How to combat Atheism?

[kjvail]

I was listening to EWTN yesterday and the person on air (I think it was Jimmy Akin, not positive tho) said something that stuck with me.

The purpose of apologetics is to make faith seem reasonable, not to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not possible or it wouldn’t be faith.

From my own experience I know faith as a process, it is very well spelled out in steps 2 & 3 of the Alcoholics Anonymous program:

1. Came to believe in a power greater than myself that could restore me to sanity.

• This refers to the being openminded and embarking on the *process *of seeking God. A new idea cannot be grafted on a closed mind.

1. Made a decision to turn my will and my life over to the care of God as I understood him.

This step refers to the courage to make a decision, based partly on reason but just as much on hope, to believe.

The athiest hasn’t seen the need to question his/her assumptions, the courage to do this is usually born out of crisis and/or desperation…

BTW, for the troll, I do know what I’m talking about I’m a former athiest at least as obnoxious as you and now I’m a Catholic. This is how I got here.

 

[reelguy227]

what the hek wolf ? i joined this forum to be around other catholics not so other atheists could come in and debate !!! dont do that you will only add to the anger and madness of the debate.

 

[DuMaurier]

James Kanatous:

When discussing atheism, many religionists adopt the following procedural rule: if all else fails, psychologize. If you cannot defeat the atheist in the realm of ideas, become his therapist:

Previoiusly from James:

Human beings are by their nature psychologically primitive

Thats it, just let it all out.

 

[reelguy227]

kjvail you were an atheist ,help me get into the mind of an atheist ,most of them told me that they are agnostic ,oh well its pretty close ,maybe you could give me tips on how to combat them please? yu should join the forum.me and my friend need all the ammunition we can get.

 

[DuMaurier]

Here’s an interesting book review:

**A funny thing happened on way to disbelief
**

A theologian at Oxford University explains why atheism’s appeal has faded.

By Jane Lampman

Time magazine spurred public debate 40 years ago with a startling question on its cover: “Is God Dead?” Some estimate that half the world’s population was then nominally atheist. And many in the West were predicting that scientific progress would eliminate religious belief altogether by the next century.

The tide has dramatically turned, however, and Alistar McGrath - a theologian at Oxford University who was once in that camp - charts the shift in currents of thought in “The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World.”

csmonitor.com/2004/0803/p16s01-bogn.html?s=entb

 

[buffalo]

reelguy227:

the forum yu guys should join is on a website called swbattlefront.net ,click on forums and then click on sliced tauntaun .HELP everyone ,im being eaten alive by them ,there are two questions they always ask and I cant answer them ,maybe a better more knowledgable Catholic can .here they are

1.How do yu prove God exists? if it cannot be proven ,it does not exist. how do i answer that question ?

2.this next question is copied and pasted in their own words:

How can an all-powerfull, loing and caring God let so many people suffer?

Either he isn’t all powerful, or not loving and caring…

how do i answer that question also? help everybody yu really got to come on these forums and help.

Atheists always make you conform to their rules in debate. To satisfy them you must prove to them God exists by scientific proofs. I must be able to touch it to believe it.

You will never prove to them the supernatural. This is a matter of faith. The only faith they express is the certainty that because God cannot be shown to them scientifically, that therfore He does not exist. They ignore the imbedded proof that surrounds them in creation.

In general debate with an atheist will do more to shake your own faith than to convince them.

179 Faith is a supernatural gift from God. In order to believe, man needs the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. An atheist is not there yet.

**159 **Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. **The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

**2nd question - God permits evil as a consquence of free will. For many of the same reasons as above this will not satisfy them, for they need faith also…

324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

 

[wolpertinger]

reelguy227:

kjvail you were an atheist ,help me get into the mind of an atheist ,most of them told me that they are agnostic ,oh well its pretty close ,maybe you could give me tips on how to combat them please? yu should join the forum.me and my friend need all the ammunition we can get.

In other words, you’re in well over your head and look for easy answers rather than doing some reading and thinking on your own.

Out of curiosity, approximately how old are you?

 

[James_Kanatous]

DuMaurier:

Previoiusly from James:



Thats it, just let it all out.

You’re neglecting the context, thus making your indirect pun invalid, since you have distorted the original meaning of what I wrote. The next time you try to disparage someone by quoting them, be sure to consider the context of the quoted statements.

Your attempt to belittle me is quite amusing–it’s almost laughable. Instead of making a critical comment about the content of what I wrote, you prefer to make ad hominem remarks that are not only philosophically unjustified, but simply irrelevant. In addition, it is rather ironic because you previously asserted that I was immature, when it appears that you are the one who is acting childishly. . . .

You seem to be insecure with your religion. Do you always project your personal resentments and insecurities onto others, or am I an exception?

 

[squirt]

reelguy227:

what the hek wolf ? i joined this forum to be around other catholics not so other atheists could come in and debate !!! dont do that you will only add to the anger and madness of the debate.

Maybe sometimes you should listen to the atheists … you might just be getting some excellent advice.

 

[James_Kanatous]

wolpertinger:

In other words, you’re in well over your head and look for easy answers rather than doing some reading and thinking on your own.

Out of curiosity, approximately how old are you?

Yes, his disposition is rather asinine. If you cannot defend what you claim to believe, then why bother to believe it? Perhaps he is much too accustomed to taking the easy way out, no? It seems as though he is more concerned with convenience and tradition than he is with intellectual honesty. In truth, that is quintessentially something that a female or a child would do–not a grown and experienced man. . . . Unless, of course, he is not grown, or grown yet inexperienced.

 

[DuMaurier]

James Kanatous:

You’re neglecting the context, thus making your indirect pun invalid, since you have distorted the original meaning of what I wrote. The next time you try to disparage someone by quoting them, be sure to consider the context of the quoted statements.

Your attempt to belittle me is quite amusing–it’s almost laughable. Instead of making a critical comment about the content of what I wrote, you prefer to make ad hominem remarks that are not only philosophically unjustified, but simply irrelevant. In addition, it is rather ironic because you previously asserted that I was immature, when it appears that you are the one who is acting childishly. . . .

You seem to be insecure with your religion. Do you always project your personal resentments and insecurities onto others, or am I an exception?

I think I hit a nerve.

 

[buffalo]

James Kanatous:

Yes, his disposition is rather asinine. If you cannot defend what you claim to believe, then why bother to believe it? Perhaps he is much too accustomed to taking the easy way out, no? It seems as though he is more concerned with convenience and tradition than he is with intellectual honesty. In truth, that is quintessentially something that a female or a child would do–not a grown and experienced man. . . . Unless, of course, he is not grown, or grown yet inexperienced.

So if he is young and ignorant he is fertile ground for your fun. You talk about intellectual honesty - and berate him because no grown and experienced man would believe what he cannot see. Tradition does not exclude truth.

 

[James_Kanatous]

DuMaurier:

I think I hit a nerve.

Then, you have wrongly evaluated me. I can tell that you have either misunderstood me considerably, or deliberately ignored everything that I have written.

You amuse me, and so does everything that goes with you. Thank you for that.

Do you ever think with deliberation, or do you prefer emotionalism over reason?

 

[James_Kanatous]

buffalo:

So if he is young and ignorant he is fertile ground for your fun. You talk about intellectual honesty - and berate him because no grown and experienced man would believe what he cannot see. Tradition does not exclude truth.

Classical fallacy.

You are presupposing that which cannot be seen–immateriality–is a ‘that’ (an existent something), and can be believed in accordingly, without even knowing what it is. . . .

If you don’t know what it is, how can you believe in it?

My ridicule was justified. Get over it, or vanish.

 

[DuMaurier]

James Kanatous:

Then, you have wrongly evaluated me. I can tell that you have either misunderstood me considerably, or deliberately ignored everything that I have written.

You amuse me, and so does everything that goes with you. Thank you for that.

Do you ever think with deliberation, or do you prefer emotionalism over reason?

I think it’s obvious to everyone here that you are the one getting emotional. I simply related what I’ve found to be true by talking to non-believers. That may or may not apply to you.

For example I find that most militant atheists are ex-fundies who went to college. They use the in your face style they had as fundies and use it now for atheism. They seem positively disillusioned with their former faith and I feel sorry for them. Again this may or may not apply to you. I’m simple speaking in generalities from my own experience.

But if it makes you feel better by belittling those of faith then go ahead. I can take it. In fact I find your inane rhetoric very amusing as well.

 

[kjvail]

reelguy227:

kjvail you were an atheist ,help me get into the mind of an atheist ,most of them told me that they are agnostic ,oh well its pretty close ,maybe you could give me tips on how to combat them please? yu should join the forum.me and my friend need all the ammunition we can get.

Agnostics are easier to deal with than avowed athiests. The difference is agnositics are willing to say they don’t know for sure, avowed athiests consider the matter closed and anyone that holds theistic views is just an idiot, I was the latter at one point

It’s an overreliance on rationalism more than anything else, as others have said the athiest doens’t believe in what he cannot prove using the scientific method.
This attitude grew out of the so-called “enlightenment” and is taught in public schools exclusively. This ignores about 1500 years of human thought based on Aristolean logic.
Frankly I consider most athiests to be intellectually lazy.
Let’s face it Aristolean logic is *hard *it requires *thought *not just trial and error repetition.
Our friend here, the troll, posts put me in the mind of Chesterton’s comment. I don’t recall it exactly but it was to the effect that only the ignorant rely on using long words to prove their intelligence.
I guess the advice I would have would be to remember when you are talking to athiests you are confronting the essence of the sin of Pride.

 

[wolpertinger]

James Kanatous:

In truth, that is quintessentially something that a female or a child would do–not a grown and experienced man

You know, these are fighting words. I’ll admit that I doubt the maturity of the opening poster, but the slur against women is completely out of line.

 

[buffalo]

James Kanatous:

Classical fallacy.

You are presupposing that which cannot be seen–immateriality–is a ‘that’ (an existent something), and can be believed in accordingly, without even knowing what it is. . . .

If you don’t know what it is, how can you believe in it?

My ridicule was justified. Get over it, or vanish.

I’ll get over it! But I won’t vanish. Are you using ALL your senses?

 

[DuMaurier]

kjvail:

Agnostics are easier to deal with than avowed athiests. The difference is agnositics are willing to say they don’t know for sure, avowed athiests consider the matter closed and anyone that holds theistic views is just an idiot, I was the latter at one point

It’s an overreliance on rationalism more than anything else, as others have said the athiest doens’t believe in what he cannot prove using the scientific method.
This attitude grew out of the so-called “enlightenment” and is taught in public schools exclusively. This ignores about 1500 years of human thought based on Aristolean logic.
Frankly I consider most athiests to be intellectually lazy.
Let’s face it Aristolean logic is *hard *it requires *thought *not just trial and error repetition.
Our friend here, the troll, posts put me in the mind of Chesterton’s comment. I don’t recall it exactly but it was to the effect that only the ignorant rely on using long words to prove their intelligence.
I guess the advice I would have would be to remember when you are talking to athiests you are confronting the essence of the sin of Pride.

Excellent post. I would add to beware of some of their tactics when they get desperate… I’m refering to machine gun history. They’ll fire off hundreds of polemics at you which only someone very knowledgeble (and with alot of time on their hands) would be able to defend. 2000 years of history makes for easy targets.

 

[wanerious]

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.

There exists a set of concepts that may have both a material component as well as a non-material component. Many animals have brains, though it is not certain that all animals with brains possess a “mind”, or a consciousness of self-awareness that at least humans possess. There is also an interesting connection between the two, as physical processes can clearly influence a person’s mind, or state of being — examples would be consciousness-altering drugs, or the physical process of hearing music causing joy. Now, it may be that in the future, more and more aspects of consciousness can be directly traced to physical processes in the brain, but it is certainly possible to imagine the set of all physical objects and processes, and a larger Universe containing the above set as well as some at least partially immaterial concepts. Really, I think the most striking difference between atheists and non-atheists is whether or not one believes that the Universe is the same as the set of all physical objects and resultant processes. This might be an interesting avenue for further discussion, as I waffle around on this somewhat myself.