Atheism and the Church

[WildEyedAtheist]

You are basing your opinion of Catholicism on drama?

This type of generalizing should be avoided by both sides. Cite specifics only if you wish to be taken seriously, AgnosTheist.

I think that is a very inaccurate statement to make and cannot in my experience be applied to the general population.

I must respectfully agree.

Catholics that I know are very caring, kind, loving people who go around their everyday tasks looking for vulnerable people to befriend and assist.

Sounds like the Atheist, Agnostic and Unbeliever (AAU) community.

The also go around using every occasion in their lives to give praise, glory and thanks to Almighty God.

Does NOT sound like the Atheist, Agnostic and Unbeliever (AAU) community. LOL.

Catholics in my experience tend to work in jobs or perform social roles such as education, welfare, nursing and are active in the voluntary sector of charity work

Sounds like the Atheist, Agnostic and Unbeliever (AAU) community.

They also tend to be members of organizations such as SVP, KSC, CWL, Life, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children-and are outspoken critics of abortion and exploitation of the poor and vulnerable.

Many AAU’s are outspoken critics of abortion and all AAU’s are critics of the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable.

They also appear to have a finely tuned conscience with which they live in harmony for most of the time, which indicate that they are not particularly disturbed by guilt.

Sounds like the Atheist, Agnostic and Unbeliever (AAU) community.

In business, I am amazed at the good reputations for honest business among practicing Catholics that I am aware of.

Glad you quantified that.

There are always those who appear not to practice their faith in their everyday lives. I am sure that applies to elements within every parish and among all denoms but in the main, the Catholics that I know work hard to make Christ a reality to other peoples lives.

Except for that whole “Catholics are leaving the faith in larger numbers than in any time in history” thing.

ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=25966

journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/LOCAL04/709140326/1002/LOCAL

wwrn.org/article.php?idd=3904&sec=74&con=5

Atheists in my experience put self first, loved ones second and all else including God third or not at all. Catholics by contrast tend to put God first, neighbor second and self third.

Considering your fanaticism, I am dubious as to your involvement with any Atheists, much less your intimate knowledge of their priorities. However, I can tell you that we do not put god ANYWHERE in that lineup, as he does not exist, and we try to keep non-existent entities out of our prioritization lists.

It is hardly surprising that Wild Eyed Atheist has never met God, nor witnessed a miraculous intervention or mystical encounter with the Risen Christ.

You have never “met” your god, either, although I cannot say whether you witnessed a event you could not explain so immediately assigned this to your “god’s” intervention.

In my hard experience, a pre-requisite is the recognition that whatever we think of ourselves, before the unfathomable, loving awesome uncreated Almighty God, we are as nothing and have nothing to boast.

Anything concrete to say here, or are we just here to listen to you sermonize?

Coming before Him in humility He does indeed exalt us and lift us up to a status unbecoming of our insignificant relationship to Him and higher orders of creation.

Okay, so we ARE just here to listen to you sermonize.

It is not WHAT we ask but HOW we ask that largely determines the degree of His intervention. This unworthy wretch knows only too well and has throughout my entire life witnessed many interventions by His awesome and gentle love for creation.

Gentle? Love? You read the Old Testament lately. Not a whole lot of either gentleness nor love there, friend.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

One thing that stands out to me in the contributions to this thread is the contributions from non-Christians which are conspicous by their absence of love and respect by Attack, aggression and lack of love.

By contrast the responses by my sisters and brothers in faith are evident by their gentleness, lack of personal attack and lack of aggression.

I think that is all that needs be said about the differences between the two opposing view-points.

I guess that sums up the core differences between athiesm and the Church of Christ.

Hey, pass me those rose-colored glasses you’re wearing, would you?

 

[Bishopite]

Gentle? Love? You read the Old Testament lately. Not a whole lot of either gentleness nor love there, friend.

All that God does comes from His love. He allows people to go to hell, because He allows them the freedome to choose not to be with Him.
And I believe you are fixating on God’s wrath in the OT when it also shows God’s love.
God is also shown to be “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth” (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 108:4; Psalm 145:8; Joel 2:13).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hey, pass me those rose-colored glasses you’re wearing, would you?

Remember we are waiting for you to tell us what is innate verses what is learned. It is rather important as this is one of the fundamental differences between the views.

 

[Nepenthe]

Hm, I’ll try to contribute, in my roundabout fashion, to the question if ‘innate’ versus ‘learned’. Humans have a remarkable and unprecedented capacity for self-modification and adaptation, so it’s not easy to say just how much of our behavior is, in fact, entirely innate. One thing, however, I feel confident in attributing to our inborn abilities is internal dialogue, or self-awareness if you like.

When people speak about ‘free will’ I find it useful to introduce the concept of ‘free won’t.’ Whenever we are confronted with a choice, whether entirely conscious or so trivial we don’t really worry over it, our minds throw up a spreadsheet, prioritized by perceived costs and benefits. Since we DO have that internal observer, though, we have the ability to pick and choose from that table, and not simply go with the obvious Choice A as an unshakable command. We can consider the alternative benefits of options B through whatever! Some of those may have higher risks, or less - immediate rewards, but might just, on careful inspection, be preferable to the person choosing; ie we can say ‘I won’t go with my impulse on this matter! I choose my strategy otherwise.’ And I would say that this is indeed an innate human ability.

Perhaps this is a little more basic than you were aiming for, Texas Roofer, but i have been interested in the mechanics of cognition my entire life. I could go on at much length, but that would be an entirely different thread, I think, and perhaps not one that would interest many fellow board members.

On a tangent, I can speculate that the internal-observer phenomenon and the confusion sometimes resulting therefrom, plus our (yes, innate also, since we’re social animals) instincts towards pack/tribal behavior and fear of the unknown might just have something to do with beliefs in the supernatural, but that is indeed mostly speculation.

Those of us who do not, however, believe in the supernatural essentially cannot believe in such things, any more than we can ‘believe’ that two plus two equals five. Yes, we could probably be forced to do so, but that would involve nasty things like torture and so forth. We simply do not see why such things are, or should be, believable! This isn’t proselytizing or whatever you call it, but when asked, why should we not answer to the best of our ability?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hm, I’ll try to contribute, in my roundabout fashion, to the question if ‘innate’ versus ‘learned’. Humans have a remarkable and unprecedented capacity for self-modification and adaptation, so it’s not easy to say just how much of our behavior is, in fact, entirely innate. One thing, however, I feel confident in attributing to our inborn abilities is internal dialogue, or self-awareness if you like.

When people speak about ‘free will’ I find it useful to introduce the concept of ‘free won’t.’ Whenever we are confronted with a choice, whether entirely conscious or so trivial we don’t really worry over it, our minds throw up a spreadsheet, prioritized by perceived costs and benefits. Since we DO have that internal observer, though, we have the ability to pick and choose from that table, and not simply go with the obvious Choice A as an unshakable command. We can consider the alternative benefits of options B through whatever! Some of those may have higher risks, or less - immediate rewards, but might just, on careful inspection, be preferable to the person choosing; ie we can say ‘I won’t go with my impulse on this matter! I choose my strategy otherwise.’ And I would say that this is indeed an innate human ability.

Perhaps this is a little more basic than you were aiming for, Texas Roofer, but i have been interested in the mechanics of cognition my entire life. I could go on at much length, but that would be an entirely different thread, I think, and perhaps not one that would interest many fellow board members.

On a tangent, I can speculate that the internal-observer phenomenon and the confusion sometimes resulting therefrom, plus our (yes, innate also, since we’re social animals) instincts towards pack/tribal behavior and fear of the unknown might just have something to do with beliefs in the supernatural, but that is indeed mostly speculation.

Those of us who do not, however, believe in the supernatural essentially cannot believe in such things, any more than we can ‘believe’ that two plus two equals five. Yes, we could probably be forced to do so, but that would involve nasty things like torture and so forth. We simply do not see why such things are, or should be, believable! This isn’t proselytizing or whatever you call it, but when asked, why should we not answer to the best of our ability?

This appears problematic, it would seem there is a need to have an ‘innate’ option available to all, and yet to adapt its definition to exclude the morals generally as presented in Natural Moral Law theory? So it appears the presented point of view is “we do not know but it excludes your morals?” Maybe the current post could be refined a little? thanks

 

[Nepenthe]

‘Natural Moral Law’ is none of those (natural, moral, nor law), as I said in another thread just yesterday. It is pseudoscientific and pseudolegalistic, and, in a different way, pseudophilosophical. In short, it’s agenda-serving hooey.

I know that’s an upsetting thing to hear, for some people, but there it is. The very nomenclature is misleading. Who isn’t for Nature, Law and Morality? But then the presumption, the arrogance arises, under that shroud of jargon.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

‘Natural Moral Law’ is none of those (natural, moral, nor law), as I said in another thread just yesterday. It is pseudoscientific and pseudolegalistic, and, in a different way, pseudophilosophical. In short, it’s agenda-serving hooey.

I know that’s an upsetting thing to hear, for some people, but there it is. The very nomenclature is misleading. Who isn’t for Nature, Law and Morality? But then the presumption, the arrogance arises, under that shroud of jargon.

Well we could come back to this but the current issue is to define ‘innate’ in an atheist view

 

[not_a_theist]

‘Natural Moral Law’ is none of those (natural, moral, nor law), as I said in another thread just yesterday. It is pseudoscientific and pseudolegalistic, and, in a different way, pseudophilosophical. In short, it’s agenda-serving hooey.

That I agree with. The so-called ‘Natural Moral Law’ has no credibility whatsoever unless one is already predisposed to accept the existence of the purported lawgiver.

 

[Nepenthe]

Texas Roofer:

Well we could come back to this but the current issue is to define ‘innate’ in an atheist view

Oh, I pretty much just mean it in the sense that ‘walking upright without recourse to knuckles’ is ‘innate’ to homo sapiens sapiens. There’s nothing especially theistic or otherwise about that

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That I agree with. The so-called ‘Natural Moral Law’ has no credibility whatsoever unless one is already predisposed to accept the existence of the purported lawgiver.

Apperently it is a good why to hide from answers?

 

[not_a_theist]

Apperently it is a good why to hide from answers?

I can’t parse that reply.

 

[Nepenthe]

It isn’t ‘hiding’, it’s questioning. Being critical. You know, that human thing we do so well. Why should anyone accept such ‘answers’ without analysis, except at gunpoint? In the face of a hand cannon, sure, I’ll tell you purple is green, but that doesn’t mean i ‘believe’ it, nor is that anything upon which to base a system of ethics for living.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I can’t parse that reply.

It isn’t ‘hiding’, it’s questioning. Being critical. You know, that human thing we do so well. Why should anyone accept such ‘answers’ without analysis, except at gunpoint? In the face of a hand cannon, sure, I’ll tell you purple is green, but that doesn’t mean i ‘believe’ it, nor is that anything upon which to base a system of ethics for living.

:coffeeread: Anything on the atheist splitting the innate verses the learned behavior? :coffeeread:

 

[not_a_theist]

Anything on the atheist splitting the innate verses the learned behavior?

That didn’t parse, either.

 

[Nepenthe]

‘Learning’ is ‘innate’, especially for humans. You want to split those up, go ahead and try it.

I do object when some people say that ‘learning’ should be halted though, for whatever purpose. Some means of evidence-gathering surely, but purpose? There need not be an agenda to fulfill, beyond greater apprehension of the world around us. That defense is more potent than any offense, truly, and that holds true even for a species that has constructed atomic bombs…indeed, especially so.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That didn’t parse, either.

‘Learning’ is ‘innate’, especially for humans. You want to split those up, go ahead and try it.

If you have reviewed the thread you will see the atheist is standing on morals being a learned behavior. He is allowing mothering as innate behavior. So the current question is what do (or how do) atheist separate learned behavior from innate behavior?
thanks

 

[Nepenthe]

Wait…the atheist? Ahahaha. Ahem. Try not to herd cats, okay? I do not hold you responsible for the acts of all believers in the supernatural nor need you defend them to me.

Okay, I have already given you a somewhat more in-depth pov about this stuff, if you want inquiry…shall we address it? It might take another thread though, as I already stated, about the mechanics of cognition and the nature of the human mind.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Wait…the atheist? Ahahaha. Ahem. Try not to herd cats, okay? I do not hold you responsible for the acts of all believers in the supernatural nor need you defend them to me.

Okay, I have already given you a somewhat more in-depth pov about this stuff, if you want inquiry…shall we address it? It might take another thread though, as I already stated, about the mechanics of cognition and the nature of the human mind.

In post #204 ? The post has 2 large problems

1. It derails the current conversation concerning one atheist displaying for us theist a complete and reasonable method to comprise a moral base
2. We do not know if you agree with anything the other atheist posted.

It is not an issue of whether we can pursue these same isues with you, but an issue of whether we should drop the current attempt to build a moral atheistic base to pursue your ideas at this time. I do you wish to abandon the current work, yet I would pursue a dual work with you if desired.

 

[Sixtus]

I must respectfully agree…

Thank you

Considering your fanaticism,

Thank you, that is one of the nicest complements anyone has ever given this unworthy sinful wretch who dares to call himself a follower of the Lamb of the Most High God

I am dubious as to your involvement with any Atheists, much less your intimate knowledge of their priorities.

In my paid work and in my voluntary work I have worked with all denoms and none. I have been privileged to love and serve believers, non-believers and convicted Athiests. I can say that I have met a few ‘nice’ convicted athiests but in the main find that while I am tolerant, understanding, sensitive, interested and respectful towards their beliefs, they are very insulting insensitive and condescending towards mine.

However, I can tell you that we do not put god ANYWHERE in that lineup, as he does not exist, and we try to keep non-existent entities out of our prioritization lists.

You have never “met” your god, either,

You are absolutely right, I have never met god. I have no idea what he, she or it looks like.

I certainly do not worship god

But if you were to ask me about God, then that is a whole different ball-game.

This unworthy sinful wretch has many times and in all sorts of ways met and been priviledged to a live tangible mystical encounter with the awesome all powerful omnipresent Almighty God. I did nothing to deserve it. That was a priviledge I will question as to the reason ‘why’ until I am united with Him.

My dear Wild Eyed Athiest, I am very sorry that you are so bitter. You must have suffered to feel that way. It sounds as if life has not been too kind to you. I do not know how you came to lose your belief - for that is what has happened to you, you were once a believer weren’t you! But that is not for me to question or discern.

Rest assured I [and many others] will pray for you and yours that the shadow of the Most High God shall cover you, that the peace of Christ may come upon you, touch you and heal you.

Until we meet face to face: shalom.