He believes in neither. I am saying that he has only claimed a scientific basis for the latter.
Yeah, probably, but that’s okay. I’m willing to try. I’m not very scholarly like most on here. I go on faith and what I know from ‘my’ life experiences, not something I read in books. I’ve read a lot, don’t get me wrong. But most of the things I read are arguments that try to intellectualize faith and that cannot be done. Faith will never make sense to atheists because it doesn’t actually make sense to Christians. It’s not supposed to.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.
You can always present good arguments, like Josie has done here, as to why faith should make sense, but that’s not going to necessarily convince anyone (no offense Josie, I’ve learned ALOT from your posts). I am a Christian to begin with so what I read is mostly justification and validation of my belief and not proof to me.
Oh, I was Super-Catholic. All on fire for it, we followed all the rules 100% and were full of love for god and church. The “unresolved issues” you mention is a long story and I have posted it elsewhere, I forget where though.
I did actually find the answers I was looking for here. I learnt that the church is unwavering in its rules, with no room for the suffering it causes to families. So, in that sense this forum (and other sources like priests and bishop visits, counseling and spiritual direction sessions) helped me to realize that the church can’t be right on infallible. Long, long story, like I said.
Yeah, I also thought that was very clever wordplay.I really like “AnEvilAtheist” as a username but it’s already taken.
No offence taken by the way, but trust me when I say I am well aware of the limitations of rationalizing faith, however, I feel it incumbent to respond on those issues that can provide signs (or at least put into question the atheist’s position) of God’s existence. I think the CCC does a great job of delineating the relationship between faith and reason. Anyways my modus operandi is twofold, to discuss by use of rational arguments and prayer. But I know it is prayer which will lead to conversion more so than any rational argument will.Yeah, probably, but that’s okay. I’m willing to try. I’m not very scholarly like most on here. I go on faith and what I know from ‘my’ life experiences, not something I read in books. I’ve read a lot, don’t get me wrong. But most of the things I read are arguments that try to intellectualize faith and that cannot be done. Faith will never make sense to atheists because it doesn’t actually make sense to Christians. It’s not supposed to.
This quote annoys me mostly because it’s often taken out of legitimate context. Originally it was just a joke about how foxholes are so dangerous that people tend to turn religious in them, because of the tendency of people to turn to religion when they fear for their lives. It’s been twisted to mean that atheists don’t have the courage to risk their lives for their countries, which is both unfunny and untrue.
Whose “we”?
I’ll be sure to look into your earlier posts. I also noticed you have a blog.
I think it rather creepy especially when you know that “AnEvilAtheist” as visited your profile and as done so for quite some time now.
You know the people who say this about atheists are probably the same people who say Catholics are not Christians. Anyways, these people are not representative of the christian norm, otherwise I will have to assume on the basis of what I’ve heard on some atheist blogs and forums that the majority of atheists are foul-mouthed, arrogant, and plain mean.I’m sure I can conjure up a new name from these
Actually, some of the things Pennitent was listing (such as the one about Dawkins) are specifically references to things said by Catholics in this forum. But you are right that these claims have more to do with a preference of insulting people who disagree with you to discussing the truth than with just being Christian.
It will be “for god”. That’s my whole point. The act is done for god, out of the person’s free will. Primarily the act os fone for god and secondary for the person in need.
My wife and I
Yeah, I temporarily disabled it, but if you want to read it, I’ can re-activate it for you, just lemme know.
Why is that Creepy? I find him (I’m assuming “him”) to be an intelligent, witty and funny poster who obviously also saw the pun in his username and chose it for shock value.I think it rather creepy especially when you know that “AnEvilAtheist” as visited your profile and as done so for quite some time now.
I think on both sides you get all sorts of people. You get good, honest Christians that express love and compassion for all walks of life, including atheists. Then you get Christians that are very vindictive when it comes to anyone who does not see things their way and sling insults at them any chance they get. I have seen both.
Is she an atheist as well?
I was reading your earliest posts by the way. May I know what denomination you were from before converting to the Catholicism.
I said that somewhat tongue in cheek, however, there is some truth to it, firstly, because although his name was meant for shock value, I still think it inappropriate. I’d have to constantly call him by that name when posting to him (which I haven’t had the opportunity to). For example, “well, evilatheist . . . " or " Yes, evilatheist but. . .” or " that’s not what I meant evilatheist . . . ", I mean does he have another name we could call him by? Secondly, I’ve never spoken to him, I mean I didn’t know about him until I saw his name on my profile, and it’s been there for awhile. I’m just curious as to why he hasn’t summoned the “courage” to speak to me? It doesn’t bother me that he’s visiting my profile (presumably to read my posts), but I guess I expect him to eventually get past that point where we can get argue out our differences like regular posters.
Yes it does. Good to see that you don’t fall into the latter category.
Yes, she is now.
I grew up in the reformed church, which is very structured and reverent, much like a catholic mass in structure (without the eucharist at every mass though). When I left home I still went to church, but pretty much whatever I could find.
I see your point in the name, but I’m not sure that was the main reason for choosing it, just a pun that would display nicely on his profile.I said that somewhat tongue in cheek, however, there is some truth to it, firstly, because although his name was meant for shock value, I still think it inappropriate. I’d have to constantly call him by that name when posting to him (which I haven’t had the opportunity to). For example, “well, evilatheist . . . " or " Yes, evilatheist but. . .” or " that’s not what I meant evilatheist . . . ", I mean does he have another name we could call him by? Secondly, I’ve never spoken to him, I mean I didn’t know about him until I saw his name on my profile, and it’s been there for awhile. I’m just curious as to why he hasn’t summoned the “courage” to speak to me? It doesn’t bother me that he’s visiting my profile (presumably to read my posts), but I guess I expect him to eventually get past that point where we can get argue out our differences like regular posters.
Why, thank you
I’m from the west coast, and I’m Caucasian. Family descendent from france, but that’s way, way, way back, I don’t speak French other than “Hello” , “thanks for the coffee” and “bye”
I know, I know, it’s our second language, but honestly on the west coast the second and third languages might as well be Mandarin and Cantonese. It is spoken WAY more than French here.No it isn’t. The act of giving for every christian should be an act of love, so whether we love God first, does not deflect from the love we have for our neighbor. You are creating a false dichotomy. In fact, I would argue that my love for God (if truly felt and practiced) would make me love my neighbor more than most because God is the source of love. It is important to not that apart from how an act should be performed God teaches us to give of ourselves selflessly to others (in fact, this is why we were created (Ephesians 2: 8-10). In other words, we are to make a “career” of helping others. You will not find the likes of a Blessed Mother Theresa, even amongst the most giving of Atheists. And if you can find such a person, please give me his or her name so I can commend them for doing God’s will.It will be “for god”. That’s my whole point. The act is done for god, out of the person’s free will. Primarily the act os fone for god and secondary for the person in need.
For atheists, the primary person that the act is done for, is the person in need, hence the motivation in atheist charity is much more pure.
That’s my point
Yes, but in some instances those Catholics are correct. In fact, Penitent has listed as one of his “heroes” Dawkins.
And I’ve noticed that a lot of the arguments given by Atheists are based on his book “The God Delusion”. And moreover, what’s with all the references to the “flying spaghetti monsters” and “pink unicorns” that quite a few Atheists keep bandying about when trying to refute our claims of God’s existence? It seems that there is a new breed of atheists a la Dawkins.Yeah, but your primary motive would be for god not for person. You perform the act because god commands you to.
I was only trying to demonstrate the different motives of charity between atheism and christiantiy.
In fact, I would argue that my love for God (if truly felt and practiced) would make me love my neighbor more than most because God is the source of love. It is important to note that apart from how an act should be performed God teaches us to give of ourselves selflessly to others (in fact, this is why we were created (Ephesians 2: 8-10). In other words, we are to make a “career” of helping others. You will not find the likes of a Blessed Mother Theresa, even amongst the most giving of Atheists. And if you can find such a person, please give me his or her name so I can commend them for doing God’s will.
but then it won’t be god’s will if it’s an atheist doing it 
www.donorschoose.org
Hey, you have your church fathers and we have oursYes, but in some instances those Catholics are correct. In fact, Penitent has listed as one of his “heroes” Dawkins.
Oh, I crack myself up. , amongst others.No, you were trying to prove that Christian charity was less (pure) charitable because we put God first. My motives for loving my neighbor cannot be disconnected from my motives for loving God. As I said you are trying to create a false dichotomy they are interconnected. For example, I put God first and then my family comes second, does that mean I love my family only because God expects me too? Or that I love them less than I should because I love God more? Of course not. What I essentially mean when I say I love God first is that I will do whatever it takes to love as he loves, does it make any sense now?
No, it’s always God’s will because even the Atheist is created in God’s image and all love flows from God. .
No, we do it because we love God and we love our neighbor.
Secular is not a synonym for atheist. Secular simply means separation of church and state. Also, I’m sure that there are many, many religious people not only working for these charities but volunteering and donating to them as well.
Sorry, but quite a few of these organizations are self-interest groups, and have nothing to do with charity. Anyways you’ve proven yourself adept at propaganda of which I can tell you I am not a great fan of.
Yes I did prove that. The motive still remains from god and to please god first and foremost.
Only according to your theology.
Exactly.
“Atheist” is a relatively new term. These organizations are non-christian charities and they most certainly qualify.
Maybe, but not all. And even if they are, it’s still providing a charitable service to a population group…most of the time it was probably done out of necessity, since Christian charities won’t want to serve some of these population groups
Please explain how I did this?
Wow, you really did a 180 degree turn.Hey, you have your church fathers and we have ours
Nah, I kid…But still there are some very brilliant minds out there that understand things about the working of the universe and have the capacity to eloquently put things into word where other can’t.
It sounds like you are trying to say that we as atheists are not allowed to band together or to hold common principles. Of course we would hold common principles and we would have figures that are more prominent than others.
Dawkins most certainly are one of the people I respect and look up to, as well as Hitchens, Harris and Dennet, collectively known as the four horsemen
The arguments of spaghetti monsters and unicorns put forth are very good arguments, and were introduced to make the point of claiming truth without backing it up with facts.
It’s not a new breed, it’s just a more focused group that gains momentum as time goes by and the world gets more enlightened to how things actually work.
Yup, I did…and my life is now finally on the right track.
No, you didn’t because when I act charitably or I’m about to act charitably I don’t say to myself because God expects me to (but I am compelled by his love/grace to always act charitably), I do it because I truly love the person who I am acting charitably towards. It becomes instinctual. It becomes part of my nature to love my neighbor and I can’t separate that from my love for God or vise versa (think of it as a circle instead of a straight line). My motive is love from beginning to end.
But that is what I believe to be true.
I did not say I love God so therefore I must love my neighbor, it’s more like: I love God and so therefore I’m compelled to always love my neighbor.
No they don’t. And furthermore the term “atheist” was already around by the time these charities were created so I’m sure if they were meant to be atheist organization they would have put that somewhere on their “name tag”. Also, the Red Cross (by the cross we refer to Christianity) was begun by a man named Henry Dunant:
Yes, I’m sure the aids hospices catering to many sick homosexuals (I’m not saying they are the only ones who are sick with this disease, so please no recriminations) under the guidance of the sisters doesn’t count for anything.
I’ve already explained it through my responses.Please explain how I did this?