Need quick answers! debating atheists

#21

Tell them two things:

  1. There has never been an atheist in a foxhole. (Its a war metaphor)

  2. In order to not believe there is a God, one must accept that there is a God, other wise there is no issue. Otherwise, why would they even care?

#22

I would say “who says that God is not willing to prevent evil? Maybe a perfect God sees the bigger picture and will do it in a different way that is more perfect then you can conceive.”

The reall problem is, an atheist hasn’t got a clue why God allows evil and suffering, much less the nature of his or her realty; so I am not sure what basis they use to Judge him, for atheists are not perfect and therefore do not know what a perfect, omnipotent, loving God would do and not do.

The world and the God that an atheist might envisage and think that they are worthy of, rarely takes into account that they our sinners, and such a world may not be beneficial to there souls, let alone there physical being. The problem here is that children often think they know what’s best for them and will parade there authority above the will of there parents. The world in which they intuitively want to live, they actually opposed.

Nobody knows the complete answer to the question of evil and suffering, but on top of the fact that there are other things in life that suggest the existence of a morally perfect creator (such as Love, and the fact that the universe began to exist), on that basis, they may in fact be a perfectly good reason why God chooses us to live in this particular reality where there is pain and suffering. To not explore this possibility, seems to me to be an arrogant dogmatic claim of moral-superiority and superior knowledge. But then we run in to more problems. If God is not Love, and God does not exist, morality becomes a meaningless delusional dictatorship rather then an objective truth about life. If God does not exist, then anything is permissible, and the atheist claim that God is imperfect or immoral becomes illogical and meaningless; there’s no authority. Why should a man be called wrong or evil for raping somebody? What does one base his authority on to judge such a person, if such a person is determined by evolution? Does freewill really exist in such a world?

It seems to me, that a perfect God, that is Love, is the only reasonable measure upon which to judge another human being in terms of right or wrong. If God doesn’t exist, then to say that the Christian perception of God is evil is a complete fallacy. And if God exists, as Christian see him, then such a claim, that God is evil or does not exist on that basis, is simply a miss-understanding of God. The question is, is the militant atheist so hardened against God that they will not except that such a thing could be entirely possible? Even though there is much evil in the world, I see God acting in our lives; every time somebody puts his life on the line, thats the love of God: anybody that feeds the poor; that’s the love of God in the world. God even said himself that no man knows him that doesn’t live by the law of Love.

Conclusion: Even though I sympathize with people who struggle with the lose of loved ones, struggling with the concept of a loving God existing in there lives, I think that to call people to reject God purely upon the premises of suffering, pain and assumptions about what God can and can’t do, is not an Intellectual position, but an emotional one. Emotions can sometimes blur the truth, if one doesn’t look at the bigger picture of life, but instead looks at one facet of existence because it seems to support ones position.

Life makes sense, in respect of morality and human dignity, if there is a perfectly moral God; life does not make sense if there isn’t one. That is a strong suggestion to me that there is a God, if one wants to make logical sense out of life. Also, when I was an atheist (and enjoying it) I looked for every little excuse to not seek God; that is not to say everybody that is an atheist is like that, but that is just something to ponder.

#23

Why is it obvious? It doesn’t seem like it was obvious to Hitler

#24

Or obvious to Mussolini, or Stalin or Pol Pot. Or the Mafia, with “this thing of ours.”

Evil? “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.” What’s stopping anyone from buying a gun and robbing a bunch of people? Why should he listen to family or society? It happens all the time.

No absolutes means no absolutes. And ask the Atheists if they are absolutely sure about that.

God bless,
Ed

#25

Why even debate Atheists, who have no interrest in knowing Jesus?

It is my experience that many are atheist simply because they do not want to be subject to higher laws of God. Jesus basically taught us to kill them with kindness.

#26

Thats it in a nutshell…

Maybe one could look up Madeline Murray O’Hair’s son and, oh never mind, I did it…maybe they’d like to call him and ask him why he went from being an ardent atheist to a believer:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Murray

In fact he’s a preacher now…

#27

The thing about Double Effect is that

  1. you have to first define the act in question.
  2. does the act have a double effect?
  3. define the object of the act. What outcome do you want from the act?
  4. then define the proximal and remote intentions of the object of the act.
  5. then go down the list.

Most people do not know about 1, 3, and 4. Here is a link that was posted for another thread. Ignore the subject of that thread. There are sub-links for the components of PDE.

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1576833&postcount=113

#28

Sorry for the slight…

Yes, you’re right that there’s some illogic involved in belief in God (that’s why faith and opinion are distinguished). There are some arguments that put meat on the “God hypothesis,” but really, they don’t satisfy in ways that, say, a physics proof does. Really smart atheists have taken up these arguments (e.g. progressively complexity in the universe) with “catch all” arguments of their own (e.g. assuming that the Anthropic Principle implies an uncreated multiverse and referring to all observational arguments as being laden with anthropic bias – itself a “dodge” from the need for scientific testing).

I think you could rightly say that I’m assuming God. However, a true atheist is also assuming the absence of any God. Only “agnostics,” saying that (A) evidence is the basis of their belief in God, and (B) there is insufficient evidence at this point to prove or disprove the existence of God, can really claim that they’re not starting with an asumption in mind.

I’m not really that upset with the illogic of belief in God. No means of logic known to humanity, deductive or inductive, can every really prove God, so it’s sort of a moot point to say that belief is illogical – it’s actually alogical. To put it this way, it’s purely alogical to believe that mathematics is constant over time and place, but it works anyway.

Interestingly, there have been a few “inductive” proofs of late in which physicists have posited universes whereby something like God could occur withing the laws of physics (e.g. Frank Tipler). However, while interesting, they’re still “what if” stories about the makeup of the universe.

I personally have reasons for believing that are completely absent the ability to prove them. They happened to people I know, and not without controversy, from the atheist’s perspective. “Miraculous healing of a brain tumor wrapped around the base of a friend’s spinal cord during a Catholic mass for healing” would be my term for it. However, every time I’ve told the story to a truly devoted atheist, they tell me that it could be the body healing itself, or an unknown type of spontaneous healing or mind-body interaction. Huh… they could be right, but kind of sounds like grasping at reasons to disbelieve! Of course, I can’t get you to believe that it was a Catholic priest who brought it about, but I can tell you that my friend’s radiologist said that there was no known medical explanation for the tumor to disappear.

But of course miracles are tricky business. Unrepeatable, untestable, oftentimes highly subjective. They defy scientific inquiry, other than perhaps, sociological in nature.

Anyway, sorry for the slight!

closed #29
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.