S
Solmyr
Guest
Changing the goalposts again. So boring… and so dishonest…
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
This demonstrates an impoverished understanding of God.
If the God of the Philosophers exists, then, by logic, there can only be One God.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
You might be able to find the peer reviewed explanation on this in a psychology journal. It falls under motivation theory. Approach-avoidance conflict would be a gold place to start. Studies on sense of delayed gratification would also be relevant. It’s not uncommon for the times length between an action and an anticipated consequence (whether that consequence be viewed as positive or negative) to be a factor in someone’s behaviour.
The explanations are secular and don’t require that some believe or not believe that there exist god/gods/God.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Secular explanations clearly would not require a belief in God.
They however, do not reach into the Heart of the matter.
Joe cheats on his wife. The world turns; they will be both forgotten.
Joe does what he has to do; his wife will do as she does.
Both, pawns of emotional, cognitive and sociological dynamics.
It doesn’t matter and no one cares. Or, is it truly otherwise.
They however, do not reach into the Heart of the matter.
Joe cheats on his wife. The world turns; they will be both forgotten.
Joe does what he has to do; his wife will do as she does.
Both, pawns of emotional, cognitive and sociological dynamics.
It doesn’t matter and no one cares. Or, is it truly otherwise.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I agree. Before I came back and embraced the faith, I used to say “I have no regrets” about my past. Now I feel rueful about a lot of things I did, but I know that God forgives me. But without and feeling of regret, how can one ask for forgiveness? And without forgiveness how can we have faith in God?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Thanks. But psychology still doesn’t explain the “I want to be this person but I am not”.
What is the atheist answer for this?
(And by “this person” I do not mean “I want to be a woman but I am not”. Think more “virtue” than “biology”)
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Some of us must then have relations hailing from the sloth family…
P
PRmerger
Guest
Evidence for this, please.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
This is quite possible…my own consideration is that I must always be mindful that, as a former theist, I was once fully committed in another direction until further information led to a change. Though what appears very unlikely is a return to my former beliefs, however, to now present myself as fully convinced of my current understanding of the world seems impossible to align with the simple and basic reality that if I am willing to concede to having been wrong once, surely it cannot be said to be impossible that I may yet again be in a similarly misinformed position…after all, my track-record is standing at a proven error rate greater than 50%.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
My having remained in bed past the time I had originally anticipated getting up this morning must serve as my bedside testimony to this possibility.
P
PRmerger
Guest
If that qualifies as evidence, then the testimony of the 4 gospel writers clinches the Christian message, eh?My having remained in bed past the time I had originally anticipated getting up this morning must serve as my bedside testimony to this possibility.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
A person can be an atheist or not an atheist and still have or not have an explanation for this. Whether or not the person is an atheist may be an irrelevant detail.
Failing to be a person that one wants to be is under the subject matter mentioned before.
Dan Ariely (Duke University, professor of Psychology and Behavioural Economics) published a couple of books in which he explores aspects of this question that in a couple of exoteric books. “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” and more so “Predictable Irrationality” are there titles. Papers about the individual studies covered in the book are also available.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I’d like to know what your explanation is for why the world is like it is. Clearly, we aren’t how we would like to be.
I know why.
But you reject that reason, so I’d like to know what your explanation is.
S
Solmyr
Guest
Simple. Because there is no one to guide us, no one to protects us, and no one who cares. A caring God (creator) would LIMIT our freedom of action.
We are not as SOME of us would like to be. If we - simple, good willing people - had the power, all the “freedom” of rapes, murders, genocides would be gone… we would STILL retain the ability and freedom of NOT to worship God, of NOT to love God (whatever that means)… even to blaspheme the holy spirit, but we would lose our freedom to commit senseless acts of violence against other humans.
B
Bradski
Guest
He does it for the reasons I gave. He doesn’t expect to get caught so that doesn’t form any part of the question why he does it. People steal because it’s easier than working. It makes no sense to ask: why does someone steal…if they know it’s wrong, or if they know they’ll get caught.
People know they are doing wrong when they do it and they don’t expect to get found out. Seems that all Christians ignore the fact that they are being ‘watched’. That might be a better question to ask: ‘Why does Joe cheat on his wife when He knows that god is watching?’
Doesn’t Joe want to avoid hell? Doesn’t he know the punishment for what he is doing? Seems it carries no weight.
How about Humani Generis and the catechism.
“the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII,Humani Generis36)
So you are not FORBIDDEN to believe in an evolutionary explanation, but there was an original man and woman. The catechism refers to ‘symbolic language’ but also refers to ‘first man’, ‘first parents’, ‘first couple’, but nowhere does it say if the catechism itself is being is factual or symbolic. With the result that some Catholics decide one way and others another.
They work it out themselves. You can ask them yourself.
You are directly contradicting yourself. You have already stated that you would believe something that would counter all physical and biological laws simply because someone you trusted told you.You are very Catholic when you say this.
And I will add a corollary to the above: sometimes it’s a very good idea to automatically accept as true something that someone who’s in a position of authority tells you.*
And a position of authority? I think I’ll pass on that. But maybe you mean a person who has a greater knowledge of a subject than you do yourself.
Again (yet again), if the information has no bearing on my life or how I live it, then I will accept information from a knowledgable source. If it does impact on me, then I will want to hear from other sources as well. Especially from those who disagree with the first person.
Again (one more time yet again), if the information doesn’t impact on me directly and I have no reason for thinking that the person giving me the information is not mistaken or lying, then why wouldn’t one accept it?
Ah, Pete the Pilot makes another appearance. I’ve discounted this so many times…but I have to do it one more time for anyone who hasn’t read previous threads:
Getting on a plane and expecting to arrive safely at your destination is a REASONABLE EXPECTATION.
Exactly the same as hitting the brakes on your car, driving over a bridge, plugging in the kettle, ordering the fish. At NO time do you require proof that the mechanic or the engineer or the electrician or the chef is qualified for what he or she does. That’s because you go through life having a reasonable expectation that things will happen as they are supposed to happen.
I wasn’t talking just about God. I was talking of belief. And I was also talking of an Indian atheist and his claim that he would not call on Shiva. Would you accept a written testimony from him in that regard? And similarly, would you accept a written testimony from an American soldier that he hadn’t called on Shiva as well.
Why would the obvious response to an American atheist declaring that he didn’t call on Shiva or Gitche Manitou not raise an eyebrow? Why would the response be: ‘why on earth would he anyway?’
Well, a native American soldier might. But if he doesn’t, do you class him as an atheist? Would you demand proof of that? Would you require verifiable confirmation that he didn’t call on Gitche Manitou?
B
Bradski
Guest
No. One more time. The fact that someone says that they stayed in bed has no impact on you. There appears to be no reason for Jelrak to lie. There is nor reason I can possibly envisage for you not to accept what he is saying.
On the other hand, if you accept that what the gospel writers say is true, then it will have the largest impact on your life that is possible.
Do,you consider the two testimonies to be of equal value in determining their validity? Are you suggesting that you should place equal emphasis to Jelrak’s sleeping habits as you do to the Gospels? Nonsense…
You are looking at it backwards. We didn’t start off good and become bad. It’s the other way around. We started as amoral animals and developed civilisation. Thank God for evolution, eh? Anyone who acts aggressively or rapes or kills is reverting to type. And please, no ‘animals don’t murder and rape’ arguments. Animals kill to take or protect property all the time. And I’ve actually seen a cuddly, innocent, furry koala brutally rape a female. Quite an eye opener for all the kids watching.
‘Mummy, is that koala hurting the other one? Stop him!’
‘They’re just playing, dear. Let’s go see the kangaroos. Now, Timmy!’
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
It is possible…certainly it may be thought hopeful, given the great effort expended on behalf of this message…yet is it to be considered automatic to assume that any work allegedly written and then subsequently copied out by a plurality of authors must necessarily be true?
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is, of course, begging the question.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is partially correct. It’s a nonsequitur, but partially correct nonetheless.
It’s kind of like my saying, in response to your post:
“Pluto isn’t a planet. So that means that atheism is false”.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So you have to explain why he thinks he won’t get caught, when there’s evidence that folks do get caught.
All the time.
cnn.com/2011/US/05/17/california.schwarzenegger/
politicususa.com/2012/10/19/dinish-dsouza-championed-family-values-adulterous-tryst.html
abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-edwards-mistress-breakdown-americas-sensational-scandals/story?id=20854336
Why don’t we learn?
And then there’s not only the morality/virtue, but the just plain mishaps that occur in the human body.
For example, why does my hand slip when I hook up my dog to the leash? Haven’t I done this a hundred times? Haven’t I learned the exact amount of friction required to open the latch?
What’s the atheistic answer to this?
We are not how we are supposed to be, clearly.
And I want an answer for this from the atheist!
- Status