As a former believer, in some ways I miss believing

[ThinkingSapien]

What do atheists have to offer to explain the world and our existence? Even evolution must have been started by a supernatural being.

One of the friendly (Well, she yelled at me, but that’s another story) neighborhood Jehovah’s Witnesses asked me for my explanation of the same thing last weekend!

I told her that I have not knowledge of the things that happened billions of years before my life begin (presupposing it was that long), so I can’t say that I know.

I figured I would ask my Sister this question to see what She would say. The entirety of her reply was

“I don’t have one. Don’t have any information to form an opinion”

That’s just evasive. Natural or supernatural, those are the only two choices. If you deny one you must believe the other. There is no via media.

I disagree, but that’s more of a semantic issue. For now even if I consider that restriction it doesn’t seem to be incompatible with my stance. In much the same way if you were to ask me whether I believed a coin would land on heads or tails when flipped over a hard surface I can be without a belief that it would land heads-up without having the belief that it would land tails-up. I agree it will be heads or tails, but I don’t know which one it will be.

But atheists ARE sure. By saying God doesn’t exist, they are making a positive claim that the universe came into being through naturalistic means, or that it has always existed. So let them prove it.

Ah. I think this might be a semantic issue as well where the terms may be muddying some one’s actual disposition. Not all Atheist say that “God doesn’t exist.” From what I’ve seen in this forum there seems to be some amount of indifference to the various forms of non-theism and atheism, but I think that they may be helpful here.

Strong atheist will state that say that gods don’t exists. Note that this is a negative claim.

Agnostic atheists would say they don’t know that no gods exists, but for now don’t assert the existence of any gods. A person with this disposition hasn’t made any fact claims about gods.

Apatheists (aka Apathetic agnostics) don’t care either way.

 

[fred_conty]

Welcome to reality, I like a lot of things and can’t get them, our desires do not always fit with the truth.

I don’t think if there is a god he would be that much loving, because of all the cruel and painful natural things happening around.

I truly wish that there is a god who is looking out for us, loving and caring for every creature he created, but facts show this is probably not possible.

If a god exists, I very much doubt he’s all loving and all powerful, besides , about the character of the Abrahamic God in particular in all the three religions, to me, his character doesn’t look very much loving and peaceful, on contrary, if that kind of god exists I would gladly reject respecting him , not only because of the existence of bad things, but also because of his unkind character in holy books.

I didn’t reject any god (wasn’t a choice, just like you and many unbelievers), I just found out by a lot of reasons that religions and personal gods are untrue, my first moments of doubts and unbelief were hard on me, I used to believe and love faith, a lot of atheists I’ve talked to and from all beliefs experienced a big loss once they recognized that what they loved and believed in was a hoax, but then things become better and we get used to it, like when you get used to the death of a dear friend, lover, or family member of yours, same for God, to me God is dead, life continues.

User you said “If a god exists, I very much doubt he’s all loving and all powerful…”

Viewing all the bad stuff, yes, I would have to agree with you.

Viewing all the good stuff, no, I would have to disagree with you.

Viewing only this world, maybe I might get depressed.

Viewing the next world, no, it will all be worth the effort since the good stuff will never go away, and the bad stuff will never return.

Just a happy thought.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

About the claim that without the conversion of the Roman empire, Christianity would not be the same now.

This is a logical claim related to political and social changes, this claim is not a faith, I would even say that if Arab Muslims discovered America and Australia back then, probably the whole world would be muslim by now.

Just like americans and australians talk english, mexicans talk spanish etc… It would be a great possibility, that if Arab muslims discovered and occupied these two continents, America and Australia would probably talk arabic and Islam would be considered the main religions of it’s people by now.

But why would this movement still exist 2000 years later? Why would a movement involving an “ordinary” man who was crucified spread to the degree it did? If it hadn’t been the real thing, isn’t it likely that Christianity would have died with Jesus, or shortly there after. It is unlikely that Christianity would have spread very far out of Jesus’ region of the world. Why would Romans convert from their beliefs in multiple gods?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Welcome to reality, I like a lot of things and can’t get them, our desires do not always fit with the truth.

I don’t think if there is a god he would be that much loving, because of all the cruel and painful natural things happening around.

I truly wish that there is a god who is looking out for us, loving and caring for every creature he created, but facts show this is probably not possible.

If a god exists, I very much doubt he’s all loving and all powerful, besides , about the character of the Abrahamic God in particular in all the three religions, to me, his character doesn’t look very much loving and peaceful, on contrary, if that kind of god exists I would gladly reject respecting him , not only because of the existence of bad things, but also because of his unkind character in holy books.

I didn’t reject any god (wasn’t a choice, just like you and many unbelievers), I just found out by a lot of reasons that religions and personal gods are untrue, my first moments of doubts and unbelief were hard on me, I used to believe and love faith, a lot of atheists I’ve talked to and from all beliefs experienced a big loss once they recognized that what they loved and believed in was a hoax, but then things become better and we get used to it, like when you get used to the death of a dear friend, lover, or family member of yours, same for God, to me God is dead, life continues.

youtube.com/watch?v=2nGKqH26xlg

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But why would this movement still exist 2000 years later? Why would a movement involving an “ordinary” man who was crucified spread to the degree it did? If it hadn’t been the real thing, isn’t it likely that Christianity would have died with Jesus, or shortly there after. It is unlikely that Christianity would have spread very far out of Jesus’ region of the world. Why would Romans convert from their beliefs in multiple gods?

I’m not sure that longevity suggest validity. If it did, then what would that say of Hinduism and Buddhism? Would it mean that these two religions along with Christianity are all valid? What about Islam?

 

[ReapReason]

I’m not sure that longevity suggest validity. If it did, then what would that say of Hinduism and Buddhism? Would it mean that these two religions along with Christianity are all valid? What about Islam?

But there is a historical difference between the spread of these religions and what ignited their movements in the first place. Christianity is unique in the sense that its spreading as a belief system was dependent upon Jesus fulfilling his promise as a true messiah by giving miraculous signs such as rising from the dead and people actually witnessing this miracle. Not only that, Judaism, Christianities opponent, was a witness to Christs activities since there is blatant accusations of deception toward Jesus in so far as him being not who he claimed to be and was even of the devil.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus

If Jesus was not doing or saying the things attributed to him, then why would Judaism as a religion waste time trying to refute Christianity? They could have just ignored Jesus as a myth rather than make accusations toward him as being a false prophet.

Not only that, Jesus’ influence began with people that were normally of a Judaic persuasion, and so Jesus had a lot to live up to insofar as convincing them that he was the true messiah. Just walking in to a community and claiming to be the messiah was not going to work since the Jews knew that there was certain things that Jesus had to fulfill in order to be the true messiah.

Once you understand these factors, Its not so easy to dismiss Christianity as an ordinary religion following the same rules that is usually attributed to the activity of myth making.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Once you understand these factors, Its not so easy to dismiss Christianity as an ordinary religion following the same rules that is usually attributed to the activity of myth making.

I’m not dismissing it. I’m questioning whether the age of a religion in any way implies its validity.

 

[ReapReason]

I’m not dismissing it. I’m questioning whether the age of a religion in any way implies its validity.

Age by itself is not a criteria for validating religious truth; but is that really what the poster was saying?

 

[John_Martin]

Originally Posted by User124 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
About the claim that without the conversion of the Roman empire, Christianity would not be the same now.
*

But why would this movement still exist 2000 years later? Why would a movement involving an “ordinary” man who was crucified spread to the degree it did? If it hadn’t been the real thing, isn’t it likely that Christianity would have died with Jesus, or shortly there after. It is unlikely that Christianity would have spread very far out of Jesus’ region of the world. Why would Romans convert from their beliefs in multiple gods?

On a purely visible / physical level, Christianity is a “people”, like the United States, or Italy, but without a land of its own, but a “people” none the less. Jesus, as “Messiah”, was annointed as its king when he was baptized (whether you believe the Spirit descended on him or not, still his followers regarded him as King and regarded themselves as a people). And as the US has political leadership, so this “people” has the Pope, Bishops, Priests (and even the sects not aligned to Rome in some way all maintain that they will define their own leadership and that they are part of the people).

Physically, inclusion in the Church is an “identity”, a citizenship. Saying “I am a Catholic”, or “I am a Christian”, has equal force and meaning to saying, “I am an American”. And as Obama is the president to an American, so the Pope is my Prime Minister and Jesus is my King as a Catholic.

Christianity is not a religion that is observed by an American or Italian or whatever, instead it is the granting of Citizenship into a Kingdom and a People, and this is perfectly visible to anyone, believing in this God or not - visibly it is still a group of people knowing themselves as A People, a Nation, a Kingdom. The initial conflict with Rome, and the Caesars was that the Christians were claiming an alternate King than Caesar.

This people also maintains that it knows the only God, even when within its ranks are those who would doubt it or deny it when pressed. That is perhaps where you could say that the Religion of the Catholic People comes in - They are a people and they have a religion and a God.

Christianity “lasting” 2000 years is not a matter of religion lasting, it is a matter of a people, a nation, lasting and growing. The question is not “Why should I believe in a God or in this God?” The question rather is, “Who is this people? Could I become a citizen of this Kingdom?”

John Martin

 

[interestedman]

But why would this movement still exist 2000 years later? Why would a movement involving an “ordinary” man who was crucified spread to the degree it did? If it hadn’t been the real thing, isn’t it likely that Christianity would have died with Jesus, or shortly there after. It is unlikely that Christianity would have spread very far out of Jesus’ region of the world. Why would Romans convert from their beliefs in multiple gods?

This argument only works if you believe that Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc. are all valid. If they weren’t real, wouldn’t they have died out?

And romans converted because Constantine converted.

 

[interestedman]

But there is a historical difference between the spread of these religions and what ignited their movements in the first place. Christianity is unique in the sense that its spreading as a belief system was dependent upon Jesus fulfilling his promise as a true messiah by giving miraculous signs such as rising from the dead and people actually witnessing this miracle. Not only that, Judaism, Christianities opponent, was a witness to Christs activities since there is blatant accusations of deception toward Jesus in so far as him being not who he claimed to be and was even of the devil.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus

If Jesus was not doing or saying the things attributed to him, then why would Judaism as a religion waste time trying to refute Christianity? They could have just ignored Jesus as a myth rather than make accusations toward him as being a false prophet.

Not only that, Jesus’ influence began with people that were normally of a Judaic persuasion, and so Jesus had a lot to live up to insofar as convincing them that he was the true messiah. Just walking in to a community and claiming to be the messiah was not going to work since the Jews knew that there was certain things that Jesus had to fulfill in order to be the true messiah.

Once you understand these factors, Its not so easy to dismiss Christianity as an ordinary religion following the same rules that is usually attributed to the activity of myth making.

If Jesus was not doing or saying the things attributed to him how could anyone in the ancient world refute it? Say one of the apostles comes to some town that Jesus had never visited and spread Jesus’ message and story. How could anyone refute it? They would have no proof that it didn’t happen. What percentage of the early Christians actually knew Jesus? Only the tiniest percent. Most of the early Christians didn’t even know someone that knew Jesus. Paul was one of the biggest champions of early Christianity and he never met Jesus (at least the physical Jesus).

So really how could you refute the claims of people that were spreading Christianity. Even if you knew Jesus and you never saw him perform miracles, you couldn’t prove he performed miracles when you weren’t there.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Age by itself is not a criteria for validating religious truth; but is that really what the poster was saying?

In part it seems that age is a significant component of what was being said. For example, it was stated that if Jesus was an ordinary man (an assumption on my part is that “ordinary” may mean “not sent by God” in this context) that Christianity would have died with him. But there are examples of other religions that are not compatible with Christian started by other people that have been around for quite some time too.

I’ve got other questions about some of the assertions raised, and other thoughts about the relationship between whether or not a religion has a directive about converting others and how much it spreads. But I have found in general that if too many questions are raised at once it may cloud the response, so I’m concentrating on that one for now.

 

[John_Martin]

If Jesus was not doing or saying the things attributed to him how could anyone in the ancient world refute it? Say one of the apostles comes to some town that Jesus had never visited and spread Jesus’ message and story. How could anyone refute it? They would have no proof that it didn’t happen. What percentage of the early Christians actually knew Jesus? Only the tiniest percent. Most of the early Christians didn’t even know someone that knew Jesus. Paul was one of the biggest champions of early Christianity and he never met Jesus (at least the physical Jesus).

So really how could you refute the claims of people that were spreading Christianity. Even if you knew Jesus and you never saw him perform miracles, you couldn’t prove he performed miracles when you weren’t there.

Catholics are not telling you “truths” about God to get you to accept those “truths”, to believe a doctrine.

If you have come in contact with the Church, you have come in contact with Jesus. If you have spent time with the Church, you are spending time with Jesus. If you are accepted into the Church, you become one of the People and a member of Jesus himself so that when people come in contact with you they are meeting Jesus.

People then and now did not join the Church to worship a god sitting in heaven, they joined the Church to be with the present Jesus, as physically close to him as his first disciples were. We walk with him, live with him, eat and drink of him, and breathe with him. If you hear us, you are actually and literally hearing him.

John Martin

 

[Joe_5859]

And romans converted because Constantine converted.

Don’t you think that’s a bit of an overly-simplistic answer? Of course that had its impact, but that is certainly not the only reason Christianity flourished.

Major historical shifts usually can’t be explained in one sentence.

 

[John_Martin]

Originally Posted by interestedman forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
And romans converted because Constantine converted.

Don’t you think that’s a bit of an overly-simplistic answer? Of course that had its impact, but that is certainly not the only reason Christianity flourished.

Major historical shifts usually can’t be explained in one sentence.

In a way, interestedman, your questioning and comments are parallels to what happened in the Church’s holy writings - you are making statements about how the Church could grow and flourish, similar to people’s wondering about Jesus, “Where did this man get these teachings,… he is from Nazareth,… we know his parents and family…, etc. When the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from”.

They thought they knew where Jesus was from (Nazareth), but they actually fulfilled the scriptures because they really didn’t know where he was from (God). And your questions and comments about the Church show that you think you know where it is from, and how and why it continued (Constantine’s conversion), but you don’t know it is from God, to be the presence of Himself through his Son in your presence.

John Martin

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I’m not sure that longevity suggest validity. If it did, then what would that say of Hinduism and Buddhism? Would it mean that these two religions along with Christianity are all valid? What about Islam?

Not longevity in and of itself. However, the Jewish people were not to be easily converted. The Messiah had to fulfill certain criteria.

 

[interestedman]

Don’t you think that’s a bit of an overly-simplistic answer? Of course that had its impact, but that is certainly not the only reason Christianity flourished.

Major historical shifts usually can’t be explained in one sentence.

Well it certainly had a lot to do with it. Christianity went from a small marginalized and persecuted group to the religion of the leader of the biggest empire in the world literally overnight.

 

[JDaniel]

jd,

your last comment brings up the Anthropic Principle, such that arrangements happen sometime somewhere randomly, one of them so complex and lucky as to come up with something like us. We observe it precisely because we require it.

Norain:

I have been on a tirade, in these fora, for years trying to get people to define “random” correctly. But, alas, I guess I need to continue for as long as new people come into it. And I need your help. Randomness = homogeneity. It has been usurped by the scientistic community to stand in place of “chance,” for ulterior reasons. When one eliminates the mis-use of “random” and replaces it with the correct word, “chance,” such questions fade away. Anthropic fine tuning came about out of such enormous “chance” that it’s odds of happening were completely nil - along with a dozen or so additional fine tunings that didn’t have a chance in hell of coming to be - yet it (and they) came to be.

Then there’s that “turtles all the way down” argument, where there is merely an infinite regress of causes, not one singular prime mover.

I hope you’re reading the new “St. Thomas, Prime Mover” thread. It will disabuse anyone who cares to debate, in good faith, of the possibility of an “infinite regress,” and forever put it to rest.

But in the end, it still points to the fundamental question, of why indeed there are such things as questions, turtles, movers, theories, arguments, and ideas. Why there is everything, and anything at all, rather than nothing.

Unanswerable. Except that we look and find traces of design and workmanship that are not of man’s doing.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

So, what’s actually the difference between all of this appearing to have happened and having actually happened? What, of substance, could an immaterial deity (who, by this reckoning, must be even more illusory than we would be!) inject into the process?

Sair:

He could hold the holograms of our perceptions in place for us.

God bless,
jd

 

[norain]

Anthropic fine tuning came about out of such enormous “chance” that it’s odds of happening were completely nil - along with a dozen or so additional fine tunings that didn’t have a chance in hell of coming to be - yet it (and they) came to be.

My understanding is that all possibilities exist or possibly exist somewhere. We observe ourselves precisely because we require it.

I hope you’re reading the new “St. Thomas, Prime Mover” thread. It will disabuse anyone who cares to debate, in good faith, of the possibility of an “infinite regress,” and forever put it to rest.

I post there too. I’m not a fan of infinite regress. I just mention it since atheists tend to refer to it repeatedly, like an infinite regress…

Unanswerable. Except that we look and find traces of design and workmanship that are not of man’s doing.

The physical laws started everything, I think. Either they are the mind of God, or God himself.

Ha! Finally I know how to split quotes, lol.