A theologian answers the usual atheist arguments

[Latypov63]

I have joined this site today to contribute to the believers/non believers discussions in this section. I would like to present a counter balance to some of the atheists arguments against religious beliefs. There is a book written by a theologian to answer many of the same things said on here - religion breeds violence, religious people are less intelligent than non believers, religious faith is irrational etc
It makes interesting reading. Here is a brief summary of the book:
http://www.catholic.net/index.php?id=553&option=dedestaca
I am interested to find out what the resident atheists think of Father Williams' answers to their arguments.

[brionon]

Are the Hindu,Muslim and Animists included ?

[Infomaniac]

This is your first post, so how long have you been reading Abers' discussions on theology?

[jake-the-peg]

Straw man discussion

This has some merit, there is much good in religion however I'd refer you to Stephen Weinberg's observation:

Without religion good people would still do good things, bad people would do bad things but for good people to do bad things - that takes religion.

It would be wrong to suggest that the lunatic fringe represents all religion but *all* religion promotes the irrational, and I would argue that is harmful


The idea that atheism is a religion in itself is a hoary old chestnut often aimed at atheism (Ironically given the above accusation) by people without enough understanding of the philosophy of science.

This revolves around the idea that I will change my opinion if proof becomes available - however tall the order - If a flaming finger writes "Believe across the sky" I'll convert - now what will convince you to atheism?

[rojash]

"For starters, Father Williams observes how Hitchens, Dawkins, and friends do not seem to grasp the basic idea that not all religions are the same"

But they are all the same in the most important respect. They posit the idea of a superior being based on a total lack of evidence.

[beso]

Many believers portray the excesses of fundamentalists as somehow misconstruing the worthy ideals of religion.

Fact is that the misconstruing is done by the moderates. The violence, prejudice and misogyny are woven into the fabric of the foundational stories of the holy books.

These books promote primitive fascism. Anyone who denies it has either not read them or is completely bewitched by religous rhetoric.

[VHG]

As far as I am concerned the Catholic church is one of the most evil organizations in the world.

It should be ashamed of itself the way it has abused its power over the centuries and is probably responsible for more deaths than the mafia, who happened to come out of the same country.

Suppression of women, the torture and killing of non-believers, abuse of youg people by priests they thought they could trust.

The thing that amazes me is that people still want to have anything to do with the Catholic church.

[vulcan]

To paraphrase Fr Williams question "How can he denounce something so confidently when he understands it so poorly".

[jno]

for good people to do bad things - that takes religion

Not true, jake. The firebombing of Dresden, for instance.

[naomi24]

It seems the author’s powers of comprehension are limited. Rojash has hit the nail on the head. Religions are “all the same in the most important respect. They posit the idea of a superior being based on a total lack of evidence”, but this goes much farther than that.

// No longer should people be allowed to believe whatever they choose. They must abandon faith or pay the consequences.//

Absolutely not true - and I'm not sure what 'consequences' he thinks would be imposed. Curious.

Few atheists object to people believing anything they want to believe – but they do object, and rightly so, when someone else’s belief either affects them, or has a detrimental effect upon those unable to reject its influence and make free choices.

He’s quite right, however, in saying….

//Religious tolerance is the culprit and must be done away with.//

For the reasons given above, religion should no longer expect, or be afforded, tolerance.

[andy-hughes]

The argument supposes that all atheists take an opposing view, and spend time defending it.

I for one simply do not believe there is a God. i have no interest in arguing the point - there is no point to argue, my absence of faith is a matter of supreme indifference to me.

i look around me and find no evidence of a loving God, but daily evidence of the absence of one.

the Christians have the hard time - trying to justify their faith in this world of ours, i simply accept that things happen, good and bad, and a 'God' has no influence on any of it - except as a comfort to those who need it, of which i am simply not one.

[LazyGun]

I find it interesting, as others have noted, that for your first post here you choose this particular topic, citing issues that have featured prominently here over the last few months.

Are you a long time browser, not having felt the need to participate before? Or has someone suggested this section of the site to you?

I have not read his book, but I do not really understand how the comments about religion that you mention can actually be rebutted :)

As JtP has already mentioned - for most atheists, the position is clear- on balance, the evidence suggests that the probability of a creator god is very low. On that basis it seems irrational to have faith in such a being, to offer worship etc. That having been said, were a suitably dramatic, uncontravertible evidence of a deity be demonstrated - no true believer i have ever spoken or debated with has ever been able to convince me that they could be persuaded that their faith is misplaced - ie close minded.

[naomi24]

In this instance, the argument doesn't appear to be for or against the existence of God, but rather one of tolerance and intolerance, so perhaps that's the issue we should be addressing.

[jake-the-peg]

You're assuming that the firebombing of Dresden was done by good people JNO

[jno]

I'm assuming two of the bombers involved were good people, jake. That's all it takes to refute Weinberg.

Are you assuming that all but one of them - not even volunteers, but conscripts - were bad people? Because that's what you'd need to demonstrate that he was right. Otherwise you'd have "good people" doing a bad thing for non-religious reasons.

[Latypov63]

Thank you to all those who have commented so far. I have read your points of view with interest In answer to Infomaniac and Lazygun, I have been a reader only of Answerbank for a long time.
Rojash says that religions "are all the same in the most important respect. They posit the idea of a superior being based on a total lack of evidence."
Nobody can logically claim that there isnt any evidence for the existence of God. It is an impossible claim because nobody knows everything. We are limited beings with a finite brain, and it is impossible for us to know all that there is to know. Because no one is omniscient then it is possible that there is evidence to prove or at lease support the existence of God. Try thinking about the never ending universe. When I do I find my head hurting!

[mibn2cweus]

A wolf in sheep's clothing, bleating out their contempt for wolves, is a wolf still . . . a hypocritical wolf preying on the ignorance and uncertainty of it victims.

[rojash]

"Nobody can logically claim that there isnt any evidence for the existence of God. It is an impossible claim because nobody knows everything. "

Sorry but that's a nonsensical remark. What I said was "based on a total lack of evidence". If you want to refute my statement, all you need to do is produce one single irrefutable item of evidence. Claiming that there might be some evidence that no-one knows about is merely childish.

[Latypov63]

And your irrefutable item of evidence that there is not a god is?

[jackthehat]

The religious believe despite there being *any* evidence for the existence of God.
Atheists take the position that *faith* in his existence is not sufficient evidence to persuade them to believe.
Most Atheists seem to be able to live their lives without the 'crutch' of religion, although the long-shadow cast by religion and deference to religion is impossible to escape.

[Latypov63]

There is truth in what you say Jackthehat in that for atheists the long-shadow cast by religion and deference to religion is impossible to escape. I just wonder why they are constantly drawn to a forum about religion. There is little respect for anyone posting anything bordering on belief in a religion on a so called Religion and Spirituality Thread. EG below "As far as I am concerned the Catholic church is one of the most evil organizations in the world." Tolerance? I think not.