How do I turn the table on atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Imago_Dei3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
It may have been better to start a new thread since threads on atheism are banned (and I would not be surprised if this one gets locked).
    • I’ve not been presented with many miracles
      2)I’m not sure that popularity would impact my position here.
  1. No, there may never be an explanation for manythings
  2. I don’t see this as much of a factor
 
Questions I usually ask Atheist tend to be in the realm of morality. Atheist main objection to God is the problem of evil and why God did certain things in the Bible. Questions you can ask them is how do they know what is evil when evil is none existent yet they affirm it exist but attempt to heed moral relavitism to get out of the topic so to do that they have to appeal to Christian ethics of objective morality. The main thing is much of Atheism lies within moral relavitism if you can show they can not live it out that they must appeal to objective morals you have them trapped and they will be forced to admit objective morality exist do to a moral law giver. Hope that helps. 🙂
Your contention seems to be that moral relativists can’t use the problem of evil as an argument against God. If so, it’s false, because the problem of evil is an internal critique of theism.
 
Hi, Soencelo,

Does this mean that you do not see evil as a problem?

God bless
Your contention seems to be that moral relativists can’t use the problem of evil as an argument against God. If so, it’s false, because the problem of evil is an internal critique of theism.
 
Hi, Spencelo,

You made the following claim:

“…the problem of evil is an internal critique of theism”

I think evil is a problem for everyone. You seem to be saying that it is ony a problem if you believe in God. I think you really need to clarify your statement.

God bless
Do you mean a problem for theism, or a problem generally?
 
One way is to show their contradictions. Almost every single assertion made by them is contradicted by a later assertion. I myself found found tons of contradictions in Dawkin’s book. Here is one.

He wrote that if God should exist and He asks Dawkins why he did not believe in Him, he would say to God that He did not leave any evidence for His existence. But in his book, Climbing Mount Improbable, Dawkins said that if a statue of the Virgin Mary should wave at him, he would still refuse to believe it was miracle. So that is absolutely no hypothetical evidence that would convince him that God exists. How can he know then that there is a lack of evidence?
 
Hi, Packermann,

Excellent! 👍

I have found that Dawkins is truly a total waste of time - about the only positive thing that I can say is that he has gotten a lot of folks to think about their relationship with God.

God bless
One way is to show their contradictions. Almost every single assertion made by them is contradicted by a later assertion. I myself found found tons of contradictions in Dawkin’s book. Here is one.

He wrote that if God should exist and He asks Dawkins why he did not believe in Him, he would say to God that He did not leave any evidence for His existence. But in his book, Climbing Mount Improbable, Dawkins said that if a statue of the Virgin Mary should wave at him, he would still refuse to believe it was miracle. So that is absolutely no hypothetical evidence that would convince him that God exists. How can he know then that there is a lack of evidence?
 
Dawkins said that if a statue of the Virgin Mary should wave at him, he would still refuse to believe it was miracle. So that is absolutely no hypothetical evidence that would convince him that God exists. How can he know then that there is a lack of evidence?
You might find interest in a recent thread in which someone asked"what evidence would it take for you to believe." I don’t remember the thread title, but it should still be on the first page.
 
Your contention seems to be that moral relativists can’t use the problem of evil as an argument against God. If so, it’s false, because the problem of evil is an internal critique of theism.
Maybe the charitable interpretation is that the existence of objective evil is inconsistent with moral relativism, which is implied by atheism.
 
Hi, Spencelo,

I would appreciate it if you would provide some clarification to this ‘internal critique of theism’ statement.

Thank you

God bess
Your contention seems to be that moral relativists can’t use the problem of evil as an argument against God. If so, it’s false, because the problem of evil is an internal critique of theism.
 
Hi, Spencelo,

I would appreciate it if you would provide some clarification to this ‘internal critique of theism’ statement.

Thank you

God bess
Apologies in advance, since I am leaping into a thread I have not been following long-term, but my supposition would be that the “internal critique of theism” label, as applied to the problem of evil, is a statement of the fact that the existence of evil, as such, is only a philosophical problem if one assumes the existence of a being, force, or other manifestation of power which, by definition, is supposed to act against evil - indeed, defined as being the opposite of evil.

We perceive what is, by our own human judgement, evil - both natural and moral - within the world we inhabit; evidence of suffering is all around us, and suffering by its very definition is something sentient beings seek to avoid, something negative, bad, undesirable - and, if consciously, deliberately inflicted, evil. This is a practical problem for atheists, to be sure, but there is no need to explain, in any cosmic or all-encompassing way, why it exists unless you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing deity who can act within the world to overcome evil such as we perceive it. That is why the problem of evil is an internal critique of theism.
 
Hi, Sair,

No problems - the more that join the more we have to discuss… 🙂

In reading your post the descriptive image of the Ying and Yang came to mind - force for good and a force for evil being essentially evenly matched - doing good and evil deeds respectively as they interact with the world and the humans in it. Is this a valid description of your explanaiton?

The idea you are presenting may be summarized as, “If God is All Powerful, why is there evil?” There are several answers - but, we first must recognize that the ultimate answer is beyond us because it is a mystery - something truly in the Mind of God about Himself.

After we recognize that whatever we come up with will have genuine limitations - we can proceed to look at the idea of Free Will. It is truly a tremendous blessing - and with it comes significant responsibility. In all of creation (noting you’re a pantheist) there is nothing recorded of any thing or any living object - except man - identifying that a Supreme Diety (God) exists and that worship of God is appropriate behavior. For example, it is in the nature of a cow to stand on a grassy area, chew their cud and provide milk and calves. They do not form gangs and rob banks…! :rolleyes:There are no areas of worship constructed by cows to worship God, or areas where the herd engages in prayer or some kind of aspect that freely worshiping God is what a cow should do. This is unique to man, and it stems from the ability to go beyond nature, use intellect and then freely make the conscious choice to engage in worship of God.

This means that there are those who freely choose NOT to worship God. Just look around and this can be seen in not only the affairs of men but in their literature, architecture and art. Free will really does exist. For example, you are free to chose to respond to this post or not - there is nothing about following instinct when it comes to sending out a post. 😃

God created man in the world and all of creation was determined by God to be ‘very good’. Then man freely chose to sin - and, according ot God’s design, evil entered the world. It does not make any difference for purposes of our discussion that this evil was in the first murder or in the first major flood. All who read the Genesis account are awed at the evil that is now present in the world since the Fall of Adam and Eve.

It isn’t that God is weak, or that evil is stronger. God is the creator and is in charge of everything. God allows evil to happen for His own purposes - I can not tell you why that is. But, I can say that the Devil did not sneak up on God and commit evil while God was not watching.

Here are two links that offer a much better answer then I provided:
integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/07/bickerstaff-why-does-god-allow-suffering/

users.qwest.net/~dkturner/why9.html

God bless
Apologies in advance, since I am leaping into a thread I have not been following long-term, but my supposition would be that the “internal critique of theism” label, as applied to the problem of evil, is a statement of the fact that the existence of evil, as such, is only a philosophical problem if one assumes the existence of a being, force, or other manifestation of power which, by definition, is supposed to act against evil - indeed, defined as being the opposite of evil.

We perceive what is, by our own human judgement, evil - both natural and moral - within the world we inhabit; evidence of suffering is all around us, and suffering by its very definition is something sentient beings seek to avoid, something negative, bad, undesirable - and, if consciously, deliberately inflicted, evil. This is a practical problem for atheists, to be sure, but there is no need to explain, in any cosmic or all-encompassing way, why it exists unless you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing deity who can act within the world to overcome evil such as we perceive it. That is why the problem of evil is an internal critique of theism.
 
In reading your post the descriptive image of the Ying and Yang came to mind - force for good and a force for evil being essentially evenly matched - doing good and evil deeds respectively as they interact with the world and the humans in it. Is this a valid description of your explanaiton[sic]?
the yin-yang is a motif. it is an easy way of approximating reality. but it isn’t the measure of tao.
The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

All things have their backs to the female
and stand facing the male.
When male and female combine,
all things achieve harmony.

Ordinary men hate solitude.
But the Master makes use of it,
embracing his aloneness, realizing
he is one with the whole universe.
After we recognize that whatever we come up with will have genuine limitations…
i can imagine a world without gods, and i live in that world.

my guess is that theists cannot. they cannot imagine a world without their personal jesus, an important limitation that all christians should be aware of.

just because you can only imagine that men are the only animals that do this or that doesn’t mean that somebody else can’t have a deeper understanding of nature. other animals besides people DO do things like form gangs and rob other animals (ants, notably).

watch this video, it shows that elephants have feelings. video.nationalgeographic.com/video/animals/mammals-animals/elephants/elephant_african_mourning/

here is an elephant painting youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk

=================================================================
In all of creation there is nothing recorded of anything - except man - identifying that God exists and that worship of God is appropriate behavior.
how can you know this? please be specific, this is a real question. you speak like there is an easy way to check, across the entire universe, whether some other animal hasn’t developed religion. there have certainly been other animals on this earth (cro-magnon) in the past that exhibited religious tendencies.

and then there all the modern humans, and their myriad religions. it seems to me that the most likely predictor of a person’s religion is where they were born, and how they were raised. but if you are a true christian, you are limited to only using the bible for reference, which means that you are stuck in a world, in the middle of a tiny universe, that is only 6000 years old.

so that’s a limitation, but it does solve the problems of other animals having religions. if the bible says the earth is 10k yrs old, and cro-magnons are 45k yrs old, then hey presto, cro-magnon didn’t exist. and it’s an easy way to keep believing in other fables, like noah, if you can just limit your understanding in a particular way. it’s like a labotomy.

=================================================================
This means that there are those who freely choose NOT to worship God.
is there a distinction to be drawn between worshipping God and actually believing any of it? this is another real question;p

free will is an illusion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Free_will_as_illusion

but your statement basically accuses me of not believe in God because i don’t feel like it. you don’t call me lazy, or evil, or anything like that, you don’t assign any motives.

if i told you that you had to worship a unicorn, and that if you did, when you died you went to ice cream mountain, would you do it? you don’t have to believe any of it, just worshipping the unicorn is enough according to this weird unicorn religion. would you do that?

i guess that i could force myself to worship your God, but i don’t think i could ever believe any of it. and this might well be due to my own limitations. i haven’t ever seen any miracles, so i don’t believe in them.

but i like to think that if jesus christ floated down on a cloud to talk to me, i would listen. and if i met st peter after i died, i would seriously alter my world-view at that time when newer, better evidence became available. but right now, i’m limited by my understanding of life/death, and total un-belief in an afterlife. i’m still religious, so you can attribute this to my misunderstanding of tao;p.
 
Hi, Z0wb13,

I guess you do not have to force yourself to worship God. Now, when it comes miracles - just look around. Were you awake for this morning’s sunrise? How about yesterday morning? Did you notice a pattern? Too early for you… how about this evening’s sunset? Do you believe in not only these events - but the fact that they repeat with great regularity and predictibility? Check this out…

The idea is that miracles happen all around - take a look at the really great scenes in space that have been seen from the Hubble Space Telescope - here’s a link:

hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/hubble_deep_field/

Now, all this looking up may be rough on one’s neck - so, how about the miracles at the electron mircoscopic level… check out this link:
http://www.zeiss.com/C1256E4600307C70/ContainerTitel/LifeSciences/$File/zoology2.html

Now, all of these patterns, replicaton and uniqueness doesn’t happen out of chaos - they are miracles - so, “… persist not in your unbelief…” of miracles.

God bless
if i told you that you had to worship a unicorn, and that if you did, when you died you went to ice cream mountain, would you do it? you don’t have to believe any of it, just worshipping the unicorn is enough according to this weird unicorn religion. would you do that?

i guess that i could force myself to worship your God, but i don’t think i could ever believe any of it. and this might well be due to my own limitations. i haven’t ever seen any miracles, so i don’t believe in them.

but i like to think that if jesus christ floated down on a cloud to talk to me, i would listen. and if i met st peter after i died, i would seriously alter my world-view at that time when newer, better evidence became available. but right now, i’m limited by my understanding of life/death, and total un-belief in an afterlife. i’m still religious, so you can attribute this to my misunderstanding of tao;p.
 
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
For those looking for undeniable proof of God’s existence, I would probably say: you are not going to have much luck at persuading them. But here goes:

Where did life come from? Clearly intelligent life cannot be a product of unintelligent material, inanimate elements. Last I checked, elements cannot think therefore cannot create.

Where did the complexities of the universe and life itself come from? Last I checked, elements cannot think therefore cannot be responsible for the creation of these complexities.

From a purely scientific standpoint time, and space have no boundaries. Atheism tells us that there is no God, and that life itself had a beginning, but it cannot tell us how this never ending expansion of space and time was created. If life itself began, (as per the big bang) then time would have had a beginning, ruling out the notion that the universe just always was, and always will be. That to me, believed by some, is tantamount to making the universe God. :rolleyes:

Let’s say for the moment that religion is pointless due to the idea that a creator does not exist outside time and space, making life itself purely an accident: even accidents are a function of something - right? Its kind of silly to suggest that nothing caused the accident.

Atheism is a hard pill to swallow in my humble opinion.
 
One way is to show their contradictions. Almost every single assertion made by them is contradicted by a later assertion. I myself found found tons of contradictions in Dawkin’s book. Here is one.

He wrote that if God should exist and He asks Dawkins why he did not believe in Him, he would say to God that He did not leave any evidence for His existence. But in his book, Climbing Mount Improbable, Dawkins said that if a statue of the Virgin Mary should wave at him, he would still refuse to believe it was miracle. So that is absolutely no hypothetical evidence that would convince him that God exists. How can he know then that there is a lack of evidence?
He is not contradicting himself, he just sets up some strawmen. Basically he is convinced that any experience he might have that indicates God exists, could also be caused by other factors, e.g. brain malfunction.

So even if Dawkins dies and God takes him into paradise (Goging to the limit with mercy: “If i had been an evil stalinistic madmen as you thought, your rebellion would have been the correct choice and you are not culpabale for misunderstanding things.”), Dawkins would still be unconvinced, as he would have to assume that instead he is experiencing some hallucination caused by the lack of oxygen in his dying brain.

Just as it suggested here in a satiric way:
bbspot.com/News/2001/06/atheist.html
““He did some pretty cool tricks,” said Herman, “like making the universe disappear and reversing the flow of time, but for all I know he could’ve had me hypnotized or something. Imagine how dumb I’d feel if I said ‘I believe in God’ only to find out later that I was just in a trance.””

So the talk about evidence regarding atheism and God is just empty talk.
 
Hi, Carn,

You may be onto something here…
He is not contradicting himself, he just sets up some strawmen. Basically he is convinced that any experience he might have that indicates God exists, could also be caused by other factors, e.g. brain malfunction.
Now, ‘brain malfunction’ is not a precise term - how does delusional thinking sound?!! 😃

Yes, there are usually an abundance of ‘strawmen’ out there - but, the real issue, in my opinion, is that these people do not want to be held accountable for their actions. The amount of faith it would take to believe all of creation ‘just happened’ - is nothing short of monumental - and certainly should be recognized for what it is: a ‘faith system’.

Ultimately, there are some people (e.g., Carl Sagan en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan ) who go to their grave as an agnostic… and that is the way they want it. Our responsibility is to try to present the Love of God - their responsibility is to make a good-faith decision. And that is really as far as we can go. Just do not lose heart in doing our part. 🙂

God bless
 
One big thing to talk about is “conscience” - how is there good and evil with no God?

Dawkins is very eloquent and elaborate but he is often contradicting himself and simply leaving NO room for God which is bias to start with…

Hope this helps!
ClemtheCatholic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top