Defending Against Atheism

[ricmat]

How do I respond to an athiest who contends that religion was invented by people to deal with their fear of death?

My personal opinion is that God built into us a fear of death, precisely so that we would seek him. If we thought we could live forever, then there is much less incentive to look for something beyond ourselves and outside of ourselves.

We have other incentives to seek God. God is the source of beauty, truth, justice, love. When we seek any of these things, it is really the author of these things we seek. We have come to realize this. Some have not yet reached this realization.

There are probably better “standard” answers out there, but that’s my 2 cents.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How do I respond to an athiest who contends that religion was invented by people to deal with their fear of death?

Our church has plenty of health people I wonder how he accounts for that? We have hundreds of children in the education programs; they do not seem focused on death. We do have old people. It would seem to me he sees what he wants and dismisses as he needs? Actually, I find many people look to religion during tough times which does not mean death. Overall I usually do not respond to people as him at all, because he is not ready to listen. Maybe you could tell him to visit when he has a down period and his similar crowd does not want him around.

 

[irish1]

Our church has plenty of health people I wonder how he accounts for that? We have hundreds of children in the education programs; they do not seem focused on death. We do have old people. It would seem to me he sees what he wants and dismisses as he needs? Actually, I find many people look to religion during tough times which does not mean death. Overall I usually do not respond to people as him at all, because he is not ready to listen. Maybe you could tell him to visit when he has a down period and his similar crowd does not want him around.

I think your response is right on! I think I am at the prayer stage with this person. He/She is not ready to listen, although, I was able to feed a tiny bit of milk. I think I may need to continue to build my knowledge of my faith, and leave the rest up to God.

 

[tdgesq]

How do I respond to an athiest who contends that religion was invented by people to deal with their fear of death?

If the atheist is claiming that the Catholic religion was invented to deal with people’s fear of death, then I think you can prove to him this isn’t true. We believe that there is the possibility of the eternal punishment of hell after death, and that no one can know with certainty whether he is saved. Yet Catholicism is the largest Christian religion on the planet.

Then I think you turn the tables. Tell him that you believe atheism was invented to deal with people’s fear of death. That it is much easier to believe that our consciousness is obliterated at death than to believe in the possibility of eternal punishment. See what he says.

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

I do not understand.

Do you mean that reading the works of atheists has helped you grow in your understanding of theology? I could believe that. As Chesterton said, it was not the writings of the Christian apologists, but the writing of the atheist apologists that convinced him to be Christian.

Or do you mean that accepting atheism has helped you understand theology better? This point cannot be debated, because we cannot measure our understanding of a thing unless we agree upon what that thing is we are measuring against. If there is no standard, there is no way to measure excellence in anything.

Actually, what you said about me is true. The paradox is this: People verify and fortify their beliefs when they encounter beliefs alien to theirs. It is impossible for man to strengthen a belief he holds “true” if he is exposed to the a belief which is identical and exact to that which he considers “Truth”. In likewise manner, man judges a perfection from an imperfection previously known. Man knows Truth for he knows an “un - Truth”. Can a boy master mathematics if what he believes as “truth” as only mere addition and subtraction? Of course not. The boy learns to MASTER it when he is exposed to other “truths” which are, at first, alien to him such as algebra or logarithms, etc. Once exposed to different “truths” does the boy come to verify what he believes as “Truth”. Such is a characteristic of human rational nature.

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

and leave the rest up to God.

As noble as this sounds, that is in fact not a very good exercise of the mind. God, as all just as He truly is, can never bestow that specific gift of knowledge which you so desire unless you justly deserve it, else God would have done an injustice. This “leave it to Beaver” type of philosophy is very damning to society. Rational minds were given to man for the end goal which is Eternal Happiness, not lackluster effort. As Will Smith said: “99% is NOT 100%.”

 

[porkscratchings]

If the atheist is claiming that the Catholic religion was invented to deal with people’s fear of death, then I think you can prove to him this isn’t true. We believe that there is the possibility of the eternal punishment of hell after death, and that no one can know with certainty whether he is saved. Yet Catholicism is the largest Christian religion on the planet.

Then I think you turn the tables. Tell him that you believe atheism was invented to deal with people’s fear of death. That it is much easier to believe that our consciousness is obliterated at death than to believe in the possibility of eternal punishment. See what he says.

Atheism was not invented to deal with people’s fear of death. Atheism came about because during the enlightenment period of European history, people found religion incompatible with science.

Whether someone turns to atheism or religion because they fear death will depend on the person.

 

[not_a_theist]

Tell him that you believe atheism was invented to deal with people’s fear of death. That it is much easier to believe that our consciousness is obliterated at death than to believe in the possibility of eternal punishment. See what he says.

That it doesn’t matter what’s easier to believe, but what’s more likely to be true. Wishful thinking and scare tactics are not proof that as our brains die, so does the person.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Atheism was not invented to deal with people’s fear of death. Atheism came about because during the enlightenment period of European history, people found religion incompatible with science.

Whether someone turns to atheism or religion because they fear death will depend on the person.

Maybe
Maybe atheism and religion date back to the begining of man, it seems to me they go hand in hand.

It is good to see a post from you as it has been a while. I hope you are well.

 

[Nepenthe]

Texas Roofer:

Maybe atheism and religion date back to the begining of man, it seems to me they go hand in hand.

Well, now, that does warm my heart. Surely, let us walk hand in hand.

 

[porkscratchings]

Maybe
Maybe atheism and religion date back to the begining of man, it seems to me they go hand in hand.

It is good to see a post from you as it has been a while. I hope you are well.

i’ve been ill for a while but now i’m back.

Re: go hand in hand - how?

 

[tdgesq]

Atheism was not invented to deal with people’s fear of death.

So atheism was invented then.

Atheism came about because during the enlightenment period of European history, people found religion incompatible with science.

So atheism didn’t exist before the enlightenment.

Whether someone turns to atheism or religion because they fear death will depend on the person.

I agree. So declare the argument by the atheist in the OP invalid.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

i’ve been ill for a while but now i’m back.

Re: go hand in hand - how?

Sorry to hear you were ill. Glad to know you are better.

To exclude faith and a lack of faith existing together one would have to consider either a time in which all had faith, or none had faith. Faith is everywhere in isolated villages, all through recorded history, so it is difficult to accept an absence of faith. Concerning the reverse condition in which all had faith, when would that be? Adam knew God existed yet disobeyed God so was Adam’s faith real. Cain (Adam’s child) also disobeyed, and was cast out. We would certainly wonder if Cain really had faith. By the time of Job we hear the classic case of how much one must endure and keep faith. Job’s story would make little sense if all had faith. So it makes no sense to me to accept a period of time in which all had faith. Additionally it makes no sense to accept a period in time when none had faith.

 

[porkscratchings]

So atheism was invented then.

Like religion - as opium for the masses, no?

So atheism didn’t exist before the enlightenment.

As an idea it didn’t arise until the enlightenment period. But to to say that it has less validity than religion that is older is like saying when u get ill, taking penicillin is less valid than cutting open ur head. Just because the 2nd method is older than the 1st.

Ur argument lacks logic. Just because someone chooses a belief system based on their fear of death - does not make atheism or argument by an atheist to be invalid. That would imply that people or arguments are only valued based on their belief. So by this rule, arguments by Christians or muslims have validity but arguments by atheists, etc. have no validity.

I don’t judge someone by their beliefs, I judge them by their character. Is that an advantage of being an atheist? Less religion based bigotry? *

 

[Mannyfit75]

I was making a joke.

Since Mannyfit75 said that, as an atheist I am merely making myself God, and since my atheism is based on a lack of belief in God, therefore I do not believe in myself.

get it… get it…

I know, it’s never funny when you have to explain it.

In a way it is true. Atheist deny the existence of God. They acknowledge mankind can determine his own destiny without God. In Atheism, man is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

[porkscratchings]

Sorry to hear you were ill. Glad to know you are better.

Thanks for that.

To exclude faith and a lack of faith existing together one would have to consider either a time in which all had faith, or none had faith. Faith is everywhere in isolated villages, all through recorded history, so it is difficult to accept an absence of faith. Concerning the reverse condition in which all had faith, when would that be? Adam knew God existed yet disobeyed God so was Adam’s faith real. Cain (Adam’s child) also disobeyed, and was cast out. We would certainly wonder if Cain really had faith. By the time of Job we hear the classic case of how much one must endure and keep faith. Job’s story would make little sense if all had faith. So it makes no sense to me to accept a period of time in which all had faith. Additionally it makes no sense to accept a period in time when none had faith.

I see where u are going. I think the issue for Adam, Cain and down to Job is not the lack of faith. These folks knew God, so the idea of them not having faith in God’s existence would not arise. The issue is one of obedience or rather disobedience.

Job had faith in God, where everyone else did not. But this does not mean everyone else were atheists, just that they had faith in some other god, possibly the numerous pagan gods. Atheism was unknown as an idea until the enlightenment period when developments in culture and science created doubts about a creator. So it is actually quite new as a concept.

 

[tdgesq]

Like religion - as opium for the masses, no?

Let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing. The specific opiate mentioned in Irish1’s post is one for the fear of death. Does Catholicism really provide a narcotic for the fear of death? Let’s see: possibility of eternal damnation and no assurance of salvation. It just doesn’t appear to be a very effective salve.

On the other hand, I can make a similar accusation of atheists - that atheism was invented to deal with the fear of death, because there is no fear of eternal punishment, only oblivion. You can tell me that this isn’t really why atheism was invented, but in terms of which proposition is more likely to be true based only upon fear of death, it seems to me that the Catholic has the better claim.

As an idea it didn’t arise until the enlightenment period. But to to say that it has less validity than religion that is older is like saying when u get ill, taking penicillin is less valid than cutting open ur head. Just because the 2nd method is older than the 1st.

My point was that if atheism is an invention, then it is something that was made up - not true. That is what is implied by the statement that religion was invented to deal with the the fear of death. You meant though that it only arose as an idea during the period of history of the enlightenment. That’s fine. I understand what you are saying.

Ur argument lacks logic. Just because someone chooses a belief system based on their fear of death - does not make atheism or argument by an atheist to be invalid. That would imply that people or arguments are only valued based on their belief. So by this rule, arguments by Christians or muslims have validity but arguments by atheists, etc. have no validity.

You misperceive my argument. I agree with you that just because someone chooses a belief system based upon fear of death doesn’t necessarily make that belief system false. What I am arguing is that the invention of religion (particularly the Catholic religion) as a way to deal with death is no more likely than the invention of atheism as a way to deal with death. I don’t find either proposition likely to be the case, even though an individual person might be an atheist or theist based upon their fear of death.

I don’t judge someone by their beliefs, I judge them by their character. Is that an advantage of being an atheist? Less religion based bigotry?

Then you aren’t like most atheists I know. My experience has been that they immediately start judging the theistic belief system. Take Richard Dawkins as a case in point. Our beliefs get called delusional, and if we were really being intelligent about the whole matter we’d be atheists. So I guess the bigotry cuts both ways.

I am interested in your statement that you judge individuals based upon their character. Does our character include our belief system? Maybe it is just based upon our actions. What constitutes a good or right character and what constitutes a bad or wrong character seems to me to be an exceedingly difficult thing for an atheist to establish.

 

[porkscratchings]

Let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing. The specific opiate mentioned in Irish1’s post is one for the fear of death. Does Catholicism really provide a narcotic for the fear of death? Let’s see: possibility of eternal damnation and no assurance of salvation. It just doesn’t appear to be a very effective salve.

Death is feared because it is the ultimate unknown. Belief systems that provide answers for this unknown is an effective salve as it resolves the fear of dying and not knowing what happens to us after death. Most believers are assured by their faith that they have a good stab at getting to somewhere decent after death, in some cases even when they do something horrible to someone else. Example: the Islamic terrorists’ belief that they will enter paradise as martyrs if they die killing unbelievers.

On the other hand, I can make a similar accusation of atheists - that atheism was invented to deal with the fear of death, because there is no fear of eternal punishment, only oblivion. You can tell me that this isn’t really why atheism was invented, but in terms of which proposition is more likely to be true based only upon fear of death, it seems to me that the Catholic has the better claim.

Fear of eternal punishment does not come into it. Fear is only relevant if eternal punishment exists - to an atheist, things only exist if they can be observed and/or proven. Atheism is no help if someone is scared to die - atheism can’t provide easy answers to what happens when we die. How this supposedly deals with the fear of death, I don’t know.

You misperceive my argument. I agree with you that just because someone chooses a belief system based upon fear of death doesn’t necessarily make that belief system false. What I am arguing is that the invention of religion (particularly the Catholic religion) as a way to deal with death is no more likely than the invention of atheism as a way to deal with death. I don’t find either proposition likely to be the case, even though an individual person might be an atheist or theist based upon their fear of death.

Agreed.

Then you aren’t like most atheists I know. My experience has been that they immediately start judging the theistic belief system. Take Richard Dawkins as a case in point. Our beliefs get called delusional, and if we were really being intelligent about the whole matter we’d be atheists. So I guess the bigotry cuts both ways.

My next q would be - how many atheists do u personally know? Many theists don’t know any atheists, but condemn all of us as immoral filth peddlers, thieves, murderers, etc. I have many theists among my friends including catholics, and I don’t think people are less intelligent or delusional because they are theists. It depends on the individual.

I think those (whether theists or atheists) that go on some kind of crusade to wipe out the belief system that they don’t like - are the ones who are delusional (anyone who thinks evil monks/nuns of religion or secret covens of atheists are out to take over the world must be delusional), and lack intelligence (anyone who can’t see that bad apples in any group don’t represent the whole group has gotta have low IQ).

I am interested in your statement that you judge individuals based upon their character. Does our character include our belief system? Maybe it is just based upon our actions.

The character of an individual can express itself thru a person’s action and thoughts. A good person will express that goodness through everything they do, including religion. A bad person will do likewise. There are good catholics and good atheists. There are also bad catholics and bad atheists. I think a person cannot be regarded as being good or bad based solely on their faith or lack of.

What constitutes a good or right character and what constitutes a bad or wrong character seems to me to be an exceedingly difficult thing for an atheist to establish.

Why? It is a difficult thing for anyone to establish, no matter whether they are theists or atheists. Theists look to their faith for the answers, atheists work it out as they go along or look at human societies. It seems to me the difference is that theists like to have answers worked out for them but atheists like to work out the answers themselves. There are advantages and disadvantages to both of these approaches, but this doesn’t mean that one approach is better than the other.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…I see where u are going. I think the issue for Adam, Cain and down to Job is not the lack of faith. These folks knew God, so the idea of them not having faith in God’s existence would not arise. The issue is one of obedience or rather disobedience…

Think about this how could you select disobedience if you had real faith? Offered eternal salvation verses knowledge(Adam) or attention (Cain), how could they make their selection? I think there had to be a loss of faith (my opinion)

Job had faith in God, where everyone else did not. But this does not mean everyone else were atheists, just that they had faith in some other god, possibly the numerous pagan gods.

one of the faults I see in atheism is the concept of one worshipping Jesus, disproves the one worshipping Emanuel. Whether Jesus translates to Emanuel does not matter to me. I would say both (and many others) are worshipping God as best they can under whatever name.

Atheism was unknown as an idea until the enlightenment period when developments in culture and science created doubts about a creator. So it is actually quite new as a concept.

I would not know about this issue

 

[mpb74]

Even with my limited knowledge of Catholicism, I know not to judge people, period. Actions are material, and can be judged. The person is spirit ad can only be judged by a superior Spirit. That would be God. That is not just what I believe is true, It is true.

Certain things are true, what I or others believe is true, doesn’t change what is actually and unalterably true.