Atheist Sez, Catholic Sez

[Randy_Carson]

The purpose of this thread is to collect solid answers to common atheist arguments. Here’s an example:

**ATHEIST SEZ: **We can’t trust books of the New Testament because their authors were Christians, and therefore, they cannot be trusted to tell the truth about Jesus reliably.

CATHOLIC SEZ:

1. 
   *]This objection assumes that people with biases cannot report accurately on what they have heard and seen. This is not automatically true.
   *]Furthermore, scholars who study the New Testament as historical documents are aware that everyone has biases, and they take this into account when the source materials are being studied. Frequently, it is possible to identify passages which appear contain bias which can be separated from those passages which can be retained as historically reliable.
   *]Proponents of this argument frequently overlook their own biases against Christianity.
   *]Ultimately this argument fails because it commits the Genetic Fallacy which occurs when we refuse to consider the strength of an argument simply because of our prejudices against its source.
   
   Now, it’s your turn. Got a good response to a common objection?

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

The Gospels feature quite a few passages where Jesus gets annoyed, angry, and snaps at His followers and others. Why include all that if the Gospels were supposed to serve as propaganda? And why portray the Apostles as the clueless loons they so often were?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Gospels feature quite a few passages where Jesus gets annoyed, angry, and snaps at His followers and others. Why include all that if the Gospels were supposed to serve as propaganda? And why portray the Apostles as the clueless loons they so often were?

Right. This is is known as the Criterion of Embarrassment. The authors of the gospels included details that might be considered embarrassing (such as Peter’s denial of the Lord or his sinking into the water when Jesus called him out of the boat) because an honest account of the story required that the unflattering detail be included.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Atheists say the New Testament was formed from the Old Testament books, by quoting the psalms and prophets and making them “fit” the story of Jesus, rather than the other way around as the Christians say that the Old Testament was prophetic.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

When the New Testament books were written, there were many thousands of people alive who had met, and heard, Christ, Mary, and Joseph personally. It would have been very risky for the authors to just invent things.

 

[jaimeleglise]

The historian, Josephus writes about the existence of Jesus. As said before, there were hundreds of eye-witnesses to His miracles and other events in His life. They weren’t “biased”, they had seen and heard.

His miracles continue today. “Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe”.

 

[JewishCatholic]

Why does god allow such terrible atrocites to happen is a common arguement i hear.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The proof is in the pudding. 1900 years of people trusting the Gospels amid persecution. 1900 years of questions and scrutiny regarding them, still more and more convert.

Alas, atheists seem to have trouble thinking along these lines.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Arguments against the ‘First Cause’ proof inevitably end up along the lines of ‘it is the nature of matter to exist’ – because otherwise where did that matter COME FROM?

The laws of physics dictate that something must come of something. New matter does not spring into existence, except from something already existing, even if that something is only energy.

But – they absolutely refuse to entertain the explanation that God Himself is existence itself. His nature IS to exist. He couldn’t do anything else.

I find it easier to accept a being whose nature is to exist, than this mysterious imperative of matter to exist, without explanation.

 

[Solmyr]

Try this one on for size.

Atheists do not accept the bible for exactly the same reason that you discard the validity of the testimonials about Mohammed’s winged horse, or the golden plates of John Smith… or any of the “sacred” books of any other religion.

The only difference between atheists and believers that we lack the belief in ONE MORE god than you do. In other words you disbelieve in “N” gods, while we disbelieve in “N + 1” gods. But the reason for this lack of belief is exactly the same for you and for us. We all find the purported evidence lacking in convincing value.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Try this one on for size.

Atheists do not accept the bible for exactly the same reason that you discard the validity of the testimonials about Mohammed’s winged horse, or the golden plates of John Smith… or any of the “sacred” books of any other religion.

The only difference between atheists and believers that we lack the belief in ONE MORE god than you do. In other words you disbelieve in “N” gods, while we disbelieve in “N + 1” gods. But the reason for this lack of belief is exactly the same for you and for us. We all find the purported evidence lacking in convincing value.

Is that how it works? Then I am a bachelor with respect to all women except my wife. You REAL bachelor’s just go one woman more than I do. But I am free to pursue all the others, aren’t I?

MAYBE what really happens in life is that we use our intellect and our reasoning to evaluate the various claims that we hear regarding everything from mouthwash to political candidates to religions, and we determine which of the claims seems most believable or plausible.

So, it is entirely possible that the theist has examined the claims of numerous religions and determined that one has more merit than the rest. This would be equally true for the Muslim, the Mormon, and the Catholic.

What they have in common is their belief that A god exists; the rest is just sorting out the specific “flavor” to be chosen.

The atheist is not doing this. He is not merely finding flaws with every version of god offered by the various religious groups; he is rejecting the idea that any god exists.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Try this one on for size.

Atheists do not accept the bible for exactly the same reason that you discard the validity of the testimonials about Mohammed’s winged horse, or the golden plates of John Smith… or any of the “sacred” books of any other religion.

The only difference between atheists and believers that we lack the belief in ONE MORE god than you do. In other words you disbelieve in “N” gods, while we disbelieve in “N + 1” gods. But the reason for this lack of belief is exactly the same for you and for us. We all find the purported evidence lacking in convincing value.

Slightly longer version:

Is that how it works? Then I am a bachelor with respect to all women except my wife. REAL bachelor’s just go one woman more than I do. But I am free to pursue all the others just like them, right? :nope:

Does the existence of counterfeit money mean that that there is no such thing as REAL money? Hardly. We hold fast to the true currency while keeping an eye out for that which is fake.

What really happens in life is that we use our intellect and our reasoning to evaluate the various claims that we hear regarding everything from mouthwash to political candidates to religions, and we determine which of the claims seems most believable or plausible.

So, it is entirely possible that the theist has examined the claims of numerous religions and determined that one has more merit than the rest. This could be equally true for the Muslim, the Mormon, and the Catholic.

What theists have in common is their belief that A god exists; the rest is just sorting out the specific “flavor” of god that we choose to follow.

The atheist is not doing this. Not only does he reject all known flavors of ice cream, he denies that ice cream even exists. He is not merely finding flaws with every version of god offered by the various religious groups; he is rejecting the idea that any god exists at all.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Try this one on for size.

Atheists do not accept the bible for exactly the same reason that you discard the validity of the testimonials about Mohammed’s winged horse, or the golden plates of John Smith… or any of the “sacred” books of any other religion.

Not exactly. One can not reject their own experience of God or their own reasoning to discern between things.

The only difference between atheists and believers that we lack the belief in ONE MORE god than you do. In other words you disbelieve in “N” gods, while we disbelieve in “N + 1” gods. But the reason for this lack of belief is exactly the same for you and for us. We all find the purported evidence lacking in convincing value.

Not exactly. We believe in the supernatural. Atheists reject all supernatural. It is completely different. It’s not about numbers, but about being open to the supernatural or not. But, just because one is open to it does not mean he should not use his reason and discernment to judge what is true. Just because one is open to political ideas does not mean he is open to all political ideas. Or just because a man is open to the idea of just war does not mean he should be open to unjust war. Similarly if a man is open to religion does not mean he must accept all religions as equally valid. Or in the case of the atheist as equally untrue.

 

[Solmyr]

The atheist is not doing this. Not only does he reject all known flavors of ice cream, he denies that ice cream even exists. He is not merely finding flaws with every version of god offered by the various religious groups; he is rejecting the idea that any god exists at all.

Not a good analogy. If someone does not believe in ice-creams, go and buy a cone and SHOVE it in his face. Go forth and demonstrate the existence of any god.

Good luck.

 

[Solmyr]

One can not reject their own experience of God…

We believe in the supernatural. Atheists reject all supernatural.

Give us evidence of some supernatural. The problem is that you cannot, since the supernatural is - by your OWN definition - outside the realm of something one can experience. So, if someone asserts that she “experienced” some supernatural, she contradicts her own definition… and how can we trust someone who is that irrational?

 

[SilverShadow22]

The supernatural is NOT outside the realm of what we can experience – not all the time. It breaks through often enough for most people to accept it.

 

[Solmyr]

The supernatural is NOT outside the realm of what we can experience – not all the time. It breaks through often enough for most people to accept it.

That is not helpful. We do not have any “perceptors” to experience the supernatural directly. If the supernatural “breaks through” (as you say), it must become natural, so we can perceive it. So all you have is something looks “natural” and there is no way to verify if it is not just a figment of your imagination.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Give us evidence of some supernatural. The problem is that you cannot, since the supernatural is - by your OWN definition - outside the realm of something one can experience. So, if someone asserts that she “experienced” some supernatural, she contradicts her own definition… and how can we trust someone who is that irrational?

Miracles, for example.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Atheists say the New Testament was formed from the Old Testament books, by quoting the psalms and prophets and making them “fit” the story of Jesus, rather than the other way around as the Christians say that the Old Testament was prophetic.

Atheists aren’t the only ones who hold that opinion. For example, meet Thomas L. Brodie, Catholic priest, bible scholar, co-founder and former director of the Dominican Biblical Centre, Limerick, Ireland.

When the New Testament books were written, there were many thousands of people alive who had met, and heard, Christ, Mary, and Joseph personally. It would have been very risky for the authors to just invent things.

As I understand it, most bible scholars think that Mark’s gospel was written first in about AD 65 or so in a location other than Palestine. If those things are true, then I don’t see how thousands of people who might still be alive and who might have known Jesus, Mary and Joseph would have even known what had been written about them. Bear in mind too that all of the NT books likely didn’t come into wide circulation until many years – perhaps even decades – after they were first written.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not a good analogy. If someone does not believe in ice-creams, go and buy a cone and SHOVE it in his face. Go forth and demonstrate the existence of any god.

Good luck.

My “ice cream” analogy was a response to your contention that you simply believe in one less God than theists do. I have no intention of shoving ANYTHING - including ice cream or God - in your face, but are you implying that if I did provide you with sufficient reasons to believe in God, you would do so?

Asking for evidence is not the same as denying that any exists, and all you’ve done is to move the goalposts.