What do you do to combat atheism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteelArchangel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
niceatheist said:
I think there are no lack of physicists out there who would argue we determine natural laws by observation and testing
Click to expand...
Not dark matter and dark energy. They are theoretical constructs to try to explain why the physical universe has not torn itself apart. There is no testing just speculation.
 
Well, we know dark matter is out there, whatever it might be, unless there’s some very wrong with our understanding of gravity. As to dark energy, that comes out of the observations of the Inflationary Period. Something caused the Universe’s expansion to speed up significantly. That’s how science works. Just because we can’t explain any observation doesn’t mean we throw up our hands. It means we get to work. For Dark Matter, at least, we have some possible candidates, at least if some sort of supersymmetry holds out. But I’m curious as to why you bring these up. Science is filled with mysteries that either ended up being explained by current models, or drove forward new models. Einstein’s theories predicted an expanding universe, and despite even his effort to get rid of it, later observations in the form of the Hubble Expansion, CMBR and Big Bang nucleosynthesis confirmed GR’s predictions.

And that’s how science is done. It isn’t lab work alone, and indeed, when we’re talking about cosmology, a lot of it comes from theoretical models and observation. You can’t bottle up expanding space-time, but you can predict its behavior and then use observational methods to test the premise, not to mention firm up those models.
 
40.png
Why you should think that the First-Cause has to be an Intelligent Cause Philosophy
There are two reasons to think that the uncaused-cause is intelligent or has a will to create. A being or nature that is existentially necessary cannot be anything other than what it necessarily is since what it is is necessary. Anything that potentially exists is unnecessary and therefore cannot be considered to be an intrinsic part of that which is existentially-necessary. The first cause has to be existentially-necessary in order for unnecessary things to exist. But only that which is exis…
Click to expand...
40.png
Why can't matter be Self-Existent (the "First Cause")? Philosophy
Existentially necessary, simply means something that cannot not exist. It’s impossible for it to not exist. Or it is in it’s nature to exist. Thus it’s existence or nature is not something that is being realized or becoming real. It cannot be spoken of as something that lacks actuality or as something that is potentially more, because it is already everything that it necessarily is and cannot be what it necessarily is not. It’s nature is not in a state of becoming, because if it were, that wo…
Click to expand...
40.png
Irrefutable series part 1: An Argument For the Existence Of An Intelligent Cause Revised Philosophy
Premise 1. Physical reality either began to exist or is dependent for it’s existence on a being that necessarily exists. We can know this because physical reality changes and a necessary act of reality does not… Premise 2. That which does not necessarily exist does not naturally-exist. It is not a natural form of existence and neither is any of it’s power’s or forms. Also, because of premise one, we cannot say that physical processes are a natural transformation of some part of that which neces…
Click to expand...
 
Again, pointless. I have no idea what Copernicus has to do with anything.
 
Been here since 2004 or so. After the forum change they couldn’t recover my username and I was hit with a temporary ban hammer for saying priests convicted of pedophilia by a court aren’t true priests.

That’s my other issue mate. Atheists on a Catholic forum. Why? Either you’re interested in Catholicism, you enjoy the ease of forum life here, or you’re looking to start a fight. It has to be one of those three.

Thanks for the compliment sir.
 
Pattylt said:
I almost get what you are saying here but why does it have to be a contingent being and not just a contingency?
Click to expand...
A necessary act of reality or nature cannot cease to exist or begin to exist or be anything other than what it necessarily is. It is not in a state of becoming and does not lack anything that is true to it’s necessary nature. It does not change because everything that it is is necessarily actual.

Any being or entity that does not have this characteristic is not a necessary nature or a necessary act of existence, and thus is a contingent being because it does not exist necessarily according to it’s nature. It ought not to exist, but does exist because of something else. In other-words, it is not its nature to exist and therefore is dependent on something other than itself for it’s actual existence.

Physical reality changes, it moves from potential to actual. It has emergent properties. It evolves. It becomes more than what it once was. It is in a continual state of becoming.
Therefore it cannot rationally be describe as a necessary being regardless of what form it takes.

Therefore physical reality is a contingent reality.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
What is the difference between potential and imagining for God?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that i understand the question. The point i was trying to make is that if reason is the goal, then you will not front philosophers who are prepared to ignore the principle of non-contradiction because that principle is the very foundation of rational inferences.

Thus if you are like me you will reject Hume or anybody that would argue for the possibility of something coming out of nothing by itself without a cause.
Pattylt said:
If these questions are too ridiculous, just ignore me!
Click to expand...
I don’t ignore people unless they prove themselves to be more intelligent than me. At that point i’ll end up having an existential crisis and become a Black-OPs Mercenary for hire.
 
niceatheist said:
Science is filled with mysteries that either ended up being explained by current models, or drove forward new models.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you admit that. Atheists I know claim that science has already explained everything. My point is some things are mysteries, whether you are an atheist or a Catholic faithful. So one position is not better than the other in that respect.
 
He doesn’t have to tell us. 🙃 And I’m sure you agree it’s more fun debating with actual freethinkers than just having us play Devil’s Advocate. Although there are skeptics forums too, but they tend to be really hostile to Catholics in my experience.
 
Dan_Defender said:
Atheists I know claim that science has already explained everything.
Click to expand...
Really? I know literally hundreds of atheists and have never met one who believed that. Not one. Ever. Do do so would mean they think there can be no further scientific discoveries.
 
SteelArchangel said:
That’s my other issue mate. Atheists on a Catholic forum. Why? Either you’re interested in Catholicism, you enjoy the ease of forum life here, or you’re looking to start a fight. It has to be one of those three.
Click to expand...
It do?

As Neithan implied, it’s not exactly stretching oneself to discuss matters only with those who agree with you. Isn’t it better to find people who hold opposing views and listen to their arguments and then present your own? Perhaps that was your reason for interacting with the foul mouthed atheist on the other forum.

And you’ve been here for years and all the atheists you have met here very quickly exhibit contempt and outright disgust for Catholicism? Name me some names, Steely. I’ll have a word with them.
 
Last edited:
I think my approach to combatting atheism is with words and actions. I contribute to EWTN radio as an evangelical outreach that far exceeds my own ability to deal with questions such as this.

St Peter says that we should be prepared to give reasons for our belief, for the hope that is in us. I think my faith rests on scripture, sacred Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church. Most atheists I have heard quickly dispense with all of that on their own terms, without crossing the threshold of the scripture itself, for example. I don’t think they know it, to begin with, and then they do not apply themselves to understanding it.

So, they should be treated with respect. I just watched a youtube video on Friedrich Nietzsche and his anti-religious views. Flat out, he just rejects Christianity on his own terms. So, he rejects what other people say but he wants them to believe what he says. Interesting. That shows the starting point of atheism, that such a person has their mind made up. So, they have a closed mind. He criticizes the idea of defining what is right and wrong.

If you locate that video, he rejects Christianity on the basis of his own evaluation of it, and that is where his assumptions can be challenged. Those ideas are not his own, I have heard them before. His discussion drifts off into politics and making his own ideas a new religion. That’s an old idea.
 
Last edited:
The previous forum I mention was a blend of those debating religion on the whole. This site is wholly Catholic.
 
SteelArchangel said:
The previous forum I mention was a blend of those debating religion on the whole. This site is wholly Catholic.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought you said that you’d been on this forum since 2004. And all the atheists you have met here in the last 15 years very quickly exhibit contempt and outright disgust for Catholicism?
 
They differentiate between ‘big science’ (their term) that explains the big questions of how the universe came to be and how we are here and ‘small science’ which relates to refinements and technological progress. Only small science discoveries happen they claim, the big questions do not need further science.
 
Dan_Defender said:
came to be and how we are here and ‘small science’ which relates to refinements and technological progress. Only small science discoveries happen they claim, the big questions do not need further science.
Click to expand...
And you believe atheists think that the ‘big science’ questions are settled? Could you give an example of a (published) atheist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top