Responding to a Claim

[KidCatholic1]

Despite me being a Prayer Warrior, I am still new to this site, so if I posted on the wrong forum, forgive me. I have a friend that is atheist (I likely mentioned them in other posts). Their rationale for being irreligious is that they don’t believe in anything that cannot be seen. This was so extreme to the point that they did not believe in China since they never saw it! Anyways, I have mentioned studies I have seen that show and demonstrate life after death to them, so they do not make claims about there being no afterlife. Do you have any ideas on how to persuade them should the topic come up? I do not actively evangelize Catholicism, but at the same time, I don’t think that is at all a good rationale for not believing. And for being irreligious/religiously intolerant. Thanks, and God bless!

 

[cena]

Despite me being a Prayer Warrior, I am still new to this site, so if I posted on the wrong forum, forgive me. I have a friend that is atheist (I likely mentioned them in other posts). Their rationale for being irreligious is that they don’t believe in anything that cannot be seen. This was so extreme to the point that they did not believe in China since they never saw it! Anyways, I have mentioned studies I have seen that show and demonstrate life after death to them, so they do not make claims about there being no afterlife. Do you have any ideas on how to persuade them should the topic come up? I do not actively evangelize Catholicism, but at the same time, I don’t think that is at all a good rationale for not believing. And for being irreligious/religiously intolerant. Thanks, and God bless!

So they do not believe in air? Things like gravity and wind can not be seen only their effects are seen.

If they are serious about not believing in China because of that then it is going to be really difficult. You can look up proof that there is God (for example the unmoved mover)

 

[KidCatholic1]

So they do not believe in air? Things like gravity and wind can not be seen only their effects are seen.

If they are serious about not believing in China because of that then it is going to be really difficult. You can look up proof that there is God (for example the unmoved mover)

I understand, they do believe in forces and physical reactions but not in spiritual entities. They only recently acknowledged China existed.

 

[JackVk]

You know, it’s funny, I used to be skeptical as to whether there was a place called “Europe”, and wondered if it was all an elaborate hoax to fool me (not unlike that Jim Carrey movie). That isn’t skepticism, that’s asinine! It flies in the face of reason!

Considering your screen name is KidCatholic, I’m assuming you’re young? Forgive me if I’m wrong. But teenagers/adolescents think they know everything. I’m 22 and still struggle with it.

Don’t let this cynical, juvenile line of thinking worry you. Your friend is most likely being dishonest and just trying to discredit you.

 

[Nixbits]

KidCatholic1:

Their rationale for being irreligious is that they don’t believe in anything that cannot be seen.

That’s an exceptionally intellectually lazy form of atheism. I agree with JackVk. I wouldn’t waste my time debating things with someone like that.

 

[dmar198]

KidCatholic1:

I have a friend that is atheist… Their rationale for being irreligious is that they don’t believe in anything that cannot be seen. … they do believe in forces and physical reactions but not in spiritual entities. They only recently acknowledged China existed.

In that case, they do believe in things that cannot be seen. They are committing the fallacy of special pleading if they admit that China and physical causes can exist without being seen, but don’t apply the same reasoning to God.

If they believe in forces and physical reactions, one argument for God’s existence that might be effective with them is to talk to them about matter being an effect. We can use reason to examine the properties of matter and conclude that nothing material can be eternal. For one thing, matter loses energy. An eternal thing can’t.

In that light, it is absolutely certain that matter started to exist at some point.

The reason this is important is because of the following argument based on the law of contradiction:

Either the material world is caused, or it is not. If it is caused, either something nonmaterial caused the material world, or something material. Using reason alone, we can exclude all other theories, because the law of contradiction says that, in any case between an option and its negation, one of the two must be true.

That simple argument gives us three options for the world: (1) the material world is eternal, (2) something material caused the world, (3) something nonmaterial caused the world.

That’s where the earlier argument about matter being an effect comes in: by showing that matter must be an effect, using reason alone, we can exclude options 1 and 2. Therefore, something nonmaterial caused the world.

Let me know what you think of that argument.

 

[KidCatholic1]

In that case, they do believe in things that cannot be seen. They are committing the fallacy of special pleading if they admit that China and physical causes can exist without being seen, but don’t apply the same reasoning to God.

If they believe in forces and physical reactions, one argument for God’s existence that might be effective with them is to talk to them about matter being an effect. We can use reason to examine the properties of matter and conclude that nothing material can be eternal. For one thing, matter loses energy. An eternal thing can’t.

In that light, it is absolutely certain that matter started to exist at some point.

The reason this is important is because of the following argument based on the law of contradiction:

Either the material world is caused, or it is not. If it is caused, either something nonmaterial caused the material world, or something material. Using reason alone, we can exclude all other theories, because the law of contradiction says that, in any case between an option and its negation, one of the two must be true.

That simple argument gives us three options for the world: (1) the material world is eternal, (2) something material caused the world, (3) something nonmaterial caused the world.

That’s where the earlier argument about matter being an effect comes in: by showing that matter must be an effect, using reason alone, we can exclude options 1 and 2. Therefore, something nonmaterial caused the world.

Let me know what you think of that argument.

That actually is a fantastic argument. I think I will use that the next time they go rambling about that belief they have…

 

[KidCatholic1]

You know, it’s funny, I used to be skeptical as to whether there was a place called “Europe”, and wondered if it was all an elaborate hoax to fool me (not unlike that Jim Carrey movie). That isn’t skepticism, that’s asinine! It flies in the face of reason!

Considering your screen name is KidCatholic, I’m assuming you’re young? Forgive me if I’m wrong. But teenagers/adolescents think they know everything. I’m 22 and still struggle with it.

Don’t let this cynical, juvenile line of thinking worry you. Your friend is most likely being dishonest and just trying to discredit you.

“Kid” in my nickname is metaphorical, it means I am still “young” or “inexperienced” in Catholicism because it was only recently began practicing it. But it is true: we all like to be right! They are anything but an exception. Good post. I wonder, if I told them all the reasons I am a Catholic, I think even THEY would accept my reasoning beats theirs. I could be totally wrong though.

 

[schaeffer]

“Kid” in my nickname is metaphorical, it means I am still “young” or “inexperienced” in Catholicism because it was only recently began practicing it. But it is true: we all like to be right! They are anything but an exception. Good post. I wonder, if I told them all the reasons I am a Catholic, I think even THEY would accept my reasoning beats theirs. I could be totally wrong though.

The most effective evangelism I have experienced is when the people share their own belief and why they believe. End.

Arguing with another person about beliefs (unless the two are doing it as some mutually agreed upon philosophical discussion) is generally pointless. As is trying to talk someone out of their own beliefs.

The comment you made about “next time they go babbling on about their beliefs” goes both ways. I don’t know how often or in what matter these discussions with this friend occur.

When someone shares their faith with me I am more apt to listen than when they start target shooting at what I believe.

But it might just be my personality, I enjoy hearing what people believe, but I have no interest in target shooting. Some people like a lively debate.

 

[KidCatholic1]

The most effective evangelism I have experienced is when the people share their own belief and why they believe. End.

Arguing with another person about beliefs (unless the two are doing it as some mutually agreed upon philosophical discussion) is generally pointless. As is trying to talk someone out of their own beliefs.

The comment you made about “next time they go babbling on about their beliefs” goes both ways. I don’t know how often or in what matter these discussions with this friend occur.

When someone shares their faith with me I am more apt to listen than when they start target shooting at what I believe.

But it might just be my personality, I enjoy hearing what people believe, but I have no interest in target shooting. Some people like a lively debate.

They change their minds all the time. But some opinions stick. I enjoy hearing other people’s beliefs, too, and why, but as long as it is civil. I never talk about Catholicism with them, only if it comes up (say me, them, and a friend of ours are in the same room. My other friend is Catholic and asks me a question about the faith, but they join in). I try not to talk about faith, because, it is, rather pointless (you’re right ).