Atheism is now a Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
aaronjmagnan:
Good shot, but you still miss it. You have never had the water, thus, you think it does not exist.
Click to expand...
To strech the water analogy a bit further. There are people, who say water is blue, others say it is red,others say it is wet, and others say is both wet and dry. Whom shall I believe?
And, is it ok to argue, if one claims water to be dry and wet at the same time, that I can safely dismiss the hypothetical existence of such water?
But where is this passage that mentions his birthday?
Click to expand...
Mt 2:1, Lk 2:2. Granted, it is more the birthyear.
King Herod died in 4 BC, Quirinius’ census took place in 6/7 AD.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
You make a leap of faith when you believe in Scientism because it’s un-provable. Since you refuse to acknowledge your leap of faith your logic is inconsistent and your conclusions are not reasonable.
Click to expand...
You widen the meaning of religion, the meaning of faith, and the meaning of god, to include all the non-religious, non-faithful, and non-god things I think. Then you compare it to your mindset. That fallacy is called “equivocation”.

Why do you do that? To shout, “See you do the same as I do.” That fallacy is called “tu quoque”.

To blur both leaps into one term only leads to a meaningless term. If science and religion are the same things on a meta level, that meta level is not suitable to differentiate them.

My “leap of faith” is of a very different quality than your leap of faith, therefore I do not call it leap of faith. Call it an axiom, then I am happy.
 
The reason what you say is very much doubted by others in this forum is that you leave plenty of room for doubt.

Nothing you say is factual in the ordinary sense of the word. All of your “facts” are only facts in *your *mind.
 
I just dont believe. I’m well versed in the Catholic faith and completed 9 years of CCD. No way can I believe theres a monster hiding under my bed, and no one can I believe there is a god. The whole idea of religion just seems so silly to me, that I cant believe. All these different contradicting religions dont point to a god, they point to a need for explanation of events and a need for comfort when a loved one dies. In a way, I wish I believed in god, because I wish there was a Heaven. But I dont. None of my family does either, but they didnt come out and say it until I didnt make my confirmation. The only thing that bothers me is how the universe got there, and Im not ruling out a scientific explanation, but maybe there was at one time a “god”. However ,if there was, I dont believe he or she still exists. The world doesnt make enough sense. Too many horrible things happen to good people and too many good things happen to horrible people. Prayers arent answered, etc. I just cant believe there is a god that would allow such things to happen.
 
SIAMESE

In your bio, by my calculation you are sixteen years old … but you’ve already got religion all figured out as “silly.”

Must be comforting to be able to sweep that “silly” religion under the carpet and get back to your silly sit-coms.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
You widen the meaning of religion, the meaning of faith, and the meaning of god, to include all the non-religious, non-faithful, and non-god things I think. Then you compare it to your mindset. That fallacy is called “equivocation”.

Why do you do that? To shout, “See you do the same as I do.” That fallacy is called “tu quoque”.

To blur both leaps into one term only leads to a meaningless term. If science and religion are the same things on a meta level, that meta level is not suitable to differentiate them.

My “leap of faith” is of a very different quality than your leap of faith, therefore I do not call it leap of faith. Call it an axiom, then I am happy.
Click to expand...
Your axiom is the result of your faith. It is not the leap of faith itself.

Axiom
  1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim
  2. An established rule, principle, or law.
  3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate
Faith
  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
  2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
  3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
  4. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
  5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
  6. A set of principles or beliefs.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
Your axiom is the result of your faith. It is not the leap of faith itself.
Click to expand...
I am impressed of how much you seem to know, what and how I think.

irony mode off

My basic unprovable assumptions on how truth should be established and how the world works are very simple and very general. They lead to a consistent philosophy that perfectly matches the observable facts.

Your unprovable assumptions (and those of most other religions) are very complex and very specific. They lead to a philosophy that is kept consistent only by huge amount of apologetics, if at all. And still it does not match the observable facts.

I see quite a difference there, so I prefer to name those things differently.
 
According to the NYTimes on the Web, a recent panel of scientists was approached with the following question:

Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?

*Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. “No!” declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals. *

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, “this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race.”

Based on this silly logic, Isaac Newton could not have been a good scientist because he wrote more about the Bible than he did science.

And of course most of the people in prison must be there because they believe in God and go to Church often.

And all the charitable organizations sponsored by Churches down through history must really have been fronts for organized crime.

And the invention of the printing press by a Roman Catholic must really have been part of a conspiracy to keep mankind in the darkness of illiteracy and ignorance.

And the invention of nuclear weapons by modern science was really not* “*damaging to the well being of the human race.”

Whew!
 
40.png
aaronjmagnan:
I do not base my faith on the fact that someone wrote it once. Scripture delineates what I have understood, and history proves the lineage of what I understand. But the main convincing factor for my conversion to Catholicism was divine intervention, something that does not require credible sources.
Click to expand...
Do you regard personal experience to be a valid method of establishing an objective truth?
If so, how come that other people have other experiences that leads to a different truth? If the method is valid, all truths should be valid gained with that method.

The Catholic stance, that they know the full truth, require a very specific personal experience, disregarding any other types of personal experiences. That is not a general appliance of the method.

The scientific method on the other hand applies in any case.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
I am impressed of how much you seem to know, what and how I think.

irony mode off

My basic unprovable assumptions on how truth should be established and how the world works are very simple and very general. They lead to a consistent philosophy that perfectly matches the observable facts.

Your unprovable assumptions (and those of most other religions) are very complex and very specific. They lead to a philosophy that is kept consistent only by huge amount of apologetics, if at all. And still it does not match the observable facts.

I see quite a difference there, so I prefer to name those things differently.
Click to expand...
Now we’re getting some where. You claim that your assumptions are more likely true since under close examination they are the simplest explanation of the observed data. This is known as Occam’s Razor. If we are comparing Atheism and Theism and we take an objective look at the data, Theism is actually the simplest most rational conclusion.
 
Gilbert Keith:
SIAMESE

In your bio, by my calculation you are sixteen years old … but you’ve already got religion all figured out as “silly.”

Must be comforting to be able to sweep that “silly” religion under the carpet and get back to your silly sit-coms.
Click to expand...
Alright, but my parents and many of my adult friends feel the same way. 16 years old can be old enough to know fact from fiction.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
Do you regard personal experience to be a valid method of establishing an objective truth?
If so, how come that other people have other experiences that leads to a different truth? If the method is valid, all truths should be valid gained with that method.

The Catholic stance, that they know the full truth, require a very specific personal experience, disregarding any other types of personal experiences. That is not a general appliance of the method.

The scientific method on the other hand applies in any case.
Click to expand...
No, this is an argument as to which stance is taken as truth. You fall into the same pitfall taking scientific method as truth, or the idea that there is no objective truth. I am not telling you what to believe, I am defending my faith. Therefore, I am not able to argue that there even is a different truth other than the Catholic faith.

First of all, if we agree that there is such thing as objective truth, we must agree what that truth is. I am suggesting, for the sake of argument, that you posit the possibility that the objective truth is the Catholic God. But when we look at the Catholic God, we find he is not proven by scientific methods, by sense, by observable facts that lead to a conclusion. By your reasoning nothing will ever be understood, because it does not come from a truth, and does not lead to a truth, but is a whole bunch of communal agreements as to what truth is, and changes as society changes. Your god is statistics and appeasing the intellect.

But the standpoint of coming from God as truth is the difference in our stance as Catholics. We agree to the truth of God, and make conclusions from the acceptance that God exists, actually is pure being.

Your use of logic is an adherence to the logos, which is the form and essence behind logic and reasoning. We claim our God to be the Logos. Therefore, we logically reason through this.

All truths gained with Catholic Theology are valid in my faith. If you will not communicate by these grounds, then you are arguing chickens when we talk about ducks.

The idea is that there is either truth or no truth, philosophically speaking. If there is no truth, then discussion about anything is not fruitful. Asserting things, even atheism, is not necessary. But for some reason we humans love truth, and love standing by “our truths.”

The difference between us Catholics and others is that we are willing to admit that there is one truth, and many opinions about that truth. But we live striving toward obedience to that truth, regardless of our opinions. Discovering validation of an opinion is different from adhering to truth regardless of ego and desire.

Try looking for God, and you will find Him. Try proving He does not exist and you cannot. That is a logical conclusion of Catholicism.

God bless.
Aaron
 
40.png
siamesecat:
Alright, but my parents and many of my adult friends feel the same way. 16 years old can be old enough to know fact from fiction.
Click to expand...
I suggest you ignore uncharitable cracks about your age. Many aged respected thinkers also concluded Atheism. One way to learn is to take a position and defend it to the best of your ability. You may come across an argument that dissuades you from your position or you may not. Never stop learning.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
I suggest you ignore uncharitable cracks about your age. Many aged respected thinkers also concluded Atheism. One way to learn is to take a position and defend it to the best of your ability. You may come across an argument that dissuades you from your position or you may not. Never stop learning.
Click to expand...
Good call. We Christians are called to remember that Christ showed remarkable intelligence as a child, debating in the temple. Also, St. Thomas Aquinas was supposedly very young when he started asking, “What is God?” On top of that John the Baptist kicked in the womb when he noticed Jesus in Mary’s womb. You see, the gifts of cognition, knowledge, are present from youth, and often these passions lead one to the conclusion (or revelation) that they know that God is.

Christians should act out of charity in presentation of Christian facts, and not bitterness, especially toward a 16 year old who is curious enough to browse this website. The last thing we should do is reinforce the opinion that we are hardheaded.

I am speaking from experience (though some of us might not hold that as valid ;)).

God bless,
Aaron
 
Christians should act out of charity in presentation of Christian facts, and not bitterness, especially toward a 16 year old who is curious enough to browse this website.
SIAMESECAT (the 16 year-old) SAID:

The whole idea of religion just seems so silly to me, that I cant believe.

The point might just as well have been made, while you were at it, that 16 year-olds ought to learn some manners.

Don’t you think?
 
Gilbert Keith said:
Christians should act out of charity in presentation of Christian facts, and not bitterness, especially toward a 16 year old who is curious enough to browse this website.
SIAMESECAT (the 16 year-old) SAID:

The whole idea of religion just seems so silly to me, that I cant believe.

The point might just as well have been made, while you were at it, that 16 year-olds ought to learn some manners.

Don’t you think?
Click to expand...

I don’t see how I was being impolite. I explained that I saw religion as silly, when asked how atheists become atheiests. I didn’t go around calling people names or calling Catholics “stupid” for believing. That is how I feel about religion. I have seen people far more impolite than me at this forum discussing things they don’t agree with.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
One way to learn is to take a position and defend it to the best of your ability.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call that learning.
Never stop learning.
Click to expand...
Quite right. One is never too young or too old to learn something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top