Atheism - Paradox

[happilycatholic]

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

I think we may be in agreement here. (?) That makes me nervous, why? Can catholics actually agree with atheists?

Although when you say for God, I’m thinking you mean: …for God so that she will be in God’s favor. And I would say: …for God so that God’s will is done. Period. That’s where everything stops.

 

[happilycatholic]

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

Mark 12

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.

I was on a roll, sorry.

 

[josie_L]

I think we may be in agreement here. (?) That makes me nervous, why? Can catholics actually agree with atheists?

Although when you say for God, I’m thinking you mean: …for God so that she will be in God’s favor. And I would say: …for God so that God’s will is done. Period. That’s where everything stops.

Yes, that’s what he is saying. And he is wrong. Period.

 

[PennitentMan]

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

Of course we can! But don’t be nervous, and I’ll tell you why you shouldn’t be nervous in the next paragraph.

Although when you say for God, I’m thinking you mean: …for God so that she will be in God’s favor. And I would say: …for God so that God’s will is done. Period. That’s where everything stops.

Yeah, I think that’s where our difference lies.
I’ll say that my original point was the difference between atheist charity and catholic charity. Catholics would perform the task primarily for god (where we agree, apparently ) and atheists, or humanists, or secularists, or philanthropists (whatever you wanna call them), etc would do it primarily for the person.

Maybe herein will lie a whole other level of disagreement, so don’t worry too much about our agreeing

 

[josie_L]

Of course we can! But don’t be nervous, and I’ll tell you why you shouldn’t be nervous in the next paragraph.

Yeah, I think that’s where our difference lies.
I’ll say that my original point was the difference between atheist charity and catholic charity. Catholics would perform the task primarily for god (where we agree, apparently ) and atheists, or humanists, or secularists, or philanthropists (whatever you wanna call them), etc would do it primarily for the person.

Maybe herein will lie a whole other level of disagreement, so don’t worry too much about our agreeing

Catholic charity does not just include helping others (materially) but loving them as well. Charity translates into caritas which is love. Love in the Bible is defined as being the most virituous of virtues. We are urged to love our neighbors even our enemies for God’s sake. Hence, the reason that Blessed Mother Theresa and others like her were able to help/love others as they did was because of God. In other words, He shows us how to love selflessly.

“Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave” (DCE, 18).

 

[PennitentMan]

I was on a roll, sorry.

Hhey, don’t feel bad, it was a good roll!

 

[PennitentMan]

Catholic charity does not just include helping others (materially) but loving them as well. Charity translates into caritas which is love. Love in the Bible is defined as being the most virituous of virtues. We are urged to love our neighbors even our enemies for God’s sake. Hence, the reason that Blessed Mother Theresa and others like her were able to help/love others as they did was because of God. In other words, He shows us how to love selflessly.

Yes, sure.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, sure.

Ok, are you saying that sarcastically?

P.S. Why did you choose PenitentMan as your username?

 

[PennitentMan]

Ok, are you saying that sarcastically?

Nope, I’m agreeing with you. Your point is valid as far as Catholics’ actions and motivations are concerned.

P.S. Why did you choose PenitentMan as your username?

I have noticed that you are all about the P.S.'s, eh? That’s cool.

Actually I chose that name when I first arrived on the forums, way back in…wow, I don’t even know anymore, let me check my profile…In Feb. of '07

I was still VERY Catholic at that stage, and I came here with my questions.

I actually would like to change my name, since it’s pretty irrelevant now, but then I would have to have a 2nd sockpuppet and no one would know it’s me…
Hence I would not be able to strike fear into the hearts of people when I post. Joking, of course

 

[josie_L]

Nope, I’m agreeing with you. Your point is valid as far as Catholics’ actions and motivations are concerned.

Good to know.

I have noticed that you are all about the P.S.'s, eh? That’s cool.

Better P.S. than B.S. .

Actually I chose that name when I first arrived on the forums, way back in…wow, I don’t even know anymore, let me check my profile…In Feb. of '07

I was still VERY Catholic at that stage, and I came here with my questions.

How were you “VERY” Catholic? And what unresolved issues (about Catholicism) did you have? I gather you did not find the answers you were looking for, why?

I actually would like to change my name, since it’s pretty irrelevant now, but then I would have to have a 2nd sockpuppet and no one would know it’s me…
Hence I would not be able to strike fear into the hearts of people when I post. Joking, of course

I really like “AnEvilAtheist” as a username but its already taken.

 

[SHW]

Catholics would perform the task primarily for god (where we agree, apparently ) and atheists, or humanists, or secularists, or philanthropists (whatever you wanna call them), etc would do it primarily for the person.

Which person? Himself/herself, so that he/she can feel good about what he/she perceives is his/her own generosity or himself because others, perhaps even the charity intendee, will notice and say, “What a generous person ‘so and so’ is,” or does he do it because there is a person in need and since he is able to help, he will? Or is it for all three listed reasons?

 

[SHW]

Nope, I’m agreeing with you. Your point is valid as far as Catholics’ actions and motivations are concerned.

I have noticed that you are all about the P.S.'s, eh? That’s cool.

Actually I chose that name when I first arrived on the forums, way back in…wow, I don’t even know anymore, let me check my profile…In Feb. of '07

I was still VERY Catholic at that stage, and I came here with my questions.

I actually would like to change my name, since it’s pretty irrelevant now, but then I would have to have a 2nd sockpuppet and no one would know it’s me…
Hence I would not be able to strike fear into the hearts of people when I post. Joking, of course

Go ahead and get a new “handle” if it will make you feel better. You will have to start out with a “trial membership,” however, like all the other “newbies.”

 

[humble_in_doubt]

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.

yes and those are biblical accounts with no support from any independent source; beyond sources that indicate there were Christians in Roman Palestine early in the first century, and there probably were persecutions under Nero (around the 63-65 AD time frame). You believe the bible & I don’t (for numerous reasons, many of which I’ve cited throughout this and other threads).

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.

I guess that’s over simplifying. It’s not a matter of believing the contemporary CC, but rather the reports of our ancient predecessors; and as I said I do not believe the veracity of the bible.

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.

I suppose protestants would take issue with this contention … but obviously not a debate I have any stake in. My opinion is simple enough. All world religions have a common thread. They present this god who performed all these profound miracles that no one could mistake for anything but a manifestation of divine power. He was allegedly active in the lives of these ancient people, and whether or not you were on his good side, according to the biblical accounts of the wondrous events he orchestrated, you would have known with little doubt that he existed. However, suddenly god left the stage. He’s no longer active in human history in the way he was during our ancient history. Indeed there hasn’t been one recorded event in history that’s been verified through rigorous scrutiny where no one had any doubt it was god (as we might for example say if suddenly an ocean was split in half to facilitate a people escaping from a pursuing army).

There’s been soft so called miracles (an atmospheric event that was allegedly predicted by a few small children, although they didn’t reveal their prophecy to anyone until after the event took place, several dozen people, out of millions of visitors who visited Lourdes France, who later recovered from their illnesses, etc). Basically, reaching at straws. Looking at events with perfectly good explanations and spinning them in a religious context.

All religions always have a profound reason why god doesn’t manifest himself to modern man – but come on, seriously. If you do XYZ you’ll get this great reward, but you have to die first. You have to believe the reports of ancient men who present a story with no empirical evidence; telling tales of an all powerful god who mysteriously doesn’t show himself anymore? Moreover, religion always plays on things science hasn’t figured out yet. In the ancient world the purveyors of religion played on events like eclipses or earthquakes. Of course now we understand the physical cause for these events, but there remains things science hasn’t figured out yet like the relationship between psychological and physical health. Of course religion exploits that for its own purposes, but it won’t be long before science figures out the natural cause for this phenomena (and religion will look foolish yet again, just as they did after the Galileo affair and many other points in history). I can go on and on … but it get’s to a point where you respond to the religious man and say … what the heck do you take me for? No I’m not in the market for a bridge

 

[PennitentMan]

Which person? Himself/herself, so that he/she can feel good about what he/she perceives is his/her own generosity or himself because others, perhaps even the charity intendee, will notice and say, “What a generous person ‘so and so’ is,” or does he do it because there is a person in need and since he is able to help, he will? Or is it for all three listed reasons?

D’oh! Sorry again.

I meant the person in need, of course.

It’s door #2:does he do it because there is a person in need and since he is able to help, he will?

Chat more tomorrow

 

[josie_L]

yes and those are biblical accounts with no support from any independent source; beyond sources that indicate there were Christians in Roman Palestine early in the first century, and there probably were persecutions under Nero (around the 63-65 AD time frame). You believe the bible & I don’t (for numerous reasons, many of which I’ve cited throughout this and other threads).

 

[latin_rite]

As for science, you should know that science can’t be used to find or disprove God. And if all you want to do is insult atheists, please go yell at a tree, which probably also doesn’t believe in God. You weren’t contributing to this discussion anyway, and that way you won’t be distracting from it.

I never said that science can or cannot dissprove God. It is Anotheratheist who is saying that God has been dissproved by science. Do you read what people say? i find athiests comprehension levels to be extremly low.
I mightn’t be adding anything to this discussion. But at least i have the intelligence to understand who said or implied what. But then again and this might hurt your feeling of self importance. But i don’t really care if you feel that i am adding anything or not. So go and try and bully someone else with your over inflated ego.

Oh, and your Rhetoric is just 2000 years old…now who’s original?

Atheists are original in essence since they break from age old mythologies and realize that it’s all hearsay, bells and whistles and smoke and mirrors, wrapped up in an ancient tale.

All that your paragraph tells me is that you have been confronted with the facts and the issues and you still follow “the old ways”.
Sure, have at 'er!

My Rhetoric? Thanks for the compliment. But I didn’t write the bible.
So there has never been any Atheists in history until now? I have been confronted with all the facts and issues? What are these facts and issues? Where are your facts that God doesn’t excist? Do you know the difference between fact and theroy? Again i know you’re trying to be hard hitting and original, but you’re still failing. You’re just repeating the tired old method that has been failing to “de-convert” people for centuries. May i suggest going somewhere quiet. And just think of something using your own reasoning. then maybe…maybe i will think you’re not being your typical atheist sheeple

 

[Eleve]

I never said that science can or cannot dissprove God. It is Anotheratheist who is saying that God has been dissproved by science. Do you read what people say? i find athiests comprehension levels to be extremly low.
I mightn’t be adding anything to this discussion. But at least i have the intelligence to understand who said or implied what. But then again and this might hurt your feeling of self importance. But i don’t really care if you feel that i am adding anything or not. So go and try and bully someone else with your over inflated ego.

AnotherAtheist said that specific claims of Christianity are contrary to scientific evidence. He/she did not name the existence of God as one of them.

Makes all that stuff you said about reading comprehension and intelligence rather ironic, though.

 

[josie_L]

AnotherAtheist said that specific claims of Christianity are contrary to scientific evidence. He/she did not name the existence of God as one of them.

Makes all that stuff you said about reading comprehension and intelligence rather ironic, though.

But anotheratheist is wrong about science conflicting with the Bible.

 

[Eleve]

Probably. But latin was wrong about AnotherAtheist trying to disprove God with science.

 

[latin_rite]

AnotherAtheist said that specific claims of Christianity are contrary to scientific evidence. He/she did not name the existence of God as one of them.

Makes all that stuff you said about reading comprehension and intelligence rather ironic, though.

Atheists are sheeple? That’s funny. Theists are one’s blindly clinging to 2000 year old myths despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary. .

Sigh. Do i need to mention your low level of comprehension again? Or were you straight out lying. Hoping that i wouldn’t go back and prove what AnotherAtheist said? Or are you saying he believes in God. But not just the Stories about what God did?
Well which is it? Or shall i just wait for your apology?