Frustration with atheism?

[MacQ]

I only get into religious conversations online. I can’t remember the last one I would have had in person. I tend not to talk about it or respond.

If someone really wanted to engage me with this topic I would probably feel the need to work for their rational salvation and help them to see reality and the “good news” that there are no gods, ghosts, fairy, or magic… etc… and because the unseen does no exist neither does heaven or hell. Seems fair as they will be doing the same to me…

Online is a different story. I try very hard to be polite and respectful (especially here as I feel a bit like guest) while I try to understand and also inform, but like all people I sometimes fail and for that I am sorry.

Yes…well, when you have such conversations, if you do want to be respectful, I offer the kind suggestion that you refrain from equating God with fairies and magic, lest you not only come off as disrespectfully ignorant, but insulting in a particularly arrogant way.

 

[without]

Yes…well, when you have such conversations, if you do want to be respectful, I offer the kind suggestion that you refrain from equating God with fairies and magic, lest you not only come off as disrespectfully ignorant, but insulting in a particularly arrogant way.

I’m just guessing, but I bet you think Artemis is just a myth. Yet, she and the rest of the pantheon of gods were worshiped for around 4000 years (2000 years longer than Christ).

To me and many people gods are nothing more than inventions of human imaginations. That isn’t disrespectfully ignorant or meant as an insult. I’m just communicating what I think to be the truth. There are so many people who believe in Ghosts - do you? There are many people who believe in fairies and enchanted rivers and woods - do you? There are many people who believe in magic, both good and evil - do you?

How is having that conversation “insulting in a particularly arrogant way.”?

 

[Lion_IRC]

I would recommend you ask them a question. Have them tell you about the God they don’t believe in. Often times they have very warped views of who God is.

^^this!^^

I encounter lots of deconverted atheists who left the faith and who now claim they know the bible better than me and who attack the unique type of Christianity represented by their former self.

They are actually attacking the person THEY used to be. Attacking themselves and the (distorted/misunderstood) version of biblical Christianity they once held.

I dont recognize the version of Christianity which atheist counter-apologetics spends so much time attacking.

 

[abucs]

Hey all,
I really hope I’m not the only one who feels this way. I usually find atheists undermining my faith, and I don’t know why. For stupid reasons I get asked the same questions over and over, are you’re stupid, how could you believe that, you’re ignorant- and even ignorant sayings against Christianity like: Chridtianity has done nothing to help the world, we are just setting it back. I think the reason I get so angry about it is because they are such stupid things to say, Christianity has contributited more than anything else in the entire world, if it weren’t for the Catholic Church we wouldn’t have many scientific theories, colleges, schools, any basic education, equality, ect. We always get stereotyped into uneducated, medieval bigots who want to destroy the world with faith. How can I not get offended? I know I should turn the other cheek, but my religion is the basis of who I am, God was there for me at my weakest point, and is still there. What do you do when you hear things like this?

As a former atheist who has come back to Catholicism I can sympathise with your expressed comments. I find it is a better outcome if you know your content and gently ask questions. There are sensible, reasoned atheists, there are culturally ‘lost’ atheists, and there are evangelical atheists and there are atheists who have been formed by public education and the equivalent of old wives tales, where atheism is an identity of ‘reason’ and 'science that they cling to.

In all cases if you gently ask questions you get to see who is who pretty quickly and if you know your content the ones open to reason will hear you.

Example from a previous school where I taught,

Teacher colleague : It’s not like science and religion have a lot in common.
Me : Why do you say that?
Teacher colleague : Well it’s not like 15th century Popes were scientific.
Me : How many 15th century Popes have you read?
Teacher colleague : Well I mean the time when the Church was burning all those scientists at the stake.
Me : What are the names of some of those scientists?

Result : the teacher went home and looked into things and changed their thoughts regarding historical Christianity and science.

Another example with an evangelical librarian atheist was when she was talking about how the Church held back science and how the Spanish Inquisition wrecked Spain. I gently asked her whether she knew that the records of the Spanish Inquisition were opened in the 1990’s and that modern historians had studied them and come to some interesting and surprising conclusions. Or I asked if she knew much about the rise of science in medieval Europe and how it was supported by the establishment of universities and hospitals?

Or she would criticise the medieval Cathedrals for being ‘way over the top’ and I would gently question how much knowledge of science she thought was needed to build such structures.

She was more argumentative and didn’t like where the questions were leading her and atheism was more of an identity and life’s mission to her. Still the questions are there and if she is honest she will go away and study them. If people are not honest then in the long run they just become universally recognised cranks.

Sometimes a stick and hard response is needed when people are bullying others with mistaken history and what I call secular manufactured morality. But in one on one situations I find the technique of gently questioning to be the most effective.

So many of the young have become atheists by ‘working it out for themselves’ which in reality has meant they were directed by secular education and media with the removal and denigration of historical Christianity to move in certain ways and grasp certain concepts. Gently directing them back the other way, if only slightly, so they can ‘work it all out again by themselves’ I find is effective and also keeps yourself more calm and less exasperated.

 

[Kaninchen]

The Catholic Church is an ancient, massive and complex organisation and criticism of certain historical aspects is something of a minefield for outsiders because many Catholics are deeply offended by such criticism and are often heavily invested in defending ‘everything’. It’s one of the reasons why JPII’s ‘apologies’, often in generic statements about the involvement of the Church/Catholics in various historic activities, were so important.

For example, there have been many threads here about the Spanish Civil War and we see spirited defences of the Church and its position/activities on the Nationalist side. These are, of course, very important issues and there are arguments on both sides but I’ve never come across a Catholic poster who seems to have wondered how on earth the Spanish Church got itself in that position in the first place? When I’ve asked such questions here on CAF, the most popular answer has been ‘Satan did it,’ ie satanic influences (Marxists/Freemasons . . . .).

In many ways the whole Inquisition/Galileo/Anti-science set of criticisms are something of a gift to Catholic apologists but, I’d suggest, they’re a diversion – a bit like the whole ‘Hitler’s Pope’ business, of course.

 

[MacQ]

I’ve never come across a Catholic poster who seems to have wondered how on earth the Spanish Church got itself in that position in the first place? When I’ve asked such questions here on CAF, the most popular answer has been ‘Satan did it,’ ie satanic influences (Marxists/Freemasons . . . .).

.

Well, let me ruin the track record…
While many Catholics use ‘satan’ to denote the evil tendency that is (pretty obviously) part of the human condition, they are, I think simply saying that people went astray. They sinned.
Humans do that.
They give in to greed. They can become corrupt. (Hello!)
The temptation to such sins is in us and around us. That’s what they mean by ‘satan’.

So we don’t have to “wonder”…we know why.
For my part, I am grateful for a Church that calls councils and rights the ship over time.

Hope that helps.

 

[MacQ]

I’m just guessing, but I bet you think Artemis is just a myth. Yet, she and the rest of the pantheon of gods were worshiped for around 4000 years (2000 years longer than Christ).

To me and many people gods are nothing more than inventions of human imaginations. That isn’t disrespectfully ignorant or meant as an insult. I’m just communicating what I think to be the truth. There are so many people who believe in Ghosts - do you? There are many people who believe in fairies and enchanted rivers and woods - do you? There are many people who believe in magic, both good and evil - do you?

How is having that conversation “insulting in a particularly arrogant way.”?

Well then. Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, I think you should definitely bring up fairies and ghosts when trying to save people from their religion. Very effective, I’m sure. Undoubtedly you get a lot of converts saying “Oh I see! Jesus is like a leprechaun. Thank you so much for this lifesaving insight, oh wise one!!!”

“Working for their rational salvation” I think you called it. I’m sure that’s noble…but I’m not sure I understand why…salvation from what?

 

[Kaninchen]

Well, let me ruin the track record…
While many Catholics use ‘satan’ to denote the evil tendency that is (pretty obviously) part of the human condition, they are, I think simply saying that people went astray. They sinned.
Humans do that.
They give in to greed. They can become corrupt. (Hello!)
The temptation to such sins is in us and around us. That’s what they mean by ‘satan’.

So we don’t have to “wonder”…we know why.
For my part, I am grateful for a Church that calls councils and rights the ship over time.

Hope that helps.

The “everybody is guilty, therefore nobody is” defence means that the track record remains, I’m afraid.

 

[Nixbits]

MacQ, the point about mentioning Artemis, fairies or ghosts is to encourage a theist to consider why they reject belief in the existence of those things. Many atheists find it very hard to understand why perfectly intelligent people use rational, well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments to explain their disbelief in ancient gods and mythical supernatural creatures, but do not apply the same standards of scepticism with regard to their belief in a god. To atheists, arguments such as faith, personal experience or feeling god in your heart are simply not persuasive.

An attempt by atheists to promote a rational approach to the theism debate ought not to be mocked. It is quite reasonable for an atheist to respect your right to hold your beliefs, but you should not expect them to respect the beliefs themselves.

 

[MacQ]

The “everybody is guilty, therefore nobody is” defence means that the track record remains, I’m afraid.

Except that isn’t the argument I used.
That some people went astray is obvious to us all.
That NOT EVERYONE did is also the case.
That we all have the propensity to, is a given.

You asked why we don’t walk around wondering why these things happened.
I answered that it is because we know. It’s obvious.You don’t walk around continually wondering about something that’s obvious.

 

[Kaninchen]

Except that isn’t the argument I used.
That some people went astray is obvious to us all.
That NOT EVERYONE did is also the case.
That we all have the propensity to, is a given.

You asked why we don’t walk around wondering why these things happened.
I answered that it is because we know. It’s obvious.You don’t walk around continually wondering about something that’s obvious.

OK, thank you for explaining the Catholic concept that there’s no point in trying to understand a historical phenomenon beyond the idea that ‘somebody was naughty’.

 

[MacQ]

MacQ, the point about mentioning Artemis, fairies or ghosts is to encourage a theist to consider why they reject belief in the existence of those things. Many atheists find it very hard to understand why perfectly intelligent people use rational, well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments to explain their disbelief in ancient gods and mythical supernatural creatures, but do not apply the same standards of scepticism with regard to their belief in a god. To atheists, arguments such as faith, personal experience or feeling god in your heart are simply not persuasive.

An attempt by atheists to promote a rational approach to the theism debate ought not to be mocked. It is quite reasonable for an atheist to respect your right to hold your beliefs, but you should not expect them to respect the beliefs themselves.

Yes, I understand perfectly that atheists are not persuaded to believe in anything they cannot verify in an “evidence-based” way.

I am amused you should bring up “mocking” in the regard to using fairies and Jesus in the same context. But since you did bring up mocking, You will note that I never mocked his beliefs. I mocked his methods. But do continue in that vein…I reckon it’s a great way for y’all to approach it. Throw in unicorns while’ you’re at it.

Finally, for the record, No one asked him to respect the beliefs (or even my right to them).
Not asking anything of him.

I am still curious about what he thinks he is saving us from, however.

 

[MacQ]

OK, thank you for explaining the Catholic concept that there’s no point in trying to understand a historical phenomenon beyond the idea that ‘somebody was naughty’.

Why so hostile?
I never used the word “naughty”.
I’d say it happened because people were corrupt and behaved in evil ways.
Same way I would explain other historical phenomena…like wars and slavery, or the holocaust.
I don’t understand your point.

How would you explain them?

 

[Kaninchen]

Why so hostile?
I never used the word “naughty”.
I’d say it happened because people were corrupt and behaved in evil ways.
Same way I would explain other historical phenomena…like wars and slavery, or the holocaust.
I don’t understand your point.

How would you explain them?

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough originally - I tend to the idea that a question like ‘how on earth the Spanish Church got itself in that position in the first place?’ would require things like a study of the relationship of the Church to various sections of Spanish society, the nature of land ownership, the position of the Church in education and so on.

‘Satandidit’ or ‘Marxists/Freemasons etc didit’ or ‘some people were naughty’ might be favoured approaches amongst Catholic apologists but, well, I have to say this, some of us might not have our inquisitiveness satiated.

 

[MacQ]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough originally - I tend to the idea that a question like ‘how on earth the Spanish Church got itself in that position in the first place?’ would require things like a study of the relationship of the Church to various sections of Spanish society, the nature of land ownership, the position of the Church in education and so on.

‘Satandidit’ or ‘Marxists/Freemasons etc didit’ or ‘some people were naughty’ might be favoured approaches amongst Catholic apologists but, well, I have to say this, some of us might not have our inquisitiveness satiated.

Perhaps you should study it then, and thus become satiated. Your requirements seem to be beyond the scope of a blog. I’m sure there are many references and books (and perhaps even courses) about how organizations become corrupt in general, and how the specifics of this event played out.
Meanwhile, I’m quite sorry I replied, given that what I called corruption and evil, you keep characterizing as ‘some people were naughty’. I never defended it, was never dismissive of it, and never trivialized it, and don’t appreciate you insinuating that I did. That is not an intellectually honest way to discuss something.
So, I’m not sure what axe you’re wanting to grind, or what it is really that you’re after (tho I do have some guesses).
In any case, I hope you find it.

 

[Kaninchen]

Perhaps you should study it then, and thus become satiated. Your requirements seem to be beyond the scope of a blog. I’m sure there are many references and books (and perhaps even courses) about how organizations become corrupt in general, and how the specifics of this event played out.
Meanwhile, I’m quite sorry I replied, given that what I called corruption and evil, you keep characterizing as ‘some people were naughty’. I never defended it, was never dismissive of it, and never trivialized it, and don’t appreciate you insinuating that I did. That is not an intellectually honest way to discuss something.
So, I’m not sure what axe you’re wanting to grind, or what it is really that you’re after (tho I do have some guesses).
In any case, I hope you find it.

Well, despite, apparently, being an intellectually dishonest person, I do rather think that you should consider your response more fully from your intellectually honest, non axe-grinding heights. I’ve learned a lot from what you’ve said, I think you might as well.

 

[Nixbits]

I may be wrong, MacQ, but my impression from Without’s post was that he was trying to save people from irrationality and from mistaken belief in things that are not real.

 

[abucs]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough originally - I tend to the idea that a question like ‘how on earth the Spanish Church got itself in that position in the first place?’ would require things like a study of the relationship of the Church to various sections of Spanish society, the nature of land ownership, the position of the Church in education and so on.

‘Satandidit’ or ‘Marxists/Freemasons etc didit’ or ‘some people were naughty’ might be favoured approaches amongst Catholic apologists but, well, I have to say this, some of us might not have our inquisitiveness satiated.

It would also include a study on the people on the other side of the conflict,. A study intro their philosophies, beliefs and aims and the Catholic Church’s experience in dealing with such philosophies etc previously in places like Portugal, Russia, South and Central and Central America etc.