How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?

[Bradski]

What music did they play when they put you on hold?

Had to be ‘Also Sprach Zarathustra’.

 

[dedo]

“I am not religious because there is no evidence for it and it’s completely unreasonable. It also limits my freedom.”

How would you respond? I have my own response and I’ll post it after I see a couple of peoples.

Also, sorry if this is in the wrong area.

You have to realize that it is unlikely that your argument is going to change the view of a committed atheist. Most former atheists on this forum changed belief systems because of the influence of a significant other who encouraged the person to show up. Thus, it is more likely that love changes people as opposed to logic.

As far as the “freedom” issue. I personally don’t like being enslaved by the secular world and religion helps with that. So if the atheist considers worshiping secularism freedom, well just disagree. One of my philosophies is that the good in your life keeps the bad, or potentially bad, in check. If you work out a lot, you are much less likely to eat garbage. A guy at work once was musing with me about retirement. One issue he mentioned is that he did not want to become an alcoholic in retirement which is a real risk for idle older people. The guy is also in perfect shape. The influence of his job and his exercise keeps him from drinking too much. Practiced faith can do the same thing.

I take care of people for a living who let the bad or potentially bad in their lives get out of control. The end state of that path of “freedom” is not pretty.

You could suggest that the atheist visit Rome, see the cathedrals, the art, and examine the lives of the saints. Clearly, these people were motivated by something that persisted over multiple lifetimes, that is different from other belief systems including their flying spaghetti monster, thor etc.

However, the only ultimate proof to anyone is through seeking God in relationship. I believe God specifically reveals Himself in relationship to seekers. However, the seeking must follow some theological guidelines that is best described by ministers / priests rather than myself. There are sound theological reasons for this. Some of the angels knew God existed before the fall of Lucifer, but they did not know God. To expect that God would repeat that scenario by giving people “proof of God” without seeking God is not logical.

 

[Solmyr]

Could you direct me to where this rule is, Sol?

Sure I can. It is right here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2801887&postcount=3 it says: “Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.” Is this news to you?

As I said, your answer will only help me better answer your question.

Just present your best argument. I will read it with full attention. It is fine to present quotes to support your arguments, but not as a substitute for an argument. First, present your argument with your own words, and then, if you feel necessary, quote someone (preferably with a full link) to have external support.

---

Since you wanted me to help, I will quote one of your own arguments to show how NOT to argue:

There was an action billions of years ago: the universe began to exist.

Practically every sane scientist agrees to this.

No one actually thinks or argues that the universe simply “popped” into existence out of nothing. As we all know (or should know), the word “nothing” does not designate an ontologically existing entity, it is just an abstraction, like the “null set” in mathematics. In other words: “Nothing does not and cannot exist”. Your first sentence is already incorrect. Instead of “the universe began to exist” you should have said “the singularity expanded”.

The Big Bang is simply a transformation from a singularity into the universe we know today. How it happened, is something we don’t know. (Observe, admitting ignorance is not a problem.) Our current physics does not allow us to penetrate the first fractions of the second during this event. Time and space are undefined and undefinable categories “within” a singularity (just like the direction “north” is undefined and undefinable category at the North Pole). You also quoted:

As physicist Paul Davies says, “The universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium and state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist”.

It is a rather vague and equivocal sentence. The word “always” does not mean an infinite past, where some arbitrary t=0 separates the “nothing” for t<0 and the t>0 designates the universe. The phrase “the universe began to exist” does not mean that there was “nothing” and then there was the “singularity” and then there was the Big Bang, and then there was the current form of the universe. Time started at the Big Bang. There is NO t<0.

The author also mentions the “equilibrium” or “heat death”, referring to the second law of thermodynamics. The “famous” second law is a stochastic law. It is only applicable to closed and finite systems. It is NOT applicable to the universe.

Finally, even if your vague and incorrect argument would be without the aforementioned errors, it would STILL not establish the existence of a “creator”, much less the existence of the “Christian God”. So, try again. I would suggest to start a new thread, not to derail this one.

 

[tp3192000]

Er…really? If there were texts that proclaimed that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, that would make them….Christian, right?

There are such texts; they are the New Testament. Jesus resurrection from the dead is the essence of Catholic belief. There is an excellent book,“The Resurrection of Jesus” by Lacona which offers proof of the resurrection.
There is also photographic evidence in the Shroud of Turin. But if your eyes are closed, you cannot see.

 

[tp3192000]

Let me repeat this. There is no evidence that the Gospels are eye witness accounts. About the best the New Testament can provide is that some of the letters of St. Paul are genuine, but then again, he wasn’t an eyewitness either.

The gospel of John provides proof that the author spoke of details about Jerusalem pre-70 destruction that were hidden to us prior to recent archaeologic uncovering. His was most likely an eyewitness account.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure I can. It is right here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2801887&postcount=3 it says: “Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.” Is this news to you?

Did you see the heading, friend?

It says “General Guidelines”.

General guidelines are NOT rules.

We cannot break forum rules.

Guidelines are, well, guidelines. We are certainly free to answer questions with questions.

At any rate, it’s curious that you would have this, er, double standard for yourself, and permit yourself to answer a question with a question while objecting to others doing this.

Why is that, do you think?

And just for easy reference for folks, please refer back to what Sol’s original post (emphasis mine) said:

Your question is against the forum rules, which say: “DO NOT answer a question with another question”.

 

[thinkandmull]

The Gospels may not be eye witness account, but they do reflect a very early tradition about the resurrection. We know this. We even find it in 1 Corinthians 15 which many scholars believe to be a creed written about 6 months to five years after the cross. There is little doubt among New Testament scholars that 1 Corinthians 15 reflects very early tradition. The content of the story also tells us that early Christians probably didn’t make it up. Now, we do know for a fact that the tomb was found empty. Historian Michael Grant has even said, “By normal historical methods, we know the tomb was empty.” Now of course, this doesn’t automatically mean resurrection. And this is where I’d like to take the debate forward.

I think the atheists are struggling to put aspect of the supernatural onto matter, all the while when the concepts of the supernatural are where they truly reside. Homer wrote about supernatural events in his histories. I don’t think we should be frustrated that non-believers do not believe the Gospels, because without natural faith, without a leap of faith, someone can always believe to themselves “I accept history, except when it says something that is above the normal, in which case it must have been made up”. Homeric religion was criticized by Church Fathers for applying humanity to the Divine. Apologetics looks at Christianity from philosophy and then history.

 

[thinkandmull]

There are such texts; they are the New Testament. Jesus resurrection from the dead is the essence of Catholic belief. There is an excellent book,“The Resurrection of Jesus” by Lacona which offers proof of the resurrection.
There is also photographic evidence in the Shroud of Turin. But if your eyes are closed, you cannot see.

Is the question of the Shroud is still under debate?

 

[tp3192000]

Is the question of the Shroud is still under debate?

Do you mean, was the carbon dating definitive? No, it was not. It is reasonable to consider the carbon dating tests flawed. And no one before the 20th century saw the image of the man on the shroud in photographic detail as you can now view it. It is an ancient miracle for modern man and woman.

 

[thinkandmull]

Probably because I was introduced to the Shroud in a skeptical way, I have my doubts. I mean, why would they give three different laboratories pieces of the clothe when they would immediately afterwards say those pieces were added well over a thousand years latter? It doesn’t make sense

 

[tp3192000]

Probably because I was introduced to the Shroud in a skeptical way, I have my doubts. I mean, why would they give three different laboratories pieces of the clothe when they would immediately afterwards say those pieces were added well over a thousand years latter? It doesn’t make sense

Why was one software technician involved with all three test results? Regardless, without the carbon 14 tests, the shroud looks to be authentic. The Carbon 14 test results have many flaws that leave many experts questioning them.
Have you ever looked at Barrie Schwortz’ negative image of the Shroud of Turin? Can you believe a human being could create this image on a piece of linen? How is this something you can believe without having a shred of evidence or informational clue as to how it was created?

 

[thinkandmull]

The real question is whether humans have the ability to make a shroud like that. The medievals may have had a method of doing it, and crucified a criminal and got his image on the clothe. I am just not sure that image is of Jesus

 

[tp3192000]

The real question is whether humans have the ability to make a shroud like that. The medievals may have had a method of doing it, and crucified a criminal and got his image on the clothe. I am just not sure that image is of Jesus

The medievals may have had a method of placing an image of a dead man on a linen and did so, inflicting immeasurable pain on a man, giving him the same wounds as Christ only to blur those images in a photographic negative. And because they wanted to obscure this special talent, they only made one such image of anything like this. Oh, those templars are a mysterious bunch!

 

[thinkandmull]

Well the fact that the negative is clearer could be accidental. We don’t know how clear the clothe was to start, and it would make sense only to make one since the religion they wanted the people to have has only one Christ.

Most parts of this story are mysteries. The fact that new parts were sown into the old because of burn marks was already known history, so why wasn’t a tiny sample taken from the mid section? And was it truly impossible to to tell the 1300 years older part from the newer with the naked eye when the tests were done?

These are the only questions I have about the shroud. I’d be a lot more open about it if these questions are sometime resolved

 

[tp3192000]

Well the fact that the negative is clearer could be accidental. We don’t know how clear the clothe was to start, and it would make sense only to make one since the religion they wanted the people to have has only one Christ.

Most parts of this story are mysteries. The fact that new parts were sown into the old because of burn marks was already known history, so why wasn’t a tiny sample taken from the mid section? And was it truly impossible to to tell the 1300 years older part from the newer with the naked eye when the tests were done?

These are the only questions I have about the shroud. I’d be a lot more open about it if these questions are sometime resolved

I’m sorry I was dismissive of your concerns. I believe the image is of Jesus Christ crucified and in the grave. The New Testament speaks of it. There is good reason for it to have survived 2000 years. It is miraculous as it speaks to me 2000 years after.
There is also evidence the Shroud existed earlier than the earliest date for Carbon 14, throwing the testing data out as worthless.

 

[thinkandmull]

Which details? Which archaeological uncovering?

John’s date of Jesus’s crucifixion is about two days off from what one of the other gospel says. Which one is correct?

.

Sometimes in the Bible someone has two names, sometimes a city would have inhabitants move to another city and then the new city would get a new name but retain its old name. Calendars were probably like this two. Some people, in keeping with romanticism, think God should have left us a short letter ending with “I love you” instead of a complex book. But there has been much spirituality and trust won from honoring the Bible

 

[Solmyr]

General guidelines are NOT rules.

What a jerkwater reply! If they are enforced, then they are rules. And they are definitely enforced. But be as it may, I answered your question. The ball is in your court.

 

[tp3192000]

Which details? Which archaeological uncovering?

John’s date of Jesus’s crucifixion is about two days off from what one of the other gospel says. Which one is correct?

.

John says things like in 5:2 Bethesda by the Sheep Pool with five porticoes, for example. It is rich in detail.
I have no idea which is correct; I assume whichever says it was on a friday.

 

[tp3192000]

So…how does this link with recent archeological discoveries?

.

The Copper Scroll reveals information about the Sheep’s Gate and two pools. John’s description of five porticoes was dismissed in the past as it was thought that John’s gospel was unreliable and farthest removed, when in fact, it seems to be more reliable in description of places and events.
Google Bethesda Pool, site of one Jesus miracles, Biblical Archaeology Society.

 

[tp3192000]

John’s date of Jesus’s crucifixion is about two days off from what one of the other gospel says. Which one is correct?

.

Jn:19,14 “It was Preparation Day”
Mk: 15,42 “It was preparation Day”

Which discrepancy are you referring to exactly?