Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

If You Could Ask An Atheist A Question, What Would It Be?


thessalonian

Recommended Posts

Galloglasses

A person who has decided he or she doesn't believe in God. (Simple definition)

Most prefer to believe that science can prove anything, and anything that can't be proved or explained, or basically controlled or influenced by science is false. Hence why I would ask such a question regarding the scientific impossibility of these 67 cases of miracles decided upon sceptics who were there. I'd expect him to either not answer, or at least be curious enough to go look at it himself.

Some people don't want to be lead to God, some want to attack Him, and attack all that is of Him, by this question, i'd be challenging the athiest to attack these cases, so he or she would find they could not attack or destroy them, and either lie to themselves that they didn't happen, or be faced with the reality of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I invited an atheist friend of mine to phatmass would yall promise to be respectful? lol....

He might be able to answer these questions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galloglasses

I promise to be respectful. (I might even NOT turn sarcastic if he/she starts hurling abuse every now and again), By all means, invite your friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm the friend, btw. ^_^ Hello~

I would like to preface my post by reminding the believers reading this that atheists are not an organized religion, and rather a lack of religion at all. As such, I cannot speak for any nonbeliever but myself, and likewise no other person speaks for my own beliefs.
[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1533865' date='May 19 2008, 05:15 PM']Boxers or briefs?[/quote]
Boxors! :D
[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1534063' date='May 19 2008, 07:46 PM']I would ask if they believed in an objective truth[/quote]
Yes!
[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1534063' date='May 19 2008, 07:46 PM']and if they desired and were actively seeking for that truth. That way I would know how to pray for them.[/quote]
Yes, through the wonders of science, the systematic method used to gather knowledge of the world as it really is.
[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1534063' date='May 19 2008, 07:46 PM']As a former atheist, I know the importance of first believing in an objective truth. If an atheist can be convinced of this, and if they truly desire to know the truth, then I have no doubt what-so-ever that they will find God.[/quote]
Point of inquiry: was whatever it was that swayed you based on objective knowledge or personal experience?
[quote name='Veridicus' post='1534102' date='May 19 2008, 08:21 PM']I would ask: "Why is blue?"[/quote]
And my head would explode.
[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1534107' date='May 19 2008, 08:25 PM']"what are you doing this friday?"[/quote]
The Friday after this was posted, I was in Dallas watching my friends' band perform. All five of them are devout Christians, four evangelical, one Catholic. I don't care if I don't agree with the content, the music is quite beautiful.
[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1534132' date='May 19 2008, 08:49 PM']"Am I pretty?"[/quote]
It is a mystery!
[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1534240' date='May 19 2008, 10:46 PM']I would ask him where the idea of 'fairness" comes from?[/quote]
A natural survival instinct developed in the evolution of animal life as a way to ensure that they work for their own advantages, allowing them to survive. Because the ones who worked to survive survived at a much higher rate than those that did little to work for it, it became a common sense.
[quote name='Didacus' post='1534545' date='May 20 2008, 09:02 AM']What is the question to the ultimate anwser: 26?[/quote]
"What number is actually nothing like the answer to life, the universe, and everything, 42?"

This is going to take quite a number of posts. The quote block limit is far too small to answer the questions from this whole thread in a single post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1534546' date='May 20 2008, 09:03 AM'][i][b]Is there real meaning to your value judgments or is all subjectively perceived "meaning" merely a biological illusion - a trick evolution plays on us to keep us going?[/b][/i][/quote]
That's a really pessimistic way of putting it, but more or less, yes, that is what the evidence appears to suggest for the basis of human (or just animals in general) judgment.
[quote name='Justin86' post='1535926' date='May 21 2008, 08:17 AM']I'm more interested if this guy prefers Macs or PCs. Hmmmm...[/quote]
I run a PC because it is largely compatible with the most of the world. I know how to run a Mac because I like computers in general and needed to learn so that I could help out my friends who were confused by Macs.

I actually prefer Linux, however.
[quote name='Didacus' post='1535973' date='May 21 2008, 08:37 AM']Being an atheist, what would you tell God if you died and found out you were wrong?[/quote]
"How can you blame me? There was no real evidence presented to me to suggest that you existed."
[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1536948' date='May 22 2008, 12:47 AM']You TOTALLY missed my reference. :mellow:

I guess I'm just a nerd.[/quote]
:hifive:
[quote name='Paddington' post='1539269' date='May 23 2008, 07:12 PM']A question?

My two cents on Atheism is this....

1. Atheism = I know everything and can therefore say that there is no God. That kinda means that I am God, but I insist that it doesn't.

2. Agnosticism = I don't know everything and I'm bowing out.

3. Theism = I don't know everything, but God revealed it to me so I don't need to.
So.....the question would be.....What if God is hiding his existence from you for the time being?[/quote]
1. Atheism: I see no reason to believe in a god. Therefore, I do not.

2. Agnosticism: God cannot be proved or disproved.

1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic atheist.
[quote name='AngelofMusic' post='1544532' date='May 27 2008, 12:50 AM']I think I would ask what made them an atheist in the first place. How could you look at this marvelous planet, with all of the tiny yet DREADFULLY important things, and believe it was made by accident?[/quote]
Because I didn't see anything that convinced me that believing in god and heaven were true, regardless of whether or not they looked like attractive things to believe. I have, at times, wished that I could believe, simply because it would be nicer. However, I don't see enough to suggest that it really is true.
[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1544672' date='May 27 2008, 02:10 AM']-is it possible that there is much that you are not aware of, including a happiness and state of being that is so far reaching, that in comparison it makes your current happiness look like utter hell? this is what it means to know God..[/quote]
Saying a religious man may be happier than a nontheist is no more convincing than saying the drunk man may be happier than the sober man.

In my experience, I have found that belief in god was one of the most powerful drugs I've ever experienced. However, in the morning, after sleep enough for my mental faculties to function at full once more, I could no longer see the reasons for belief I convinced myself to accept for one short night, long enough only to chase the imaginary monsters away and allow me peace of mind to slumber uninterrupted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']10 Questions.[/quote]
Ooh, a challenge.
[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']1) "What do you think of propose, not the propose of general Life, but the Propose of Your Life is?"[/quote]
The purpose to my own life is whatever I want it to be! That's a wonderful thing about freethought: each person decides what her own purpose is. No one can set that for her.
[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']2) "If there is no propose to life, then why contunie with life, if theres no propose?"[/quote]
Firstly, let's assume your first clause is true, for the purpose of a proper answer...

Even if there is no purpose to life, one can still live simply for the experience of being alive. Do you realize how lucky you are simply to be here, living in your body, the consciousness, the natural software created by the hardware that is your living mind? We get to experience birth (really, life begins before birth, but I have never heard of anyone even remembering back that far, so it doesn't really much matter for this argument), death, and such a vast wealth of diverse experiences to be found in the life you live in between those events. Most people never get to experience death, because they also did not experience the beginnings of life, and they were given no time to experience anything else, either.

What you must remember is that our genetic code allows for such an enormously large set of possible humans in addition to the variances in setting that would cause these people to grow up under different circumstances and arguably cause them to be entirely different people, and there is no way that all of the people who possibly could be alive today or any other time ever will be. Included in that set are people who are smarter, stronger, more creative, funnier, taller, faster, and greater than anyone that has ever lived, just as there are those who are less intelligent, weaker, less creative, less funny, shorter, slower, and worse than anyone that has ever lived. Even among all of these great possibilities, it is you and I, in all of our ordinariness, who are here and alive, receiving this opportunity to experience the wonders of life as we know it.

However, I would disagree with the position that there is no purpose to life. Each individual has the power to create his or her own purpose in life and live it out to whatever extent he or she works for and is allowed to by outside circumstances beyond each person's control. A great book in which I found much of my philosophy espoused above is Unweaving the Rainbow by Professor Richard Dawkins. If you are ever interested in reading about a purpose for life and the universe without the need to invoke the supernatural, you should check it out. It may just open your eyes a bit.
[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']3) " Do You believe that there are certian mysteries that cannot be answered through our undertsanding?"[/quote]
Given enough time, the sum of human knowledge could (theoretically) encompass all that is. However, we will almost surely have neither the time nor the resources to reach that point.
[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']4) "How can you claim ''' There is no evidence for an existance of God''' when the evidence is everywhere?[/quote]
"Everywhere"? I simply don't see it. Could you give me some good examples?
[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']5) " How can you explain the impossible using reason alone, when life offers so many unexpections?"[/quote]
Excuse me? If we cannot explain the impossible, there is no problem with that, because it is impossible, although in many cases it is very possible to explain why something is near-infinitely unlikely (very little in the natural universe is truly impossible, it's just so unlikely that it can be ruled out as reasonably possible). However, I must admit that I cannot fully answer the question, because I don't know what you're saying. That was my response to the first part, but I do not know what "unexpections" is even supposed to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']6) "When you break down logical thinking, rather its physics, mathatic theory, science, or anything, you are stripped of rational explaination[/quote]
How, might I ask, can you make any rational explanation if you have no logical thinking or scientific facts to back you up?
[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']without using reason and intellect how can you explain the basic formulas for the beginning of existance once its been broken down to the basics how can you have a fuller understanding once science runs out of steam and can't explain the origins and propose of life?"[/quote]
I really don't follow this. How is anyone supposed to explain anything without reason or intellect?
[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']7) " Do you deny that human beings historical belief of an Afterlife, when it seems as if every culture throughout the history of the world, with an advanced general way of life, this was believed by many cultures, and seems to be incraved on the consciences of every human being as much as common scense to believe in something more than themselves, do you deny this historical fact?[/quote]
Again, forgive me if I'm misreading this. To be honest, you really should try to word your questions in a more coherent manner. Now, for my response...

Oh, it is historical fact that many civilizations have believed in an afterlife. However, to say that this is evidence for an afterlife is a logical fallacy. If every historical civilization believed that your god is not true, are they right? (In this case, it is merely coincidence that they are.)

Just because it is "what has always been believed" does not mean it is true.
[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']8) "When You die, what do you expect to cease to exist?"[/quote]
My consciousness. When the brain shuts off, the consciousness is no more, because it doesn't exist separate of the mind, it is simply our subjective experience of the functions of the mind, the interpretations and calculations made by a powerful computer built over billions of years that is our brain.
[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']9) "How did you come to your conclusions to sum up your general beliefs?"[/quote]
I saw no reason to believe. Once I stopped suspending my disbelief, I accepted reality, just as I had before I ever tried to believe in the first place.
[quote name='White Knight' post='1555776' date='Jun 3 2008, 01:17 AM']10) " What if you were to meet God at the end of your life, what then?"[/quote]
As previously answered, I would simply tell whatever god it is that I meet that I saw insufficient reason to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JustJ,

You answered most of my 2 cents. :thumbsup:

What if God is hiding Himself from you for now? Would your answer have anything to do with combining Atheism and Agnosticism?

Blah, blah, blah.

Peace,
Paddington

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StColette' post='1556331' date='Jun 3 2008, 05:28 PM']"Could you please give an answer/explanation disproving the Five Proofs of St. Thomas Aquinas?"[/quote]
I will do my best!

1. FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

Why could not things have always been in motion? Why can there not have been an infinite series of movers? Lastly, the conclusion is a non sequitur. What proof is there that the "first mover" (if it exists) is God?

2. FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

Why can't there have been an infinite series of causes? Why must there have been a first cause? And, again, even if there truly was a first cause, what proof is there that it was a god of any definition other than just a first cause?

3. NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

This is not true. It is very much so possible that matter has always existed. Scientific understanding has advanced greatly from the time of Aquinas, and you would do well to read up on it.

4. GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

Whoa, who said that the greatest thing really is the source of all greatness? What proof is there of such a bold statement?

5. INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

Unfortunately, this is another hypothesis without any supporting arguments. What proof is there that the world could not have been produced through natural means? In fact, there is a great amount of proof suggesting that the world did, in fact, become the world it is today through natural processes. You can read up on these things in geology, cosmology, astronomy, biology, chemistry, and other related sciences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Proud2BCatholic139' post='1556700' date='Jun 3 2008, 09:42 PM']"What is love?"
"What is truth?"[/quote]
Love is an incredibly complex emotion that I can only just begin to explain. There are a great many scientists who have studied the phenomenon a good deal more than I have, and so I would refer you to a dictionary for its definition or some scientific reference for its origins.

Truth is that which really is.
[quote name='Farsight one' post='1556730' date='Jun 3 2008, 09:58 PM']Question:

Many atheists criticize believers for explaining something they don't understand with basically "God did it". How is that any different from an atheist basically saying "science doesn't understand it yet" when presented with such inexplicable phenomena as eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, possesion, levitation, etc?[/quote]
Because you put forth "God did it" without evidence. That is wrong. What is correct is to say that you don't know. You may offer such a hypothesis including god, if you wish, but without proof for it, it isn't a very convincing case.

Can someone point me to any scientifically verified Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, cases of possession, levitation, etc? If not, then there are no cases of miracles that could not have been explained by science. Unfortunately, many of these miracles are never examined, and as such we may never know for sure what the real cause is.
[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1557087' date='Jun 4 2008, 05:03 AM']All of them?
I read an account once that refuted the first cause and first mover arguments by saying that there's nothing stopping the chain of causes/movers going back endlessly into time. Not sure how someone would square this with the Big Bang though.[/quote]
What we experience as time is actually a forth spatial dimension that we are falling through at a more-or-less constant rate (can be changed by relativistic speed approaching the speed of light) which can be equated with a kind of gravity, something similar to the four forces that govern our three dimensional existence (gravity, electromagnetism, the Strong force, and the Weak force). Just as the three dimensions as we know them were compressed into a singularity at the point of/"prior to" the big bang, so was the fourth, our time. As such, time existed in a very, very different way, if at all, prior to the big bang. Our understanding of that point is very limited, and there are many dedicated physicists working to learn more about it.
[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1557099' date='Jun 4 2008, 07:32 AM']wikipedia presents some fairly standard atheistic complaints against the five proofs.[/quote]
It probably has many good responses to all kinds of things, and while I use it frequently, I will admit that I have not yet used it in answering anything in this thread.
[quote name='Farsight one' post='1557088' date='Jun 4 2008, 05:10 AM']I've heard people say that before, but it's not a refutation of those arguments, but rather simply ignoring important tenents of them. Aquinas explains quite well why there MUST be a beginning. Ofhanded dismissal of his explanation is not a refutation. Simply stating that there doesn't have to be a beginning is not an argument.[/quote]
No, it is a refutation of the validity of Aquinas's argument.
[quote name='Madtown Sem.' post='1557779' date='Jun 4 2008, 03:33 PM']Why is there something instead of nothing? Why is there existence at all?[/quote]
I'm afraid that human knowledge is just not sure yet. Once started, it becomes a colossally simpler task to explain what happened. However, as far as I know, there has not so far been a perfect answer.

To go preemptively defeat the common followup, "So why not God?" I would like to ask this: what created God? If you say that God needed no cause, then what stops me from saying that any natural force could not have started without the need for a cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1560804' date='Jun 6 2008, 03:25 AM']Just a series of big bangs and big crunches in both directions i s'pose[/quote]
Last I read, the idea of the gnab gib, or the big crunch, the opposite of the big bang, is not the most well-supported hypothesis. Rather, the fact that time as we know it did not exist before the big bang, due to the compression of the fourth dimension along with the first three into a singularity. Because of that, it is very difficult to even describe it, as we're so used to terms such as "before" when that word carries no significant meaning given the context. There was no time in the sense that we know it.

Isn't that neat?
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572796' date='Jun 16 2008, 01:26 PM']Here's one question I'd ask.

"You are an athiest.[/quote]
Yes.
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572796' date='Jun 16 2008, 01:26 PM']Ergo you do not believe in God without evidence.[/quote]
Yes.
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572796' date='Jun 16 2008, 01:26 PM']You demand evidence for our belief in God,[/quote]
Yes.
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572796' date='Jun 16 2008, 01:26 PM']we put forward miracles,[/quote]
Any proof they're actually miracles that couldn't have been caused through naturalistic means?
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572796' date='Jun 16 2008, 01:26 PM']you develop long winded and increasingly irrational string of events to explain away such miracles.[/quote]
Irrational? Really? I would hardly accept a truly irrational explanation, but I would strive to understand ones that are simply beyond my current grasp without saying they are definitely wrong first.
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572796' date='Jun 16 2008, 01:26 PM']Yet an independent scientific research lab stationed at Lourdes France, has been creating plethora of such excuses for the thousands of cures claimed there every year.[/quote]
Imagine that, people are healed, and there really is a reason for it.
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572796' date='Jun 16 2008, 01:26 PM']Yet there are 67 cases were the cures are completely unexplainable by science.[/quote]
Who says they are completely unexplainable just because no current explanation has been offered?
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572796' date='Jun 16 2008, 01:26 PM']I put forward these cases as evidence.[/quote]
Okay, well, first, explain to me how these truly are evidence. In other words, explain how exactly your god did these things.
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572796' date='Jun 16 2008, 01:26 PM']Now explain."[/quote]
Now explain what, exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1575419' date='Jun 18 2008, 07:24 PM']Most prefer to believe that science can prove anything,[/quote]
Would you like to give me a fair, logical reason why science cannot prove something that is true? I would imagine, if god really existed, science could show that. If that is the case, we have not yet reached that level of scientific understanding.
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1575419' date='Jun 18 2008, 07:24 PM']Some people don't want to be lead to God, some want to attack Him, and attack all that is of Him, by this question, i'd be challenging the athiest to attack these cases, so he or she would find they could not attack or destroy them, and either lie to themselves that they didn't happen, or be faced with the reality of God.[/quote]
I would not say that I am any of those. It's not that I do not want to believe, it's just that I have not been shown anything that has convinced me without my own conscious efforts to suspend my own disbelief.
[quote name='Paddington' post='1575537' date='Jun 18 2008, 09:27 PM']JustJ,

You answered most of my 2 cents. :thumbsup:

What if God is hiding Himself from you for now?[/quote]
If that's the case, and he has so successfully hidden himself from me, I see no reason why I should be held accountable for not finding him.
[quote name='Paddington' post='1575537' date='Jun 18 2008, 09:27 PM']Would your answer have anything to do with combining Atheism and Agnosticism?[/quote]
I do combine atheism and agnosticism. To say that the two are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy. I do not believe that there is a god and am therefore an atheist. However, I know that it is not technically possible to disprove his existence, and because of the definitions often given, no way to prove that he exists. If that's the case, well, i still see no reason to believe in him, but because there's no way to know he exists, that just seems more reason not to believe. The fact that he cannot be proved or disproved does not mean that the two conclusions are equally likely.

I do believe that if he does exist, it can be proven. In that sense, I guess I'm not really fully agnostic. I still hold to my statement that I don't believe it is possible to disprove the existence of gods as a whole. A specific god, such as one that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, etc, can be disproved logically, though the easy way to get around this is just to remove one or more of these attributes and substitute them instead with a great magnitude of power, knowledge, benevolence, or presence.

For a few examples of why omnipotence is logically impossible, think of the "Can God make a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it"-line of riddles. An example why some of the characteristics do not work given the world in which we live, look at the riddle of Epicurus:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

And with that, I have completely caught up on the thread. I'm sorry if I missed any questions, please point them out and I will do my best to address them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

If you say that God has not been proven, yet still accept that God cannot be *dis*proven, then aren't you really saying that it comes down to a matter of personal choice whether to believe or not?
I think we call that faith.

Edited by Nihil Obstat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...