soul and you’ll never be able to fully run away from it.

One more thing, my friend…at 15 it’s easy to believe that your life is all about you. At 25 it’s easy to make that belief a reality. At 35 it’s easy to see that you might have been wrong about what you believed at 15. At 45 it’s easy to see that life is not at all about you. Strive for the wisdom of 45 and you’ll have a much happier life. I didn’t, so I speak with some experience in this regard.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Daedalus,

When you say you are an atheist, do you really mean agnostic?

If you remain steadfast that you are an atheist, would the following statement apply to you?

“There is no God!”

I ask this question again because you did not respond, and also because I think it is a very critical question. A true atheist says “There is not God,” whereas an agnostic allows for the possibility of God.

 

[Daedalus]

TPJCatholic:

Daedalus,

When you say you are an atheist, do you really mean agnostic?

If you remain steadfast that you are an atheist, would the following statement apply to you?

“There is no God!”

Complicated question. I leave room for the possibility of something that governs the universe, but it would be nothing like the god described by the christian religion. It would be more like an advanced alien species or an ascended being.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Daedalus:

With your proposition of advanced alien beings, that’s similar to the Greek gods governing…But that doesn’t satisfy the FIRST CAUSE argument by St. Thomas. If there are these advanced beings that you hold out for, then who created them? Since they are not the sole author of their existance nor brought things to existence, therefore something else did.

in XT.

 

[FCEGM]

Daedalus:

Complicated question. I leave room for the possibility of something that governs the universe, but it would be nothing like the god described by the christian religion. . .

If one is sincerely searching for truth, one doesn’t leave out what may be THE answer because of one’s preconceived - and erroneously formed - prejudice against it.

 

[Ignatius]

Maranatha:

Let’s start with this article. Can you tell me hat part of it you disagree with?

Can You Prove God Exists?

Wow, that is excellent. Thanks for the link.

 

[swnunley]

Daedalus:

I am an atheist and have been for a while now. I have lost my faith do to a lack evidence and inconsistencies in its founding. I beleive that religion is a means of control and a way for man to deal with death, nothing more. I am only 15 but I grew up in a predominanty cathloc family and yet still managed to come out atheist. I guess I think too much and lack the ability to do something without trying to figure out why. I cannot worship someone who I have never seen or heard from and whos only indication of existence is written in a book whos only claim to legitimacy is written in the book its self!? Basically what I am looking for here is a discussion with people who know something about the faith. So give it your best shot to convert me and I will do my best to be open minded through it all. be prepared to argue though because I live for debate

Many atheists whom I’ve met say much the same thing about the inconsistencies of religion, the existance of evil. The question I usually reply with is “Where does love come from? or beauty?”

Also, the existence of God can be deduced from reason, based on the Jesus of the bible. This came from a Protestant, but I think has validity. It goes like this, and I’ll try to be brief.

Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or the thruth.

1. If he was a liar, then all he preached was false, and his apostles and disciples would have realized this and not followed him. His moral teachings would make him a hypocrite, and worse a blasphemer, because he claimed to be God.
2. His claim to be God, in modern psychological science would put him in the megolomaniac category. However, according to the gospel accounts, he never manifested those particular psychosis. In fact, until the time was right, he admonished those who realized he was the Son of God/Messiah not to tell anyone. That doesn’t sound like a lunatic with the ultimate delusion of granduer.
3. We know from non-christian historical accounts of the time that Jesus was indeed a real person. Claiming that he was a legend in the time of his existance would be rediculous, like claiming that JFK was a legend. There are too many people still alive today who knew him as a living breathing person. So it was for the historical accounts of Jesus.
4. That leaves the only possible alternative is that Jesus, and everything he said and did was the truth. Sometimes we have to have faith in things we cannot see, such as Napoleon, or the wind. No one alive has seen either, but we know them to exist. For some of us, myself included, the head sometimes has to lead the heart. Jesus said to Thomas "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who have NOT seen, yet believe.

I don’t know if this helps you, but if you are making an honest search, God will reveal Himself to you in a way that will be special to you. Ask Him to help your unbelief - “God, if you’re really out there, please help me belive.” Keep searching, for “seek and you will find.”

 

[TPJCatholic]

Daedulus,

So, is accurate to say your are an agnostic and not an atheist? Again, I am curious because this is an important point. We all need to know where our true base is. Also, just a point of openness on my side, I do not think that any person can truly be an atheist, so I would greatly appreciate your response.

 

[Pax]

Daedalus:

Complicated question. I leave room for the possibility of something that governs the universe, but it would be nothing like the god described by the christian religion. It would be more like an advanced alien species or an ascended being.

While we cannot “prove” beyond all doubt that God exists, we can by the evidence surmise that He does. I would suggest that you readChristianity for Modern Pagans as well as The Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft.

Kreeft accomplishes something that all atheists need to be aware of. He demonstrates that “every” atheistic argument against the existence of god is logically flawed or self contradictory. He then shows the arguments in favor of God’s existence that are also logically flawed or contradictory. Kreeft then goes on to show that certain arguments in favor of the existence of God are logically sound and cannot be refuted. In and of themselves, none of these irrefutable arguments “proves” the existence of God, but together they make an extremely strong case.

You indicated that the descriptions of God by Christianity are somehow wanting and then immediately floated your own suggestion about “aliens” or an ascendent being. This is laughable and most ironic.

God’s handiwork can be directly observed and known by man, but God, Himself, can neither be directly observed or known by man. It is for these very reasons that you and others gravitate toward atheism. You can see the stuff of creation but you cannot see the creator. Moreover, there is also some underlying reason that you do not want a creator to exist at all. You must first overcome the reason or reasons that you do not want the existence of God to be true, and then you must dispassionately examine all of the data and arguments for and against the existence of God.

When you discover that **all ** of the arguments against the existence of God fail you will see that your position lacks any positive argument to sustain it. Once you are convinced that some arguments for God’s existence actually withstand every test of logic you will then see that believer’s hold the intellectual high ground in the debate.

From there it is merely a small leap of faith made possible by the grace of God. It is a much greater leap of faith not to believe in God and to assume that everything came into existence on its own. The atheist believes that “nothing” generated “everything.” Now that is a huge leap of faith and defies all logic.

 

[trogiah]

Daedalus:

Complicated question. I leave room for the possibility of something that governs the universe, but it would be nothing like the god described by the christian religion. It would be more like an advanced alien species or an ascended being.

I am interested in knowing how God has been described to you by those who profess being Christian.

But regarding the initial question:

If the ultimate statement of faith is to say “I have considered the evidence and have come to the conclusion that yes indeed God does exist” then I would have to say that all religions are absurd. As though somehow I bring God into the world by becoming convinced of God’s existence. If God’s existence depends on my intellectual certainty, that that existence is feeble indeed.

God’s existence does not depend on mine or anyone elses intellectual ability. Rather, God is a name by which people try to address existence.

Do you believe existence exists? Do you believe reality is real?
Most of us could answer yes to those questions based on definition.

A more important question, and one that leads us to the ultimate statement of faith, is can I have some kind of working relationship with this thing called reality.

Certain individuals have, throughout history, claimed a close relationship with this thing called reality. Read the passage of Moses and the burning bush. Moses heard the voice of reality and tried to make that voice audible to others. He came to know that voice as a friend.

The prophets heard that voice and tried to make it audible to others.

Jesus heard that same voice the way an only and most beloved son hears the voice of his father. Jesus’s purpose in life was to make that voice audible to others. And he continues to succeed in that purpose.

The ultimate religious question then is do you strive to listen to the voice of Reality or do you get stuck (like most people) in listening to one small part of reality. I hope you can continue to seek after truth. It seems like you must be doing that some since you are here asking questions.

Just be careful, don’t forget what happened when Daedalus flew to close to the sun…

peace
Jim

 

[Lazerlike42]

trogiah:

I am interested in knowing how God has been described to you by those who profess being Christian.

But regarding the initial question:

If the ultimate statement of faith is to say “I have considered the evidence and have come to the conclusion that yes indeed God does exist” then I would have to say that all religions are absurd. As though somehow I bring God into the world by becoming convinced of God’s existence. If God’s existence depends on my intellectual certainty, that that existence is feeble indeed.

God’s existence does not depend on mine or anyone elses intellectual ability. Rather, God is a name by which people try to address existence.

Do you believe existence exists? Do you believe reality is real?
Most of us could answer yes to those questions based on definition.

A more important question, and one that leads us to the ultimate statement of faith, is can I have some kind of working relationship with this thing called reality.

Certain individuals have, throughout history, claimed a close relationship with this thing called reality. Read the passage of Moses and the burning bush. Moses heard the voice of reality and tried to make that voice audible to others. He came to know that voice as a friend.

The prophets heard that voice and tried to make it audible to others.

Jesus heard that same voice the way an only and most beloved son hears the voice of his father. Jesus’s purpose in life was to make that voice audible to others. And he continues to succeed in that purpose.

The ultimate religious question then is do you strive to listen to the voice of Reality or do you get stuck (like most people) in listening to one small part of reality. I hope you can continue to seek after truth. It seems like you must be doing that some since you are here asking questions.

Just be careful, don’t forget what happened when Daedalus flew to close to the sun…

peace
Jim

How Thomistic.

 

[Contarini]

Daedalus:

Think of what christianity wants us to beleive. Some all-knowing being, while he was sitting in his abyss, decided to make a universe. So he went around poofing everything into existence. sound believable?

Of course it doesn’t if you use words like “poof.” You can make anything sound silly by using silly words.

The relevant question is whether it is more reasonable to postulate that the source of the universe is intelligent or unintelligent. It is surely more reasonable to suppose that intelligence is responsible for the Big Bang and everything that followed from it. You have to go back to some first cause, and you’re left with either a purely random event (which came from where exactly?) or an eternal intelligence. I think the latter is a more reasonable hypothesis. But I don’t claim it’s a sure thing–you will get no proof from me.

Here’s a question if god is so omnipotent

There are no degrees in omnipotence. God either is omnipotent or He isn’t. Although of course we could argue about what omnipotence means.

then wouldn’t he know if, before he even created someone, if any given person was going to heaven or hell.

Strictly speaking, this is a question of omniscience, not omnipotence. But the two go together, especially if we agree with St. Thomas Aquinas that God’s knowledge is causative. I.e., God doesn’t know things because they happen–things happen because God knows them.

This is indeed the single most difficult problem for traditional theism. There are those who believe that God does not control, or even know, the results of free actions. I don’t hold that view myself. I live with the paradox. This is the single strongest reason not to believe in God–that God creates a world in which some people choose evil (and as far as we can tell, some of them persist in evil to the end, though we can always hope that this is not so). If this is your reason not to believe in God, then it’s a darned good one. In that case, let me give you one piece of advice. Just as I must not let my faith in God remain a merely intellectual matter, but must strive to become more like God–just so I urge you not to let your atheism become an excuse for cynicism or selfishness. If there is a God–a living Being of perfect goodness and wisdom–then I am responsible for becoming more like the God in whom I believe. If there is no such God, then you are responsible for becoming like the God in whom you do not believe. If wisdom and love are not found in an eternal, perfect being, let them at least be found in you.

Personally, I find it both more reasonable and more satisfying to believe that my desire for goodness and wisdom comes from an eternal, living source. I may be wrong, but I can live with that. You have to decide whether you can live without God, without betraying your own best impulses. I’m not telling you that you can’t–I can’t, but that might just be my weakness. I’m telling you that in the end intellectual certainty about ultimate reality is going to elude us, and we have to give our moral and spiritual intuitions a voice as well.

Here’s a clearer way of putting it, perhaps. If you disbelieve in God because your moral sense is revolted by the idea of God creating people who choose evil, then you yourself need to live in a way that accords with that same moral sense. And similarly, if I claim that my moral sense leads me to God, I need to live accordingly. Otherwise we are both hypocrites.

 

[Contarini]

How about the fact that whichever of the 60 some versions of the bible (but of course they all the original) you chose to beleive they all contradict themselves.

I’m not sure what you mean by “60 some versions.” Do you mean translations? But you say that they are all the original. Do you mean manuscript traditions (more an issue for the NT than the Old)?

such as the bible teaches that god is the only god there is no others and that the one god the bible mentions created everything and the entire universe. Although on the otherhand, the bible states that god is a very Jealous God and doesn’t like people worshiping other gods. Now if there is only one god why would that god be jealous of people worshiping a non existant god??

Of course a loving God would not want people to worship beings that don’t exist. We become like what we worship. If we worship what is nothing, we will be filled with nothingness. You can find this in Psalm 115.

However, it is quite possible that other “gods” to exist–I think that’s the plain sense of Scripture as a whole, and it’s a more reasonable supposition. These other “gods” may be evil beings (demons), in which case of course God would not want us to worship them. Or they may be lesser beings of some sort, perhaps not fully evil (this is not a traditional Christian view, but it’s one that I speculate about). But still, for us to render them the ultimate homage that belongs to God is going to harm us and anger God.

God created us for Himself. If we stop short of anything less, we are betraying both God and ourselves.

Another one that comes to mind, god created man and loves man, but says man deserves nothing but death and eternal hell because he is born with sin.

I don’t think the word “deserve” is very meaningful when applied to our relationship to God. The result of the way we live without God is death and eternal hell. But God did not make us that way.

Why would a god that created man create him with sin?

That is not the Christian teaching.

Why set him up for a fall

The better way to put that is “Why create a human being who was going to sin.” God didn’t do anything to cause us to sin. But He did create human beings whom He knew would sin. And that is, as I said, a terrifying paradox.

with only one option “Believe in me or perish”?

Not to believe in the living God is to perish. That should be obvious.

also I have some questions, Is it the christian beleif that atheist are nothing but pure evil?

It’s not my belief.

Do you beleive that because the atheists will be your “enemy” when the apocolypse rolls around, we might as well count them as enemies now?

I don’t know what any individual atheist will do at the Last Day. That is none of my business.

If atheists are my enemies (not particularly the way I think of it), then I’m commanded to love them, obviously.

And if you had a close friend who one day decided he was atheist, would you then disown that friend?

Certainly not. That would be very wicked–far more wicked than atheism (if atheism is wicked, which depends on the reasons why it is embraced–in some circumstances becoming an atheist might be a step toward God).

Edwin

 

[MJZ]

The fact the you recognize a God to either believe in or not is a good start. Try to realize that beyond the Bible is a relationship in Faith, a gift from God, and this gift must be spiritualy discerned before it can be intellectually discerned. You will be in my prayers.

 

[Liberian]

Daedalus:

I am an atheist and have been for a while now. I have lost my faith do to a lack evidence and inconsistencies in its founding. I beleive that religion is a means of control and a way for man to deal with death, nothing more. I am only 15 but I grew up in a predominanty cathloc family and yet still managed to come out atheist. I guess I think too much and lack the ability to do something without trying to figure out why. I cannot worship someone who I have never seen or heard from and whos only indication of existence is written in a book whos only claim to legitimacy is written in the book its self!? Basically what I am looking for here is a discussion with people who know something about the faith. So give it your best shot to convert me and I will do my best to be open minded through it all. be prepared to argue though because I live for debate

Daedalus,

I’d like to offer you a few points to ponder:

(1) Jesus’ burial shroud is stored in a church in Turin, Italy. There is an image on it of a crucified man, and there is no known way for that image to have been put there. The technology does not exist today and it certainly did not exist during the Middle Ages.

(2) Natural atheism–the belief that there is nothing beyond the physical universe–is inconsistent with itself. If it is true, then the only cause for our thoughts and ideas is the motions of the atoms inside our brains. Any idea of “truth” goes out the window–including the truth of natural atheism.

(3) In 1917, the “miracle of the sun” was witnessed by some 72,000 people in Fatima, Portugal–including atheists, journalists, and university professors who had gone there for the express purpose of proving that it would not happen.

(4) Kurt Godel proved in his incompleteness theorem that there are statements that are mathematically true which cannot be proven true. If this is true in mathematics, which stands and falls by proof, how much more is it true in real life?

• Liberian

 

[steveandersen]

Daedalus:

I am an atheist and have been for a while now. I have lost my faith do to a lack evidence and inconsistencies in its founding.

Please provide examples. It is tough to address generalized concerns.
People have been studying these texts for millennia. The inconsistencies (or perceived inconsistencies) are nothing new.

I guess my questions for you are not only what specifically are the inconsistencies but also why do you think that they are important for belief or non-belief?

Daedalus:

I beleive that religion is a means of control and a way for man to deal with death, nothing more.

Are these goals in and of themselves objectionable?
What do you mean by control?
One of the purposes of a religion is to tell its followers how to live a good life.
Civil governments after all also have rules and regulations for daily life…is that a control you object to?
Do you think that groups have the right to establish rules for their members?

Daedalus:

I am only 15 but I grew up in a predominanty cathloc family and yet still managed to come out atheist.

Doubts and crises of faith are part of the human condition. The stories of the lives of the Saints are full of folks who took a meandering path to the Church.
It is not unusual for someone who has grown up and begun forming his own opinions, to look critically at the world he has born into.

Daedalus:

I guess I think too much and lack the ability to do something without trying to figure out why.

Nothing wrong with that it is also part of the human condition.
Of course there are extremes….not thinking things through can be just as bad as “analysis paralysis”

Daedalus:

I cannot worship someone who I have never seen or heard from

well if you saw and heard then it wouldn’t be much of a faith now would it?

Daedalus:

and whos only indication of existence is written in a book whos only claim to legitimacy is written in the book its self!?

You’re putting the cart before the horse there. Much as the Protestants don’t like to admit it, there was a Church before there was a book. You’re fortunate in that Catholics also have Tradition.

I guess on a more prosaic level God doesn’t hand out writing commissions so how do you tell inspired writing from non-inspired ones? The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Does this beg the question? Yes, sortta. But religion doesn’t have to follow the rules of Logic.

Daedalus:

Basically what I am looking for here is a discussion with people who know something about the faith. So give it your best shot to convert me and I will do my best to be open minded through it all. be prepared to argue though because I live for debate

Debate is a useful tool, but that’s all it is.
I’m not even sure what you want to debate. Ultimately if you keep asking “why” and “how come” you’ll come to loggerheads with a person of faith because they will simply have to say “because a believe it” or “I don’t know”. Then what are you going to do? You can’t debate that someone believes something.

Let’s start with the basics. AFAIK, All modern sophisticated religions are based on the belief that there is a non-naturalistic component of human existence i.e. a soul. After that assumption, most all the details of those relgions are directed to the care, maintenance, and ultimate fate of that soul.

Since the soul is non-naturalistic there can be no physical proof for it. The proofs are philosophical and theological. Those types of proofs are not rigorous like mathematical proofs.

To have a debate we will have to agree on what the assumptions are.

So, as an atheist, do you know/believe that you are nothing more than biochemistry and that when you die it’s lights outs; say good bye; that’s all she wrote; the big chill; it’s time for Soylent Green?

And if that is what you believe then how does that impact on the way you treat others and yourself?

 

[trogiah]

Lazerlike42:

How Thomistic.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing to be “Thomistic”?

-Jim