Atheists: Why aren't you theists?

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…Yes. The board in general has, if anything, made me more sure of my position. I figure by now about every major Catholic argument has been brought to bear on it multiple times and I have not found it wanting (which repetitive arguing is the primary reason for my dislike of Pascal’s Wager; it is the plastic cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics).

I LOVE that image…!!

“Plastic Cocktail Saber in the arsenal”… great…!! Heh he he he…

Once you come to the realization that it ALL hinges on first believing and THEN reasoning, all the arguments on both sides evaporate into clever words meant to apply the rules of one game to the play of a totally different game.

I, personally, utterly disregard all “logical” arguments for anything religious out of hand.

I, personally, believe totally in my faith, as I’ve seen it be amazingly powerful and yet totally invisible to anyone who didn’t understand the basics of it.

I very much enjoy your company, Midath. Ethical atheists are a pleasure to converse with, and great whetstones to sharpen myself on,… in fact, it’s people precisely like yourself that “made me Catholic” from being a die-hard deist, after an extended time as a polytheist, preceeded by being a cheerful atheist.

Thanks again…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Mirdath]

How can the God who is love (all good), and all powerful possibly be either petty, vengeful or a “godlet”?

Your non-understanding of what you’re talking about has apparently brought you to anger.

I’m not misunderstanding anything. If a god demands I worship and believe while having created me unable to do either, he is not all-loving or all-good or indeed worthy of worship. Since the Christian God is (generally) not considered to be like that, not pretending to believe probably won’t do me any harm. And that’s all it’d be – pretending.

That is precisely what He does do. It’s in the catechism. If you need help finding the references, let me know.

I know it quite well – I’ve schooled you in the Catechism before, remember?

You have faith,… in your “faith”,… which is some non-God based faith.

I do not have faith in the supernatural one way or the other. I simply do not know God, and consider myself probably unable to.

Once you come to the realization that it ALL hinges on first believing and THEN reasoning, all the arguments on both sides evaporate into clever words meant to apply the rules of one game to the play of a totally different game.

Cognitive dissonance, fun times. Let’s say I realize that, hm? However, I cannot make that jump into belief and start reasoning things out after; I reason first. To abandon that in favor of blind trust in something I do not know even exists is foolhardy. It’s pretty much up to God, I guess.

 

[Nick]

Then best of luck to him or her.

That is very scary.

What do I have to lose? That a petty, vengeful godlet would condemn me to eternal separation from him merely because of my innate inability – that he designed – to perceive him? I would not want to be near such a monster. If God is as fair, loving, and merciful as Christians claim, I’d hope he’d look first to my honest attempt to live as I think virtuously and in the service of others, and to my lack in certain faculties last.

Mirdath, I get the sense that I have upset you here. If that is the case I am truly sorry. Please understand that it was not my intention to anger you but to point out potential consequences.

I do not think it would be petty nor vengeful of God to allow you to remain seperate from Him for all eternity if that is what you want, and have chosen. I also believe that if you have made as genuine and complete effort as you are capable of to be conformed to God and the truth, and still do not believe, that it is possible that your culpability might in some way be mitigated. But would you not want to be absolutely certain that you have made the best effort possible? Please Mirdath, do not think that I am judging you. I have no way to know your culapibility before God.

‘Make an effort to believe’, ‘try to believe’… sorry, that just doesn’t work. You have faith or you don’t. I cannot grow taller by sheer force of will; how much harder would it be to suddenly acquire true faith by that method?

For man it would be impossible, but all things are possible for God.

His grace will help you if you are willing to make the effort.

Yes. The board in general has, if anything, made me more sure of my position. I figure by now about every major Catholic argument has been brought to bear on it multiple times and I have not found it wanting (which repetitive arguing is the primary reason for my dislike of Pascal’s Wager; it is the plastic cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics).

If God wanted me to convert by internet proselytizing, he pretty obviously didn’t want it very much

Then why are you still here? (Please, I am not saying that I want you to leave) But what benefit do you get from arguing with hopelessly faithful Catholics?

 

[Mirdath]

That is very scary.

It’s how Rome was founded – by people who couldn’t work with the principles of established society and moved on to make their own. Not particularly scary.

Mirdath, I get the sense that I have upset you here. If that is the case I am truly sorry. Please understand that it was not my intention to anger you but to point out potential consequences.

Nah, I’m not upset – I know quite well that what I described is not the usual Christian vision of God Some people, however, like to think that just because they’re religious they’re in the exclusive club going on the ‘up’ elevator. If God is all-loving, would he not look past the inability of some people to see him, just as he overlooks the inability of others to see anything but him? That’s the impression I get from the New Testament.

I do not think it would be petty nor vengeful of God to allow you to remain seperate from Him for all eternity if that is what you want, and have chosen. I also believe that if you have made as genuine and complete effort as you are capable of to be conformed to God and the truth, and still do not believe, that it is possible that your culpability might in some way be mitigated.

Those who don’t believe in God are not choosing to remain separate. It is those who believe and hate God who do; we non-theists, I’d say, qualify for invincible ignorance. If we cannot know God, how could we strive to be separate?

For man it would be impossible, but all things are possible for God.

His grace will help you if you are willing to make the effort.

I remain open to the possibility; but so far, nothing.

Then why are you still here? (Please, I am not saying that I want you to leave) But what benefit do you get from arguing with hopelessly faithful Catholics?

Because it’s loads and loads of fun And I am genuinely curious as to what having faith is like.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*How can the God who is love (all good), and all powerful possibly be either petty, vengeful or a “godlet”?

Your non-understanding of what you’re talking about has apparently brought you to anger.*

I’m not misunderstanding anything. If a god demands I worship and believe while having created me unable to do either, he is not all-loving or all-good or indeed worthy of worship.

Then, silly, you’ve been talking with the wrong god.

And you’re correct,… the one you think you’ve been talking with, which has been fronted as God, by you-know-whom, is in fact NOT worthy of beign called God.

Since the Christian God is (generally) not considered to be like that, not pretending to believe probably won’t do me any harm. And that’s all it’d be – pretending.

That’s fine. I don’t want you to pretend. I want you to understand, and you are not making it easy to make my understanding understandable to you. It goes to your motives. Are you in fact interested in understanding (while not necessarily agreeing with) my understanding, or are you being “thick” simply to safeguard your chosen beliefs?

Either is your right, but one might be more “educational” than the other.

Quote:
That is precisely what He does do. It’s in the catechism. If you need help finding the references, let me know.

I know it quite well – I’ve schooled you in the Catechism before, remember?

Then why the fleepchukle don’t you find what you say your looking for?

Quote:
You have faith,… in your “faith”,… which is some non-God based faith.

I do not have faith in the supernatural one way or the other. I simply do not know God, and consider myself probably unable to.

You have faith in you. That is a good thing, to a point.

The problem is that there are some things that even you can’t handle. Those things belong in the care of God.

You know that. It all that allows you to function as a “work-a-day” human being,… but you don’t call it “giving God what is His”. You call it something else.

What you have as a faith, I call idolatry, but a “functional idolatry” which is only “harmful” in that it makes you content to being “existentially comfortable”, and thereby unwilling to accept God’s help.

Your “faith” denies God, even by agnosticizing about Him, because you’re comfortable with the way things are with you.

That’s cool. Still good to talk to 'ya out there…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Mirdath]

Then, silly, you’ve been talking with the wrong god.

I was trying to make a point about salvation and belief, not misrepresent the Christian God. We’re talking across each other

I cannot speak about such things as ‘salvation and belief’ in the senses that some would have them, but I can call a spade a shovel, simple soul that I am.

And also, mahalo!

 

[Suat]

Sure. When you are utterly stumped.

I am utterly stumped quite often, a hazard of being alive, I suppose. Never once have I turned to God since I stopped believing. The success rate for figuring out the problem is about the same as before, perhaps higher since I actively look for a solution now.

Your doubt that God exists nullifies the possibility that you’ll see signs and indicators of God, therefore, if you DO see signs of God, it will be because you’ve given up NOT believing in Him in favor of believing in Him.

Well, I am incapable of doing this without the aforementioned signs or indications.

As usual, the “a-theist” part of you has it backwards. You need satisfied reason (a sign) before you’ll have faith (belief), which negates the necessity of faith before you can HAVE faith.

I agree with this. I do not believe in God because I am not capable of having faith.

Signs of God: Any observation that answers any need that you present by your person.

(( What does that mean? It means any “answer” you get that makes more clear your need for help in some regard. ))

Still confused.

I don’t know what your requirments for belief are, but I’d wager that they might be rather “materialistic”.

I am actually quite happy materialistically .

And that would be confirmation of your faith. That God does not exist because He’s unnecessary.

Since you can’t know whether the “same thing would have happened” in your scenario, you take it on FAITH that it would have been the same, and come to the correct conclusion based on your faith that “God doesn’t exist because He doesn’t exist.”

Perhaps, although most things are a pretty statistical process. It would have to be something extraordinary in order for me to rationalize it not have happening without my belief in God.

He does, actually, otherwise you’d be “something else”, because you choose to be one.

That is nice, do I still get to go to hell? According to Catholic beliefs, I fit all the requirements to head straight there .

But He only wants you to be an atheist as long as you don’t need Him, and He’s rather hoping, as always, that you’ll eventually find that you do need Him, even though you’re very comfortable being without Him at the moment.

Being all-powerful, if he wants me to believe, then he can make that sort of situation happen.

 

[MerryAtheist]

my dislike of Pascal’s Wager; it is the plastic cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics

Nice!

Can I steal that line?

 

[Mirdath]

Nice!

Can I steal that line?

Thanks! Go right ahead

 

[Nick]

I think that I have come to the conclusion that I am not smart enough to put forth and defend a logical proof for God’s existence. I am not saying that one is not possible, its just I am not smart enough to think of it and then properly defend it. I think that a much more likely way to help an atheist convert is just to live an absolutely saintly and perfectly holy life so that the atheist can have a direct and tangible experience of God’s infinite love. If every Catholic lived as Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, Pope John Paull II, etc., etc., there would be a lot less, if not zero, atheists in the world. If every atheist was constantly surrounded and forced to interact with genuine Saints then there is no way they could willfully choose to not recognize and live with the source of that absolute joy and love of the Saints.

 

[whatever]

I think that I have come to the conclusion that I am not smart enough to put forth and defend a logical proof for God’s existence. I am not saying that one is not possible, its just I am not smart enough to think of it and then properly defend it. I think that a much more likely way to help an atheist convert…

First, some atheists enjoy debating theists, but it doesn’t follow that they’re open to conversion.

Second, are you open to de-conversion? If you are not, why should atheists engage you on terms where you ask everything but offer nothing?

Third, “help to convert” sounds rather condescending. Would you agree that Catholics need help deconverting?

 

[Nick]

First, some atheists enjoy debating theists, but it doesn’t follow that they’re open to conversion.

Maybe. But it is my opinion that if atheists were in constant contact with genuine Saints that they would eventually become open to conversion.

Second, are you open to de-conversion?

Nope. Sorry, but I have faith remember, and my faith cannot be proven wrong. Just curious though, why would you be interested in my de-converting? What would you gain personally from such a thing?

If you are not, why should atheists engage you on terms where you ask everything but offer nothing?

Because you cannot offer me anything greater than what I already have. Faith, hope for eternal blessedness, and a participation in the divine love.

Third, “help to convert” sounds rather condescending.

I am sorry you feel that way.

Would you agree that Catholics need help deconverting?

No.

 

[Mirdath]

Maybe. But it is my opinion that if atheists were in constant contact with genuine Saints that they would eventually become open to conversion.

True Christian example is pretty much the best, if not only, way to do it. You can’t really debate the faith into someone; and if you set an example by your life, even if you don’t inspire a single conversion you’re still doing a lot of good.

Nope. Sorry, but I have faith remember, and my faith cannot be proven wrong. Just curious though, why would you be interested in my de-converting? What would you gain personally from such a thing?

It’s more a spirit of fairness If we are expected to be open to conversion, should we not be able to expect the same in return? Gaze too long into the abyss and all that.

 

[whatever]

Maybe. But it is my opinion that if atheists were in constant contact with genuine Saints that they would eventually become open to conversion.

I doubt it. The question is what makes a “saint” a “saint” and you face an uphill battle to proving that religious belief is necessary for “saintlyness”.

Nope. Sorry, but I have faith remember, and my faith cannot be proven wrong. Just curious though, why would you be interested in my de-converting? What would you gain personally from such a thing?

For the record, I couldn’t care less if you deconvert or not.

My point isn’t about your or anybody else’s deconversion, but about reciprocity and empathy. You yourself aren’t open to (de)conversion and declare yourself impervious to reason or argument, yet you proselytize and start from the premise that somebody who doesn’t share your belief must put their own beliefs on the line and must listen to the arguments you present. Do you see what’s wrong with this scenario?

Because you cannot offer me anything greater than what I already have. Faith, hope for eternal blessedness, and a participation in the divine love.

As above, you completely misunderstand. You are asking atheists to change their belief system, yet you yourself summarily reject any equitable attempt to have them change yours. I ask again – why should they engage you on these terms?

From the atheist point of view, you come across as a snake oil salesman…

I am sorry you feel that way.

And that is condescending, too.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Sure. When you are utterly stumped.
I am utterly stumped quite often, a hazard of being alive, I suppose. Never once have I turned to God since I stopped believing. The success rate for figuring out the problem is about the same as before, perhaps higher since I actively look for a solution now.

That’s fine… and if you DIDN’T actively look for a solution before giving up on God, then you might want to ask yourself why you would have done that.

God doesn’t replace inquiry, reason, and action. He augments it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Your doubt that God exists nullifies the possibility that you’ll see signs and indicators of God, therefore, if you DO see signs of God, it will be because you’ve given up NOT believing in Him in favor of believing in Him.
Well, I am incapable of doing this without the aforementioned signs or indications.

So you ARE capable of seeing the “signs and indicators” of God?

Please clarify what it is that you ARE capable of doing without the “aforementioned signs or indications”. Thanks in advance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

As usual, the “a-theist” part of you has it backwards. You need satisfied reason (a sign) before you’ll have faith (belief), which negates the necessity of faith before you can HAVE faith.
I agree with this. I do not believe in God because I am not capable of having faith.

Heh he he… The fact that you “have faith” that the result of prayer is exactly equivalent to the result of not-prayer, which you MUST take on faith as you can’t possibly test that hypothesis, tells me that you are capable of “faith”.

It’s just that your faith prohibits your having faith in God, for obvious reasons (because believing in God requires putting “belief” before “reason”, which is unacceptable to you).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Signs of God: Any observation that answers any need that you present by your person.

(( What does that mean? It means any “answer” you get that makes more clear your need for help in some regard. ))
Still confused.

Thought you might be. Heh he he…

When you are “in need”, to the point of being “utterly stumped”, you must “let your mind (yourself) rest (so as to ‘freewheel’)”, so that it can be “inspired” with “new insight”, which result is the “answer” from God.

You would call this “processing”, probably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

*I don’t know what your requirments for belief are, but I’d wager that they might be rather “materialistic”. *
I am actually quite happy materialistically.

No doubt,… which is why you have no need of God.

That is the point of the old trusty phrase, “…it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

…continued below–>

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*And that would be confirmation of your faith. That God does not exist because He’s unnecessary.

Since you can’t know whether the “same thing would have happened” in your scenario, you take it on FAITH that it would have been the same, and come to the correct conclusion based on your faith that “God doesn’t exist because He doesn’t exist.”*

Perhaps, although most things are a pretty statistical process. It would have to be something extraordinary in order for me to rationalize it not have happening without my belief in God.

Nothing is contingent on your belief in God, except the results of your belief in God, which you can’t see (are actually prohibited frm seeing) unless you DO believe in God.

Is that the perfect “delusional” circular logic of the religious “attitude”, or what?

That would be precisely what you see of the religious, which is a perfectly rational observational conclusion.

The problem is that it’s ALSO perfectly true (that there IS a result for the religious person), and the result obtained by the religious person, which you can’t see, is still there, and is a REAL result which has an effect on the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
He does, actually, otherwise you’d be “something else”, because you choose to be one.

That is nice, do I still get to go to hell? According to Catholic beliefs, I fit all the requirements to head straight there .

That’s up to God, not ANY earthly authority.

But,… the odds are that you will, tlthough, depending on the inverse of how hard you try to rationalize your way OUT of hell, you might just get to play in purgatory for a bit.

The point is that you should try to understand the “contact points” between your “ethical philosophy” and “religion” (preferably the most correct one), such that you best “arm” yourself against “error”, which in my terms is the “temptation to (at least) disobey natural law”, or in your terms “temptation to be unethical”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
But He only wants you to be an atheist as long as you don’t need Him, and He’s rather hoping, as always, that you’ll eventually find that you do need Him, even though you’re very comfortable being without Him at the moment.

Being all-powerful, if he wants me to believe, then he can make that sort of situation happen.

Do you consider yourself a “robot”?

Neither does God. God **can **do anything, and one of the things that He’s specifically said He will do is to not violate your free will.

So,… using that “delusional circular logic” that we all know and love so much, you’re stuck with making your own choice as to your fate.

The funny thing is that He does actually “make that sort of thing happen” constantly, but people have varying degrees of “sensitivity” to His “prompting”.

Anywho,… very nice talking with you.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Suat]

Keikiolu,
I have read your response and I have a few questions:

• Would my life be any different if I did believe in God than it is now? By different I really mean better. From what you have written, I cannot see that anything will change. Instead it seems as though you are saying that if I did believe in God then I would simply ascribe everything good that happens in my life to works of God, with no observable change from before I began believing. To me, that would mean that God does not interfere with human lives, not that I have no need for him.
• I cannot see signs and indications of God unless I know what to look for. Do you have any examples of signs and indications of God so that I know what to look for?
• I do not think that God showing me evidence that he exists, or tweaking the circumstances to give me some signs, negates my free will anymore than the vast amount of evidence for evolution negates creationists free will. They still manage not to accept evolution and revert to prehistoric understandings of the universe. Cognitive dissonance. Personally, if I am destined to hell anyway, then I would like to think that I chose to be there .

That said, if God showing me any signs or indications of his existence negates my free will, then him interacting in any way with the natural world negates free will. Ergo, it is the same as if he did not exist in the first place.

Nothing is contingent on your belief in God, except the results of your belief in God, which you can’t see (are actually prohibited frm seeing) unless you DO believe in God.

Is that the perfect “delusional” circular logic of the religious “attitude”, or what?

Yes, I would not be being honest with myself or with your God if I believed in that way.

But,… the odds are that you will

Comforting. Quite frankly, if he is going to send me to hell because he will made me incapable of having faith while also refusing to give me evidence of his existence before I accept his existence, then I do not want to spend eternity in his presence anyway .

 

[mrteachersir]

Suat,

I hate jumping into a conversation I did not initiate, but maybe, just maybe, a new perspective could help (I don’t flatter myself to be more adept at apologetics than Kiekiolu, by any means, I have just thought on these matters considerably).

To atttempt to answer your questions (in order):

1. Belief in God is refreshing, but not in a way you would think. I have found doubt/unbelief to be a cancer. It makes people unhappy and negative. I see this daily in the students I teach (I happen to have a large group of avowed atheist students who discuss The God Dillusion often). Their negativity brings people aroung them down, yet not the believers. It is quite obvious who is a believer and who is not amopng them. The Christian is called to “Live, to die, and to rise” on a daily basis. We all suffer heart-break and disappointment, but the believer is armed with the grace to pick himself up and begin anew. It is my perception (based on the atheists and agnostics I know) that a lack of belief is debilitating and hinders our ability to resurrect ourselves in daily life. If this is all there is, why bother? I have read Sartre and Camus. Their thoroughly atheistic perspective is dismal. My belief in God, and His Son saves me from such a perspective.
2. “God is love.” All of us are born with a capacity to love. Love is beyond the mere sexual gratification and physical needs that Marx and Darwin promoted. When a man puts his own life on the line to save another person, that is love for another person…something Marx and Darwin cannot explain. No amount of intellectual wrangling can escape the fact that true love, selfless, giving love does exist…and it is not for material gain (as Marx would have it, nor for the survival of the species, as Darwin would have it).
3. God has provided you with evidence of His existence, and not just you, but to everyone who lives today and haas lived in the past). Evidence can be discredited by the skeptic, however. As an atheist, you will be quick to assert that any phenomenon can be explained in a purely natural manner. Thus, your analysis of God’s subtle reminders and evidences will, mostly likely, lead to some kind of naturalist/materialist explanation.

The Church teaches that one of God’s gifts to us is free will. We are free to, when all information has been weighed, choose our paths. To assume that God has not been giving evidence. To give us free will, yet not give us the appropriate information to exercise such freee will is not free will, is it? We are slaves to a forgone conclusion. Why do you think so many in Yugoslavia/Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic were hankering for war with Bosnians, or supported actions in Kosovo? They were being fed one line, Milosevic’s line. Not too free, is it? We are being fed many lines: the Buddhist line, the Hindu line, the Muslim line, the atheist line, the secular-humanist line, and the naturalist line, aside from the Judeo-Christian line. We are free to choose. It is not easy to choose, though. Free choice was never meant to be easy.

God has not hardened your heart; you have hardened your heart. The “educated elite” have been feeding us a naturalist/materialist line for decades. An “intellectual” is one who rationally understands that there is no God. Despite the numerous ontological, metaphysical and philosophical proofs for God, all based on sound logic and reason, these “intellectuals” have decided that religion is bogus, it is irrational, and its adherents are little more than backwards ignoramuses stuck in a Matrix-style existence. Typical of such an approach, the “free-thinkers” I have encountered are not really free: they have followed the “party-line” and automatically eliminated God’s existence and, before even considering the evidence for Him, decry it as irrational.

 

[cpayne]

Quite frankly, if he is going to send me to hell because he will made me incapable of having faith while also refusing to give me evidence of his existence before I accept his existence, then I do not want to spend eternity in his presence anyway .

The problem is that you are dealing with a relationship, not the conclusion of a syllogism. Let me give an example: My wife and I have been married 20 years next week. But let’s suppose that when I asked her out on a date for the first time, she responded, “You give me the evidence that we could possibly end up married for 20 years, and THEN I’ll consider your request.” Or perhaps, the first time I told her I loved her, suppose she had said, “Just a second—let me hook you up to a lie detector, and then you say that again. I want the proof BEFORE I decide whether or not to accept your professed love.”

Her request would have short-circuited the very relationship she was considering. In other words: In loving relationships such as that of God and the believer, sometimes you have to have some faith to enter in. Refusing the faith to enter in also entails refusing the relationship. It doesn’t seem unreasonable of God to ask for faith in Him as the foundation for a loving relationship with Him.

One might ask, “Why would God care whether or not we have a loving relationship with Him?” That’s a good question. Isn’t God’s grace wonderful?

 

[Techno2000]

Suat,

I hate jumping into a conversation I did not initiate, but maybe, just maybe, a new perspective could help (I don’t flatter myself to be more adept at apologetics than Kiekiolu, by any means, I have just thought on these matters considerably).

To atttempt to answer your questions (in order):

1. Belief in God is refreshing, but not in a way you would think. I have found doubt/unbelief to be a cancer. It makes people unhappy and negative. I see this daily in the students I teach (I happen to have a large group of avowed atheist students who discuss The God Dillusion often). Their negativity brings people aroung them down, yet not the believers. It is quite obvious who is a believer and who is not amopng them. The Christian is called to “Live, to die, and to rise” on a daily basis. We all suffer heart-break and disappointment, but the believer is armed with the grace to pick himself up and begin anew. It is my perception (based on the atheists and agnostics I know) that a lack of belief is debilitating and hinders our ability to resurrect ourselves in daily life. If this is all there is, why bother? I have read Sartre and Camus. Their thoroughly atheistic perspective is dismal. My belief in God, and His Son saves me from such a perspective.
2. “God is love.” All of us are born with a capacity to love. Love is beyond the mere sexual gratification and physical needs that Marx and Darwin promoted. When a man puts his own life on the line to save another person, that is love for another person…something Marx and Darwin cannot explain. No amount of intellectual wrangling can escape the fact that true love, selfless, giving love does exist…and it is not for material gain (as Marx would have it, nor for the survival of the species, as Darwin would have it).
3. God has provided you with evidence of His existence, and not just you, but to everyone who lives today and haas lived in the past). Evidence can be discredited by the skeptic, however. As an atheist, you will be quick to assert that any phenomenon can be explained in a purely natural manner. Thus, your analysis of God’s subtle reminders and evidences will, mostly likely, lead to some kind of naturalist/materialist explanation.

The Church teaches that one of God’s gifts to us is free will. We are free to, when all information has been weighed, choose our paths. To assume that God has not been giving evidence. To give us free will, yet not give us the appropriate information to exercise such freee will is not free will, is it? We are slaves to a forgone conclusion. Why do you think so many in Yugoslavia/Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic were hankering for war with Bosnians, or supported actions in Kosovo? They were being fed one line, Milosevic’s line. Not too free, is it? We are being fed many lines: the Buddhist line, the Hindu line, the Muslim line, the atheist line, the secular-humanist line, and the naturalist line, aside from the Judeo-Christian line. We are free to choose. It is not easy to choose, though. Free choice was never meant to be easy.

God has not hardened your heart; you have hardened your heart. The “educated elite” have been feeding us a naturalist/materialist line for decades. An “intellectual” is one who rationally understands that there is no God. Despite the numerous ontological, metaphysical and philosophical proofs for God, all based on sound logic and reason, these “intellectuals” have decided that religion is bogus, it is irrational, and its adherents are little more than backwards ignoramuses stuck in a Matrix-style existence. Typical of such an approach, the “free-thinkers” I have encountered are not really free: they have followed the “party-line” and automatically eliminated God’s existence and, before even considering the evidence for Him, decry it as irrational.

So True , they want inner peace and satisfaction in life, but they don’t want to Hear about Jesus.