Something cannot come from nothing. Simple fact in regards to science.
Atheists bare the burden of proof (or disproof) here. It’s impossible to disprove God. It would take an absolute truth to do so, but… how can truth disprove itself? Truth is God afterall.
What? That’s ridiculous. *You’re *the one’s claiming belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, all-merciful, all-just, loving, personal God who somehow simultaneously died on a cross and sent himself to die on a cross - and that this somehow saves us from damnation from that same God who sent himself to die - and you have the audacity to say that the burden of proof is on me to disprove it? And, of course, you do so knowing full well that proving something doesn’t exist is pretty much impossible. You stack the deck in your favor - and in doing so make yourself and your position sound ridiculous. Too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
At any rate, Atheism, when wielded by rather intelligent person, can offer very good arguements against religion and faith.
Woah, woah, woah. Hold on here. For a good number of atheists, it’s intelligence and rational thought that brings them *out *of the belief they were raised to adhere to. A small point, but I thought’d I clarify.
But in the end, it takes a leap of FAITH to be an Atheist because God cannot be disproved. Because of this, Atheism is self-refuting. What’s left is Agnosticism, and then the final understanding of Truth: God exists.
You’re wrong on that for one, very simple reason, which I outlined in this
post. Faith is the belief in extreme theories when the evidence is very slim or non-existence. It’s like seeing a strange light in the sky. The skeptic looks and thinks about all the possibities, and probably shrugs and says “You know, I don’t really know what that was.” The faith-inclined person looks at it and believes it’s a UFO - the faith inclined person thinks that it must have been a connection with thier odd cousin who once said she was abducted by aliens - the faith inclined person comes up with a fanciful story about where the UFO came from, and **believes **it. What you’re saying, sir, is that because her story cannot be disproven - beyond a shadow of a doubt - it *must *be true because it takes a leap of faith to believe it?
This arguement of yours makes absolutely no sense. And even if it did, you would have to believe every religion - not just Catholicism - because you can’t disprove them either.
I’m not asking for you guys to prove the existence of God beyong *all *doubt. I’m asking you to prove it beyond a *reasonable *doubt. If you can do that, I’ll believe in a god.
I was an Atheist for 23 years. I read a few philosophical documents about souls and the existence of God but I scoffed at them. After all, my 23 years of zero scholarly study and a few joints obviously made me more intelligent than Descartes. Right? Wrong. I was blind. I also read bits and pieces of Genesis while tainted with this arrogance. Because of my bias, I disagreed with Genesis before I even picked it up.
Funny, I grew up with Genesis. I majored in theology. I’ve read the books and the books about the books - and the biographies about the authors of the books about the books - and you know what? It all amounts to very little real evidence. It’s an ridiculous claim! It’s an extraordinary claim! It better have some darn good evidence to back it up - and it doesn’t.
Moving on, as a Catholic (or soon to be Catholic, rather), I don’t take Genesis from a literalist point of view in that the words mean exactly what they say on a surface level.
The Church did take that literalist view, at one point, even if they changed thier mind in the past century or so. And what about the horrible injustice described in the bible - sanctioned by God? Oh, that is all explained away today - but 1500 years ago, in the teachings of Augustine, it was taken quite seriously. You know, it’s funny. We seem to keep taking things in the bible less literally and less seriously as time goes on. That little bit in Paul about women not being allowed to speak in Church? Now, we say it’s a relic of a lost era - but in centuries past it was taken quite seriously. The blatant anti-semetism of many of the gospels? Oh, “just a product of that time,” we say today - but in centuries past it was very serious. The Genesis story? Oh, “a ‘true myth’ - a fable - a symbolic story that doesn’t have any scientific basis,” we say today - but in centuries past it was believed.
Funny how it never goes the other way around. If you guys keep going at this rate, even attonement itself will be tossed aside as a product of a lost era - and then the basis of Christianity will crumble.
*
