Atheists: What is the mean of life?

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

You don’t believe it despite the writings of, changed lives of, and passive acceptance of martyrdom of the apostles. You must have some evidence to the contrary to solidify your belief - care to share it?

How about Jesus’ supposed birth. Mt 2,1 says that happened during the reign of Herodes, who died in 4 BC. Lk 2,2 says it happened when Quirinius made the census, which happened in 6 AD. Sarcasm mode on: Now that’s really miraculous, not only was it a virgin birth, it took 10 years to finish! Sarcasm mode off: The gospels don’t get it right on the very first page, why should I believe the rest of it? The whole “Herodes killed all infants (no other historal source has recorded that, btw), then the Holy family had to flee to Egypt”-story seems to be made up, only to fulfill just another prophecy about the messiah. Credibility zero.

Is your judgement perfect?

No, but neither is yours nor anybody else’s. Yet people try to tell me they know the one and only valid god image. As long as their credibility is as low as Matthew’s or their god image is totally illogical/contradictory, even though they themselve do not see that, I dare say with full confidence, that that particular god does not exist.

why not? What is just about love? what is fair about forgiveness?
forgiveness doesn’t make sense - should we outlaw it, or is it BETTER than “justice” sometimes?

That’s not the issue. My conscience/feeling tells me, that a god judging by those standards is judging wrongly. If my conscience is directly implanted into me by god, then there is something wrong. Either with my conscience or god or the implanting process or the judgement. Choose for yourself. Btw, if I choose option 1 from the above said list, I can abandon conscience as a whole, and that doesn’t “feel right” too, does it?

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

Here is a 3rd reason, but that is more against the Protestant Fundi version of God, not the Catholic one:
It is neither just nor loving to let a rapist or mass murderer into heaven just because he repented 10secs before his death, and condemn (by God’s own standards) good people to hell just because they didn’t buy the Jesus story or prayed to the wrong god.

The state of your soul is paramount when you face God. The journey of life is just that, a journey, some find God early some find Him at the last second. In either case the state of the soul at judgement is what’s the most important. God will judge your state perfectly as He is God. He will know your interior.

Catholicism is a religion of Hope. Atheists have no hope. They just drudge around. Travel to India and see the despair hopelessness brings.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

Why is God blood thirsty?

Have you ever actually read the bible?
Besides, when a bloody sacrificy is mandatory to him, I call that blood-thirsty.

Now, why do you want God not to exist … even after you have been told that this God is all merciful and all just?

Why do you prefer to believe in a godless universe where there is no guarantee of the final triumph of good over evil?

Why do you prefer to believe that an uncreated universe is more heartless and unjust and bloodthirsty than the Christian God since it swallows us all up into the black hole of death and nothingness?

If you really despise the Christian God, what must you think of this bloodthirsty godless universe you defend daily with all your might?

You are caught up in some mighty bewildering dilemmas if you can’t give some mighty convincing answers.

Here is the most convincing answer, I can give you: Because it is the bloody REALITY. I cannot pretend to believe something else, simply because I bloody WANT it, as long as I perceive REALITY differently. Why is that so hard to understand for Christians?

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

Have you ever actually read the bible?
Besides, when a bloody sacrificy is mandatory to him, I call that blood-thirsty.

Here is the most convincing answer, I can give you: Because it is the bloody REALITY. I cannot pretend to believe something else, simply because I bloody WANT it, as long as I perceive REALITY differently. Why is that so hard to understand for Christians?

When you isolate your reading of the Bible then you can draw some interesting conclusions. When you read the Bible in the light of faith it is much different.

What convinced you to be an atheist?

 

[AnAtheist]

buffalo:

When you isolate your reading of the Bible then you can draw some interesting conclusions. When you read the Bible in the light of faith it is much different.

Undoubtly .

What convinced you to be an atheist?

That happened in three steps.

1. I realised, that there are many religions all claiming to be (mutually exclusively) true. Obviously most if not all of them are wrong.
2. I realised, a god explains nothing while everything sooner or later can be explained without one.
3. I studied the bible, bible text critique, certain aspects of theology, and some aspects of Buddism (Zen mainly). Oh, before I forget, I try to learn about the faith people hold on boards like this one. Haven’t found anything convincing yet.

All that led me to the conclusion, there is no god. At least not that kind of god, people ascribe special attributes to. I am agnostic towards a god without attributes like the Deists’ one or the non-personal divine principles from Buddhism or Taoism. But then, there is nothing to worship, so in practical terms there is not much difference between an agnostic and an atheistic stance.

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

Undoubtly .

That happened in three steps.

1. I realised, that there are many religions all claiming to be (mutually exclusively) true. Obviously most if not all of them are wrong.
2. I realised, a god explains nothing while everything sooner or later can be explained without one.
3. I studied the bible, bible text critique, certain aspects of theology, and some aspects of Buddism (Zen mainly). Oh, before I forget, I try to learn about the faith people hold on boards like this one. Haven’t found anything convincing yet.

All that led me to the conclusion, there is no god. At least not that kind of god, people ascribe special attributes to. I am agnostic towards a god without attributes like the Deists’ one or the non-personal divine principles from Buddhism or Taoism. But then, there is nothing to worship, so in practical terms there is not much difference between an agnostic and an atheistic stance.

1. True, many claim truths. Many truths can be found by man through reason alone. Many of these have drawn false conclusions. Catholicism has the added benefit of Divine Revelation. Man needs this Revelation because of our own limitations.
2. That is the science can outlast God reasoning. While it is true that science learns more every year and we apply these findings, science can only deal in the natural realm. Science cannot deal with the supernatural. So you as an atheist, are you limiting your knowledge or quest of it by definition?
3. If you study the Bible as an independent you will most likely draw this conclusion as you are not capable of parsing these texts in a truly truthful way. Note the Protestants have tried this experiment with no success.

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:

How about Jesus’ supposed birth. Mt 2,1 says that happened during the reign of Herodes, who died in 4 BC. Lk 2,2 says it happened when Quirinius made the census, which happened in 6 AD. Sarcasm mode on: Now that’s really miraculous, not only was it a virgin birth, it took 10 years to finish! Sarcasm mode off: The gospels don’t get it right on the very first page, why should I believe the rest of it? The whole “Herodes killed all infants (no other historal source has recorded that, btw), then the Holy family had to flee to Egypt”-story seems to be made up, only to fulfill just another prophecy about the messiah. Credibility zero.

Very interesting - your refusal to accept the Resurrection is based on the apparent contradiction presented of his birth. Is that correct? How odd, unless it’s your claim, then, that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed? Is that really where your going? I didn’t think so - even your historical sources will support his existence.
Once again, your logical application of facts is odd. Instead of focusing on the issue at hand - the Resurrection - you have switched topics in order to, by extension, discredit ALL of what the gospels say. The most glaring problem with your logic is that you chose a topic which NONE OF THE GOSPEL WRITERS WERE AN EYE WITNESS TO. Of course there is some variation - just like every other historical account by non-eyewitnesses. That is to be expected. Feel free to reject everything said about his birth with one exception: he was, in fact, born. All the gospels and secular historians agree on this. In doing so we can return to our topic: your proof for your disbelief in the Resurrection.
Now grow up and either claim that you doubt Jesus of Nazareth ever existed or give us your reason(s) for not accepting THE RESURRECTION.

AnAtheist:

That’s not the issue. My conscience/feeling tells me, that a god judging by those standards is judging wrongly. If my conscience is directly implanted into me by god, then there is something wrong.

VERY GOOD! We Catholics call this “something” sin - and its manifestation into your conscience your “sin nature”. Yes, AnAtheist, something is wrong with our consciences - sin. Our consciences are grossly distorted by selfishness rather than truth.

AnAtheist:

Either with my conscience or god or the implanting process or the judgement. Choose for yourself. Btw, if I choose option 1 from the above said list, I can abandon conscience as a whole, and that doesn’t “feel right” too, does it?

My guess is that you feel no matter what choice I make it has proven a point you intended to make. Is that correct? If so, would you please state your point - I don’t get it - Im slow, remember?
And also, please don’t continue ending your rebuttals with apparantly irrelevent questions meant to clarify a truth which you never fully stated in the first place - its very difficult to follow…

Thanks

Phil

 

[AnAtheist]

1. True, many claim truths. Many truths can be found by man through reason alone. Many of these have drawn false conclusions. Catholicism has the added benefit of Divine Revelation. Man needs this Revelation because of our own limitations.

Yes, says the Church. And Mohammed, and Baghwan, and thousands others.

1. That is the science can outlast God reasoning. While it is true that science learns more every year and we apply these findings, science can only deal in the natural realm. Science cannot deal with the supernatural. So you as an atheist, are you limiting your knowledge or quest of it by definition?

That is a way to put it.

1. If you study the Bible as an independent you will most likely draw this conclusion as you are not capable of parsing these texts in a truly truthful way. Note the Protestants have tried this experiment with no success.

I regard independent thoughts very highly.
As for the Protestants, that is one thing I agree with you. The Church’s authority derived from the Apostolic succession is intrinsically logical, far more logical than a sola scriptura philosophy or several conspiracy theories they have come up with.

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

Yes, says the Church. And Mohammed, and Baghwan, and thousands others.

You are correct in using the term Church. The others are individuals with unfounded claims, based on partial or incomplete truths.

Anyone who claims Divine Revelation would have to pass the time tested process of faith and reason. The Catholic Church has done so with flying colors.

The Catholic Church posseses the “fullness” of Truth derived by both faith and reason. .

The Catholic (Universal) Church has the assurances of Divine Revelation and the protection of the Holy Spirit. This was guaranteed by Christ who is the only one to make the claim he is God.

So in the end we have two opposing claims - God or atheism.

Neither can be proven through the use of our five senses.

Independent thoughts are admirable but can be faulty. When trying to understand the question of why we are here, how can one arrive at his own conclusion when his limited information and experience proves to be extremely limited. So we look to the past. Where is the past accurately recorded? Where is our best evidence?

So my question to you is where do you find enough evidence from the past to form a correct conclusion about atheism?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Regarding post # 139, you answered:

Here is the most convincing answer, I can give you: Because it is the bloody REALITY. I cannot pretend to believe something else, simply because I bloody WANT it, as long as I perceive REALITY differently. Why is that so hard to understand for Christians?

This is hardly an answer. You have not disputed that the universe without God seems far more bloodthirsty than a universe with one. So why do you attack God as bloodthirsty, then turn around and embrace a more bloodthirsty godless universe?

 

[alekzander]

To anatheist,So you have one of two choices,believe that there is no God and basically everything in this life is absolutely pointless,all the relationships that you have with people have no meaning because once we die we all cease to exist.Do you actually believe what you say you believe,do you understand by believing there is no God that when you go to your parents (Who you probably really LOVE)funerals,with your belief system that will be that LAST time that you will ever see them! Why would you even want to believe that! My hope would be “there has to be something more”!Why would you want to believe that this life with all it’s sufferings and heartaches and unfullfilled wants and dreams is it,you have to be sick to believe this! Or you can believe that their is a God who understands all your sufferings because he lived a life just as hard as you(Even alot harder) and he brought all those sufferings upon himself! You look at God as bloodthirsty,i look at him as amazing! He left all the comforts of heaven to come down to this lowly little world and suffered one of the most BRUTAL deaths so that we could be redeemed-That is absolutely mind-boggling and amazing! I choose to live a life of hope, I choose to believe in the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost because WITHOUT God there is NO hope! Tell me as an atheist what your hopes are?What hopes are there for atheists?

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

Regarding post # 139, you answered:

Here is the most convincing answer, I can give you: Because it is the bloody REALITY. I cannot pretend to believe something else, simply because I bloody WANT it, as long as I perceive REALITY differently. Why is that so hard to understand for Christians?

This is hardly an answer. You have not disputed that the universe without God seems far more bloodthirsty than a universe with one. So why do you attack God as bloodthirsty, then turn around and embrace a more bloodthirsty godless universe?

I answered the question, why “do you not want to believe?”.

A godless universe is *indifferent *to bloodshed. A non-personal god too I guess. A bloodthirsty god (or a god people thinking of as bloddthirsty) otoh endorses bloodshed. I prefer the indifference, it should lead to less bloodshed.

 

[AnAtheist]

alekzander:

Do you actually believe what you say you believe,do you understand by believing there is no God that when you go to your parents (Who you probably really LOVE)funerals,with your belief system that will be that LAST time that you will ever see them! Why would you even want to believe that!

Again, it is not what want to be reality that makes the reality,

You look at God as bloodthirsty

To be exact I look at god images some people have, which are bloodthirsty (the god image, not necessarily the people).

Tell me as an atheist what your hopes are?What hopes are there for atheists?

I don’t have any hopes for the time after my death, only for the remainder of my lifetime. I think, it will be like it was before my birth. I know that thought is hard to bear for most people, but I can’t see anything frightening and am quite content with it.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

A godless universe is indifferent to bloodshed. A non-personal god too I guess. A bloodthirsty god (or a god people thinking of as bloddthirsty) otoh endorses bloodshed. I prefer the indifference, it should lead to less bloodshed.

I don’t think of Christ as a bloodthirsty God. If anything, just the opposite. He is the exemplar of a loving and forgiving father, a model for our human fathers.

You make Him out to be some kind of Moloch. Why?

A godless universe is indifferent to bloodshed.

And isn’t that precisely why there would be more bloodhsed in a godless universe? Think about people who are indifferent to the pain of other people. Doesn’t that invariably result in greater pain for those people who are the victims of indifferent neglect?

 

[YinYangMom]

AnAtheist:

That’s not the issue. My conscience/feeling tells me, that a god judging by those standards is judging wrongly. If my conscience is directly implanted into me by god, then there is something wrong. Either with my conscience or god or the implanting process or the judgement. Choose for yourself. Btw, if I choose option 1 from the above said list, I can abandon conscience as a whole, and that doesn’t “feel right” too, does it?

Correct.

There is something wrong with your conscience and your judgement. Actually, it’s not ‘wrong’ per se…but it just isn’t clear yet.

God doesn’t ‘implant’ your conscience. Man was created to know God, to love Him and to serve Him. That was hard wired into you. How you come to know Him is kinda up to you…with the free will thing. Your conscience is formed over time through your life experiences. He has revealed Himself to humanity through nature, through science, and more directly to the Jewish people and then by coming to earth Himself thru the incarnation of Jesus.

In your judgement, you are unable to comprehend God could be so demanding on one hand and then so merciful on the other. This does not ‘feel’ like justice to you. This is the case for many people - even believers…but that doesn’t mean it isn’t True. It means you haven’t come to understand the Truth yet, and that’s what the Church is here for…to help each of us come to that Truth. It is why we have the saints and Fathers of the Church - to whom God continues to reveal insights to His love and mercy so that they continue to spread the Good News as it continues to unfold today (JPIIs writings and papacy are proof of that).

You’ve done some good reading but it has been in a pick and choose manner so you have not been able to grasp the big picture. You’ve read the Bible already, but the Bible alone - especially the way it’s structured - is not going to make much sense…it can confuse and confound more than clarify. Jeff Cavins’ The Great Adventure is the roadmap through the Bible. If you click on the Seminars link you can keep an eye out for when a seminar will be in your area. I attended one that was 125 miles from me but it was only $50 dollars for a full two-day seminar. It was the basic overview of the 24-week study guide, but WOW was it an eye opener! My 16 year old son, who a year earlier was struggling with the ‘serve God’ part of being Catholic absolutely loved the seminar - the Bible readings from Mass, God’s overall plan finally began to make sense to him. Try to attend one before dismissing outright that the Bible is contradictory. It really isn’t, when read in context.

 

[YinYangMom]

AnAtheist:

I don’t have any hopes for the time after my death, only for the remainder of my lifetime. I think, it will be like it was before my birth. I know that thought is hard to bear for most people, but I can’t see anything frightening and am quite content with it.

I actually understand your position.
I’m sure that’s how we all start out in life…
life ‘just is’ and we soak it up, participate in it, and then ‘it isn’t’.
Our bodies are cells which make up blood, flesh, muscle, hair, etc.and over time those cells deteriorate until the body can no longer function, so it stops and it decomposes.

This is the truth of the matter which is taught in the public schools, and if we want to go on to college, the view is taught in the private schools as well.

But then there are billions of people who believe there is more to life than just cells/matter. These people, as you noted, have these images of gods or a god by which they model their path in life. Some believe in reincarnation, some believe in karma, some believe in Buddah, some believe in Yahweh, some in Allah and Mohammed, and some in God and Jesus.

Some are born into their beliefs, led on that path by their parents. Some are drawn to that path by curiosity and grace.
Some, like you, are peaked by the fuss but have not yet been convinced any of it is valid, let alone - which version is correct.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, for those of us raised in faith rejecting the Truth bears heavier consequences than for those of you who do not know and still do not believe. For you it’s a matter of ‘coming’ to the Truth. For us, it’s a ‘rejection’ of the Truth. For this reason, those of us in the faith have the obligation to learn as much as possible of the faith we are tempted to leave before we do so, and in the process of tapping into more resources, more history we either stay put where we are because we have verified it to be True, or we change faiths, finding another to be more true than the one we were in. Not many who take the time to learn more before walking away end up truly walking away from faith all together…and even then, they come back in time.

This, then, must speak to the Truth that there is something more to life than just cells dividing and forming matter only to decompose. The scary part is, once one pursues the Truth there is no going back, and perhaps that is why athiests and agnostics resist so fervently going down that path. What taste of a faithful life they’ve witnessed reveals a view of life which is mindboggling…if they accept one part, they have to accept another which flies in the face of reason…and for so long they’ve led their lives by reason so it’s better to not venture down that path, but hold on to what is real - for them. And so they turn away too soon - before the whole Truth is revealed - rejecting such faiths as folly. Hey, that was just the appetizer - if you had hung around until dessert - you would have loved it!

 

[cheddarsox]

Philthy:

Hello again cheddarsox! :yup:

You claim to have a notion of God/Divinity that is contrary to the Christian God but continually fail to articulate the attributes of your God which are distinct from that Christian God - IMO. For example, you state that " I believe in the divine, but I do not believe in a Catholic or Christian personal deity."
Presumably your point of dissent is over the “personal” nature of God, ie your “divine” has no interest in you personally. Yet you go on to say, “…I know a divine that leaves me with a much greater peace, and more hope than I ever had before…the very acknowledgement and recognition of which makes me tingle and tremble and call out in praise.” That sounds like a personal benefit the divine has given you, personally. Im not saying that you necessarily agree with all the Christian concepts of God, all Im saying is that you have failed to articulate any characteristic of your concept of divinity which outright contradicts characteristics of the Christian God. What am I missing?

Phil

**I am sorry that I have not been clear, I will attempt to remedy that. I do not believe in a deity, as in a “person” with a “personality”, or a being. The divine which I have come to know does not have human characteristics, nor personality, nor is it a being.

It is involved in every aspect of my life, but not as a being, not in a cozy way or in a way that could be compared to a human relationship, more in the manner of gravity or electromagnetism or another impersonal, yet very important, active and dynamic force.

The divine, to me, is not a deity with a face or personality.

I hope that helps to clarify my position.

cheddar**

 

[cheddarsox]

Gilbert Keith:

AnAtheist

A godless universe is indifferent to bloodshed. A non-personal god too I guess. A bloodthirsty god (or a god people thinking of as bloddthirsty) otoh endorses bloodshed. I prefer the indifference, it should lead to less bloodshed.

I don’t think of Christ as a bloodthirsty God. If anything, just the opposite. He is the exemplar of a loving and forgiving father, a model for our human fathers.

You make Him out to be some kind of Moloch. Why?

A godless universe is indifferent to bloodshed.

And isn’t that precisely why there would be more bloodhsed in a godless universe? Think about people who are indifferent to the pain of other people. Doesn’t that invariably result in greater pain for those people who are the victims of indifferent neglect?

Why do you assume that your God is the only cause of people’s compassion for one another? Why do you assume that people who do not hold your view of God are indifferent to the pain of others? That makes no sense.

You are arguing from a stance that is so completely stuck in accepting your concept that your arguments are pointless to those who do not accept your concept of how the world operates.

AnAtheist isn’t arguing about the amount of bloodshed in the universe, rather arguing about the cause. Whether or not we like and endorse bloodshed, the universe is indifferent to it. It goes on, and nothing steps in to stop it. That looks like evidence for…well certainly not supporting an all loving, all powerful creator. Looks like evidence for nothing caring about what we do to one another on this planet, except for ourselves.

cheddar

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

CHEDDARSOX

Looks like evidence for nothing caring about what we do to one another on this planet, except for ourselves.

Precisely. You’ve just made my case. When even we do not care how we treat each other, how do we get rescued from that madness, if there is no personal God to rescue us? To whom does a man turn when he is a victim of malevolent forces … when he is arrested, when his family are enslaved, when he is starved and whipped for standing up to evil forces?

Does he turn to your divinity without a face? How does your divinity without a face help him?*

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

I don’t think of Christ as a bloodthirsty God. If anything, just the opposite. He is the exemplar of a loving and forgiving father, a model for our human fathers.
You make Him out to be some kind of Moloch. Why?

I just quoted other Christians, who claim that God requires bloody sacrifices for sin atonement, culminating in the ultimate sacrifice (Christ).

A godless universe is indifferent to bloodshed.

And isn’t that precisely why there would be more bloodhsed in a godless universe? Think about people who are indifferent to the pain of other people. Doesn’t that invariably result in greater pain for those people who are the victims of indifferent neglect?

We have to distinguish two scenarios here. One is a universe, in which an acting god is observable. The other is one, in which god is not acting, and thus is not distinguishable from a universe, whithout a god.
In the first scenario a bloodthirsty god would presumably shed some blood for his own pleasure. A loving god would do something to prevent it. An indifferent god wouldn’t care.
In the second one, there is no active bloodshedding nor loving from a god, so it comes down to what people do. Guess, when they believe in a bloodthirsty god they might turn out quite bloodthirsty themselves. If they believe in a loving god and try to follow that example, they should do some good.
Now, look at the world and decide for yourself what people are doing to each other, no matter of what religion they are. Even those pretending to follow a loving god are quite good in slaughtering other. So what can we learn from that?