N
Nick
Guest
Are there any other Catholics left on this thread, or am I all alone 
?
?
- Status
M
Mirdath
Guest
It is an over-complex explanation for a simple thing. Occam’s Razor disqualifies it from consideration.
‘You don’t kill me, I don’t kill you. Deal?’ ‘Deal.’ does not necessitate the introduction of such extraneous factors as God, the soul, or divine law; it’s simple economics and self-preservative instinct. The best way to look out for #1 is to make sure nobody has designs on you; the best way to be sure of that is to come to an agreement whereby it’s not done.
And the Christian concept of moral law seems to have entirely overstepped what I would consider ‘natural’.
I’ll keep it in mind if I run across a copy.
I began rather with the presupposition that I’d try it out, and trusted that if any deity existed and saw fit it’d take care of the whole faith issue. ‘God, make me believe in you!’ is foolishly naive: it already supposes that God exists. I assumed neither existence nor nonexistence, simply ‘unknown’, as is fit.
N
Nick
Guest
So if someone had no regard for economics and figured that he would take his chances on any retribution that might come his way and decided to take your life there would not be anything inherently wrong with that besides bad economics? With this theory what is to stop the biggest and strongest from enforcing their will on the weak and helpless?
How about: “God, if you exist help me to believe in you.” God will not override your free will, and force you to believe in Him. There must be some effort to believe on your part, and since you are not sure that God does not exist how can it hurt to make this effort?
W
whatever
Guest
For starters, “gods do not exist” does not accurately reflect my world view, although for all practical purposes it’s a moot point.
My lack of belief is not a preconception, but a result predicated on an analysis of the case put forward by theists. Religions make extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary evidence, but that’s not strictly a cognitive bias.
N
Nick
Guest
Could not Theists make this same argument? That they have come to the conclusion of belief predicated on an analysis of the case put forward by religion. That they have witnessed extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claims. Why is it only a cognitive bias for the Theist and not for the atheist or agnostic?
M
Mirdath
Guest
Then that person is denied access to the group, since he chooses to ignore its principles.
I haven’t noticed natural law stopping many people either. What makes both of them work is principle – the idea that we can do better by working together than by trying to push things on each other.
Why should I be the one making an effort to believe? I am perfectly satisfied with my non-belief. If God wishes worship, he can let me know.
S
Suat
Guest
In order for you God to help you believe in him, you must make an effort to believe first? This does not really make sense to me. How do I convince myself to believe in something that I do not know exists? I am more than willing to say “God, if you exist help me to believe in you”, I prayed that many times on my journey to atheism. Whether or not I believe will rest on whether or not God chooses to give me a sign or indication that he does exist.
E
Exalt
Guest
I don’t understand how modern Christians actually believe that about “free will,” as if trying to convince someone else of the truth was breaching a person’s free will.
I guess I should stop pursuing a teaching career. I might interfere with a kid’s “free will.” =/
W
whatever
Guest
Theists can and have made this argument. The crux of the matter is that theists have to meet the standard of evidence of the unbelievers, which invariably leads to complaints that unbelievers stack the deck. It’s not a cognitive bias on the side of the unbelievers to effectively challenge the theists to deliver a naturalistic proof of their claims, but theists asking unbelievers to selectively filter perceptions in favor of theistic claims is asking for a voluntary cognitive bias.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
If you have no need for God, then you will not understand anything about God, or any relationship with God.
Some people have no need for God. They truly and completely hold that belief.
Therefore, anything “God” is utter nonsense to them. That is to be respected as a legitimate belief system.
(( All that it really means, however, is that when they finally DO need God, they will be VERY unpracticed in the necessary “machinations” of dealing with ‘God stuff’. ))
Actually, from my viewpoint, it is entirely contingent on your willingness to SEE the constantly given signs and indications of God.
But,… that will never come, until you understand what it is to pray, and that to do so PRE-REQUIRES that you believe in God.
Until the need arises, you, just like everyone else, are totally uncomprehending, which is as God wants it.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
The fallacy is this…
The atheist is asking for a material proof that, *(they have been told constantly), transcends nature, and hence, materiality. So, by hiding behind certain principles, such as scientific empiricism, they hope to avoid the onslaught of logical reasoning, by saying “I don’t know”, dismissing each and every reasonable and logical proof; only because it lacks a physical dimension, that they would much rather embrace with out the hindrance of a “spiritual based morality”.This is not a sure sign of some body that truly has justified doubts, as a result of evidence, yet is willing to challenge and learn as much as they can about the probabilities and the pitfalls. Rather it sounds like somebody who doesn’t care either way, but puts up un-defendable defensive measures, by attacking the opposition, rather then looking at the logical errors of their own beliefs.
Everybody is agnostic; a Theist is a person who chooses the side with the most logical, philosophical evidence, as opposed to atheism, which has only one argument (the argument about God being evil), which appeals to the human desire to live in a morally perfect world, yet in contradiction to this, they still cannot provide a logical proof for why it is logically possible that this world can exist with out a trancendent-super-nature to support/generate the presencence of reality, or existence, in its self; the very thing that makes it possible for them to have joy, pleasure, and love.
Nothing about reality, tells me that God does not exist; however there is quite a lot of things, that we take for granted, or do not take the time to notice, that are sure signs of Gods existents.
Let’s flip the table. How about the atheist show some logical proof for the non-existents of God, the justification for being “atheist”, based upon the empirical evidence. Note, I’m not asking for “empirical evidence”, I’m asking for a logical argument, based upon the empirical evidence; for if there is no God, there should be logically consistents evidence of this in the world we see around us. You see a butterfly fly around, but the atheist doesn’t seem to see the significance of such a thing; it’s just taken for granted and is assumed that such a thing needs no explanation other then mere nature. If it were not for the motivation of religious revelation and promises of happiness, I agree that not as many people would believe in God; however, I do not see that being because of logical thinking, but rather, a matter of biased opinions, since, I have seen no where near the abundance of logical/reasonable arguments for atheism, as I have seen for theism.
I have come across no evidence, even with the revelation of evolution and natural selection, which fully explains why the universe would move from one mode of inanimate objects to animated creatures, with an “inner genetic instinct to survive”. I find it unreasonable to think it a coincidence that “living” creatures, should “strive” to live. The fashioning of weapons presupposes an organic “need” to live, to survive, yet lower organisms lack the rational emotional comprehension to justify an act that would see it protect itself; as if it knows that its better to stay alive. Natural selection alone does not come near to explaining this phenomenon.
S
Suat
Guest
Not a single atheist has claimed this is the reason for their lack of belief in any of the 100+ posts on this thread so far (if I remember correctly). Rather than setting up strawmen, perhaps you can read the thread to learn what a few atheists actually think?
If there is not evidence for the existance of something, then should I believe in it? To me, the logical answer is no.
S
Suat
Guest
I have no need for God that I can see.
Do you have an example of when I would need God (seriously)?
How do I know that I am only seeing signs and indications of God because I want what I am seeing to be signs and indications of God? What do you consider signs and evidence of God? Perhaps we can set up a baseline and see if my requirements for belief are anything like yours.
That is a problem, I can not do this and then honestly say that these signs are evidence of God. My mind would immediately begin to think ‘well yes, but that is because you want them to be. Would the same thing have happened if you did not believe in God?’ At that point, I would have to honestly answer with ‘yes, most likely’, and then accept that I believed in God because I wanted to, not because there was a reason to.
He wants me to be an atheist? That is encouraging.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
S
Suat
Guest
I would think that fact that not a single atheist has brought up evil in this thread to be pretty good evidence that most do not consider ‘God being evil’ to be an argument against being a theist.
If you want to believe, then you can find suggestions for many things. There is no evidence that god does exist, there is also no evidence that he does not. I tend not to believe in things without evidence and you likely do as well. However, you prefer to believe in certain things (i.e. God) without evidence while not believing in others (i.e. Thor, Unicorns, FSM). I cannot see how you are calling your position the more logical one when you are picking and choosing what to have faith in. Perhaps you can explain why it is more logical to believe in certain things and not others?
I have not responded more to your post because I do not believe God exists. Can I prove he does not? No, I cannot, and I hold no firm belief stating ‘God does not exist’. However, I do not think that lack of proof of nonexistence is evidence for existence, or that belief should be the default in ambiguous cases. There are many other things that I do not believe, yet cannot prove their nonexistence. You are the same, I just carry it further to your God.
N
Nick
Guest
Thats it? What if the person is powerful enough to not care about access to the group?
Consider what you have to lose by not making an effort to believe.
But do you not think that there could be so much more.
Have you considered that He is letting you know via bringing you here to these forums, and to this very discussion?
K
Keikiolu
Guest
I know. That’s what I’m talking about…!
Sure. When you are utterly stumped.
Your doubt that God exists nullifies the possibility that you’ll see signs and indicators of God, therefore, if you DO see signs of God, it will be because you’ve given up NOT believing in Him in favor of believing in Him.
As usual, the “a-theist” part of you has it backwards. You need satisfied reason (a sign) before you’ll have faith (belief), which negates the necessity of faith before you can HAVE faith.
Signs of God: Any observation that answers any need that you present by your person.
(( What does that mean? It means any “answer” you get that makes more clear your need for help in some regard. ))
I don’t know what your requirments for belief are, but I’d wager that they might be rather “materialistic”.
Precisely correct. And that is the distinguishing difference between the “mind” of a non-believer and a believer.
And that would be confirmation of your faith. That God does not exist because He’s unnecessary.
Since you can’t know whether the “same thing would have happened” in your scenario, you take it on FAITH that it would have been the same, and come to the correct conclusion based on your faith that “God doesn’t exist because He doesn’t exist.”
He does, actually, otherwise you’d be “something else”, because you choose to be one.
But He only wants you to be an atheist as long as you don’t need Him, and He’s rather hoping, as always, that you’ll eventually find that you do need Him, even though you’re very comfortable being without Him at the moment.
If you choose to be an atheist after finding that you DO need Him, them you’ve made a damnable mistake, which He’ll give you “some” time to correct, but He offers no guarantees.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
N
Nick
Guest
Keikiolu
Well said
Though I am not sure I understand the part about God wanting someone to be an atheist.
Well said
Though I am not sure I understand the part about God wanting someone to be an atheist.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Then best of luck to him or her.
What do I have to lose? That a petty, vengeful godlet would condemn me to eternal separation from him merely because of my innate inability – that he designed – to perceive him? I would not want to be near such a monster. If God is as fair, loving, and merciful as Christians claim, I’d hope he’d look first to my honest attempt to live as I think virtuously and in the service of others, and to my lack in certain faculties last.
‘Make an effort to believe’, ‘try to believe’… sorry, that just doesn’t work. You have faith or you don’t. I cannot grow taller by sheer force of will; how much harder would it be to suddenly acquire true faith by that method?
Not and still be me.
Yes. The board in general has, if anything, made me more sure of my position. I figure by now about every major Catholic argument has been brought to bear on it multiple times and I have not found it wanting (which repetitive arguing is the primary reason for my dislike of Pascal’s Wager; it is the plastic cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics).
If God wanted me to convert by internet proselytizing, he pretty obviously didn’t want it very much.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
How can the God who is love (all good), and all powerful possibly be either petty, vengeful or a “godlet”?
Your non-understanding of what you’re talking about has apparently brought you to anger.
I’d be angered too, if my perception of a thing were SO differnt from what others percieved, even after talking with them about it for several hundred posts…!!
Then again, I MIGHT consider the possibility that perhaps I’m the one who might have a share in the misunderstanding as well.
That is precisely what He does do.
It’s in the catechism. If you need help finding the references, let me know.You have faith,… in your “faith”,… which is some non-God based faith.
One way to come to understand a God based faith is to find points of agreement between yours and the other faith.
You wouldn’t be here unless you enjoyed discussing this subject area, and that’s all that God want’s for you right now,… apparently.
If some other need, which only He can fill, comes up, I for one am hoping you’ll continue to listen as well as you’ve done in the past.
Best to 'ya…!
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.- Status