Atheism - Paradox

[Lilyflower]

If you are interested, He is the most powerful force in the universe, more powerful than the universe while paradoxically the most gentle force.

He is paradoxically ALL powerful while simultaneiously all gentle, loving and peaceful. A peace this world cannot know.

The reason He is absent from you. If you experienced HIm as I have, then you simply would not want to live. You would want to vacate this world and existence with immediate effect and fly to Him. That is not His wish, that is singularly why He appears distant from us.

In fact, He is very close to all His creation, but remains just outside from our consciousness, that is all. We cannot perceive Him with our senses. That is because He wills us to exist.

He is vast, very vast, greater than the universe. So great that the universe becomes what it is ‘a mere created thing’, Before Him, it is but a miniscule amount of His creation which is vastly greater.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But I am worried about the spiritual well being of Europe. I don’t want (humanistic) secularism to win.

it already has

How is that an objective response to my questions? What will push (no pun intended ) the Europeans to pro-create?

I’ll have to visit – or they need to start drinking more vino

No, the Christians in Africa and Asia are having babies at a rate greater than Europe, and so they will be the new wave of immigrants to fill in the population gaps. There is nothing crazy about that. You choose to deny this because it doesn’t fit into your neat secular plan for Europe (and the rest of the world). Secularists are a dying breed because they are the ones adhering to contraceptives, having less than two babies, promoting abortion. Well, you got what you wanted now reap what you’ve sown.

Europe has been closing its doors; and western man has been through rougher periods before in terms of population (heck the black plague killed one third of us). We survived that just like we’ll be just fine in the future … no worries (we’ve been procreating long before Jesus).

No, I wouldn’t since I like science very much, but it needs to work within ethical boundaries just like any other field. Why are you determined to set me against science when all I’m arguing for is that scientists be more conscientious?

I think science has too many boundaries as it is

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The reason He is absent from you. If you experienced HIm as I have, then you simply would not want to live.

I have a few other ideas … but I’ll resist the temptation

 

[josie_L]

it already has

Haha, that’s the funniest thing I heard all day.

I’ll have to visit – or they need to start drinking more vino

And what would you be planning to do populate the countryside with your illegitimate children? Even then, you alone couldn’t possibly raise it up (the birth rate that is ).

Europe has been closing its doors; and western man has been through rougher periods before in terms of population (heck the black plague killed one third of us). We survived that just like we’ll be just fine in the future … no worries (we’ve been procreating long before Jesus).

But Europe is not in pre-industrialist times, so we’re talking about a whole different kettle of fish here. How will Europe be able to sustain itself financially and socially (think of all the social programs they have to fork money for).

I think science has too many boundaries as it is

If science had boundaries we would not have a history littered with the mistakes she has made.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Haha, that’s the funniest thing I heard all day.

funny as it might be … it’s true

And what would you be planning to do populate the countryside with your illegitimate children? Even then, you alone couldn’t possibly raise it up (the birth rate that is ).

don’t doubt the humble

But Europe is not in pre-industrialist times, so we’re talking about a whole different kettle of fish here. How will Europe be able to sustain itself financially and socially (think of all the social programs they have to fork money for).

oh golly (holy speculative paranoia batman)

If science had boundaries we would not have a history littered with the mistakes she has made.

discovery is only made by those willing to risk being wrong and making mistakes.

 

[josie_L]

funny as it might be … it’s true

You have not stated your case as to why?

don’t doubt the humble

Oh, please!!!

oh golly (holy speculative paranoia batman)

I’m making a valid point here. Are you incapable of answering my questions?

discovery is only made by those willing to risk being wrong and making mistakes.

So my apprehensions are completely immaterial? I mean there’s no logical/moral basis for my arguing against the “advancements” that science has made?

P.S. Don’t call me paranoid!!

 

[Eleve]

discovery is only made by those willing to risk being wrong and making mistakes.

I think the mistakes Josie is talking about are things like the Manhattan Project and the fallout* from that. Those things really do need to be avoided.

*Asterisk indicates pun.

 

[josie_L]

I think the mistakes Josie is talking about are things like the Manhattan Project and the fallout* from that. Those things really do need to be avoided.

*Asterisk indicates pun.

Thank you, Levi. It’s always good to hear someone voicing a logical constructive opinion.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You have not stated your case as to why?

Oh, please!!!

I’m making a valid point here. Are you incapable of answering my questions?

So my apprehensions are completely immaterial? I mean there’s no logical/moral basis for my arguing against the “advancements” that science has made?

P.S. Don’t call me paranoid!!

ohhh we’re gettin a little testy (I better go to bed … or experience the wrath of Josie )

 

[josie_L]

ohhh we’re gettin a little testy (I better go to bed … or experience the wrath of Josie )

You haven’t answered any of my questions, so yes, I’m getting a little testy.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You haven’t answered any of my questions, so yes, I’m getting a little testy.

what questions? You’re asking me to defend against your speculative slippery slope. You’re assumptions run something like this:

Society becomes more secular = lower birth rates

Lower birth rates = replacement through immigration

Replacement through immigration = a return to theistic nirvana (from the perspective of theists of course).

Right from the beginning your assumptions are speculative. Is it a coincidental correlation or is lower religious observance responsible for lower birth rates? We simply don’t know (and I’m sure there’s numerous other factors that influence birth rates).

Then you assume Europe will always remain tolerant of large numbers of immigrants pouring across their borders. Finally, you assume all those immigrants will be Christian (when they’re more likely to be Muslim).

We all make future predictions (and I’m just as prone to making wild speculative predictions as anyone). However, we have to distinguish a speculative prediction from fact (and the slippery slope you hypothesize is just that; a hypothesis).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I think the mistakes Josie is talking about are things like the Manhattan Project and the fallout* from that. Those things really do need to be avoided.

*Asterisk indicates pun.

arguably the Manhattan project saved millions of lives (both American and Japanese). Sure it opened Pandora’s box; but I’ve heard great arguments (albeit theoretical) that nuclear weapons actually prevented another world war (or at least another large scale war); and saved perhaps tens of millions of lives (through MAD or mutually assured destruction).

 

[djeter]

I’d say, at best, an atheist must leave theological and/or religious discussions to people who believe in something and they can move forward in their discussion. People who believe in nothing have nothing - where is there to go from nothing?

I think a conversation with a **devout **atheist can only be a short one. “I don’t believe,” to which the believer responds, “I do and here’s why…” to which the atheist responds, “I don’t believe.” … “Ok?” “Ok.”

I was talking with an atheist recently. He said, “I’ve been looking for many years for God, but I haven’t found Him.” I told him he should pray and ask God to reveal Himself. The atheist responded, “No, I’ve tried that and it doesn’t work.” He continued on and I realized that a bitterness was in him to the point that he no longer wants to see God. If God is there to be seen, this atheist has shut his eyes and has become uninterested.

The atheists I know are fairly closed minded - they believe that all we have is what we see - they are reductionist in their thinking.

Thoughts?

The most persuasive argument for rejecting atheism was developed by the great Catholic Theologian Hans Ur von Balthazar. You can find it summarized here by Fr. John Cihuk:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/01/engaging-atheism/

Along with a dozen motives for being an atheist:

payingattentiontothesky.com/motives-for-atheism-%e2%80%93-david-carlin/

In the United States nowadays, atheism is out in the open: like gays and lesbians, it has come “out of the closet.” It used to be, in the good old days, that the only open enemy of their religion that American Catholics had to worry about was Protestantism. But the old dispute between Catholicism and Protestantism was small potatoes in comparison to the new dispute between Catholicism and atheism. Protestantism objected to certain particulars of Catholicism; atheism objects to the whole root-and-branch of Christianity.

I wouldn’t give it such short shrift, if I were you. Atheism is beating the pants off us.

DJ

 

[Lilyflower]

I have a few other ideas … but I’ll resist the temptation

I bid you to speak. The truth cannot be hurt, damaged, twisted or in anyway diminished though discussion, logic or other manipulation. It always remains THE TRUTH!

So i invite you to share your ideas.

Blessings and peace

 

[Lilyflower]

The tragedy is that the true atheist never will know since they have already chosen not to.

An atheist who is prepared to suspend his/her belief may find out. One who is willing to go even further and prepared to make a fool of himself, by asking, is at even greater risk of discovering the truth.

But the entirely closed mind will forever remain closed!!

The greatest obstacle to discovering God isn’t ‘lack of proof’ or ‘lack of knowing where to look’ but our human arrogance. Until we learn to abandon that, We will remain forever arrogant!

I think that upon death, many will infact abandon their conviction, as the psalm says: they will come in dismay all who have resisted!’

 

[josie_L]

what questions? You’re asking me to defend against your speculative slippery slope. You’re assumptions run something like this:

Society becomes more secular = lower birth rates

Lower birth rates = replacement through immigration

Replacement through immigration = a return to theistic nirvana (from the perspective of theists of course).

Right from the beginning your assumptions are speculative. Is it a coincidental correlation or is lower religious observance responsible for lower birth rates? We simply don’t know (and I’m sure there’s numerous other factors that influence birth rates).

Then you assume Europe will always remain tolerant of large numbers of immigrants pouring across their borders. Finally, you assume all those immigrants will be Christian (when they’re more likely to be Muslim).

We all make future predictions (and I’m just as prone to making wild speculative predictions as anyone). However, we have to distinguish a speculative prediction from fact (and the slippery slope you hypothesize is just that; a hypothesis).

I gave you proof that Christianity was growing in leaps and bounds (you stated that if it weren’t for evangelical protestantism Christianity wouldn’t even be growing which was false) especially Catholicism. You mentioned that Europe was bound to get more secular with time I said that there could be some validity to it but since their birth rates are so atrocious (this is a confirmed fact and it is stated that their population will be cut in half) there will be a population gap in the future. Because Francis, people are haviing mostly one child instead of the required two to three ( i.e., replacement level rate). So obviously, the means by which they will fill this gap is through immigratiion (and I stated that these new immigrants would reintroduce theism, hopefully Christianity as it is growing rapidly in developing countries). You on the other hand stated that artificial wombs would be the key to raising birth rates, which makes no sense because Europeans are just not having children. Moreover, If the majority of Catholics actually listened to the Church on issues such as contraceptives do you think that these countries would have a birth rate problem? And furthermore these Catholics don’t listen because they were/are suckered in by the secular culture (hence my secularist comment). For example, a couple of generations ago, Catholics in Quebec (where I live) were having many many children now after the sexual revolution (and political upheaval) the French here have the lowest birth rate in the western hemisphere (last I checked). Do you think it’s coincidence?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I gave you proof that Christianity was growing in leaps and bounds (you stated that if it weren’t for evangelical protestantism Christianity wouldn’t even be growing which was false) especially Catholicism. You mentioned that Europe was bound to get more secular with time I said that there could be some validity to it but since their birth rates are so atrocious (this is a confirmed fact and it is stated that their population will be cut in half) there will be a population gap in the future. Because Francis, people are haviing mostly one child instead of the required two to three ( i.e., replacement level rate). So obviously, the means by which they will fill this gap is through immigratiion (and I stated that these new immigrants would reintroduce theism, hopefully Christianity as it is growing rapidly in developing countries). You on the other hand stated that artificial wombs would be the key to raising birth rates, which makes no sense because Europeans are just not having children. Moreover, If the majority of Catholics actually listened to the Church on issues such as contraceptives do you think that these countries would have a birth rate problem? And furthermore these Catholics don’t listen because they were/are suckered in by the secular culture (hence my secularist comment). For example, a couple of generations ago, Catholics in Quebec (where I live) were having many many children now after the sexual revolution (and political upheaval) the French here have the lowest birth rate in the western hemisphere (last I checked). Do you think it’s coincidence?

you don’t get suckered into secular culture … you get suckered into religion. Secular culture is a subjective term. Democracy is a secular concept (no it’s not a religious concept, or even close, since democracy is in opposition to theocracy) … I wouldn’t say you get suckered into it? On the other hand communism is a secular concept … but you generally don’t get suckered into it (you usually get forced into it).

So the statements you make, while great for bumper stickers (and slogans), don’t pass the smell test when you really apply them to the problems at issue.

Here’s some stats on the growth of Christianity:

Christianity

* The U.S. Center for World Mission claimed a growth rate of 2.3% for the period 1970 to 1996, (slightly higher than the world population growth rate at the time). This increased the percentage of Christians from 33.7% to 33.9%.[4]
* The US Department of State estimates that Protestant Christianity may have grown 600% over the last decade in Vietnam.[5]
* The World Christian Database as of 2007 estimated the growth rate of Christianity at 1.32%. High birth rates and conversions were cited as the main reason.[6]
* From the period between 2000 and 2005, Pentecostalism experienced a global growth rate of 488% expanding from 115 million to 588.5 million[7] global adherents. This classes Pentecostalism as the fastest growing religion world wide.[8]
* Using data from the period 2000-2005 the 2006 Christian World Database estimated that by number of new adherents, Christianity was the fastest growing religion in the world with 30,360,000 new adherents in 2006. This was followed by Islam with 23,920,000 and Hinduism with 13,224,000 estimated new adherents in the same period.[9]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion

This confirms what I said earlier, Pentecostalism is the fastest growing sect in Christianity (indeed by far). Moreover, the way Catholics cite numbers is misleading. Heck, I’d be willing to bet I’m counted in their numbers … how’s that grab you?

So the obvious problem with these numbers is they appear to ignore losses (which are huge). Moreover, do you really think Europe will simply sit by and allow a flood of immigrants from the third world to invade its shores? Most European countries have already clamped down on immigration (some no longer even granting political asylum except in the most extreme cases). It doesn’t matter if there’s fewer young people … they won’t surrender their culture and ethnic identity (they care about that stuff in Europe much more than we do here).

They’ll figure something out (although I’m sure religious organizations like the CC will try and hamper the success of our secular culture because of its own aspirations). Eventually rational people might just get sick of religious interference in our lives; you never know.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I bid you to speak. The truth cannot be hurt, damaged, twisted or in anyway diminished though discussion, logic or other manipulation. It always remains THE TRUTH!

So i invite you to share your ideas.

Blessings and peace

The truth is the bible is false & none of it really happened (well, maybe there’s some occasional historical accuracy). The Nile never turned into blood, and a god man never cheated death. There are no flying angels, talking snakes, or whatever. Whether or not something beyond our cognition exists I can’t say; but while I can’t say what it is … I can say what it’s not (and it’s not described by any contemporary world religion).

 

[josie_L]

you don’t get suckered into secular culture … you get suckered into religion. Secular culture is a subjective term. Democracy is a secular concept (no it’s not a religious concept, or even close, since democracy is in opposition to theocracy) … I wouldn’t say you get suckered into it? On the other hand communism is a secular concept … but you generally don’t get suckered into it (you usually get forced into it).

So the statements you make, while great for bumper stickers (and slogans), don’t pass the smell test when you really apply them to the problems at issue.

Here’s some stats on the growth of Christianity:

Christianity

* The U.S. Center for World Mission claimed a growth rate of 2.3% for the period 1970 to 1996, (slightly higher than the world population growth rate at the time). This increased the percentage of Christians from 33.7% to 33.9%.[4]
* The US Department of State estimates that Protestant Christianity may have grown 600% over the last decade in Vietnam.[5]
* The World Christian Database as of 2007 estimated the growth rate of Christianity at 1.32%. High birth rates and conversions were cited as the main reason.[6]
* From the period between 2000 and 2005, Pentecostalism experienced a global growth rate of 488% expanding from 115 million to 588.5 million[7] global adherents. This classes Pentecostalism as the fastest growing religion world wide.[8]
* Using data from the period 2000-2005 the 2006 Christian World Database estimated that by number of new adherents, Christianity was the fastest growing religion in the world with 30,360,000 new adherents in 2006. This was followed by Islam with 23,920,000 and Hinduism with 13,224,000 estimated new adherents in the same period.[9]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion

This confirms what I said earlier, Pentecostalism is the fastest growing sect in Christianity (indeed by far). Moreover, the way Catholics cite numbers is misleading. Heck, I’d be willing to bet I’m counted in their numbers … how’s that grab you?

So the obvious problem with these numbers is they appear to ignore losses (which are huge). Moreover, do you really think Europe will simply sit by and allow a flood of immigrants from the third world to invade its shores? Most European countries have already clamped down on immigration (some no longer even granting political asylum except in the most extreme cases). It doesn’t matter if there’s fewer young people … they won’t surrender their culture and ethnic identity (they care about that stuff in Europe much more than we do here).

They’ll figure something out (although I’m sure religious organizations like the CC will try and hamper the success of our secular culture because of its own aspirations). Eventually rational people might just get sick of religious interference in our lives; you never know.

This is what you originally said:

I don’t see anything fatalist about what I said? **And the CC is not growing faster than the population at large (it’s growing slower & shrinking as a percentage of the population). **The Pentecostal church (and other evangelical sects) are growing faster than the population (and they’re the only reason why Christianity is still growing at all).

The part in bold is false. Catholicism is growing at a rate greater than the population at large. I’ve already cited the percentages so I won’t bother posting them again. Furthermore I never stated that Catholicism was the fastest growing religion in the world, however that being said it is growing, especially in Africa and Asia. Christianity is increasing on the whole but it would be foolish to say this is due to Pentecostalism because these evangelicals are converting Catholics who are already Christians. As for stating that the Catholic Church is still factoring people like you into their numbers, well my original post does state that they account for defectors and the like. And the numbers still reflect growth despite those who leave. I don’t care one way or another what or how many people convert to the faith (although it is good to see that there are many who are converting) truth will remain truth, as such I will die a Catholic. Noboby and/or nothing will change this.

You should write a letter to your bishop to confirm that you are no longer Catholic if you’re worried that we’re inflating our numbers.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

This is what you originally said:

I don’t see anything fatalist about what I said? **And the CC is not growing faster than the population at large (it’s growing slower & shrinking as a percentage of the population). **The Pentecostal church (and other evangelical sects) are growing faster than the population (and they’re the only reason why Christianity is still growing at all).

The part in bold is false. Catholicism is growing at a rate greater than the population at large. I’ve already cited the percentages so I won’t bother posting them again. Furthermore I never stated that Catholicism was the fastest growing religion in the world, however that being said it is growing, especially in Africa and Asia. Christianity is increasing on the whole but it would be foolish to say this is due to Pentecostalism because these evangelicals are converting Catholics who are already Christians. As for stating that the Catholic Church is still factoring people like you into their numbers, well my original post does state that they account for defectors and the like. And the numbers still reflect growth despite those who leave. I don’t care one way or another what or how many people convert to the faith (although it is good to see that there are many who are converting) truth will remain truth, as such I will die a Catholic. Noboby and/or nothing will change this.

You should write a letter to your bishop to confirm that you are no longer Catholic if you’re worried that we’re inflating our numbers.

Some sources say the Pentecostal church is growing so fast (in Roman Catholic strongholds like Latin America) that it’s a real challenge for Rome. Others say the CC is growing in “the South” (mostly Africa). However, Africa is in flux and the numbers are hard to quantify (and the numbers don’t seem to take into account the transient nature of modern Christians, including Catholics, who in many cases shift between different denominations many times).

Obviously it also doesn’t take into account the average western Catholic who essentially no longer agrees with Rome on many (if not most) issues. Moreover, the CC is losing substantial numbers in Europe to atheism or agnosticism (or just simple disinterest).

I think Catholicism probably is shrinking; but even if it’s raw numbers are rising … they’re accomplishing it through body count evangelism. Let’s face it – I bet I could get the average African to believe in my new religion of the giant hamburger monster if I offered them some roast beef, mash potatoes, and a Coke

However, to say Catholicism is the fastest growing religion in the world is wrong. Numerous sources affirm the Pentecostal denomination is growing faster than any other denomination (or religion) in the world; by far. I don’t even think Catholicism runs a distant second. Protestants are more adapt to rapid growth in poor regions because they’re more flexible and they travel light. Moreover, converting Catholics to protestantism seems like easy picking for some reason.

However, I’m under no illusion that religion will continue to spread its message of false hope to those who unfortunately don’t know any better (and are venerable to manipulation). The worse thing is evangelists and missionaries are believers themselves, so they don’t even realize they’re taking advantage of people facing horrible circumstances.