The Blight of Atheism

4 Responses

Ark, on July 31, 2025 at 5:05 pm said:

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, your god, Yahweh and all others so far presented.

However, as you are a believer what was the evidence (if any) that convinced you of the veracity of the central /foundational claims of your religion/faith?

FATHER JOE:

Atheism means many things. Yes, it ordinarily implies a denial of a deity or deities. It may also include a passive doubt about the existence of a higher power as in agnosticism. Few atheists fail to substitute a placeholder that functions as a proxy for God. Many have exalted science to the heights of a religion. Others glorify human genius, and it is true that technology today is increasingly indistinguishable from what would have been regarded as magic or sorcery in days past. The attitude of atheists, particularly in Western society, has moved from a posture of apathy toward faith to an aggressive antipathy where both God, organized religion and people of faith are roundly ridiculed as unenlightened. My recent posts did not primarily focus upon those who are intellectually honest but unconvinced about God’s existence. Rather, my target were the critics who rejected theism out-of-hand and would strip believers of their right to faith or religious liberty. Also referenced was a creeping atheism among believers, beginning with a denial of the Eucharistic real presence.

The Judeo-Christian deity (YAHWEH) is the one revealed to Christians as the triune God. Many good-willed atheists would admit that the God of the Western tradition, given the many philosophers and doctors of faith, would be much more credible that those espoused by the Orientals or the ancient pagans. However, they would remain unconvinced. This is where the question arises of supernatural faith and “divine election.” It is a genuine mystery as to why and how individuals of similar intellect and upbringing can find themselves on opposite sides of the God Question.

I have always found Aquinas’ ways of understanding God to suffice over the question of his existence. The existence of a first cause seems much more likely than an infinite regression or the prospect that everything magically begins from an exploding singularity that appears out of nowhere. It makes sense to me that the God discerned from philosophy should find some way to communicate or reveal himself to humanity in what we call salvation history. The solidarity of Christ with the hurting and oppressed through his Cross is the only viable answer that I have discerned when it comes to the question of our existence and pain. If there is a God, then he must care about our lot or else he would be monstrous. It is not enough for the Christian that God exists; he must also be good. Indeed, he is the source of all perfections: goodness, truth, life, beauty, etc.

Peace!
Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – oooh, the “blight of atheism” – Club Schadenfreude, on July 31, 2025 at 3:15 pm said:

[…] across a blog by a catholic priest, Father Joe Jenkins. He claims atheism is a blight and a sin. Nothing new. […]

FATHER JOE:

Atheism means many things. Yes, it ordinarily implies a denial of a deity or deities. It may also include a passive doubt about the existence of a higher power as in agnosticism. Few atheists fail to substitute a placeholder that functions as a proxy for God. Many have exalted science to the heights of a religion. Others glorify human genius, and it is true that technology today is increasingly indistinguishable from what would have been regarded as magic or sorcery in days past. The attitude of atheists, particularly in Western society, has moved from a posture of apathy toward faith to an aggressive antipathy where both God, organized religion and people of faith are roundly ridiculed as unenlightened. My recent posts did not primarily focus upon those who are intellectually honest but unconvinced about God’s existence. Rather, my target were the critics who rejected theism out-of-hand and would strip believers of their right to faith or religious liberty. Also referenced was a creeping atheism among believers, beginning with a denial of the Eucharistic real presence.

The Judeo-Christian deity (YAHWEH) is the one revealed to Christians as the triune God. Many good-willed atheists would admit that the God of the Western tradition, given the many philosophers and doctors of faith, would be much more credible that those espoused by the Orientals or the ancient pagans. However, they would remain unconvinced. This is where the question arises of supernatural faith and “divine election.” It is a genuine mystery as to why and how individuals of similar intellect and upbringing can find themselves on opposite sides of the God Question.

I have always found Aquinas’ ways of understanding God to suffice over the question of his existence. The existence of a first cause seems much more likely than an infinite regression or the prospect that everything magically begins from an exploding singularity that appears out of nowhere. It makes sense to me that the God discerned from philosophy should find some way to communicate or reveal himself to humanity in what we call salvation history. The solidarity of Christ with the hurting and oppressed through his Cross is the only viable answer that I have discerned when it comes to the question of our existence and pain. If there is a God, then he must care about our lot or else he would be monstrous. It is not enough for the Christian that God exists; he must also be good. Indeed, he is the source of all perfections: goodness, truth, life, beauty, etc.

Peace!
clubschadenfreude, on July 31, 2025 at 2:39 pm said:

Unfortunately, for Joe, there is no evidence for his god and no evidence is definitely not “intellectually satisfying”. All Joe has are baseless claims. Atheism is indeed an “active impediment to credulity”, which translated means “an obstacle to “readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence”. I suspect that Joe doesn’t quite intend to use the word “credulity” here. And since no spirituality, no “spiritual drought”. No reason to trust in an imaginary being’s providence and intervention since it doesn’t even do that for its supposed true followers. And no, I don’t lament that my work is “quickly undone”. I know that my toil isn’t in “vain”.   I have lasting meaning, no “despair”.

It’s always great how Joe, and his fellow Christians always have to try to scare people into their religion.

Every religion/cult makes the same claims as Joe does. They need ignorance and gullibility to work, aka a “readiness to believe”. There is no intellect required and Christianity repeatedly insists that intellect is worthless and one must simply obey their god, which means obey them and their particular version of this religion.

Like all religions, these claims baseless assertions. Jesus fails to be the Jewish messiah per the bible itself. No evidence of this character, and no evidence of miracles, despite the bible’s claims that jesus was a famous miracle worker known around the middle east. No one noticed this fellow raising the dead, or being followed around by thousands of men in rebellious judea. No one noticed any of the events around the supposed cruxifiction/resurrection. Not the romans, not the jews, not even Paul.

Very little evidence for john the Baptist either. Again, just stories aka claims, and claims need evidence. The desire to believe doesn’t make things true. And since Christians can’t even agree on which version is the right one, it seems that believers aren’t burning with any “truth” at all. Unsurprisngly, no evidence for “hundreds” of witnesses. Paul’s 500 simply vanish, never to be heard from again. No evidence for apostles or any martyrdom, just more stories. So, no sane people died for a lie at all, and gullible people die for lies all of the time.

The magic cracker and wine are no remedy at all to atheism. I can see that the catholic version is no more true than the protestant version, the orthodox version, etc. No hunger for what they are selling. Happily, I have meaning and purpose, and need no “life of grace” where a imaginary being is touted as supporting genocide, slavery, and killing people, including children, for things they didn’t do.

FATHER JOE:

While most scientists regard them both as real, your critique of faith would have to similarly delineate experiential science from the theoretical. You entirely brush aside, not only theology, but philosophy as a field of human learning and discovery. Further, while most of us do not understand all the intricacies of either modern technology or the natural sciences, we place confidence in others where our knowledge and experiences fall short. Christianity also trusts in the many witnesses of the resurrection as well as later miracles that give credence for our faith claims. Catholicism seeks a synthesis or interaction between science, theology and philosophy. We do not view science as at war or conflict with faith. While we argue for harmony, different questions are asked depending upon the discipline given.

We would insist that reasons can be given for faith but that it is ultimately a gift. Some seem more disposed or inclined to it than others. I am critical of those who would reject theism out-of-hand. However, respect should be given to all who seek truth, even those who remain unconvinced or moved about the existence of a Creator or higher power. The religious liberty that we cherish as Americans would protect speech and our right to believe or not to believe in a particular creed. Indeed, sometimes the hypocrisy of believers has given fodder for atheism. Just as faith should never be compelled through violence or militant intimidation; it always needs to be realized by a love of God made real through charity to others.

There is no effort on my part to scare one into heaven. It is simply the given situation of mortality that can be frightening in that it falls short in satisfying the deepest human aspirations. The critic here insists that the intellect plays no part in Christianity or that believers are necessarily moronic. This is not the case.

The critique would have us believe that the apostles readily had themselves murdered for a fantasy or lie. This is ridiculous. Further, you would invalidate believers today who have a powerful and real experience of Christ in daily life and prayer, in the Word and in the sacraments. Believers, by contrast, would argue for a genuine relationship with Christ and a supernatural agency in their lives.

Your atheism has you negatively target not only theology and philosophy, but also the study of history. You out-rightly deny the existence of historical figures and their deaths for the faith. Even the ancient pagans acknowledged that the Christians died like flies for their religion. The Jews saw the destruction of the temple. All that remains is the retaining or wailing wall. Your attitude is one-and-the-same with the holocaust deniers; no ground is given to those who believe in God.

Notice how you must malign the Eucharist as the “magic cracker and wine.” It is not enough to say that you have no faith in the Blessed Sacrament, you resort to mockery and blasphemy.

Fascist and Communist atheists, even those of the French revolution, committed some of the most atrocious acts of genocide against people. Polish priests were imprisoned. Jews were murdered by the Germans. Slavs died by the millions under Stalin. Christians have been imprisoned and oppressed by Chinese Communists. Christ is not the Lord of violence or bigotry or slavery. No, he is the prince of peace, brotherhood and freedom. Many Christians have failed in their obligations. The fault is not our holy faith or the God we worship.

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried” (G.K. Chesterton).
Abul Ben Draka, on July 31, 2025 at 11:52 am said:

f I say that a narwhal is a real thing. You have the right to demand that I present testable evidence for the existence of a narwhal. Only once I have done that should you accept my claim that narwhals are real thing. If I ask you to have faith that narwhals exist without presenting evidence, you are perfectly within your rights to reject my claim as being unsupported.No theist has yet managed to present testable evidence that gods are possible let alone actually exist. Every thing a theist says about their god is just a claim which has nothing to support the claim. This is NOT the atheists problem, it is the theists problem, especially if they want their claim to be accepted. This is something all theists need to learn to accept and modify their views accordingly. Present testable evidence for your claims or accept them being rejected. Also threats are meaningless to atheists. Your heaven and hell are useless against those who do not believe you.

FATHER JOE:

Have you seen a narwhal personally or only pictures and testimony from others. I accept the reality of Christ, his miracles and his resurrection on the testimony of others. His apostles affirmed the Easter mystery by allowing themselves to be martyred.

Philosophers have brought forward various ways or proofs for the existence of a deity. The existence of more than one supreme being is a logical contradiction. The pagan deities are more like the Marvel superheroes, not true gods at all.

While there are all sorts of miracles or healings attributed to supernatural intervention, they are rejected by hardliner atheists. Going back to ancient man, there has been sacrifice or worship of a transcendent. We are wired for God. The atheist has come late to the scene and so it is disingenuous to place the burden of proof on the believer. Indeed, while some would regard faith as merely the God of the gaps; there are many notable gaps that go unanswered in atheism, particularly in its deification of mathematics and the various questions of origins and order. The James Webb Space Telescope is making astrophysicists question their basic assumptions about the universe. Notions about string theories disagree and cheating with math create all sorts of alternative universes. Except for what we can see in space, modern physics is increasing speculative— as much or more so than the views held by Christian theists.

No threats are implied in a discussion about heaven and hell. Obviously, I believe in an afterlife, and you do not. You are welcome to believe in oblivion if you want to do so. I place my hope in something more meaningful. If I am right, I promise I will not gloat on the other side. If I am wrong, and I do not think so in the least, then I can only hope that we both make a hearty meal for passing worms.