Atheists...

[TheMonkey]

I suppose this is more of a rant than a question, but here goes; Why is it so hard to not get angry at, or even in some cases...well I don't want to use hate, but severely dislike some atheists? I got no problem with someone challenging my beliefs, nor do I have a problem with people having different beliefs than I, even if I pray and wish God reveals himself to them and they accept him, but that really isn't the issue. The issue I'm referring to is one where atheists have the mindset which I can really only sum up as a list, so here goes:

1. People of faith are obviously irrational, and the only rational position to take is that of non belief.
2. God isn't even worthy (apparently) to be thought of in any scientific process.
3. The thought that quantum physics explains everything, despite the only fact about quantum physics is that no one truly understands quantum physics ( I don't have a problem with this per say, but I know it doesn't explain everything).
4. One comment I read on scientificamerican.com in an article, one poster replied that since "people who believe in such nonsense shouldn't be allowed to breed, so that hopefully they'll die off. If they wont accept the FACTS of science, then they shouldn't be allowed to use OUR science for ANY purpose", and yes the individual got praise from many posters for his statements.
5. Any evidence that has God attached to it in any way other than attempting to say "Ha! I told you he wasn't real!" is thrown out the door without even being considered.


Its just unbelievably hard to not want to go off on someone who says these things. I know I should pray about it, and I do, and I never have prayed for vengeance to be brought upon them, but its just so hard for me to not want to beat some common sense into people. Perhaps I take "Defending your faith" a bit to far when it comes to that, but when Christians give them what they ask for, its never good enough.

So what do we do?

TheMonkey knows people who call themselves "religious" will in the extreme twist their canons to what their goals. Do you know Christians who twist scriptures to mean things they don't mean? Do the witch hunts and Spanish inquisition come to mind?

TheMonkey knows that if people of faith do it, then people of "no faith" will do it as well.

TheMonkey's simplest observation on this topic is that when a person wishes to be greater than their God or your God, they will twist things to meet their objective.

Science, in it's purest form, is the study of the structure and behaviour of the world around us. Nowhere in it's purest form, does science omit God, or God, omit science. It is when you wish to omit God that one will twist science to mean something other then the study and observation of the world around us.

TheMonkey, when discussing God and science with non-believers always asks that we agree on a definition of science first. And then suggest to go to Google to find an objective, third party, definition.

Agreeing to a definition such as: (as found when typing "science" into google)

sci·ence
noun /ˈsīəns/ 
sciences, plural

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
- the world of science and technology

A particular area of this
- veterinary science
- the agricultural sciences

A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject
- the science of criminology

Knowledge of any kind

A lot of their arguments will simply melt away. A lot of their "science" arguments don't even meet the definition of science.

For example, the creation of the universe must be taken on blind faith by the believer (as God asked Job in TheMonkey's bible, where were you when I (God) laid the foundations of the world) and by the non-believer for the "big bang" or what ever theory they wish to subscribe to about the origins of the universe can not be studied or knowable. (if you can not study it and it is not knowable (for none of us where there when the universe was created by God or other means, it is not science).

TheMonkey, once in science class, planted a Banana tree, studied and reported on it's growth and ate of its fruit, and it was good.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

TheMonkey knows people who call themselves "religious" will in the extreme twist their canons to what their goals. Do you know Christians who twist scriptures to mean things they don't mean? Do the witch hunts and Spanish inquisition come to mind?

Indeed they do. Did you know heresy actually used to be illegal by secular law? Inquisitions were done by the secular state, mainly, not by the Catholic or Protestant (did the Protestants have Inquisitions?) churches, and punishments for heresy were dealt out by the State, not the Church.

The Enlightenment Era was one of the darkest, scariest times of history...

TheMonkey knows that if people of faith do it, then people of "no faith" will do it as well.

TheMonkey's simplest observation on this topic is that when a person wishes to be greater than their God or your God, they will twist things to meet their objective.

Science, in its purest form, is the study of the structure and behaviour of the world around us. Nowhere in it's purest form, does science omit God, or God, omit science. It is when you wish to omit God that one will twist science to mean something other then the study and observation of the world around us.

Very much so. The true sceptic is not one who dogmatically believes in God or not in God, but the one who believes in God or does not because of the evidence he finds on Earth and beyond the Earth. Only his experiences are what make his beliefs. I would say the Apostles were, in that way, far better sceptics than most atheists.

TheMonkey, when discussing God and science with non-believers always asks that we agree on a definition of science first. And then suggest to go to Google to find an objective, third party, definition.

Agreeing to a definition such as: (as found when typing "science" into google)



A lot of their arguments will simply melt away. A lot of their "science" arguments don't even meet the definition of science.

That is a good idea. How much more quickly we could settle arguments if only we'd agree on the definitions, first.

For example, the creation of the universe must be taken on blind faith by the believer (as God asked Job in TheMonkey's bible, where were you when I (God) laid the foundations of the world) and by the non-believer for the "big bang" or what ever theory they wish to subscribe to about the origins of the universe can not be studied or knowable. (if you can not study it and it is not knowable (for none of us where there when the universe was created by God or other means, it is not science).

I would not say "blind faith"; blind faith is trusting someone you have no good reason to trust. I trust Christ because said He was God, and because He was God, He would rise from the dead. And indeed He rose from the dead. I trust He rose because the testimony to His resurrection - however improbable - survives to this day. I trust the testimony because circumstantially, it seems a miracle that the testimony was written so soon after Christ's resurrection, and was not discredited after 10, 20 years.

(For perspective, Christ rose from the dead and ascended c. 29-33 AD. Saint Paul's letters and many of the Catholic letters were written between 50 and 70 AD, the earliest being 1 Thessalonians. The Gospels were written beginning from 70 AD with Mark's [there are also claims of a "proto-gospel" which was written c. 50 AD]. John's Gospel was only written around 90-100 AD. That is only 60-70 years after Christ rose from the dead. All in all, three Gospels and several letters had already been written by around 70-80 AD, and they'd been passed around orally already for 20 years before that. Surely the Christians would have been laughed out of existence by 20 years - every other would-be "Messiah" had been. As Gamaliel said in Acts 5: 38-39 to the other Pharisees: "Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God." And look: Theodas and Judas of Galilee are footnotes on the pages of history. But Christ rose from the dead, and His following continues to this day! )

I also believe Christ because He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, and that the pillar and foundation of Truth is the Church (this Saint Paul said). And His Church survives to this day.

How could I believe anything less than what He promised?

To any atheists who may read this, this is why I believe in the Old Testament - because the New Testament fulfilled it, and through the New Testament the Old was made complete. Christ's resurrection validates Judaism and Christianity.

TheMonkey, once in science class, planted a Banana tree, studied and reported on its growth and ate of its fruit, and it was good.

Couldn't ask for more. Thanks, TheMonkey.

 

[Patriot]

Did you know heresy actually used to be illegal by secular law? Inquisitions were done by the secular state, mainly, not by the Catholic or Protestant (did the Protestants have Inquisitions?) churches, and punishments for heresy were dealt out by the State, not the Church.

I'd love to see your source. The information I'm reading says that it was a function of both the church and state.

 

[Abba San]

Actually - of the four major Inquisitions only one was under royal authority (the Spanish Inquisition) - the other three were under the authority of the Catholic Church. Protestants were either not in existence or had no power.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

I'd love to see your source. The information I'm reading says that it was a function of both the church and state.

I believe I am wrong, and you are right. Originally, the concept of heresy was only a religious one, believed in by the early Christian Church. However, ways to suppress heresy were practically none before the intercession of Emperor Constantine the Great in the 300s.

Arianism, Nestorianism, the Marcionites, and other heresies could be cast out of orthodox communities, but it could never be truly crushed. However, when Emperor Constantine stepped in and legalised Christianity, the bishops could finally decide what was and was not heresy, for all the Church. And by around 380 AD, the State (for whatever reason) criminalized heresy, beginning with the Edict of Thessalonica.

To be continued...

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Inquisition according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia.

To paraphrase them, for the first three centuries of Christianity, Christians no longer practised the killing of heretics as was prescribed by the Torah. Instead, heretics were excommunicated, which one could say is the spiritual equivalent of killing a heretic.

However, St. Constantine the Great's stepping into the life of the Church had two effects: the first was allowing Christians to sort out orthodoxy from heresy. The second was the temporal, material protection and overseeing of the Church. In other words, future emperors and kings saw it as their right and duty to protect the true Church and punish heretics. For the first four or five centuries, it appears most of the bishops were against this use of force against heretics. And rightly so. As Saint Augustine of Hippo once wrote: "We wish them corrected, not put to death; we desire the triumph of (ecclesiastical) discipline, not the death penalties that they deserve."

In later centuries, overzealous heretics like the Cathars, the Manichaeans, and the Donatists spread over Europe. For fear of the State, several emperors and kings did hang and execute heretics.

Yes, the Catholic Church did prescribe sentences to heretics, as atonements, rather than true punishments. Remember, Our Lord wants all men to be saved; He wills not one of His sheep to be lost to the hungry wolves Satan sets on us. Sometimes, however, the bishops did sanction executions of some heretics.

More to come. And of course, if you have the time and are interested, you can read the article yourself.

 

[Wolfeman]

How did this go from a question about dealing with athiests and what they do/don't believe to a Catholic version of History and it's dealing with religious heretics (as defined by the Catholic Church)?

 

[Abba San]

Good point, Wolfeman. Thanks for the heads up.

If the intended discussion has finished its course, fine...stop posting and the thread will slide down the page.

If there is more to say ON THE INITIAL QUESTION, fine...let's get back on track.

Any other discussion should be in another thread.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Forgive me. To sum it up, generally speaking I was wrong in that secular authorities were the only ones to have inquisitions. It was done by the Church, in fact begun by the Church, for the sake of preservation of orthodoxy when other forms of punishment or atonement were not working. Like the death penalty, it was something of a last resort.

That said, since secular authorities have severed their ties with the Church, Inquisitions are no longer had, and once again, the only thing we can do is excommunicate heretics.

Now, what does this have to do with atheism? Modern, western atheism is itself is a heresy, sprung from the rationalistic minds of the Enlightenment Era, far darker than any other in history.

When people began believing whatever they wanted to believe rather than what was true and good, it was only natural that philosophy should gravitate towards placing oneself - that is, mankind - before all else. To this day modern heresy's home, in the north and west of Europe, still bears a strong atheist presence. Yet even the heresy of atheism - like any other of the thousands of heresies - can still be overcome.

 

[Abba San]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, atheism is an apostasy, not a heresy. But that doesn't really matter here.

Let me be a little clearer...the original question on this thread was:

The issue I'm referring to is one where atheists have the mindset which I can really only sum up as a list...So what do we do?

I'm interpreting that as, How do we relate to atheists?

Let's focus there, if more needs to be said.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, atheism is an apostasy, not a heresy. But that doesn't really matter here.

I'll leave this alone...

Let me be a little clearer...the original question on this thread was:

I'm interpreting that as, How do we relate to atheists?

Let's focus there, if more needs to be said.

Quite simple: we prove them wrong.

Generally, the problem is that atheists think that Christians are unscientific and gullible and stupid.

Oh, if only they knew the number of contributions Moslems, Christians, and religious Jews have made to science. Several important discoveries have been made by Christian scientists...

And while we may believe in the flood, the Fall of Man, and other scientifically improbable things, it is only in the light of the Resurrection - equally improbable. BUT I find it difficult to ignore the fact that many of the epistles were probably written around 17-30 years after the event, and survived without a single lick of criticism. And the first Gospels were written 40 years afterwards. Yet somehow Christianity wasn't ridiculed out of existence or destroyed or disbanded within the first few decades...

Other potential Messiahs all died out. Their followers have long since died out, too. Yet Christ remains, strong as ever... remarkable considering the opposition He faced... and considering the amazing claims He made - to be the Son of God, and that He rose from the dead...

The Bible, the Church, and Christ are miracles.

The things I mentioned, charity, patience, and love are the tools for opening up the hearts of atheists.

 

[Wolfeman]

Of course that logic falls apart when you consider the Muslim faith is around 1400 years old, has 2/3's the adherents that Christianity does and is growing while Christianity is shrinking. According to your logic, that makes them the correct religion.

The best way to deal with an athiest is to live a life that projects Christ. Do the things a Christian is supposed to do. Stop living and acting like an unsaved person while telling them they need to be saved. Witness to them both verbally and nonverbally. So many people in America reject what Christ has to offer because of the Christians they know. The mind of an athiest is clouded by their own thoughts. You can argue with them all you want. All you do is convince them even more that they are right and you are an ignorant flat earther. I speak as a man who was once an athiest. It was my wife's silent, faithful testimony that made me finally want to explore what she had. It was then that Christ opened my heart.

 

[Patriot]

So many people in America reject what Christ has to offer because of the Christians they know.

God doesn't accept this excuse and neither do I. If they have heard the true Gospel message then what other Christians say and do is inconsequential. At that point they are just grasping for some excuse as to why they don't want to repent.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Of course that logic falls apart when you consider the Muslim faith is around 1400 years old, has 2/3's the adherents that Christianity does and is growing while Christianity is shrinking. According to your logic, that makes them the correct religion.

...

...how? I fail to see the logic behind your statement. Just because a religion is trendy doesn't mean it is correct. That has nothing to do with my argument.

Mohammed's book was discovered (probably written) by one man and one man alone. There is no evidence for anything that happened to him except for his own testimony - which, one must believe, came to Mohammed from the Angel Gabriel. Unlike Christianity, Mohammedans claim that the Koran pretty much came directly from God to Mohammed, with absolutely no middle man. (Reminds you of a certain American in the 1800s... doesn't it?)

The Newt Testament completely centers itself around the purported resurrection of Christ, who claimed to be the Son of God, and who claimed he could rise from the dead in three days because of such. This is not the kind of claim you make on a whim, and certainly not within such a short amount of time as 18-40 years.

The best way to deal with an athiest is to live a life that projects Christ. Do the things a Christian is supposed to do. Stop living and acting like an unsaved person while telling them they need to be saved. Witness to them both verbally and nonverbally. So many people in America reject what Christ has to offer because of the Christians they know.

Yes. The second greatest commandment is "love thy neighbour". And Christ and His Apostles and evangelists tell us how to do this.

The mind of an athiest is clouded by their own thoughts. You can argue with them all you want. All you do is convince them even more that they are right and you are an ignorant flat earther. I speak as a man who was once an athiest. It was my wife's silent, faithful testimony that made me finally want to explore what she had. It was then that Christ opened my heart.

Thank you for your testimony. Perhaps the best argument of all is love.

Still, when difficult questions come up, it's good to have answers. Or to know someone who does. Christianity's more than a lifestyle. It's a lifestyle based on certain beliefs.

God doesn't accept this excuse and neither do I. If they have heard the true Gospel message then what other Christians say and do is inconsequential. At that point they are just grasping for some excuse as to why they don't want to repent.

I can understand how it would be hard for an atheist to grasp that the truth lies in the hands of what he perceives to be barbaric thugs. If that's all he sees as examples of Christians, it can be a hard pill to swallow.

I thank God the people around me are, for the most part, fairly cordial even to atheists and never rude to them. I can trust you guys are good examples to atheists for the most part.

 

[Wolfeman]

God doesn't accept this excuse and neither do I. If they have heard the true Gospel message then what other Christians say and do is inconsequential. At that point they are just grasping for some excuse as to why they don't want to repent.

If they are looking for an excuse, they will find one. But we need to do our best not to be it.

I've talked to numerous people about salvation since I was saved. The vast majority claim to already be saved or at least pretty sure they are going to Heaven (because they were Baptized as a child or they belong to a certain church or they've never done anything that wrong or a bunch of other non Bible based reasons). Most of the ones who want nothing to do with salvation fall into three basic categories. Either they believe Science holds all the answers and want nothing to do with something that will weaken the mind, they are too happy in their sins to give them up and might do it later, or they want nothing to do with Christianity because of the Christians they know (or have seen on TV).

God will not accept any excuse. But they are out there for the taking by the handful. We just need to be sure we show the pure light in us instead of hiding it under a basket for fear the world will reject us.

 

[Wolfeman]

...

...how? I fail to see the logic behind your statement. Just because a religion is trendy doesn't mean it is correct. That has nothing to do with my argument.

The part of your argument I took issue with was that longevity + lots of converts = correct. I may have twisted some of what you said to make my point but it's what an athiest will do as well.

I agree with everything you say about Christianity but when arguing with an athiest you have to not only present facts but you must present them in a manner that prevents them from arguing back.

You say Christ rose from the dead and that's what makes Christianity different. An athiest will point to the lies that His apostles stole His body to make it look like he rose. Then he will explain that since Christ didn't' really rise like everyone believes, that just makes those who believe in His Resurrection too dumb to check known facts and haters of science.

At least that's what I did as an athiest...

 

[Patriot]

If they are looking for an excuse, they will find one. But we need to do our best not to be it.

...

God will not accept any excuse. But they are out there for the taking by the handful. We just need to be sure we show the pure light in us instead of hiding it under a basket for fear the world will reject us.

Even at our best we are still sinners saved by grace. We will mess up. Christ is our example and He is the one we need to be pointing non-believers to (atheists and the like). I'm not saying we should give up and live in sin, I'm just saying that an atheist can look at even the most devout believer and find something that they can point to and say "hypocrite".

I did always like the sports analogy, however. You don't quit rooting for a team because others who are rooting for the team might be hypocritical. You could always throw that at a sports loving atheist. . .

 

[Wolfeman]

Even at our best we are still sinners saved by grace. We will mess up. Christ is our example and He is the one we need to be pointing non-believers to (atheists and the like). I'm not saying we should give up and live in sin, I'm just saying that an atheist can look at even the most devout believer and find something that they can point to and say "hypocrite".

I did always like the sports analogy, however. You don't quit rooting for a team because others who are rooting for the team might be hypocritical. You could always throw that at a sports loving atheist. . .

I think I'm arguing that apples are apples and you're saying that oranges are oranges. People who are looking for an excuse will always find one (Satan's really good at giving excuses). We will always mess up but we should still always strive to be better examples because we are the first example the unsaved look to. Our actions, speech and lives should all always point to Him more than they do.

 

[PANIC!!!]

Well.....

When it is said that atheists have a "problem" with religion, it's going on opinionated views from one particular side. Cause so many Christians have a "problem" with disbelief; I've seen plenty of "saintly" Christians publicly presenting death threats (or worse) to anyone who even seems to be of different mindset. While atheists (the ones I've seen) can display the same manner, usually not through as they follow not a Divine Being but rather as they believe to be a simple truth, so they don't usually get so upset over the matter. Just think of these generalizations about massive groups of people is unfair. Also getting in an argument over the internet is usually not a good idea.