Atheists At Catholic Forums

[Semper_Fi_1]

AnAtheist:

Hi, the term “atheist” simply denotes a person *not *believing in God or in gods to be precise. Also most atheists deny the existence of any supernatural phenomena. Apart from that, atheists have no common attitude, philosophy or political agenda. Though most atheists probably want a strict separation of state and religion.

If there is no God, then why bother at all with “seperation of Church and state” (which is actually a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to a church which had nothing to do with what it means today in the USA)? I mean, there’s no god, afterall!

 

[SamCA]

Semper Fi:

If there is no God, then why bother at all with “seperation of Church and state” (which is actually a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to a church which had nothing to do with what it means today in the USA)? I mean, there’s no god, afterall!

Self-preservation. Atheists don’t tend to do very well in nations with an established state religion.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

SamCA:

Self-preservation. Atheists don’t tend to do very well in nations with an established state religion.

“Separation of church and state” does not necessarily mean an establishment of a state religion. From what I have seen recently, atheists are trying to force a secular-“humanist” religion down the throats of the majority.

 

[Liberian]

“Separation of church and state” does not necessarily mean an establishment of a state religion. From what I have seen recently, atheists are trying to force a secular-“humanist” religion down the throats of the majority.

Semper Fi,

SamCA is absolutely right. Separation of church and state–as properly defined by the Founding Fathers–is pretty much essential for religious pluralism. Any religious minority will fight for it. Without it, we would all be paying taxes to some Protestant church and would be forced to provide abortions in Catholic hospitals.

On the other hand, you are right that the secularists are trying to force their brand of “religion” on the Christian majority in this country. I would also note that the primary examples in history of avowedly atheist regimes are France after the revolution (they called it the Reign of Terror), Stalinist Russia (need I say more?), and Communist China. The idea of “live and let live” is VERY unusual, among both religious people and nonreligious people.

• Liberian

 

[MikeinSD]

Liberian:

Semper Fi,

SamCA is absolutely right. Separation of church and state–as properly defined by the Founding Fathers–is pretty much essential for religious pluralism. … The idea of “live and let live” is VERY unusual, among both religious people and nonreligious people.

• Liberian

Thank Liberian. Good pagans like me got burned all over Europe in the middle ages. And when pagans were in power in classical times, Christians were lions’ meat. Glad to live in America. People can worship or not worship as they please.

 

[Neithan]

SamCA:

You guys have a mindset that is in a lot of ways almost totally alien to mine

Really, how so?

• even that God exists in the first place, I need something more substantive than two thousand year old testimony*

What are you looking for? Empirical evidence? How would that be possible?

By the way, the ‘separation of Church and State’ which freethinkers are so worried about was an idea created by Christianity (your welcome) and is as much–if not more–important for the protection of the Church as it is for liberty in the State.

 

[Atreyu]

Sure, but everyone thinks that about their own beliefs.

Indeed, and this was a major stumbling block for me when I was first coming back to Christianity. Yet there are several very important questions that Protestantism cannot answer. Protestantism basically flies in the face of history, but this is the topic for another thread. Therefore, if Jesus really was God, and He started a Church, there are only two (well, three) candidates left: the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Oriental Orthodox Church.

Sure. I’m always interested in that sort of thing. Not promising to agree with you or anything, but I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t interested in reading the other side’s position.

Good, I can’t ask for anything more. I only ask that you try and stay as objective as possible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Of course. But like I said, there is a lot of extraodinary evidence. The way I like to think of it is as follows. Imagine yourself as a magistrate, and you have four witnesses. These four witnesses are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (do you see where I’m going here? ) Now, in this strange courtroom of yours, you cross-examine these four witnesses regarding an event: the resurrection of Jesus. Funnily enough, these four witnesses don’t agree on everything that happened. For example, there is a particular order of events (I can’t remember what it is right now, sorry) that one witness claims to be different to another witness. But the event in question is not a really important one, it’s just one that both the witnesses happened to mention.

However, on the important events; the big events (such as Jesus being resurrected), all of the witnesses agree. If this event did not happen, then how could they have all reported the same events? Well obviously they must have colluded together! Well ok, but if they colluded together, then surely they wouldn’t have messed up with those other, minor events?! And the only other conclusion is that they actually did witness this event. In other words, the event (Jesus’ resurrection) actually occurred!

Now this is only a very brief starting point, but I hope you see that there is some promise in this evidence. There is a whole lot of other evidence as well. For example, in the gospel of Matthew, the author (who I’m guessing was Matthew) discussed several prophecies that were made in the Old Testament, regarding Jesus. In his discussion, Matthew tells of how Jesus fulfills all of these prophecies. Again, this is not really hard evidence that proves the resurrection of Jesus, but it is some really good evidence. Again and again, Jesus fulfills the prophecies made about Him in the Old Testament. Also, remember that if you can prove absolutely the existence of God and so forth, then there isn’t really much point in having faith, is there?

If you want to look further into this stuff that I have (very very briefly) discussed, then you could Start here. Another thing that you could do is read the gospel of Matthew and see for yourself the prophecies that I’m talking about, although make sure you get a Bible with good footnotes so you can see the Old Testament passages Matthew is referring to. I’ve also heard that the book, The Case for Christ is a good one, but having not read it myself, I can’t really recommend it!

 

[MikeinSD]

Neithan:

Really, how so?

What are you looking for? Empirical evidence? How would that be possible?

By the way, the ‘separation of Church and State’ which freethinkers are so worried about was an idea created by Christianity (your welcome) and is as much–if not more–important for the protection of the Church as it is for liberty in the State.

I’ll take a swing at this. I lived in big cities. I chose my neighborhoods and my friends. Therefore, I do not know any devote Catholics or Christians for that matter. So I don’t understand what is important to either group. I don’t know why Catholics and Christians get so upset with American pop culture or non-traditional ideas. It’s bewildering if you are not exposed to traditional religious ideas. Besides, lots of my buddies think Christians want to hurt them. As the saying goes “It’s 1931 Berlin and we’re all Jews.” But I don’t agree with that saying. I don’t see readers of this forum wanting to turn gays, pagans, Jews, free thinkers, and even atheists into lampshades and soap. Posters here are decent folks. Strange to me, but decent.

BTW: religious “tolerance” started after the Reformation in 16th and 17th century western Europe when the Holy Roman Empire agreed that each political unit should follow the faith of it’s prince (i.e. rulers). Political/religious warfare lapsed into an exhausted peace. France recognized the Protestants. Other kings made toleration an informal policy. England was an expection. Practicality, not religious tolerance, was the reason.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

MikeinSD:

Therefore, I do not know any devote Catholics or Christians for that matter.

Hi, not sure why you put Catholics and “Christians” in two seperate categories. Catholicism is the largest ‘branch’ of Christianity by far. Catholics and Protestants would have been a better choice of words.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

Hi, the term “atheist” simply denotes a person not believing in God or in gods to be precise. Also most atheists deny the existence of any supernatural phenomena. Apart from that, atheists have no common attitude, philosophy or political agenda. Though most atheists probably want a strict separation of state and religion.

There is no historical basis for this statement, and plenty of historical basis for the opposite.

Atheists, because they oppose religion (the Christian religion in particular) sometimes have an agenda. There agenda might be to promote a moral outlook at variance with the Christian moral outlook. The ACLU, which is largely atheist/agnostic, has an agenda to remove every vestige of religion from the public forum. It also has an agenda to promote the right to kill the unborn. I could go on. To say that atheists have nothing in common except to deny the existence of God is to dismiss the Reign of Terror in France, not to mention the Russian, Spanish, Chinese, and Mexican revolutions, largely dominated by atheist/agnostic personalities.

This is not to say that all atheists are born to kill, just as it would be absurd, as I have heard some atheists say, that Christians are born to destroy human freedoms and burn everyone they disagree with at the stake.

Yet there is a tendency toward politicization among atheists and there is no better evidence of the success of those politics than that it is considered politically correct now, as it was not fifty years ago, to openly mock the Christian religion.

Perhaps you have heard the expression “culture war.” We are in one … religious people are united on one side and irreligious people are united on the other.

Let’s not pretend the war doesn’t exist and that each side doesn’t have plenty of agenda items to fight over.

 

[Atreyu]

I think it would be pertinent to add that athiests as a whole do not have any common “beliefs” (apart from the obvious), but that some athiests tend to group together into their own “religions” anyway. In other words, you can talk about athiests as a whole or a particular group of athiests, but it isn’t really fair to pile in all athiests into one particular kind of athiest. Does this make sense?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Liberian:

Semper Fi,

SamCA is absolutely right. Separation of church and state–as properly defined by the Founding Fathers–is pretty much essential for religious pluralism. Any religious minority will fight for it. Without it, we would all be paying taxes to some Protestant church and would be forced to provide abortions in Catholic hospitals.

On the other hand, you are right that the secularists are trying to force their brand of “religion” on the Christian majority in this country. I would also note that the primary examples in history of avowedly atheist regimes are France after the revolution (they called it the Reign of Terror), Stalinist Russia (need I say more?), and Communist China. The idea of “live and let live” is VERY unusual, among both religious people and nonreligious people.

• Liberian

Hi Liberian,

Yes, “separation of church and state,” does mean no established state religion. That’s probably the furthest that the founding father’s go on “defining” this, but even that, is debatable. There was an established state religion up until the late 1800s which was an Unitarian religion. The rest that goes along with it is purely a late breaking development in American politics.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

AnAtheist

Hi, the term “atheist” simply denotes a person not believing in God or in gods to be precise. Also most atheists deny the existence of any supernatural phenomena. Apart from that, atheists have no common attitude, philosophy or political agenda. Though most atheists probably want a strict separation of state and religion.

There is no historical basis for this statement, and plenty of historical basis for the opposite.

That’s the definition for the term atheist.

Atheists, because they oppose religion (the Christian religion in particular) sometimes have an agenda. There agenda might be to promote a moral outlook at variance with the Christian moral outlook. The ACLU, which is largely atheist/agnostic, has an agenda to remove every vestige of religion from the public forum. It also has an agenda to promote the right to kill the unborn. I could go on. To say that atheists have nothing in common except to deny the existence of God is to dismiss the Reign of Terror in France, not to mention the Russian, Spanish, Chinese, and Mexican revolutions, largely dominated by atheist/agnostic personalities.

These are the magic words. Eg, Marxism does not equal atheism. Granted most Marxists are atheists, but there are are enough religious Marxists and non-Marxist atheists around to make a comparison unvalid.

This is not to say that all atheists are born to kill, just as it would be absurd, as I have heard some atheists say, that Christians are born to destroy human freedoms and burn everyone they disagree with at the stake.

Exactly.

 

[AnAtheist]

Semper Fi:

If there is no God, then why bother at all with “seperation of Church and state” (which is actually a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to a church which had nothing to do with what it means today in the USA)? I mean, there’s no god, afterall!

Then let me tell about the situation in Germany:
A large number of church representatives are payed from taxes.
The big churches (Catholic and Evangelical and some others) are allowed to collect taxes (in fact the public tax office collects them and then give it to the churches). This dates back to the treaty which was signed between the Vatican and the German government in 1933, and was extended to the Evangelical church somewhere in the 50s or 60s.
The 2005 WJT (the big Catholic meeting in Köln this August) is largely financed with tax money.
Laws protecting employees do not apply for people employed by the church.
If you want to leave the church you have to go to court or public office (depends on the state you live in).
The churches have influence on rating and indexing of books, movies and other publications, though officially we don’t have censorship.

In short the churches have a lot of rights they don’t deserve in a country which is supposed to have freedom of religion. They make loads of money from non-members. In some aspects we have a state-religion here. That’s wrong and I keep fighting against that.

 

[AnAtheist]

Neithan:

By the way, the ‘separation of Church and State’ which freethinkers are so worried about was an idea created by Christianity (your welcome)

The idea came up after the 30years war (1618-48), when Catholic and protestant forces devasted half of Europe largely because they couldn’t agree whether to follow the director’s cut or the shortened version of the Bible. The destruction in Germany was even worse than after WWII. Then people started to think it would be better to separate politcal and religious power.

and is as much–if not more–important for the protection of the Church as it is for liberty in the State.

Yes, it is.

 

[pnewton]

One can find many instances where religious intolerance has been used to take life on a large scale. However, since the courts have built a broader wall of separation from religion, and expanded religion to mean morality, the body count and the blood on our hands has increased to unprecedented levels, all under the name of right to choose.

 

[atheos_sum]

you should have a poll for this.

 

[dumspirospero]

Just in case I missed something in high school and college, please, please enlighten me as to where the founding Fathers defined separation of Church and State and as to where it can be found in either The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, etc…Going to be a hard task, because they never defined this modern day notion of Church and State…this is an invention that has been force fed, unconstitutionally I might add, down our throats and has become a tool of secular humanists, atheist, etc., to erode any moral and religious foundation we once had in this country.

Liberian:

Separation of church and state–as properly defined by the Founding Fathers–is pretty much essential for religious pluralism.

• Liberian

 

[SamCA]

Liberian:

Semper Fi,

SamCA is absolutely right. Separation of church and state–as properly defined by the Founding Fathers–is pretty much essential for religious pluralism. Any religious minority will fight for it. Without it, we would all be paying taxes to some Protestant church and would be forced to provide abortions in Catholic hospitals.

Yep. Amusingly, the phrase “wall of separation between Church and State” was first used to reassure the Baptists – now one of the greatest opponents of that very separation – that they wouldn’t be oppressed by the government embracing a more popular religion.

On the other hand, you are right that the secularists are trying to force their brand of “religion” on the Christian majority in this country.

Given that the “secularists” make up an extremely tiny fraction of the population and almost no one in Congress or on the bench is an atheist, I find the idea that they’re forcing anything on anyone somewhat difficult to swallow.

The Constitution, as it has been interpreted for many years by Christian judges forces certain things, like not spending tax money on religious displays or organizations. But it’s not the atheists doing that.

(Except inasmuch as the Constitution was written by a bunch of deists and atheists, which is certainly a factor, I’ll grant.)

I would also note that the primary examples in history of avowedly atheist regimes are France after the revolution (they called it the Reign of Terror), Stalinist Russia (need I say more?), and Communist China. The idea of “live and let live” is VERY unusual, among both religious people and nonreligious people.

Don’t forget Buddhist Tibet, a godless regime that produced one of the most pacifistic and humanitarian cultures on Earth, until it was conquered by more warlike neighbors.

 

[SamCA]

Neithan:

Really, how so?

As we’ve discussed, I find the idea of certain belief in the unproven to be almost totally beyond me. It’s not just that I disagree with it. I don’t even understand the mindset that leads to it.

Also, I have to admit to finding it endlessly fascinating that people in the modern world continue to experience deep, often literal belief in the tribal writings of ancient desert nomads. It comes across, to me, as a sort of historical anachronism, and I find historical anachronisms interesting. (I don’t mean this to be offensive, I simply can’t think of a way to say it that doesn’t sound offensive. You did ask. Still, I apologize if anyone is bothered.)

What are you looking for? Empirical evidence? How would that be possible?

Thomas got empirical evidence. When someone told him that his dear friend had come back from the dead, he had a perfectly rational response: Yeah, right. I’ll believe it when I see it. And Jesus didn’t condemn him or tell him he was cursed for his lack of faith or anything like that. He let him see the nail holes.

There are any number of ways an omnipotent being could, if it wanted, provide empirical evidence for its existence. Appearing and talking to people on a regular basis. Flaming letters forty miles high reading “Yes, I exist. No, seriously.” Carl Sagan had an interesting one – a coded message buried in the endless digits of Pi.

Any of the big flashy miracles the Isrealites were witness to would do the trick, too.

By the way, the ‘separation of Church and State’ which freethinkers are so worried about was an idea created by Christianity (your welcome) and is as much–if not more–important for the protection of the Church as it is for liberty in the State.

I don’t deny that that Christianity was one of the first religions to really separate itself from civil power, and I’m glad of that, but as always, the story is more complex than black and white, because Christianity also has a millenias-long history of trying to get back into civil power, too. In America today, there is a concerted (primarily, but not entirely, Protestant) movement to make America into a “Christian nation.”