A very convincing atheist

[Thal59]

When a company makes a financial mistake, often it goes out of business for good.

When a politician, or world leader even, gets caught in a scandal, often they are stripped of power forever.

When a Protestant denomination has members that dissent with the teaching of the denomination, often they lose unity and subdivide into even more denominations that will father more dissenting children and more future denominations.

Consider for a few moments the history of the Catholic church. Consider not only the great successes, but the financial mistakes, scandals, and dissent.

If there were no God, there would be no Catholic church. The Catholic church is proof of the existence, as well as the benevolent action of God, in that no organization made by man could have survived for 2,000 years all of the abuses from within and without that the church has endured.

Thal59

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Hi Neithan,
Sorry about the blotched post. My (name removed by moderator)ut is intertwined throughout my last post. You talk about the anti-atheist sentiment you can encounter. And you ask how can a loving God send people to hell. Well when a disciple starts to doubt the truths of faith. And largely due to a lack of knowledge and understanding, that is why people like those here will freely volunteer their time and energy to help someone avoid the pitfall. Think about it. God bless.
John Russell Jr:

By John-Sounds good. But in practise it all too often fails. Much like communism. I have met atheists, and they have happiness etc. Are sometimes good people. But the joy and peace that comes from a deep faith and trust in God is far above this. when you delve deeper you often find a different story. I have seen people suicide. Where comes this place they find themselves, with no hope. Without hope in an afterlife, eventually one will be tested, and one may not pass the test. Perhaps a divorce, death in the family. One cannot find meaning in it. Perhaps sickness comes our way. Without hope we are as vulnerable to despair and other problems as the alcoholic is to busting without regular AA meetings. You’re tempting fate, sometimes. Catholicism has an all round answer to everything concerning this life and the next. And I find that faith and reason are not at wars. I pray you do too.

 

[trogiah]

Neithan:

Is the faith necessary for the morals? That is the question.

That is a question that probably comes close to the heart of atheism.

I submit that we have no choice but to live by faith. Everyone puts their faith in something. some would distinguish those that live by “faith” from those that live by “reason”. I submit that reason is simply one more thing in which a person can put faith.

I am a math and science teacher and so I put a lot of value in reason but I cannot put full faith in it because reason always must stem from underlying assumptions. Those assumptions are what we put our faith in. Assumptions like, “The world is good” or “the world is bad” cannot be proven but must be taken on an act of faith.

So, to answer the question I say, We all must live by faith, whether we are moral or not. Being moral (or not) will flow from whatever we put our faith in.

I should add, another reason I don’t choose to live by reason is this: sometimes I am just to tired to think, but I would still like to do the right thing. That would be tough to do if I was a rational atheist.

peace

-Jim

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Hi Neithan,

Is the faith necessary for the morals? That is the question.
You should take a look at the quote below, and go to the link for a good explaination of the variations in atheistic and agnostic belief.

There are two systems of practical or moral atheism which call for attention. They are based upon the theoretic systems just expounded. One system of positive moral atheism, in which human actions would neither be right nor wrong, good nor evil, with reference to God, would naturally follow from the profession of positive theoretic atheism; and it is significant of those to whom such a form of theoretic atheism is sometimes attributed, that for the sanctions of moral actions they introduce such abstract ideas as those of duty, the social instinct, or humanity. There seems to be no particular reason why they should have recourse to such sanctions, since the morality of an action can hardly be derived from its performance as a duty, which in turn can be called and known as a “duty” only because it refers to an action that is morally good. Indeed an analysis of the idea of duty leads to a refutation of the principle in whose support it is invoked, and points to the necessity of a theisitic interpretation of nature for its own justification. The second system of negative practical or moral atheism may be referred to the second type of theoretic atheism. It is like the first in not relating human actions to an extra-mundane, spiritual, and personal lawgiver; but that, not because such a lawgiver does not exist, but because the human intelligence is incapable of so relating them. It must not be forgotten, however, that either negative theoretic atheism or negative practical atheism is, as a system, strictly speaking compatible with belief in a God; and much confusion is often caused by the inaccurate use of the terms, belief, knowledge, opinion, etc.

newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

 

[Tulkas]

Neithan:

This may be indicative of how weak and fragile my Faith is (i’ll be the first to admit it) but I recently came across this website written by an atheist and expert debater, Adam Marczyk.

Suffice it to say, I am very impressed. He has some compelling arguments for his beliefs (or lack thereof) and I am at a loss to find any satisfactory theistic response. His articles are relatively short but are poignant and cover a lot of ground. The top seven (from “All Possible Worlds” to “Unmoved Mover”) are particularly arresting. Seriously, it’s stuff like this that really shakens, and threatens to shatter, my faith. This bothers me because… why should I fear the Truth? Why should any of us fear it? If Christianity is wrong (and face it… we HAVE to face this possibility or we are closed-minded) than we should feel liberated, right?

I suppose I’m still young and inexperienced (I’m not as deeply educated–in theology and philosophy–as I’d like to be) but Mr. Marczyk seems to sweep away with majestic style any and all reasons for a Christian worldview. The deconversion stories on the site really hit a nerve. What do you all think? If you have the time, please click on the above link and check it out (but a warning to those who don’t want to test their faith). Am I overreacting? Are there any good apologetic responses to all of this? Are we all fooling ourselves?

1 Cor. 15:19

[Sarcasm]
Neithan, do what these people tell you. Stop thinking, do not use logic to analyse what you believe in, for that is absurd. Instead, read up on the teachings of christ more. Perhaps this will help to ‘clear your mind’ of all this Atheist insanity.[/Sarcasm]

To whoever said his argument is not among the most sophisticated, (Strider?): Perhaps you are correct, yet it is not the most sophisticated argument that wins over or even lets Theists consider the logic of Atheism. It is the moderate, easily understood argument that will appeal and convert…More logic for ya

 

[mkamoski]

Neithan:

This may be indicative of how weak and fragile my Faith is (i’ll be the first to admit it) but I recently came across this website written by an atheist and expert debater, Adam Marczyk.

Suffice it to say, I am very impressed. He has some compelling arguments for his beliefs (or lack thereof) and I am at a loss to find any satisfactory theistic response. His articles are relatively short but are poignant and cover a lot of ground. The top seven (from “All Possible Worlds” to “Unmoved Mover”) are particularly arresting…

N–

Humans are weak. God is strong. When humans accept God, trust God, they are strong. And so.

It is healthy to think; but, do it one ought to think for oneself.

Remember-- seek Christ and you will find him.

I will try to address some of of the arguments, for kicks.

“All Possible Worlds” Argument

Assumption (1): God exists. <<< true

    Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing. <<< true

    Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful. <<< true

    Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving. <<< true

    Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God. <<< true

Premise (2): Evil exists. <<< true

Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil. <<< true

Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil. <<< true

<<<< the argument breaks here / see below >>>>

Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.

Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))

Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))

Conclusion (7): There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving. (from (2),(3),(4),(5))

Conclusion (8): God does not exist. (from (7),(1d))

<<<< continued from above >>>>

God loves us, completely. As such, he gave humans free will. This means humas are free to choose God or choose evil. Note that is is humans who choose evil, not God. God offers humans a perfect offering-- salvation through Christ Jesus. It is theoretically possible that all humans could all choose God rather than evil. Where would evil be then? Probably gone, I suppose. Regardless, evil is the choice of humans not God.

HTH.

May Christ be with you,

–Mark

 

[Tulkas]

THE HISTORY OF CATHOLICISM:

[SARCASM]

Humans are weak yes. Imagination is Strong. Thus man creates a strong imaginatative figure. Lets call him God.

God knows everything, and I am the personal messanger of God… I call myself the pope. You must do what i say or else God will damn you to hell.

You must come to church on sundays, and pay me money for God’s support. But God loves you, and he provides you with protection.

Just remember these points and you will be fine, my cihld!

All Possible Worlds" Argument

Assumption (1): God exists. <<< true

     Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing. <<< true

     Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful. <<< true

     Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving. <<< true

     Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God. <<< true

Premise (2): Evil exists. <<< true

Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil. <<< true

Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil. <<< true

You must believe these, because God and Jesus told me they are correct. Do not ask questions, Just have faith.

Please my child, believe, have faith, and Jesus Will Always Love you. [Sarcasm/]

It is amazing how we abandon the logic we use daily, the logic that keeps us alive, the logic that tells us to get a job, dump the girlfriend, put on a seatbelt, and brush our teeth. We abandon this logic to feel secure, to create a false sense of security through higher power as we call God. This is just another Human Instinct, i take it back, there is nothing here that amazes me…

 

[RobbyS]

Last night Charlie Rose had on a novelist who taked about the creative materialism of the nuerosurgeon who was the protagonist in his novel. He spoke of the self-orgazing ability of matter. How do we gert order from disorder? Everything we know about physics tells us that we descend from order to disorder: the day we are conceived we start down the road of dissolution. We are kept aliove by outside forces. The moral atheist derives all his good intentions from some power outside himself, if it be only society,

 

[Neithan]

Ahimsa:

Well, Neithan, you can always perform a little experiment (if you’re willing). Live as an atheist for a week or so, and keep a journal of your experiences. Live as if an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God does not exist. Live as if this life is the only conscious life you will ever have. Live as if this physical world is the only realm of existence. How do you speak, think, feel, act? Do you seem more loving, or more selfish? Are you freed, or are you imprisoned?

This is an interesting experiment… but tricky to do. I still do lean towards a God rather than no God, and so I would have to be imagining that there isn’t one. Imagining is much different than truly believing, so I wouldn’t really be behaving like a hardened, militant atheist. I might give it a try all the same. Have you?

Strider:

Atheistic, humanistic thought is frightening and will destroy us if we let it.

Those are strong words. I do think, regardless of how many “loyalty to the species” arguments I hear, that the lack of absolute moral grounding would ultimately have some very grave consequences. Atheists really have no solid reference on which to advise other atheists how to live their lives. That’s quite a problem isn’t it? It eventually produces viscious tyrants or reduces to Hobbes’ State of Nature in the end. I don’t think that atheism will ever “triumph” over theism though. The idea of a ‘Supreme Being’, even in polytheistic cultures, has always existed. It’s instinctive to our species, I guess.
John Russell Jr:

You should take a look at the quote below, and go to the link for a good explaination of the variations in atheistic and agnostic belief.

I’m definitely a fan of the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Despite the bias, it’s a massive scholarly achievement. I’ve spent countless hours reading it and I haven’t made a dent in the information available. It’s comforting to know that the Church has been dealing with these questions for 2000 years, and has the most rock-solid answers that I can find.

Tulkas:

It is amazing how we abandon the logic we use daily, the logic that keeps us alive, the logic that tells us to get a job, dump the girlfriend, put on a seatbelt, and brush our teeth. We abandon this logic to feel secure, to create a false sense of security through higher power as we call God. This is just another Human Instinct, i take it back, there is nothing here that amazes me…

Surely you aren’t saying that Theism is illogical? If anything, the existence of God is at least logical. Yes, atheism is also logical, to an extent. Logic dictates a First Cause, a Final Cause or Purpose, and an Ultimate Reference Point. We call these things ‘God’ a.k.a. ‘The God of the Philosophers.’

The cosmological, teleological and moral arguments are classics and they still stand, despite the myriad of refutations. There are rebuttals to all the refutations. The Problem of Evil is a valid logical argument for atheism, probably the only one, and therefore philosophy is incapable of proving definitively God’s existence or nonexistence. Both sides are certainly logically plausible. Besides, the Problem of Evil argument isn’t “ironclad” like Ebon states, either. For one thing, his dismissal of the Free Will defense is notably weak. Anyway, without God, evil is meaningless. How can you refute the existence of something with the existence of something else that depends on it? Isn’t that logic a bit circular?

Philosophy runs in circles when it comes to the existence of God. Logic is incapable of wholly proving or disproving it. That’s where faith comes in. You either have faith that God exists (Theism), or doesn’t (Atheism), or you suspend judgement (Agnosticism).
To regard theism as illogical idiocy is condescending, arrogant, and hypocritically ignorant. Let’s all respect the limits of reason at least, if you reject faith.

 

[eptatorata]

Neithan:

Those are strong words. I do think, regardless of how many “loyalty to the species” arguments I hear, that the lack of absolute moral grounding…

Even though I wanted to stay away from this discussion, I’ll make a few remarks anyway.

I have learned a new phrase while perusing religious forums - invincible ignorance. It is often encountered in the context of “atheists have no roots for morals”. It is sad and amusing both that the most vocal theist bigots do not see how self-contradictory they are.

Then there’s a false dichotomy that is invariably missed. The theists often state that there is nothing but their own flavor of absolute morals and gasp moral relativism. It never occurs to them atheists or anybody else for that matter can subscribe to a different system of absolute morals. And that moral absolutism and moral relativism are the only choices.

 

[john_doran]

eptatorata:

Even though I wanted to stay away from this discussion, I’ll make a few remarks anyway.

I have learned a new phrase while perusing religious forums - invincible ignorance. It is often encountered in the context of “atheists have no roots for morals”. It is sad and amusing both that the most vocal theist bigots do not see how self-contradictory they are.

Then there’s a false dichotomy that is invariably missed. The theists often state that there is nothing but their own flavor of absolute morals and gasp moral relativism. It never occurs to them atheists or anybody else for that matter can subscribe to a different system of absolute morals. And that moral absolutism and moral relativism are the only choices.

while i understand that no one wants to be told that that he’s a moral reprobate, i don’t think the arguments about absolute morality necessarily have anything to do with passing that kind of judgment. i mean, i recognize that there is an unfortunate penchant on the part of some individuals to ground their moral objections to atheism in things like the fear of widespread moral collapse, but that really isn’t the point, or at least not the only point.

the argument from morality is a basic one: what is it that makes a system of morality absolute? for (some) theists it’s god. but if your an atheist moral absolutist, why is morality absolute?

the theist will claim that there isn’t a good reason. and that’s got nothing to do with bigotry.

 

[eptatorata]

john doran:

while i understand that no one wants to be told that that he’s a moral reprobate, i don’t think the arguments about absolute morality necessarily have anything to do with passing that kind of judgment.

Atheists say that the sense of morality is an innate trait and explain it by, say, evolutionary psychology. Theists say that morality is god-given. Fine. So evolutionary psychology is god’s implementation method and everybody can leave it at that.

This is not what happens, though. In public forums, at least, theists almost invariably proclaim a premade judgement when raising this topic and it makes them feel that “they” are better than “them”. I’m not afraid to call this invincible ignorance and the only reason to engage these individuals is to leave a public record for the silent audience.

Having said that, I will bow out now.

 

[Neithan]

Accusations of ignorance aside, eptatorata, it’s not that atheists don’t have a moral compass, but to what do they attribute this moral compass. I would say that there is a similar basic moral code in humanity, and atheists probably agree. Theists agree that Natural Law dictates this basic moral code, but they attribute the ultimate source and discipline to ‘God’, some higher power, and that we alone among living things have free will to act contrary to nature. Atheists will point to the collective consciousness and to humanity itself as the ultimate source and discipline, and that morality evolved from primitive survival instincts; Natural Law doesn’t only dictate, but creates and guides the moral code in humanity as in any other animal.

The thing is, when there is no authority above Natural Law, morality becomes a vague idea with every human being his own source and enforcer. In society, we are compelled to follow the law of the state, so I suppose we can call the state the ultimate judge and enforcer. This is a ‘majority rules’ kind of morality (in democracy, a ‘one man rule’ in a monarchy or ‘rule of the few’ in an aristocracy), but an individual has every right to disagree with it, since he can point to himself as the source of what is right and wrong, his own natural instincts are in his personal best interest.

When you realize that your own impulses are perfectly natural, and are as good as anyone else’s, then temptation isn’t really temptation, but an evolutionary instinct that should be followed. When everything runs on Natural Law, then no human action is of itself ‘wrong’, because our innate psychology will direct us to what is best for us. The only restraint is the state, but since the state has no authority but the person or people who run it, you will only obey it only insofar as you agree, or else out of fear of punishment.

So we have an ultimate enforcer in the state, but still not an ultimate source, since every individual and their own ideas is really the source of right and wrong. There is no universal harmony here, and individualism is taken to the utmost extreme. The idea of God has a powerful unifying effect on the morality of society. A theist will realize that not all of his desires are good, and that Natural Law can be broken among humans. Why should an atheist not follow his own ideas? Sure, you can come up with a great philosophical system for morality (‘universal utilitarianism’), but that is your system, why should anyone else follow it (note: Ayn Rand)? Besides, a philosophical system is intellectual, not innate. My natural instincts should automatically be in my best interest.

Finally, if our entire psyche evolved on its own, and with it our moral code, why does our ‘id’ struggle against our ‘superego’? Why do our innate instincts often violate our innate moral code? Why do we need to use our intellect to ‘discover’ a universal morality? If morality has evolved with us, has moulded our psychology, we shouldn’t need to employ our highly-evolved intellects to establish it! I would think that morality should be even more absolute and firm if it evolved totally according to nature. Whence comes this discord, whereby our naturally selfish instincts act contrary to the good of our species? This seems unique among humans.

 

[Tulkas]

Neithan:

This is an interesting experiment… but tricky to do. I still do lean towards a God rather than no God, and so I would have to be imagining that there isn’t one. Imagining is much different than truly believing, so I wouldn’t really be behaving like a hardened, militant atheist. I might give it a try all the same. Have you?

Let me note, that if one soley belived in ‘god’ then it would be a logical act. It is one branch from an explanation of the creation. I myself used to be a Deist before i did more research of my own. I held this very view.

Yet, it is when we allow the church’s, bibles, scriptures, to practically take our viewpoints on hundreds of issues for us, it is when this happens that you loose your logic.

It can be considered logical for god to exist, if you stop there. But the details of the christian religion obligate you to believe so much more, its almost lunacy.

While making these arguments, (in a few other threads as well), i have questioned my own beliefs, basicly the existance of god. I have questioned if i am still a Deist, (the belief that god created the world and let it go). But, no matter what i make my mind up, i will never believe the lunacy of the baggage that catholic obligates you to carry along with your belief in god.

 

[clmowry]

Tulkas:

…
It can be considered logical for god to exist, if you stop there. But the details of the christian religion obligate you to believe so much more, its almost lunacy…

…i will never believe the lunacy of the baggage that catholic obligates you to carry along with your belief in god…

Good for you. You should certainly do everything you can to adequately inform you conscience and then act in accordance with your beliefs.

I would however appreciate it if you would kindly refrain from referring to my beliefs as lunacy.

I would think that basic respect for you fellow man dictate such.

Chuck

 

[jpusateri]

Tulkas:

Let me note, that if one soley belived in ‘god’ then it would be a logical act.
…

But, no matter what i make my mind up, i will never believe the lunacy of the baggage that catholic obligates you to carry along with your belief in god.

This strikes me as a decidedly illogical stance. You seem to have made up your mind first before deciding. (Non-mocking smile)

Scientifically I like to draw an analogy to physics. There is so much baggage in the making of fuel and in the aerodynamics of flight that I can’t really accept all this rocket stuff.

Now logically you know that SOMEBODY understand each slow individual step by step in all the chemical reactions little by little. And similarly in why the rocket is shaped as it is and so on.

You take it on faith when you get on a plane. Don’t you?

Do you personally need to understand it to the last decimal or do you trust that someone you CAN trust understands it? Do you question THEIR motives? (i.e. why do they want me to believe all this mumbo jumbo about H2O and C2HOOCH2?)

Remember that in faith, big things are also made up of little things and conclusions are drawn from earlier ones. That’s why you need to rely on a firm foundation like the Church.

God bless you in your seeking!

 

[Ahimsa]

Neithan:

This is an interesting experiment… but tricky to do. I still do lean towards a God rather than no God, and so I would have to be imagining that there isn’t one. Imagining is much different than truly believing, so I wouldn’t really be behaving like a hardened, militant atheist. I might give it a try all the same. Have you?

I think I lived as an atheist for a week or so while in college. But atheism (or, rather, naturalism) seemed to ignore the question of why does anything exist at all. Why is there “something”, instead of Nothing? And why was “I” born in a big city in the Southern U.S., instead of an island in the Indian Ocean? I figured there was more to the cosmos than met the eye, or the “I”.

 

[eptatorata]

Neithan, I have read your post with interest. I do not want to get into a prolonged exchange, so please allow me to point out where you misconstrue the other side.

Neithan:

Atheists will point to the collective consciousness and to humanity itself as the ultimate source and discipline, and that morality evolved from primitive survival instincts;

I don’t recall any atheist ever attributing morality to a collective consciousness or to humanity itself and I would reject such ideas sight unseen. To say that morality evolved from a survival instinct is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way evolution works and how morality can be explained in such terms.

In a nutshell, members of a species that obey the principle of reciprocity give up a small amount of individual advantage, but as a group derive a much larger selective advantage. Thus, the Golden Rule as the core of morality has nothing to do with a survival instinct, but evolved as an innate trait because a cooperating group has a reproductive advantage against individuals that do not cooperate. Strength in numbers, if you will. It also follows that there is always room for a minority of individuals that abuses the principle of reciprocity by taking advantage of the collective effort while not contributing to it. We have a number of unflattering names for such individuals.

This approach also explains our tribal mentality, because a cooperating group still competes with other groups and individuals. E.g., it’s not okay to steal from or kill a member of your tribe, but the rules are relaxed otherwise. The major challenge humankind faces in controlling our proclivity to violence is to make all humankind our tribe…

Somebody else may put this into words better than I can, but this is the best I can for now.

 

[eptatorata]

Ahimsa:

But atheism (or, rather, naturalism) seemed to ignore the question of why does anything exist at all. Why is there “something”, instead of Nothing?

Is it important to have an answer to every question?

 

[Ahimsa]

eptatorata:

Is it important to have an answer to every question?

Nope. As the Buddha said, the man with the poisoned arrow in his chest might curious about: “Who shot the arrow? What was his name? Why did he shoot me? Who are his parents? Why did they get divorced?” And so on. By the time he got all of his answers, he would have died.

But I do think why anything exists at all, is an interesting question to contemplate. I’m not even saying that the question has an answer. The question itself might be enough.

In any event, I gotta go and get this arrow out of my chest.