Atheism - Paradox

[humble_in_doubt]

Okay, David Karesh…hmmmm you take a guy who thought he was going to save the world (from the world) so he appoints himself a “savior”. Afterall, in his mind he’s got the inside trac on “the truth”.

sounds like a lot of Christians I know & the man they worship?

This is a guy who has delusions of having the one truth that will save the population (anyone willing to follow him) from themselves and whatever false faith they ascribe to. Then he proceeds to spew his rhetoric all over the place while assaulting mainstream Christianity and those that lead and follow that system of beliefs. And I suppose he really had nothing ‘good’ to say about mainstream Christianity and probably called them delusional, fantastic and all sorts of other insults in order to get his followers to think he was the ‘smart one’ with all the ‘correct’ answers.

He was no more a Christian than you or I. He chose the one thing that he knew people would ascribe to in order to get them to follow him because he was narcissistic.

sort of a rant here … but OK

Wow, kinda sounds like you humble.

now I’m a narcissist because my world view is shaped by logic?

Word of advice: You may want to dial down the insults if you want people to take you seriously. You come off as a mad catholic who has an ax to grind, nothing more.

If I were just a mad Catholic couldn’t I simply hop across the street to the nearest protestant church? I simply appreciate truth & religion is not true (therefore I see no point in religiosity).

That being said I’m also concerned about the influence of religion on our society. I do think it’s absurd that we allow ancient mythology to influence scientific research, reproductive rights, marriage laws, etc. Our society right now is on the cusp of a post-Christian age (Europe is a little farther along). We’re sort of still latching on to religious superstition – but in reality most don’t live their every day lives overly concerned about so called religious values.

As the influence of secular culture increases – most will eventually realize it’s OK to just leave religion behind and move forward. No one will watch those silly shows about the end of the earth and the anti-Christ – that red neck pastors use to scare their congregations (who are generally dumb as a brick) into religiosity (and of course paying his salary).

 

[authenticity]

moral relativism is a separate issue – not relevant to the question of whether or not god exists (or exists in the form you claim he does). Frankly your assertions here amount to conjecture; unless you can cite some studies showing them to be true. How do you know atheism equates to relativism? I bet I can make a pretty good case that religion is relativistic – to spite the claim of being guided by an unchanging word.

I didn’t offer it as proof that God exists. What defines an atheist is that he or she negates the existence of God. He or she isn’t offering anything to counter the claim. By doing so, a philosophical void is created in which relativism is the only ideology that could possibly stand.

Is Christian morality the same today as it was in the 12th century? Obviously not … so the irony is I can actually show that views of morality among Christians have shifted over time, while you’ll be hard pressed to find similar examples pertaining to atheists (although I would argue that views of morality shift over time for society at large)

You would be also proving my point, which is that your conclusion is truth is relative to either specific evidence or historical speculation. The Christian believes that the truth hasn’t changed, just the depth of our understanding through reason and clarity through revelation.

 

[happilycatholic]

sounds like a lot of Christians I know & the man they worship?

First of all David Karesh, man. God, not so much. We know for a fact Karesh was a raving lunatic.

sort of a rant here … but OK

 

[humble_in_doubt]

First of all David Karesh, man. God, not so much. We know for a fact Karesh was a raving lunatic.

how do we know the purveyors of your religion (and other religions) weren’t equally maniacal?

Yeah, about that… I tried to go back and edit it to say “minus the narcissism”. I realize that’s still out for a vote. I wasn’t calling you a narcissist just because I called David Karesh a narcissist. But I did try to edit it.

fair enough

I don’t have a clue what a person who harbors as much anger as yourself might or might not do.

sadly you can’t wrap your mind around the fact that just because one doesn’t agree with your world view it doesn’t mean they’re angry. You have never sought to rebut my reasoning for my personal lack of faith with a well reasoned argument – rather you’ve chosen to launch ad hom remarks in my direction (like I must an angry person because I walked away from faith). It seems to me you’re very narrow minded.

The thing about this is, you give absolutely NO credit at all to what I believe in or my capacity to choose for myself (or any other Christian) what is correct for me. You bash Christianity as some sort of buy-in to fantasy and delusion as if you have all the correct answers.

I don’t claim to have answers. I don’t why the universe was formed much less how (beyond the incomplete theory of a big bang). What I do know is religion has no basis in fact – and the weight of evidence debunks its veracity.

You spew all this as if it were truth-based and it’s not. There is absolutely no scientific proof as to whether God exists or doesn’t. It’s choice. Period. I choose one path and you choose another.

science can probably never disprove the idea of a god; I base my view on logic (which is just as strong from an empirical standpoint).

Why do you try so hard to make others sound like idiots? What are you trying to overcome buy making others look as if they are beneath you? What is it you’re trying to rise above?

I don’t have to try … no one here has taken on my core objections to religiosity – so you’re making yourselves sound brainwashed and unintelligent.

These are questions I’d be asking myself if I were you. People that insult others do so for no other reason than to hurt them and try to make them feel vulnerable. Why is it you need others around you to feel vulnerable?

you’re trying your best to frame my objections to religion as some sort of psychological deficiency I assume to validate your beliefs (since you haven’t even tried to rebut my objections).

Like I said, you’re not coming off as some type of hyperintelligent person who has all the correct answers here. You are just basically coming off as damaged.

So how about let’s stop that, k?

This is what I assume you have to think to validate your own beliefs (since your position is logically much harder to defend i.e. I say there’s no such thing as flying angels or talking snakes, you say there is or was – so obviously you hold the more bizarre position).

Perhaps someone can respond to my core objections:

1. If god is all powerful, so much so that he created our universe, if he is omniscient (present in all dimensions of time – past, present, and future), omnipresent (present everywhere in the universe simultaneously), if he can move mountains, crush cities, destroy everything at his whim, etc. then why couldn’t he provide a more effective medium of communication besides second hand manuscripts (that are really copies of copies upon more copies), attenuated in time from the events they depict by centuries, and that no one (even those who share the same denomination) can agree on (because it’s such an inconsistent document)?
2. why is that the bible claims god appeared to ancient men is such profound ways that no one could mistake for manifestations of divine power – yet god has not appeared in an objectively verifiable way to mankind ever in human history?
3. why is it that as mankind began quantifying natural phenomena through the prism of science claims of manifestations of divine power have become more rare, less profound, and are always unverifiable through empirical scientific analysis?

Are all these things just coincidence? Should we believe the claims of the various world religions who always posit a profound reason why god has left the stage of human history? Why are people like me always debased by religious zealots for merely asking you folks to consider common sense and logic?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I didn’t offer it as proof that God exists. What defines an atheist is that he or she negates the existence of God. He or she isn’t offering anything to counter the claim. By doing so, a philosophical void is created in which relativism is the only ideology that could possibly stand.

on the contrary I do offer evidence in the form of logic to rebut religion (see my post above in response to Happycatholic). So I can and do counter the claims of religion. As far as offering an alternative to fill the philosophical void – first I’ll point out the obvious. Whether or not I can present an alternative philosophy to fill the void left if religion went away tomorrow isn’t relevant to the point of whether or not the claims of religion are true. Moreover, there are various philosophers who do offer such alternatives (so humanity won’t exist in a philosophical vacuum without religion by necessity).

You would be also proving my point, which is that your conclusion is truth is relative to either specific evidence or historical speculation. The Christian believes that the truth hasn’t changed, just the depth of our understanding through reason and clarity through revelation.

Of course objectively and practically Christianity is no less relativistic than atheism or agnosticism. You say truth is constant but our understanding of it evolves. OK great … so then when the 12th century church thought it was right to burn dissenters at the stake, but they have come to their senses today – you think you can logically get away with a post hoc analysis by saying they simply didn’t understand the truth (but the truth was always mystically there). Or what about when god ordered the Jews to kill the impure among them by stoning them to death … though of course now-a-days Christianity (and Judaism) would view that idea as barbaric.

Forget about the problems the idea you’re asserting poses for the Catholic theory of infallibility (since it’s obviously not an issue I’m interested in debating). My problem with your assertions is simply their absurdity. If not even the god described by your bible had it right before Jesus came down, if not even the church you call infallible had it right after Jesus came down, then where the heck is this mystical source of timeless moral truth? It’s hogwash.

Human morality has evolved over time through the experiences of mankind and our growing intellect – pure and simple.

 

[jam070406]

on the contrary I do offer evidence in the form of logic to rebut religion (see my post above in response to Happycatholic). So I can and do counter the claims of religion. As far as offering an alternative to fill the philosophical void – first I’ll point out the obvious. Whether or not I can present an alternative philosophy to fill the void left if religion went away tomorrow isn’t relevant to the point of whether or not the claims of religion are true. Moreover, there are various philosophers who do offer such alternatives (so humanity won’t exist in a philosophical vacuum without religion by necessity).

Of course objectively and practically Christianity is no less relativistic than atheism or agnosticism. You say truth is constant but our understanding of it evolves. OK great … so then when the 12th century church thought it was right to burn dissenters at the stake, but they have come to their senses today – you think you can logically get away with a post hoc analysis by saying they simply didn’t understand the truth (but the truth was always mystically there). Or what about when god ordered the Jews to kill the impure among them by stoning them to death … though of course now-a-days Christianity (and Judaism) would view that idea as barbaric.

Forget about the problems the idea you’re asserting poses for the Catholic theory of infallibility (since it’s obviously not an issue I’m interested in debating). My problem with your assertions is simply their absurdity. If not even the god described by your bible had it right before Jesus came down, if not even the church you call infallible had it right after Jesus came down, then where the heck is this mystical source of timeless moral truth? It’s hogwash.

Human morality has evolved over time through the experiences of mankind and our growing intellect – pure and simple.

What’s the point of all this, really? Not to sound mean, but do you really believe people care what you say? People believe what they do based on FAITH, what more is there to say? They don’t have to prove anything to you. Also, perhaps you could trying working on sounding alittle less arrogant and offensive and people may take you alittle more serious.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

What’s the point of all this, really?

I’m starting to wonder the same thing.

The collective willingness of humanity to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs, even when those beliefs have inspired atrocities, is astounding to me – and I only hope mankind will survive its religious differences.

Also, perhaps you could trying working on sounding alittle less arrogant and offensive and people may take you alittle more serious.

religious zealots always view those who disagree with them in all sorts of nasty ways … arrogant is just one of many

 

[jam070406]

religious zealots always view those who disagree with them in all sorts of nasty ways … arrogant is just one of many

Um no. You really DO come off as arrogant. Perhaps you don’t see it, but even if you were making cases that caused people to stop and think you throw in little quips that make it seem as though YOU aren’t even convinced of the things you express. It then becomes very easy just to dismiss what you say.

 

[Heliotropium]

Humble where do you get off by making it sound like atheists do not commit atrocities? Just becuase athiests hide behind this “we believe in nothing” just so their actions cannot be attributed to any specific group or dogma does not give you the right to make it sound like only religous sects commit atrocties. Its like aitheists hide behind their non belife so they do not have to account for their actions but yet blame all of the worlds problems on religions, and other spiritual groups. Lets just point the finger at everyone except ourselves. Futher more I’m sick of ahtiests saying they believe what they believe because of logic. To imply that others believe the opposite of you because they are void of reason and logic is such egotistical horse ****. All atheist arguments boil down to is “hey we can’t see God therefore God does not exist.” Well that’s fine because I can’t see gravity but I can see its effects much like I can see Gods. Frankly science is one of the greatest gifts God has given us to explain the “How” but it has not and cannot explain the “Why.” And there is a “why” and an answer to the “why.” The very existence of the question “why” in itself is a proof of Gods existence because “why in its relation to purpose” would not exist without God since science can never give us purpose. And if you say there is no purpose then purpose could not exist and the fact that we try to find purpose in anything would be futile since purpose could not exist if all of this was created with no purpose at all. Yet we do find purpose in everything which means there is a purpose for why we are here. Since science can never provide that I have attributed it to a higher power known as God.
Also to say that there can be no purpose for why this all exists but yet we can find purpose in everything else is like saying reason can come from no reason. Something cannot come from something which was never there.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Albert Einstein

The problem with fundamentalist atheists and theists is they only have one half of the puzzle. The entire picture is found in religion and science together!

 

[authenticity]

on the contrary I do offer evidence in the form of logic to rebut religion (see my post above in response to Happycatholic). So I can and do counter the claims of religion. As far as offering an alternative to fill the philosophical void – first I’ll point out the obvious. Whether or not I can present an alternative philosophy to fill the void left if religion went away tomorrow isn’t relevant to the point of whether or not the claims of religion are true. Moreover, there are various philosophers who do offer such alternatives (so humanity won’t exist in a philosophical vacuum without religion by necessity).

In the end, you will have to build your logic upon faith in something. By that, I mean that you take something to be self-evident.

Since that isn’t God, you will substitute the void with your self. What else do you accept without proof?

Of course objectively and practically Christianity is no less relativistic than atheism or agnosticism. You say truth is constant but our understanding of it evolves. OK great …

No, I didn’t say it evolves.

so then when the 12th century church thought it was right to burn dissenters at the stake, but they have come to their senses today – you think you can logically get away with a post hoc analysis by saying they simply didn’t understand the truth (but the truth was always mystically there). Or what about when god ordered the Jews to kill the impure among them by stoning them to death … though of course now-a-days Christianity (and Judaism) would view that idea as barbaric.

The eternal truth is that Christ has already made the sacrifice for our sins, whether those sins were committed today or in the 12th century. The profession of faith from the beginning of Christianity is about the redemption of humanity through Christ. That faith has been challenged and twisted on many occasions, but it has been re-affirmed and straightened just as many times. That is what I mean by clarity.

Forget about the problems the idea you’re asserting poses for the Catholic theory of infallibility (since it’s obviously not an issue I’m interested in debating). My problem with your assertions is simply their absurdity.

The reason why my assertions will “win out” is the redemptive nature inherent in the ‘mystical truth’ I speak of… you give a prime example. You cannot forgive. You’ll spew out more judgments of God, religion, the Church, faith, and so on, but then what? How do you redeem the value that you see being lost through religion? And based on what? On your fallible, finite, intellect? Who are you to judge?

If not even the god described by your bible had it right before Jesus came down, if not even the church you call infallible had it right after Jesus came down, then where the heck is this mystical source of timeless moral truth? It’s hogwash.

This is just rhetoric.

Human morality has evolved over time through the experiences of mankind and our growing intellect – pure and simple.

The millions of people who violently died in the last century, mostly because of our growing intellect and shrinking conscience, would be a clear indicator that morality does not evolve.

 

[happilycatholic]

how do we know the purveyors of your religion (and other religions) weren’t equally maniacal?

fair enough

sadly you can’t wrap your mind around the fact that just because one doesn’t agree with your world view it doesn’t mean they’re angry. You have never sought to rebut my reasoning for my personal lack of faith with a well reasoned argument – rather you’ve chosen to launch ad hom remarks in my direction (like I must an angry person because I walked away from faith). It seems to me you’re very narrow minded.

I don’t claim to have answers. I don’t why the universe was formed much less how (beyond the incomplete theory of a big bang). What I do know is religion has no basis in fact – and the weight of evidence debunks its veracity.

science can probably never disprove the idea of a god; I base my view on logic (which is just as strong from an empirical standpoint).

I don’t have to try … no one here has taken on my core objections to religiosity – so you’re making yourselves sound brainwashed and unintelligent.

you’re trying your best to frame my objections to religion as some sort of psychological deficiency I assume to validate your beliefs (since you haven’t even tried to rebut my objections).

This is what I assume you have to think to validate your own beliefs (since your position is logically much harder to defend i.e. I say there’s no such thing as flying angels or talking snakes, you say there is or was – so obviously you hold the more bizarre position).

Perhaps someone can respond to my core objections:

1. If god is all powerful, so much so that he created our universe, if he is omniscient (present in all dimensions of time – past, present, and future), omnipresent (present everywhere in the universe simultaneously), if he can move mountains, crush cities, destroy everything at his whim, etc. then why couldn’t he provide a more effective medium of communication besides second hand manuscripts (that are really copies of copies upon more copies), attenuated in time from the events they depict by centuries, and that no one (even those who share the same denomination) can agree on (because it’s such an inconsistent document)?
2. why is that the bible claims god appeared to ancient men is such profound ways that no one could mistake for manifestations of divine power – yet god has not appeared in an objectively verifiable way to mankind ever in human history?
3. why is it that as mankind began quantifying natural phenomena through the prism of science claims of manifestations of divine power have become more rare, less profound, and are always unverifiable through empirical scientific analysis?

Are all these things just coincidence? Should we believe the claims of the various world religions who always posit a profound reason why god has left the stage of human history? Why are people like me always debased by religious zealots for merely asking you folks to consider common sense and logic?

Humble,

One last time, it is not your objections to my faith that cause me to “frame” your reasoning the way I do. It’s the way you display your objections.

 

[josie_L]

In the end, you will have to build your logic upon faith in something. By that, I mean that you take something to be self-evident.

Since that isn’t God, you will substitute the void with your self. What else do you accept without proof?

No, I didn’t say it evolves.

The eternal truth is that Christ has already made the sacrifice for our sins, whether those sins were committed today or in the 12th century. The profession of faith from the beginning of Christianity is about the redemption of humanity through Christ. That faith has been challenged and twisted on many occasions, but it has been re-affirmed and straightened just as many times. That is what I mean by clarity.

The reason why my assertions will “win out” is the redemptive nature inherent in the ‘mystical truth’ I speak of… you give a prime example. You cannot forgive. You’ll spew out more judgments of God, religion, the Church, faith, and so on, but then what? How do you redeem the value that you see being lost through religion? And based on what? On your fallible, finite, intellect? Who are you to judge?

This is just rhetoric.

The millions of people who violently died in the last century, mostly because of our growing intellect and shrinking conscience, would be a clear indicator that morality does not evolve.

I like you!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

In the end, you will have to build your logic upon faith in something. By that, I mean that you take something to be self-evident.

Since that isn’t God, you will substitute the void with your self. What else do you accept without proof?

I assume you’re referring to reliance. In other words since I don’t rely on what I view to be a fictitious god; then I can only have myself to rely on. This is IMO an oversimplification (and frankly it amounts to rhetoric; since atheists and agnostics rely on others, such as friends, family members, co-workers, etc. just as much as Christians do).

If you want to turn the discussion to “hope” – and say something like all an atheist can have hope in is themselves – that’s still a fallacious and rhetorical statement; because at least as far as I’m concerned I place my hope in mankind at large & not solely myself.

When I watch a NOVA show and learn MIT scientists are trying to build a time machine in the hope they can simulate a wormhole and move particles back in time (and eventually perhaps larger objects), when I read about nanotechnology research and the possibility that we will one day learn how to control the differentiation process (and perhaps reverse it & maybe even prevent the degradation of our telomerase), when I hear about scientists at the Bern super collider trying to capture dark matter, when I hear about the advances in quantum computing & that one day in the near future we might posses the computing power to understand our atmosphere, our biology, etc. these are things that give me hope.

When I flip on EWTN or Trinity Broadcasting Network and see a priest talking about ancient heresies, or a pastor discussing end of the world prophecy … what I see is the exact opposite of hope. I see fear mongering, the inspiration of bigotry, narrow mindedness, paranoia, etc.

No, I didn’t say it evolves.

you said humanity learns more through revelation or something to that effect – practically speaking, the same darn thing.

The eternal truth is that Christ has already made the sacrifice for our sins, whether those sins were committed today or in the 12th century. The profession of faith from the beginning of Christianity is about the redemption of humanity through Christ. That faith has been challenged and twisted on many occasions, but it has been re-affirmed and straightened just as many times. That is what I mean by clarity.

mythology with no basis in fact.

The reason why my assertions will “win out” is the redemptive nature inherent in the ‘mystical truth’ I speak of… you give a prime example. You cannot forgive. You’ll spew out more judgments of God, religion, the Church, faith, and so on, but then what? How do you redeem the value that you see being lost through religion? And based on what? On your fallible, finite, intellect? Who are you to judge?

the only reason your assertions will win out is because we’re on CAF & I’m the outcast here. If we were on an atheist web site I can assure you – you’re assertions would not “win out”

This is just rhetoric.

gee … that was a well thought out & reasoned response. When I point to real inconsistencies with your religion you avert your eyes & write it off as rhetoric … brilliant!

The millions of people who violently died in the last century, mostly because of our growing intellect and shrinking conscience, would be a clear indicator that morality does not evolve.

No it’s not a clear indicator that morality does not evolve. Indeed such events in history pushes the evolution of morality. Many centuries ago your Catholic Church forced Jews into ghettos and compelled them to wear identification badges on their sleeves – just as the Nazi’s did. Where was your timeless truth then?

America can take far more credit for the evolution of morality than Christianity. You can write this off as rhetoric if it helps you justify your faith perspective … but my words are no less true just because you disagree with them or refuse to open your mind.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Here’s the thing,

People put faith in the unknown everyday. Will I actually get the item I ordered on Ebay? Will the chemo work? Will my letter get to where it’s going on time? Will I give birth to a girl as the doctor predicted? Will my rentors pay the rent this month?

None of these things are in our control and yet we have faith in the positive outcome of each, or at least the outcome we want and see as positive for the situation at hand. I suppose the reasoning for this is that there is some tangible aspect of each of these things. But in each of these instances, no matter how much we ‘know’ we cannot predict the outcome. We have to wait and believe in spite of no absolute knowledge of the outcome. Most of this takes belief in the actions of others.

There is no less history on the characteristics of God than there is evidence of any one of these situations having a positive outcome.

What does that mean ? That there is a history of thinking about Divine attributes ? So there is - but what of it ? Your meaning is not clear​

We see the seller’s track record, therefore we believe we’ll get the item. We see the track record of the U.S. Postal Service, therefore we believe our letter will get there on time. And so on.

Sorry, but this is baffling - it needs clarifying​

What about God? What has God done to prove to us that He exists? Ah, yes, there it is. The Question. “What has God ever done for me?”

I really believe in my heart of hearts that for some reason the only boundry that exists between belief and non belief is choice. I choose to believe that the world and everything in it comes from God. I think we as humans sometime perpetuate the bad, sometimes the good. But in the end God is the Creator of all Life and Truth and everything stems from that creation.

Atheists choose not to believe. It has nothing to do with proof. I’ve said this once before, if God knocked on an atheist’s door for coffee one morning and granted him three wishes, he still wouldn’t believe.

That formulation of the question whether there is a god, makes no sense. And if Christian theists can’t distinguish their god from from a fairy, they are in trouble. Do they really think God is no different from the God depicted in “The Simpsons” ?​

There were witnesses to Christ’s miracles who didn’t believe.

Because miracles prove nothing. Any fool - well, most fools - can pull off a miracle; all that’s needed is a sufficiently gullible audience. Besides, Jesus was not credible: he prophesied falsely - but because belief in him was not based on reason, it survived.​

Whether an atheist believes it or doesn’t, his/her belief system is a choice. And in that choice lies denial of God. That is dangerous even if you don’t believe it is. I can fathom not understanding God and that’s why we call it a Mystery. But outright denial is something altogether wrong.

Try as they may to justify it with science, denial is denial. When the time comes I would hate to get caught saying something like, “well, I just didn’t know so I didn’t believe” Belief doesn’t require knowledge, it only requires faith.

Why not have faith in the existance of God if you have faith in the actions of other people to get through daily life?

Because the two are not comparable - why is that not self-evident ? ​

Non belief based on no proof is flawed and sounds like a crutch to me. Could it be that the proof is not within the foreseeable future and that’s why? I mean we have to die to actually know God face to face. Is that it?

You really haven’t thought this through, have you ? Death is morally irrelevant. Nothing else is certain but death, so we might as well not fear it.​

God isn’t just the current-day myth. God isn’t(edit) going to “go away” or somehow die out. God is here to stay because He’s God.

Other & longer-lived religions have gone; there is no reason Christianity can’t die out; we ***are ***still waiting for Jesus to “come quickly” - but, “like father, like son”: they both make promises; and both fail miserably when it comes to keeping them. That’s almost funny It’s pure provincialism to think that the religion one adheres to is going to last for ever. It’s a ridiculous idea with no foundation - your crucified Jew wasn’t unique. God is no more alive than its thought to be. That’s why people don’t fear the gods superseded by the Christian deity; not many Christians live in awe of Ganesh. JHWH would not exist if there were no Jews & Samaritans to keep him alive. And the same applies to the Christian God.​

That there is only one god is not self-evident. If there are many, that might explain why the Christian deity is so hopelessly ineffectual.

Some things are true whether we believe them or not.

Then where is the evidence ? There is none. Your God is nothing. No, this wonderful God you claim to believe in has done nothing, will done nothing, can do nothing. A living human being is more alive, is better, is more worth bothering with, than the do-nothing, see-nothing, know-nothing, care-nothing deity of Christians. IOW, that God is just like a graven image.​

Christians can babble to their idol of words all they like - much good it will do, or has done ! The desperate lengths to which believers in the Christian god resort remind me of nothing so much as the Superman story in which S-man comes into existence as a result of being believed in. Believing despite reality is all Christians have - but God is still a non-entity. Christians can’t even agree on what their “loving Saviour” is supposed to have meant - & as for the behaviour of Christians these last 1970 years: the less said, the better.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

(When I use the word belief, I mean something that one is pretty confident is true.)

happilycatholic, let me ask you something. Can you, right now, honestly choose to believe that 1+1=3? Can you choose to have honest belief in Scientology? Can you choose to have honest belief in Zeus?

Is 1+1=3? Is Scientology the correct way? If you said no, then how can you say that I have the ability to choose belief in God? As belief means something that one is pretty confident is true, I therefore can’t ‘choose’ to believe any of those because they make no sense to me, and actually seem very wrong. Attempting to rationalize/say it is a mystery, can only go so far. I don’t need proof, I just need it to make sense to me in general, and I’m sorry but too much of it doesn’t. I stopped calling myself Catholic when I realized that to continue to say that was in fact a lie. It pained me greatly but I can’t live a lie.

If you feel like you have the ability to choose to have real, honest belief in any of the above, I’d like to know how you would do it in a way where you would not be lying to yourself, because to me its like asking for a square circle. While I can choose my actions (whether or not I go to Mass, whether or not I pray),I honestly can’t fathom how it is possible to “choose” belief in something your mind doesn’t think is true.

Comparing faith in people to faith in God is very different. I can choose to take the action that entrusts another with a secret or a task or money, but I can’t change the belief that King Abugaribanab in Africa emailing me to transfer his money through me to a charity is a scam. I know not to have ironclad faith in people, as things happen, intentional or not. God is supposed to be different.

While I have hope that I am wrong and that God is real, I can not change what makes sense to me and what doesn’t. If one does all the right actions, (going to church, praying, adoration, retreats, study, talking to priests, etc), and yet they find they still don’t have belief, I can’t see where the “choice” comes from. As a previous poster said, you have to first have honest belief/knowledge of something before you can actively choose to refuse its time/love/etc.

Short, sweet, & to the point. ​

“God is supposed to be different” - exactly: so why can’t Christian theists, who do after all claim to believe in the Judaeo-Christian-dogmatic God, see that ? Why does a “non-believer” have to tell them what should be obvious to them ? It makes one despair

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

We may be at an empass here. Beliefs are formed through time, but nonetheless a person chooses a path to belief.

Let’s go with the definition:

Belief:

**1. **The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
**2. **Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
**3. **Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

All of these indicate a mental choice.

It’s interesting that nothing has been said about love. All this ratiocination is a waste of time: it proves nothing, & its something anyone can do. So why do Christians make such a big thing out of reason ? Lectures on God never fed a starving man; showing compassion by feeding the hungry does: whether one is Christian, or atheist or whatever.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This has become a very popular argument among atheists… “the burden of proof.”

The problem with this argument is that proof denotes an object that is the cause or effect of something. When it comes to proof of God, we aren’t talking about something that is within the universe that is the cause of all other objects.

The atheist believes truth is fact; a summary of a cause/effect relationship.

That needs explaining - & what is makes truth be fact ? Why can truth not be non-factual ? Atheism =/= materialism; they are not convertible terms & are not convertible sets either.​

The theist believes truth is being.

And no atheists can ?​

Since being is self-evident, it precedes all cause/effect relationships, no matter how you slice them up.

This is exactly what the OP is pointing to: the atheist has no ground to stand on… he or she can make no affirmative statement about reality, leading him or her into logical fallacy.

To affirm being of any kind, is a way out of that one. Atheism is not the same thing as solipsism, nor as nihilism. God is non-existent - but that does not mean nothing else is non-existent. Conversely, the existence of atoms & acceptance of their existence is not a reason to believe there is God - both because “we aren’t talking about something that is within the universe that is the cause of all other objects”, & because there is no reason to identify​

• the God of philosophers
• the God-thing apologists talk of
• the God of Catholic dogma
• the God-pictures of the OT
• the God of the NT
• the “god” of the Jews
• the God who is flattered rotten for doing all manner of good things it has had no part in

To slap the label “God” on a Cosmic Something-or-Other is not the same as satisfying people that that the Christian fairy story is true or even relevant. The impotence & uselessness & ineffectiveness of the Christian God is no fault of atheists, or of any one else on earth; with the possible exception of those who insist that this God is alive & real, & that the Christian fairy tale is factual. Being is not God - it’s being. Even if God = Being, that is not a specifically Christian notion. Isn’t Christianity about rather different ideas ? So why drag in that one ?

 

[LXA2]

If someone claims something is real and cannot prove it , then how is someone questioning it worse?

You have no evidence of God existing, nor do we have evidence of him not existing. We also have no evidence that Santa Claus is not real. We have no evidence that the Easter Bunny is not real. We have no evidence that Cupid is not real. We have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real. Should we go start a church for every single fictional character that we cannot prove is real nor not real? Lets just say there would be a lot of churches.

If YOU make the claim, you need to back it up. We don’t need evidence of it not existing if you have no evidence of it existing.

 

[jam070406]

If someone claims something is real and cannot prove it , then how is someone questioning it worse?

Who said someone questiong is worse?
Are you truly questioning?

You have no evidence of God existing, nor do we have evidence of him not existing. We also have no evidence that Santa Claus is not real. We have no evidence that the Easter Bunny is not real. We have no evidence that Cupid is not real. We have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real. Should we go start a church for every single fictional character that we cannot prove is real nor not real? Lets just say there would be a lot of churches.

This is a straw man argument, and actually can be seen to work against you. There ARE, in fact, many Catholic Churches. Based on your argument, this should be an indication to you that perhaps there is something to their claims.

If YOU make the claim, you need to back it up. We don’t need evidence of it not existing if you have no evidence of it existing.

The Church is evidence. It bears witness to the Truth through the ages. We can’t help the fact that the evidence may not be good enough or sufficient for YOU. There is an element of Faith at work as well. If you are not open then there is really no point in just arguing back and forth.
That’s why I ask, are you questioning? Because I suspect you are truly not.

 

[swplan76]

…
no paradox … except when we stare in amazement at the gullibility of the human race. It’s not only that we lack proof of the existence of a god … we know the weight of circumstantial evidence debunks every religion practiced in the world today.

We do make conclusions … that’s the distinction between agnostics and atheists. Agnostics say they don’t know … atheists make a judgment regarding theism (at least theism as expressed by the various world religions). As far as where the conversation goes … who cares (we’re right and you’re wrong … what more really needs to be said).

Clearly the case is **closed **for you. You are right, "what more really needs to be said?

May You Be Blessed!
SW