Dont understand atheists

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I made this thread because i have been struggling with my faith because of morons like Dawkins. I am trying to strengthen it again.

Moron indeed. Please read ‘The Godless delusion’. A very nice reconstruction of the moronic argument by D.

 

[catholicm17]

Moron indeed. Pease read ‘The Godless delusion’. A
very nice reconstruction of the moronic argument by D.

I dont often call people morons, however I could use worse words to describe him, so arrogant and annoying!

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I dont often call people morons, however I could use worse words to describe him, so arrogant and annoying!

The guy is a bigot. Things he says about religious people in general and about Christians in particular, would normally be called hate speech in the UK were it directed to a different group. I’m waiting for that day when his idiocy is seen for what it is.

 

[Lui]

And what does science have to do with the existence of God anyway? Theology and science are not even looking at the same questions. .

That’s what I always thought so I don’t get why science and the theory of evolution contradicts faith. It goes in both directions: atheists say God doesn’t exist because of evolution and fundamentalists say evolution doesn’t exist and the earth is only 6000 years old because of the Bible.

I think neither are right.

 

[catholicm17]

That’s what I always thought so I don’t get why science and the theory of evolution contradicts faith. It goes in both directions: atheists say God doesn’t exist because of evolution and fundamentalists say evolution doesn’t exist and the earth is only 6000 years old because of the Bible.

I think neither are right.

Atheists actually have more common sense here, the idea of evolution by natural selection is more plausible than a 6000 year old earth!

 

[samiam1611]

When I have been reading this thread I have been skipping the atheist arguments as they still install so much doubt in my mind

Please tell me you are joking! I spent a lot of time writing that one post! Also, I am not here to argue atheism really,I am just sharing with you some of my beliefs.

Fellow catholics and christians, what in your mind makes all these great atheist scientists wrong?

As long as y’all say God is supernatural/nonmaterial/etc, science cannot be used to prove or disprove God. At best, they can offer natural explanations for things that have previously been attributed to a supernatural cause. Perhaps some atheist scientists overreach a bit though with their conclusions.

I made this thread because i have been struggling with my faith because of morons like Dawkins. I am trying to strengthen it again.

Well he must not be completely moronic if he made good enough arguments to place doubt in your mind.

 

[Lui]

Atheists actually have more common sense here, the idea of evolution by natural selection is more plausible than a 6000 year old earth!

I actually think that the 6000 year old earth creationists damage Christian faith because they make Christians look like ignorants. As far as I know the Vatican distances itself from Creationism for this reason.

 

[samiam1611]

Atheists actually have more common sense here, the idea of evolution by natural selection is more plausible than a 6000 year old earth!

if evolution and the age of the earth are the only things hanging you up, you needn’t worry about that:

From Pope Benedict XVI:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

 

[lao_tzu]

When I have been reading this thread I have been skipping the atheist arguments as they still install so much doubt in my mind

Fellow catholics and christians, what in your mind makes all these great atheist scientists wrong?

I made this thread because i have been struggling with my faith because of morons like Dawkins. I am trying to strengthen it again.

I think it is time for me to purchase The Case For Christ

Apart from faith, what other reasons do you have for believing he is the Son of God?

Thanks and God Bless

Dawkins’ blunt criticisms of theism aren’t a good enough excuse to call him a moron. You should keep in mind that his criticisms are primarily directed toward the more fundamentalist strains of religion, like those who make a fetish of places like Lourdes and the mouth of the Ganges, and especially special creationists.

That last is quite understandable. He’s a biologist; they’ve been a special target of creationists since the days of Ellen White, and it doesn’t look like they’re likely to change their aim any time soon:

View attachment 11188

Honestly, how much of that do you think people should be asked to answer politely? Hey, they started it! The real irony is that I pulled that pic from a powerpoint presentation made available online by Kenneth Miller. If you don’t know who he is, google him. It’ll be worth it for you. I promise.

Admittedly, there are popular positions within Christianity that are objectively absurd. But none of them, as far as I know, are essential to Christianity. Yes, the earth really is 4.5 billion years old, but being wrong about that, even by six orders of magnitude, isn’t something that’s going to interfere with your afterlife plans, or shouldn’t, anyway. And yes, we did evolve from non-humans. More than half of Christianity doesn’t have a problem with that, so why should the rest of them?

There have been some very good Catholic theologians. St. Thomas Aquinas comes to mind immediately. Quality is important, if you’re looking to resolve your faith. Please don’t waste your time with Strobel. As an atheist, Aquinas makes me think, while Strobel makes me laugh. He’s the court jester of apologetics.

Good luck with your search.

As ever, Jesse

 

[catholicm17]

The reasons for my “faith” is summed up in the historical testimonials and evidence found in the Gospels, the martyrdom of the Apostles, the fulfilling of the biblical OT prophecies and the fact that Jesus asserted that He was of the Son of God.

The OT prophecies is something that has helped my faith, along with miracles such as the incorrupt bodies of saints, Lanciano, and Fatima, only to name a few.

However then the doubt creeps in, maybe Jesus was a man made myth and we are a pointless result of evolution

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

However then the doubt creeps in, maybe Jesus was a man made myth and we are a pointless result of evolution

Well, this is where faith comes in. Jesus either is or is not who he claimed to be. Discussing evolution and whether science can prove God doesn’t exist don’t really play a part here. Sometimes people get thrown off a horse in their encounter with God but most of the time it is a bit more subtle. It takes time. I suggest you pray that God manifests Himself in your life in some way. Not like ‘do X or otherwise that will be proof you don’t exist’ kind of thing, but pray with humility and an open heart. I have absolutely no doubt that such prayer will be answered. I’ve read a book a few years ago, I think it was called ‘10 prayers God always says yes to’, and the one I suggested was there. The life of faith is at the same time simple but also complex and demanding.

I don’t know where you are on your spiritual journey and I hope my advice here will not be interpreted as condescending in any way. Don’t fall for atheistic theories. They are contradictory within themselves and not exactly logical. Focus on what great spiritual teachers of the church have to offer. I don’t think there is any point in faith building by deconstructing atheism. It is a waste of time.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

However then the doubt creeps in, maybe Jesus was a man made myth and we are a pointless result of evolution

Well, I’m not sure pointless evolution is probable. To show you how improbable random chance is, let use an example. Here is part of a well known soliloquy in Hamlet:

To be, or not to be - that is the question:

The odds of randomly typing out the above soliloquy segment exactly on a 30 character keyboard is roughly 1 in 3.28 x 10^63 or 1 in 3,280,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That’s a pretty big number. If you had a supercomputer that could randomly output a trillion randomly generated 43 character sentence every millisecond, it would take that computer over 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to spit out the above soliloquy. Now, the absolutely simplest virus genome has about 3200 nucleotide base pairs, with each base pair having one of four base configurations, so you can imagine how much bigger the numbers would be (1 in 3.9 x 10^1926).

 

[Bluegoat]

But surely, just because something works (an airplane), it doesn’t mean that everyhting alse works too (some kind of machine that allows time travel or whatever). I genuinely don’t understand what you are trying to say. Because science proves/‘proves’ X, the it automatically proves A,B,C,D,…? Not logical at all.

And what does science have to do with the existence of God anyway? Theology and science are not even looking at the same questions. Some scientists are trying to use science to answer these theological questions but obviously they can’t. It doesn’t make sense to answer a ‘why’ question with a ‘how’ question. This is basic stuff.

I wasn’t thinking of science trying to prove God at all. More that many Christians seem to think they can simply reject some claims of science - say, astrophysics, or geology, or evolution, because they are “unchristian”; while at the same time accepting the conclusions science comes to on other things.

But the same kinds of techniques, tools, and observations that scientists use to create drugs or make machines or food additives or measure chemical properties are the ones they use to come to these conclusions about the universe that some Christians are unwilling to accept.

As an example, I’ve seen Christians claim that scientists don’t have enough knowledge about things like radioactive decay, or chemical aspects of dating, to use it for estimating the age of the Earth. Yet they are confident enough when scientists use the same knowledge in medicine, or when building a power plant.

That is the sort of thing I was thinking of. I agree that science can be right about one thing and wrong about another in a generalized sense.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

As an example, I’ve seen Christians claim that scientists don’t have enough knowledge about things like radioactive decay, or chemical aspects of dating, to use it for estimating the age of the Earth. Yet they are confident enough when scientists use the same knowledge in medicine, or when building a power plant.

Oh, OK, I see what you mean. As I understand this is the issue with a number of evangelical/fundamentalist denominations. It is definitely not the way Catholics understand science. People tend to fear what they don’t understand so if a church claims that the Earth is only a few thousand years old than science is the enemy of their faith. If science suggests otherwise, then others aspects of faith can be questioned as well.

Unfortunately, many Catholics have fallen for the same rhetoric of science vs. faith because attacking religion with scientific discovery is a popular atheist strategy these days. Not a particularly clever one but aggressive enough to work.

 

[catholicm17]

Thank You everyone for your help, I am on a holiday just now so I am going to enjoy the rest of it.

Bye

 

[Arkadin]

The OT prophecies is something that has helped my faith, along with miracles such as the incorrupt bodies of saints, Lanciano, and Fatima, only to name a few.

However then the doubt creeps in, maybe Jesus was a man made myth and we are a pointless result of evolution

Well, the incorruptible bodies are not considered to be miracles flat-out by the church. In fact, the bodies aren’t really incorrupt, but are decaying. Science also has explained why some are decaying slower than others.

The eucharistic miracles are questionable like Lanciano. It’s interesting to note that the flesh has been shrinking and a priest or monk had to nail it to keep it from shriveling up, if I remember correctly.

Other things like the Shroud are highly debatable at this time.

Jesus may have in fact been real, but not as what the bible presents him to be. It is important to critically study this stuff in order to truly believe or not. Just because the gospels try to make a point that Christ fulfills the prophecies of the old testament, doesn’t mean it really happened. Matthew gets names of prophets mixed up and relies on a mistranslation of Isaiah in regards to Mary.

Critical study is important and I’m not pushing disbelief, but simply looking at what we have and understand the context of each writing separately in the New Testament.

 

[coolduude]

The eucharistic miracles are questionable like Lanciano. It’s interesting to note that the flesh has been shrinking and a priest or monk had to nail it to keep it from shriveling up, if I remember correctly.

You may want to refresh your memory:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
miraclerosarymission.org/lanciano.html

Other things like the Shroud are highly debatable at this time.

Yes, this is true. The Church has not ruled on the Shroud.

Jesus may have in fact been real, but not as what the bible presents him to be. It is important to critically study this stuff in order to truly believe or not. Just because the gospels try to make a point that Christ fulfills the prophecies of the old testament, doesn’t mean it really happened. Matthew gets names of prophets mixed up and relies on a mistranslation of Isaiah in regards to Mary.

Critical study is important and I’m not pushing disbelief, but simply looking at what we have and understand the context of each writing separately in the New Testament.

Critical study is very important (and usually leads to the Truth).

 

[babylonsfalling]

no no no. :nope:Why do you expect atheists to act differently if they truly believe there is no God?<—I don’t…my experience with atheists is that they will make a lot of noise about not believing but never actually act that way. I am not conflicted AT ALL. (I do admit I could be wrong however - I want scientific proof, and I don’t have any. So I am technically an agnostic atheist.<—No such thing.

I cannot stress to you enough how non-conflicted I am.<—You’re actually OVERSTRESSING the issue…though doth protest too much. Perhaps there are people who are conflicted but that is not me, nor anyone I know! (And I know plenty of atheists or nontheists.)

I don’t** try ** to not believe. My behavior is what it is! It has nothing to do with me being concerned that there is a chance that God is going to judge me when I die <— Then why were YOU the one to bring it up. I never even mentioned judgment. or whatever other reason you have for thinking that atheists must be conflicted since they don’t act like…what exactly do you think we would act like if our walk matched our talk? If I was a thief or a murderer, then would you believe me when I say I am not conflicted?<—More of the same…it’s YOU making this connection, not me. I never made any connection between atheism and bad behavior…that’s coming totally from you.

I mean sure I have different morals than you probably (pro-choice and that sort of thing) but basically I am just your average person who happens to lack belief <—My keychain lacks belief, atheists have DIS-belief…there’s a difference, which amounts to rejection of God on the part of atheists. in anything supernatural.

Ye Olde…“I lack belief” is old and worn out. It’s an attempt at trying to naturalize atheism into some default position so that atheists can pretend they haven’t made an actual decision to try DIS-believing in God, or in other words reject Him.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Yes, this is true. The Church has not ruled on the Shroud.

I was a bit of a skeptic regarding the Shroud of Turin but the more information I turn up on it, the more I’m convinced it’s cannot be a medieval forgery. In fact, I’m convinced it’s from at least the 6th century AD based on my personal fact finding.

 

[coolduude]

I was a bit of a skeptic regarding the Shroud of Turin but the more information I turn up on it, the more I’m convinced it’s cannot be a medieval forgery. In fact, I’m convinced it’s from at least the 6th century AD based on my personal fact finding.

Indeed. The Shroud is very interesting. I don’t believe it is medieval but I’m not sure if it’s legitimate either.