Atheism

[Fidei Defensor]

I just want to have a discussion about it here. As you probably have seen, or maybe not, that there is a debate about God going on in the debate table.

But i must confess, i greatly fear debating atheists.

I just want some imput from you all here, about best concepts to talk about with atheists.. and things to not fall into (traps).

And.. im not completely sure of what i want this thread to be about.. maybe just some honest discussion among catholics about the proof for God, miracles, etc.

Contribute whatever. Thanks

[goldenchild17]

I'm in a discussion with an athiest right now. I think for me the best approach is to start with the Bible. If we can prove that the Gospels a legitimate source for historical information then we can prove that Jesus really existed. If we can prove that Jesus really existed then we can get closer to proving that He is God, and so ultimately proving that there is a God.

I will be using this approach when I write my defense of Christianity.

[goldenchild17]

This is a great idea for a thread. I'll find discussion here very useful for my thesis.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 20 2005, 03:06 PM']I'm in a discussion with an athiest right now.  I think for me the best approach is to start with the Bible.  If we can prove that the Gospels a legitimate source for historical information then we can prove that Jesus really existed.  If we can prove that Jesus really existed then we can get closer to proving that He is God, and so ultimately proving that there is a God.

I will be using this approach when I write my defense of Christianity.
[right][snapback]651308[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I like that approach. That is actually what keeps me "faithful", so to say, when in these discussions, even if all the big words they throw at me scare me, i cant deny the Bible, and Jesus.

[goldenchild17]

Josh McDowell is a Protestant author but has written some books that I have found very helpful in the way I want to approach the subject - New Evidence That Demands A Verdict - is especially good in many areas.

[url="http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm"]http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbr...li/ntdocont.htm[/url]

There's an online book that's also helpful by F.F. Bruce(another Protestant).


Coming from a philosophical aspect I have found C.S. Lewis' "Case for Christianity" to be very good. It is also included in "Mere Christianity".

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 20 2005, 03:42 PM']It is also included in "Mere Christianity".
[right][snapback]651384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I love that book, but i havent got to read much of it yet.

[Didacus]

fidie,

Honestly, I don't know if any advice can be given. Each Atheist will react to arguments so differently and have their own point of view.

No matter how strongly you can debate it, the bottom line is Faith. And Faith is that which has no proof, it is personnal to one's self within his/her relation to God. By definition, I do not believe faith can be proven (am I right?) thus to argue the existence of God with an Atheist is a losing argument, since you are trying to prove something that by definition cannot be proven.

Fatih cannot be taught. At least i don't think so. it can be shown through example, it can be defined, explained, pointed to if you will, to for someone to have Faith, to gain Faith, to be taugt to hold Faith... this i do not believe to be possible.

Why does one believe the other does not? The only diffrence is Faith. Not intelligence, not ignorance, not devotion or fidelity...faith alone is the distinguishing mark between the two.
________________________________
And just a quick piece of advice, perhaps you should post the link to the debate you are referring, this would make the debate easier to find and avoid confusion... just a thought...

[Fidei Defensor]

There are two debates going on now on the debate table board - "is there a god?" and "Foundation for Morals"

[phatcatholic]

i'm not sure if the existence of God can be proven outright (maybe i'm wrong), but i do think that the preponderance (sp?) of arguments for his presence can be so great that they make the leap of faith an easy one.

[Technicoid]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 20 2005, 06:30 PM']i'm not sure if the existence of God can be proven outright (maybe i'm wrong), but i do think that the preponderance (sp?) of arguments for his presence can be so great that they make the leap of faith an easy one.
[/quote]

I like to argue from this point. At very least, there's a case to be made for the high probability of a creator or an initial cause. When you point out the unlikelihood of that the most important event in the universe would also be one that had no cause (unlike the vast majority of other events in the universe), it makes the belief in [i]no[/i] cause seem rather silly.

Peter Kreeft's [i]Handbook of Christian Apologetics[/i] has a good treatment of these proofs. And of course, there's Aquinas. Note that the arguments not deductive—that is, you can't proof conclusively that God exists through reason, but you can induce a high probability.

[phatcatholic]

yea, i think that's what i was getting at

[Cure of Ars]

I personally like to start with science because most atheist have high esteem for science. Whatever point you start with it must be something that you both agree. Let me drop some Chesterton.


[quote]What modern people want to be made to understand is simply that all argument begins with an assumption; that is, with something that you do not doubt. You can, of course, if you like, doubt the assumption at the beginning of your argument, but in that case you are beginning a different argument with another assumption at the beginning of it. Every argument begins with an infallible dogma, and that infallible dogma can only be disputed by falling back on some other infallible dogma; you can never prove your first statement or it would not be your first. All this is the alphabet of thinking…Much of our chaos about religion and doubt arises from this--that our modern sceptics always begin by telling us what they do not believe. But even in a sceptic we want to know first what he does believe. Before arguing, we want to know what we need not argue about. And this confusion is infinitely increased by the fact that all the sceptics of our time are sceptics at different degrees of the dissolution of scepticism. (Philosophy for the Schoolroom)[/quote]

So to talk with an atheist you need to find out what they are not skeptical about. You also need to also ask them if they are skeptical of their skepticism. Science is a good place to start because you can show that science is based on assumptions that cannot be proven. So the reality is that there is no certainty and science itself requires a certain amount of faith. In this context faith is not so unreasonable. You can then start asking the questions that science does not answer the important questions of life. I think this then lays the foundation to talk about God and Revelation. But there is more than one way to skin a cat.


Here is a discussion that I am presently having with an atheist.
[url="http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=16144&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15"]http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.p...er=asc&start=15[/url]

[phatcatholic]

but, if you show that science too begins with uncertainties, would that not just affirm the agnostic, who claims that one cannot know one way or the other if God exists? it seems that the uncertainty would just confirm his uncertainty.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:38 PM']but, if you show that science too begins with uncertainties, would that not just affirm the agnostic, who claims that one cannot know one way or the other if God exists? it seems that the uncertainty would just confirm his uncertainty.
[right][snapback]652075[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I would say that by not choosing to believe in anything is a choice. A choice that sheds no light on the human condition. It's like playing poker and never making a bet but only paying the ante. Life requires risk and commitment to faith. SO the question really is on who or what are you going to put your trust or bet. Meaning is what we gain by taking the jump of faith. Meaning that comes from the right relationship with God/truth. Anostics loose by default.

Edited July 21, 2005 by Cure of Ars

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:30 PM']I personally like to start with science because most atheist have high esteem for science. Whatever point you start with it must be something that you both agree.  Let me drop some Chesterton. 
So to talk with an atheist you need to find out what they are not skeptical about.  You also need to also ask them if they are skeptical of their skepticism.  Science is a good place to start because you can show that science is based on assumptions that cannot be proven.  So the reality is that there is no certainty and science itself requires a certain amount of faith. In this context faith is not so unreasonable.  You can then start asking the questions that science does not answer the important questions of life.  I think this then lays the foundation to talk about God and Revelation.  But there is more than one way to skin a cat. 
Here is a discussion that I am presently having with an atheist. 
[url="http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=16144&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15"]http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.p...er=asc&start=15[/url]
[right][snapback]652067[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I admire you in your discussion. I hope to one day be able to debate someone with such grace

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The "first cause" or similar arguements are as close as you can get. I personally think that it is possible to prove the existence of a creator. Beware, however, because most of the atheists I've encountered don't want to believe it no matter what you say. It's odd really...

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jul 21 2005, 12:38 PM']I admire you in your discussion. I hope to one day be able to debate someone with such grace 
[right][snapback]652700[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Thanks for the compliment

Edited July 22, 2005 by Cure of Ars