Our Response to Anti-Theism

[Cabeelibob]

I have and will maintain that love is the best response to anti-theism.

But how can we get through to people who are set in believing that religion is evil or God cannot exist?
Should we even bother talking to the people who have these views?
What are your thoughts?

(I’m more interested in different peoples takes on this. The only opinion I put forth is Love)

 

[IWantGod]

I have and will maintain that love is the best response to anti-theism.

But how can we get through to people who are set in believing that religion is evil or God cannot exist?
Should we even bother talking to the people who have these views?
What are your thoughts?

(I’m more interested in different peoples takes on this. The only opinion I put forth is Love)

The failure to perceive validity in theism, barring the possibility that theism is wrong, is due to a host of problems. One of the main issues with religion is that some people don’t believe there is any real existential fulfilment in it. It’s just a form of escapism from the real world, a world that can be incredibly harsh and can lack the fulfilment that people hope for. Like Karl Marx said, Religion is the opium of the masses. Of course, it doesn’t follow necessarily that religion is just fantastical escapism, but you can see why some would turn a blind eye to it, or even think of themselves as being more authentic to actual reality by rejecting it.

Lets put aside those who simply don’t like religion and those who actively argue in wilful-ignorance of theism. You can’t get through to that group with reason and you will find that the more you argue with that group the more you will realise that the whole concept of reason is relative and is only valuable when it favours their position. You will find people who will happily reject the principle of non-contradiction if your use of it leads necessarily to God.

The main problem i see is the emergence of scientism, the belief that any truth about reality can only be known through the scientific method, and any truth about reality that does not yield to the scientific method cannot be reliably known outside of that method. Thus knowledge of the existence of God through reason alone is not possible in the opinion of those who support scientism, and thus is considered a possibility that is unknowable.

In other-words there cannot be other methods of knowing outside of science and therefore arguments for the existence of God tend to be rejected out of hand. And there is also science of the gaps, the idea that any ontological gap in our knowledge most likely has a natural scientific explanation for it; which is itself an unwarranted extrapolation based on the perceived success of science over other forms of knowing.

So this is the main problem you need to contend with.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Pray for discernment. In some cases, you will only get into an argument that will leave you angry and spiritually diminished. A Jesuit once told me there has to be a point of contact (something in common) in order to discuss anything, otherwise walk away.

 

[Wozza]

I have and will maintain that love is the best response to anti-theism.

But how can we get through to people who are set in believing that religion is evil or God cannot exist?
Should we even bother talking to the people who have these views?
What are your thoughts?

(I’m more interested in different peoples takes on this. The only opinion I put forth is Love)

I don’t think it’s that people don’t think that God cannot exist. As an atheist I have no problem in saying that he could. But then again, who’s God are we talking about? If it’s the Sunday School fundamentalist version, then I’m close to saying He doesn’t exist. Just as Vishnu and Atlas don’t exist.

But then it gets a little more wooly. A little more difficult to pin down. Than we get people using capital letters when talking about Love and Existence and Being.

Truth is, the world would be pretty much the same if He existed as if He didn’t. So for a lot of people it comes down to relevance.

 

[STT]

I have and will maintain that love is the best response to anti-theism.

Love is inside us to only make sure that life continues.

 

[Cabeelibob]

Would you mind elaborating?

 

[snarflemike]

Truth is, the world would be pretty much the same if He existed as if He didn’t. So for a lot of people it comes down to relevance.

Most Theists would argue the exact opposite, that the world and our place in it is completely different if God exists, than if he doesn’t.

 

[IWantGod]

It seems to me that all that you’ve done is point out that people will use whatever means necessary to support their particular conclusion. So it’s kinda like the pot calling the kettle black.

No, people tend to put up walls that are not warranted in-order to block out the view from the other-side. Perhaps they don’t like what they see?

Anybody who respects the principle of non-contradiction and faithfully follows an argument to it’s necessary conclusion hardly deserves to be called a kettle or a pot. What you don’t do is distort scientific theories or it’s method to suit your conclusion or give labels to things that doesn’t apply and then pretend to be having a reasonable conversation. This is something i see you do quite a lot.

Oh, and by the way, I’ve yet to see you present a cogent argument

I don’t think you know what a cogent argument is, and i gave up long ago trying to get one out you.

Thanks.

 

[Economist]

I have and will maintain that love is the best response to anti-theism.

I have no idea what you mean here. What do you mean when you use the word “love”? And what does “love” have to do with the existence or non-existence of a “god” or “God”?

 

[Cabeelibob]

I can respect atheists who respect me. I have trouble respecting anti-theists. By respect I mean admire.
If God is love, Than it can be argued that Love should be capitalized when you refer to God as Love. But to be honest, it doesn’t really matter. That’s just kinda whatever thing.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Truth is, the world would be pretty much the same if He existed as if He didn’t. So for a lot of people it comes down to relevance.

Most Theists would argue the exact opposite, that the world and our place in it is completely different if God exists, than if he doesn’t.

I should correct my statement.

The world is definitely different because people believe He exists. Whether He exists or not makes no difference.

 

[IWantGod]

Truth is, the world would be pretty much the same if He existed as if He didn’t.

So i guess a structural grouping of atoms would love if there were no God? I find that very difficult to believe, and that has nothing to do with my faith.

 

[IWantGod]

Love is inside us to only make sure that life continues.

So you are arguing that love exists for a purpose, and that purpose is life itself?

STT, do you really think about the things you say? You are basically arguing for a creator without knowing it.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Truth is, the world would be pretty much the same if He existed as if He didn’t.

So i guess a structural grouping of atoms would love if there were no God? I find that very difficult to believe, and that has nothing to do with my faith.

If that’s an argument that God would make a difference (chemistry would work) then it’s as tight a circular argument as one is likely to get.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Truth is, the world would be pretty much the same if He existed as if He didn’t. So for a lot of people it comes down to relevance.

Most Theists would argue the exact opposite, that the world and our place in it is completely different if God exists, than if he doesn’t.

See my correction a couple of posts above.

 

[Wozza]

STT:

Love is inside us to only make sure that life continues.

So you are arguing that love exists for a purpose, and that purpose is life itself?

STT, do you really think about the things you say? You are basically arguing for a creator without knowing it.

Maybe he means ‘a strong emotional attachment’ and/or lust. Difficult to tell them apart at times.

 

[John_Martin]

Oh, and by the way, I’ve yet to see you present a cogent argument that necessarily leads to God, although you’re repeatedly claiming that you have. So far just talk.

You are frequenting the CA Forums, meaning you entertain some interest in the “People” (the Church) that you find here, some interest in conversing (arguing) with them. This People, we maintain, is the Body of our God, Jesus; you are displaying interest in interchange with the Body of Christ, as if somehow there is something there that is “interesting to be around”, which is the nature of “Lust”, the desire of union with an object.
You have been “led to God”, to our God, manifested in his Body, with whom you are in this dialog conversing; conversing with “the God”.
You are experiencing the effects of Gratuitous Grace, where our God is interfacing with you via his messenger, the One who comes in the Name of the LORD, and you find Him “interesting” in us, his People, his Body.

John Martin

 

[IWantGod]

If that’s an argument that God would make a difference (chemistry would work) then it’s as tight a circular argument as one is likely to get.

Not really, not when you take in to account the object we are talking about. You are talking about blind natural processes, that do not act for a purpose or a goal or an intent, loving one another as their natural end. Why you would think that this would be a natural result of physical activity alone is beyond me, and if pressed for an explanation you will probably take the scientism route - the ugly cousin of legitimate science.

If you cannot see the glaring contradiction or how bizarre your lack of bafflement is of the idea, it’s unlikely that you ever will, not until God reveals himself to you anyway.

 

[IWantGod]

a strong emotional attachment’ and/or lust.

The problem isn’t resolved by changing it to a strong sexual desire. If it exists for a purpose, then that is what it exists for.

In metaphysical naturalism, nothing exists for a purpose, there is no goal, they just exist for no reason.

The problem is, the love between two persons is teleological in so much as it’s personal in nature and to act on it is very teleological in nature especially in the reception of love.

 

[IWantGod]

Whether He exists or not makes no difference.

And how did you reach that conclusion? From my stand point there wouldn’t be a world to talk about full stop if there wasn’t an intelligent transcendent uncaused cause, which is essentially what the theist is arguing. I think you mean the world wouldn’t change for you in terms of how you imagine the world to be and how you remarkably take the existence of any particular thing or experience for granted.