Atheism - Paradox

[josie_L]

Sure it is…A Revolutionary babe. People realise that the old ways are false and they move on. This doesn’t happen over night, human thinking needed to evolve and get to a critical mass point. Only then did we see…

Wow, you must think the 20th century was really an evolutionary step towards humanitarian thought. Truly, reason has prevailed over rhetoric.

P.S. I can’t wait to see what will happen in the centuries to come if all we have is the last two centuries to go by?

 

[happilycatholic]

atheists are generally described in all sorts of insulting ways here on CAF (and I’ve personally been on the receiving end of plenty of unkind ad hom remarks … but no big deal I have thick skin). With regard to my comment, yes I honestly do think it’s crazy to willingly kill yourself (or seek after martyrdom) based on unverifiable tales from ancient men.

I don’t think that’s a blanket insult toward Christians in general … but I suppose it’s understandable that you disagree. I guess there’s really no way to have any dialog between theists and non-theists unless all parties involved have thick skin (because the opinions of all involved are inherently offensive to the other side).

If I say the god of the bible doesn’t exist, I obviously need to explain myself. There’s no way to explain why I think the bible is false without saying something that’s offensive to theists; it’s just not possible (no matter how polite and articulate I think I’m being). Inversely when Christians point to what they view as the flaws of atheism they will inevitably say something offensive. So the measuring stick for what’s offensive in a discourse like this has to be raised. Outrageous personal attacks are obviously off limits. However, without a little heated debate we’ll be left explaining to each other how the weather is in Texas as compared to New York (and even watching the same report over and over again on CNN is more interesting than that ).

Well, that pretty much sums it all up. You don’t appreciate ad hom remarks when they are directed at you, but when you use them they are entertainment for a dull conversation. Awesome defense for using insults.

But, thank you for admitting that you are not intelligent enough to carry on an interesting debate without them.

Edit: I do need to give you credit though, you are just about the purest form of atheist I’ve come across. You have absolutely no agnostic tendancies. This might sound weird, but I respect your resolve.

 

[PennitentMan]

Wow, you must think the 20th century was really an evolutionary step towards humanitarian thought. Truly, reason has prevailed over rhetoric.

P.S. I can’t wait to see what will happen in the centuries to come if all we have is the last two centuries to go by?

Well, with the progress and discoveries made in the last century alone in the fields of cosmology, biology, physics, etc, it’s no wonder that science continually shed more light on things that used to be taken as part of theology and mythology.

Things that may in the past have been ascribed to religion has been shown to be explainable by science, medicine, etc.

And we are in agreement, I also can’t wait to see what gets discovered in the next few centuries. What other beliefs will get rationalized by science.

 

[josie_L]

Well, with the progress and discoveries made in the last century alone in the fields of cosmology, biology, physics, etc, it’s no wonder that science continually shed more light on things that used to be taken as part of theology and mythology.

Things that may in the past have been ascribed to religion has been shown to be explainable by science, medicine, etc.

And we are in agreement, I also can’t wait to see what gets discovered in the next few centuries. What other beliefs will get rationalized by science.

You equate atheism with science, and that is false. Science existed before Atheism and the so-called period of “Enlightenment”. In other words, Atheism does not own science.

And furthermore, you make science into some kind of “god” when you and I well know that science has played it’s role in contributing to the woes of the last two centuries.

So please, apart from science, what has post enlightenment humanitarian thought given us?

 

[PennitentMan]

You equate atheism with science, and that is false. Science existed before Atheism and the so-called period of “Enlightenment”. In other words, Atheism does not own science.

No, atheism doesn’t own science, but it’s the tool that people use to gain more understanding about the universe.

And furthermore, you make science into some kind of “god” when you and I well know that science has played it’s role in contributing to the woes of the last two centuries.

No, it’s not a god. It’s a common misunderstanding or a fallacy that folks use when they speak about atheists.
We don’t see it as god but we utilize the tool of science in our explorations of nature and the universe. Science is neither good or evil, it’s people wielding science that are responsible for good or evil.
Sounds like at least one of us is personifying science

So please, apart from science what has post enlightenment humanitarian thought given us?

This sentence is irrelevant, based on my comments above.

 

[josie_L]

No, atheism doesn’t own science, but it’s the tool that people use to gain more understanding about the universe.

No, atheism is not a tool for understanding science, intellect is.

No, it’s not a god. It’s a common misunderstanding or a fallacy that folks use when they speak about atheists.

We don’t see it as god but we utilize the tool of science in our explorations of nature and the universe. Science is neither good or evil, it’s people wielding science that are responsible for good or evil.

You stated all sorts of great things science has done for us, and I stated that not all those things were great. So I was basically trying to put science into perspective, in that it can be used for evil (and it has been used for evil).

This sentence is irrelevant, based on my comments above.

The question is only irrelevant because you don’t have an answer.

 

[PennitentMan]

No, atheism is not a tool for understanding science, intellect is.

???
I was referring to science, not Atheism. Science is a tool that anyone can use to understand nature and the universe.

You stated all sorts of great things science has done for us, and I stated that not all those things were great. So I was basically trying to put science into perspective, in that it can be used for evil (and it has been used for evil).

I totally agree. Science is neutral. Like “Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people”. Science is just a tool. I can’t understand the point you are trying to make.

The question is only irrelevant because you don’t have an answer.

Other than science? What kind of a question is that? You went from the assumption that we see science as a god (which I refuted) to saying by removing science, what good have humanists done?
The question is irrelevant.
Atheism is not a complete world view, so in this context it’s an irrelevant question to ask. There is no answer. You may as well ask what good did humans do for humanity.
How about every time an act of kindness is performed out of total selfless motives. (and I’m not talking about the selfless motive of hoping god sees the act and obtaining brownie points for heaven). Philanthropists, charities, etc.

I still don’t think the question is relevant, but I answered as best as the logic provided allows.

 

[josie_L]

I was referring to science, not Atheism. Science is a tool that anyone can use to understand nature and the universe.

This is what you wrote:

No, atheism doesn’t own science, but it’s the tool that people use to gain more understanding about the universe.

You did not define what “its” was, and from the manner in which you structured your sentence I concluded you were refering to atheism (as this is what initiated our conversation in the first place, that is, the merits of atheism and post enlightened thought). And furthermore, I was speaking on a purely philosophical/sociological level as science was not an invention of the enlightenment, so hence my statement to you about equating atheism with science.

I totally agree. Science is neutral. Like “Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people”. Science is just a tool. I can’t understand the point you are trying to make.

What’s there not to understand?

Other than science? What kind of a question is that? You went from the assumption that we see science as a god (which I refuted) to saying by removing science, what good have humanists done?

Atheism is not a complete world view, so in this context it’s an irrelevant question to ask. There is no answer. You may as well ask what good did humans do for humanity.
How about every time an act of kindness is performed out of total selfless motives. (and I’m not talking about the selfless motive of hoping god sees the act and obtaining brownie points for heaven). Philanthropists, charities, etc.

I still don’t think the question is relevant, but I answered as best as the logic provided allows.

Yes, I’m sure blessed Mother Theresa was trying to score brownie points with God.

P.S. And the question is still relevant.

 

[josie_L]

coming from someone who believes in the majority religion (that teaches us fun stuff like talking snakes, flying angels, and all other sorts of mystical mythological fables). Yeah … we’re the sheeple alright

So what happens if atheists become the majority, will you then consider them “sheeple”?

P.S. The culture we currently reside in is not conducive to the morality expressed by Christianity despite the majority of Christians.

 

[PennitentMan]

This is what you wrote:

No, atheism doesn’t own science, but it’s the tool that people use to gain more understanding about the universe.

You did not define what “its” was, and from the manner in which you structured your sentence I concluded you were refering to atheism (as this is what initiated our conversation in the first place, that is, the merits of atheism and post enlightened thought).

Okay, let me rephrase then: No, atheism doesn’t own science, but science the tool that people use to gain more understanding about the universe. Atheism is not a tool, it’s simply the lack of belief in a deity.

And furthermore, I was speaking on a purely philosophical/sociological level as science was not an invention of the enlightenment, so hence my statement to you about equating atheism with science.

I agree with you on this, but I never equated Atheism with science and I never said that it was a god. You interpreted it that way. I’ve always stated that science is a tool that we (everyone) uses to understand nature and the universe more.

Yes, I’m sure blessed Mother Theresa was trying to score brownie points with God.

she did what she did becauseof her religion, correct? Because god commands that of her and because of her desire to get to heaven. I submit that the person that she is charitable towards is not the primary subject of the action, but the item upon which god’s command is carried out.

P.S. And the question is still relevant.

and I answered it already.

 

[SHW]

no one died for what they saw … they died for what they believed (just as Muslim radicals do today). Sure we can say Christians were better because they weren’t homicidal. But both groups still willingly killed themselves (or willingly put themselves in a position where they would be killed) in the name of fictitious mythology.

The very first Christians only “believed” because they “saw.” They were “witnesses” to actual “events.”

Matthias was chosen to replace Judas because he was a “witness” to Jesus’ teaching, death, and ascension. Jesus spent over a month with His apostles and disciples after His resurrection, instructing them, and preparing them for the reception of the Holy Spirit so that they could fulfill His command to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc., and teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded.

I believe in God (now in the 21st Century) because I trust the testimonies of those first witnesses. And, yes, the fact that they were willing to die in defense of their beliefs is an added inducement for me to believe that what they said and taught is true, but even if they were not martyred, I would still believe. I believe in Jesus Christ’s teachings today because I believe that the first Christians were trustworthy witnesses 2000 years ago.

I believe the Catholic Church who claims that the Bible is God’s Word and that Christ’s Catholic Church has preserved His teachings through Sacred Tradition which includes both written and oral traditions handed down throughout the ages. [1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15]

If I did not believe in the Catholic Church, then I would think that the Bible is just another book of fiction like Utopia by Sir Thomas More.

The Muslims believe in the Koran because they believe in Muhammad. I believe in the Bible because I believe in the Catholic Church. It is her book, written by Catholics for Catholics in order to help explain Jesus’ gospel which is preserved in His Catholic Church’s teachings, both oral and written.

 

[josie_L]

Okay, let me rephrase then: No, atheism doesn’t own science, but science the tool that people use to gain more understanding about the universe. Atheism is not a tool, it’s simply the lack of belief in a deity.

Did you think I wasn’t aware that science is a tool to understand the mechanics of our Universe?

I agree with you on this, but I never equated Atheism with science and I never said that it was a god. You interpreted it that way. I’ve always stated that science is a tool that we (everyone) uses to understand nature and the universe more.

So why did you bring up science if we were discussing the merits of atheism and post enlightened thought? And I never said that you stated science was a “god” but the way atheists and others speak of it they tend to forget about the other not so great aspects of scientific “progress”. But don’t get me wrong, I like science (as long as it is being used ethically).

she did what she did becauseof her religion, correct? Because god commands that of her and because of her desire to get to heaven. I submit that the person that she is charitable towards is not the primary subject of the action, but the item upon which god’s command is carried out.

Christianity can be summed up like so: “The entire law is summed up in a single command: love your neighbor as yourself.” Gal. 5:14

This is how we show our love for God.

and I answered it already.

Alright, I won’t pester you any longer with that question.

 

[josie_L]

Again, INSULT. It is your opinion that Christians are foolish.

Why do you feel the need to do this? No one here has called you a name or insulted your intelligence or your mental capacity to make rational decisions. What drives you to insult people the way you do?

You could have said a million different things and yet you continue to accuse Christians of being unintelligent and crazy. Again, opinion.

I think he feels threatened by our faith.

P.S. He has to think of us as unintelligent and crazy otherwise his “logic” against christianity/theism falls apart.

 

[PennitentMan]

Did you think I wasn’t aware that science is a tool to understand the mechanics of our Universe?

So why did you bring up science if we were discussing the merits of atheism and post enlightened thought? And I never said that you stated science was a “god” but the way atheists and others speak of it they tend to forget about the other not so great aspects of scientific “progress”. But don’t get me wrong, I like science (as long as it is being used ethically).

Okay, I think we are just on two separate mindsets. We keep on talking past each other.

Christianity can be summed up like so: “The entire law is summed up in a single command: love your neighbor as yourself.” Gal. 5:14

This is how we show our love for God.

I thought that’s the second half of the law, not the whole law? Love thy god with all your heart, etc is the first half, no?
Oh, another biblical contradiction, methinks? (sorry, had to)

So then she did what she did because of her love for god, and/or god commanded her to, right?

See? The recipient person is the secondary in the equasion. It’s between the christian and god, and because of god and for god.

 

[happilycatholic]

she did what she did because

of her religion, correct? Because god commands that of her and because of her desire to get to heaven. I submit that the person that she is charitable towards is not the primary subject of the action, but the item upon which god’s command is carried out.

Either way, Mother Theresa is not the subject, but the media through which God does his will. It’s God’s will, not Mother Theresa’s that is being fulfilled here. So she can have no preconceived notions about reward for being charitable. Hence, we cannot earn our way to Heaven.

You misunderstand why a saint becomes a saint. They do God’s will for no other purpose than to do God’s will. (one reason why they are saints) Maybe you should use a different example.

Oh, and I kinda doubt God uses us as tools to prove each other worthy of Heaven.

 

[happilycatholic]

I thought that’s the second half of the law, not the whole law? Love thy god with all your heart, etc is the first half, no?

Oh, another biblical contradiction, methinks? (sorry, had to)

 

[PennitentMan]

Either way, Mother Theresa is not the subject, but the media through which God does his will. It’s God’s will, not Mother Theresa’s that is being fulfilled here. So she can have no preconceived notions about reward for being charitable. Hence, we cannot earn our way to Heaven.

So, you are saying that we don’t have free will then?
Mother Theresa had no choice but to do what she did. It wasn’t her acting, it was god doing with her what he wants.

You misunderstand why a saint becomes a saint. They do God’s will for no other purpose than to do God’s will. (one reason why they are saints) Maybe you should use a different example.

I agree 100%, they do god’s will. They don’t do it primarily for the person in need, but for god.

 

[PennitentMan]

The law is not divided. It is one. I think that’s the point. You can’t separate love for God and love for each other. It is one and the same.

No, you are right, it’s not divided. But it’s two halves of a whole, according to Jesus:

Mark 12

:28 One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?”
29 Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
30 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

And yet the author omits the first half of the whole in Galatians. That’s what I meant.

I was saying it in jest though, it’s not intended to be a point of debate.

 

[happilycatholic]

So, you are saying that we don’t have free will then?

Mother Theresa had no choice but to do what she did. It wasn’t her acting, it was god doing with her what he wants.

 

[josie_L]

Okay, I think we are just on two separate mindsets. We keep on talking past each other.

Whatever you say.

I thought that’s the second half of the law, not the whole law? Love thy god with all your heart, etc is the first half, no?

Oh, another biblical contradiction, methinks? (sorry, had to)

No, it’s not contradictive for God is love.

So then she did what she did because of her love for god, and/or god commanded her to, right?

We have the free will to cooperate with God’s grace.

See? The recipient person is the secondary in the equasion. It’s between the christian and god, and because of god and for god.

God is love, so even if an atheist performed a loving charitable act that love originates first with God. I love because God loved first. That I believe and love God does not take away from my love of neighbor because it all comes from the same source.