Good Books on, and in refutation of, Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter YehoiakhinEx232
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YehoiakhinEx232

Guest
Hello, I’ve started my Christmas wishlist early, as some the things I order online often take over a month to get to where I live. Last February, I started hanging around an old secular forumsite I used to be a long time ago, and I started speaking with people about how I reverted to Traditional Catholicism. I discovered that debating Atheist was shockingly easy for me, and I have decided to take on debating and evangelizing Atheists in the future, I’ll probably be doing a practice run of sorts on this site, once I’m ready. (I need to work on moral and spiritual formation first, that’s the main reason, why I didn’t stay on that sight, despite how easy it was to refute the Atheists on that site.)

But getting to the point, I’d like people here to provide me with books, not only refuting Atheism, but also books by Atheists themselves, specifically the more serious philosophical types, not the New Atheists. I already own both, Peter Kreeft’s Summa of the Summa, and the Summa Theologica itself, and I also have Ernest Becker’s Denial of Death, and Ludwig Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity on my wishlist. (I realize these may not exactly be the types of books that one would want to look into when wanting to understand and refute Atheism, but I figured I might find a few things interest in them.) What books do you recommend?
 
J.L. Mackie is a serious atheist philosopher you might look into. As a theist we of course would disagree with him on several points, but where we feel he erred in his understanding of a theist point it can generally be said he was acting in good faith and making a genuine intellectual effort in understanding theist views, which can not really be said for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and other New Atheists. We could have an actual rational discourse with Mackie.
 
Last edited:
Atheism is not something you can refute. So you’re off on the wrong foot.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Not necessarily yours. It’s all gods. And to refute means ‘to prove someone wrong’. So what you appear to want to do is prove that someone doesn’t believe in gods. That’s pretty much of a non-starter.

What you can do - in fact, all you can do - is ask your friendly neighbourhood atheist what he or she believes is true and then try to prove that he or she is wrong.

Now most of these durn atheists are cunning. They will say things like: ‘I don’t say that God DOESN’T exist. I am saying that you haven’t convinced me the He DOES’.

Work on that for a while and let me know how you get on.
 
“End of Faith, Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason” by Sam Harris is a good start if you want to look at the other side. If you want the quick version, this hour and a half lecture by Harris gives a good synopsis:

 
Last edited:
‘Gods Undertaker’ by John Lennox
‘On Guard’ by William Lane Criag
Full disclosure- neither are Catholic afaik.
 
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Not necessarily yours. It’s all gods. And to refute means ‘to prove someone wrong’. So what you appear to want to do is prove that someone doesn’t believe in gods. That’s pretty much of a non-starter.
Aquinas’ 5 ways refutes Atheism since logically proves existence (not essence) of God.
 
An atheist can speak in generalities or take on the Bible point by point. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

In the Book, crossing the Threshold of Faith by St. John Paul, he says that people reject God because of the way He chose to reveal Himself. Something to ponder.
 
Atheism is described in the Bible many centuries ago. Religion used to be, it is said, the way to explain everything, but now a lot of people look to science for the answer to explain everything. But, when you throw out God, you throw out morality.

Some woman on EWTN radio said the other day that there is a big difference in the culture of the Far East, in which the Ten Commandments are not known or practiced. Specifically lying is the norm, she says. In North Korea, we see the head of state worshiped as a god, having absolute power.That’s why there is so much theft of Western intellectual property on the one hand, and so much deception like their manufacture of drywall with toxic materials in it and dog food laced with poison, as we have experienced.

Atheism goes hand in hand with amorality.
 
If Aquinas proved that God exists (an impossibility in any case) then that does not disprove atheism. Which doesn’t require a capital A by the way.
 
40.png
Wozza:
an impossibility in any case
I’m curious, what deductive reasons do you have for making this comment? What makes it impossible?
If you could prove it then you wouldn’t need faith.

All so-called proofs are really proposals based on assumptions. Assumptions that sound reasonable but are not necessarily true. And if you follow them to their conclusion you get a deity. Not God.
 
If you could prove it then you wouldn’t need faith.
You misunderstand the meaning of “faith”, at least as how Catholics understand it. It’s an article of the catholic faith that God’s existence can be known in principle through the light of human reason. Even if you really think that God’s existence cannot be proven, it doesn’t follow that therefore it is deductively evident that God’s existence cannot be proven. True, what is proven is only the existence of a deity; but that deity is consistent with the Catholic concept of God. It’s religion, divine revelation, the idea that the true God has revealed himself to us directly, this is a matter of faith, and even then it doesn’t necessarily follow that we have faith without good reasons.

In any case you made a strong claim as if it were a statement of fact that can be known, and you have failed to provide a deductive reason for thinking so. I guess I’m trying to figure out why you would do that.
 
Last edited:
All so-called proofs are really proposals based on assumptions.
I disagree. Not all the arguments work. For example i reject Anselm’s ontological argument. On the other hand i think the metaphysics presented by Aquinas is for the most part solid, and i am yet to find a refutation that isn’t a straw-man. But maybe you should begin a thread stating what those assumptions are.
 
Hebrews 11:1 (NIV) says: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” Which is the antithesis of “knowledge”.
Are you Catholic? I should let you know that i interpret scripture through the lens of the Catholic faith.

For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse ([Romans 1:20]
 
Last edited:
Hello,

I don’t personally have any book recommendations. I wanted to just offer a suggestion in your journey:

Perhaps try not to think of it as a debate, as something meant to be won. Also, don’t focus on the person. You’re not refuting the atheist, you’re refuting their lack of belief in something which you believe in. In the end, there’s no winning anything, there’s no solid refutation. It comes down to this: They don’t believe, and you do.
 
Which is the antithesis of “knowledge”.
How so?

Warren Wiersbe has a couple great quotes on Hebrews 11:1, albeit a slightly different worded version:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
“substance = assurance, the thing that stands under all the rest, the foundation. Faith is to a Christian what a foundation is to a house; it gives confidence and assurance that he will stand.” -Warren Wiersbe

“evidence = conviction. A vague, “I hope so” kind of faith, based on sentimental twaddle about God, leads to a feeble, anemic, pitiful Christianity. A faith deep enough to form convictions leads to action, strength and determination, even in the face of insurmountable odds" -Warren Wiersbe

Here’s a really good breakdown and explanation of the passage you’re attempting to cite:


I believe you have a flawed understanding of what faith is.
The quoted passage needs no interpretation.
It does, though. As all verses do, especially when taken out of context.
 
God’s existence can be known in principle through the light of human reason.

True, what is proven is only the existence of a deity; but that deity is consistent with the Catholic concept of God.
To get to God from any of the ‘proofs’, all you are doing is saying: ‘The deity must be God’. Except, as we agreed, you have no proofs that God exists. You need to prove both and then claim that they are one and the same.

I’ll step back just a little as well and say that the proofs only show that a powerful entity possibly existed. Past tense. It need not exist now. All else is assumption.
 
For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse ([Romans 1:20]
For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse ([Romans 1:20]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top