How do I turn the table on atheists?

[tqualey]

Hi, BVollmar,

Well, I am delighted that the drwoning child is no longer at risk…

I think we divide things into natural evils and human evils that can befall us. If you only want to discuss human evils, that is fine with me, Make no mistake about it, Catholics do not UNDERSTAND evil in the sense that it can be totally explained. But, just for consistecy of purpose, maybe it would be good if we were on the same page when it comes to talking about. Here is a link that may be a good start: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htm

As I appreciate your link, you are trying to toss the existence of evil, through the human examples you provided, at God and those who believe in God. As opposed to the more traditional statement of Atheists for explaining the origins of anything, “Hey, it is here so that means it is here - no god - everything just came into being and let’s move on!” You have singled out evil as a reflection of God (of course, if God does not exist - or only exists for purpose of your examples - this would truly be an impoverished god!)

So, let’s take the background I know you have and combine it with some practical applications. Catholics believe that God not only created everything seen and unseen out of nothing - but created them perfectly. Not only was nature demonstrating order - but harmony and perfection being in total accord with God’s Will. God made man in His Image - and with this came free will. Some (primarily Calvinists) doubt the existence of free will - but the acid test here is that you can choose to continue reading - or simply stop at any time! If you chose to continue, then join me below in the next paragraph!

Many chose to disobey God - and from that point on, sin not only entered the world like a thief in the night - but, also, like a bull in a china shop! Nature kept some of its order, but lost its harmony and natural evils like earthquakes and hurricanes wrought violence on land and all life! Man was not torn between doing what is pleasing ot God or to what is pleasing to hiself. While animals can only follow their natural instincts, man can follow his lusts, and greed and disordered passions whenever he sins. It could have deteriorated from this point on - but,our God is both kind and merciful and He sent His Son to pay the price for our sins. I bet you have heard this story before …

Men freely chose to sin - and some sins involve abusing others, causing others pain and humilitation and even the loss of life. Evil has many elements that are honestly a mystery - and that means no one can fully explain what is happening. But, unlike Dualism that has a god of good and a god of evil - equal in power and that spend eternity cancelling out the effects of one another - the Catholic Faith is not like this. God created all, and all He created was good. God created free will - and the will can chose to follow God or abandon Him. The Devil was the first to chose not to obey God but obey himself - and God punished the Devil and the angels that followed him. God gave man the power to choose - and man sinned and while God punished man, too - He promised man a Savior - and we have Jesus. Our work is provide the message of salvation through Jesus Christ and the Church He founded on Peter - the effort is to try and reduce the force of evil on the world.

I hope this helps.

God bless

Of course I would help the drowning child, so I guess we can continue.

The remainder of my post won’t apply to things like natural disasters or accidents. Those things are not necessarily evil in my mind. I’m more concerned with acts of human violence.

Somewhere, probably at the minute I’m typing this, a child is being beaten to death by its parent. A political dissident is being beaten to death. A woman is being raped by a male family member. No one else is around to watch these acts of violence. I don’t think these these are far-fetched scenarios, as they are reported quite frequently around the world.

As I understand the various points on this forum and others, God allows the possibility of these acts occurring because if he limited our free will in any way, it would diminish our ability to freely choose to love and worship him. So if I was a Christian, I should be thanking the child, the dissident, and the woman for giving up their lives so that I could freely choose to love and worship God.

As I think about other acts of violence, how do I know if there is a greater good or not? I don’t, except that I do know that without evil in the world, there is no possibility of truly loving God of our own free will. So who am I, lowly human that I am, to interfere with someone’s exercise of their God-given free will?

My understanding (of which I’m sure will be claimed is not correct) is that God only created the possibility of evil, not evil itself. Coupled with the idea that we are all sinners and at least of of us will commit acts of evil, humans are only choosing when, where, why, and how the evil will occur. In my mind, this doesn’t relieve God of his responsibility for evil. Its like someone saying he only bought the gun used to kill the store-owner, he didn’t actually fire the gun.

 

[tqualey]

Hi BVollmar,

I am glad you appreciate order. Actully, the more you understand the complexities fo the world the more you really appreciate order.

Ah, I have never been to Kentucky … so, is the grass really blue out there?

I highlighed and item below that I would like to comment on. What you have done is shared some observations and experiences: the beauty of your local environment, natural beauty in animals, depression and learnig things - all done, according to you - without any acknowledgement on your part about God’s role in any of this. You have not tole me what you believe in: sunny days can turn to rain, heavy downpours can turn to flash floods, storm clouds can produce tornadoes, etc. Those are not believes, either - only possibilities.

The only belief you have presented, to my understanding, is your stated non-belief in God. And, that leads me to wonder if your acknowledgement or lack of it - as to how things got here is really necessary… for God to act! Look, the entire unverse was here before either you or I were on this earth - and I have every confidence tha they will be here after we are gone. If you are still looking for a belief that does not include God … I can’t help you there … but, here is something you may enjoy: youtube.com/watch?v=La7ezvf_MQk

God bless

Actually, I can appreciate order. I’m fortunate to live in an area in Kentucky outside the city, next to a horse farm. I step outside every morning to let my dogs outside, and I gaze into the sky admiring the many stars, the moving clouds, the brightness of the moon, the cool wind, and the beauty of the large, muscular animals grazing in the field next to me. ** I’m honestly in awe of the vastness of our natural world and all that has happened in it that resulted in me standing there pondering it all. The idea that God created it all never crosses my mind. I can appreciate and be thankful for what I have without knowing the source of it. ** And experience has taught me that causation is often very hard to pin down. I have to live my life without knowing the source of everything, you do as well.

In your example of a chaotic life, your statement about the chances that people are not saying there is no god is a statement about probabilities based on the amount of stories you’ve heard in your next sentence. That does not constitute a fact and you can’t extrapolate a fact out of your limited experience.

In fact, 4-5 years ago when I was suffering through a major depression, health problems, and I was questioning every about my life, it wasn’t prayer to anyone that started my progression out of those situations. It was honest self-reflection, a desire to do things differently, and the love of family members, no God or gods involved to my knowledge. It was actually my strengthening disbelief in God that reaffirmed what I do positively believe in.

Being an atheist only tells you what we don’t believe in. Atheists have many other things we believe in and provide explanations for what we see. You may not understand it, but understanding, much like grace, doesn’t always come wrapped in a bow.

 

[BVollmar]

So you have no idea why you would save a parasite, but you would do it anyway.

Sorry, I missed the word “why” in the question.

I don’t see the link between the earlier posts and your question. Are we talking about literal parasites (small organisms or micro-organisms living on a host), or are we talking about a derogatory term for a person?

No offense intended by my last question, I’m a very literal, direct person.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sorry, I missed the word “why” in the question.

I don’t see the link between the earlier posts and your question. Are we talking about literal parasites (small organisms or micro-organisms living on a host), or are we talking about a derogatory term for a person?

No offense intended by my last question, I’m a very literal, direct person.

It depends on what you mean by derogatory. Does the word have any objective meaning? If not then its not really relevant.

The so called “child” in question is not a small organism as such, but in so far as “it” is a biological object that in a sense feeds on emotional delusions in order to survive and thrive, I liken “it” to a kind of parasite, although its not the usual sense of what is intended by that word. I am using the word analogously, like a “meme”. In other-words you have been emotionally fooled into placing value on the continuance of a particular object that has no true meaning or value and is going to eventually die anyway. Absolute Death and pain is an inevitability for all biological objects.

What rational reason, apart from your emotional delusion, do you have for trying to save “it” or preserve “it”.

 

[BVollmar]

Hi, BVollmar,

The purpose of the link is to provide some information to Atheists in general about realities that they appear to be ignoring.

Review the link and let me know what you think of it. And, so there is no mistake, this invitation is extended to all Athesits/Agnostics.

God bless

Hi,

I reviewed the link, and although I’m not versed in all the details of the idea of infallibility, I’m aware it exists in Catholic theology. My next questions are: what realities are Atheists ignoring, and how does this relate to my original post?

I’m not trying to be argumentative, I just interpret things very literally and need people to be very direct with me in their questioning. It drives my wife crazy sometimes!

Thanks,
Brian

 

[BVollmar]

Hi BVollmar,

I am glad you appreciate order. Actully, the more you understand the complexities fo the world the more you really appreciate order.

Ah, I have never been to Kentucky … so, is the grass really blue out there?

I highlighed and item below that I would like to comment on. What you have done is shared some observations and experiences: the beauty of your local environment, natural beauty in animals, depression and learnig things - all done, according to you - without any acknowledgement on your part about God’s role in any of this. You have not tole me what you believe in: sunny days can turn to rain, heavy downpours can turn to flash floods, storm clouds can produce tornadoes, etc. Those are not believes, either - only possibilities.

The only belief you have presented, to my understanding, is your stated non-belief in God. And, that leads me to wonder if your acknowledgement or lack of it - as to how things got here is really necessary… for God to act! Look, the entire unverse was here before either you or I were on this earth - and I have every confidence tha they will be here after we are gone. If you are still looking for a belief that does not include God … I can’t help you there … but, here is something you may enjoy: youtube.com/watch?v=La7ezvf_MQk

God bless

Hi,

You’re correct, I haven’t stated what I do believe in. If you’re interested, then please let me know. I’ll let you know though, my beliefs won’t provide any satisfactory contributions to the discussion of origins. But if you’re genuinely interested in what makes me tick, without trying to insulate that I’m somehow deluded, then I’ll be happy to share some of them with you.

I agree with you, my acknowledgment (or lack of) of God does not matter a bit to the universe or whether God can act or not. My only point was that insisting on a creator for order is not an issue for a lot of atheists. We can appreciate the world and everything that makes it up, even if we can’t explain it.

 

[BVollmar]

It depends on what you mean by derogatory. Does the word have any objective meaning? If not then its not really relevant.

The so called “child” in question is not a small organism as such, but in so far as “it” is a biological object that in a sense feeds on emotional delusions in order to survive and thrive, I liken “it” to a kind of parasite, although its not the usual sense of what is intended by that word. I am using the word analogously, like a “meme”. In other-words you have been emotionally fooled into placing value on the continuance of a particular object that has no true meaning or value and is going to eventually die anyway. Absolute Death and pain is an inevitability for all biological objects.

What rational reason, apart from your emotional delusion, do you have for trying to save “it” or preserve “it”.

Hi,

If I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying that in my atheist worldview, nothing has true meaning or value, and I’m emotionally deluded into thinking these meaningless, valueless objects have value. So the question is, in my belief system, why would I save an object that does doesn’t have any real value and is going to die anyway?

 

[Sair]

Hi,

If I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying that in my atheist worldview, nothing has true meaning or value, and I’m emotionally deluded into thinking these meaningless, valueless objects have value. So the question is, in my belief system, why would I save an object that does doesn’t have any real value and is going to die anyway?

You’d be correct in this assessment, from what I’ve gathered.

According to certain constructions of theistic belief, ‘real’ meaning is only that which comes from beyond the person and his/her subjective responses to circumstances. Thus, you could be passionately desirous of a child, deeply committed to raising another human being, but if you didn’t have a god standing behind you to provide the ‘rational’ justification for your desires, you might as well change your mind overnight and abort the foetus. It would make no difference to the universe, so why should it make a difference to you as an individual?

 

[BVollmar]

You’d be correct in this assessment, from what I’ve gathered.

According to certain constructions of theistic belief, ‘real’ meaning is only that which comes from beyond the person and his/her subjective responses to circumstances. Thus, you could be passionately desirous of a child, deeply committed to raising another human being, but if you didn’t have a god standing behind you to provide the ‘rational’ justification for your desires, you might as well change your mind overnight and abort the foetus. It would make no difference to the universe, so why should it make a difference to you as an individual?

Thank you for the comment, I think I’m seeing where this is going.

MindOverMatter2 - if you had a different intent, please let me know.

Two quick comments and I’ll come up with a more detailed response later. First, the general tendency I see with theistic viewpoints is that everything is an all-or-nothing proposition. God gives everything meaning, or nothing has meaning, period. There doesn’t seem to be anything in between the two extremes. Second, the statement I heard once that still resonates with me is that there is no meaning or purpose of life, but there is meaning and purpose in life.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Even some ‘free thinkers’ apparently recognize innate human compassion as a valid human response (clevelandfreethinkers.blogspot.com/2007/10/rejecting-dogma-and-innate-compassion.html ).

I think the response, “You mean nothing to me and even though I could help you, I won’t” portrays an impoverished human spirit - not only devoid of God but devoid of what really makes us human. Now, that is a serious deficit. And, personally, I think anyone advocating such an approach would quickly have the ‘tables turned’ on them.

God bless

You’d be correct in this assessment, from what I’ve gathered.

According to certain constructions of theistic belief, ‘real’ meaning is only that which comes from beyond the person and his/her subjective responses to circumstances. Thus, you could be passionately desirous of a child, deeply committed to raising another human being, but if you didn’t have a god standing behind you to provide the ‘rational’ justification for your desires, you might as well change your mind overnight and abort the foetus. It would make no difference to the universe, so why should it make a difference to you as an individual?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, BVollmar,

It may be more constructive to actually respond to the statement MOM2 presented rather than musing about the possible depth of your real or imagined emotional delusions.

What does an Atheist believe in? Now, I can understand a certain hesitation on providing information on how the tables may be turned … But, I have ‘faith’ in your ability to rise about such apprehension and clearly responding. Now, I am sure that there are those who believe in ‘…hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet…’ (to quote from an old commercial…) but a mere enumeration of objects to believe in is not going to really go far enough!

Yes, I am afraid that if we are to know how to turn these tables … we will need to know just why you believe in _____________ (fill in the blank). Let me give you an example.

I believe that The Master Pattern Maker (a/d/a God) created all out of nothing and gave everything the pattern of its existence so that replecation is ordered and predictable and can, in some instances, reproduced in a laboratory. I believe this because there is simply too much order for anyone to seriously claim that, “It just happened and here we are”. No one back in the Bronze Age would have taken such an explanation of why copper and tin work together so well when put together in a particular combination to make the alloy: bronze.

It may be said that these two metals were brought together by accident and people liked the result - and, that is probably how it initially happened. But, man continued to tinker with different metals and different proportions until a reliable product could be consistently produced. We look to serendipity for the first combination - but, then to and analytical in exploring mind of man for the refinements of this combination. If we can find the hand of man without any trouble in the development of an alloy - then the Hand of God should not be too hard to find. Now, there is a major difference and I think it should be pointed out early on - finding the bronze object and tracing the men and crafts that made it will not require a commitment. The same is not true about finding God.

God bless

Hi,

If I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying that in my atheist worldview, nothing has true meaning or value, and I’m emotionally deluded into thinking these meaningless, valueless objects have value. So the question is, in my belief system, why would I save an object that does doesn’t have any real value and is going to die anyway?

 

[StevenFrancis]

I’m reading the book the godless delusion, and it’s very helpful. I was just wondering if there is a good set of questions to ask atheists to maybe help them understand their view holds no ground and constantly contradict each other. Thanks

I have read this is as well. Pretty good book. I gotta tell you, I really don’t get Atheism. In fact, I don’t get it to the point where it seems to simply be a modern construct of convenience and intellectual and spiritual laziness devised to make people feel more in power over their environment. It is not a lack of religion. It is the religion where mankind is the god. Where man, and civil law are the only cause, and the final judgement. It is an unreasonable, and unfounded faith in man.

Anyway - There are many useful guides to help with your endeavor. I am praying for the charity and patience from God to be able to evangelize to atheists without becoming apoplectic.

For deep science and philosophy on the subject I recommend New Proofs for the Existence of God (contributions of contemporary physics and Philosophy) by Robert J. Spitzer. This is for those who truly believe in atheism, and are motivated in the direction, in their own opinions by science and reason. It is very detailed and dense with information relating our latest physics and philosophies to the existence of God, in fact showing how man is discovering God through the very means he seems to be hoping to disprove God. This is not likely good material for discussion with those who are simply culturally atheist, or just believe they’re atheist because they are afraid to admit to God due to the baggage that comes with it. This is for those who are actually philisophically atheist, and need hard data to move them in any direction. I don’t believe there are very many atheists, (if being honest with themselves), who are of this bent. I don’t know ANY as a matter of fact. I’m sure they’re out there, or there would be books like this one needed. However, I found the book to be intellectually informative, and it brought me up to date on the finding about God through science. Very interesting stuff.

More prevalent than real atheists are “new agers” and post modern moral relativists, or those somewhere in-between.

Try Beginning Apologetics 4 from San Juan Catholic Seminars, as well as volumes 1 and 5. These are brief little booklets just loaded with info, and they each have bibliographies to send you to other books. They are very point by point.

Also, can’t say enough about the classics. Summa theologica. Anything you can get your hands on by Peter Kreeft. GK Chesterton (Orthodoxy), C.S. Lewis (Miracles/Mere Christianity). One in particular that I enjoyed just recently is Peter Kreefts Refutation of Moral Relativism, which is even done in an entertaining way.

I’m trying right now, with prayer, to pull these marvelous resources together to the point where I can carry myself, with God’s help, in live conversation. I’ll pray for your ministry to others. Please pray for mine as well.

May God bless and keep you,

Steven

 

[tonyrey]

Second, the statement I heard once that still resonates with me is that there is no meaning or purpose of life, but there is meaning and purpose in life.

How do they get there?

 

[tonyrey]

How is this any worse than the summary of the theist’s argument, which seems to be:

God did it, here we are, I believe because I believe and you can’t disprove anything, so what I believe is true for everyone.

The atheist’s argument seems to be “Matter did it. I believe because I believe and you can’t disprove anything, so what I believe is true for everyone!”

 

[Whadyamean]

The atheist’s argument seems to be “Matter did it. I believe because I believe and you can’t disprove anything, so what I believe is true for everyone!”

“Seems” is useful here, but later the assumption is made that such a stance includes that it ought to distribute over everyone. Is that true? In every case? And is that not as well the stance of the pious?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Whadyamean,

I am glad to see you are not disagreeing with Tonyrey - just taking exception that there are bound to be exceptions and they should be recognized. Actually, Whadyamean, I think you are right!

I think the best example of such exceptions are those Atheists who came to a realization that random generation does not keep on producing order. Here is an interesting link you may use to bolster your argument that such is not true in every case: simpletoremember.com/articles/a/atheist-believes-in-god/

Concerns for the pious will really have to wait … I would really like to stick with the idea of ‘truning the tables’…

God bless

“Seems” is useful here, but later the assumption is made that such a stance includes that it ought to distribute over everyone. Is that true? In every case? And is that not as well the stance of the pious?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Steven Francis,

Thanks for an excellent post!

God bless

I have read this is as well. Pretty good book. I gotta tell you, I really don’t get Atheism. In fact, I don’t get it to the point where it seems to simply be a modern construct of convenience and intellectual and spiritual laziness devised to make people feel more in power over their environment. It is not a lack of religion. It is the religion where mankind is the god. Where man, and civil law are the only cause, and the final judgement. It is an unreasonable, and unfounded faith in man.

Anyway - There are many useful guides to help with your endeavor. I am praying for the charity and patience from God to be able to evangelize to atheists without becoming apoplectic.

For deep science and philosophy on the subject I recommend New Proofs for the Existence of God (contributions of contemporary physics and Philosophy) by Robert J. Spitzer. This is for those who truly believe in atheism, and are motivated in the direction, in their own opinions by science and reason. It is very detailed and dense with information relating our latest physics and philosophies to the existence of God, in fact showing how man is discovering God through the very means he seems to be hoping to disprove God. This is not likely good material for discussion with those who are simply culturally atheist, or just believe they’re atheist because they are afraid to admit to God due to the baggage that comes with it. This is for those who are actually philisophically atheist, and need hard data to move them in any direction. I don’t believe there are very many atheists, (if being honest with themselves), who are of this bent. I don’t know ANY as a matter of fact. I’m sure they’re out there, or there would be books like this one needed. However, I found the book to be intellectually informative, and it brought me up to date on the finding about God through science. Very interesting stuff.

More prevalent than real atheists are “new agers” and post modern moral relativists, or those somewhere in-between.

Try Beginning Apologetics 4 from San Juan Catholic Seminars, as well as volumes 1 and 5. These are brief little booklets just loaded with info, and they each have bibliographies to send you to other books. They are very point by point.

Also, can’t say enough about the classics. Summa theologica. Anything you can get your hands on by Peter Kreeft. GK Chesterton (Orthodoxy), C.S. Lewis (Miracles/Mere Christianity). One in particular that I enjoyed just recently is Peter Kreefts Refutation of Moral Relativism, which is even done in an entertaining way.

I’m trying right now, with prayer, to pull these marvelous resources together to the point where I can carry myself, with God’s help, in live conversation. I’ll pray for your ministry to others. Please pray for mine as well.

May God bless and keep you,

Steven

 

[ccmnxc]

Not to derail anything here, but I have a question on the subject of miracles.
For the atheists (Pick as many of the following as neccessary, or add your own):

1. Do you not believe the majority because they can be explained naturally?
2. Do you not believe due to insufficient eyewitnesses or possibly innaccurate historical accounts?
3. Do you not believe them because you think there will be an explanation in the future?
4. Do you not believe because God needs to be presupposed in certain miracles?

For Christians/Catholics (same applies as the atheists):

1. Do you believe miracles only the Vatican authenticates?
2. Do you believe miracles because you already believe in God?
3. What is your response to miracles from other religions?
4. Have you had any personal experiences that you can’t explain to be anything other than a miracle?

Thanks, and remember respect.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ccmnxc,

I feel safest in believing miracles with authenticated by teh Vatican.

From my experience, those truly unique miracles that generate a lot of press are worth taking a look at with an inclination to believe in them (yeah … I know…!) Then sometime about 1985-7, I was really wondering about the so-called Marion appriations at Medjugorje - here’s a link: catholicdoors.com/isit/isit10.htm And, then I began to feel a bit foolish.

Contrast these events with the apparitions at Fatima. Here is a quote on apparitions (which is a particular type of miracle) that may be helpful:

***“Incautious interest in apparitions may be dangerous. Those who immerse themselves in questionable apparitions may find it becomes dangerously easy to become “drawn into them.” The person may become less objective and less discerning concerning the apparition. And, the more familiar one becomes with such “apparitions”, the more one’s resistance may be worn down.” ***(mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/the_Blessed_Virgin/apparitions.htm#Our Lady of Fatima )

God bless

Not to derail anything here, but I have a question on the subject of miracles.
For the atheists (Pick as many of the following as neccessary, or add your own):

1. Do you not believe the majority because they can be explained naturally?
2. Do you not believe due to insufficient eyewitnesses or possibly innaccurate historical accounts?
3. Do you not believe them because you think there will be an explanation in the future?
4. Do you not believe because God needs to be presupposed in certain miracles?

For Christians/Catholics (same applies as the atheists):

1. Do you believe miracles only the Vatican authenticates?
2. Do you believe miracles because you already believe in God?
3. What is your response to miracles from other religions?
4. Have you had any personal experiences that you can’t explain to be anything other than a miracle?

Thanks, and remember respect.

 

[ccmnxc]

Thanks for the response and links.