Atheists: Why aren't you theists?

[MerryAtheist]

I don’t understand? What are you saying? Are you trying to say that, just because somebody agree’s with your position, it means that your assertion is true? But what logical reasons are you providing to support your assertions? You have given none so far. The things you have said, neither refute the arguements given, such as the first cause arguements, or provide a logic example of how the universe could possibly come from nothing by itself.

Supporting an argument is not the same as proving one. If you think I’ve failed in presenting my case, that’s fine. I’ve responded in good faith (heh heh) in nearly every post. I don’t understand why you are obsessed with the first cause argument or the “universe from nothing” position. Nevertheless, I’ve said all I care to on the subject.

Looking at this thread from the standpoint of an observer, I would be utterly bored with the repetition by now.

You say the world/universe had to have a cause, and that cause must be God.

I say that’s not necessarily the case because no one knows what happened to cause the big bang (if that is how it happened).

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Can we move on?

 

[freesoulhope]

In these passages I find the church placing faith in a higher position than reason. .

You also place faith above reason. You cannot know by reason if your wife loves you, or if tommoro is going to come, or that your freind isn’t going to let you down about something that is really important to you; yet you have faith in him. We place faith above reason in are daily lives whether we believe in God or not; otherwise we would not get out of bed in the morning. It is complete hogwash to think that reason is of more value then faith, are ability to have faith in are selves keeps us going through the days ahead of us. Scientists have faith that the world around them is not an illusion and that their experiments are revealing the truth about reality. You have faith that if you don’t believe in God, that you’re not going to go to hell as a result. You have faith about many things that you dont know for certain, yet you believe in them.

Please get real; fast!

 

[MerryAtheist]

As a Catholic i have never come across the idea, that one must relie totally on faith.

Please re-read my post and tell me where I said that.

 

[Keikiolu]

← Oh look! Half the number of the Beast!? Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

If you DON’T totally discount the concept of the Creator, then you accept that He may exist, and therefore have just as much faith in Him as anyone else, as He has deemed it necessary that His existence be indeed UNPROVABLE, as that would negate the free will choice of faith.
I think you’ve got a strange idea of faith – acutally would it be acceptable for me to be a christian and say I think God may NOT exist?

Since it is not provable that God does or doesn’t exist, and the fact that faith in God CAN NOT depend on whether one has proof of God’s existence, to have faith that God does exist while simultaneously saying that it’s possible that He may NOT exist is perfectly acceptable.

A Christian has FAITH that God exists, not that he professes that he has proof that God does actually exist, which leaves open the possibility that God in fact doesn’t exist.

But the Christian KNOWS that God does exist, without “scientific proof”, because God let’s him know that He exists.

That is the essence of “revealed religion”, revelation, as opposed to gnosticism, religion which relies on so-called “proof” that God exists (or not). Atheism makes the positive assertion that God doesn’t exist, which is gnosticism.

That wouldn’t have gone down well where I went to church… Well he’s sure doing a good job of being unprovable.

You would expect a half-backsided job from the Creator of the Universe?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

*The fact that one who doesn’t understand the purpose of “pain and suffering” also doesn’t understand the “purpose” of God, is not a particularly huge surprise. *

The kind of concept of god (small “g”) illustrated by the thinking, “Because suffering exists God can’t”, shows a complete lack of understanding of all the concepts involved in this issue, namely what suffering is, and Who God is.
I didn’t say God couldn’t exist because of suffering, merly that I couldn’t see how he could be benevolent. To me he would be neither wholy benovelent or malovenlent. I also didn’t mention God’s purpose, since I’m not sure wether he exists or not.

You should perhaps study a bit more about sufferring and why it exists, as well as how free will creates opportunities for suffering which are not attributable to the “grantor” of free will Himself.

My point above was that unless one understands the terms of the subject in question, one tends to sound a bit “under-educated” in the subject in question.

It is true that pain and suffering seem to be random to me and to have no purpose.

Quick course: Suffering is PAIN. Pain is a sensation meant to warn. Warning is meant to either avert a “bad” condition, or to “incentivize” learning not to get into “bad” situations like that again.

Observing other’s pain is a form of pain, to learn from.

Are you still unsure of the purpose of pain?

Tell us the ‘purpose’ of the holocaust, child rape, the extinction of %99 of all species, cancer, cystic fibrosis, miscarridge, murder, genocide etc etc…

What was learned from these sufferings?

Or perhaps some more helpings of you’re too thick to understand?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. Please clarify.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[freesoulhope]

You say the world/universe had to have a cause, and that cause must be God.

I say that’s not necessarily the case because no one knows what happened to cause the big bang (if that is how it happened).

You can know what happened, by knowing what can’t happen.
You and i know what can’t happen. You just refuse to accept the obvious.

I love logic, thats why i will constantly refute each and every arguement you give, so that those who do read the thread, who have an open and reasonable mind, will not be decieved by false and flawed rguements. Those who want to know God, will find God; those who just want to pretend they know what they’re talking about, yet lack simple understanding of the propositions being made to them, and just want to troll around, will most definetly find it boring.

And i don’t think you care if there is a God or not; but thats fine, just don’t make assertions if you can’t back them up with a decent logical arguement, because it gives the reader the false impression that you have good reasons for saying what you say.
You and i know, that you don’t.

Hence the conclusion; there is no good reason to disbelieve in the existence of God. End of debate.

Peace.

 

[Mirdath]

Hence the conclusion; there is no good reason to disbelieve in the existence of God. End of debate.

Quite true! The problem is, there is no good logical reason to believe in his existence either!

 

[freesoulhope]

Please re-read my post and tell me where I said that.

I dont have to; you have implied by your post, that those who have faith, cannot reason that their faith is true. That the church, wants you to come to God by faith alone. That is the disired affect you wanted is it not?

The church places faith above reason, because in life nothing is certain, and whether or not you believe in God, you will always by default, almost by instinct, place faith above reason. That is simple logic. But that is not to mean that one must reject reason; one must have a reasonable faith. Christians have a reasonable faith. Nobody waits around to find out if science has revealed evidence that natural laws are “constant”, just so they can walk out side their house with out worrying about falling through the floor. One can know that something is highly probable to be the truth, and the rest is taken on faith. You your self take things on faith, but you reject God, not because you disagree with faith, but because you do not want to have faith in God.

You are free to disagree.

See ya.

 

[MerryAtheist]

You also place faith above reason. You cannot know by reason if your wife loves you, or if tommoro is going to come, or that your freind isn’t going to let you down about something that is really important to you; yet you have faith in him. We place faith above reason in are daily lives whether we believe in God or not; otherwise we would not get out of bed in the morning. It is complete hogwash to think that reason is of more value then faith, are ability to have faith in are selves keeps us going through the days ahead of us. Scientists have faith that the world around them is not an illusion and that their experiments are revealing the truth about reality. You have faith that if you don’t believe in God, that you’re not going to go to hell as a result. You have faith about many things that you dont know for certain, yet you believe in them.

Please get real; fast!

Again with the mind-reading. My advice, keep your day job…

So you cede the point that for you faith is more important than reason. Congratulations, you agree with the church. As for me…

• Since I have the experience of many years with my wife, I can be fairly certain that she loves me today, especially since I haven’t seen Trixie the Stripper in a couple days. That’s reason, experience, and probability at work. Faith? Maybe a little.
• Regarding friends, the same would apply if I had any, but I’m an atheist so of course I have no friends.
• The sun rose yesterday, and all the previous days of my life. Science tells me the sun has got a good 6 billion years or so left, so the probability of it rising tomorrow is pretty good. No faith needed there.
• I’m not so sure many scientists not involved in philosophy spend too much time singing “merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.” And if I’m not mistaken, they rely more on proper methodology, repeatability, falsifiability, and peer review rather than faith, with regard to their experiments.

By the way, did I ever say that faith was not important?

• I have faith that humanity can solve most of it’s problems by using intelligence and compassion.
• I have faith that most every person has the capacity to think for themselves enough to get by in the world.
• I have faith in my dog’s ability to behave properly in public, though I haven’t seen too much of it yet.
• I have faith that as bad as the Seattle Mariners are, they can still beat the Yankees.

So, yes, I do have faith; just not faith in superstition.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Quite true! The problem is, there is no good logical reason to believe in his existence either!

Thank goodness. I was beginning to think no one else was here…

 

[MerryAtheist]

Hence the conclusion; there is no good reason to disbelieve in the existence of God. End of debate.

My that was easy.

One can only wonder what the philosophers will do now with all their free time.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Wow! 369 posts! One for every day of the year and then some.

We should make a “Post a Day” calendar…

 

[freesoulhope]

Quite true! The problem is, there is no good logical reason to believe in his existence either!

The BigBang theory only allows for one possiblity. Whether you accept that or not, is nolonger of my concern. I have said what is needed to be said, and you can read over my posts if you like. The point of the matter is this; you want to be “agnostic”; merry athiest “wants” to be an atheist; i “want” to be a Christian, but i could not maintain my faith if it was not one back up by reasonable common-sense evidence; we are all guilty of bias, but before i came across arguements for God, i had more or less lost my faith. God was a nice idea, but i was not attending church, and did not really care very much. Now i find that there is reasonable proofs, and i find hard to understand “why” people can’t accept them; niether has anyone given any reasonable evidenc to refute the arguements in qeustion.

I cannot “see” God, but its plain to see that Big bang cosmology lies in favor of Gods existence, and counts against a naturalistic alternative. You can deny it untill one is blue in the face, but it does not change the fact that if man is able to reason logically, and has access to the evidence, and has no “prejudice” either way, he or she will see that if there is a cause, the evidence demands that it is one that has at least some of the attributes of God, as commonly known to man through religion. The evidence doesn’t prove the God of religion, but is does make it highly probably that the world was “created”, rather then it being a product of a paradoxical nothingness. That is what I’m faced with, a paradoxical nothing, as opposed to a God that creates the world. Any reasonable person will choose God, even if they reject what religion has to say about God.

Thanks for the discussion; you have both boosted my faith.

God bless and peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

By the way, did I ever say that faith was not important?

• I have faith that humanity can solve most of it’s problems by using intelligence and compassion.
• I have faith that most every person has the capacity to think for themselves enough to get by in the world.
• I have faith in my dog’s ability to behave properly in public, though I haven’t seen too much of it yet.
• I have faith that as bad as the Seattle Mariners are, they can still beat the Yankees.

.

Thank you for proving me correct; you have “faith” in the things that you want to have faith in. You do not want to have faith in God. You have faith that you wife loves you; but you do not “know” for a fact that she does, even if you think it is “probable” that she does. This means you place “faith” above reason, because if you used reason alone, why are you still with your wife? You seem to have rejected “commonsense probabilitys as proofs”, so i don’t understand why you reject God but continue to believe that your wife loves you?
Can i also say that according to Bigbang cosmology, it is a high probablity that God exists; but you don’t seem to be keen about that probability. Hence, you have likes and dislikes, agendas and ambitions that do not include God; in otherwords, faith is all Good, untill the concept of God becomes apart of the picture.

You have said that Its improbable that God exists, but you have shown me no evidence to back up that assertion.

(Edited by Moderator)

Peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

*]The sun rose yesterday, and all the previous days of my life. Science tells me the sun has got a good 6 billion years or so left, so the probability of it rising tomorrow is pretty good. No faith needed there.

.

No? But you have faith that what the scientists are telling you, is true, whether you base that faith on a probility or not, its still a matter of faith in the end. You have faith in human beings. Faith is obviously what we relie on in the end, nomatter how probable something is likely to be true. Therefore we place faith above reason, whether we believe in God or not.

(Edited by Moderator)

 

[MerryAtheist]

It seems to me that your a hypocrite.

So doesn’t that make you a liar?

I was never so abusive when I was catholic. Is that part of the new catechism?

 

[Keikiolu]

Again with the mind-reading. My advice, keep your day job…

So you cede the point that for you faith is more important than reason. Congratulations, you agree with the church. As for me…

• Since I have the experience of many years with my wife, I can be fairly certain that she loves me today, especially since I haven’t seen Trixie the Stripper in a couple days. That’s reason, experience, and probability at work. Faith? Maybe a little.
• Regarding friends, the same would apply if I had any, but I’m an atheist so of course I have no friends.
• The sun rose yesterday, and all the previous days of my life. Science tells me the sun has got a good 6 billion years or so left, so the probability of it rising tomorrow is pretty good. No faith needed there.
• I’m not so sure many scientists not involved in philosophy spend too much time singing “merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.” And if I’m not mistaken, they rely more on proper methodology, repeatability, falsifiability, and peer review rather than faith, with regard to their experiments.

By the way, did I ever say that faith was not important?

• I have faith that humanity can solve most of it’s problems by using intelligence and compassion.
• I have faith that most every person has the capacity to think for themselves enough to get by in the world.
• I have faith in my dog’s ability to behave properly in public, though I haven’t seen too much of it yet.
• I have faith that as bad as the Seattle Mariners are, they can still beat the Yankees.

So, yes, I do have faith; just not faith in superstition.

Do you realize that faith in God doesn’t interfere with your above “faiths”…?

What ALL non-Christians fail to understand is that only in ONE area is faith more “important” than reason.

We have full faith before any reason ONLY in God. In all else, reason dictates how much we “rely on” (have faith in) what is presented to us.

You fail to understand, mostly because it’s not well explained to you, that Christianity is the single most harsh critic of superstition on the planet. When you eventually come to understand what superstition is, you’ll notice that.

And I agree completely with faith in Dogs.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[freesoulhope]

I was never so abusive when I was catholic. Is that part of the new catechism?

That maybe so, and i apoligise, but i do think those statements are reflective of your reasoning and atitude in relation to the question of faith and God, in are current discussion. In regards to the faith question, i felt you were purposely lieing to your self and me to justify a position that you hold. I might be wrong about that to, and it might have been the case that you were simply lacking in knoledge in that area. The truth is the truth. My attitude on the other hand, though it may have fualts, doesn’t change the truth.

You say that you were Catholic! Why did you leave? I do hope that your not going to say that it was because of the attitude of other catholics, because that would be a poor reason to risk losing an eternity of happiness.

Can i just say, although i may have been a bit rude, i do like you, and im sorry if i have disrepected you in anyway. But rest assure, my habit of being blunt may bite you again in the future.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Do you realize that faith in God doesn’t interfere with your above “faiths”…?

What ALL non-Christians fail to understand is that only in ONE area is faith more “important” than reason.

And that is the area under discussion. I understand that. FreeSoulHope seemed to be equating all faiths with the big “faith”. I reject that because the other faiths are placed in things I can see and know.

We have full faith before any reason ONLY in God. In all else, reason dictates how much we “rely on” (have faith in) what is presented to us.

No disagreement.

You fail to understand, mostly because it’s not well explained to you, that Christianity is the single most harsh critic of superstition on the planet.

Next to science and rational thought, that is.

To me, Christianity appears as just another form of superstition. A very clever and mature superstition, and in many respects a benign one, but superstition all the same.

 

[freesoulhope]

I just want to apoligise to the atheists and agnostics, and my fellow christians on this thread. I have recently posted some things that are abusive and unacceptable, such as “Liar” and “Hypocrite”. I do not condone this as a Good or charitable Catholic atitude, and i am sorry.

Peace, and God bless.

 

[Suat]

What ALL non-Christians fail to understand is that only in ONE area is faith more “important” than reason.

Most likely because we have to take the ‘truth’ of that statement on faith, which is not the best reason.