The Atheism vs Theism Debate: I'm frustrated

[summa8447]

I listen to debates between atheist and theists (mostly evangelicals). There isn’t many outside of Dinesh D’Sousa in the Catholic camp. This Rock had a March special on the new atheists but it was mostly about Richard Dawkins, in my opinion one of the least compelling in my opinion for the atheist viewpoint and he is usually dripping in vitriol for Christianity even when he sometimes tries to veil it.

Richard Carrier (atheist) makes good arguments for mythisim of Christ but some of them are weak too like other mythisists. Listening to him, I notice deliberate attempts to doctor up and repackage up old theories. Ex: He says the parallels between Pagan myths and the Christ story are not because they copied like some mythisist theorist say, but because of the general prevalence of mystery religions common in that time. But Richard defends himself by claiming it was patterned out of Judaism beliefs and practices not copying of from any particular pagan religion.

Bart Ehrman talks about Scribal errors and writing note from notes from previous scribes into the main text, and deliberate changes to correct for prevailing theology. Etc on that one.

Why I’m frustrated:

Catholic Answers plays short shrift to these topics. This is a fertile apologetic landscape (new frontier) and I’d rather not loose my faith but I’m moving in that direction. Also where are the Catholic Heavy hitters to debate these type.

If you want to know more about what I am talking about, go to infidelguy.com/index.php or talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=49897&cmd=tc and listen to some of his guests and debates.

Help, I need credible resources, I’m loosing this battle.

Summa8447

 

[crazzeto]

Well for starters before entering any debate, particularly Athiesim v. Theism I would define the terms of the debate. What I mean is don’t make the topic exactly what is described above, pick a sub-category and attack that. You have a host of options, Abortion, moral relitism, martial issues and the list goes on and on. By doing this you deny the real haters their best tactic, shifting topics on you so quickly that you can’t possibly adjust. This doesn’t mean they won’t try to, just stay annoyingly on topic until you’ve made all the points you want to make. Going along with this, since these seem to be web/thread based discussions make sure you only address responses that are logically consitant with the history of the thread. And keep people annoyingly on point.

If you want to continue debating from there, then pick another subtopic to attack, and stay on that one. But I think most importantly, don’t go into this with the mind set of “winning” or “losing” this debate. Do so more with the mind set of just getting the word out. That’s all, all you really want to do is get the word out so the arguments based on faith and the teachings of the church aren’t totally drowned out in the noise. You’ll be supprised how many times you will win people to (or back to) the faith if you just do the above. I’ve actually gotten a few cafateria catholics, and one on the edge of leaving all together to at least re-examin their faiths and take them a little more seriously (as for whether they’re really strong in the faith now, I have no idea) simply by doing this. And all this while staying on the “unpopular” side of the argument.

You’re always going to have a hard time in an Athiest dominated forum. I have that problem over at forums.highdefdigest.com these days (whenever a religious topic sneaks in). Just keep a thick skin and determained attitude. Oh, and do your homework, many times athiest will throw out completely fatually incorrect arguments, never let that go! Equally importantly, be prepared to accept some humble pie should you ever make an argument that is proved untrue. Hey, it happens to the best of us. Be upfront if you’re proved wrong about something. “I appologize, you were correct about …” goes along way towards people taking you seriously.

 

[Luke65]

Help, I need credible resources, I’m loosing this battle.

You will lose - because you’re relying on your own natural reason. Don’t you know you can’t believe in Jesus Christ or His Catholic Church without divine grace? You’re going to take on the Deceiver - the Prince of this world - with the power of human reason? You will lose. You must rely on God - it’s not optional (Eph. 6:11). Read the Bible. Pray for the grace of faith so that when you read the Word you hear the voice of God. Pray for the intercession of our Blessed Mother, and all the Saints and Angels. Then read the Gospel of John. Let the blind fools yap about their baseless theories all they want - listen to God. Then, when you have the eyes of faith, you will see right through their specious arguments. When you arm yourself with the Truth, you will know that the pagans worshiped demons (Psalm 106:37, 1 Cor. 10:20), and that the demons love to mimic God (2 Cor. 11:14). Why was Mithras “birthday” on December 25? Take a guess. Why did the pagans have myths about a virgin giving birth? Take a guess (Isaiah 7:14). Why do the unbelievers believe the opposite of the truth?

“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Why have so many millions of Christians abandoned the faith and now worship at the altar of Darwin?

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.” (1 Timothy 4:1)

See? God, who knows the end from the beginning, has told us all of this ahead of time. Read the Bible. Read the best book on Catholic prophecy: Trial, Tribulation and Triumph by Desmond Birch. And believe so that you may understand…

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:35-39)

God bless.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I listen to debates between atheist and theists (mostly evangelicals). There isn’t many outside of Dinesh D’Sousa in the Catholic camp. This Rock had a March special on the new atheists but it was mostly about Richard Dawkins, in my opinion one of the least compelling in my opinion for the atheist viewpoint and he is usually dripping in vitriol for Christianity even when he sometimes tries to veil it.

Richard Carrier (atheist) makes good arguments for mythisim of Christ but some of them are weak too like other mythisists. Listening to him, I notice deliberate attempts to doctor up and repackage up old theories. Ex: He says the parallels between Pagan myths and the Christ story are not because they copied like some mythisist theorist say, but because of the general prevalence of mystery religions common in that time. But Richard defends himself by claiming it was patterned out of Judaism beliefs and practices not copying of from any particular pagan religion.

Bart Ehrman talks about Scribal errors and writing note from notes from previous scribes into the main text, and deliberate changes to correct for prevailing theology. Etc on that one.

Why I’m frustrated:

Catholic Answers plays short shrift to these topics. This is a fertile apologetic landscape (new frontier) and I’d rather not loose my faith but I’m moving in that direction. Also where are the Catholic Heavy hitters to debate these type.

If you want to know more about what I am talking about, go to infidelguy.com/index.php or talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=49897&cmd=tc and listen to some of his guests and debates.

Help, I need credible resources, I’m loosing this battle.

Summa8447

how do they get around Messianic Prophecy? there were prophecies about Christ for millenia before He was born. they were written by different people hundreds of years apart, yet they were fulfilled in Christ. a mathematically and historically undeniable fact.

so, if Christianity is some mere copy, which there is no evidence for beyond assertion. then how is it that Christ was Prophecied about for millenia prior to His birth?

that said. most faiths share some part of the truth, it is endemic to mans natural search for G-d, i dont find it strange that we can draw similarities. that does not however mean that Christianity is some made up thing, some myth. ive heard of stories like the mithras cult, but i think short shrift is paid to these things because they are little more than assertion, conspriacy theories drawn from casual connections and ambiguous simularities. they shouldnt threaten your faitr at all.

 

[crazzeto]

I wouldn’t throw my hands up in the air and give up on fighting these people with reason. I think it’s a little over the top to suggest that these Athiests are being puppeted by satan and will there for always win on reason. I’ve been in many a debate with many an enthusastic athiest, they make all sorts of logical, technical and factual errors. In many cases you may “lose” an argument now, only to have unarguable evidence come up later which none can ignore.

This happend to me with the Pope’s comments regarding the African Aids crisis and condoms. An original thread moching the Papacy was created by a particularly anti-catholic athiest when that story first broke out. I was one of a very small number of posters who defended the Pope’s statements (first I had to correct them, the athiest tried asserting that the Pope said condoms just don’t prevent aids period which was not factual). I’ll admit, I took some licks being on the minority side that time. But it paid off, not long ago a news item was posted on a number of news sites including the Washington Post (referenced in a different thread) where the head of Harvards AIDS crisis team came out literally saying “The Pope was right”, and the logic he used (with supporting impirical evidence) bared out every argument I made in that original thread.

I guess we shouldn’t feel good posting an “told ya so” thread, but I will admit my sin of feeling extreme satisfaction posting that thread. And seeing the amazing number of… non-responses from all those whom were so sure the Pope had to be wrong.

 

[liquidpele]

Why I’m frustrated:

Catholic Answers plays short shrift to these topics. This is a fertile apologetic landscape (new frontier) and I’d rather not loose my faith but I’m moving in that direction. Also where are the Catholic Heavy hitters to debate these type.

If you want to know more about what I am talking about, go to infidelguy.com/index.php or talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=49897&cmd=tc and listen to some of his guests and debates.

Help, I need credible resources, I’m loosing this battle.

I’d like to just say one very important thing:
wsu.edu/~brians/errors/lose.html

Second, I honestly wouldn’t care if you decided God didn’t exist or not as long as it was rational in some form or another. You should probably ask yourself why you’re doubting the existence of an all powerful God that is all good and exists everywhere and did all kind of miracles in the past. You’d think He’d be obvious, wouldn’t you? In any case, I wish you luck with your search for truth, wherever that may take you.

As a side note, I’m a little concerned that someone posted “You will lose - because you’re relying on your own natural reason”… is that not an argument to just believe in something even if it makes no sense??

 

[liquidpele]

how do they get around Messianic Prophecy? there were prophecies about Christ for millenia before He was born. they were written by different people hundreds of years apart, yet they were fulfilled in Christ. a mathematically and historically undeniable fact.

so, if Christianity is some mere copy, which there is no evidence for beyond assertion. then how is it that Christ was Prophecied about for millenia prior to His birth?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
In other words, if everyone is expecting a massiah, a few guys might jump up an claim to be one, or maybe people heard about a false one but by word of mouth it turned into a real one and then was written about in poetic literature. All speculation, but the point is that that prophecy is not a very good one for evidence purposes.

Now, what would be impressive would be if the Bible, for example, said, “On the first day of the first month in the year two thousand and ten, the pillars of the earth will shake and a great part of the New World will be lost to the sea,” and then January 1, 2010 comes and a tremendous earthquake sends California to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, I would become a believer. No points are awarded under any of the following conditions (quoting another source now):

* If the prophecy is vague, unclear or garbled (like Nostradamus' ramblings, for example). It must be detailed, specific and unambiguous in its prediction and wording.

* If the prophecy is trivial. Anyone could predict that it will be cold next winter, or that this drought/plague/flood will eventually subside. The prophecy must predict something surprising, unlikely or unique.

* If the prophecy is obviously contrived for other reasons. No official seer or court astrologer ever predicted that the king he worked for would be a brutal, evil tyrant who would ruin the country.

* If the prophecy is self-fulfilling; i.e., if the mere fact of the prophecy's existence could cause people to make it come true. The Jewish people returned to their homeland in Israel just as the Bible said they would, but this isn't a genuine prediction - they did it because the Bible said they would. The predicted event can't be one that people could stage.

* If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the writing of the prophecy itself can't be shown to have preceded the event.

* If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the happening of that event can't be verified by independent evidence. For example, Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, but the authors of the New Testament obviously had access to those prophecies also; what would have prevented them from writing their story to conform to them? The extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus is so scanty that it is impossible to disprove such a proposal.

* And finally, if the prophecy is the lone success among a thousand failures. Anyone can throw prophecies against the wall until one sticks. The book or other source from which it comes must have at least a decently good record on other predictions.

The above was pulled from the “how to convert an atheist” page:
ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html

 

[Luke65]

You’d think He’d be obvious, wouldn’t you?

Obviously you haven’t read the Bible - or believed it.

As a side note, I’m a little concerned that someone posted “You will lose - because you’re relying on your own natural reason”… is that not an argument to just believe in something even if it makes no sense??

Nope. It means:

“Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” ~ St. Augustine

Believe first, then you will understand. And then your faith in the Word of God will make perfect sense. But that is a process - sometimes a short one, sometimes a long one. But that is the first step - “We walk by faith.”

 

[M0nkey]

In other words, if everyone is expecting a massiah, a few guys might jump up an claim to be one, or maybe people heard about a false one but by word of mouth it turned into a real one and then was written about in poetic literature. All speculation, but the point is that that prophecy is not a very good one for evidence purposes.

Granted, if what you say is true, there has been many messiahs that claimed to be god, yet Jesus is the only one with real followers, how do you square that with your assumption here?

 

[Luke65]

how do they get around Messianic Prophecy?

Like I said, it’s impossible to believe in the Messianic prophecies without the grace of God. For those who reject this grace, they mean nothing. For those of us who receive this grace, it is powerful proof for our faith.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
In other words, if everyone is expecting a massiah, a few guys might jump up an claim to be one, or maybe people heard about a false one but by word of mouth it turned into a real one and then was written about in poetic literature. All speculation, but the point is that that prophecy is not a very good one for evidence purposes.

See what I mean?

 

[liquidpele]

Granted, if what you say is true, there has been many messiahs that claimed to be god, yet Jesus is the only one with real followers, how do you square that with your assumption here?

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.

 

[liquidpele]

Like I said, it’s impossible to believe in the Messianic prophecies without the grace of God. For those who reject this grace, they mean nothing. For those of us who receive this grace, it is powerful proof for our faith.

I guess I just don’t get it

 

[liquidpele]

Obviously you haven’t read the Bible - or believed it.

Nope. It means:

“Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” ~ St. Augustine

Believe first, then you will understand. And then your faith in the Word of God will make perfect sense. But that is a process - sometimes a short one, sometimes a long one. But that is the first step - “We walk by faith.”

I have, and and did. Although I admit it’s been a long while. In fact, actually reading it is one of the reasons I questioned it to begin with.

I disagree with that. I think believing something first simply makes you understand it through cognitive dissonance… you’ll accept whatever explanation you can come up with. That’s just my own view though, you’re welcome to reason however you like, I just think you’re doing it backwards.

 

[Luke65]

I have, and and did. Although I admit it’s been a long while. In fact, actually reading it is one of the reasons I questioned it to begin with.

Then why didn’t you already know the answer to your own question?

I disagree with that. I think believing something first simply makes you understand it through cognitive dissonance… you’ll accept whatever explanation you can come up with. That’s just my own view though, you’re welcome to reason however you like, I just think you’re doing it backwards.

“Why do the unbelievers believe the opposite of the truth?”

You can continue in your pride and do things your way, or you can humble yourself before your Creator and do things His way. It’s your free will.

 

[Areopagite]

I listen to debates between atheist and theists (mostly evangelicals).

There’s a problem right there. Evangelicals don’t think philosophically (yeah … I know that’s not an absolute statement … but I don’t care). And it often convinces people that either intellectual atheists or Evangelicals are right and the other is wrong … that there is no middle ground. But that’s not true. Intellectual atheists use more reason, Evangelicals use more faith. Catholics (at least good ones) use both.

It is often the case that an atheist brings up a fact (a true fact) but then falsely states that it is problematic for Christianity. Often then, Evangelicals (and some Catholics unfortunately), instead of showing that the fact is not incompatible with Christianity, simply then deny that the fact is a fact, and thus dig themselves into a hole. The only way that an Evangelical to appear to dig themselves out is to be vague and make up weird random distinctions, so as to throw the atheist off guard, but in the end, it is apparent the Evangelical is full of garbage.

Protestantism has done so much damage, it’s not even funny. I don’t blame atheists for being atheists. I almost became one myself because of the confusion that Evangelical thinking brought me. Fortunately, I realized both of them were horribly wrong. (Thank you, Aristotle and Aquinas.)

Now, I’m not really a big historian, and I’m not familiar with a lot of the things you bring up. **But it seems to be the case that there is an assumption that Christianity, if it’s true, had to come out of nowhere. ** I may be totally off in my analysis and also my following statements, but … it has been an understanding, however, throughout the Church, that the development of both Judaism and Christianity were not free from pagan influences. And there’s nothing wrong with that. God did everything that He did in a particular place and time, and he would often use imperfect and pagan surroundings to contribute to his salvific plan. There’s nothing against Christian doctrine to acknowledge that. In fact, it reflects the Incarnational aspect of God’s plan … using real historical influences but guiding it with a divine purpose. Protestants (and perhaps Muslims) have a tendency to think that Scripture and Christianity came out of nowhere without providence-guided contributions of historical circumstances and cultural ways of thinking at the time.

It was done on purpose that Christ resembled certain pagan ideas so that Christ could be more understandable to the pagans. This is fairly obvious. And it is fairly obvious that it was very effective. That’s why God did it like that. Why would He do it otherwise? (Protestants, however, are affronted by the idea that Christianity and paganism are in any way connectable in any way … but Catholics don’t care).

I hope that helps. I may have completely dodged the issue you were addressing.

Don’t be frustrated. Just stop listening to Evangelicals and their pseudo-logic. I would also suggest taking a break from listening to atheists and* their* pseudo-logic. I would suggest reading Chesterton.

 

[liquidpele]

Then why didn’t you already know the answer to your own question?

“Why do the unbelievers believe the opposite of the truth?”

You can continue in your pride and do things your way, or you can humble yourself before your Creator and do things His way. It’s your free will.

By that logic, Moby Dick should be considered a documentary if someone writes “history” on the cover.

Humble? I accept I don’t really know a lot of things, that I probably wasn’t specially made, and that there is probably not be a super-special God that loves me and is going to let me live forever in perfect happiness if I accept him. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not rejecting God, it’s more like ignoring the idea. 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.

 

[Matthias123]

Richard Carrier (atheist) makes good arguments for mythisim of Christ but some of them are weak too like other mythisists. Listening to him, I notice deliberate attempts to doctor up and repackage up old theories. Ex: He says the parallels between Pagan myths and the Christ story are not because they copied like some mythisist theorist say, but because of the general prevalence of mystery religions common in that time. But Richard defends himself by claiming it was patterned out of Judaism beliefs and practices not copying of from any particular pagan religion.

Richard Carrier is a 19th century New Testiment scholar in the 21st century – the man’s position is way out there, as far as scholarly consensus goes. I don’t take him seriously.

Bart Ehrman talks about Scribal errors and writing note from notes from previous scribes into the main text, and deliberate changes to correct for prevailing theology. Etc on that one.

I do take Bart Ehrman seriously, but I disagree with him on many issues.

Catholic Answers plays short shrift to these topics. This is a fertile apologetic landscape (new frontier) and I’d rather not loose my faith but I’m moving in that direction. Also where are the Catholic Heavy hitters to debate these type.

Well, in all honesty most of the Catholic heavy hitters do not take these people seriously. Many of the atheists on this forum don’t take them seriously either. I do know what you mean though.

 

[gerardpatrick]

Help, I need credible resources, I’m loosing this battle

Reflect deeply on this:
“No-one comes to the Father except through Me” - Jn 14:6
What this means is that there is no way of knowing God the Father other than through God the Son, Jesus Christ. And there is no way of knowing Jesus Christ other than by meeting him in prayer and the Sacraments, with the help of a good Catholic bible and a Catholic commentary.
Atheists can never know or understand God because they refuse to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And theists who try to prove the existence of God without reference to Christ are doomed to fail as well.
Do not underestimate the importance of prayer and sacrament to the life of the intellect. Without these things first your quest for more and more literature and hyperlinks to satisfy your thirst will be a long and fruitless quest. I discovered all I ever needed to know about the sacred mysteries by praying the Rosary. There is much intellectual enlightenment to be had in prayer, just as there can be much intellectual obfuscation to be had in reading.
Start with the simple premiss that Jesus Christ existed, and that he rose from the dead. The testimony of hostile witnesses to this event renders it more credible than most other events of ancient history, and yet it is the most ridiculed. The first witnesses to the empty tomb were women, whose testimony in ancient Palestine bore no weight.
If the Gospel writers really set out to convince people don’t you think they’d have put the primary oral evidence in the mouths of men, whose testimony was legally admissible?
The only possible explanation is that this is indeed how it happened.
Sometimes people seek to complicate what is simple. Don’t fall into that trap. It leads to intellectual pride.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

What reasons do you have for believing anything?

 

[liquidpele]

What reasons do you have for believing anything?

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