A Plea for Atheists

[Ronald_E]

My response, as a pantheist, whom you may or may not consider to be an atheist (the Catholic response to my beliefs seems to vary from person to person) is that all those are very interesting philosophical and logical ‘arguments’.

But ultimate reality is not something that can be reached through the philosophy or logic of human thinking. Over and over and over humanity has learned that that which they thought MUST be according to logic, was not.

If I may comment without being intrusive. I love these discussions. Is a pantheist one who has an openness to all interpretations of who or what God may be? If that is correct, then does it mean that different cultures have different ideas about the origin of existence and how this may influence the current experience of one’s existence in relationship to living in this particular culture and finding comfort and safety through inclusion in this particular belief system?
The number one existential crisis for human beings and other creatures is death. Isolation from a source of protection creates distress in all creatures who have an amygdala as far as I know. Therefore, different species form communities based on protecting oneself from the threat of death from different species or different identifiable threats.
In human beings it seems that those who present a threat to the accumulation of natural resources are a threat. Consequently, philosphies have been created to form social connections that attract large numbers of people to defend resources or attack potential competition for these resources.

It seems to me that if any religion is formed from this basis then the foundation of that religion is of human origin based on the limbic brain associated with instinctive survival mechanisms in the animal world. When beliefs form from these intinctive responses to threat then what we see as religion becomes something that is repulsive to anyone who has a sensitivity to life.

I must go now. I haven’t reviewed what I wrote. I hope it makes sense.
I would love to comment on the rest of your post later because you have expressed thought provoking statements that turn on my brain.

 

[reen12]

So…even if we like they way this world is or not or why God has let it be this way, the truth is…there is a God who has let it be this way.

Perhaps my own ‘catechism’ might speak to this point.

How do I know that God exists?
I base belief - in the existence of God -
on the complex design of living creatures.

Is the Creator God?
Yes.

Why does evil exist?
It just does. I leave the ‘why’ in the keeping of God.

Any faith-based statement is simply that. Faith-based.
Statements about Who God is, in great detail.
[Usually raising more questions than questions posed,
to begin with.]

What of the faith statements of the major world religions?
These express deeply held beliefs about God,
often based on scriptures.

Can’t be an atheist. Creation is far too complex.

reen12

 

[holy_wood]

I don’t accept those presuppositions, so I guess the rest is a moot point with me. I come from a perspective where humanity is not the reason for the Universe, it’s not all about us. And I still find either logical inconsistencies or having to accept a bizarre list of presuppositions that to me, basically means we are starting out from a base so far from logic…what’s the point?

I mean if I have to accept that which is ridiculous in order to follow your “logic”, then what’s the point? Why not just call it faith and move on? I’m OK with that, but many Christians think they’ll get more respect or win over hearts and minds if they play the logic card. But the logic card comes with a huge “if”, and truly it’s the “if” that we are arguing, not what comes after it.

If I accepted everything you say about god, then of course, I’d accept the rest as well.

Have you read Summa Theologica. Christians use logic not out of a conspiracy to win souls but because we honestly believe that it is a rational faith. You denial of my presuppositions was not based on anything rational. You didn’t even try to show why it was flawed. Basically, you denied them because 1) you accept the logic behind them but still want “the suffering exist” argument to stay in play when arguing against theism. 2) You couldn’t follow the arguments. 3) You don’t care if it was true or not. I’m sure there could be more but to me these seem the most likely.

I’m very confused. Do you believe in God or not?

Is the universe rational or isn’t it?

Does it follow certain laws or not?

Will fire always burn you?

Will ice always be cold?

If you believe in God and you accept that the universe is rational then my points on suffering stand.

If you don’t believe in God and you believe the universe is rational how do you explain its order?

If you simply do not believe the universe is rational then I really don’t know how to argue with you because this is something which to me seems self-evident.

Most evil in the world is caused by human sin and all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. If people want evil purged from the world they are pretty much opting for their own annihilation.

 

[cheddarsox]

If I may comment without being intrusive. I love these discussions. Is a pantheist one who has an openness to all interpretations of who or what God may be? If that is correct, then does it mean that different cultures have different ideas about the origin of existence and how this may influence the current experience of one’s existence in relationship to living in this particular culture and finding comfort and safety through inclusion in this particular belief system?
The number one existential crisis for human beings and other creatures is death. Isolation from a source of protection creates distress in all creatures who have an amygdala as far as I know. Therefore, different species form communities based on protecting oneself from the threat of death from different species or different identifiable threats.
In human beings it seems that those who present a threat to the accumulation of natural resources are a threat. Consequently, philosphies have been created to form social connections that attract large numbers of people to defend resources or attack potential competition for these resources.

It seems to me that if any religion is formed from this basis then the foundation of that religion is of human origin based on the limbic brain associated with instinctive survival mechanisms in the animal world. When beliefs form from these intinctive responses to threat then what we see as religion becomes something that is repulsive to anyone who has a sensitivity to life.

I must go now. I haven’t reviewed what I wrote. I hope it makes sense.
I would love to comment on the rest of your post later because you have expressed thought provoking statements that turn on my brain.

I too, don’t have much time, but I’ll try to post a quick response to what I think you are saying.

The definition of pantheism you use is a rather uncommon one. Technically, that is one of the definitions of pantheism, but it is not the one I am using (which in modern times seems to be the more common one) I am a natural pantheist. I (we, there are many of us) consider the Universe to be the ultimate reality. We do not speculate about a personal deity beyond it, we accept it as it is, as a whole, to be ultimate reality.

I think that all religions are human made. A higher power, one who is complete and perfect in itself, would have no need of a religion. They are always about humans responding to something.

Religions address many social needs, and in doing so, survival needs. Now, in modern technological societies, our needs look a bit different. We do not live in small communities that are under constant threat of extinction by nature or other small communities. We are not a clan, with a shared history and culture and little outside influence. We are people who move and know the histories of diverse places and the beliefs of diverse peoples and most of us feel we are pretty safe and secure from an early death. So a single cultural religion no longer suffices, or fills the role it once did. We are asking different things, in some ways, from our faith, yet behind it all, yes, we still have the same basic needs and drives and fears.

Natural pantheism addresses the fear of death rather differently. It accepts that our “soul” is a function of the brain that will cease at death, but realizes that the stuff that makes us up will continue to be recycled by the Universe. Because we feel the Universe is amazing and ultimate reality. Because we place a level of trust that goes beyond the security of self, in the Universe, that is a comfort to us.

We are a pretty pragmatic group. It was OK before we were born, and we assume it will likewise be OK after we die. In the meantime, our awe for the complexity and order of the Universe inform us in our daily decisions. We don’t believe that the Universe is about us, that it is just a stage for humans. We are but a part of it, not the most important part.

 

[cheddarsox]

Have you read Summa Theologica. Christians use logic not out of a conspiracy to win souls but because we honestly believe that it is a rational faith. You denial of my presuppositions was not based on anything rational. You didn’t even try to show why it was flawed. Basically, you denied them because 1) you accept the logic behind them but still want “the suffering exist” argument to stay in play when arguing against theism. 2) You couldn’t follow the arguments. 3) You don’t care if it was true or not. I’m sure there could be more but to me these seem the most likely.

I’m very confused. Do you believe in God or not?

Is the universe rational or isn’t it?

Does it follow certain laws or not?

Will fire always burn you?

Will ice always be cold?

If you believe in God and you accept that the universe is rational then my points on suffering stand.

If you don’t believe in God and you believe the universe is rational how do you explain its order?

If you simply do not believe the universe is rational then I really don’t know how to argue with you because this is something which to me seems self-evident.

Most evil in the world is caused by human sin and all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. If people want evil purged from the world they are pretty much opting for their own annihilation.

I don’t have but a few minutes, on my way to work, but I’ll see if I can answer some of the points you bring up.

I’ve read a few bits and pieces of the Summa, but I tend not to spend months studying the apologetics of other faiths, so, no, I haven’t worked my way through it.

I don’t accept the logic behind the presuppositions. I don’t agree with the points you posted earlier that you find logical reasons to accept the presuppositions. Some of them don’t make any sense to me in the face of reality, and as I pointed out, I don’t think logic alone can predict reality.

It isn’t clear or apparent to me, and many other folks, even after reading the logic, that the conclusions are true.

I don’t think that religion is primarily about being rational, nor that it needs to be or should be. It’s a social tool that helps one deal with life, and while logic is a useful tool, and rationality is a useful tool, funny thing is, they are not always the best tool to use in various situations. I know many atheists argue against faith or religion because it is illogical, I don’t. So is adherence to a sports team or spending a lot of money on going to concerts or collecting things, but people do it and it serves a purpose in their lives, rational or not.

Life is not a court room or debate podium.

You seem to think that if I understand the logic you are using I will have to concede that you are right and that your god, or at least a personal god of some type, HAS to exist. But no matter how logical your arguments seem, one cannot logic something into existence.

All your logic presupposes that the human way of thinking is capable of ferreting out reality all on it’s own, that what we think MUST be, must therefore be.

that is an assumption I do not accept. So, there probably is no point in you wasting a great deal of time arguing with me. Our human thought processes are wonderful tools, but they are not the be all and end all. Again, In my faith, we don’t consider humanity to be the pinnacle and purpose of creation.

I believe in a higher power, the Universe, as a whole, is the ultimate reality. I don’t call it god, because I don’t understand it as a “person” (which is what I think you are arguing for with your logic)

I’m not sure what you mean by is the Universe rational. It is orderly. I do not suppose it thinks like humans do, because I think our sentience is a brain function that evolved to deal with the challenges of being mortal. The Universe is NOT mortal, and doesn’t appear to think like a human. But it is ordered, at least from my vantage point.

It appears to follow “laws”, but being as small as we are, and living as short lives as we do, there are cycles and occurances in the Universe that take place on a scale of size and time too small and too large for us to easily observe and categorize. So, it appears that there are laws that it always follows, but I can’t pretend to know on an ultimate level.

Fire always burns me and ice always makes me cold.

gotta run, I may be late.

 

[Catholig]

Atheists, do you have the power to make personal choices in your life, like freely deciding whether you eat Wheaties or corn flakes for breakfast, or are all of your thoughts and actions determined by a sequence of causes and effects in the physical universe?

I think I know what you’re getting at. Namely, that the big bang happened…and atoms were set on an unalterable course, and our actions are predetermined as a result.

Now as far as that theory is negated by the existence of quantum physics and how matter/energy behaves at a sub-atomic level. I’m not positive, though, and don’t fully understand the science behind it.

 

[Catholig]

Have you read Summa Theologica. Christians use logic not out of a conspiracy to win souls but because we honestly believe that it is a rational faith. You denial of my presuppositions was not based on anything rational. You didn’t even try to show why it was flawed. Basically, you denied them because 1) you accept the logic behind them but still want “the suffering exist” argument to stay in play when arguing against theism. 2) You couldn’t follow the arguments. 3) You don’t care if it was true or not. I’m sure there could be more but to me these seem the most likely.

I’m very confused. Do you believe in God or not?

Is the universe rational or isn’t it?

Does it follow certain laws or not?

Will fire always burn you?

Will ice always be cold?

If you believe in God and you accept that the universe is rational then my points on suffering stand.

If you don’t believe in God and you believe the universe is rational how do you explain its order?

If you simply do not believe the universe is rational then I really don’t know how to argue with you because this is something which to me seems self-evident.

Most evil in the world is caused by human sin and all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. If people want evil purged from the world they are pretty much opting for their own annihilation.

I just wanted to make a few obvious comments here - on both sides (atheist and theist) we try to use logic to back up what we’ve already decided for ourselves. Kind of like post-rationalization.

And regarding the use of logic in religious debates (something I feel to be a fruitless exercise - but am still engaged it ) “How can you disprove the existence of something [God] that doesn’t exit?”

 

[cheddarsox]

If you believe in God and you accept that the universe is rational then my points on suffering stand.

If you don’t believe in God and you believe the universe is rational how do you explain its order?

If you simply do not believe the universe is rational then I really don’t know how to argue with you because this is something which to me seems self-evident.

Most evil in the world is caused by human sin and all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. If people want evil purged from the world they are pretty much opting for their own annihilation.

a few minutes to address this…

I don’t explain the Universe’s order.

I’m not capable of it. It’s not my purpose or concern to do so. It’s beyond me. I could speculate, but that is all it would be, speculation.

I didn’t bother much with your points on suffering, because it is not an issue for me. I don’t not believe in a god because suffering exists. If there is a god, it could do whatever it wants, because it would have the power to order things in any way it chose to.

You seem to be debating points with me based on your assumptions of what my issues are, or what the issues of other non Christian god believers you’ve encountered are.

I find it rational to believe in the Universe. It’s there. It is orderly. It is the largest, oldest, most awesome thing I know of. It is dependable. It has the traits that lead me to humility, respect, trust and worship. Those are my authentic responses to it.

I don’t find it rational to speculate that there is an all powerful invisible being behind it, ordering it. I don’t see any reason to go there. I have never looked at the Universe and thought “wow, someone must have made this.”, it appears to me to be something not made, not controlled by anything that thinks like a person. For me, it IS, and always has been ultimate reality.

Other’s seem to react as you do to the awesomeness they observe in the Universe, they think “someone must have made this.” And they spend their lives seeking a relationship with that someone. That is their religion. I respect that, acknowledging that they have a different experience than I do, and that they must act on their experience, it is rational and reasonable for them to do so. My religion is to live based on my perception of the Universe as ultimate reality, and the insights that provides for me.

I did not start this discussion, nor was my intent to go point to point in some logic argument over the characteristics of the Christian god. I don’t have the time, stamina or interest to do so. It is not my intention or goal to prove you or anyone else is wrong in their beliefs. I gain nothing by doing so.

Basically, I didn’t ask you to argue with me. You chose to, for your own reasons. I didn’t insult or challenge your beliefs or ask you to defend them.

I’m happy to discuss beliefs, but I don’t have much of an interest in point by point debate, it seems a waste of time and energy to me, especially when I am required to accept your premises,but no one is interested in looking at it from my perspective.

What if the Universe was the ultimate reality? What if we didn’t presuppose it needed your god to create it?

 

[holy_wood]

a few minutes to address this…

I don’t explain the Universe’s order.

I’m not capable of it. It’s not my purpose or concern to do so. It’s beyond me. I could speculate, but that is all it would be, speculation.

I didn’t bother much with your points on suffering, because it is not an issue for me. I don’t not believe in a god because suffering exists. If there is a god, it could do whatever it wants, because it would have the power to order things in any way it chose to.

You seem to be debating points with me based on your assumptions of what my issues are, or what the issues of other non Christian god believers you’ve encountered are.

I find it rational to believe in the Universe. It’s there. It is orderly. It is the largest, oldest, most awesome thing I know of. It is dependable. It has the traits that lead me to humility, respect, trust and worship. Those are my authentic responses to it.

Other’s seem to react as you do to the awesomeness they observe in the Universe, they think “someone must have made this.” And they spend their lives seeking a relationship with that someone. That is their religion. I respect that, acknowledging that they have a different experience than I do, and that they must act on their experience, it is rational and reasonable for them to do so. My religion is to live based on my perception of the Universe as ultimate reality, and the insights that provides for me.

What if the Universe was the ultimate reality? What if we didn’t presuppose it needed your god to create it?

So you are technically an atheist who is really impressed by the universe?

Furthermore, the big bang theory, time and space coming into existence at that moment. Any of these verifiable scientific **facts **ringing a bell?

“The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” Stephen Hawking * The Beginning of Time*

I have a list of these quotes and there context by reputable scientist. You do believe in science don’t you?

If time had a beginning then that means something not bound by this dimension must have ***caused ***its creation.

Secondly, if you were right and all men learned and unlearned alike had this information then…well I’ll let this quote drive home my point.

The Polish poet Ceslav Milos has said that the modern opium of the people is not religion, but the very opposite:* the belief in ultimate nothingness*. He wrote: **“It is a belief in nothingness after death, the huge solace of thinking that for all our betrayals, our greed, our cowardice and our murders, that we are not going to be judged.” **—Vinoth Ramachandra

I don’t find it rational to speculate that there is an all powerful invisible being behind it, ordering it. I don’t see any reason to go there. I have never looked at the Universe and thought “wow, someone must have made this.”, it appears to me to be something not made, not controlled by anything that thinks like a person. For me, it IS, and always has been ultimate reality.

(snip)

I’m happy to discuss beliefs, but I don’t have much of an interest in point by point debate, it seems a waste of time and energy to me, especially when I am required to accept your premises,but no one is interested in looking at it from my

(snip)

Basically, I didn’t ask you to argue with me. You chose to, for your own reasons. I didn’t insult or challenge your beliefs or ask you to defend them.
perspective.

I’m willing to look at it from your perspective the problem is you have to be willing to have it challenged and be able to defend it. People can believe anything they want, however, I believe they should at least think about it first and be able to justify those beliefs when challenged and be able to answer honest inquiries.

I guess it will turn into a debate but if you want your beliefs respected then this is something in life you have to "man up about"and live with. you should be able to defend them . People may not accept your answers but at least you have them and in your mind at least you have sufficiently logical reasons to maintain them.

Like you said the universe is dependent and orderly. Through natural reason one can come to an understanding of why it is so and by what power brought it to be this way.

I don’t find it rational to believe the universe is the ultimate reality when modern science suggest otherwise.

Men 600 years ago seeing the sun rise and set would not have thought it rational that the Earth revolves around the sun when their eyes were telling them otherwise.

Having certain belies supplemented by both reason and philosophy is admirable and rational, don’t you?

Its your “opinion” that we cannot know and you didn’t really show how my first post was faulty.

I assume people want truth and when I believe I have it I feel the need to share it with others, I guess it was to much to hope for that this courtesy, whether I was right or not, is reciprocated.

I did not start this discussion, nor was my intent to go point to point in some logic argument over the characteristics of the Christian god. I don’t have the time, stamina or interest to do so. It is not my intention or goal to prove you or anyone else is wrong in their beliefs. I gain nothing by doing so.

If the Christian god is real and you accept that then you gain your salvation. If you don’t and you deny him you lose out on the most awesome experience a sentient being could ever hope to have.

First off you replied to a post that was a point by point outline of why I, other Christians, and theist in general believe in a god. If you disagree with it and you want your opinion to be respected and considered you should do the same. Unless of course you don’t care if the argument were valid or not, truthful or not. If that is the case then I hope you one day overcome this apathy.

Secondly, you are on a Catholic forum and if you know anything about the Catholic faith you know that it is our duty to “preach the gospel” to all nations. This would include you.

I am simply trying to follow this command through debate and reason.

What did you expect would happen to you on a Catholic forum in a thread titled “A Plea for Atheist”.

Certain beliefs are dangerous. I know that is an extreme example but if you knew that debating the terrorist of 9/11 might convince them not to hijack those planes and crash the into the twin towers would you do it.

In any case I’m sorry if I came off as hostile and although you say you didn’t challenge my beliefs maybe you consider the possibility that you did anyway subtly and unconsciously.

 

[cheddarsox]

So you are technically an atheist who is really impressed by the universe?

Furthermore, the big bang theory, time and space coming into existence at that moment. Any of these verifiable scientific **facts **ringing a bell?

“The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” Stephen Hawking * The Beginning of Time*

I have a list of these quotes and there context by reputable scientist. You do believe in science don’t you?

If time had a beginning then that means something not bound by this dimension must have ***caused ***its creation.

Secondly, if you were right and all men learned and unlearned alike had this information then…well I’ll let this quote drive home my point.

The Polish poet Ceslav Milos has said that the modern opium of the people is not religion, but the very opposite:* the belief in ultimate nothingness*. He wrote: **“It is a belief in nothingness after death, the huge solace of thinking that for all our betrayals, our greed, our cowardice and our murders, that we are not going to be judged.” **—Vinoth Ramachandra

I’m willing to look at it from your perspective the problem is you have to be willing to have it challenged and be able to defend it. People can believe anything they want, however, I believe they should at least think about it first and be able to justify those beliefs when challenged and be able to answer honest inquiries.

I guess it will turn into a debate but if you want your beliefs respected then this is something in life you have to "man up about"and live with. you should be able to defend them . People may not accept your answers but at least you have them and in your mind at least you have sufficiently logical reasons to maintain them.

Like you said the universe is dependent and orderly. Through natural reason one can come to an understanding of why it is so and by what power brought it to be this way.

I don’t find it rational to believe the universe is the ultimate reality when modern science suggest otherwise.

Men 600 years ago seeing the sun rise and set would not have thought it rational that the Earth revolves around the sun when their eyes were telling them otherwise.

Having certain belies supplemented by both reason and philosophy is admirable and rational, don’t you?

Its your “opinion” that we cannot know and you didn’t really show how my first post was faulty.

I assume people want truth and when I believe I have it I feel the need to share it with others, I guess it was to much to hope for that this courtesy, whether I was right or not, is reciprocated.

If the Christian god is real and you accept that then you gain your salvation. If you don’t and you deny him you lose out on the most awesome experience a sentient being could ever hope to have.

First off you replied to a post that was a point by point outline of why I, other Christians, and theist in general believe in a god. If you disagree with it and you want your opinion to be respected and considered you should do the same. Unless of course you don’t care if the argument were valid or not, truthful or not. If that is the case then I hope you one day overcome this apathy.

Secondly, you are on a Catholic forum and if you know anything about the Catholic faith you know that it is our duty to “preach the gospel” to all nations. This would include you.

I am simply trying to follow this command through debate and reason.

What did you expect would happen to you on a Catholic forum in a thread titled “A Plea for Atheist”.

Certain beliefs are dangerous. I know that is an extreme example but if you knew that debating the terrorist of 9/11 might convince them not to hijack those planes and crash the into the twin towers would you do it.

In any case I’m sorry if I came off as hostile and although you say you didn’t challenge my beliefs maybe you consider the possibility that you did anyway subtly and unconsciously.

I think from the start I pretty much told you I was an atheist impressed with the Universe. I have never pretended to be anything else.

The big bang is a theory. And there are many reputable scientists that think it is part of a cyclical cycle, that the Universe expands, then contracts and big bangs again.

I was a science educator and researcher for 16 years. I’m married to a scientist. I have lots of respect for the field, but I also know, from first hand experience, what they say isn’t gospel. Especially in the arena of what happened many billions of years ago that started this whole thing.

I do think that space and time began at the big bang. Time is our term for everything changing positions relative to one another within the Universe. So, if everything was contracted into a super dense mass, then there would be no time or space until such began to expand.

How does one decide what “forever” is? I mean, if what we experience as time is dependent upon the big bang, then anything beyond that, is out of time. Doesn’t that make time the limits of forever?

I am a time bound creature, what may or may not have been in a reality outside of time isn’t something I can really address. You seem to feel you can, so it makes sense that you do.

I don’t doubt something caused the big bang. No one knows what that is. Not even Mr Hawking. You say that it is your god. I don’t see a reason to believe that. I admit that I don’t know. If that makes you disrespect me, that’s fine. I didn’t come here trying to get you to respect my beliefs. I don’t think that any answer is automatically better than admitting not knowing. I read what science thinks about these things, but that doesn’t mean I accept them as “gospel” truth.

I am willing to be challenged. I said I’m not interested in going point to point with you over the characteristics of the Christian god. I don’t see why we should argue details when we don’t agree on whether or not there is a god in the first place.

If your definition of god is “supernatural being”, then we disagree, if your definition of god is “ultimate reality, source and cause” then we just disagree on the form it takes.

I discuss my beliefs and debate my beliefs all the time (not here, but on forums for such discussion).

Science is trying to discover why the Universe is orderly. I’m fine with that, it in no way threatens my beliefs, I am confident there are natural reasons it is as it is. Are you confident that their reasoning and inquiry will come face to face with your god?

I don’t recall saying the Universe is dependent. I don’t believe that, dependent upon what? It is the sum of all things and the order that causes all things to be and operate as they do. The universe is not just the stuff, it IS the order as well. You call that order god and consider it supernatural. I see that order as inherently part of the natural universe.

I understand that you don’t think my beliefs are rational. You think it is irrational of me to believe the Universe, of which I am a part, which brought me forth, sustains me and everything I know, that I will never exist outside or, or observe anything outside of…is my ultimate reality. OK.

But you think it is rational to believe in an invisible supernatural being with all the characteristics your faith ascribes to such, who comes and visits you under the guise of bread and wine.

And I’ve never said your beliefs, which I think there is a wee bit less evidence for, are irrational. I respect you enough to feel sure you have some very good reasons to hold them.

I guess you are right, I led you astray by not ignoring your original posts to me.

Perhaps somewhere you missed my saying that I don’t think religion needs to be rational. It’s a tool that helps us order our lives and motivates us to “man up” when challenges arise. I don’t think it needs to always be literal truth, it needs to serve.

So, you can claim I don’t defend my faith, I do, to a point. But I havent made the claims for mine Catholicism makes. I don’t tell everyone it is literal truth and that they had better believe it too or else they are in for a nasty surprise. I tell them it is my religion, and that it makes a difference in my life.

Not all faiths are like your, not all make the claims and demands yours make.

I think most religions are metaphor, myth, and a dash of wishful thinking. I have no problem with that. Not everything in life has to be or should be rational, literal, logical, etc.

I know that is what you demand of your faith, but that is not the place religion holds for everyone in the world.

The Universe is my ultimate reality, the only one I’ll ever know. I dont see that as irrational, at least no more irrational than many claims of your faith.

 

[reen12]

Secondly, you are on a Catholic forum and if you know anything about the Catholic faith you know that it is our duty to “preach the gospel” to all nations. This would include you.

Correct. No problem with this stance.
I don’t share it, but it is ‘mighty thoughty’ of you,
as Bullwinkle the Moose, used to say.

Basically, what we have - in Judeo-Christian thought,
are faith-based assertions…to which the canons of logic
are then applied.
If…then, gets quite a workout.

Religious faith is not ‘illogical,’ once given assertions
are extended conditional acceptance.

[If one accepts intelligent design, that’s all one may
assert and defend…within the realms of logical thought.
If…then…

Anything beyond this, relies on revelation and the
testimony of others - who lived 2 millenia ago.]

If we want to ‘do’ logic, some interesting points display.

Christ stated that ‘few’ would find the path to life,
and there’s a bracing thought. Billions upon billions of human
beings created, with solely a ‘few’ saved.

How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few. [Matt. 7]

Combine this with ‘fires that never quench,’ and references to
a refuse dump [Gehenna]… this is a reference made
by God Himself, in the Person of Christ.

It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

…be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Yet we are told to respect human life. How is this an
expression of the value of human life, where a refuse pile
features prominently, for those who accept not this deity?

So we have a ‘few’ saved, and the rest sent to an
acknowledged refuse pile, “both soul and body”
…as we are told to respect human life.

That didn’t make any sense to me, 50 years ago.
It makes even less sense, now.

reen12

 

[Swan]

That must just be human nature, I know many people who do claim to believe in God, and enjoy arguing for his existence, but you’d never know it from the way they live their lives. Sometimes I think organized religion has made it too easy for people. They show up, and feel they’ve met their duty for the week. A faith is nothing if it is not lived in every moment, if it does not inform our decisions, and alter our daily perspective.

I don’t accept those presuppositions, so I guess the rest is a moot point with me. I come from a perspective where humanity is not the reason for the Universe, it’s not all about us. And I still find either logical inconsistencies or having to accept a bizarre list of presuppositions that to me, basically means we are starting out from a base so far from logic…what’s the point?

I mean if I have to accept that which is ridiculous in order to follow your “logic”, then what’s the point? Why not just call it faith and move on? I’m OK with that, but many Christians think they’ll get more respect or win over hearts and minds if they play the logic card. But the logic card comes with a huge “if”, and truly it’s the “if” that we are arguing, not what comes after it.

If I accepted everything you say about god, then of course, I’d accept the rest as well.

I agree with the first part, logic doesn’t work on hearts.

People don’t live in a tidy world, a courtroom where logic can be applied, debated, argued, in an orderly manner. They live messy complex lives, where suddenly, all the logical arguments don’t match up with their daily experience. And many don’t have again, the luxury, of sitting down with a nice fat book of theology to have someone re-explain to them how what they are experiencing is logically consistent with what another big fat book of theology says about god.

That is why they reject it, because for many, when it comes to their daily lives, it all falls apart like a cheap paper towel.

Yes, lots of people hold grudges against god, and if you listen to their stories, and they might not sound all that illogical.

It’s hard to hold onto a belief in all those things one hears about god, when life is challenging all those presuppositions one is asked to accept.

And the one’s who stick around, like to point fingers and claim apathy, attachment to sin, grudge, hardness of heart. But there is more to it than that, more than labels and head shaking can address.

There is a big “why”…why are those other things more powerful than the concept of god that they have been fed. Why are those things more real and compelling in their lives.

You may claim it is purely the failure of those apathetic humans, but I think there is more to it, in many cases, much more to it.

There are some real aching undeniable chasms of human need that are not being met by either the presuppositions or the logic that comes after, of many religious faiths.

Thank you for taking the time to type all this out.

 

[Swan]

I think from the start I pretty much told you I was an atheist impressed with the Universe. I have never pretended to be anything else.

The big bang is a theory. And there are many reputable scientists that think it is part of a cyclical cycle, that the Universe expands, then contracts and big bangs again.

I was a science educator and researcher for 16 years. I’m married to a scientist. I have lots of respect for the field, but I also know, from first hand experience, what they say isn’t gospel. Especially in the arena of what happened many billions of years ago that started this whole thing.

I do think that space and time began at the big bang. Time is our term for everything changing positions relative to one another within the Universe. So, if everything was contracted into a super dense mass, then there would be no time or space until such began to expand.

How does one decide what “forever” is? I mean, if what we experience as time is dependent upon the big bang, then anything beyond that, is out of time. Doesn’t that make time the limits of forever?

I am a time bound creature, what may or may not have been in a reality outside of time isn’t something I can really address. You seem to feel you can, so it makes sense that you do.

I don’t doubt something caused the big bang. No one knows what that is. Not even Mr Hawking. You say that it is your god. I don’t see a reason to believe that. I admit that I don’t know. If that makes you disrespect me, that’s fine. I didn’t come here trying to get you to respect my beliefs. I don’t think that any answer is automatically better than admitting not knowing. I read what science thinks about these things, but that doesn’t mean I accept them as “gospel” truth.

I am willing to be challenged. I said I’m not interested in going point to point with you over the characteristics of the Christian god. I don’t see why we should argue details when we don’t agree on whether or not there is a god in the first place.

If your definition of god is “supernatural being”, then we disagree, if your definition of god is “ultimate reality, source and cause” then we just disagree on the form it takes.

I discuss my beliefs and debate my beliefs all the time (not here, but on forums for such discussion).

Science is trying to discover why the Universe is orderly. I’m fine with that, it in no way threatens my beliefs, I am confident there are natural reasons it is as it is. Are you confident that their reasoning and inquiry will come face to face with your god?

I don’t recall saying the Universe is dependent. I don’t believe that, dependent upon what? It is the sum of all things and the order that causes all things to be and operate as they do. The universe is not just the stuff, it IS the order as well. You call that order god and consider it supernatural. I see that order as inherently part of the natural universe.

I understand that you don’t think my beliefs are rational. You think it is irrational of me to believe the Universe, of which I am a part, which brought me forth, sustains me and everything I know, that I will never exist outside or, or observe anything outside of…is my ultimate reality. OK.

But you think it is rational to believe in an invisible supernatural being with all the characteristics your faith ascribes to such, who comes and visits you under the guise of bread and wine.

And I’ve never said your beliefs, which I think there is a wee bit less evidence for, are irrational. I respect you enough to feel sure you have some very good reasons to hold them.

I guess you are right, I led you astray by not ignoring your original posts to me.

Perhaps somewhere you missed my saying that I don’t think religion needs to be rational. It’s a tool that helps us order our lives and motivates us to “man up” when challenges arise. I don’t think it needs to always be literal truth, it needs to serve.

**So, you can claim I don’t defend my faith, I do, to a point. But I havent made the claims for mine Catholicism makes. I don’t tell everyone it is literal truth and that they had better believe it too or else they are in for a nasty surprise. I tell them it is my religion, and that it makes a difference in my life.

Not all faiths are like your, not all make the claims and demands yours make.

I think most religions are metaphor, myth, and a dash of wishful thinking. I have no problem with that. Not everything in life has to be or should be rational, literal, logical, etc.

I know that is what you demand of your faith, but that is not the place religion holds for everyone in the world.**
The Universe is my ultimate reality, the only one I’ll ever know. I dont see that as irrational, at least no more irrational than many claims of your faith.

Even better - and a point that often seems to be ignored.

 

[cheddarsox]

Earlier I ran out of time (work!) again, and have just a wee bit to add of the subject of defending my faith (since a gauntlet has been thrown down)

There is a doctrine known as panentheism that incorporates the idea that the Universe is part of the Divine, but not the sum total, that there is something that contains yet also supercedes the Universe. And for a while I considered myself a panentheist, because I don’t deny the possibility that there is something beyond the Universe that may even be responsible for it workings.

But I found that I was spending time speculating on what that “something” might or might not be, if it did exist. And I found that I was not making any spiritual headway, and was ignoring that which I did know existed, the Universe. It seemed pretty pointless to me.

If there is something beyond the Universe, if there are multiverses, as some scientists speculate, that is all fine and well, but over time my experience leads me to believe that I will never know, and that even if those things exist, they have little impact on me.

I am a creature of this Universe, bound by it’s laws, experiencing it’s “time”, and what may be beyond or in another Universe I cannot know. So now I focus on what I can know, and what does act as MY ultimate reality, this Universe.

That is why I am a pantheist, because what I know and experience of this Universe, in which I am bound, moves me toward reverence and a deeper spirituality that allows me to meet the challenges of life both as an individual and as part of a community.

Speculating on what may or may not be beyond this Universe did not do that, so it seemed both preferable, rational, and even logical to me, to act on what I do know, rather on what I do not.

My work as a scientist and science educator led me to a deeper wonder and appreciation of the workings of this Universe. I appreciate the information that the scientific process provides for me. But I also recognize science and religion to hold different roles in both my own life and society. They can inform one another, and there may be areas of overlap, but they primarily do different things.

I do not consider science to be my religion, nor my religion to replace or supercede science, on the other hand, if I find them in direct conflict, I think it is worthwhile to take a deeper look. I do this, with the help of other members of my faith. I do have a spiritual community that supports and challenges one another, as you do here.

I would think you can understand that, imagine that your child or loved one fell ill and the doctors (scientists) said that there was no hope, they would soon die. Would you simply take the scientists word, or would you seek more information, and perhaps turn to your faith as well? Would you not wonder if there was some information out there that those particular doctors/scientists were not aware of that might address the situation, or would you be rational, and say “well, I guess that’s it, science has spoken?”

Some people have suggested it is irrational of me to worship or have reverence for the Universe, since the Universe is not a person and doesn’t “care”, they ask me why I bother.

The reverence I feel is my authentic response to what I experience and observe. Like a person laughs when they are tickled, I worship when I am aware of the wonder of reality. I don’t plan it, it happens, it is how I am wired. It is my human response to What Is.

The practice of science requires rationality and objectivity. I have been an active science researcher for a number of years. I know how to do that.

Religion is somewhat more subjective.

My faith has two main aspects, awareness and acknowledgment, nowhere is there an exhortation to convert others, convince others, or seek the respect of others. The Universe pretty much “speaks” for itself, and doesn’t really need me to defend it, introduce others to it, or try to convince others of its power or wonder, so “defending” the faith usually takes the form of correcting others misconceptions of it, not trying to convince them they should believe it too. On the other hand, natural pantheists tend not to make unsupportable claims about the Universe. It is What Is.

If there is a supernatural world that is parallel to or beyond this one, I have not been gifted with the senses necessary to “see” it.

While some may think that I should believe in a supernatural world because they tell me it is so, I feel that another person’s word alone is not sufficient to sway me, I need more evidence.
I think that most people desire evidence before they give up what they do know, and what has been beneficial in their lives, to follow another person’s suggestion, especially in areas of import in their lives.

I hope that clears a few things up.

 

[holy_wood]

bored now! I just got a job so I won’t be able to continue in this thread. I do see peoples and RESPECT their spiritual viewpints; I just like giving them a hard about it.

1. 
   *]because its entertaining for me
   *]because it forces them to really look past their culteral conditioning and have logical answers to defend them.
   I could continue on this thread but in doing so it would take weeks tto respond so I’m just gonna call it quits. Sorry for offending anyone here.
   
   Have fun theist, atheist, patheist, and various other “iest”.

 

[tGette]

May God bless you holly_wood!

Endure!

 

[Ronald_E]

bored now! I just got a job so I won’t be able to continue in this thread. I do see peoples and RESPECT their spiritual viewpints; I just like giving them a hard about it.

1. 
   *]because its entertaining for me
   *]because it forces them to really look past their culteral conditioning and have logical answers to defend them.
   I could continue on this thread but in doing so it would take weeks tto respond so I’m just gonna call it quits. Sorry for offending anyone here.
   
   Have fun theist, atheist, patheist, and various other “iest”.

1. 
   It appears that your prefrontal cortex has a few years left to hardwire itself in the real world. Keep the faith.

 

[MrWhy]

Atheists,

Let all of us religious and God-believing folk pretend that you are right and that there is no God.

My questions for you are:

What is the purpose?
Why are we here?
Where did evolution get its intelligence from?

You claim to be so smart that you have proven billions of people wrong about God and the meaning of life. So certainly you can answer these questions.

Thank you!

This is an example of the reasoning gulf that separates theists and atheists.

To an atheist the “purpose” question is simple. Since there is no creator, there is no creation purpose. Further, there is no need for a purpose. You exist. Make the best of it by managing your life for the good of yourself and others.

Why we are here is a similar issue. There is no “why” in the sense of why we buy a fridg. The fridge has a purpose, and why we buy it is obvious. The only valid use of “why” in questioning our existence is to analyze the various things that influence natural selection. Ex. Why do most species reproduce via two sexes instead of only one, or instead of 3? That is an interesting, productive, and valid use of the “why” word.

Where does anyone get the idea that evolution has or demonstrates intelligence? Evolution has no intelligence. It is a non-caring, unintelligent process that can produce complexity via a very long series of small simple accumulated changes. The results may or may not survive depending on environmental changes and adaptation. To truly understand how this process can produce what we observe as intelligent complexity, you need to drop the idea that complexity can only be created by higher complexity. This is how we produce complexity, but evolution inverts that path. Evolution produces complexity by accumulating an extremely high number of tiny changes. Many, probably most, of the changes are not beneficial and may not be continued. When a change is beneficial (adaptive) it’s chance for being passed to future generations is better than those changes that are not beneficial. Simple unintelligent process, but carry it out long enough and you get a critter that has just enough intelligence to produce organization and technology that can mess with the entire planet.

 

[cheddarsox]

bored now! I just got a job so I won’t be able to continue in this thread. I do see peoples and RESPECT their spiritual viewpints; I just like giving them a hard about it.

1. 
   *]because its entertaining for me
   *]because it forces them to really look past their culteral conditioning and have logical answers to defend them.
   I could continue on this thread but in doing so it would take weeks tto respond so I’m just gonna call it quits. Sorry for offending anyone here.
   
   Have fun theist, atheist, patheist, and various other “iest”.

1. 
   Good luck with the job. I don’t think you offended anyone. We all come here for much the same reason as you, it’s fun!

 

[tGette]

This is an example of the reasoning gulf that separates theists and atheists.

To an atheist the “purpose” question is simple. Since there is no creator, there is no creation purpose. Further, there is no need for a purpose. You exist. Make the best of it by managing your life for the good of yourself and others.

I actually answered the purpose question in the thread somewhere with a quote from an atheist.

I have to put this quote by Bertrand Russell (an atheist):
“Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless.”

I now WANT to ask:
Doesn’t being alive denote some purpose? (i.e. What are we going to do to make money, will we marry someone, etc.?)
If there was no purpose…why not just kill ourselves?
Why do I exist? Does it not amaze anyone that we exist?
We exist just to die?
What is it that keeps you alive as you sleep?
Where did inanimate objects come from to be able to come together and become life?
Where did matter come from?

But what I will actually ask is:
What is the standard for making the best of it?
Especially, what is the standard for doing GOOD for others and ourselves?

Good cannot be a subjective term.
Because then evil becomes a subjective term.

As I posted somewhere earlier…maybe good is bad to people and vice versa.
(i.e. Some people think abortion is bad, some people think abortion is good;

• some people think it is good to hate people of other races and think it is bad to like them, some people think it is bad to hate people of other races and think it is good to like all people;
• some people think it is good to help the sick and the poor, some people think it is best to let them die [as they curtail evolution] )

This then leads me to wonder…because then we all have a different definition of hate and love.

What is the standard from which we judge “good” and “bad”?