How do I turn the table on atheists?

[Linusthe2nd]

I certainly disagree with Swinburn. Thomas’ five ways are certainly persuasive. You do have to read him correctly however and not in " sound bites " as is usual course in the Athiest arguments. Edward Feser gives an excellent expanation of the positions and attitudes taken by popular Athiests from the 18 th century to today. The surprising result is that most of them have not bothered to study Thomas at all. He also gives a solid defence of Thomas’ five ways and Thomis generally. See " The Last Superstition " by Edward Feser. I haven’t read his " Aquinas " yet but I have it on order. Other reliable authors are Henri Renard, S.J., Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Cardinal Mercier, Maurice R. Holloway, S. J., Jacques Maritain, Etien Gilson, Charles A. Hart, S.J… There are others, these are the ones with whom I am familiar.

On trying to convince Athiests that they are wrong however, I consider it a huge waste of time and energy. The ones I have met aren’t open to the anything remotely connected to God. My theory is that they view themselves as belonging to an exclusive club to which only intellectuallly elite, progressive thinkers can belong and that " believers " are a sort of intellectual unter menschen. The best approach is to ignore them but stand your ground when confronted and just tell them you will pray for them ( they love that).

 

[atheistgirl]

My theory is that they view themselves as belonging to an exclusive club to which only intellectuallly elite, progressive thinkers can belong and that " believers " are a sort of intellectual unter menschen. The best approach is to ignore them but stand your ground when confronted and just tell them you will pray for them ( they love that).

Wow.

That’s a bit heavy, what with the Nazi terminology n’all

I am about a far from ever being a member of anything intellectual as it’s possible to be

And many here have offered to pray for me, and I’ve always thanked them and said I think it’s very sweet.

Sarah x

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

Isn’t it the exception that proves the rule?

“Nazi terminology”? please explain.

But, honestly, we have one life to live … on earth … and another to live in eternity. And we all will really have to answer for our actions. So, my prayers are with you - and you can pray for me, too.

God bless

Wow.

That’s a bit heavy, what with the Nazi terminology n’all

I am about a far from ever being a member of anything intellectual as it’s possible to be

And many here have offered to pray for me, and I’ve always thanked them and said I think it’s very sweet.

Sarah x

 

[ThinkingSapien]

My theory is that they view themselves as belonging to an exclusive club to which only intellectuallly elite, progressive thinkers can belong and that " believers " are a sort of intellectual unter menschen.

I have never seen any statics from which to infer what most think. I can only share my personal experiences. Most that I have met don’t express thinking like that. Identifying that the person is an atheist can be difficult because there may not be direct expressions of it and may act to hide and cover up their disposition.

I also think that ones responses towards religion(s) may be a bit telling of their experiences with it or its followers. You can find people behaving in diverse ways under the name of God or the cover of their church. There do exist some rather bad representatives.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

True. Generalizations are prone to miss a lot of details…and this one is no exception…

When I read the post, I was thinking more of Dr. Richard Dawkins - and I think he does easily fit the previous description.

God bless

I have never seen any statics from which to infer what most think. I can only share my personal experiences. Most that I have met don’t express thinking like that. Identifying that the person is an atheist can be difficult because there may not be direct expressions of it and may act to hide and cover up their disposition.

I also think that ones responses towards religion(s) may be a bit telling of their experiences with it or its followers. You can find people behaving in diverse ways under the name of God or the cover of their church. There do exist some rather bad representatives.

 

[joe370]

Hi, Joe370,

I think many have actually choked on it!

God bless

Every time I ask an atheist what set the universe in motion, they usually ignore me. In my estimation, it takes so much more faith to believe that something (universe) came from nothing. This a pretty interesting debate; if you get the chance check it out. Atheist Christopher Hitchens vs Dr. William Craig:

youtube.com/watch?v=SRWUAQm2MS4
**
**

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

True. Generalizations are prone to miss a lot of details…and this one is no exception…

When I read the post, I was thinking more of Dr. Richard Dawkins - and I think he does easily fit the previous description.

God bless

It’s worth pointing out that Dawkins is very much an activist. I don’t think that most atheists are. Strategies for dealing with activist are probably going to be different because many times activist are making a display for the onlookers. In those situations a reaction may be motivated more by trying to convince the onlookers than changing the mind of the speaker.

 

[Sair]

Every time I ask an atheist what set the universe in motion, they usually ignore me. In my estimation, it takes so much more faith to believe that something (universe) came from nothing. This a pretty interesting debate; if you get the chance check it out. Atheist Christopher Hitchens vs Dr. William Craig:

youtube.com/watch?v=SRWUAQm2MS4
**
**

And what is particularly interesting about this debate is the subsequent disagreement over who “won” it - opinions tend to go along with prejudices.

The fact of the matter is that there are a wide range of views on both sides, from the simplistic to the highly sophisticated. The atheist camp certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on assuming intellectual superiority - just look at some of the criticisms levelled at Dawkins following the publication of The God Delusion. Not to mention that it has become fashionable, apparently, at least in online journalistic circles, to hold an opinon of the “New Atheists” which is superficially critical, but really amounts to, “I’m sorry, but they’re just not vague enough in their ideas about god(s).”

What it boils down to is which arguments and evidences, taken collectively, any individual finds to be most plausible and convincing on the basis of their own experience. To me, it seems obvious that there’s no such thing as a personal god existing outside of human-invented mythologies. To others, it’s not so obvious. Some people are convinced by the relative ease with which we can conceive of a personal being making things - such as a god creating the universe - compared with the difficulty of imagining how impersonal natural forces could have brought about the same outcome. Some people are fully cognizant of the theories of quantum fluctuations and multiverses and so on, but still find it plausible to believe in a personal being that set everything in motion.

Personally, I find the definition offered by the Atheist Foundation of Australia to be perfectly satisfactory, and the position I hold with respect to the existence of deities: “Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.”

 

[joe370]

And what is particularly interesting about this debate is the subsequent disagreement over who “won” it - opinions tend to go along with prejudices.

The fact of the matter is that there are a wide range of views on both sides, from the simplistic to the highly sophisticated. The atheist camp certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on assuming intellectual superiority - just look at some of the criticisms levelled at Dawkins following the publication of The God Delusion. Not to mention that it has become fashionable, apparently, at least in online journalistic circles, to hold an opinon of the “New Atheists” which is superficially critical, but really amounts to, “I’m sorry, but they’re just not vague enough in their ideas about god(s).”

What it boils down to is which arguments and evidences, taken collectively, any individual finds to be most plausible and convincing on the basis of their own experience. To me, it seems obvious that there’s no such thing as a personal god existing outside of human-invented mythologies. To others, it’s not so obvious. Some people are convinced by the relative ease with which we can conceive of a personal being making things - such as a god creating the universe - compared with the difficulty of imagining how impersonal natural forces could have brought about the same outcome. Some people are fully cognizant of the theories of quantum fluctuations and multiverses and so on, but still find it plausible to believe in a personal being that set everything in motion.

Personally, I find the definition offered by the Atheist Foundation of Australia to be perfectly satisfactory, and the position I hold with respect to the existence of deities: “Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.”

I just thought the debate was interesting, and I have always thought that Christopher Hitchens was a master when it came to the debating game, even if I didn’t agree with him.

In your opinion can something (universe) come from nothing? Christopher Hitchens answer to that question was no. However, he refused to give any credit to a creator.

 

[Sair]

I just thought the debate was interesting, and I have always thought that Christopher Hitchens was a master when it came to the debating game, even if I didn’t agree with him.

He certainly was a master - the term ‘Hitch-slap’ was not coined for nothing! I did not always agree with him either (though my disagreements were more political than what could be called theological) but I could not help but admire his courage and articulate self-assurance.

In your opinion can something (universe) come from nothing? Christopher Hitchens answer to that question was no. However, he refused to give any credit to a creator.

In my opinion, for what it’s worth, no, I don’t think something can come from nothing - at least, not ‘nothing’ in philosophical terms, conceived of as absolute nonexistence. But I don’t think either side is claiming this to be the case. I don’t think it’s possible for the philosopher’s ‘nothing’ to obtain, and a quantum vacuum certainly is not a state of non-being, of nonexistence. By the same token, the existence of a god is not the philosopher’s ‘nothing’ either. If something had to exist eternally, as appears most likely, then a quantum vacuum is a far simpler state of existence than a creative, personal intelligence of the kind usually called ‘God’. If it turns out that the former is sufficient explanation for the universe (and that does appear to be the direction in which cosmological research has been heading) then the idea of a god becomes surplus to requirements.

 

[carn]

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.

No, the real issue from an atheists prespective is realy, that nearly all evidence offered by religious people is some sort of personal experience.
Yet from looking at other cases, where there are personal experiences about somewhat fantastical claims (e.g. Ufos, homopathy, telepathy, out of body experience,… long, long list) , they note that nearly always people deluded themselves into perceiving things not there or not happening. So they conclude that just because someone - even themselves - says or experienced X, this does not prove much about X.

Or maybe trying to put in different words, they do not trust mans heart, not even their own (at least in matters of supernatural things).

This has in my eyes little to do with avoiding accountability.

If you want to turn the table, the best approach might be, to make them realize, that they often err against their own standards by nontheless trusting some internal and unprovable guidelines without evidence. E.g. Richard Dawkins as far as i know considers what he perceives as the christian god to be the equivalent of a cosmic stalinistic cruel dictator. And beneath all the arguments he offers, lies a basic moral scale, not supportable by evidence, accoding to which he measures that perceived god and finds him wanting.

So although they are against any metaphysical assumptions or faith, they nonetheless have one of their own, otherwise they could not hold a negative opinion about religion.

 

[Sair]

No, the real issue from an atheists prespective is realy, that nearly all evidence offered by religious people is some sort of personal experience.
Yet from looking at other cases, where there are personal experiences about somewhat fantastical claims (e.g. Ufos, homopathy, telepathy, out of body experience,… long, long list) , they note that nearly always people deluded themselves into perceiving things not there or not happening. So they conclude that just because someone - even themselves - says or experienced X, this does not prove much about X.

Or maybe trying to put in different words, they do not trust mans heart, not even their own (at least in matters of supernatural things).

This has in my eyes little to do with avoiding accountability.

If you want to turn the table, the best approach might be, to make them realize, that they often err against their own standards by nontheless trusting some internal and unprovable guidelines without evidence. E.g. Richard Dawkins as far as i know considers what he perceives as the christian god to be the equivalent of a cosmic stalinistic cruel dictator. And beneath all the arguments he offers, lies a basic moral scale, not supportable by evidence, accoding to which he measures that perceived god and finds him wanting.

So although they are against any metaphysical assumptions or faith, they nonetheless have one of their own, otherwise they could not hold a negative opinion about religion.

I would agree that most atheists of a philosophical bent - at least, in my experience - have no wish to avoid any sort of moral accountability. There do seem to be variations in opinions/explanations for where this moral accountability comes from, though. Some believe it quite sufficient to explain morality in terms of our natural needs as social animals, whilst others assume that it is a higher, more intellectual invention.

I tend towards the former, at least as a basis - though there is no doubt that intellect and civilisation have played their part in shaping moral norms.

One key difference I have observed in arguments put forward by atheists and by religious believers is that the latter don’t consider mere human considerations to be sufficient to uphold moral strictures. And quite often, they are not - but where they are not, I would hazard a guess that religious considerations are likewise insufficient…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

Well… we really do agree on one thing…

Some people are convinced by the relative ease with which we can conceive of a personal being making things - such as a god creating the universe - compared with the difficulty of imagining how impersonal natural forces could have brought about the same outcome.

“…the difficulty of imagining…” is truly an understatement. I would say it nearly impossible!

What I marvel at is the basic contradiction - here there is the argument for ‘…impersonal natural forces…’ and this is total randomness idea (given that there is even something to randomize!) that somehow stops itself when it produces order - and then somehow manages to maintain this order. You just can not have it both ways. Either it is random and we have on-going randomness (chaos) or it is ordered (but, with incredible complexity - so do not think of a cookie cutter) and stays ordered. Well, since we see order all around us, every science there is depends on order and predictibility, there must be an All Powerful Orderer.

Your focus on a Personal God is something that I do not think can be demonstrated from nature - but there is an abundance of evidence that the All Powerful Orderer (God) created everything - and could not be created by Something Else (or that would be God…)

While you may be content with the Australian definition - it is lame. They are claiming God can not be proved by science - yet universal order is everywhere. Look under a microscope annd life forms - all different but all sharing common elements and dsigns abound. Look at the images from the Hubble Space Telescope - and we are able to predict what is on certain planets as they move in a predictable manner. We are confident that we know what makes up certain stars and black holes because there is order.

Honestly, to believe that order is the on-going product of chaos is simply a contradiction in terms. Now, if you were to say that there is no God because I simply refuse to live my life in a particular way - hey, I can understand that. Ultimately, we will all find out…

God bless

 

[carn]

One key difference I have observed in arguments put forward by atheists and by religious believers is that the latter don’t consider mere human considerations to be sufficient to uphold moral strictures. And quite often, they are not

They are never. One reason is that some people do not share or at least differ in their needs as social animals. All the philosophical arguments in favor of some morale behavior fall apart for a sociopath. For him there is - if the needs of a social animal are sole basis for morale - no reason to care about others.

What all philosophers and religions always did, was to assume some base rules or guidelines that supposedly are true for all humans and should be adherred. E.g. Peter Singer assumes that avoiding suffering for sentinent beings should be universally adhered to. He can otherwise offer no reason to a sociopath not to kill and murder as he likes (except maybe the reason, “you are a minority, so the majority will act against you”, but thats not an argument based in reason).

And second, there are even “philosophical” ideas to alter human nature. If moralty is based in human nature alone, then its certainly non-binding the moment one starts to alter that nature. If sociopaths are a majority, human nature obviously then dictates to skip all that care for your neighbor.

• but where they are not, I would hazard a guess that religious considerations are likewise insufficient…

They work just like Singer, postulating something universal beyond time and circumstances, so logically they work fine.

@tqualey
"Ultimately, we will all find out… "
No (at least from atheistic perspective).

Assuming there is nothing beyond the human body all “we” will end in death. This “we” then cannot find anything out, especially it can not find out that there is no afterlife.

 

[carn]

What I marvel at is the basic contradiction - here there is the argument for ‘…impersonal natural forces…’ and this is total randomness idea (given that there is even something to randomize!) that somehow stops itself when it produces order - and then somehow manages to maintain this order. You just can not have it both ways. Either it is random and we have on-going randomness (chaos) or it is ordered (but, with incredible complexity - so do not think of a cookie cutter) and stays ordered. Well, since we see order all around us, every science there is depends on order and predictibility, there must be an All Powerful Orderer.

Its not a contradiction. Any problem about order from chaos can be solved by time or number. With large enough numbers and/or enough time typing randomly on a keyboard will reproduce writeable knowledge, including everything ever written or going to be written.

If chaos is given enough time or attempts, it can bring forth something ordered as our universe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

carn

**If chaos is given enough time or attempts, it can bring forth something ordered as our universe. **

This is certainly not a scientific thought because there is no way to prove it. It’s something you believe because you want to believe it. That’s o.k., but don’t pass it off as proven or ever likely to be proven.

 

[carn]

carn

**If chaos is given enough time or attempts, it can bring forth something ordered as our universe. **

This is certainly not a scientific thought because there is no way to prove it.

System X can be in states from the group Z, of which Y is an ordered state. System X randomly changes into different states at random intervals. Probability of changing to Y is 1/S.
=>
Probability for X after n changes to never have acquired state Y is:
(1-1/S)^n
=>
Probablity for X never changing into Y:
lim(n-> infinity) {(1-1/S)^n} = 0

What isnt provable about the claim?

Of course, this doesnt help getting from nothing to chaos, but the moment one has chaos temporal order is just a matter of patience. Even a billion dice will show up all six sooner or later if throwing them repeatedly forever is an option.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Putting words and numbers on paper is not proof. Even Einstein would argue this. What’s required for an idea to be scientific is that it is provable. Relativity was scientifically demonstated a good while after the theory was developed. So was the Big Bang theory. Until then, Relativity and the Big Bang were interesting notions without scientific proof.

Where is your scientific proof that Order can spring from Chaos?

There is no such proof. It hasn’t been done and it can’t be done.

So you can scratch the notion that atheism is proven by the notion that Order springs from Chaos.

Indeed, from whence sprang the Chaos?