Arguing with Atheists - Revision history

Mxmsj: /* Ending the Argument */

2023-01-04T10:46:58Z

Ending the Argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 4 January 2023
Line 15:		Line 15:
	This is one of those many [[Prudence\|"no rules"]] situations where all we can do is ''let our conscience be our guide.'' When we think that we have made the best case that we can for the Catholic vision of reality, then we may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in controversy with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.		This is one of those many [[Prudence\|"no rules"]] situations where all we can do is ''let our conscience be our guide.'' When we think that we have made the best case that we can for the Catholic vision of reality, then we may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in controversy with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.

	We have Jesus' sayings about "shaking the dust of those towns from our feet" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke9.htm#v5 (Lk 9:5)] and not throwing pearls before swine [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew7.htm#v6 (Mt 7:6)] to assure us that we may, in good conscience, abandon a fruitless argument. Until then, we should be "as cunning as a serpent and as gentle as a dove" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew10.htm#v16 (Mt 10:16)] in trying to show our opponents what we mean. It could well be that we are the instrument God has chosen to pierce their defenses. There is no way to tell in the abstract. WE get to make the call about how WE conduct ourselves in the conversation. When we have done all that we personally want to do, then we may say, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."		We have Jesus' sayings about "shaking the dust of those towns from our feet" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke9.htm#v5 (Lk 9:5)] and not throwing pearls before swine [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew7.htm#v6 (Mt 7:6)] to assure us that we may, in good conscience, abandon a fruitless argument. Until then, we should be "as cunning as a serpent and as gentle as a dove" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew10.htm#v16 (Mt 10:16)] in trying to show our opponents what we mean. It could well be that we are the instrument God has chosen to pierce their defenses. There is no way to tell in the abstract. ''We'' get to make the call about how ''we'' conduct ourselves in the conversation. When we have done all that we personally can and want to do, then we may say, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."

	"Those who sow in tears shall reap rejoicing" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm126.htm (Ps. 126:5).] We can't lose by doing the best we can for God, even if we do not see fruit emerge immediately from our labor. We don't plant seeds one day and harvest apples the next. Our job is to sow good seed. After that, it is up to God and to our opponents to do with it as they will.		"Those who sow in tears shall reap rejoicing" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm126.htm (Ps. 126:5).] We can't lose by doing the best we can for God, even if we do not see fruit emerge immediately from our labor. We don't plant seeds one day and harvest apples the next. Our job is to sow good seed. After that, it is up to God and to our opponents to do with it as they will.

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

2022-12-10T10:04:03Z

Text replacement - "--" to " — "

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 10 December 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	What I mean by "faith" is "accepting something as true and real without having direct experience of it or a perfect proof for it." Many atheists ''believe'' that they make no assumptions at all and therefore are "knowers" rather than "believers." This is false, but it is difficult to make them ''believe'' (accept as true) that they are operating on ''belief'' (unproven assumptions) just as much as religious believers are.		What I mean by "faith" is "accepting something as true and real without having direct experience of it or a perfect proof for it." Many atheists ''believe'' that they make no assumptions at all and therefore are "knowers" rather than "believers." This is false, but it is difficult to make them ''believe'' (accept as true) that they are operating on ''belief'' (unproven assumptions) just as much as religious believers are.

	It is ultimately a contest about the right way to understand reason. The Church thinks that we can use our reason to recognize that there is a God (Rom 1:20, [[Natural theology\|solemnly defined as a dogma]] by Vatican I in 1870). Argumentative atheists ''believe'' that reason rules out the existence of God as a conclusion from self-evident principles; if an atheist does not have such an argument, then that person's atheism is simply a matter of presumption--or, in other words, a matter of faith, not reason.		It is ultimately a contest about the right way to understand reason. The Church thinks that we can use our reason to recognize that there is a God (Rom 1:20, [[Natural theology\|solemnly defined as a dogma]] by Vatican I in 1870). Argumentative atheists ''believe'' that reason rules out the existence of God as a conclusion from self-evident principles; if an atheist does not have such an argument, then that person's atheism is simply a matter of presumption — or, in other words, a matter of faith, not reason.

	== Closed eyes, ears, minds, hearts ==		== Closed eyes, ears, minds, hearts ==
Line 11:		Line 11:
	== Ending the Argument ==		== Ending the Argument ==

	The Church's teaching that God can be recognized by the right use of reason does not mean that we can convert every atheist we argue with. People have to be willing to be converted in order to let us touch their hearts: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (Paul Simon, "The Boxer"). '''God is the changer of hearts.''' He loves our opponents with His whole mind, with His whole heart, and with all His strength--but He gives His children freedom to resist His Spirit. Those who want to see will see; those who want to hear will hear.		The Church's teaching that God can be recognized by the right use of reason does not mean that we can convert every atheist we argue with. People have to be willing to be converted in order to let us touch their hearts: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (Paul Simon, "The Boxer"). '''God is the changer of hearts.''' He loves our opponents with His whole mind, with His whole heart, and with all His strength — but He gives His children freedom to resist His Spirit. Those who want to see will see; those who want to hear will hear.

	This is one of those many [[Prudence\|"no rules"]] situations where all we can do is ''let our conscience be our guide.'' When we think that we have made the best case that we can for the Catholic vision of reality, then we may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in controversy with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.		This is one of those many [[Prudence\|"no rules"]] situations where all we can do is ''let our conscience be our guide.'' When we think that we have made the best case that we can for the Catholic vision of reality, then we may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in controversy with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.

Mxmsj: /* Defining "Faith" */

2013-06-05T17:30:03Z

Defining "Faith"

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 5 June 2013
Line 4:		Line 4:

	It is ultimately a contest about the right way to understand reason. The Church thinks that we can use our reason to recognize that there is a God (Rom 1:20, [[Natural theology\|solemnly defined as a dogma]] by Vatican I in 1870). Argumentative atheists ''believe'' that reason rules out the existence of God as a conclusion from self-evident principles; if an atheist does not have such an argument, then that person's atheism is simply a matter of presumption--or, in other words, a matter of faith, not reason.		It is ultimately a contest about the right way to understand reason. The Church thinks that we can use our reason to recognize that there is a God (Rom 1:20, [[Natural theology\|solemnly defined as a dogma]] by Vatican I in 1870). Argumentative atheists ''believe'' that reason rules out the existence of God as a conclusion from self-evident principles; if an atheist does not have such an argument, then that person's atheism is simply a matter of presumption--or, in other words, a matter of faith, not reason.

			== Closed eyes, ears, minds, hearts ==

			Our culture has plucked out its own eyes and plugged up its own ears so that that it cannot hear the gospel and see what it means; then it complains that it can find no evidence to suggest that faith is a reasonable choice. "The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light; but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be!" (Mt 6:23).

	== Ending the Argument ==		== Ending the Argument ==

Mxmsj: /* Defining "Faith" */

2013-06-05T17:28:53Z

Defining "Faith"

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:28, 5 June 2013
Line 3:		Line 3:
	What I mean by "faith" is "accepting something as true and real without having direct experience of it or a perfect proof for it." Many atheists ''believe'' that they make no assumptions at all and therefore are "knowers" rather than "believers." This is false, but it is difficult to make them ''believe'' (accept as true) that they are operating on ''belief'' (unproven assumptions) just as much as religious believers are.		What I mean by "faith" is "accepting something as true and real without having direct experience of it or a perfect proof for it." Many atheists ''believe'' that they make no assumptions at all and therefore are "knowers" rather than "believers." This is false, but it is difficult to make them ''believe'' (accept as true) that they are operating on ''belief'' (unproven assumptions) just as much as religious believers are.

	It is ultimately a contest about the right way to understand reason. The Church thinks that we can use our reason to recognize that there is a God (Rom 1:20, solemnly defined as a dogma by Vatican I in 1870). Argumentative atheists ''believe'' that reason rules out the existence of God as a conclusion from self-evident principles; if an atheist does not have such an argument, then that person's atheism is simply a matter of presumption--or, in other words, a matter of faith, not reason.		It is ultimately a contest about the right way to understand reason. The Church thinks that we can use our reason to recognize that there is a God (Rom 1:20, [[Natural theology\|solemnly defined as a dogma]] by Vatican I in 1870). Argumentative atheists ''believe'' that reason rules out the existence of God as a conclusion from self-evident principles; if an atheist does not have such an argument, then that person's atheism is simply a matter of presumption--or, in other words, a matter of faith, not reason.

	== Ending the Argument ==		== Ending the Argument ==

Mxmsj at 15:38, 29 July 2011

2011-07-29T15:38:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 29 July 2011
Line 14:		Line 14:

	"Those who sow in tears shall reap rejoicing" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm126.htm (Ps. 126:5).] We can't lose by doing the best we can for God, even if we do not see fruit emerge immediately from our labor. We don't plant seeds one day and harvest apples the next. Our job is to sow good seed. After that, it is up to God and to our opponents to do with it as they will.		"Those who sow in tears shall reap rejoicing" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm126.htm (Ps. 126:5).] We can't lose by doing the best we can for God, even if we do not see fruit emerge immediately from our labor. We don't plant seeds one day and harvest apples the next. Our job is to sow good seed. After that, it is up to God and to our opponents to do with it as they will.

			== Links ==
			* Edward Feser, [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html "So you think you understand the cosmological argument?"]

	[[Category:Disputed Questions]]		[[Category:Disputed Questions]]
	[[Category:Evolution]]		[[Category:Evolution]]

Mxmsj: /* Ending the Argument */

2011-07-25T14:23:33Z

Ending the Argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 25 July 2011
Line 11:		Line 11:
	This is one of those many [[Prudence\|"no rules"]] situations where all we can do is ''let our conscience be our guide.'' When we think that we have made the best case that we can for the Catholic vision of reality, then we may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in controversy with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.		This is one of those many [[Prudence\|"no rules"]] situations where all we can do is ''let our conscience be our guide.'' When we think that we have made the best case that we can for the Catholic vision of reality, then we may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in controversy with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.

	We have Jesus' sayings about "shaking the dust of those towns from our ~~sandals~~" and not throwing pearls before swine to assure us that we may, in good conscience, abandon a fruitless argument. Until then, we should be "as cunning as a serpent and as gentle as a dove" in trying to show our opponents what we mean. It could well be that we are the instrument God has chosen to pierce their defenses. There is no way to tell in the abstract. WE get to make the call about how WE conduct ourselves in the conversation. When we have done all that we personally want to do, then we may say, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."		We have Jesus' sayings about "shaking the dust of those towns from our feet" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke9.htm#v5 (Lk 9:5)] and not throwing pearls before swine [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew7.htm#v6 (Mt 7:6)] to assure us that we may, in good conscience, abandon a fruitless argument. Until then, we should be "as cunning as a serpent and as gentle as a dove" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew10.htm#v16 (Mt 10:16)] in trying to show our opponents what we mean. It could well be that we are the instrument God has chosen to pierce their defenses. There is no way to tell in the abstract. WE get to make the call about how WE conduct ourselves in the conversation. When we have done all that we personally want to do, then we may say, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."

	"Those who sow in tears shall reap rejoicing" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm126.htm (Ps. 126:5).] We can't lose by doing the best we can for God, even if we do not see fruit emerge immediately from our labor. We don't plant seeds one day and harvest apples the next.		"Those who sow in tears shall reap rejoicing" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm126.htm (Ps. 126:5).] We can't lose by doing the best we can for God, even if we do not see fruit emerge immediately from our labor. We don't plant seeds one day and harvest apples the next. Our job is to sow good seed. After that, it is up to God and to our opponents to do with it as they will.

	[[Category:Disputed Questions]]		[[Category:Disputed Questions]]
	[[Category:Evolution]]		[[Category:Evolution]]

Mxmsj at 14:18, 25 July 2011

2011-07-25T14:18:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 25 July 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The Church's teaching that God can be recognized by the right use of reason does not mean that we can convert every atheist we argue with. People have to be willing to be converted in order to let us touch their hearts: "~~A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest~~" (Paul Simon, "The Boxer"). God is the changer of hearts. He loves Tomas with His whole mind, with His whole heart, and with all His strength--but He gives His children freedom to resist His Spirit. Those who want to see will see; those who want to hear will hear.		== Defining "Faith" ==

	This is one of those many [[Prudence\|"no rules"]] situations where all we can do is let ~~OUR~~ conscience be our guide. When we think that we have made the best case that we can for the Catholic vision of reality, then we may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in ~~argument~~ with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.		What I mean by "faith" is "accepting something as true and real without having direct experience of it or a perfect proof for it." Many atheists ''believe'' that they make no assumptions at all and therefore are "knowers" rather than "believers." This is false, but it is difficult to make them ''believe'' (accept as true) that they are operating on ''belief'' (unproven assumptions) just as much as religious believers are.

			It is ultimately a contest about the right way to understand reason. The Church thinks that we can use our reason to recognize that there is a God (Rom 1:20, solemnly defined as a dogma by Vatican I in 1870). Argumentative atheists ''believe'' that reason rules out the existence of God as a conclusion from self-evident principles; if an atheist does not have such an argument, then that person's atheism is simply a matter of presumption--or, in other words, a matter of faith, not reason.

			== Ending the Argument ==

			The Church's teaching that God can be recognized by the right use of reason does not mean that we can convert every atheist we argue with. People have to be willing to be converted in order to let us touch their hearts: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (Paul Simon, "The Boxer"). '''God is the changer of hearts.''' He loves our opponents with His whole mind, with His whole heart, and with all His strength--but He gives His children freedom to resist His Spirit. Those who want to see will see; those who want to hear will hear.

			This is one of those many [[Prudence\|"no rules"]] situations where all we can do is ''let our conscience be our guide.'' When we think that we have made the best case that we can for the Catholic vision of reality, then we may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in controversy with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.

	We have Jesus' sayings about "shaking the dust of those towns from our sandals" and not throwing pearls before swine to assure us that we may, in good conscience, abandon a fruitless argument. Until then, we should be "as cunning as a serpent and as gentle as a dove" in trying to show our opponents what we mean. It could well be that we are the instrument God has chosen to pierce their defenses. There is no way to tell in the abstract. WE get to make the call about how WE conduct ourselves in the conversation. When we have done all that we personally want to do, then we may say, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."		We have Jesus' sayings about "shaking the dust of those towns from our sandals" and not throwing pearls before swine to assure us that we may, in good conscience, abandon a fruitless argument. Until then, we should be "as cunning as a serpent and as gentle as a dove" in trying to show our opponents what we mean. It could well be that we are the instrument God has chosen to pierce their defenses. There is no way to tell in the abstract. WE get to make the call about how WE conduct ourselves in the conversation. When we have done all that we personally want to do, then we may say, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."

			"Those who sow in tears shall reap rejoicing" [http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm126.htm (Ps. 126:5).] We can't lose by doing the best we can for God, even if we do not see fruit emerge immediately from our labor. We don't plant seeds one day and harvest apples the next.

	[[Category:Disputed Questions]]		[[Category:Disputed Questions]]
	[[Category:Evolution]]		[[Category:Evolution]]

Mxmsj at 14:01, 25 July 2011

2011-07-25T14:01:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:01, 25 July 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The Church's teaching that God can be recognized by the right use of reason does not mean that we can convert every atheist we argue with. People have to be willing to be converted in order to let us touch their hearts: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (Paul Simon, "The Boxer"). God is the changer of hearts. He loves Tomas with His whole mind, with His whole heart, and with all His strength--but He gives His children freedom to resist His Spirit. Those who want to see will see; those who want to hear will hear.		The Church's teaching that God can be recognized by the right use of reason does not mean that we can convert every atheist we argue with. People have to be willing to be converted in order to let us touch their hearts: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (Paul Simon, "The Boxer"). God is the changer of hearts. He loves Tomas with His whole mind, with His whole heart, and with all His strength--but He gives His children freedom to resist His Spirit. Those who want to see will see; those who want to hear will hear.

	This is one of those many "no rules" situations where all ~~you~~ can do is let ~~YOUR~~ conscience be ~~your~~ guide. When ~~you~~ think that ~~you~~ have made the best case that ~~you~~ can for the Catholic vision of reality, then ~~you~~ may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in argument with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.		This is one of those many [[Prudence\|"no rules"]] situations where all we can do is let OUR conscience be our guide. When we think that we have made the best case that we can for the Catholic vision of reality, then we may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in argument with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.

	We have Jesus' sayings about "shaking the dust of those towns from our sandals" and not throwing pearls before swine to assure us that we may, in good conscience, abandon a fruitless argument. Until then, we should be "as cunning as a serpent and as gentle as a dove" in trying to show our opponents what we mean. It could well be that we are the instrument God has chosen to pierce their defenses. There is no way to tell in the abstract. WE get to make the call about how WE conduct ourselves in the conversation. When we have done all that we personally want to do, then we may say, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."		We have Jesus' sayings about "shaking the dust of those towns from our sandals" and not throwing pearls before swine to assure us that we may, in good conscience, abandon a fruitless argument. Until then, we should be "as cunning as a serpent and as gentle as a dove" in trying to show our opponents what we mean. It could well be that we are the instrument God has chosen to pierce their defenses. There is no way to tell in the abstract. WE get to make the call about how WE conduct ourselves in the conversation. When we have done all that we personally want to do, then we may say, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."

Mxmsj: Created page with "The Church's teaching that God can be recognized by the right use of reason does not mean that we can convert every atheist we argue with. People have to be willing to be convert..."

2011-07-25T13:59:11Z

Created page with "The Church's teaching that God can be recognized by the right use of reason does not mean that we can convert every atheist we argue with. People have to be willing to be convert..."

New page

The Church's teaching that God can be recognized by the right use of reason does not mean that we can convert every atheist we argue with. People have to be willing to be converted in order to let us touch their hearts: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (Paul Simon, "The Boxer"). God is the changer of hearts. He loves Tomas with His whole mind, with His whole heart, and with all His strength--but He gives His children freedom to resist His Spirit. Those who want to see will see; those who want to hear will hear.

This is one of those many "no rules" situations where all you can do is let YOUR conscience be your guide. When you think that you have made the best case that you can for the Catholic vision of reality, then you may rest from the argument with the knowledge that Jesus does not want us to exhaust ourselves in argument with those who are unwilling to be converted and healed.

We have Jesus' sayings about "shaking the dust of those towns from our sandals" and not throwing pearls before swine to assure us that we may, in good conscience, abandon a fruitless argument. Until then, we should be "as cunning as a serpent and as gentle as a dove" in trying to show our opponents what we mean. It could well be that we are the instrument God has chosen to pierce their defenses. There is no way to tell in the abstract. WE get to make the call about how WE conduct ourselves in the conversation. When we have done all that we personally want to do, then we may say, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."

[[Category:Disputed Questions]]
[[Category:Evolution]]