Please please help.

[wcknight]

So I sat through most of those videos, and I find them entirely unconvincing… basically this guys video says, he became an atheist first because he found some disturbing stories in the Bible and because he could not refute an atheist professor’s arguments against his own.

Folks who take the Bible literally, will find a very different image of God in the Old Testament versus that in the New Testament. A harse, very vengeful God appears in the Old and a loving merciful God appears in the New. The thing about the Bible is that, the stories were written for various purposes to teach lessons to various generations of Isreal. When we try to apply all these stories to every situation, we can easlity run into problems.

This guy is thinking that the Holy Spirit is personally speaking to Him in nearly every situation. I don’t think God works that way. IF that were the case, then I could ask God for every answer to every test that I ever take, and I would be 100% right all the time. There may be times, when God is listening, like when I pray in critical situations,

BUT I know for certain that, He could care less when I am bowling, otherwise I would be bowling perfect games every week. I have never even had one (perfect game), so I know He is not listening.

We do not always have the Holy Spirit listening, so we will not always have all the right answers even when we are confronted with the most astute atheist professor. The error in this guys thinking is that he thinks, he is infallible, that as long as he thinks the Holy Spirit is talking to him, he can make no mistakes. Well, no one elected him pope and he does NOT have a personal, uninterrupted line directly to God.

(and even the pope is not 100% always in tune with God, althoiugh some folks think that he is - he is only 100% right when he is speaknig ‘ex cathedra’ on matter of faith and morals)

 

[latingirl]

Why care so much about people’s opinions. Your faith journey is between you and God. No offense and please do not be offended when I say this, but it seems you are looking for an excuse to lapse back into old beliefs.
Do not fear change.
Don’t not fear the unknown,
Do not fear the Truth which is waiting for you.

Do not be afraid!!

 

[Zimm3r]

Why care so much about people’s opinions. Your faith journey is between you and God. No offense and please do not be offended when I say this, but it seems you are looking for an excuse to lapse back into old beliefs.
Do not fear change.
Don’t not fear the unknown,
Do not fear the Truth which is waiting for you.

Do not be afraid!!

But that in no way refutes any of the claims he gives I am looking for the truth that is why I like this guy and william lane craig they provide logical defenses

 

[latingirl]

Why listen to him over the facts we have given you? Don’t you realize that all this guy’s credentials don’t mean jack in the grand scheme of things. I can’t tell you what to do but if I were you, I’d tune it out and listen to the voices of people that do matter, people who are online actively talking to you and spending their time with you who care about you and want to help.

I’m no apologist and personally won’t spend all my time watching those videos;. I have done my own study and research that has convinced me God exists and that his people are in the Catholic Church. You are at a different place and I’ll respect that.

 

[Zimm3r]

Why listen to him over the facts we have given you? Don’t you realize that all this guy’s credentials don’t mean jack in the grand scheme of things. I can’t tell you what to do but if I were you, I’d tune it out and listen to the voices of people that do matter, people who are online actively talking to you and spending their time with you who care about you and want to help.

I’m no apologist and personally won’t spend all my time watching those videos;. I have done my own study and research that has convinced me God exists and that his people are in the Catholic Church. You are at a different place and I’ll respect that.

Simply because he provides a strong logical reason and shows his experience’s through it, I have always been interested in truth not what is emotionally good or feel good but what is true even if it means there is no god, yes it will suck but well that is tough

 

[StrawberryJam]

What do you find weak with Dawkins? Do you know who Carl Sagan is? What do you think of him?

Why should any catholic try to debunk any of them?

 

[Zimm3r]

What do you find weak with Dawkins? Do you know who Carl Sagan is? What do you think of him?

Why should any catholic try to debunk any of them?

He is rather awful at arguing and debating and presenting evidence etc and resorts to ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies often. Don’t know much about Sagan do now he is an atheist and founded SETI

 

[fhansen]

Please Note I have also sent this to Ask an Apologist but considering its length I think it will take a while to be responded to so I figured I’d ask here as this has really concerned me. (If this is against forums policy please delete )

Ok first a little background for a while now I have found myself on a search for truth and recently found William Lane Craig to be a most wonderful debater and a refreshing welcome from the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Hitchins. While Hitchins is defiantly interesting all three of these characters (truly what they are) are very poor debaters. So I have recently been moving closer to theism.

I have also recently gone on Kairos (another step to theism that has helped) and prayer meetings. As you can see I have been moving closer to theism, this has been odd because for most of my life it was either meh ok go to church or why do I believe this why (going to a Catholic school I was always questioning (probably annoying my teachers too) ).

So basically I have been finding what I have truly hoped for God a true belief in him a true logical this is the truth belief (unlike what I was largely exposed to in school which was either an assumption of belief or not convincing arguments (where William Lane Craig has helped) ). I have been on a great path and one I have yearned for all my life deeply.

So now I bring you to my current problem this…
youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A0C3C1D163BE880A
having recently watched it, it has shaken my faith extremely (in fact yesterday I was in tears as I felt all hope had left me, what if this was true what if it was all just nothing)

I deeply beg for some help in refuting these claims as I deeply hope this isn’t the truth but feel it is. PLEASE HELP.

Thank You, Zimmer

I do hope someone has come across this as it does take a bit to watch the 2 section (the 3 section doesn’t concern me as much but still some)

The hope, the light I had I fear is like a candle in the breeze and has become now more.

Again Thank You and sorry for it being so long.

**I got thru about half of part 2; I’ll try to get thru the rest later, but I have to say it was very, very boring. I can’t begin to express the depth of naivete and also pride that poured thru the speaker’s presentation. The whole thing was an indictment against his religious experience of fundamentalism by way of Pentecostalism including its hyper-literal “method” of biblical interpretation. I would never be Christian if my only option was that.

In any case, this is a man who hasn’t scratched the surface of what God “means”, and neither has his supposedly sophisticated professor friend. The speaker’s “relationship” with God was based almost solely on feelings and his own perception of a mutual internal dialogue, along with this bogus “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” nonsense. But if and when a person experiences God as a direct gift of His immediate presence, then any speculation about reasons why people might “invent” God become pretty much laughable. These kinds of experiences seem to occur almost exclusively within Catholic tradition but in any case, once love is known on that kind of scale, a scale unapproachable by human effort, the existence of God and reasons for our existence here become understood. People can convince themselves to believe anything-including the belief that God doesn’t exist.**

 

[fhansen]

I got thru about half of part 2; I’ll try to get thru the rest later, but I have to say it was very, very boring. I can’t begin to express the depth of naivete and also pride that poured thru the speaker’s presentation. The whole thing was an indictment against his religious experience of fundamentalism by way of Pentecostalism including its hyper-literal “method” of biblical interpretation. I would never be Christian if my only option was that.

In any case, this is a man who hasn’t scratched the surface of what God “means”, and neither has his supposedly sophisticated professor friend. The speaker’s “relationship” with God was based almost solely on feelings and his own perception of a mutual internal dialogue, along with things like this bogus “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” emotional nonsense. But if and when a person experiences God as a direct gift of His immediate presence, then any speculation about reasons why people might “invent” God become pretty much laughable. These kinds of experiences seem to occur almost exclusively within Catholic tradition but in any case, once love is known on that kind of scale, a scale unapproachable by human effort, the existence of God and reasons for our existence here become understood. People can convince themselves to believe anything-including the belief that God doesn’t exist.

 

[Nicko]

Although I have not watched the whole thing yet, I find it very telling that he put the Bible in the middle of his network. If you ask me, since he was a Protestant, personal relationship w/ Christ should be at the center (add “in and through the Sacraments” if he were Catholic). Forgive me for not having seen the whole thing yet, maybe he explains this later on, I don’t have time to watch the rest of part 2 tonight.

Why do you attach significance to where he decides to put the veracity of the Bible in a network where every node is connected to every other node? I saw nothing in his videos that made me think he intended the viewer to draw any conclusions about a particular node’s importance from its position on a diagram. It’s irrelevant. Shift the labels around if it makes you feel better.

The point of the analogy is that a believer’s faith is not dependent upon any one thing. Rather, it is made up of a number of independent beliefs that will be different for each believer.

 

[Job42]

Why do you attach significance to where he decides to put the veracity of the Bible in a network where every node is connected to every other node? I saw nothing in his videos that made me think he intended the viewer to draw any conclusions about a particular node’s importance from its position on a diagram. It’s irrelevant. Shift the labels around if it makes you feel better.

The point of the analogy is that a believer’s faith is not dependent upon any one thing. Rather, it is made up of a number of independent beliefs that will be different for each believer.

Duly noted. But still, I wouldn’t say a Christian’s belief is comprised of “independent beliefs.” A Christian’s life is by nature a “personal relationship” with Christ (and a communal relationship w/ the Body of Christ), expressed through a life of “morality” and nurtured primarily via things like “prayer,” (and the Sacraments for Catholics) “Bible,” “other Christians,” and secondarily reinforced by things like “creation” and “logical arguments.” They are all interrelated.

 

[Nicko]

Duly noted. But still, I wouldn’t say a Christian’s belief is comprised of “independent beliefs.” A Christian’s life is by nature a “personal relationship” with Christ (and a communal relationship w/ the Body of Christ), expressed through a life of “morality” and nurtured primarily via things like “prayer,” (and the Sacraments for Catholics) “Bible,” “other Christians,” and secondarily reinforced by things like “creation” and “logical arguments.” They are all interrelated.

Sorry if I implied they were completely unrelated. By “independent” I meant that if one belief was refuted (for whatever reason), the rest of the network would still stand. Of course they are related, that’s why the “network” analogy is so accurate.

The point is, no one is going to bring your faith to a crashing halt with a single argument. Even if you accept the argument as true, the other “nodes” in the “network” will still be left standing.

 

[Job42]

The point is, no one is going to bring your faith to a crashing halt with a single argument. Even if you accept the argument as true, the other “nodes” in the “network” will still be left standing.

Well if that is the whole point then he is not making much of a point. It can be applied to any belief system, including that of an atheist.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I give him credence because he seems genuine and it took a lot of work to make those videos (why take all that time just to troll). Even if he is trolling his objects still matter amd they are what worry me.

I did not say he was trolling. That is something entirely different. Judging someone’s genuineness from a video on Youtube is impossible really. There are many videos on Youtube that seem “genuine” but are not made with a wholesome purpose.

Why not seek the advice of a Catholic spiritual director? Someone who can truly guide you to the truth and not just more Youtube videos. Wikipedia and Youtube are the opposite of truth.

 

[empther]

Zimm3r

I was the one who asked you to write down some of the arguments this guy in the video was using and you did in post 19. Thank you.

Going through the list of his arguments, I found them trivial and ignorant.
For example: he says there’s no scientific evidence for the flood.

Really! This is amateurish debating that would put middle school kids to shame.
This is his kind of argument?

He’s a charlatan, a crank, and totally incompetent to talk about these serious matters.
My advice is to laugh at his videos and then forget them.

 

[Gidras05]

Hey Zimm3r,

You mention that you really like logical proofs like the other Apologists you mentioned.

Honestly, going on Youtube and watching college kids tell you why the internet taught them that theism is wrong and “look at all these objections” etc etc… Haven’t you ever wondered why you’re hearing this now?

The reason why you’re exposed to it is because we have the ability to communicate easily thanks to the internet. But that does NOT mean that these questions haven’t been asked in the 2000 years since Christ formed the Catholic Church. Remember, Christianity started with 12 little individual apostles versus a world against their beliefs. Obviously people had questions, and GOOD ones at that.

And therefore you must realize that there are 2000 years of theologians and apologists and teachings dedicated to defending against these claims. Don’t get me wrong, going on this forum is a great way for answers but honestly?

Your best bet is go to the experts, the people who actually STUDY all of this, not people who can give you why they think this youtube guy doesn’t seem “right”. A lot of people here are very informed, but others might not give you what you’re looking for.

If you’re looking for logic? Proof? Scientific evidence of God? Here’s two books for you to start: Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft
New Proofs for the Existence of God by Fr Robert J Spitzer

The first book handles a TON of philosophy and covers everything from Faith vs Reason, to the 20 Philosophical proofs for God’s existence, to the Historical accuracy of the Bible, Christ’s divinity, Resurrection, Heaven/Hell, etc etc.

The second book is much much more hardcore. It covers the scientific achievements of the last 40 years in regards to the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God. It was published very recently, and is being hailed greatly as being quite definitive in its examination of arguments for and against theism, using physics and cosmology.

Just so you get an idea, here are some chapters in the book:

A Lonerganian Proof for God’s existence
Large Scale and Fine-Structure Constants and the Extreme Improbability of our Anthropic Universe
Steinhardt-Turok Cyclic Ekpyrotic Universes and how they Require a Beginning and a Transcendent Cause
The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem’s Boundary to Past Time
Proof that a Circular Set of Conditions is False for any Conditioned Reality
Hilbert’s Prohibition of Actual Infinities

These are literally like a 20th of the topics that book covers.

Both of these guys are experts in their field. I would give them a read and I guarantee you’ll feel more at ease. Read more Apologists!

Oh and just as an aside- Fr Spitzer? yeah he’s a Jesuit scholar. I think you’ll find it interesting to note that so far every single one of the spokespeople for the New Atheist movement have outright refused to pubicly debate a Jesuit scholar. Each time they’ve been turned down. Interesting huh? Jesuit scholars are responsible for some of the greatest scientific achievements of the past 2000 years. They’re no joke.

 

[Zimm3r]

I did not say he was trolling. That is something entirely different. Judging someone’s genuineness from a video on Youtube is impossible really. There are many videos on Youtube that seem “genuine” but are not made with a wholesome purpose.

Why not seek the advice of a Catholic spiritual director? Someone who can truly guide you to the truth and not just more Youtube videos. Wikipedia and Youtube are the opposite of truth.

I apologise I thought you were suggesting he was trolling. Genuiness doesn’t really matter in the end it is the logical thought process that I care about.

As for the suggestion of the advice of a Catholic spiritual director seems contradictory to what I am trying to do, find the truth you should try and disprove things not prove them. (For example the null hypothesis statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample2.html you can’t ever prrove it you can only prove that within a certain certainty it is probabilistic)

Thank You for your reply

Zimm3r

I was the one who asked you to write down some of the arguments this guy in the video was using and you did in post 19. Thank you.

Going through the list of his arguments, I found them trivial and ignorant.
For example: he says there’s no scientific evidence for the flood.

Really! This is amateurish debating that would put middle school kids to shame.
This is his kind of argument?

He’s a charlatan, a crank, and totally incompetent to talk about these serious matters.
My advice is to laugh at his videos and then forget them.

Sorry I forgot who asked and my brain was tired . I do agree they are trivial but there are still some arguments against this global flood that the bible says happened (for example statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample2.html)

Amateurish or not shouldn’t matter it is whether it can be disproved.

No offence but seems you got more emotion out of this then logical counters to his claims.

Thank you for your reply

Hey Zimm3r,

You mention that you really like logical proofs like the other Apologists you mentioned.

Honestly, going on Youtube and watching college kids tell you why the internet taught them that theism is wrong and “look at all these objections” etc etc… Haven’t you ever wondered why you’re hearing this now?

The reason why you’re exposed to it is because we have the ability to communicate easily thanks to the internet. But that does NOT mean that these questions haven’t been asked in the 2000 years since Christ formed the Catholic Church. Remember, Christianity started with 12 little individual apostles versus a world against their beliefs. Obviously people had questions, and GOOD ones at that.

SECTION REMOVED TO FIT < 6000 CHARACTERS

The second book is much much more hardcore. It covers the scientific achievements of the last 40 years in regards to the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God. It was published very recently, and is being hailed greatly as being quite definitive in its examination of arguments for and against theism, using physics and cosmology.

Just so you get an idea, here are some chapters in the book:

A Lonerganian Proof for God’s existence
Large Scale and Fine-Structure Constants and the Extreme Improbability of our Anthropic Universe
Steinhardt-Turok Cyclic Ekpyrotic Universes and how they Require a Beginning and a Transcendent Cause
The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem’s Boundary to Past Time
Proof that a Circular Set of Conditions is False for any Conditioned Reality
Hilbert’s Prohibition of Actual Infinities

These are literally like a 20th of the topics that book covers.

Both of these guys are experts in their field. I would give them a read and I guarantee you’ll feel more at ease. Read more Apologists!

Oh and just as an aside- Fr Spitzer? yeah he’s a Jesuit scholar. I think you’ll find it interesting to note that so far every single one of the spokespeople for the New Atheist movement have outright refused to pubicly debate a Jesuit scholar. Each time they’ve been turned down. Interesting huh? Jesuit scholars are responsible for some of the greatest scientific achievements of the past 2000 years. They’re no joke.

Wow thank you for the time you put in I have heard of the first book from friends (I go to a catholic school most of my friends are catholic and several are well versed in defending their beliefs (sadly better then the teachers ).

What is the problem with internet sources or atheistic sources they are no more less credible then a book, the credibility is determined by their content not the publishing method or differing view point (not saying that is why but just want to cover for anyone else)?

Also again I’ll post what I said above on proving vs disproving

As for the suggestion of the advice of a Catholic spiritual director seems contradictory to what I am trying to do, find the truth you should try and disprove things not prove them. (For example the null hypothesis statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample2.html you can’t ever prrove it you can only prove that within a certain certainty it is probabilistic)

Again thank you all for your replies I know it may not seem I am grateful because I am “fighting” with it but I truly am I just always have trouble believing things and am defiantly a cynic.

Thanks again

 

[Gidras05]

Wow thank you for the time you put in I have heard of the first book from friends (I go to a catholic school most of my friends are catholic and several are well versed in defending their beliefs (sadly better then the teachers ).

What is the problem with internet sources or atheistic sources they are no more less credible then a book, the credibility is determined by their content not the publishing method or differing view point (not saying that is why but just want to cover for anyone else)?

Good question. To me, the biggest difference is the credentials of the author. It’s a very different atmosphere of debate when you’re using points from those with PhD’s in Philosphy or Physics or Metaphysics (on either theist or atheist sides), versus atheist blogs or atheist youtube videos of students still in their undergraduate years, grabbing inconsistent arguments from here and there and mashing them into their version of a “coherent” argument. While some questions they have may be good, that does NOT mean that there aren’t answers for them.

Oh and one last thing. God will never give you a trial that you can’t overcome. Persevere my friend!

 

[Zimm3r]

Good question. To me, the biggest difference is the credentials of the author. It’s a very different atmosphere of debate when you’re using points from those with PhD’s in Philosphy or Physics or Metaphysics (on either theist or atheist sides), versus atheist blogs or atheist youtube videos of students still in their undergraduate years, grabbing inconsistent arguments from here and there and mashing them into their version of a “coherent” argument. While some questions they have may be good, that does NOT mean that there aren’t answers for them.

Oh and one last thing. God will never give you a trial that you can’t overcome. Persevere my friend!

Wow you replied really fast thanks.

No doubt that the author of it caries wait but also even a nobody saying 1+1=2 would still be correct (unless they say it to a relativist ) . Though I do agree with you no doubt you want someone versed in logic (though you want to make sure it isn’t just an appeal from authority ). Will check those books out though thanks

 

[Gidras05]

Wow you replied really fast thanks.

No doubt that the author of it caries wait but also even a nobody saying 1+1=2 would still be correct (unless they say it to a relativist ) . Though I do agree with you no doubt you want someone versed in logic (though you want to make sure it isn’t just an appeal from authority ). Will check those books out though thanks

Good point- Appeal to authority can be flawed.

Let me know if you do check out those books- and until you do, don’t make any definitive positions on your faith. Make sure to read thoroughly both sides of any argument =)

Lastly, if you need more book recommendations about any topic, please let me know. I guarantee to have excellent books on any topic of contention for you!