Three Ways to Win Every Debate with an Atheist
About a month ago I received the above comment from a gentleman named Tim.* My first reaction was to go and fetch Leila Miller’s post, “Did Jesus really die and rise?” And I thought I’d use an appeal to consistency, and explain how if someone believes Aristotle existed then they have no basis to reject the historical evidence of Jesus’ existence either (never mind that no one in the modern world would even know who Aristotle was if it hadn’t been for the Church’s passion for knowledge, truth, and meticulous preservation of documents). I also thought I might finally get around to finishing Robert E. Van Voorst’s book, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, an exhaustively (to put it mildly) referenced 262-page volume that addresses the question at hand.
But then I thought a little more fundamentally about this atheist debate that is nothing new to humanity. Frank Sheed’s author page at Ignatius Press says that he noticed a long time ago, and wrote in his 1935 book Training Outlines, that “proof has ceased to be the apologists principal weapon” because first a non-believer “must understand quite clearly what the thing is that you are trying to prove” and then “he must realize that it is important — and important for him.” And finally: “He must want it.” (page 15)
This is true of any acquired knowledge; this is scientific. One must know his criteria for determining the truth of propositions, he must understand what he opposes, and he must want to learn the new knowledge. This is where freethinkers fail time and time again. So, here’s three ways to win every debate with an atheist. I think these three things need to be remembered. Have fun debating, but use this to stay grounded.
1. Demand that they define what constitutes proof. This is a very philosophical question, but if it’s not answered, you will waste time presenting evidence that will only be rejected because you’ll be aiming for a moving target. In any science, consistent definitions of axioms matter. Once “proof” is defined, then you’ll know what to offer as proof. It’s not that Catholicism offers no proof for its dogma, the Church has dealt with this question of proof for her entire existence and answered it thoroughly. The problem is, an atheist will come to the debate unaware of any of it and will have already predetermined that no proof exists. This is a very fair thing to require – define proof, define your terms. This will require an examination of logical proofs and deduction, will demand ultimately some admission that not everything is proven by sensory evidence. If there is no knowable thing higher than what can be sensed (sight, smell, sound, taste, touch), then there is no higher science than basic physics. And that is not true. This requires a great deal of honesty. Win!
2. Insist that they articulate the Church’s position accurately. St. Thomas in Summa Contra Gentiles (Book One, Chapter 9-12) advises that teaching of the arguments that make Divine Truth known should be for the training and consolation of the faithful, not to refute adversaries. It will strengthen them in their error since they will not understand, and they will therefore conclude that faith is based on weak arguments. We only need to demonstrate that faith is reasonable, and, using scripture and reference to Church documents, explain the logical process if asked. So rather than getting lost in the futile effort to refute the atheist’s bashing of straw-god after straw-god (i.e. theological strawman fallacies) based on an atheistic idea of what God really is (yeah, think about that), invite them to study the Church documents and help them to reflect the meaning accurately. Insist on nothing less and be glad! The Church has been at this for 2,000+ years and you will have begun to swim around in the beauty of the faith with your atheist opponent. This requires a great deal of thought. Win! Win!
3. Offer a prayer for every answer your atheist friend gives. Remember, God wins, God has already won so don’t worry about backing away if the atheist refuses to acknowledge what constitutes proof, or if he refuses to even try to sincerely understand what he’s arguing against. We are all God’s creation and He has a Divine plan we cannot comprehend fully. Christ suffered, died, and rose again for the salvation of all people. Be grateful you are engaging with a searching soul who identifies as someone who lacks a belief in God even as he searches for Him in the scientific, human art of debate. This is an opportunity for prayer and evangelization. Win! Win! Win!
*My good friend Stuart at eChurch Blog emailed me later with a little confession that he and Tim were in on this together as a little trick. This is probably not what they were expecting, but I hope it’s a start. If anyone’s read the Voorst book, I’d love to hear from you.
Category: Church History, Featured, Modernism, Secularism, Social Issues, Theology
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
“If there is no knowable thing higher than what can be sensed (sight, smell, sound, taste, touch), then there is no higher science than basic physics. And that is not true.”
science [ˈsaɪəns]
n
1. the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms
As I mull this over, I haven’t gotten past number 1, and re-read “Quiddity” some thoughts come to mind. Even if you consider Theoretical physics or quantum chemistry (which you should be aware of) in the basket of sciences, they still require verification to be called “knowable things”. If you only theorize you have only potential real knowledge. Verification is always against the physical world (I cringe whenever I write “always” but it seems true right now!) even in Christianity. We test against our world to gain confidence that our assumptions are ever more real or actual. Test, test, test. Come closer to total confidence. I suppose we could build on previous theoretical ideas that have been proven to a degree, but we still are on shaky ground if we are looking for certainty. Is our Christian experience any different?
“This requires a great deal of honesty”
We know that the greatest among us, the Saints, had doubts about their faith. Jesus himself commented on the need for us to always be looking for miracles as proof.
I guess what I am saying is: there may be all kinds of investigation, but we still look for the definitive answer in the same way with each one. I think the proof that we find in Christianity is the compilation of real positive effects on our lives in the natural world – the equivalent of physical testing in science. The positive effect on our perceptive ability, the change in our attitudes towards others, positive social science studies, etc.
Then the atheist says, “wata bout the predatory priests. Huh?”
Howard,
“I think the proof that we find in Christianity is the compilation of real positive effects on our lives in the natural world – the equivalent of physical testing in science.”
Yes, I see what you mean. Maybe that’s what is meant by the word “experimental.” We experience, we think, we try to know.
I think the rest of what you said is what St. Thomas was talking about. Christians can learn about Divine Revelation, how we can know that God exists, how we can know that Christ is God Incarnate, how we can know that the things Christ said, then, are Truth. But for atheists, we can only explain how faith in these things is reasonable. If they accept the Divine Revelation as the axioms, we can show how what the Church has reasoned theologically over time is logical.
Your posts are so positive and affirming for all people. Keep it up!
Thanks Grant, not always, but I appreciate that you noticed.
Thanks for posting this! My husband’s an atheist and I need a little ammo.
Mary,
I love this! This is what I call a reference post. I will refer back to it often. Thank you for laying it out so well!
Well yours is the first reference post! Thanks Leila.
Nice post and setting arguments that I have not thought of, thanks for posting.
There is one simple answer if a atheist asks me: How do I know that Jesus existed?
Simple, in a thousand years, what proof will there be that you existed, baring in mind not all your grandchildren may have had children, therefore only records of your existence may be in existence. If those records become corrupted, then even your own existence is questionable. Records are evidence, if that is not proof, then decide that even your own existence may be questionable in years to come.
Atheism is imperialism, its not harmless, it needs to be questioned.
Chris, exactly. It seems the only logical conclusion of atheism is to doubt everything and never arrive at any certainty.
Chris, if he was god in human form, he would have made a much larger impression. And certainly his miracles would leave some evidence of supernatural events.
And also, your argument is better for showing exactly why you should DOUBT stories from the bible.
Atheism is a lack of belief. A lack of belief comes from not finding compelling evidence for a claim, nor convincing arguments. You can’t choose what you believe.
Mary,
Work without delay. Your husband is going to burn in eternal hellfire for all eternity. As dear Mrs. Trasancos states
“the only logical conclusion of atheism is to doubt everything and never arrive at any certainty.”
Mary: How can you even be sure that your husband sees ‘blue’ as us Good True Christians (meaning Catholics). There is no way to be sure your husband’s conception of ‘The Good’ is even the same! Identically the same! Unless perhaps, we all have really only approximations of concepts, commonly signified by words. But thats ridiculous and unnecessary. An objective observer, Chiefly G-D, maintains all concepts perfect, ethereal and ideal. Platonic Forms, of course.
I’ll pray for you and your husband Mary, I can only hope that you raise your children in the One True Faith. I’ll also pray for the efforts of Valiant Mrs. Trasancos, who upholds Truth here, everyday.
[Vos stulti Deus est semper errans]: Michael Basulli
Thank you Michael.
I got to your site from a posting at http://www.standfirminfaith.com which describes your journey on the gay marriage issue. As it so happens, I am rereading Tim Keller’s book “The Reason for God – Belief in an Age of Skepticism,” and find it to be one of the best books on the subject. If you don’t mind sound reasoning by a Presbyterian, I highly recommend it.
Dan, YES, I will check it out. Thank you for the recommendation. I sincerely appreciate it! Glad you stopped by.
OK, I’ll bite.
First we need to agree on what we are talking about. The original article talks about evidence for the existence of Jesus in 1), but then seems to swap to faith and theology more generally in 2).
If you want to talk about the existence or otherwise of Jesus, we have to first decide what we mean by Jesus. I wouldn’t dispute that a Jewish teacher amassed a cult following in Roman-ruled Jerusalem and got himself executed as a result. Whether or not this teacher was the son of god, born of a virgin, performed miracles, and came back to life having died is another question altogether. The discussion should centre on the likelihood of this 2nd Jesus existing, and would do so by examining the evidence available. It turns out that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of believers in the 2nd Jesus – but that, of course, is not in question.
Can I suggest we stick to 2) for the time being?
As far as 2) is concerned, here’s my take. I am sure I have missed the mark in places, so please correct me where I have gone wrong. I just want to hammer out a statement that you can agree with.
God, an omniscient, omnipotent, infinitely loving entity, created the universe and human beings. These human beings, having been given free will, fell short of God’s high expectations by sinning. This separated human beings from God – how can fallen, imperfect man be in the presence of the Infinitely Perfect? In order to reconnect with God, a Perfect Sacrifice had to be made to repay the infinite Debt of Sin. The only being qualified to make the Perfect Sacrifice is God Himself, so He came to earth in human form and was crucified. Now we humans have a path back to God if only we accept His sacrifice. Those who reject this sacrifice are rejecting His Infinite Mercy and so remain in Sin. This Sin, when held against His Infinite Perfection, is infinitely despicable and therefore deserving of infinite punishment – namely, an eternity of torture in Hell. To those who accept the sacrifice, however, infinite bliss is the reward.
How’s that?
jandm,
Thanks for biting.
I have a lot to say about #1, but will be brief. To believe that part of the history is true (Jesus lived) and the other part is not true (Jesus rose again and rose to Heaven) you need some basis for that selectivity. For it to change the world the way it did, and continues to do, you’d have to literally say that all these people are delusional and incapable of accurately assessing experimental evidence, which calls into question man’s ability to reason at all, and that is inconsistent with the progress humanity has made in science and art. Plus, what do make of all the miracles since then in the lives of the saints?
On to #2.
There is at least one critical logical inconsistency. An “infinitely loving entity” could only be an “infinitely loving being” since love is an act of the will and the will belongs to rational beings, not entities. Next, the big one, someone who loves perfectly would not be capable of despising His own Creation. You cannot have perfect Love without perfect Mercy, and you cannot have perfect Mercy without perfect Justice. This is an excerpt from a book (Sons of Cain) that a friend of mine (Mr. Val Bianco) wrote:
“Think of it this way. If you got a speeding ticket in some small town in the Deep South, and didn’t have the money to pay for it, where would you wind up?”
“Probably in jail for a while.”
“Exactly. Now let’s assume that the judge knows that the conditions in the jail are awful and really doesn’t want to put you there. What would he do?”
“Let me off.”
“Would that be just? Remember, you and he and the cop that arrested you all know that you were doing ninety miles per hour in a sixty mile per hour zone. No question; you are guilty, and the offense carries a three hundred dollar fine or thirty days in jail. So, does he let you off?”
“I don’t know. I guess so… If he doesn’t want to put me in jail, what else could he do?”
“Since he is a just judge, he is trapped between his mercy for you and his obligation to administer justice. Remember, if he is a perfect judge, no matter how much he wants to help you out, he can’t break the law. That leaves him only one option.”
She shrugged. “I give up.”
“He reaches into his pocket, takes out his wallet and pays the ticket himself. Both mercy and justice have been satisfied.”
Another quick question re analogy: would justice and mercy have been served equally well had the judge taken himself off to prison for 30 days?
The judge paid the price, whatever it needed to be. There is much to be learned about humanity by studying the life and teaching of Christ, and why it had to be exactly the way that it was. Want some brief reading on Christology? St. Thomas wrote extensively about this and I think you’ll find that as you read it, you learn a lot about being human.
Hi Stacy
Thanks for the prompt response.
Re 1), it is not necessary to call into question “man’s ability to reason at all”. All that is necessary is to acknowledge that it is a very common human trait to believe with absolute conviction in something which is not true. This, surely, is uncontroversial? I could write a list of examples as long as your arm – including the central tenets of other major religions – which you and I would both agree on.
Re 2) – just to be clear, are you saying that my summary is okay once “entity” is replaced with “being”?
I’m guessing your analogy offered in anticipation of one of my logical objections. If so, well anticipated! It is just one objection, but it’s a good one to start with. One question: to whom, or what, is the judge paying the fine?
jandm,
1) But you are calling man’s ability to reason into question if you question the truth of Christ. On what basis do you reject part of the history and accept the other? And what about the experimental evidence in the lives of believers? What about the miracles confirmed in the lives of the saints? Is the search for truth just some delusion? Were we just mad to form universities and to come up with words like “science?” You must explain what constitutes proof and what does not, and why. How do you know if something is true or false? On what basis?
To just say this is a non-answer: “Well, I don’t believe X, Y and Z but I do believe A, B, and C because it is a very common human trait to believe with absolute conviction in something which is not true.”
2) No, please re-read what I wrote. “One question: to whom, or what, is the judge paying the fine?” See the original post. Would you like some brief reading material on the reasoning for this? To ask that question is to reveal that you do not understand Catholic dogma. Did you seriously think that all the scholars and great minds who have systematically written the philosophy and theology behind this question just missed that part? I assure you they did not!
Hi again Stacy
1) Just to be clear, are you claiming that to believe with absolute conviction in things which are not true is NOT a common human trait?
2) Re my two questions regarding your friend’s analogy, forgive me, but you have not answered either of them. Someone less charitable than myself might conclude that you are avoiding the questions by sending me off to do my homework. I’m interested in your thoughts on this, Stacy.
- To whom or what is the judge paying the fine?
- Would justice be equally well served if the judge took himself off to prison for 30 days? (Was that a “yes” or a “no”?)
My 2 cents.
“All that is necessary is to acknowledge that it is a very common human trait to believe with absolute conviction in something which is not true.”
More is necessary when applied to a specific question. It is necessary to prove that THE something is NOT true using the same method or better. If you cannot, then you must find other ways to prove or disprove – reason and judgment are left.
That is correct, Howard. I agree entirely. My “All that is necessary” statement was not a comment on the truth of the gospel stories, but a response to Stacy’s assertion that to question them to is to question “man’s ability to reason” (which assumes that it is reasonable to believe those stories in the first place, ie it begs the question)
Your job then is to prove that it is unreasonable to believe them.
Thank you Howard.
Again I agree, Howard. But if we accept that believing in things which are not true is a very common human trait (I’m still not sure if this uncontroversial statement has been fully acknowledged yet), then we must agree that the existence of convicted believers does not count as good evidence.
Common? Psychiatrists deal with this, but, I think that they must be on secure ground to confidently refute an untrue belief. Could what you are proposing be herding rather than belief?
Howard, our future is written in the stars, the twelfth Imam is currently hiding in a well and will return soon, L Ron Hubbard is living in a spaceship orbiting Alpha Centurae, the Koran is the perfect uncreated Word of God, the world will end on October 11th, the angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith and told him where to find the magic stones, a homeopathic pill will immunize you agains malaria, I was abducted by aliens, the Earth is 6,000 years old, the CIA blew up the twin towers, and Mohammed is his Prophet… etc etc etc
Yes, I’d say it is common; and no, you don’t need to be a psychiatrist.
In each of these things you start with a belief of your own, that each is not true. When you exhaust your list and and ask another person (a non-psychiatrist) to build their list, will they be the same? If not, why? If not, why is yours the true list?
It occurred to me that I still have not answered your question. When you say, “absolute conviction in something which is not true” It brings to mind that the believing person knows that it is not true. That would be a psychiatric problem. We all believe in things more or less, whether they are true or not presumes absolute truth, a stumbling block for atheists and number 1 above.
“But if we accept that believing in things which are not true is a very common human trait…….then we must agree that the existence of convicted believers does not count as good evidence.”
.
Has JandM ever been wrong? Yes. Has JandM ever been right? Yes. I can answer with confidence because it is human nature to err. But, this feature of ours is much too simplistic to be an argument by itself. This is a very incomplete atheist talking point.
.
As I said before, “Your job then is to prove that it is unreasonable to believe them.” Many, including C. S. Lewis have given arguments as to why the Apostles testimony is accurate.
jandm,
1) What? I believe people can discover truth. That’s why we are successful with science.
2) Please read what I originally wrote. It is rule #1 in logic that to argue against an argument, you must know what you are arguing against. You entered the argument, and demonstrated that you did not do your homework. How can anyone counter until you articulate accurately?
You are doing the equivalent of walking into a physicists office, telling him that he should doubt half of what he believes because people can’t really know those things, and then you’re telling him your own version of physics and why you think it’s flawed — all with never cracking a physics textbook. Now, don’t you agree that is unwise?
The “fine” question – that will, as I said, lead to a discussion of whether it was fitting that Christ was crucified. Homework thing again, and way ahead of 1) and 2).
I stand by what I said originally. You have to know what you are arguing against. We could go back to your statement in the beginning, but you still need to explain how an infinitely loving being can despise His creation.
1) Sorry, was that a “yes” or a “no”? I too believe that people can discover the truth, but I am also aware that believing with absolute conviction in things which are not true is a common human trait. Are you?
2) Well my original statement was offered with the request to correct it where it went wrong. I thought it would be easily tweaked, but apparently it is not. So I was taking your judge/speeder analogy to be an accurate articulation of your particular soteriology. If it is not, then I can hardly be blamed for it.
Shall we take it as so? I am happy for the discussion to go wherever it will lead.
jandm,
1) I can’t answer the question because it presumes that something is definitely false first. Do you understand that?
You are saying:
-A is absolutely false.
-But some people believe A is true.
-Therefore, that some people believe with “absolute conviction in things which are not true is a common human trait.”
This is a logical fallacy based on an assumed premise. You don’t know that A is absolutely false, and if you do, then yes, you’ve just called into question man’s ability to reason.
2) We can tweak your original statement, that’s what Val addressed. The judge analogy is just that, an analogy. The Church does not teach, however, that God is a bearded judge in the sky. He is the ultimate being, the thing that no greater thing can be thought. So when you say, “Who judges the judge?” it demonstrates a lack of understanding. Are you familiar with the Unmoved Mover, First Cause arguments? That’s where thinking about these things comes from. So when we try to put it into words, we have to think about what perfect Love and perfect Justice mean. Thus, God cannot despise those He loves. That’s a contradiction. It’s “inconceivable.”
Stacy, you can’t answer the question because “it presumes something is definitely false”? That if you know something is definitely false, then “you’ve just called into question man’s ability to reason”?
But half an hour before this you said that you “believe people can discover the truth” (and, by logical extension, what is false). “That’s why we are successful with science.”
So now we can’t do science without calling into question man’s ability to reason? That’s the fastest theory or knowledge turnaround I have ever witnessed!
It’s odd, this reluctance to acknowledge the uncontroversial fact that people can believe with absolute conviction things which are not true. Howard does the same (above). If you were in a bar together, drinking your chocolate Martinis, G&Ts, and vodkas, I’m sure you would happily agree to this proposition. The Church itself is not shy of talking frankly and unambiguously about true and false beliefs.
Yet when an atheist says the same thing, you all scurry away to hide behind the skirts of epistemological relativism.
Why is that, do you think?
I do not say, nor have I ever said, “who judges the judge?” – so it demonstrates nothing about my understanding. Please do not attribute to me words I did not say.
I asked “to whom does the judge pay the fine?” The fact is, your judge analogy does show up some interesting logical problems. God is represented by the judge, but God is also the lawmaker, and the holder of the city’s purse strings. How can he “pay the fine” to himself with his own money? It is illogical in the same way as if you owed me ten dollars and I said – “Don’t worry, I shall pay myself back”, then removed ten dollars from my left pocket, and placed it in my right.
jandm,
Read the very first part, “Introduction to Argument.” It’s basic logic 101, and this website is one you’ll read hopefully.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
You are presuming a false premise to arrive at a conclusion that you predetermined. I’m not backing off of my #1 up there either until you tell me specifically how you determine whether something is true or not. What constitutes proof to you? You say something is absolutely false. I just want to know how you figured that.
I do believe people can discover the truth. To believe anything requires some investment of faith. You do this every day in your life. It is necessary. If you believe any of science is true, it’s because you reasoned it based on criteria that you accept.
If you want to know what I think, how I decided Christianity is true, how I decided that the creed is true, I’ll tell you that. I’m a scientist, I work through things systematically. It a) must be based on experimental evidence, empirical evidence and it b) must be reasonable. I prayed, I tested the teaching of the Church in my life, I read, I thought about it, and I found faith not only to be reasonable, but also to be true. I reject atheism, and I know exactly what I reject.
So there, you reject Christ. Do you know what you reject?
“The Church itself is not shy of talking frankly and unambiguously about true and false beliefs.”
That’s exactly right. But unlike you She does not make a declarative statement as if it were true with absolutely no reason offered in support of it.
“Yet when an atheist says the same thing, you all scurry away to hide behind the skirts of epistemological relativism.”
{shrug} I’m pretty sure we haven’t spoken before today, but all I’ve asked you to provide is the basis for your declaration.
You: Christianity is false.
Me: On what basis?
Do you want me to just accept what you say blindly?
You are putting words into my mouth again! Please point out this false premise upon which I am basing my predetermined conclusion. Do you mean “Christianity is false”? Where did I say that?
We cannot discuss anything unless you address what I am actually saying, rather than what you imagine I am saying.
jandm,
“I asked “to whom does the judge pay the fine?””
Same thing. It’s an analogy. Analogies, by definition, are not perfect reconstructions. We are speaking of God, the analogy demonstrates a point, but the analogy is not the fullness of the doctrine of salvation.
“Do you mean “Christianity is false”?”
Here, in the discussion about the truth of Christ. I asked on what basis did you dismiss half the history (and all the saints) and accept the other. You said, “I am also aware that believing with absolute conviction in things which are not true is a common human trait.” Then, instead of answering my question, you asked if I think people can believe things that are not true. Sorry, but I took that to mean that you are saying Christianity is false.
Let’s make this easy. People can believe anything. We are (or at least I’m trying) talking about *on what basis* do you decide if something is true or not.
I answered that, you have not.
Apology accepted.
Actually, I decide if something is true or not on pretty much the same basis as you do. Like you, I take a pretty scientific view: empirical evidence, not contrary reason and logic, that kind of thing.
That’s why I’m so fascinated by this sidetrack. That people can believe with absolute conviction in things which are not true is empirically demonstrable. I thought it would be something we could agree on – witness the passion of the suicide bomber, for example – so I was intrigued by your reluctance to accept it.
Now I think I see where it is coming from. You thought I was using this fact as “proof” that Christianity is false. I wasn’t. That would be silly.
jandm,
OK, well we’re confined to comboxes.
Suicide bombers — we agree.
It’s just that we weren’t talking about suicide bombers, but OK, yeah, I guess I just got lost.
So back to your opening statement.
“The discussion should centre on the likelihood of this 2nd Jesus existing, and would do so by examining the evidence available.”
Yes, people can place belief in things foolishly. I guess a direct question is good. Do you believe that Christ worked miracles, rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven? What supporting evidence do you have?
How’s that?
Perhaps the fact that my proposition was rather clumsily worded contributed to your getting lost? Having slept on it, I have come up with a clearer and more scientific sounding statement. Do you think this is true?
“Human beings are prone to making a wide variety of cognitive errors which frequently lead to the adoption false beliefs.”
I hope we can agree on that – especially when you note that this proposition is entirely compatible with Christianity being 100% true.
As to your two questions, my answers are
1) No, I don’t believe that Christ worked miracles, rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.
2) I have the same evidence as you have.
But, as I suggested in my very first post, I’d rather leave this part of the discussion to a later stage, if that’s ok with you. To talk about the historical truth of the story before deciding whether or not the story itself actually makes sense seems to be a bit cart-before-the-horse.
I’ll write another post below.
jandm,
“Human beings are prone to making a wide variety of cognitive errors which frequently lead to the adoption false beliefs.”
They can if they have lazy intellects or wild imaginations.
You say you have the same evidence, but that is impossible. If you’ve never made an act of faith, you can’t know empirically what it is. It’s like saying, “Gravity is false.” I say, “Why? Have you dropped a ball before?” You say, “No, and that is my empirical evidence.”
They can if they have lazy intellects or wild imaginations.
Not really. You just have to be human. If you are not aware of the wide variety of cognitive errors the brain is prone to (most people are not), you cannot guard against them. It’s a common, but forgivable, sin.
I sense that you are still very resistant to accepting this as a common phenomenon.
Then you start talking about two different kinds of evidence. On the one hand, there is the evidence to which we both have access – the gospels, and a handful of extra-biblical references to Jesus. On the other, your personal conviction born of an “act of faith”. We can rationally assess the former, but the latter is evidence just for you, and leads to no useful discussion.
In fact, it just shuts down discussion, like saying “If you were as convinced as I am, you’d be convinced as I am. But as you’re not as convinced as I am, you can never understand how being as convinced as I am is actually really strong evidence that I am right to be as convinced as I am.”
Sorry, Stacy. Conviction is cheap. It’s not good evidence for the truth of any proposition.
I suspect that this is why you are so reluctant to accept my uncontroversial “cognitive errors” statement.
Comment Ah, Jandm, I don’t normally engage nameless adversaries, but you presented such a skillfully disguised mine field in your summary that it begs a response. The problem with your presentation is that it ignores the possibility that logic and intellect are compatible with faith. Stacy is kindly leading you to reference materials in the hope that you want answers, whereas I, being a skeptical male, make no such assumption. I simply want you to ask reasonable questions. Much of your summary of what we believe is correct, but the errors make the logic fatally flawed.
Failure to believe in God is more stupid than it is sinful, so I wouldn’t worry about despicable infinite torment for that one. Those of us who hope we could die for our beliefs still wonder if we’re right. Faith, by definition, is believing in the unbelievable. I would be as big a fool for claiming I could prove that God exsts as another would be for claiming to prove that he doesn’t. The whole beauty of faith is that it is an act of the will.
As for sin. Well in offer to omit grave sin there are three components, (they don’t teach this stuff in coffee shops and bars, you kind of have to go to the source, thus, Stacy’s references) Here they are: For a sin to be “mortal” it must. 1) Actually BE of sufficient gravity. Adultery is a mortal sin, breaking your diet isn’t. 2) The actor must KNOW that is it a mortal sin. High school kids who use the condoms mommy gave them are nowhere near as culpable for their sin as mommy is. 3) The sin must be willfully consummated. So, my friend you have inadvertently stumbled upon what some refer to as the seventh sacrament, i.e. IGNORANCE. Ta da! Ignorance of man’s law in no excuse, but ignoranc of God’s is.
Now, Jandm, this does NOT exempt man from that natural law, imprinted on every heart, that we refer to as, conscience. You know exactly what I am talking about, violence, deceit, adultery theft, dishonesty. So, in summary, God judges a man by how he responded to God, insofar as he was able to do so. And HERE is the Church’s gift to mankind. This is real important stuff, Jandm, relative to your summary! You are trying cleverly make the point that to believe in a just God who would do something as unjust as creating Hell for those who don’t believe in him is laughable. The fact of the matter is that Jesus, REPEATEDLY taught over and over again that being religious means nothing if you don’t live well. Read the parable of the Good Samaritan closely. IT IS DOGMA THAT CATHOLICS MAY NOT BELIEVE, WITH CERTAINTY, THAT ANYBODY IS IN HELL!!! See, if you want to find out who’s in Hell, go ask a new evangelical…they’ll tell you that everybody who don’t know the secret handshake or have enough highlighter in their Bible, is. We stupid Catholics don’t believe that, cause we believe in, ready, here it comes….PURGATORY!
But, that my friend, is subject that we can discuss all of next year. Sorry, Stacy, but since you now own a lake, I thought you needed a big can of worms.
^^^^ Read that jandm. Listen to him.
Thanks, Val. I’ve tweaked my summary in light of your clarification. Main alterations in bold:
God, an omniscient, omnipotent, infinitely loving being, created the universe and human beings. These human beings, having been given free will, fell short of God’s high expectations by sinning. This separated human beings from God – how can fallen, imperfect man be in the presence of the Infinitely Perfect? In order to reconnect with God, a Perfect Sacrifice had to be made to repay the infinite Debt of Sin. The only being qualified to make the Perfect Sacrifice is God Himself, so He came to earth in human form and was crucified. Now we humans have a path back to God if only we accept His sacrifice. Those who reject this sacrifice are stupidly rejecting His Infinite Mercy and so remain in Sin – something vaguely punishable by either purgatory or eternity in Hell, but nobody really knows for sure. All things being equal it’s best to accept the sacrifice and receive infinite bliss as the reward.
Is that better?
Why not use the one already formulated?
I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
with the Father;
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic,
and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection
of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
Stacy, that certainly has the virtue of simplicity, but it doesn’t really go very deep, does it?
jandm,
Are you drawing cartoons of us yet?
If you do the one where we’re all sitting in a bar talking about religion, order me a chocolate martini. Howard and Val can tell you what they like.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
It is summer…so…a gin and tonic please. Who is paying?
Jandm, are those ghosts, Muslims or bank robbers?
Stacy, really CHOCOLATE in a well made drink, unthinkable. VAl, As for my gin, it’s only us 4 reading this isn’t it?
Stacy, not bad, Howard, disgraceful! A good Catholic man drinking gin before noon. For the love of God, man, think of your family. Vodka, Howard, only vodka before noon! A Bloody Mary for me please, with extra celery…I’m on a diet.
Ah, but there are silent thousands, Howard, don’t you know?
BTW, I have this round, and as for Stacy…a warrior,
but kind of a girl.
OMG!
there is another here reading this discussion, and while reading it could not help but reflect partly on Pascal’s wager – analyzes these possibilities and concludes that one possibility …. is committed to either believe in God or not, there is no in-between, no neutral ground … God Exists, God does not Exist.
this relates back to what Val wrote:”that to believe in a just God who would do something as unjust as creating Hell for those who don’t believe in him is laughable.” and also to what jandm wrote: “All that is necessary is to acknowledge that it is a very common human trait to believe with absolute conviction in something which is not true.”
In the many years I spent in industrial construction, I’ve worked with many who said they were athiest but at the same time would take our Lord God’s name in vain when they hit their thumb with a hammer. If they are athiest why would they chose those words?
I’m not much of a drinker so would settle for a large sweet ice tea but the chocholate martinai sounds interesing.
Since this topic is on atheism, want to share this short video from Fr. Dusty Burns on the topic. I like it when Fr. Burns say’s it takes more faith to be a atheist than a Christian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBCvF5cQ8HQ
Richard, the Protestants also teach the same message – TV programs and book.
.
http://crossexamined.org/tv.aspComment
When I put the link it I thought just the link would show up, did not realize the screen to come up.
Richard, that’s OK, WordPress converts it. Fr. Burns is excellent! I think of that Aquinas quote a LOT. Thank you Richard.
OK, so your judge/speeder analogy was just an analogy, as you say, but it is a useful starting point to examine the Doctrine of Salvation. The judge pays the speeder’s fine to himself; or he puts himself in the slammer for 30 days to satisfy his own sense of Perfect Justice and Perfect Mercy.
Let’s strip away the analogy. This is what God does, and it raises a number of reasonable questions:
1) How can you repay a debt to yourself? As my analogy of removing ten dollars from one pocket and replacing it in the other while saying “behold, I repay your ten dollar debt to me” shows – it is not logical.
2) By what definition of Justice is it acceptable for someone else to be punished for a crime you committed? How is justice – let alone Perfect Justice – satisfied by the judge putting himself in the slammer for 30 days?
Here’s another analogy for you. A father is at home looking after his six children. They are told not to misbehave, or they will be punished with a slipper to the backside. Of course, they do misbehave. The father, being Perfectly Merciful, does not want them to suffer punishment, but being also Perfectly Just, must see to it that punishment is administered. So he takes of his slipper and repeatedly whacks his backside with it until his buttocks are red raw. “Behold children, I am taking your punishment for you,” he tells them tearfully. “Be grateful!”
Is it reasonable for the children to worship this man?
There are more questions about this central premise of Christianity, which I am sure you must have considered before deciding that the story was reasonable. But I’ll save them until you have shared your thoughts on these initial ones.
“This is what God does…”
No, that is how God chose to communicate to us. He made invisible things visible. God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in any way at all.
By the mystery of Incarnation are made known at once the goodness, the wisdom, the justice, and the power or might of God–”His goodness, for He did not despise the weakness of His own handiwork; His justice, since, on man’s defeat, He caused the tyrant to be overcome by none other than man, and yet He did not snatch men forcibly from death; His wisdom, for He found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; His power, or infinite might, for there is nothing greater than for God to become incarnate…” -Quoting St. Thomas who quotes Damascene from the 7th century
A perfectly loving God would only want to communicate as well – to lead mankind to the truth. The idea of justice and paying debt for wronging your fellow man is for *us* to learn how to live better. Mercy and justice are good things, no?
“God was made man, that man might be made God.” St. Augustine 4th century
Well, I’m not sure that really address my questions. You quote St Thomas at me, but he simply assumes the very concepts I am questioning: “goodness, wisdom, and justice”
Let’s take it bit by bit.
God is “good” because “He did not despise the weakness of His own handiwork”. God intentionally created what he created to be exactly the way it is. His omniscience logically proves this – if you do something in the full knowledge of how it will turn out, you do it intentionally. He deserves credit for not despising his own handiwork? If I were to design a little robot which tootles around the house squirting oil on the carpet, I should get credited for my “goodness” for “not despising” it when it does exactly that?
God is “just” because he overcame the tyrant by sacrificing himself (“none other than man” is disingenuous). Again, the question is raised about what kind of justice this is that another is punished in the place of the perpetrator. To communicate an example, you say? Then my self-slippering father makes just as much sense as a communicator to his children – is that a good way to teach your children how to live better?
God is “wise” because he “found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt”. Yes, we’ve already questioned the logic of that: you can’t repay a debt to yourself. There has still been no answer to this, except that it’s some kind of a teaching moment.
Yes, mercy and justice are good things, but your god’s definitions of “justice” and “good” are frankly perverse. It’s almost as if the whole story were dreamt up by a committee…
jandm: you wrote “The judge pays the speeder’s fine to himself; or he puts himself in the slammer for 30 days to satisfy his own sense of Perfect Justice and Perfect Mercy.” No the money did not go into the pocket of the judge but into the court system that all fines goes to. Only a crooked judge, of which there are, would put the money in his pocket.
Then you wrote: “The father, being Perfectly Merciful, does not want them to suffer punishment, but being also Perfectly Just, must see to it that punishment is administered. So he takes of his slipper and repeatedly whacks his backside with it until his buttocks are red raw. “Behold children, I am taking your punishment for you,” he tells them tearfully. “Be grateful.” In your own words you just described what Christ did for all of us on the Cross.
In your own words you just described what Christ did for all of us on the Cross.
Why thank you, Richard. I was quite pleased with the analogy myself. Our hostess accused me of creating a “straw god”, so I am very pleased to receive the endorsement of a believer.
From now on, when I think of the Christian god, I will imagine an eternal, ineffable, omniscient, omnipotent being of divine perfection, repeatedly spanking Himself on the arse with a slipper, and weeping.
JandM, your cognitive error rule is flawed and you are trying to use it incorrectly. I read you to say that you are trying to make it a reason for not using peoples belief as a proof of God because people make mistakes. The reason I resist so strongly is that I think you have an understanding of what constitutes belief that is different in understanding, intensity and complexity from my own. I would agree that people can be wrong as well as right. That statement acknowledges error but does not assume a reason.
.
All Persons are born with two ears. Very minor exceptions exist, I assume, with the very few that are born with one or none or some other configuration. The purpose of ears is to direct sound waves into the inner portion of the head to allow perception of sounds. The overwhelming percent of the world population says they believe in a God. A very primitive and limited understanding. It does not necessarily go as far as to define a particular religion. A small portion claims not to acknowledge the existence of a God (I think it is rejection instead) and some believe in multiple Gods and demons or spirits. The only purpose I can see for this built in feature in humans is to give us a starting point for the further understanding of the God that made us.
.
Jeremiah 24:7 “Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart.”
.
There are many stories of people who have loudly denied God then later in their life prayed to him. This large scale “belief” cannot be ignored and called “cognitive errors”. People make mistakes, but we as individuals do not control the number of ears we are born with. As we are required to learn to understand sounds, to make sense of them as in understanding English, we are also required to understand and relate to God. I see no difference in this aspect of our nature, God being revealed by human belief, than any other that we are born with.
.
This question has bothered me more than this whole conversation, what are the two characters in your avatar, or do you know?
Left to right: Mohammed and Jesus.
Are they to scale?
You do realize that satire has nothing to do with truth.
jandmo,
You are all over the place, and you are wasting my time if you can’t do what I asked in the original post. It’s time for me to move on to #3 now. Have fun with your straw-gods.
I suspect you’ve got too much invested in that website to think critically beyond it. It’s hard to let go of your personal dogma. I know all about that.
Actually, it is your theology which is all over the place. I am not creating a straw god, I am describing the straw god which you believe in. Oh well, I can’t *make* you examine your beliefs if you don’t want to. You are perfectly entitled to ignore my questions.
I do think you should rewrite your original post, though. “9 ways to win every debate with an atheist”
1. Patronize him
2. Misquote him
3. Argue against a proposition he has not made
4. Pretend to be an epistemological relativist
5. Stop pretending to be an epistemological relativist
6. Claim that personal conviction is evidence for truth
7. Ignore his questions
8. Run away
Win!
Enjoy your victory, Stacy.
jandm,
We never really started because you didn’t:
1) Define what constitutes proof for you to believe something.
2) Articulate Church teaching accurately before arguing against it.
I’ve held to this all along, and only chased tangents when you led that way. I’ve answered your questions, even the loaded ones. I’ve never once used the words “personal conviction.” I’ve referenced my sources.
Yes, I know, I’m so unreasonable. I expected a cartoonist who ridicules people to challenge his understanding of the them. Yes, I’m unreasonable.
Anyhoo…
{she does a victory dance}
Uh oh, somebody wandered into Jandm’s mine field. These people do what they do because they are deeply concerned about your soul. Me, I wish you well but, like I said before, your faith is yours, truth is truth, so unless you guys have found a way to cheat death…we’ll all find out the details soon enough. Til then, I’m hedging my bets with a set of rosary beads. Call me stupid, I’m OK with that. Don’t mean to be cold, but yours is about number 812 on my list of souls to be worried about. Have a nice day and life, my friend.
Actually Val I am waiting for “The 5″ to come on TV. I love good conversaton and debate. The souls of my family is of immediate importance to me. The more I know people though I have to admit I do pray for them.
I just had a quick question, what primary source document references Jesus? The Bible is not a primary source document.
Fred,
How you are defining primary sources then?
Fred, the concept of a primary source didn’t exist in the time of Jesus. It’s a concept developed by modernists, the idea being that unless there you leave a paper trail, you didn’t exist. But of course plenty of people existed in the old days who didn’t leave a paper trail.
Good news, though. A reputable Jewish historian named Flavius Josephus wrote two major histories around 90 AD. One of them was called the Antiquities of the Jews, and is universally accepted by scholars as authentic history.
The Antiquities refers on several occasions to Jesus, and admits that he was called Christ. The manuscript refers to the execution of Jesus by the Roman governor, and the later execution of James, the relative of Jesus, also called Christ.
The manuscript also affirms the existence of John the Baptist. This is no surprise because scholars recognized early on that the Gospel writers seemed to be impelled to explain the role of this late-Judean prophet, as there was apparently much discussion about him in the early Church.
In any event, there is a record of Jesus, and a record of the fact that he was viewed by his contemporaries as the Christ.
There is also a famous letter written by Pliny the elder, a Roman bureaucrat from Bithnea, writing to the authorities in Rome for advice on what to do about this strange sect of worshipers who called themselves Christians. He was puzzled that they met on Sundays, read from their sacred readings, sang some strange music in vicem (which is a Latin phrase meaning in a call and response type format, like Gregorian chant). They finished their observance by offering bread in thanksgiving (eucharistia). So yeah, even the ancient pagans recognized the existence of the early Church, and attested that she did what she has done for thousands of years. Administered the sacraments.
This is why I’m Catholic. It’s a pretty rich history. I can imagine if I were a pagan, my history would probably begin, where, with Elvis maybe? Yeah, kind of sad and unsatisfying.
Just because the concept didn’t exist in that time doesn’t make it invalid.
So what you’re saying is that no one who actually witnessed anything that Jesus did wrote something down about it? I don’t know about you, but the first thing I’d do if I saw someone performing miracles would be to record it in some way.
A rich history, eh? I would agree with that. The Crusades are a favorite of mine. I also liked the Spanish Inquisition. My history goes back to the beginning of time, which science’s best guess puts it about 14.6 billion years ago.
“This is why I’m Catholic. It’s a pretty rich history.”
Here, here.
Lets try hooray, I call spell that.
Oh yes Howard, I got your meaning. When I talk to Catholics, reverts or converts, many of them say they were drawn to the Church in part by a growing sense of being part of history.
I love the reverts and the converts most of all. The cradle Catholics are wonderful, but I love the fire of the reverts and the converts.
All these arguments prove that you’re absolutely DEVOID of any capability to confute atheists’ positions. Prof. Margherita Hack (prominent Italian astrophysicist and renown atheist) would simply make mincemeat of your assertions, as she did with Mons. Zenti’s, the bishop of Verona, in a famous debate (never broadcasted on TV, obviously).
Well I’m not so well-cultured like her, so I’ll just remind you some facts.
Please remember that your religion is based on a book that has been disproved a million times by scientific findings and evidence. A book that states that YOU – being a woman – should NOT give lessons to men and should stay quiet and on the back bench. And that’s one of the mildest provisions regarding your sex, of which you are of course in breach by merely creating this blog.
Or maybe are biblical precepts to be shoved down everyone’s throat BUT yours? Perhaps preferably in instalments, cherry-picking them to accurately suit your political o social agenda?
Remember that the horrendous god that you worship is so discriminatory and hateful that has never made an amputated limb grow again by “miracle”. THAT kind of “miracle” has been a men’s preserve, so far. No wonder. He/She must be more occupied (for example) in letting the innocent infants of Africa get defaced by NOMA – by the thousands. Children who have been so far ‘inconspicuously’ cured and saved by modern medicine. Saved children often forcibly enrolled at 14 in some religious/tribal army and massacred in the ensuing war “in our Lord’s name”. Oh, no wonder: after all, He/She’s called “the Lord of Armies”, isn’t it?
“Miracles” do happen, however: they do happen in hospitals. Set aside the astonishing miracles provided by drugs and surgery, every day somewhere a patient gets healed spontaneously by misterious reasons. If this happens in a hospital, there’s no hoo-haa. If it happens in Lourdes or Medjugorje, or after a prayer before a Christian idol, it’s called a “miracle” in screaming TV shows. That must be religion.
In short, you base your FAITH on books full of dubious or plainly false facts and absurd or unjust precepts, which you struggle and scramble to paint as true and good and just. But it’s just a delusional façade of lies and forgeries.
Atheists simply refute and REFUSE your self-serving assertions and fabricated “truths”, especially when they’re brought forth by religious MEN who throughout history have erred more – and more tragically – than Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin altogether: the Popes, self-appointed “Vicars of Christ” and self-declared “infallible” interpreters of “God’s truth”. Humble guys indeed.
Also, you rely on “facts” written in lost and obscure ancient languages that have to be interpreted and translated. Very slippery operations as, you see, over the centuries those “eternally infallible words” have been interpreted and translated in many ways and manners, always differing from time to time and from each other. Compare a Bible from 1600 to the nowadays edition and find the differences: there will be many and many and more.
Many of those prominent differences are ‘surprisingly’ about politics and social morality. Perhaps have they been introduced to accommodate the new democratic/humanistic system values which are the antithesis of the provisions in the ‘traditional’ biblical translations? Coincidence, sure…
Cheers from Italy, the most backwoods and corrupted Catholic country of Europe. No wonder why.
I see, so you set the idea that you win be default?
Depends on how you define win, Mat.
Hi!
I’m an atheist, hope that doesn’t exclude me from commenting.
I believe you are mistaking about winning, even though I’m sure you won’t agree.
1) Definition of proof: If you say you believe in god, i will assume you believe in the biblical god. This god is defined by certain abilities and certain actions. So saying you believe this to be true, is asserting that the bible is correct, and thus YOU are making claims. So it is up to you to present evidence, not up to me to define what proof should mean.
2) Here you talk about making strawman argument about a god based on atheist ideas. As an atheist have no belief in a god, his or her idea of the concept must be based on the religious definitions.
3)You’re last point is the weakest of all. You are certain about god, and his qualities, and that he has a plan, yet you say you don’t comprehend it. THis is a huge paradox. How can you be certain about what you can’t comprehend? It is also dishonest to claim that atheists are looking for god. My main reason for debating the topic is religious intereference and influence in the world.
Also, how is Jesus death a sacrifice when he knew he would rise from the dead, go up to heaven and reign for all eternity?
“How can you be certain about what you can’t comprehend?”
Not much of a problem for anyone who loves their wife.
Or children.
Or anything else.
Love is certain, and cannot be comprehended.
There it is.
As for the necessary existence of God, it is both certain, and comprehensible.
The proof consists in the simple observation that the Universe cannot have created itself.
This logically leads to the necessary deduction that the Universe must have had a *super* natural cause.
The supernatural Cause can, in turn, be deduced to involve certain necessary, logical attributes.
The Cause must be eternal.
The Cause must be One (simple, not composite).
This much was already evident, entirely apart from Faith, to the philosophers, millenia ago, strictly on the basis of reason.