What to say to the athiest?

[milde]

The God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, the God of Isaac…the same God of the Jews, Muslims and Christians.

This is where the discussion gets frustrating for me. I realize muslims and Christians make a logical connection to refer to the same God based on what is written in their respective texts. But the problem is that the same God cannot logically have opposing characteristics. If it’s really the same god then why are they different in character?

If you believe that we become like the God we worship, then you have proof that muslims and Christians worship a different god.

It’s a bit like you and a friend insisting that your grandfather is the same person based on a genealogical tree someone provided you (and claimed was ancient and has the stamp of approval from “experts”). But if you are white and he is black then it simply cannot be possible.

 

[Newbie2]

This is where the discussion gets frustrating for me. I realize muslims and Christians make a logical connection to refer to the same God based on what is written in their respective texts. But the problem is that the same God cannot logically have opposing characteristics. If it’s really the same god then why are they different in character?

If you believe that we become like the God we worship, then you have proof that muslims and Christians worship a different god.

It’s a bit like you and a friend insisting that your grandfather is the same person based on a genealogical tree someone provided you (and claimed was ancient and has the stamp of approval from “experts”). But if you are white and he is black then it simply cannot be possible.

Is it possible to worship the same God and have completely different understandings of (him)?

I think so. Perhaps taken to the extreme, one ends up with a completely new religion or something like the WBC’s Phelps-ism, which resembles Christianity only remotely.

Isn’t there some sort of Papal recognition of Muslim understanding of the God of Abraham?

 

[milde]

Is it possible to worship the same God and have completely different understandings of (him)?

I think so. Perhaps taken to the extreme, one ends up with a completely new religion or something like the WBC’s Phelps-ism, which resembles Christianity only remotely.

Isn’t there some sort of Papal recognition of Muslim understanding of the God of Abraham?

Are you indicating that you believe muslims worship the same God but do not know who it is they are really worshiping??

I think you’re just playing with semantics. The point is that muslims do not have the same god concept as Christians. Whether or not that means they have a separate god or a separate understanding of the god concept is really just a semantic issue.

 

[Newbie2]

Are you indicating that you believe muslims worship the same God but do not know who it is they are really worshiping??

I think you’re just playing with semantics. The point is that muslims do not have the same god concept as Christians. Whether or not that means they have a separate god or a separate understanding of the god concept is really just a semantic issue.

Well, that’s sort of what the CCC says:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

Call it semantics if you will, but how do you understand the teaching in the CCC?

 

[milde]

Well, that’s sort of what the CCC says:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

Call it semantics if you will, but how do you understand the teaching in the CCC?

I understand the CCC to be wrong in this case. Jesus said " I am the light and the way. No one gets to the Father except by me."

This is not what the muslim god tells muslims, so clearly it is not the Christian God.

 

[Newbie2]

I understand the CCC to be wrong in this case. Jesus said " I am the light and the way. No one gets to the Father except by me."

This is not what the muslim god tells muslims, so clearly it is not the Christian God.

OK, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is wrong. …and you’re right. I get it. I guess the CCC is wrong about invincible ignorance too.

Double

Thanks for the insight. Triple

 

[milde]

OK, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is wrong. …and you’re right. I get it. I guess the CCC is wrong about invincible ignorance too.

Double

Thanks for the insight. Triple

And there lies the problem I have with Christianity. The Catholic church is correct only because it is the Catholic church. I simply don’t choose to have that sort of thing butting me in the head through life. There are more reasonable people in the world to associate with.

 

[Newbie2]

And there lies the problem I have with Christianity. The Catholic church is correct only because it is the Catholic church. I simply don’t choose to have that sort of thing butting me in the head through life. There are more reasonable people in the world to associate with.

Like Athiests?

I think, perhaps, that if you were better informed about Catholic Teachings, you might just agree with them.

 

[milde]

Like Athiests?

I believed that way for 30 years and thought all the non-Christians in the world were bad people and that I was one of the superior human beings. It’s only recently that I’ve decided Christianity may not be for me. It was an amazing burden off my shoulders. You’d be surprised how much easier it is to relate to people when you don’t have to believe they are going to be punished by burning in hell for eternity.

 

[mangy_dog]

This is where the discussion gets frustrating for me. I realize muslims and Christians make a logical connection to refer to the same God based on what is written in their respective texts. But the problem is that the same God cannot logically have opposing characteristics. If it’s really the same god then why are they different in character?

If you believe that we become like the God we worship, then you have proof that muslims and Christians worship a different god.

It’s a bit like you and a friend insisting that your grandfather is the same person based on a genealogical tree someone provided you (and claimed was ancient and has the stamp of approval from “experts”). But if you are white and he is black then it simply cannot be possible.

“If you believe that we become like the God we worship…”

That is the crux of the matter isn’t it?

Catholics, Muslims and Jews alike spend their entire life surrounded by their respective faiths and never find their identity…the person that we are supposed to be.

Our identity is hidden in God. So we must ask ourselves, “do I know myself as God intended me to be?” or “am I an “unreasonable facsimile” of myself.?”

If we truly became like the God we worship we would be ourselves.

Not very many catholics, muslims or jews can say that.

 

[dchet121272]

T

“You are a walking, talking oxymoron”.

That’s the best point right there. The classic is that the atheist is denying the existence of God. The fact that he or she is denying the existence of God proves that there is a God. How did they get the idea to question His existence?

Their argument goes nowhere fast.

Oh man, now I have a headache. Excuse me while I go lay down for a spell…

 

[Newbie2]

I believed that way for 30 years and thought all the non-Christians in the world were bad people and that I was one of the superior human beings. It’s only recently that I’ve decided Christianity may not be for me. It was an amazing burden off my shoulders. You’d be surprised how much easier it is to relate to people when you don’t have to believe they are going to be punished by burning in hell for eternity.

“Like Atheists” was a tongue-in cheek comment.

Methinks you may be assuming too much by implying that Christians think they’re better than everyone else. Perhaps on the contrary, since we know the truth and still have trouble following it, we may be less better off than if we were truly “invincibly ignorant”.

Methinks also that the implication that I (or we) think we are “holier than thou” is mistaken, for the most part. Yep, there are plenty of Christians who are, but in my experience the vast majority are aware of their own shortcomings and are not.

 

[Abbadon]

That’s the best point right there. The classic is that the atheist is denying the existence of God. The fact that he or she is denying the existence of God proves that there is a God. How did they get the idea to question His existence?

Their argument goes nowhere fast.

Oh man, now I have a headache. Excuse me while I go lay down for a spell…

but i also don’t believe in faeries and elves, mirror deamons, cold fusion… Apply your same logic here to any belief that has been proven false or is unfalseafiable…

I however do have a thing for mirror deamons so… crossing my fingers there real just like god… becuase i deny thier existance… they must be real…

 

[Abbadon]

Exactly… . For a beginning there needs to be a first cause. In the case of the universe which at some point did not exist, it needed something outside of the physical universe to initiate its beginning.
The cause being outside of time, because time is a function of matter and energy, is a timeless cause - in other words the cause is eternal, being outside of time it always exists.

Last time i checked we can;t work out if the universe had a beggining or there was something before it, don’t our physics models get all funky in the last few micro seconds? Also doesn’t the current hypothesis support time before the beginning of our universe? I’m not really up to date with beginning of the universe research, all i know is we know somethings but were still working the majority of it out, and we have some ideas…

No one has been able to say how they know such an entity has such attributes beside some oblique references in an archaic text… How do we know god is outside of time? How do you not have time if you have thought and speech? If you do not have energy how do you cause changes in this universe?

The problem with god is he raises greater questions than he answers. How did god create the universe? with what force? why is it no longer observable? why and how does he interfere? Why is there no indication of an omnipotent bieng creating or doing anything?

Most athiests that are also scientists are pretty open to ideas, they’ll beleive in faeries and mirror deamons once provided with evidence. Then these things stop becoming supernatural and start forming apart of our world view. Although I’m not a scientist I’m also the same, once the evidence is presented i will believe in mirror deamons…

 

[Thing]

Last time i checked we can;t work out if the universe had a beggining or there was something before it, don’t our physics models get all funky in the last few micro seconds?

yes, at a certain point of pressure the maths won’t work but the thing you’re trying to measure is obviously still there - in other words you are allowed to think about beginnings and causes but don’t expect to be able to measure something which is moving at the fringes of the physical universe.
The universe has been tested, measured and examined and been found to be expanding exponentially. Now, you know that means that a galaxy, lets say, travels at 2 million miles an hour in the first hour, in the second hour it is travelling at 4 million miles an hour, in the third hour it is travelling at 6 million miles an hour and so on for 14 billion years worth of hours its expansion is accelerating exponentially.
If you tried this experiment, and slowly pour a container of large grained sea-salt onto a tabe top from a height. Each grain of salt represents a galaxy, the attraction between the atoms on the surface of the salt grains and the surface of the table [friction] can be thought of as representing the gravitational attraction between the galaxys. The friction, like gravity, will act to slow down the grain of salt as it moves across the table. Ideally that is what should happen, the universe expands, slows, then collapses. But thats not the reality as measured by science. Unlike the analogy with the salt grains and the table, gravity is different from friction. The friction on the table continues as a constant decelerating force across the width of the table. Gravity acting between galaxys on the other hand is not a constant force, it decreases with the distance between galaxys. So as our galaxys accelerate exponentially away from each other the gravitational attraction between them decreases rapidly, and because the rate of expansion is not slowing as you might expect it should, logically, the only outcome can be that the universe will expand forever because the force of the expansion is far greater than the force of its constituent parts gravitational attraction.
So there you have it, you can see the end of the universe and you can also draw a straight line backwards to a single point of origin for that universe. If any physical thing had existed before the universe we live in we would be aware of that fact, I suppose, as the material, or physics, in any previous universe would appear to be travelling in a different direction, so to speak.
So, again we have the end of the universe, and we can trace it back to a beginning of the universe. There is no fossil evidence of previous universes, that I know of. And since our universe will expand ad finitum because it has no choice but to do so, there could only be one universe even if there were many big bangs. If there were many big bangs or if there was just one big bang logic still dictates a progression backwards to a point where there is less and less, to a point where there is a beginning, where infinity became a finite microscopic point of origin, a point where energy was given direction and matter was created and which gave rise to the necessity of time.
Our temporal reality.
Our temporal reality which exists within the necessity of eternity.

 

[Thing]

Abbadon:

Also doesn’t the current hypothesis support time before the beginning of our universe? I’m not really up to date with beginning of the universe research, all i know is we know somethings but were still working the majority of it out, and we have some ideas…

The only acceptable support for a hypothesis is evidence, and unfortunately you cannot measure something before it is created, thats the cut-off point for evidence.
Time does not really exist, it is just a necessity to describe change in matter and force and direction in energy. If you removed everything from the universe including the universe itself then time would have no function, and it would only again exist as a necessity to describe, for example, the path, and mass and energy of a newly created piece of matter.

No one has been able to say how they know such an entity has such attributes beside some oblique references in an archaic text… How do we know god is outside of time? How do you not have time if you have thought and speech? If you do not have energy how do you cause changes in this universe?

I suppose its because energy and time and matter are really conceits.
Because there was a beginning, there had to be, and because we have existance and we are what we are then we can safely assume we are a product of what we came from.
Energy, time and matter originate because they are made possible by something. They are a creation of some other force, like your thoughts are a unique creation of your mind, you can use your will to imagine anything you want into existance within your mind as a completed image and that that image and thought will establish brand new neural paths with never existed before in the history of the universe. Your original thought by an act of will established new and real material chemical and electrical paths in your physical mind.
The force that creates time, energy and matter creates those things within itself - calls them into being by an act of will.
This force is outside of time because it preceeded time and it called time into being. Time and matter and energy exist within this force, but whilst they are temporal and finite it preceeding them and originated them, it is eternal and independant of them but can act on them, as their creating force.

The problem with god is he raises greater questions than he answers. How did god create the universe? with what force? why is it no longer observable? why and how does he interfere? Why is there no indication of an omnipotent bieng creating or doing anything?

Yes, lots of questions. Don’t forget to remember that everything you see is proof of God.
You are living in God, and everything you see, and touch, proves to you He is real, He made all things.

Most athiests that are also scientists are pretty open to ideas, they’ll beleive in faeries and mirror deamons once provided with evidence. Then these things stop becoming supernatural and start forming apart of our world view. Although I’m not a scientist I’m also the same, once the evidence is presented i will believe in mirror deamons…

You are the evidence…

 

[The_Catholic]

Hmm, I’d ask them if they believe in an omnipotent source of all there is. If the majority says no, then ask them what they think the odds are that everything there is appeared by chance. If any say yes or maybe, then ask them if there may be a chance that this omnipotent source is indeed God.

Point is, make them think before answering. Explain to them that the Mysteries of the Church, God, Angels, Heaven, etc. are of supernatural nature. And as Scott Hahn the popular Catholic Author says, one can’t explain or disprove these things through reasoning based on scientific formula.

Another question may be something like, " Can you understand how people would/could believe in God in old testement times ?"
I’d bet they would say “Yes, but that was before …(this or that)”
Then ask them why they think so many people still believe today.

Again, the point is to make them think about it instead of just saying “I don’t believe in God”

Hope this helps, and hey, even if you don’t succeed in changing their minds, God will smile on you for trying

Not to frown on anything, but chance did create this *physical *universe, not God. He could have, but how free would we really be to choose to love Him? We’d be controlled by a puppet master.

 

[Abbadon]

Wouldn’t the more likely scenario be that energy always was and always has been? that maybe it exploded once but it all the energy in our universe always was and always has been?

We have observed that no energy is ever created or destroyed only converted, so isn’t it logical to assume the same for the energy in our universe… that it has always been… perhaps our minds cannot fathom the true nature of our universe to simply have always existed.

See i’m actually okay with calling god, the simple force that initiated the whole sequance, whatever that force maybe. And i can totaly belive that that is a possibillity, but i’m going to wait untill we are sure what that is.

But then you give this force a ridiculous amount of magical untestable properties that don’t make much sense. The force had a son which is it it’s self at the same time, in a middle eastern desert on a small planet in the milky way galaxy. It gave many codes to live by to these small minded species which most of are now defunct (slavery etc…). It hears all the wishes of the people that believe in it and it also interfears to make such wishes come true. It thinks we are all special and will allow us to enter an imortal existance along side of it. But only if we love it and beleive in it otherwise we are damnned in another imortal existance. Oh the force also used to talk to it’s people and heleped inspire leterature, but only in the past. then the litterature was collected into a book but were not sure which one becuase there are many.

I mean what you say about a force outside of time space and enrgy creating the following three, I’m all up for that but i have a hard time beliving that said force has all the above attributes as well. It just sounds so… i can’t think of a word beside dumb, for which i automatically offend people, and i know how my mom feels when i call her relgion dumb but thats what i honestly think all relegions are, and there is no nice way of saying it. So i can just say sorry, but thats just what i think, be happy in the fact that what i think doesnt mean squat…

Thing, i completely disagree with creation is evidence of a creator argument. It’s taking a big step there, okay so we have a universe with life in it and stuff, why is it there? because someone created it? I guess for a species of mammal that makes tools it’s an ancient logical conclusion to make. Douglas Adam says it alot better. But its a big leap to make, for me at least, i mean sure i’m here but i have no idea of know why. i mean i know how i got here and i know how i am a human and where humans originated from. But who am i what am i doing here, these are big questions that i think relegions today and throughout history asnwer to simply… Philosephers have done in my oppinion a much better job

But let us pretend that it is, let us look at the universe and nature to see what kind of a god created it. Everything in nature is vicous and ugly and many screwed up things happen to animals in there striving to breed and survive. Suns explode and galaxy’s crash into each other, black holes abound. It took billions of years for sentient life to occur on earth only after much suffering and hardship, and barely through a natural selective process that made the weaker ones extinct. All the creator did was initiate an instant moment of energy and left it from then on.

That is a poorly constructed description of what our universe is in relation to us, i could do a better job but then i would have to try more and there is an awful lot of typing already…

If you say faith, i have faith in gods existance i can’t touch that, it’s an automatic draw. I mean I have faith in cute psychotic little girls who can kill an entire delta squad with sheer though alone, that are also very hot. But don’t say there is evidence for something for which there really isn’t. I can understand how it makes sense that existance indicates the possibility of a creator, because everything we make has a creator so must all other things. But thats a really simple way of looking at things. But even then even if there was a creator it could be a speck of a different type of energy that may or maynot be conciouss… it may be artificial intelligence from another universe… there is nothing to say that that entity is your specific god with the specific attributes you give it…

Sorry about the rather poor constrution of this response, but i didnt have enough time to make it more concise nad shorter…

 

[Thing]

Its grand, but don’t get ahead of yourself. You have agreed with the conclusion of a force outside of time which made time, matter and energy. Be a man, and stake that bit of knowledge as your own. Don’t get distracted too easily from what you figure out.
You’ll probably want to know next if we can catch a glimpse of the nature of this force which has made everything. Can we put any type of shape on it, can we see its thumbprints on our reality using the vast amount of knowledge we have access to as well as using other more ephemeral qualities that attract us, as well as that sense of attraction itself.
Things like honour, mercy, love, kindness, personality. These had their origin in that creative force also.

 

[chelseaboy]

This topic is a huge one & has already attracted atheist attention. As you have witnessed they love to argue & attack Chrisitianity. I too love to argue & debate but some of the stuff they come out with is so juvenile. My initial message to them is

a) Read more widely.

b) Be less sure of yourself if you really want to be taken seriously.

One trend particularly in the UK is a new aggresive fundamentalist atheism. The most well know figure in this new movement is Richard Dawkins who is regarded by his scientific peers as a good writer about science but an appalling theologian.

You also have second rate novels by Pullman that is just full of anti Catholic prejudice. After an initial shock it becomes laughable!!

Today it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with an atheist of this sort. He/she doesn’t really hear what you have to say they are so keen to tell you what they think. Their atheist zeal is like any other fundamentalism in that they have all the answers. The religious are either not very bright, easily gullible or hypocrites. Worse still as Dawkins would contend religious people & Christians in particular are little more that abusive people indoctrinating their children with lies.

So what to say to an atheist? If he is a fundamentalist then say anything you like, he’s not listening anyway