The Atheism vs Theism Debate: I'm frustrated

[crazzeto]

There is one speacial case to note getting involved wtih a debate between Evangelicals and Athiests. You might at first want to view the Evangelicals as an “ally” of sorts, but ultimatly there’s a pretty decent chance they might not like you any more than the Athiest does. Even if you do catch them in a friendlier mood (probably means they’re not doing so well) you’ll end up having to watch for and catch their theological and scriptual errors as well then find polite ways to offer Catholic corrections.

 

[tonyrey]

The same reasons everyone else has. I just prefer some of the more sceptical (and in my opinion reliable) ones to others.

Why do you think sceptical reasons are more reliable? If you take scepticism to its logical conclusion you believe nothing - which of course is self-refuting…

 

[crazzeto]

Why do you think sceptical reasons are more reliable? If you take scepticism to its logical conclusion you believe nothing - which of course is self-refuting…

Yeah… There is definetly a false idea being evangalized that unless you’re skeptical of everything everyone says then you’re being foolishly lead by everyone. This philosophy doesn’t work any better than just gullably believing everything everyone says. One must listen intently and in good faith, apply reason to what you’re hearing (reading) and process it, see if it makes sense. Only then make the call.

Ultimatly there is an objective, real truth, an objective real good. Opposing it there is an objective, clear falsehood, and objective clear evil. Denying this basic fact is pure foolishness.

 

[tonyrey]

Ultimately there is an objective, real truth, an objective real good. Opposing it there is an objective, clear falsehood, and objective clear evil. Denying this basic fact is pure foolishness.

I predict that the reality of both objective truth, and objective good will be rejected!

 

[crazzeto]

I predict that the reality of both objective truth, and objective good will be rejected!

What? Your cyrstal ball tell you that?

 

[liquidpele]

Yeah… There is definetly a false idea being evangalized that unless you’re skeptical of everything everyone says then you’re being foolishly lead by everyone. This philosophy doesn’t work any better than just gullably believing everything everyone says. One must listen intently and in good faith, apply reason to what you’re hearing (reading) and process it, see if it makes sense. Only then make the call.

Ultimatly there is an objective, real truth, an objective real good. Opposing it there is an objective, clear falsehood, and objective clear evil. Denying this basic fact is pure foolishness.

It’s not black and while, you guys are making a false dichotomy. If someone tells me they went to the store today, I’m not going to be skeptical, that would be silly. However, for everyone there is a point where they are skeptical because it’s dangerous not to be. Would you be skeptical of a sister’s boyfriend who had just got out of prison?

My point was simply that I lean more towards skeptical reasoning than perhaps some others would. Unless you’re a pessimist or evangelical I would consider it all within the “moderate” range of reasoning though. In the case of religion, I perfectly understand why many are not skeptical of it, but they are not me.

 

[M0nkey]

I predicted a number would b shown, and rolled a dice and got 4. How you you explain I got 4? Silly analogy sure, but the point is that it could have been entirely luck, or perhaps it just came around at the right time for the slaves for the Roman empire and eventually Constantine to like it.

Besides, Muhammad had followers too, along with Zoroaster and probably others that have faded from history.

a) Nothing ever occurs according to chance, if you study philosophy you’ll see that. b) Constantine did not ‘like’ Christianity any more than he liked his pagan religion, the issue was that it was becoming increasingly more Christian with a hierarchy already established and a order and unity, which he thought could benefit his already decaying empire, again, nothing ever happens by chance alone. c) Muhammad never claimed to be god, only his ‘messenger.’ Not to mention, no prophecies were ever made about him. d) For those that faded into history, this is because there weren’t enough witnesses to testify to the truth as in Christ’s case.

 

[M0nkey]

I simply don’t see a reason to believe in something that I have no evidence for just because a lot of mortals assure me it’s real.

Well, in order to find the evidence you must be first looking for it. Are you knocking?

 

[liquidpele]

Well, in order to find the evidence you must be first looking for it. Are you knocking?

I’m so sick of people asking me if I looked. I tried to believe for over a decade and finally gave up.

 

[liquidpele]

a) Nothing ever occurs according to chance, if you study philosophy you’ll see that. b) Constantine did not ‘like’ Christianity any more than he liked his pagan religion, the issue was that it was becoming increasingly more Christian with a hierarchy already established and a order and unity, which he thought could benefit his already decaying empire, again, nothing ever happens by chance alone. c) Muhammad never claimed to be god, only his ‘messenger.’ Not to mention, no prophecies were ever made about him. d) For those that faded into history, this is because there weren’t enough witnesses to testify to the truth as in Christ’s case.

a) Uh… okay.
b) liked, accepted, whatever, the point remains.
c) He was a prophet after though, and Muslims believe Jesus was not divine. Even the Jews who’s religion had the prophecy in the first place didn’t think Jesus was it. It doesn’t matter who was right in this case, my point about competing prophets stands.
d) That’s your opinion.

 

[crazzeto]

It’s not black and while, you guys are making a false dichotomy. If someone tells me they went to the store today, I’m not going to be skeptical, that would be silly. However, for everyone there is a point where they are skeptical because it’s dangerous not to be. Would you be skeptical of a sister’s boyfriend who had just got out of prison?

My point was simply that I lean more towards skeptical reasoning than perhaps some others would. Unless you’re a pessimist or evangelical I would consider it all within the “moderate” range of reasoning though. In the case of religion, I perfectly understand why many are not skeptical of it, but they are not me.

There’s no black and white? Explain:

The Law of Gravity - does it exist or no? Black and white? Yes, this is an objective truth
If your heart fails, you will die (with out medical intervention) - objective truth
A human being can be addicted to porn - objective truth
Murder is evil - objective truth
Theft is evil - objective truth

Charity is an objective good
Aiding a stranger in need is an objective good
Giving to a poor begger is an objective good

No black and white? I’m sorry, but if you really are trying to argue that I’ll prove you foolish very quickly.

 

[M0nkey]

c) He was a prophet after though, and Muslims believe Jesus was not divine. Even the Jews who’s religion had the prophecy in the first place didn’t think Jesus was it. It doesn’t matter who was right in this case, my point about competing prophets stands.

Actually, he never made the claims Jesus made. Finally, salvation is from the Jew, the first martyrs of the early Church were 100% Jew (with the exception of St. Stephen). So your assertion that “even Jews [sic] didn’t think Jesus was it” is incongruous.

 

[liquidpele]

There’s no black and white? Explain:

The Law of Gravity - does it exist or no? Black and white? Yes, this is an objective truth
If your heart fails, you will die (with out medical intervention) - objective truth
A human being can be addicted to porn - objective truth
Murder is evil - objective truth
Theft is evil - objective truth

Charity is an objective good
Aiding a stranger in need is an objective good
Giving to a poor begger is an objective good

No black and white? I’m sorry, but if you really are trying to argue that I’ll prove you foolish very quickly.

Just to touch on a few of those…

You realize there is not a universal law of gravity right? General relativity breaks down at the quantum level and black holes.
Murder is evil… unless it’s a war.
Theft is evil, unless you’re stealing food to feed starving kids.
Charity is good, unless you’re undermining the local economies in Africa and making them dependent on the aid.
Aiding a stranger in need let to Elizabeth Smart being kidnapped, you think that as perfectly good?
Giving a poor beggar money so they can buy alcohol or drugs is perfectly good?

While you’re probably right that some dichotomies exist in the world, there are far less than people usually accept, and most of those are entirely physical in nature. In any case, being either skeptical of everything or believing everything is obviously a false dichotomy and that’s what I was referring to.

 

[liquidpele]

Actually, he never made the claims Jesus made. Finally, salvation is from the Jew, the first martyrs of the early Church were 100% Jew (with the exception of St. Stephen). So your assertion that “even Jews [sic] didn’t think Jesus was it” is incongruous.

I didn’t claim he made the claims Jesus made, what are you talking about? And I meant the Judaism in present day, Jesus himself was Jewish after all, it would be a bit silly to say no Jews *ever *believed in Jesus.

 

[crazzeto]

Just to touch on a few of those…

You realize there is not a universal law of gravity right? General relativity breaks down at the quantum level and black holes.

Well for openers, you’ve entered a theoretical realm of physics which we can not definitivly prove. We have proven relativity in principal but in the end, gravity does exist. You can’t deny it exists. If you want to try then I challeng you to fly to me here in RTP w/o the need of any mechinism.

Murder is evil… unless it’s a war.

That isn’t murder, that’s war which is a different thing all together. Not all killing is murder, a police officer defending them selves by shooting a suspect who is shooting at them it is not murder. So in order to support the statement you’ve made you’ve actually abandoned the very definition of murder. Starting to feel how foolish arguing no black and white is? In order to have an argument you need to ignore well established fact.

Theft is evil, unless you’re stealing food to feed starving kids.

We may sympathise more, but that doesn’t change that theaft is wrong. In the end there are always options, this is why under the law even in such a case you point out the person would still be treated as a theaf. See below RE: charity

Charity is good, unless you’re undermining the local economies in Africa and making them dependent on the aid.

So it’s better to deny food and let them die today? Is charity truely the problem here? Or is it we’re not taking other, important and appropraite actions. Like helping local governments stabalize. Or making sure the nation even has a valid government.

Aiding a stranger in need let to Elizabeth Smart being kidnapped, you think that as perfectly good?

lol, I love how you completely ignored the context of what I said in order to twist in some sort of crime. Aiding a stranger who is dieing (for instance) by applying medical assitance is always a ritchous act. And yes, regardless of what they were doing prior to needing medical assitance, if they happend to be commiting a crime of any kind, then medical assitance should be accompanied with appropriate police action once the person’s life has been saved.

Giving a poor begger money so they can buy alcohol or drugs and wosten their addition is perfectly good?

Yes, if you give them money then you did a good thing regardless of what they do with your charity. What they do with your charity is between them and God. You are basing this argument upon a false premise that there is anything you can do to make someone not be an alchoholic. I’ve had a lot of personal experience in this regard, let me tell you: there is nothing you can do. People will make their own choices, by giving them charity you are offering them the oppertunity to get food, get medicine, have a roof over their head if only for a night.

I know a lot of people like to say “give someone a fish they eat for a day, teach someone to fish and they will eat for life”. You know what, that sounds great but if you don’t give them a fish today then they starve and quite possibly die thus having no need to for fish tomorrow. We must both give them a fish today as well as teach them to fish for tomorrow.

While you’re probably right that some dichotomies exist in the world, there are far less than people usually accept, and most of those are entirely physical in nature. In any case, being either skeptical of everything or believing everything is obviously a false dichotomy and that’s what I was referring to.

I would suggest there is far more objectivity in this world than we as a society want to belive there is. We’ve been mis-trained by the counter culture of the 60’s which is based, in principal upon questioning everything. Should one ask questions and learn why certain rules and laws are such as they are? Sure that’s a good thing, you should always know the why. But to do so with out first being humble enough to accept that there must be a reason why things are the way they are is plain foolishness. This is the problem inherent with this philosophy which you are advocating, it teaches individuals to automatically reject that which they don’t understand. How can one reject something they don’t understand? Why not start with “well I don’t understand the why yet, but I do know it’s generally accepted as true. So I’ll find out why it must be true, accepting for now that it is and rejecting it only if I find that it can’t be true”.

 

[liquidpele]

Well for openers, you’ve entered a theoretical realm of physics which we can not definitivly prove. We have proven relativity in principal but in the end, gravity does exist. You can’t deny it exists. If you want to try then I challeng you to fly to me here in RTP w/o the need of any mechinism.

That isn’t murder, that’s war which is a different thing all together. Not all killing is murder, a police officer defending them selves by shooting a suspect who is shooting at them it is not murder. So in order to support the statement you’ve made you’ve actually abandoned the very definition of murder. Starting to feel how foolish arguing no black and white is? In order to have an argument you need to ignore well established fact.

We may sympathise more, but that doesn’t change that theaft is wrong. In the end there are always options, this is why under the law even in such a case you point out the person would still be treated as a theaf. See below RE: charity

So it’s better to deny food and let them die today? Is charity truely the problem here? Or is it we’re not taking other, important and appropraite actions. Like helping local governments stabalize. Or making sure the nation even has a valid government.

lol, I love how you completely ignored the context of what I said in order to twist in some sort of crime. Aiding a stranger who is dieing (for instance) by applying medical assitance is always a ritchous act. And yes, regardless of what they were doing prior to needing medical assitance, if they happend to be commiting a crime of any kind, then medical assitance should be accompanied with appropriate police action once the person’s life has been saved.

Yes, if you give them money then you did a good thing regardless of what they do with your charity. What they do with your charity is between them and God. You are basing this argument upon a false premise that there is anything you can do to make someone not be an alchoholic. I’ve had a lot of personal experience in this regard, let me tell you: there is nothing you can do. People will make their own choices, by giving them charity you are offering them the oppertunity to get food, get medicine, have a roof over their head if only for a night.

I know a lot of people like to say “give someone a fish they eat for a day, teach someone to fish and they will eat for life”. You know what, that sounds great but if you don’t give them a fish today then they starve and quite possibly die thus having no need to for fish tomorrow. We must both give them a fish today as well as teach them to fish for tomorrow.

I would suggest there is far more objectivity in this world than we as a society want to belive there is. We’ve been mis-trained by the counter culture of the 60’s which is based, in principal upon questioning everything. Should one ask questions and learn why certain rules and laws are such as they are? Sure that’s a good thing, you should always know the why. But to do so with out first being humble enough to accept that there must be a reason why things are the way they are is plain foolishness. This is the problem inherent with this philosophy which you are advocating, it teaches individuals to automatically reject that which they don’t understand. How can one reject something they don’t understand? Why not start with “well I don’t understand the why yet, but I do know it’s generally accepted as true. So I’ll find out why it must be true, accepting for now that it is and rejecting it only if I find that it can’t be true”.

Look, I’m simply pointing out that it’s not easy to consider any idea or action as either good or bad unless you have the context of the specific instance that the idea or action is being used. Because of that, there is usually subjectivity there whether one likes to admit it or not. Of course giving money to a homeless man is a kind gesture, but regardless of the meaning behind the gesture the outcome might be negative. It’s probably not always the case either way, it depends on the time and the homeless man and many other factors.

Anyway, I wasn’t trying to start an argument on subjectivity and I think you’re mis-interpreting what I was trying to say and reading way too much into that, so I’ll just leave this alone now.

 

[crazzeto]

And I’m pointing out that if you’ve gotten to the point of saying there is no truth, there is no objectivity, there is no falshood, there is no good no evil then you’ve gone too far and are wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

Look, I’m simply pointing out that it’s not easy to consider any idea or action as either good or bad unless you have the context of the specific instance that the idea or action is being used. Because of that, there is usually subjectivity there whether one likes to admit it or not.

Since the** context** is objective it does not follow that there is subjectivity. General rules can be established regardless of the persons concerned, e.g. killing is justified if it is the only way to defend yourself…

I don’t need a crystal ball, just a fairly good memory!

 

[summa8447]

I appreciate many people’s thoughtful posts to give me feedback. Unfortunately I have to be very frugally in chosing how to spend my time interacting here on these topics. I am a family man and it irritates my wife. I am married with 4 kids and one more on the way. Yay NFP. It works to space children. I am an advocate, but it doesn’t work if you cheat. Coitus interruptus is breaking the rules. But I consider them all a blessing regardless if a God who blesses exists or not.

I came back to the Church attendance in the late 90s after exploring other religions intellectually and being agnostic for some years. I became well acquainted with apologetics in the areas of protestant objections, mormons, jw’s, Church’s moral teaching etc. and the basic arguments with regard to God’s existence… sources like Beginning Apologetics, Peter Kreeft’s Fundamentals of the Faith, Scott Hahn books, biblical commentaries and tapes and much, much more. I have shelves of books, books, books.

Luke65:
I always agree with Plato/Socrates that the unexamined life is not worth living so I can’t put on blinders. However, faith offers hope (contemplate Hebrews 11), which I think is an important human need and may override having 100% empirical proof. It’s just what man-made god should I place that faith and hope in? And if none are correct, should I make up a new god? That would just be believing in another fiction. Maybe sometime I will share some of my musings which aren’t much different from others out there. It involves the laws of thermodynamics to demonstrate the concepts and embeds god in a conceptual way with the laws of nature.

My hope
I just hope Catholic Answers and others will start supplying better ready made apologetic answers for me to learn. I think John Martignoni is the one who said if you don’t have a good answer for someone to tell them you don’t know the answer but you will get the answer and get back to them. I just always felt the answers must be out there and the Church has them, now I am starting to believe they don’t.

Summa8447

 

[liquidpele]

And I’m pointing out that if you’ve gotten to the point of saying there is no truth, there is no objectivity, there is no falshood, there is no good no evil then you’ve gone too far and are wrong.

Assuming you’re implying that was my argument, you’re using a strawman.