Scathing remarks from Atheists

[afungusamongus]

My response would be to tell them what the following terms mean…

Ad Hominem attacks.
Reducio Ad Absurdum and
What it means to Strawman a argument.

These are just some of the things wrong with such attacks.

I’m reminded of what my Mother told me when I was trying to become a prefect.

You will catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.

 

[MacroConnectome]

My response would be to tell them what the following terms mean…

Ad Hominem attacks.
Reducio Ad Absurdum and
What it means to Strawman a argument.

These are just some of the things wrong with such attacks.

I’m reminded of what my Mother told me when I was trying to become a prefect.

You will catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.

Reductio ad absurdum is actually not a logical fallacy. It’s a logically valid means by which to disprove a deductive argument by taking its implications to a conclusion which is found to be absurd by both parties.

Most of the examples given by the OP are not reductios, rather straw men. I’ve never heard a Christian theologian profess belief in a “Jewish zombie” or proclaim to practice “cannibalism” through the Eucharist. These are just juvenile caricatures of Christianity which are easy to knock down, and thus give these particular atheists something to feel satisfied about.

Edit: Technically speaking, these aren’t even arguments. They’re just statements, so it’s probably not even proper to call them straw men since they’re just rants.

A true straw man argument would be something along the lines of:

P1: The Bible says to stone your children,
P2: Christians believe every word of the Bible,
C: Therefore, Christian faith necessitates the stoning of children.

To show that I’m not being impartial: another straw man would be:

P1: Evolution teaches that men come from monkeys.
P2: If men came from monkeys, there wouldn’t be any more monkeys.
P3: There are still monkeys,
C: Therefore, evolution is false.

I haven’t seen a true reductio ad absurdum against a tenet of Christianity, but something that comes close, at least with regards to theism in general, would be Epicurus’ Logical Problem of Evil.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Atheism: the belief that there was nothing, and then nothing happened, and nothing exploded creating everything and then a bunch of everything randomly rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs

Materialism: When life sucks, suck it up because that’s how it is.

Don’t debate this one. The term used for Jesus is often referenced in exorcisms by Demons who refuse to say the name of God… to copy such a reference is beyond the pale. Someone deliberately using this term is out to do nothing but defile.

Incidently, the answer here lies in a distinct ignorance of Jewish teaching… the dead before Christ didn’t go to hell, they went to sheol to wait for the Messiah to come and offer them salvation. They got their fair chance, the same as anyone today.

Atheism: the belief that the same species that spawned Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and the bevy of other atheist dictators who together murdered more people in the 20th century than in every previous war COMBINED, is somehow noble when separated from the grace of God.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I haven’t seen a true reductio ad absurdum against a tenet of Christianity, but something that comes close, at least with regards to theism in general, would be Epicurus’ Logical Problem of Evil.

The perfect relationship is Love
If God is perfect God must love
Love requires freedom
Freedom requires choices
Choices require alternatives
Good and evil are alternatives
Evil is what happens when Love is not chosen by creatures.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

For the materialist, life can’t even “suck.” It’s just molecules colliding whether one labels the interaction as “sucks” or “doesn’t suck.” The pool table of the cosmos has been set into motion. Everything that happens is just one atom colliding into another.

As a matter of fact, all those people praying and believing in God are just biological entities following the spread of interacting molecules, perfectly following the laws of physics, according to the materialist.

I would say it’s hypocritical for them to make fun of such physics and biology, but then again, I suppose they have no control over the colliding molecules making them say those things.

lol

Pointing out that their argument is self-defeating is one of my favorite counter arguments. I heard a debate between Prof Lennox and fellow Oxford Prof Atkins in which the Atkins said that religious people think the way they do [spiritually/about God] because they are biologically wired to do so. Pof Lennox responded by saying (paraphrased), “My colleague thinks I believe in God because I’m biologically wired to do so only because he is biologically wired to think that.”

 

[Biblepoe]

Most of the examples given by the OP are not reductios, rather straw men. I’ve never heard a Christian theologian profess belief in a “Jewish zombie” or proclaim to practice “cannibalism” through the Eucharist.

Of course you haven’t heard a theologian use the phrasing of cannibalism, because it sounds bad. However, the Catholic Church does definitively teach that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus, so eating it is, strictly speaking, cannibalism. However, not all cannibalism is bad.

And Jesus wasn’t a zombie when he rose from the dead because he was animated (of course).

The way to respond to these remarks are to clarify what the Church actually teaches and defend it.

lol

Pointing out that their argument is self-defeating is one of my favorite counter arguments. I heard a debate between Prof Lennox and fellow Oxford Prof Atkins in which the Atkins said that religious people think the way they do [spiritually/about God] because they are biologically wired to do so. Pof Lennox responded by saying (paraphrased), “My colleague thinks I believe in God because I’m biologically wired to do so only because he is biologically wired to think that.”

While I disagree with a lot of things atheists say, I’m not sure why this is an example of a self-contradiction as different individuals are wired much differently.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Of course you haven’t heard a theologian use the phrasing of cannibalism, because it sounds bad. However, the Catholic Church does definitively teach that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus, so eating it is, strictly speaking, cannibalism. However, not all cannibalism is bad.

And Jesus wasn’t a zombie when he rose from the dead because he was animated (of course).

The way to respond to these remarks are to clarify what the Church actually teaches and defend it.

While I disagree with a lot of things atheists say, I’m not sure why this is an example of a self-contradiction as different individuals are wired much differently.

It is self-contradicting because it is applied to discount someone else’s world view but not applied to one’s own world view. In other words, he quickly says that Lennox has a creator world view because biochemical reactions in his brain make him think that is true (implied that Lennox’s view is false). But Atkins would not be so quick to admit that he thinks Lennox believes this because of biochemical reactions in Atkins’ own brain. Or that he believes there is no God because of these biochemical reactions.

 

[clmowry]

Yes. You tell your (argumentative) opponent to come back to you when he decides not to engage in straw man arguments.

Any seven year old can make silly caricatures of what somebody else believes or is professing, but it takes real critical thinking to actually dissect what someone else is saying, carefully, and craft a robust rebuttal which follows from what the person actually believes or is saying.

Are you sure you’re and Atheist? (Just kidding…)

 

[MacroConnectome]

Of course you haven’t heard a theologian use the phrasing of cannibalism, because it sounds bad.

I disagree. You don’t hear theologians calling it cannibalism because it isn’t cannibalism. They use an Aristotelian distinction to explain how the substance of Jesus’ body can be present among the accidents of bread. Now I personally don’t accept their premise that there’s even a difference between accidents and substance, and so I recognize the Eucharist to be bread. You cannot cannibalism bread. From their own vantage cannibalism involves eating the substance of human flesh behind the accident of human flesh, the latter condition of which is not met under their beliefs. It’s therefore apparent that to no one, Catholic or non-Catholic, cannibalism is occurring, and constructing an argument based on a conclusion nobody has drawn is the very definition of a straw man.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Of course you haven’t heard a theologian use the phrasing of cannibalism, because it sounds bad. However, the Catholic Church does definitively teach that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus, so eating it is, strictly speaking, cannibalism

There is only one Body involved in the Eucharist, in which the Host feeds the cells that make up the Body. The Eucharist is metabolism, not cannibalism.

 

[Biblepoe]

I disagree. You don’t hear theologians calling it cannibalism because it isn’t cannibalism. They use an Aristotelian distinction to explain how the substance of Jesus’ body can be present among the accidents of bread. Now I personally don’t accept their premise that there’s even a difference between accidents and substance, and so I recognize the Eucharist to be bread. You cannot cannibalism bread. From their own vantage cannibalism involves eating the substance of human flesh behind the accident of human flesh, the latter condition of which is not met under their beliefs. It’s therefore apparent that to no one, Catholic or non-Catholic, cannibalism is occurring, and constructing an argument based on a conclusion nobody has drawn is the very definition of a straw man.

The definition of cannibalism is eating the flesh of another human. The appearance (or accidents) of the Eucharist are irrelevant.

Take for example the supposed Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano in which the host supposedly turned into flesh during the consecration. The Catholic Church’s teaching is such that if that miracle really happened as it is believed, then the Eucharist Catholics receive today is the exact same as that meat at Lanciano except for the appearances (or accidents). That is what people would ordinarily call cannibalism, and to say that it is not cannibalism because it doesn’t have the appearance of flesh is to make a special exception.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The definition of cannibalism is eating the flesh of another human. The appearance (or accidents) of the Eucharist are irrelevant.

The Eucharist is not another human. Let’s try this again:

There is only one Body involved in the Eucharist, in which the Host feeds the cells that make up the Body. The Eucharist is metabolism, not cannibalism.

 

[Marie_Gregg]

I would refuse to even acknowledge such absurd statements. The goal of that kind of baiting is to produce an emotionally-fueled, over-the-top response.

 

[Biblepoe]

I don’t want to derail the thread with this, but I though I aught to address this.

It is self-contradicting because it is applied to discount someone else’s world view but not applied to one’s own world view.

If Atkins was saying, “Your beliefs are wrong because they are a result of your biological hardwiring,” then it would be self-defeating (presuming that Atkin’s position is also due to biological hardwiring).

However, if his point was, “Biological hardwiring explains why it is possible to firmly hold your beliefs without good reasons,” then it is not necessarily self-defeating.

The latter may be a response to fallacious arguments like, “So many people believe X, so you should too,” or, “I had a strong experience of X, so you should believe it” or, “I believe this with all my heart, I would never lie about it, so you should believe it.”

 

[Biblepoe]

The Eucharist is not another human. Let’s try this again:

The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus, who is fully human (in addition to be fully god). Thus, the Eucharist is human flesh according to Catholic theology.

Thus, eating the Eucharist would qualify as cannibalism under the most commonly used definition of that word, eating the flesh of a human (regardless of who that human is).

EDIT: After re-reading your post, it seems to me that you are trying to say that eating the Eucharist is not cannibalism because you are eating human flesh of an organism that you are a part of (as opposed to eating the flesh of a different human)! Not only is that still cannibalism, that’s even more taboo. At least I can imagine scenarios in which eating a another person due to extreme circumstances may be considered acceptable (see Donner Party).

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

I don’t want to derail the thread with this, but I though I aught to address this.

If Atkins was saying, “Your beliefs are wrong because they are a result of your biological hardwiring,” then it would be self-defeating (presuming that Atkin’s position is also due to biological hardwiring).

However, if his point was, “Biological hardwiring explains why it is possible to firmly hold your beliefs without good reasons,” then it is not necessarily self-defeating.

The latter may be a response to fallacious arguments like, “So many people believe X, so you should too,” or, “I had a strong experience of X, so you should believe it” or, “I believe this with all my heart, I would never lie about it, so you should believe it.”

His point was the former.

 

[Cat_Herder]

EDIT: After re-reading your post, it seems to me that you are trying to say that eating the Eucharist is not cannibalism because you are eating human flesh of an organism that you are a part of (as opposed to eating the flesh of a different human)! Not only is that still cannibalism, that’s even more taboo. At least I can imagine scenarios in which eating a another person due to extreme circumstances may be considered acceptable (see Donner Party).

Back to Biology 1301 with you.

 

[Biblepoe]

Back to Biology 1301 with you.

Cannibalism, in the conventional use of the word, is ingesting flesh of one’s own species (regardless of whether it came from yourself or another). If the consecrated host is actually the body and blood of Jesus (as the Catholic Church teaches), and you ingest it, that fits the conventional definition of cannibalism, even if you want to use a make up an ad hoc theology (well, we aren’t committing cannibalism because we are members of Christ’s body which we are consuming!).

But I’ve learned a lesson in this discussion. It’s not worth debating the finer details of theology, because it’s always possible for theologians to smooth out rough edges over the centuries by just making things up. An adequate amount of rhetorical showmanship can always explain anything away within theology.

Not that it matters, but I’ve taken 3 biology classes in college, and am currently studying biospychology.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Cannibalism, in the conventional use of the word, is ingesting flesh of one’s own species

It is one organism consuming the flesh of another organism. It is not one cell of an organism consuming nutrition from a red blood cell of the same organism.

You think of yourself as being an organism but you are just a cell in the Body of Christ; you and I are infinitesimally small parts of the whole. I’m not making this up. Read 1 Corinthians 12 sometime and hopefully you’ll start to understand.

Not that it matters, but I’ve taken 3 biology classes in college, and am currently studying biospychology.

Looks like the Marxist anti-Catholic faculty got to you. Good thing that you are here, though. When I was in your position I didn’t have the benefit of anyone giving me the other side of the story.

 

[Biblepoe]

It is one organism consuming the flesh of another organism. It is not one cell of an organism consuming nutrition from a red blood cell of the same organism.

Let me make this clear, a human ingesting human flesh is cannibalism by definition regardless if you can make an analogy to metabolism within the theology.

Even with this ad hoc theology (“The Eucharist is Jesus’ body and blood…no wait it isn’t cannibalism because we are part of that body…wait, it’s not self-cannibalism because…”) this analogy doesn’t work. For the analogy to work, the red blood cell would have to be consuming the rest of the body, not material recently ingested from without the body. Healthy cells don’t ingest other parts of the body unless those parts of the body are stored specifically for that purpose (lipid, or fat cells) or the body is somehow starved (such as osteoclasts breaking down bone tissue, weakening bones but getting some calcium).

You think of yourself as being an organism but you are just a cell in the Body of Christ; you and I are infinitesimally small parts of the whole. I’m not making this up. Read 1 Corinthians 12 sometime and hopefully you’ll start to understand.

I’m well aware of the theology of the “Body of Christ” and well aware of 1 Cor. By the way, how hard is it to write a book that contains the made-up theology of the time? Just because something is written in an old book doesn’t mean it isn’t made-up.

However, the made up comment was referring to ad hoc rationalizations beyond 1 Corinthians, as 1 Corinthians speaks of one body with many parts, which would be self-cannibalism with one part (a person) injecting part or all of the body. Equivocating the consumption of one part of the body by another part as “metabolism” is ad hoc rationalization.

Looks like the Marxist anti-Catholic faculty got to you.

You mean the anti-Catholic Franciscan University of Steubenville! Seriously man, this made me laugh so hard by jumping to absurd conclusions here. Perhaps you didn’t consider that I have been Catholic before but that I can think for myself.