Atheism isn’t “justified” by believing in “the infinity of universes” or whatever it is that you’re rambling about.
This whole thread presumably involves atheism, otherwise we’d all cheerfully be agreeing! Well, OK, I suppose it largely involves agnosticism…
Either there is evidence for it, or there is not, for you and for everyone else - whether you recognize it, however, is up to your choice/and or ability to, and whether it is there. I think people have a hard time getting their heads around the idea that just because we can’t measure something in the same way we can measure something basic like, say, a plank of wood, doesn’t mean we can just assume everything is like a plank of wood.I find it much easier to think we are nothing more than a chance event, than to think about some sort of super being controlling it all. There’s just no evidence for it, for me. I think a lot of people have a hard time getting their heads around the idea we’re just not that important, expecially to nature.
So yeah, I guess - I would take just about any physical explanation over any filling of the void with some sort of supernatural being or occurance.
Sarah x
I don’t think you can know absolutely for sure, although I suspect there is an effective argument for revealed truth being undeniable, I don’t quite get it. But then, I maintain what you can genuinely know is real or not can be written on the back of a postage stamp!
That’s an intersting observation. From all the audience debates Ive seen involving people of faith - rarely catholicism I have to say but other christian faiths - the atheist arguement has always won the day, with the post debate polls showing the audience being more influenced by the atheist arguement than the religious one.
No, this is justification for agnosticism, not atheism. They are two different things.
You should try watching some debates between William Lane Craig and an atheist.That’s an intersting observation. From all the audience debates Ive seen involving people of faith - rarely catholicism I have to say but other christian faiths - the atheist arguement has always won the day, with the post debate polls showing the audience being more influenced by the atheist arguement than the religious one.
As said earlier, it is difficult to get into on a religious board, without upsetting people or appearing like you’re attacking peoples beliefs.
Maybe it’s the case that catholics are better at apologetics in these debates, I dont know, like I said most of the debates Ive seen have not included catholic apologists.
Sarah x
I just don’t want to get banned so I’m going to err on the side of caution when we get to the meaty parts. You know, like I think I can defend my disbelief in the supernatural which by extension will apply to disbelief in God but won’t directly be breaking the rules.
"
)"
Darn, I would’ve been proud of us atheists on this thread saying such convincing things to get you “on our side” so to speak.
We never get to do the converting thing! But I’m glad you’re happy, that’s what really matters. If there ever is a petition to unban atheism, yours would be a good post to show them that discussion of atheism is a valuable topic on this forum and deserves to be fully explored.I’m glad that helps“”
danserr;
I think you’ve found the answer…for me. This makes ‘sense’ (pun may, or may not be intended). I’ve never gone far from the fence into atheism; lately (this Lent), I’ve been sitting with my legs on this side, then on that side…
Your answer to me: Don’t look for (positive, definitive), reasons TO believe. Rather, in the absence of something to negate my faith-pull, simply accept it.
As I found in CCC:
I THE DESIRE FOR GOD:
28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:
From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For "in him we live and move and have our being."2
Your perspective unlocked the gate for me; THANK YOU. (God and the catechism probably helped a bit too
Glennonite
. It’s also worth looking into some reasons as well; there are some apologetic authors I’m rather fond of. But now you know you don’t need them, it can just be useful to have a double warrant for your belief, and of course, it can help explain it to other people if you are ever asked.I think there are good reasons for this. There’s a prevalent philosophy today which says it’s wrong to criticise. People see faith as being critical, it has a social structure that condemns certain behaviours as immoral. You might not agree with divorce, but if you end up divorced, you have to find a way of dealing with it. If you feel that the social group you’re a part of wont accept you now, you are forced to make some rather scary decisions; either you repent of your failings and face up to the reality of your situation, or you deny it and carry on like nothing has happened.
"
"I’m glad that helps
Fair enough! Still seems silly though - er, I mean the rule rather than you, (just to avoid confusion
). Still, doesn’t seem to have caused any problems in any debates I’ve been in recently, so maybe they haven’t been ‘heated’ enough to provoke the mods. 
But you cannot judge who won a debate by audience polls. Those reflect the debater who was more rhetorical, who moved the crowds. Most of the time, atheists win that poll because its mostly atheists who attend these events and because the atheist speakers has loads of emotional hot buttons to push. Most of the time, though, the theist clearly wins. William Lane Craig, for example, has never lost a debate. Most commentators, atheist and theist alike, who actually know what a good debate is, side with the theist.That’s an intersting observation. From all the audience debates Ive seen involving people of faith - rarely catholicism I have to say but other christian faiths - the atheist arguement has always won the day, with the post debate polls showing the audience being more influenced by the atheist arguement than the religious one.
As said earlier, it is difficult to get into on a religious board, without upsetting people or appearing like you’re attacking peoples beliefs.
Maybe it’s the case that catholics are better at apologetics in these debates, I dont know, like I said most of the debates Ive seen have not included catholic apologists.
Sarah x
Yeah it’s been cool, the people on this thread seem to be pretty chill, it might’ve gotten a tad snarky but not out of hand. It’s nice chatting with people who articulate their thoughts well, who don’t just “preach.” Y’all really say things of substance. Stuff to “chew on,” so to speak.Fair enough! Still seems silly though - er, I mean the rule rather than you, (just to avoid confusion
Although thinking about how heated some of them do get, I wouldn’t like to see the ones that do get banned!
Yes, must admit, it’s all been relatively civil, on the whole… just to break up the fun, however, where’s the argument actually up to at this stage? Anybody remember?
This might be true - popular atheism is a powerful and well marketed force in modern society, and has many preachers for it’s cause in popular music, literature and film to buoy up support - but what I mean is, atheism has been regularly losing it’s arguments logically. I’ve never seen someone argue an effective reason as to why we’d turn up by chance/should think the neccesary infinite variety of realities exists, at least logically. And I don’t think I’ve ever heard of Dawkins, offhand, winning *any * of his occasional debates with theists on such issues.That’s an intersting observation. From all the audience debates Ive seen involving people of faith - rarely catholicism I have to say but other christian faiths - the atheist arguement has always won the day, with the post debate polls showing the audience being more influenced by the atheist arguement than the religious one.
As said earlier, it is difficult to get into on a religious board, without upsetting people or appearing like you’re attacking peoples beliefs.
Maybe it’s the case that catholics are better at apologetics in these debates, I dont know, like I said most of the debates Ive seen have not included catholic apologists.
Sarah x