Atheism - Paradox

[happilycatholic]

Right. But in this particular discussion, legitimacy as a martyr was never relevant. The important point, here, in this specific discussion, is that Muslims and Christians alike have acted in ways that show the sincerity of their beliefs.

I understand. But I think there may be the element of motive here. If my motive is to kill people rather than prove my religion, then I’m a killer, not a martyr. We cannot even present this motive in the cases of the Apostles because they did not kill others.

So actually, we can know that Paul was genuinely martyred because we can prove no other motive.

For muslims this is more difficult because the deliberate deaths caused by the so-called martyrs *caused *others to die, murder. Their motive may quite possibly have been to murder others for the sole purpose of taking human lives, period. They could say it was for their religious beliefs all they want, but so did David Karesh and Jim Jones. I don’t believe we can place them on the same level as the Apostles, right?

 

[happilycatholic]

Oh, and if I’m correct, the Quran and Fatwas speak against putting oneself in danger and putting noncombantants in danger so suicide bombers are not considered martyrs outside jihadi extremists.

 

[Eleve]

I assume there are at least some authentic Muslim martyrs, though, which still confirms whoever’s (humble’s?) statement. On the other hand, I don’t think his/her counterargument is sufficient, because what he/she needs to show is that some people would be willing to die for their stated beliefs knowing that that they were wrong, as would be the case if Christ had not truly risen again but a martyr claimed to have seen him.

 

[happilycatholic]

I assume there are at least some authentic Muslim martyrs, though, which still confirms whoever’s (humble’s?) statement. On the other hand, I don’t think his/her counterargument is sufficient, because what he/she needs to show is that some people would be willing to die for their stated beliefs knowing that that they were wrong, as would be the case if Christ had not truly risen again but a martyr claimed to have seen him.

Well, the whole martyrdom thing is a subargument. Martyrdom doesn’t prove God exists, only the willingness someone has to die for what they believe in.

I’m one of these people that freely admits that there is no logical argument for the physical existance of God which is what all atheists/agnostic want.

In other words, God is not from this world and He is not made of elements of this world. Therefore He cannot be explained as such or proven thereby. It just won’t work. Our only ‘proof’ in that form was Jesus in the flesh and He has ascended. So we are left solely with faith. sigh Which is great until you try to explain it with tangible means or prove it with science.

Just as we cannot prove the idea of God, we cannot prove that faith is the motive for anything attributed to it. Faith does not have earthly elements and like God, cannot be proven by science. So some attribute faith to delusion or fantasy or just plain ignorance of reality.

So…we stand at an empass.

 

[josie_L]

they detract from the argument … but anyways,

Whether I’m emotional or not, doesn’t have any effect on the meaning of my words. So, no it doesn’t detract from the argument.

how can you compare flooding the earth, turning a river into blood, etc. with alleged miracles that could have just as easily been a normal statistical occurrence – like a small percentage of sick visitors to the Lourdes religious shrine recovering from their illnesses,

First let’s get the correct definition of the word “miracle”:

“an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.”

Now I can’t speak of the old testament miracles (although I believe them to be true), but of the others I can. Here’s why, because these miracles which occurred happened at a time when reason/science was able to verify them. Hence, those miracles at Lourdes (whether it is 1 or 1 000 000 doesn’t really matter) will be defined as such because they are unexplainable. They surpass all human or natural powers of explaination. Furthermore, It was not the Church that came to these conclusions but the International Medical Bureau which was made of believers and non-believers alike. You therefore must either accept the judgement of these medical doctors/scientists or else put into disrepute the science which was used to verify them. And if you think to state that these miracles could be something as yet undefined then you are guilty of believing something which is not empirically knowable.

Another point to be made about the miracles at Lourdes is this:

You assume that those who went/go to Lourdes has gone there to be cured, when in effect it very well could be that a significant number visited the shrine for reasons of devotion and piety to our Blessed Mother. I can also to a certain extent believe that the majority are of healthy constitution (since proportionally speaking there are more healthy people in the world as opposed to sick ones). In fact the really sick could probably not visit the Shrine. And lastly, many miracles do not get accounted for due to a stringent procedure set by the Church (and the International Medical Bureau) as well as those miracles of a more spiritual or mental persuasion, that is, we cannot account for those people who state they were cured of spiritual or mental malaise.

or an obscure atmospheric event where its so called prophecy didn’t materialize until after the event took place (and where there were numerous different accounts of what happened that day).

The fact that there were numerous varying accounts does not negate the fact that something unexplainable happened. And even if it could be explained naturally how could three shepherd children have known such a thing would occur (on the very day that the Blessed Mother said it would)? They were told specifically that on October 13th a miracle or sign would appear. There were tens upon thousands who witnessed the sun miracle.

As far as uncorrupted saints … have you seen pictures of those so called uncorrupted saints? In most cases they’re half decayed corpses (I’ve seen them).

They are decayed in some areas and uncorrupted in others, how is that explainable? And how do you make sense of cases like Saint Bernadette who are seemingly unblemished?

“She has been buried for over 122 years. Her body is still fresh, clean and smells beautiful. She hasn’t shown any age of decay, everything is still intact and looks life-like. In fact she still looks very beautiful.”

rameysrealm.com/saint.htm

As for the rest of it … it’s rhetoric (not empirical evidence). The peace and joy one derives from loving god can just as easily be obtained from loving anything. Our amazement at the wonders of the universe doesn’t prove a god exists … indeed it was Durkheim who said man believes in god or gods because we’re in awe of ourselves and the world around us.

It is not rhetoric but circumstancial evidence that when compiled together points to an intelligent designer, a God who is rational and loving. And the Universe apart from being beautiful is precisely controlled by constants of which existed since the birth of the Big Bang. So who can explain these constants, and what brought the Universe into being? And how was life on Earth possible when the chances of such a thing occurring are so astronomically improbable as to be impossible? Nothing short of a genius could have put together the Universe and all life thereafter. Random chance is out of the question.

And furthermore, the peace and joy from loving God is the reason that practicing Christians are healthier, happier, live longer, have fewer divorces, and do not commit suicide at the rate that others do (I can provide you the statistics if you wish).

None of this qualifies as anything of real empirical value.

None of your counter-explanations are based on real empirical evidence.

 

[josie_L]

It doesn’t matter in the context of what was actually being discussed in that quote, which is that martyrdom provides good evidence that the martyr truly believes what he/she claims to believe.

P.S. Look up the circumcellions, Josie. With as many Christians as there are/have been in the world, there will always be some going off the deep end.

Yes it does matter because one is an evil act and the other isn’t, and I refuse to have the two lumped together. As for the circumcellions they were heretics (therefore they were not Christian).

 

[josie_L]

double post, sorry!

 

[Eleve]

Yes it does matter because one is an evil act and the other isn’t, and I refuse to have the two lumped together.

It matters with regards to the morality of their actions; it doesn’t matter as evidence for the sincerity of their beliefs. I quite agree that suicide bombing is not authentic martyrdom, but that’s not what anyone was discussing.

As for the circumcellions they were heretics (therefore they were not Christian).

Many Muslims say the same of suicide bombers. Circumcellions and such aren’t really relevant, though, because (contrary to current trends) the purpose of this forum is not to divert every thread into discussion of whether Christians are better than Muslims.

 

[authenticity]

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.​

Could you give me an example of an atheist who isn’t a materialist? How about yourself, for starters.

Please, explain to me how the universe was created without a material origin.

And no atheists can ?​

When an atheist says, “the proof is on you that God exists,” they are stating that truth to them (proof) would be something within the universe that is God. The atheist also assumes that someone who believes in God thinks of God in that way. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard of God referred to as an old man in the sky, sitting on a throne, etc., etc.

To answer your question: what difference is there between God and Truth?

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.​

Atheism is beginning to appear as a catch-all for any form of slithering away from the belief in God. God is existence. What is there that is outside of existence? Where is there no existence? What has power over existence? What can know something outside of existence? What part of existence is the culmination of all existence?

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

Ah yes, back here again. Since there is no God, you are left to determine what is real, what isn’t, what there is to believe, how to identify this from that.

The thing that is making the determination-- your intellect-- is not the source of this creation either. All it produces is your own thoughts about what is real. You trust in your own creations, but not that which considers you a thought. Within the contents of your limited knowledge and experience, you cannot replicate what created the mind and body you inhabit or how it is animated along with everything else. So you take faith in your temporary existence, in your self. You can call it whatever -ism you want, or deny whatever -ism you want. Without God, there is just you.

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.

The Christian metaphor-- not the rhetoric “fairy story”-- is quite real, true and relevant. It is to give up one’s life for the sake of love. By doing so, justice is rendered; which is to say, the immeasurable value of human life is re-established. No amount of intellectual pandering will get you there. It isn’t useful because God isn’t your tool or robot to order around, but it is the most effective weapon on earth.

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 ?

By Being, I am specifically referring to the Logos. You can read what the Christian view of this term is here.

 

[josie_L]

It matters with regards to the morality of their actions; it doesn’t matter as evidence for the sincerity of their beliefs. I quite agree that suicide bombing is not authentic martyrdom, but that’s not what anyone was discussing.

The first Christians who were martyred witnessed the resurrection of Jesus (and that history was catalogued for posterity). Therefore there should be no comparision of present day suicide bombers with these first Christians.

Many Muslims say the same of suicide bombers. Circumcellions and such aren’t really relevant, though, because (contrary to current trends) the purpose of this forum is not to divert every thread into discussion of whether Christians are better than Muslims.

The heretics were known as Circumcellions/Donatists not Catholics.

 

[Eleve]

The first Christians who were martyred witnessed the resurrection of Jesus (and that history was catalogued for posterity). Therefore there should be no comparision of present day suicide bombers with these first Christians.

They can be compared in that their beliefs were strong enough to give up their lives for, legitimately or otherwise. I don’t see why you’re so opposed to this. I do not mean that martyrs and suicide bombers are in any way comparable on a moral level.

The heretics were known as Circumcellions/Donatists not Catholics.

A is a subset of B; they were a heretical Catholic Christian sect.

Could you give me an example of an atheist who isn’t a materialist?

The Buddha.

Please, explain to me how the universe was created without a material origin.

That is something that theists assert; atheists generally believe that the universe was of material origin.

Atheism is beginning to appear as a catch-all for any form of slithering away from the belief in God.

Atheism means lack of belief in the existence of God and gods, or sometimes belief in the nonexistence of God and gods. What do you think it means?

Ah yes, back here again. Since there is no God, you are left to determine what is real, what isn’t, what there is to believe, how to identify this from that.

The thing that is making the determination-- your intellect-- is not the source of this creation either. All it produces is your own thoughts about what is real. You trust in your own creations, but not that which considers you a thought. Within the contents of your limited knowledge and experience, you cannot replicate what created the mind and body you inhabit or how it is animated along with everything else. So you take faith in your temporary existence, in your self. You can call it whatever -ism you want, or deny whatever -ism you want. Without God, there is just you.

Darn. But wishful thinking isn’t going to make God exist.

By Being, I am specifically referring to the Logos.

You are most decidedly not referring to the Logos when you say that “God is existence” and try to use the very fact of existence as a synonym for God. If I tried to tell her that “God is existence,” my conservative Christian mother would think I had become a Hindu.

 

[josie_L]

They can be compared in that their beliefs were strong enough to give up their lives for, legitimately or otherwise. I don’t see why you’re so opposed to this. I do not mean that martyrs and suicide bombers are in any way comparable on a moral level.

Because I know the intent behind the remark made (and it galls me to have him make such a comparison).

A is a subset of B; they were a heretical Catholic Christian sect.

Then by this rational all Protestant denominations are “heretical Catholic Christian sects”.

P.S. One has to wonder whether it’s actual sincerity or just plain brainwashing (on the part of those who want to see them martyred for the faith)?

 

[Eleve]

Because I know the intent behind the remark made (and it galls me to have him make such a comparison).

No, you really don’t, unless you’re God the Father posting via a sleek satellite line from Heaven. The way I read it, she/he was only making a comparison of the legitimate type that I described.

Then by this rational all Protestant denominations are “heretical Catholic Christian sects”.

Perhaps they weren’t Catholic, then, but it would take a radical (and, I think, contra-Magisterial) redefinition of Christianity to say that they were not Christian.

P.S. One has to wonder whether it’s actual sincerity or just plain brainwashing (on the part of those who want to see them martyred for the faith)?

Wouldn’t brainwashed people be the most sincere?

Anyway, happycatholic raised the previously that for some suicide bombers the motivation may be more to kill than to become a martyr. But this still indicates sincere belief in an ideology that approves of killing, which is not proved just because it has fanatical believers. But, on the other hand, I digressed later on that it doesn’t matter, because the real assertion is that the Apostolic martyrs not only had sincere belief, but sincere belief that they would have easily disbelieved if it were wrong.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The first Christians who were martyred witnessed the resurrection of Jesus (and that history was catalogued for posterity). Therefore there should be no comparision of present day suicide bombers with these first Christians.

Where is that history cataloged (beyond the bible; and even there – who among the men that were martyred in scripture, such as Stephen, actually met Christ)?

As far as the comparison between early Christian martyrs and Muslim suicide bombers; the only comparison I make is to highlight that even today we see groups with faith strong enough to inspire them to die for it (I didn’t make a moral comparison – obviously it wouldn’t be accurate, fair, or reasonable to compare the two on a moral basis). The importance of this is to highlight the fact that martyrdom proves nothing. There was a time my faith was so strong I believe I would have died in the name of Jesus Christ if I had to – rather than renounce my faith; and I never seen Jesus much less any miracles.

In the first century it’s been said there were many who desired martyrdom so much they would put themselves out there in an effort to get captured and killed by authorities (unlike more sober church fathers like Polycarp, who didn’t want to die; but accepted death rather than renounce his faith – in other words he was a genuine martyr, although there’s no indication he ever met Christ).

 

[josie_L]

No, you really don’t, unless you’re God the Father posting via a sleek satellite line from Heaven. The way I read it, she/he was only making a comparison of the legitimate type that I described

.

This is the post to which Francis (humble in doubt) responded to:

**How many men will die for something or someone they did not see with their own eyes? **Yet, many martyrs back then and also today still believe the testimony of these first Scripture writers who claimed that Jesus was indeed the Son of God because they saw Him die and they saw Him again after He rose from the dead and they saw Him ascend into heaven.

SHW was to trying to relate how the earliest Christians had reason to believe and die for their faith. Many had either witnessed or came into contact with those who had witnessed the resurrection of Christ (and later wrote these events down for posterity). So why bring up present day Muslim suicide bombers (martyrs) into the discussion? And furthermore, the definition of martyr is: One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles. No one is asking suicide bombers to renounce their religious principles.

Perhaps they weren’t Catholic, then, but it would take a radical (and, I think, contra-Magisterial) redefinition of Christianity to say that they were not Christian.

The Jehovah Witness’s claim to be Christian and yet they deny Jesus’s divinity, the Mormoms believe Jesus is divine but that he is also another God separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit, do you see what I’m getting at? But we are digressing because truthfully mainstream Christianity never sought out persecution/death; and that is the essence of martyrdom.

Wouldn’t brainwashed people be the most sincere?

You can have no such thing as sincerity without free will.

Anyway, happycatholic raised the previously that for some suicide bombers the motivation may be more to kill than to become a martyr. But this still indicates sincere belief in an ideology that approves of killing, which is not proved just because it has fanatical believers. But, on the other hand, I digressed

But can they be sincerely called “martyrs” as Francis (humble) stated?

later on that it doesn’t matter, because the real assertion is that the Apostolic martyrs not only had sincere belief, but sincere belief that they would have easily disbelieved if it were wrong.

Exactly.

 

[josie_L]

double post again, whoops!

 

[Eleve]

Since we agree on everything significant, I don’t want to take this quote pyramid any further. But see Francis’ post above where he confirms that his intent was as I described, and then makes a new argument — which I am about to challenge:

In the first century it’s been said there were many who desired martyrdom so much they would put themselves out there in an effort to get captured and killed by authorities

Circumcellions again? The difference here is that the circumcellions had no way of knowing that they were wrong; the early martyrs, on the other, very well knew whether they were telling the truth about seeing Jesus resurrected, and if they knew themselves to be lying they wouldn’t have anything to martyr themselves for in the first place.

By the way, Josie, you can delete posts on the Edit page.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Circumcellions again? The difference here is that the circumcellions had no way of knowing that they were wrong; the early martyrs, on the other, very well knew whether they were telling the truth about seeing Jesus resurrected, and if they knew themselves to be lying they wouldn’t have anything to martyr themselves for in the first place.

By the way, Josie, you can delete posts on the Edit page.

there are ways we can examine the significance of the early Christian martyrs. For instance, the first recorded period of mass martyrdom (where there were probably hundreds if not thousands of Christians killed) was during Nero (decades after the death of Christ). Beyond that we have the scriptural accounts, but even there you’re hard pressed to find a martyr who actually walked with Christ during his ministry. The church was built by Paul, who himself never met Christ (beyond his claim of a divine encounter on the road to Damascus).

In other words there’s no evidence to support the idea that these martyrs actually witnessed any miraculous event. Rather, for the most part they’re remote in time from the life of Christ; and were merely converted to Christianity & formed a faith so strong – they stood willing to die for it (indeed many even sought after death because martyrdom is held in such high esteem by scripture).

Whether or not one wants to say Muslim radical suicide bombers are authentic martyrs; the only relevant question is can faith in fiction inspire men to martyrdom? The obvious answer is yes (and Muslim radicals prove that point without question).

To conclude, we have no proof that these martyrs witnessed the miracles of Christ (or any other miracle for that matter). Indeed (looking at the time line) the evidence (albeit scant) suggests otherwise. Since we also know that false faith can inspire men to martyrdom; I think it’s fair to say historical accounts of Christian martyrdom prove nothing (except mankind’s capacity for lunacy).

 

[josie_L]

Where is that history cataloged (beyond the bible; and even there – who among the men that were martyred in scripture, such as Stephen, actually met Christ)

Through the oral and written traditions of the Church and other such historians who wrote of 1st century Christian persecutions (I use the term catalogue loosely, however it is meant to convey that we do have written accounts/anecdotes about the martyrdom of the apostles and some of the earliest Christians, and in some cases the archaelogical evidence such as the catacombs). I should have however made the distinction as I did in another post that many of the earliest Christians either witnessed or knew witnesses to the resurrection (which would account for their willingness to die for their faith). For example, we have Clement of Rome writing of Peter’s martyrdom:

"Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80-98, speaks of Peter’s martyrdom in the following terms: “Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.”

As far as the comparison between early Christian martyrs and Muslim suicide bombers; the only comparison I make is to highlight that even today we see groups with faith strong enough to inspire them to die for it (I didn’t make a moral comparison – obviously it wouldn’t be accurate, fair, or reasonable to compare the two on a moral basis). The importance of this is to highlight the fact that martyrdom proves nothing. There was a time my faith was so strong I believe I would have died in the name of Jesus Christ if I had to – rather than renounce my faith; and I never seen Jesus much less any miracles.

Do not call what they do “martyrdom”. And furthermore, you did not witness the resurrection as the apostles did. They died for what they saw.

In the first century it’s been said there were many who desired martyrdom so much they would put themselves out there in an effort to get captured and killed by authorities (unlike more sober church fathers like Polycarp, who didn’t want to die; but accepted death rather than renounce his faith – in other words he was a genuine martyr, although there’s no indication he ever met Christ).

Yes, I have heard of this too, but I would think it was rather rare, otherwise like the circumcellions the earliest Christians would have died off.

 

[josie_L]

Since we agree on everything significant, I don’t want to take this quote pyramid any further. But see Francis’ post above where he confirms that his intent was as I described, and then makes a new argument

No we don’t agree as I don’t believe that suicide bombers should be called martyrs as such a false comparison was made (and it is insulting that he should bring such people up when talking about the earliest Christian martyrs).