Atheism

[Kosh]

K, getting into a debate with an atheist in the comments on Digg, and wondered what your thoughts were on the following questions: What is logic/reason based on? Did mankind's brains evolve over time? How would you defend your beliefs to an atheist who won't care about the bible/chatechism?

Gracias, amigos.


~T3h K0sh

[123]

[quote]What is logic/reason based on?[/quote]


In a small form: No God, No rules, No sin, "Freedom"

Atheists claim that they have no religion/or god, but sadly that is absurdity because, everyone holds something in their life that is god-like to them. Atheists take the lazy way out of being a believer. There is no spiritual commitment and therefore if they dont want to do it they dont have to.

Edited October 24, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Thy Geekdom Come]

1. Logic is based on philosophical principles which allow us to derive conclusions from certain given premises.

2. I don't believe in evolution. Besides, the Church would say that man doesn't evolve in a way that would allow us to answer that question. Even if evolution is true, the final form of man's brain was established when man came into being. In other words, if you claim that Adam evolved from chimps, you cannot claim that we evolved from Adam...or even that Cain, Abel, and Seth evolved from Adam. Man is man. Adam has the same biology as we have.

3. I would still defend my beliefs based on the Bible and Catechism. There are certain fundamental things which can be derived from reason alone, such as God's existence, but there are other things which we can only know from Revelation. The thing you must do is get the atheist to accept that there are things he cannot answer, but that there is a God who knows the answer and freely reveals them. He's going to have to accept that you believe in the Bible and Catechism, even if he doesn't...but maybe once you show him some things that can be proven about God from reason, he'll be interested in hearing about what Revelation has revealed. Ultimately, however, your beliefs are based on faith, and he has to be willing to have faith to believe them.

I recommend Peter Kreeft's book "Yes or No?" It's very good.

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1099413' date='Oct 23 2006, 09:04 PM']
In a small form: No God, No rules, No sin, "Freedom"

Atheists claim that they have no religion/or god, but sadly that is absurdity because, everyone holds something in their life that is god-like to them. Atheists take the lazy way out of being a believer. There is no spiritual commitment and therefore if they dont want to do it they dont have to.
[/quote]
No, agnostics take the lazy way out by not committing to anything. Atheists commit to something, which is a very privation of a belief. A common phrase that illustrates an atheists commitment is this: I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

[123]

Addititionally, atheism was fully formed in the mind of people who gave into enlightenment thinking, after years of these dark ideals brewing under the help of men such as Freud, they formulated a thinking called Postmodernism. This thinking is not only brainless but, hilarioulsy strives for extreme difference. Even if the difference is at the expense of the own person's image or morals. In other word, we can believe that whats right for me may not be right for you. So if I want to rob a bank and I think its good, you dont you dont have the right to influence my view, because I dont think its wrong like you do, this sounds to me like alot of atheistic thinking. That they dont wanna analyze or think they just want to do with no consequences and when we try to help them, they pull out postmodernistic thinking and claim we are attacking them, and we should just let them go.

But, in the eyes of the LORD whats wrong is wrong and whats right is right.

Edited October 24, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Kosh]

I sorta meant from a Catholic perspective. Here's the entire response to my comment (on digg):


"Logic is fundamentally flawed in that it is based on our own perception, which varies. One man's Obvious is another man's I Don't Think So."

Um, you don't understand the basic definition of logic. The whole point is that it is not dependent upon point of view or beliefs. That is why it is a universal basis for communication. You just used standards of logic, albeit poorly to try and make your case - because x depends on POV, it is flawed. That is a statement using terms of logic, although it is one easily disproved. I'd like to see you try to communicate without using logic. That would be fun.

Then you go on nonsensically:

"For that matter, don't you think that there may be just a SLIGHTLY significant "evolutionary" jump between hanging on trees and building skyscrapers? Hmmmm, but of course, that was all random nature. Silly me, I forgot 'bout that."

Actually, there was no sudden "jump" between hanging on trees and building skyscrapers, it took quite a long time for human brains to evolve to the latter point from the former ability--although, to be technical about it, you probably think that humans evolved from monkeys, which is incorrect; rather, the tree-hangers and the savannah walkers had common descendents.

Incidentally, we built a lot of straw huts, log cabins, brick houses, etc before we got to skyscrapers--but that had nothing to do with biological evolution, it had to do with the advancement of reason and the scientific method-- the very things you dis.

And you use the term "random" together with "nature" incorrectly. Evolution is not random, though it is the cumulative product of causes, some random, some not, which exert pressure, roughly in directions of least resistance - just as water consistently pours down from the faucet into your glass, every time you turn the spigot, even though its movement is the product of a combination of very random motion by its subatomic particles and the force of gravity upon those of them with mass. Evolution is the process of environmental pressure favoring natural diferentiations within species (*some* of which are caused by random mutations) - it is neither a magic jump nor itself random.

I'm sorry, did your simplistic anti-rational brains just explode? I don't know why I bother, it is so much easier to just put your prehensile hands over your ears and pretend you can't hear reason, while spewing nonsense about the world.

You use the scientifically, rationally developed Internet, hell, you use electricity, while in the same breath attack the very foundations of your everyday life.

If only evolution still selected humanity; folks who deny science and reason would long have died out, refusing to take vaccines for childhood diseases, adhere to anti-germ regimens in basic sanitation, or accept treatment for cancer.

Statistically, nearly every one of the anti-science blind believers here is alive today because of rational science - the same process you mock in your fearful blind worship of your gods.






How do you RESPOND to something like that???

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1099530' date='Oct 23 2006, 11:11 PM']
How do you RESPOND to something like that???
[/quote]

You can try and weed out the idiocy, and respond with value so that others see that you are the resonable one in the conversation. In his bias he is equating evolution to all science. Science is just a branch off of philosophy and was perpetuated by religious through religious thought. The fact that people exist with our current logic and reasoning skills does not by any means proove religion. Show that logic and reasoning skills have evolved in recorded history. It could be argued that men like Eratosthenes, Aristarchus of Samos and the like had better logic and reasoning then most today. It surely cannot be argued that were less logical then we were today. We only seem "smarter" because we have built on what smarter men have already established.

Direct quote from Newton " If I have seen further [than certain other men] it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." Newton does not attribute his accomplishments and brilliance to his superior logic and reasoning, he attributes it to being able to stand on the shoulders of the giants who made contributions before him.

[Kosh]

hmm. I don't think that people on digg are as nice as people here, but thanks for the advice!

[peach_cube]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1099566' date='Oct 23 2006, 11:36 PM']
You can try and weed out the idiocy, and respond with value so that others see that you are the resonable one in the conversation. In his bias he is equating evolution to all science. Science is just a branch off of philosophy and was perpetuated by religious through religious thought. The fact that people exist with our current logic and reasoning skills does not by any means proove religion. Show that logic and reasoning skills have evolved in recorded history. It could be argued that men like Eratosthenes, Aristarchus of Samos and the like had better logic and reasoning then most today. It surely cannot be argued that were less logical then we were today. We only seem "smarter" because we have built on what smarter men have already established.

Direct quote from Newton " If I have seen further [than certain other men] it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." Newton does not attribute his accomplishments and brilliance to his superior logic and reasoning, he attributes it to being able to stand on the shoulders of the giants who made contributions before him.
[/quote]

Just to clarify, I'm saying that he cannot show that our logic and reasoning has "evolved" over time. We have puzzle solving brains and over time we built on what others have accomplished to get to were we are today.

[123]

[quote]Just to clarify, I'm saying that he cannot show that our logic and reasoning has "evolved" over time. We have puzzle solving brains and over time we built on what others have accomplished to get to were we are today.[/quote]

Great, statement.


[quote]"Logic is fundamentally flawed in that it is based on our own perception, which varies. One man's Obvious is another man's I Don't Think So."
[/quote]

Logic is more than flawed on a fundamental level. Secular logic ( rather than Christocentric logic) has been debased with humanistic thinking. The idea that if we look deep down in ourselves we can save ourselves and we need no God or gods.


[quote]our own perception[/quote]

Not all of life is a buffet of belifes. We arent the final rule or judge, as atheists believe.


[quote]Um, you don't understand the basic definition of logic. The whole point is that it is not dependent upon point of view or beliefs. That is why it is a universal basis for communication. You just used standards of logic, albeit poorly to try and make your case - because x depends on POV, it is flawed. That is a statement using terms of logic, although it is one easily disproved. I'd like to see you try to communicate without using logic. That would be fun. [/quote]

sure that is the basic definition for logic. But, this in no way proves what he is saying. Back on the topic of Christocentric and Secular logic. Just like how JW's have changed parts of the old and new testaments to support their views. Secular hummanists claim that logical thinking doesnt have 1 definate course, it fluctuates constantly and 9 times out of 10 almost always in their favor. If they favor a position that isnt truthful obviously they are going to lie.

Edited October 24, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Kosh]

actually, the first bit about logic was my thoughts.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1100406' date='Oct 24 2006, 07:09 PM']
actually, the first bit about logic was my thoughts.
[/quote]
It was not clear in your post exactly who was saying what. If you put the name of the speaker (or some indication of who was talking) before each quote, it would be helpful.

But if that first section in quotation marks about logic is your words, you got off to a very bad start.
The Christian is logical, and uses logic in his debates. (This is not to say everything in the Christian Faith is knowable through logic alone, but the Christian does not deny logic). If you start a debate with an atheist by denying logic, or appearing to do so, you've already lost the debate.

(At first I thought that was the atheist talking in that first quotation. - "Logic is fundamentally flawed in that it is based on our own perception, which varies. One man's Obvious is another man's I Don't Think So." That sounds more like post-modern relativism than sound Catholic thinking.)

Show the atheist that his beliefs are [b]illogical[/b] and that the Christian Faith is indeed rational.
For the Catholic, Faith and Reason are allies, not enemies.

If you begin by implying that logic should be disregarded (or appearing to say this), you then give into the atheist's basic argument that Christianity is something illogical and irrational, and thus should be rejected by intelligent, rational people.

Also, it seems unlikely that these atheists seriously want to debate. They seem more interested in a mindless insult-match, which sadly seems to be the norm among "rationalist" atheists, and other wannabe "intellectuals."

Edited October 25, 2006 by Socrates

[Kosh]

hmmm

it was my understanding that thanks to origional sin logic and human reason were fundamentally flawed. That's why we need God and Revalation, though these thigns do appeal to our logic. Some are beyond our capacity to understand (mysterys, such as the Trinity or the Virgin Birth). I didn't think then that that could be interpreted or seen as relativism. Hmm, I'll need to think 'bout that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1100438' date='Oct 24 2006, 07:49 PM']
hmmm

it was my understanding that thanks to origional sin logic and human reason were fundamentally flawed. That's why we need God and Revalation, though these thigns do appeal to our logic. Some are beyond our capacity to understand (mysterys, such as the Trinity or the Virgin Birth). I didn't think then that that could be interpreted or seen as relativism. Hmm, I'll need to think 'bout that.
[/quote]
Are you Catholic?

That position is actually a protestant invention, first introduced by Luther. He taught "total depravity" which held, among other things, that human reason was so totally corrupted by the Fall that it must be rejected as a guide to truth.

The Catholic position is that human reason can know the truth, and that human reason is in itself good, and by reason one can come to accept Faith, rather than Faith and Reason being opposed to one another. The Catholic philosophers sees Faith and Reason (Fide et Ratio) as being two complementary "wings" by which man can know truth.

This was the Catholic intellectual postion used through centuries of Catholic thought, and was best exemplified in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, who used philosophy and reason to come to better understanding of Catholic dogma.
(My own schooling in philosophy/theology was strongly Thomistic. The scholarly publication of my alma mater is called "Faith and Reason.")

Some things in Catholic Faith do need Revelation to be known, but Revelation adds to, rather than opposes, human reason.

The Catholic understanding is that Faith and Reason go together, while protestantism (and much modern thought) has increasingly put a wedge between the two.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Socrates

[Kosh]

hmmm.

I AM Catholic and I thought I understood this. Maybe I should read more of the Suma. Now I don't recall saying that you can't come to Truth by reason, but also reason can lead to incorrect conclusions. Maybe I didn't express that clearly. Actually, re-reading my posts, I didn't express that at all.

And I DID say above that Revalation would appeal to reason, but may be beyond it, as in the case of our Mysteries. Well socrates, doesn't seem that we actually disagree that much.

And I have not yet read Fides et Ratio, though I am going to later in the semester. I can't wait! I think we also are gonna read Rerum Novarum and that. Yeah, my school is pretty darn Thomistic as well. We got to read the Suma THeologica last year (or at least sections of it, cuz its REALLY long).

So I'd should probably clarify that relying entirely on reason isn't a good idea, though you can arrive at Truth by it, just no the Fullness of Truth.

THanks alot socrates!

~Kosh

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1100470' date='Oct 24 2006, 08:17 PM']
hmmm.

I AM Catholic and I thought I understood this. Maybe I should read more of the Suma. Now I don't recall saying that you can't come to Truth by reason, but also reason can lead to incorrect conclusions. Maybe I didn't express that clearly. Actually, re-reading my posts, I didn't express that at all.

And I DID say above that Revalation would appeal to reason, but may be beyond it, as in the case of our Mysteries. Well socrates, doesn't seem that we actually disagree that much.

And I have not yet read Fides et Ratio, though I am going to later in the semester. I can't wait! I think we also are gonna read Rerum Novarum and that. Yeah, my school is pretty darn Thomistic as well. We got to read the Suma THeologica last year (or at least sections of it, cuz its REALLY long).

So I'd should probably clarify that relying entirely on reason isn't a good idea, though you can arrive at Truth by it, just no the Fullness of Truth.

THanks alot socrates!

~Kosh
[/quote]
No prob.

It's just important how you phrase things. I think what you started off saying was too easily misunderstood.
It's best not to start out an argument with a "rationalist" atheist by appearing to belittle or downplay reason or logic. That's a bit like starting an argument with a protestant fundamentalist by downplaying the Bible.
Start with a point of agreement, and build from there.