How to combat Atheism?

[reelguy227]

Hi all, im new to the forums ,im Catholic and proud of it .I have a question, does anyone know how to combat atheists ,they have an answer for everything ive thrown at them ,thats all for now ,thanks.

bye

reelguy227

 

[DuMaurier]

It’s very difficult because atheists are generally close minded in a sense, although they like to consider themselves free thinkers. They force you to play by their rules by demanding proof through experiment or scientifically testable hypothesis. They have bound themselves around this mantra. However the scientific method was not developed to test the transcendant. For example you could say you love your mother and I could say “prove it”.

I find the most effective response is not to play by their rules at all. But make sure you are well guarded against their attacks and are strong in your faith. They attempt to bombard you with thousands of equally unprovable theories and conjectures about Christianity in order to make it nearly impossible for you to respond. So make sure you are knowledgeble in the faith before you engage in dialogue.

When you can defend your own position well then the atheist will come around naturally through his own personal experiences. Humans are by their nature religious beings. Atheists have simply lost touch with their spiritual sides through over rationalizations and philosophy.

You won’t convince everyone one so don’t despair if you fail. In the words of Francis of Assisi “Evangelize everyday. Use words only when necessary.” i.e. Live the faith and be a shining example for them.

 

[James_Kanatous]

DuMaurier:

It’s very difficult because atheists are generally close minded in a sense, although they like to consider themselves free thinkers. They force you to play by their rules by demanding proof through experiment or scientifically testable hypothesis. They have bound themselves around this mantra. However the scientific method was not developed to test the transcendant. For example you could say you love your mother and I could say “prove it”.

I find the most effective response is not to play by their rules at all. But make sure you are well guarded against their attacks and are strong in your faith. They attempt to bombard you with thousands of equally unprovable theories and conjectures about Christianity in order to make it nearly impossible for you to respond. So make sure you are knowledgeble in the faith before you engage in dialogue.

When you can defend your own position well then the atheist will come around naturally through his own personal experiences. Humans are by their nature religious beings. Atheists have simply lost touch with their spiritual sides through over rationalizations and philosophy.

You won’t convince everyone one so don’t despair if you fail. In the words of Francis of Assisi “Evangelize everyday. Use words only when necessary.” i.e. Live the faith and be a shining example for them.

You cleary have no idea what you are talking about. Here’s an effective principle: do not speak speculatively about an issue unless you know what you are talking about–otherwise you make yourself appear asinine, which you have accomplished rather well.

Human beings are by their nature psychologically primitive–we are not inherently religious per se. One can logically argue that no man is born with a religious belief, but that such beliefs are developed through societal upbringing and trauma. We have produced monumental innovations in science and mathematics, yet most human beings still claim to believe the same absurdities that people have been claiming to believe for over two-thousand years. People still claim to believe in angels, vampires, goblins, leprachauns, “ghosts”, santa claus, zombies, and so forth. And, even more absurd than the former, there are those who claim to believe that when they eat and drink a particular substance, that it mystically transforms into the body and blood of an alleged two-thousand year old dead man . . . .

Furthermore, you are presupposing that human beings possess a “spiritual side” without even knowing what a spirit is, which is blatantly illogical. What you really mean to express is that atheists are not religious. Simple. It’s not a matter of ignorance; it’s a matter of intelligibility. An atheist can logically argue that self-proclaimed “theists” have lost touch with their reason and better judgement–THEY CAN LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATE THIS–however, if you filp the coin, all that these self-proclaimed theists can say is that atheists are not religious and therefore cannot possibly understand what they are missing, whatever that may be. The major problem with theism is that it is vacuous, muddled, incoherent, and simply irrelevant at times, and therefore cannot be rationally defended. You make claims but your claims warrant no consideration. Let us assume for a moment that you are honest and possess an amount of intellectual integrity. If you cannot rationally, nor scientifically, defend what you believe, why bother believing it?

 

[reelguy227]

im also combating agnostics also ,this is all on a forum anyways.

 

[James_Kanatous]

reelguy227:

im also combating agnostics also ,this is all on a forum anyways.

Agnosticism is incredibly easy to combat; it is rationally indefensible, just as theism is, however, unlike agnosticism, theism takes the absurdity a couple steps further by using a variety of formidable techniques to avoid agnosticism, which typically involve “faith”, revelation, and faulty logic–all of which cannot be rationally defended. If you scratch the surface of a Christian, you’ll find a confused agnostic. . . .

Here’s an elucidation:

-I believe in God.

-What is God?

-I don’t know, since God is unknowable.

-Well if you don’t know what God is, how can you claim to believe that God exists?

-I don’t know that either.

-Then, what is there to distinguish your “belief” from no belief at all?

-There is nothing, since I do not know what God is.

You can clearly see how contradictory religious agnoticism is.

 

[Michael_Howard]

Lots of prayer…and if ya know them slip a Miraculous Medal of Mary under their car seat, they might have a “Ratisbonne” experience
Blessings sister!

 

[Tanais]

James Kanatous:

Human beings are by their nature psychologically primitive–we are not inherently religious per se. One can logically argue that no man is born with a religious belief, but that such beliefs are developed through societal upbringing and trauma. We have produced monumental innovations in science and mathematics, yet most human beings still claim to believe the same absurdities that people have been claiming to believe for over two-thousand years. People still claim to believe in angels, vampires, goblins, leprachauns, “ghosts”, santa claus, zombies, and so forth. And, even more absurd than the former, there are those who claim to believe that when they eat and drink a particular substance, that it mystically transforms into the body and blood of an alleged two-thousand year old dead man . . . .

Furthermore, you are presupposing that human beings possess a “spiritual side” without even knowing what a spirit is, which is blatantly illogical. What you really mean to express is that atheists are not religious. Simple. It’s not a matter of ignorance; it’s a matter of intelligibility. An atheist can logically argue that self-proclaimed “theists” have lost touch with their reason and better judgement–THEY CAN LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATE THIS–however, if you filp the coin, all that these self-proclaimed theists can say is that atheists are not religious and therefore cannot possibly understand what they are missing, whatever that may be. The major problem with theism is that it is vacuous, muddled, incoherent, and simply irrelevant at times, and therefore cannot be rationally defended. You make claims but your claims warrant no consideration. Let us assume for a moment that you are honest and possess an amount of intellectual integrity. If you cannot rationally, nor scientifically, defend what you believe, why bother believing it?

You, my friend, are quite corrosive. I would recommend a bit more charity in your statements, but then again as Neitzhe proved, charity and morality is not consistent with atheism.
Furthermore, you are presupposing that human beings possess a “spiritual side” without even knowing what a spirit is, which is blatantly illogical.
You seem to not be very well read in the arguments of your theistic opponents, for there have been many arguments set forth against materialism and for the existence of a spiritual realm. You blatantly contradict yourself. You accuse your opponent as being illogical and intellectually dishonest however if you yourself were honest intellectually you would not assume that there are no arguments for our position. Once against you seem to betray charity and honesty for a nice ad hominem. A good clear argument for a spiritual realm is this, you can conceive within your mind the concept of justice. However this justice has no material substance, it has no color, weight, length, etc. therefore it is immaterial. A material cause cannot produce an immaterial effect, violating casaulity. Therefore something within us that is immaterial must exist. I realize I have no annuciated the argument to the best it has been, but merely in my own words. There is another, better argument available in Kreeft’s book, Socrates Meets Marx. I would highly recommend it to you, it would be very enlightening for you to read.
The major problem with theism is that it is vacuous, muddled, incoherent, and simply irrelevant at times, and therefore cannot be rationally defended.
I do not see how you have proved this. You seem to simply through this out and expect us to accept it if we are logical. Please explain further.
Until Next Time,

 

[reelguy227]

one of them thinks porn isnt evil i told them that the word pornography means the devils pictures ,porno meaning devil ,ography meaning pictures ,i need a credible source to back that theory up ,he went to dicitionary.com and gave me some bogus answer that wasnt what i came up with .fr.john corapi said the above about porn in a seminar of his ,i need a credible source everyone.please.

 

[pnewton]

reelguy227:

one of them thinks porn isnt evil i told them that the word pornography means the devils pictures ,porno meaning devil ,ography meaning pictures .

The word is from the greek word “pornea” meaning improper sexual relations, not “the devil.”

 

[reelguy227]

but other than that ,how do you tell an athiest porn is evil?and guys yu got to subscribe to this forum to help me and my friend out ,and if yu join the fight itll be more even sided.its 3 christians against like 8 atheists and agnostics.help please!!! they have an answer and a question for everything ,i cant stop typing.

 

[Tanais]

reelguy227:

but other than that ,how do you tell an athiest porn is evil?and guys yu got to subscribe to this forum to help me and my friend out ,and if yu join the fight itll be more even sided.its 3 christians against like 8 atheists and agnostics.help please!!! they have an answer and a question for everything ,i cant stop typing.

May I ask what forums are you refering to?

 

[pnewton]

In response to your original post,

Anytime you speak of a group of people, you can only answer, “It depends.” Some people are open, others closed .

Pascal’s Wager is an effective tool for the more pragmatic. You could call the apologist line and ask see if you can get a back copy of This Rock with an article on Pascal’s Wager.

For a more step by step, I like a book “Summa on the Summa.” It’s kind of a condensed version of Thomas Aquineas’ Summa Theologae. This has some back and forth discussions demonstrating the existence of God and then moving forward.

Of course some people are totally closed and all you can do is pray.

 

[pnewton]

James Kanatous:

You cleary have no idea what you are talking about. Here’s an effective principle: do not speak speculatively about an issue unless you know what you are talking about–otherwise you make yourself appear asinine, which you have accomplished rather well.

You would do well to heed your own advice.

 

[Tanais]

I personally find the *Aut Deus aut homo malus * argument to be the most effective in proving both divinity of Christ and the existence of a divine. A really good article is available on Kreeft’s website.

 

[pnewton]

DuMaurier:

It’s very difficult because atheists are generally close minded in a sense, although they like to consider themselves free thinkers. They force you to play by their rules by demanding proof through experiment or scientifically testable hypothesis.

Did you know when you posted this that a prime example would follow you? Which brings me to:

James Kanatous,

I checked back into other posts you have made and found that name calling is not new to you. You could learm from following the suggestion of Tanais and reading Peter Kreeft, if you were open to learning. He is an excellent philosopher and has a sharper mind than most of us.

Your statements reflect a certainty of opinion that only can exist inside the walls of college or high school. Since you have no religion to convert anyone to, and since your posts argue and give no pretense of actually learning anything, I can only conclude that you are here for purposes of a less noble nature.

 

[James_Kanatous]

Tanais:

You, my friend, are quite corrosive. I would recommend a bit more charity in your statements, but then again as Neitzhe proved, charity and morality is not consistent with atheism.

Charity and morality has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is on the intelligibility of theism. Your statement, consequently, is impertinent and misleading.

Furthermore, you are presupposing that human beings possess a “spiritual side” without even knowing what a spirit is, which is blatantly illogical.
You seem to not be very well read in the arguments of your theistic opponents, for there have been many arguments set forth against materialism and for the existence of a spiritual realm.

You’re missing the point, and blatantly begging the question. It doesn’t matter what the particular theistic argument is; what matters is the intelligiblity of the variables used within the arguments. In this particular case we are speaking of a soul. And, as it is, the reason for which theistic arguments are invaild is because of the fact that a soul, by definition,–or negation, to be more exact–is immaterial and cannot be conceived. Knowledge of what a soul is, is logically prior to arguing that a soul exists. You have to define your terms before you begin to argue. The priniciple is simple. If you don’t know what X is, then you cannot believe X to exist, nor can you believe X to not exist. You claim to believe that a soul exists, without knowing what it is … Such a claim is not only dogmatic, but blatantly illogical, since a soul cannot be known.

 

[James_Kanatous]

Tanais:

A good clear argument for a spiritual realm is this, you can conceive within your mind the concept of justice. However this justice has no material substance, it has no color, weight, length, etc. therefore it is immaterial.

A spiritual realm is synonymous with an immaterial realm, since it is not a material realm. And, immaterial tells us what the realm is not, that it is not composed of matter, but it does not tell us what it is. Accordingly, you are once again begging the question, and arguing nothing at all, since your terms are undefined.

Moreover, the notion of an “immaterial realm” entails a contradiction and cannot be expressed in positive terms. We cannot imagine an “immaterial realm” because the concept of “matter” is essential to our concept of “realm.” The spiritual realm, you claim, is a “realm”–but it does not occupy space, it does not have dimensions, and it cannot be perceived, measured or detected in any way. And these qualifications render the concept of a “realm” of vacuousness.

Now, I’ve noticted that you have objected here, pointing out that many words–such as “justice” and “consciousness”–do not signify material objects. The referents of these and many other words are immaterial, so why should the atheist complain when the spiritual realm is also said to be immaterial?

While it is true that “justice” and “consciousness” do not designate material beings, you must remember that they do not refer to immaterial beings either. . . . “Justice” is a moral abstraction derived from various aspects of man’s nature and social interactions. “Consciousness” refers to the state of awareness exhibited by particular living organisms. “Justice” and “consciousness” are not material entities, but they depend on matter for their existence. The spiritual realm, on the other hand, does not depend on matter in any way; it exists in its own right as an independent “realm”. In this context, however, “immaterial” is stripped of meaning.

To say that the spiritual realm is immaterial, or nonmatter, is to say that we can have no sensory experience of this realm and that we can never conceive of it. This characteristic, therefore, simply throws you into agnosticism.

 

[revoless]

James Kanatous:

To say that the spiritual realm is immaterial, or nonmatter, is to say that we can have no sensory experience of this realm and that we can never conceive of it. This characteristic, therefore, simply throws you into agnosticism.

Precisely. You’ve made a cogent argument for agnosticism, which you earlier stated was ‘incredibly easy to combat’ and ‘rationally indefensible.’ Congratulations, you’ve disproved your own point.
You must have an incredible amount of faith in the human intellect to believe that anything that cannot be understood outright by the human mind cannot exist. You yourself stated that we were psychologically primitive, I argue that we’re intellectually primitive as well.
How is it that you believe atheism to be more defensible than agnosticism? Do you not see that the leap of faith inherent in affirming a negation of the immeasurable is equal to the leap of faith in affirming the existence of the immeasurable?

 

[AnAtheist]

DuMaurier:

It’s very difficult because atheists are generally close minded in a sense, although they like to consider themselves free thinkers.

That’s funny. Exactly what we think of theists, esp. christians.

As for the free thinking: At least theists dare to think about the possibility, that there might be some gods around.

 

[revoless]

And as a response to the original post, because feeding the trolls is irresponsible without also attempting to maintain the original thread…
I don’t believe it’s possible to convert an atheist directly to theism. I was an agnostic for around four years before I accepted the idea of Deity: I kept defeating all the arguments I read or came up with from either side. But it’s necessary to at least be open to the possibility of the existence of God before one can accept the truth of it.
What originally won me over to the cause, and this is an argument that I can’t remember reading about anywhere, is the existence of life, and its current position as self-sustaining and self-perpetuating. This, paired with the documented fact that life and the universe didn’t always exist, seems to imply that it couldn’t have started itself. (I can conceive of arguments to the contrary, but I don’t know enough of science to analyse them properly. Does life ever appear out of nonlife in the present world?)