ATHEISM: The belief that there was absolutely nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits of random stuff thrown together by chance which then turned into dinosaurs who crawled out of the muck. Makes perfect sense to me.

And then you came along…

Screen Shot 2020-01-17 at 6.45.13 PM
  • Save

Share
Tweet
Email
Print

This Post Has 9 Comments

  1. michigancatholic

    Only to someone who knows nothing.

    Atheism is a stupid premise when it’s honest, and dishonest when it’s not stupid. Any thinking person will realize that they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. How would you go about proving something like that exactly? You can’t. You might wish he didn’t; you might opine he doesn’t; you might even bet he doesn’t; but you’d be wrong to say you’ve proved it. None of those are proofs.

    1. Mike

      “Any thinking person will realize that they can’t prove God doesn’t exist.”

      Correct. No one can prove a negative. But the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you are making the claim that God exists, you have the burden of proving that God exists. Most atheists do not claim that God doesn’t exist. Their position is that they lack belief that a God exists. I am an agnostic and I say that I cannot know whether God exists and neither can anyone else. You can strongly believe in God’s existence, but that’s not the same as knowledge.

      STEVE RAY HEERE:It is honest of you to claim agnostic rather than an atheist. One can claim knowledge based on good and sufficient reasons for which I believe in a God. It is a knowledge based on good and adequate rational reasons. You cannot have knowledge for sure that Aristotle existed either, but you believe it base on good and sufficient reasons.

  2. Anil Wang

    michigancatholic, St Thomas took atheism seriously, so it can’t be that stupid.

    He gave two reasons for atheism, the problem of evil, and the fact that the universe appears to run on its own without need of an outside force. The Summa Theologica answers both objections to God, but neither answer is one that would immediately be obvious to someone who hasn’t read his answers.

  3. Jean

    Frog + Beautiful Princess = Handsome Prince
    (this is fairy tales)
    Frog + 20,000,000 years = Handsome Prince
    (this is evolution)

    1. Mike

      The problem here is that you think evolution teaches that a frog can evolve into a human. That’s not how it works. And it took longer than 20 million years. Try 3.7 billion years. Finally, why do you associate evolution with atheism? Saint John Paul II that evolution is compatible with Catholic teaching. Pope Francis agrees. The Vatican has its own observatory with scientists who are also priests. The one redeeming quality about the Catholic Church is that it values science and education. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with those idiot evangelicals who think the earth is only 7,000 years old.

  4. raphael bindi

    where did the frog come from

  5. Tom Govern

    The basic premise for God is that we would not be doing what we are doing unless something started us along the way. There had to be a creative force to set things in motion. If that creative force was not the “first” than another must have been the creative force and on and on. The beginning or whatever process was started has to go back to the creator God we worship and the one that made Himself manifest in our culture’s Salvation history.

    Even an accident needs a beginning. Sad that atheism does not see that. Pray for them.

    Tom

  6. M. Solange

    It is always discouraging to see theists disparage a non-existent version of atheism. If you're going to claim it's irrational, it would pay to understand it first.

    Or is that asking too much?

    STEVE RAY HERE: Why don’t you do the honor of briefly explaining it properly for us?

    1. Mike

      STEVE RAY HERE: Why don’t you do the honor of briefly explaining it properly for us?

      Sure, here goes. You say that God exists. An atheist says “I don’t believe you.” That’s it, nothing else. It is a lack of belief in a divine being.

      As for how the universe was created, the answer is “I don’t know.” Yes, there is the Big Bang theory, which is not at all an “atheist” theory because it one of its authors was a Jesuit priest. But as to what came before the Big Bang, I don’t know.

      While you make fun of people who you (incorrectly) claim believe that the universe came from nothing, you need to realize that your “first cause” or God also came from nothing.

      Having said that, I’ve read Aquinas and find his Five Ways somewhat persuasive. But nothing in the Five Ways proves that the “First Cause” created any sort of religion or church, which is why I remain an agnostic.

      STEVE RAY HERE: Unhappily for the atheist-agnostic is that something had to come from nothing or something has to be eternal without a beginning and the first mover. For theists we have a personal infinite “something” that is eternal and gives a quite adequate explanation for all we are and observe.

      For the atheist-agnostic, their “eternal something”, for those who deny a personal infinite God, gives no adequate answer for who we are and what we observe.

Leave a Reply