Atheists: Why aren't you theists?

[Keikiolu]

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

Actually, the fact that “ONLY in the area of faith in God does faith come ‘before’ reason” is as provable as 1+1=2.

Since God is omnipotent, and as such knows all (omnipotence implies omniscience and all the other “omni’s”), the only possible “thing” which could possibly BE relied on to be omnipotent (utterly in control of things), which is what faith in God is, is God, and therefore ONLY faith in God has no need of using the tool of reason to “understand”.

In other words: Only the omnipotent can be relied on to be omnipotent, and to not rely on the omnipotent to be omnipotent is simply a contradiction in terms, therefore one must always and everywhere rely on the omnipotent to be omnipotent.

Now,… if you simply “don’t like” the idea of God then this is totally circular nonsense, and you’re prefectly free to conclude that, which is a very nice description of how God won’t disallow the free will of His creatures because they’d like to be “perfectly sure” (anxiety free) in an area in which they have to (need to) WORK at being anxiety free via the exercise of free will (faith in the one thing that merits complete belief without need of reason, aka God).

People who “don’t like God” are people who don’t admit that there is the possibility (contrary to reason!) that there is anything greater than “themselves”.

People who “like God” (being NOT people who “don’t like God”), but don’t know Who God is, are at least reasonable and “savable”.

I doubt that there’s ANYONE here that truly “doesn’t like God”, as I “termed” it above.

Therefore,… I’ll just call folks like Suat the “stubborn savable uninformed”.

If I’m not the one to “inform” you,… so be it. All I can do is to pray for y’all that you find someone to further your ongoing educational needs that better suits you.

Mahalo nui loa ia 'oe.

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

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:

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

to have faith that God does exist while simultaneously saying that it’s possible that He may NOT exist is perfectly acceptable.
I’m sorry I can’t get my head around this, it smacks to me of ‘lets play make believe’.

No human being has PROOF that God exists, as to have this PROOF would eliminate the choice to accept God on faith or not.

That is how one can say, “it IS possible that God doesn’t exist, because I have no PROOF for eliminating that possibility.”

But one can simultaneously say, “I know God does exist, because of my perception of Him”, which is a “confirmed” belief in God through first BELIEF in Him, then a response TO Him FROM Him (reason).

You’re right…! It is “make believe”. You just fail to understand what the word “believe” actually means.

You “make” belief by your response (good work) to His response (gratuitous grace) to your “initial” response (faith in God).

Quote:

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

Atheism makes the positive assertion that God doesn’t exist, which is gnosticism.
?? seems to me you use words in a different way from most people.

Atheism is a “gnosticism” because it “knows” (positively) that there is no God.

If I spoke french I’d also “use words differently from most”, but do you simply dismiss “my words” because you don’t understand them, or does it make you curious what I meant by them?

Are you conversing for understanding, or just to be “noisy”?

Quote:

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

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.
Those poor fishermen from Galilee would have no idea what you’re talking about. I could read and learn, and learn for the rest of my life about this cack. But ultimatly like the bible says “of the making of books their is no end”.

I’m sure that 1st Century Galileeans knew a considerable bit about suffering.

It’s how one puts their understanding of these things into practice in life that means anything at all.

…continued →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

I know what the catechism says about these things, what CS Lewis thought about the problem of pain. I’m a practical person I like explanations that work, to me these explanations are spurious.

I don’t know what you think you know about suffering, so I can’t really comment on what your “working” explanations might look like to me.

If you’re a practical person, then you know that pain exists for all. That suffering is often seemingly appropriate and often seemingly inappropriate. You probably have some way of accepting that seemingly inappropriate suffering is “balanced”, if by nothing other than the outrage it produces tends to make good people want to see it less by their efforts.

If you are indeed practical, then you’re on your way to God.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *What was learned from these sufferings? *Are you saying the purpose of child rape is that we can learn something from it? be specific and direct about your beliefs. Tell us bluntly how you see the holocaust and the other things I mentioned.

What is the reaction of a good man to an evil act? Isn’t that learning, and (hopefully) more specifically learning how to avoid that evil happening in the future?

I’m quite direct about my beliefs! Evil happens because humans make it happen. When they do that, they provide an object lesson of what to avoid doing.

I believe that a greater good comes of every evil. Not necessarily immediately, by some “thunderbolt from God”, but eventually in the best way possible.

You would have God simply “FIX” evil, such that it never happens, and man is made the little robot plaything of God. God’s not into that game.

All these complicated theories about suffering and free will, are meaningless and not required in the face of the truth: God is imaginary.

To you, and to me actually, your “god”, not God, is indeed imaginary.

The problem is that your god is not God, and you don’t realise that yet.

You are absolutely correct in your assessment of your god, whom you lambaste justifiably. But your protestations and condemnations of your god, and your misattribution of God’s people to your god as your god’s “servants”, is laughable, in a charitably “poor little fool” kind of way, to those of us who know what we’re trying to describe, God, and not your god, to you,… and continually being misunderstood by you.

…Oh well. We can only do so much,… then it starts to get a bit painful to continue doing it.

Best to you, Bud…!

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

 

[Suat]

Actually, the fact that “ONLY in the area of faith in God does faith come ‘before’ reason” is as provable as 1+1=2.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this?

Since God is omnipotent, and as such knows all (omnipotence implies omniscience and all the other “omni’s”), the only possible “thing” which could possibly BE relied on to be omnipotent (utterly in control of things), which is what faith in God is, is God, and therefore ONLY faith in God has no need of using the tool of reason to “understand”.

How do you know that “God is omnipotent”? I assume that is something that you take on faith. Sorry, but if I am understanding you correctly, then that does not prove it. Having faith that God is omnipotent and then saying that one must have faith in God because he is omnipotent is circular logic.

In other words: Only the omnipotent can be relied on to be omnipotent, and to not rely on the omnipotent to be omnipotent is simply a contradiction in terms, therefore one must always and everywhere rely on the omnipotent to be omnipotent.

See above, having faith that God is omnipotent is not a reason to prove that having faith in God is important.

Now,… if you simply “don’t like” the idea of God then this is totally circular nonsense, and you’re prefectly free to conclude that, which is a very nice description of how God won’t disallow the free will of His creatures because they’d like to be “perfectly sure” (anxiety free) in an area in which they have to (need to) WORK at being anxiety free via the exercise of free will (faith in the one thing that merits complete belief without need of reason, aka God).

Actually, I conclude that this is circular nonsense not because I do not like the idea of God, but because your argument is circular.

People who “don’t like God” are people who don’t admit that there is the possibility (contrary to reason!) that there is anything greater than “themselves”.

I neither like nor dislike your God. To me, he simply does not exist and my feelings about him are neutral. Anything else would be a waste of time.

Therefore,… I’ll just call folks like Suat the “stubborn savable uninformed”.

Stubborn savable uniformed? Interesting that you think I am savable.

If I’m not the one to “inform” you,… so be it. All I can do is to pray for y’all that you find someone to further your ongoing educational needs that better suits you.

Feel free to pray all you want, I do not think it will change much.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:

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

Actually, the fact that “ONLY in the area of faith in God does faith come ‘before’ reason” is as provable as 1+1=2.
Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this?

My thought, exactly…!

Quote:

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

Since God is omnipotent, and as such knows all (omnipotence implies omniscience and all the other “omni’s”), the only possible “thing” which could possibly BE relied on to be omnipotent (utterly in control of things), which is what faith in God is, is God, and therefore ONLY faith in God has no need of using the tool of reason to “understand”.
How do you know that “God is omnipotent”? I assume that is something that you take on faith. Sorry, but if I am understanding you correctly, then that does not prove it. Having faith that God is omnipotent and then saying that one must have faith in God because he is omnipotent is circular logic.

God, as an entity, can ONLY BE described as omnipotent, therefore He must be so, therefore I’m left with no other choice but to state that He is.

The proof you require is that reason be applied to this “puzzle” before you’ll have faith, but this “puzzle” is the singular case where you are prohibited from applying reason before having faith.

Therefore, there is no proof possible for you, due to your incapacity to accecpt the “ground rules” of this “puzzle”.

You are right. The logic is perfectly circular. But it’s the same logic which states that “1” is “1” because “1” can only be “1” and not any other number, which is a valid, though circular, logic.

Quote:

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

In other words: Only the omnipotent can be relied on to be omnipotent, and to not rely on the omnipotent to be omnipotent is simply a contradiction in terms, therefore one must always and everywhere rely on the omnipotent to be omnipotent.
See above, having faith that God is omnipotent is not a reason to prove that having faith in God is important.

It’s not important that you have faith in God, the “omnipotent one”, Who is singularly worthy of having faith in. What I was saying above was that if “omnipotence” has any meaning for you, only the omnipotent is worthy of being called omnipotent, and that to do otherwise is just silly.

Since you have no concept of what omnipotent means, this is not a concern for you.

…continued →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:

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

Now,… if you simply “don’t like” the idea of God then this is totally circular nonsense, and you’re prefectly free to conclude that, which is a very nice description of how God won’t disallow the free will of His creatures because they’d like to be “perfectly sure” (anxiety free) in an area in which they have to (need to) WORK at being anxiety free via the exercise of free will (faith in the one thing that merits complete belief without need of reason, aka God).
Actually, I conclude that this is circular nonsense not because I do not like the idea of God, but because your argument is circular.

Which tells me that you don’t like the idea of God. You can’t like the idea of God if you don’t “get” the idea of God (omnipotence). You can’t like what you are utterly clueless about.

Quote:

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

People who “don’t like God” are people who don’t admit that there is the possibility (contrary to reason!) that there is anything greater than “themselves”.
I neither like nor dislike your God. To me, he simply does not exist and my feelings about him are neutral. Anything else would be a waste of time.

Incorrect. You actively dislike your conception of God, aka your “god” (small “g”), whom you mistake for God, and battle against as a “hazard”. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be here doing that very thing.

Quote:

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

Therefore,… I’ll just call folks like Suat the “stubborn savable uninformed”.
Stubborn savable uniformed? Interesting that you think I am savable.

You’re “savable” because you are simply mis-informed and battling the wrong “god”. Since you are simply clueless about (the real) God, you are as culpable as a child battling the bogey-man.

Quote:

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

If I’m not the one to “inform” you,… so be it. All I can do is to pray for y’all that you find someone to further your ongoing educational needs that better suits you.
Feel free to pray all you want, I do not think it will change much.

You can think what you like, of course. I’m pretty sure that you hope that all people will become a bit better (whatever that may mean) every day, and that’s all that my prayer for you and those like you actually means.

If you’d rather not have me hope the best for you, that’s fine, but that would diminish you as a person in my eyes, so I’ll not assume that you’d turn away my good wishes.



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

 

[Gareth]

.
You can think what you like, of course. I’m pretty sure that you hope that all people will become a bit better (whatever that may mean) every day, and that’s all that my prayer for you and those like you actually means.

If you’d rather not have me hope the best for you, that’s fine, but that would diminish you as a person in my eyes, so I’ll not assume that you’d turn away my good wishes.

Finally I think you’re starting to see the truth actually. You’re a intelligent thinking person with a lot of learning but you’re not actually measuring the results ( or lack of them) of your belief.

Jesus says in the bible that prayers are answered, statistically we can measure this and know this is rubbish. Now you have corectly admitted that prayers are really no better than hopes. Well I agree.

You talk alot about God and god small ‘g’ big G etc. But the stories you believe in are just as uncredible as the stories of other religions which you disagree with. Islam, mormonism, hinduism, it’s all stories. Your God is a small g god as well, the only reason you don’t see this is becuase of your bias.

If God is as you say Omni… anything, then he would be unknowable to any human being and as such, can can only be a small g god within our understanding anyway.

I don’t say we can disprove a Creator (big c) but we can disprove your god (small g), it is you who confuse the two not agnostics or atheists. We think the existence of God is unproven, but the existence of your god is disproven I believe. You use the arguments for a first cause and then tack your small god onto them.

You seem like a reasonable person, no hard feelings or offence is meant in my posts, I’m just expressing my opinion.

Cheers
Gareth

 

[cpayne]

Jesus says in the bible that prayers are answered, statistically we can measure this and know this is rubbish. Now you have corectly admitted that prayers are really no better than hopes. Well I agree.

You talk alot about God and god small ‘g’ big G etc. But the stories you believe in are just as uncredible as the stories of other religions which you disagree with. Islam, mormonism, hinduism, it’s all stories. Your God is a small g god as well, the only reason you don’t see this is becuase of your bias.

If God is as you say Omni… anything, then he would be unknowable to any human being and as such, can can only be a small g god within our understanding anyway.

I don’t say we can disprove a Creator (big c) but we can disprove your god (small g), it is you who confuse the two not agnostics or atheists. We think the existence of God is unproven, but the existence of your god is disproven I believe. You use the arguments for a first cause and then tack your small god onto them.

Oh my. Well, to begin with, Gareth, thank you for your evident good will. I’m in Wales now for a while, and I’m just now figuring out that “Cheers!” doesn’t automatically mean, “Let’s have a drink!”

On the subject of prayer: The statistical evidence is (first of all) ambivalent. I know a study a few months ago discounting the effect of prayer was hugely played up in the media; how many of us heard about the study a few WEEKS ago that offered contrary evidence?

Besides, every day millions of Christians pray that they would be better people, become more conformed to the image of Christ, and so on. How is one to “statistically” measure the effects of these prayers? If these millions of prayers are answered affirmatively, wouldn’t that throw off the statistical evidence quite a bit?

Moslems and Mormons believe in the one Almighty God; the Hindu Brahman-Atman is a bit different. Why would I discount their belief in God, since I do, too? Or are you speaking of the specific stories of their scriptures?

Your Creator / God distinction (big G, little g) is exactly reversed, as Christians see it. God as the Creator is awesome, but a picture with few details. God as loving Father, Redeemer, guiding Presence, and so on—now THAT’S a “big” God. The revelation of God given in the Bible does not supplant the revelation of God as Creator, but does flesh it out quite a bit. (The pun is intended; you know, God becoming flesh and so on—well, never mind about that.)

On the point of God being “unknowable”—well, as Aquinas points out, God IS unknowable “as He is in Himself.” This is why, Aquinas argues, the Scriptures reveal God by way of analogy, for instance, God “stretching out His mighty arm” to help us.

But this is okay, isn’t it? After all, Gareth, you yourself are unknowable as you are in yourself. Unless you choose to reveal yourself to others, as God has done.

 

[MerryAtheist]

So, you understand that only in one area is faith more important than reason, and yet you say, at the end of your “reply” (see below) that “faith” (as Christianity) is still a superstition?

I should have been more clear. Pardon me.

What I meant by that was to say I understood that “believers” see things that way. I don’t.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Atheism is a “gnosticism” because it “knows” (positively) that there is no God.

No. Atheism in general is a statement of non-belief, not a statement of knowledge.

 

[Suat]

God, as an entity, can ONLY BE described as omnipotent, therefore He must be so, therefore I’m left with no other choice but to state that He is.

Your God is defined that way. Since the dawn of existence mankind has defined the supernatural creator in many ways, not always as an omnipotent being. There is no reason to assume that if the universe was created, then that being had to be omnipotent.

The proof you require is that reason be applied to this “puzzle” before you’ll have faith, but this “puzzle” is the singular case where you are prohibited from applying reason before having faith.

Therefore, there is no proof possible for you, due to your incapacity to accecpt the “ground rules” of this “puzzle”.

Ah, so you are saying that it is no reason to have faith in your God? Sorry, but it is not my unwillingness to accept your deity’s ground rules that is the problem here. There are many things that I could accept on faith, but why should I? Especially if there is no reason to do so before, and no reason to do so after?

You are right. The logic is perfectly circular. But it’s the same logic which states that “1” is “1” because “1” can only be “1” and not any other number, which is a valid, though circular, logic.

Comparing apples to oranges here. If I remember correctly, the Catholic church also teaches that 1 = 3. ‘1’ is simply a symbol that we use to define a certain concept. That concept and whether or not we can demonstrate that it exists is important, not the name by which we call it. The same goes for your God, if we cannot demonstrate that he is omnipotent, or even that he exists, then we have no logical basis for belief.

It’s not important that you have faith in God, the “omnipotent one”, Who is singularly worthy of having faith in. What I was saying above was that if “omnipotence” has any meaning for you, only the omnipotent is worthy of being called omnipotent, and that to do otherwise is just silly.

Since you have no concept of what omnipotent means, this is not a concern for you.

Last I checked, omnipotent meant ‘all-powerful’, no? If a being is indeed all-powerful, then that being has the right to be called all-powerful. However, if that being cannot be shown to exist, then why bother debating its omnipotence? It seems that you want to show that faith in your God is logical definition rather than actual logic.

Which tells me that you don’t like the idea of God. You can’t like the idea of God if you don’t “get” the idea of God (omnipotence). You can’t like what you are utterly clueless about.

I understand what omnipotence is, you have simply failed to show why it is necessary.

Incorrect. You actively dislike your conception of God, aka your “god” (small “g”), whom you mistake for God, and battle against as a “hazard”. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be here doing that very thing.

I am here for many reasons, few of which concern your or your God.

If you’d rather not have me hope the best for you, that’s fine, but that would diminish you as a person in my eyes, so I’ll not assume that you’d turn away my good wishes.

You can wish whatever you want, it concerns me not.

 

[freesoulhope]

No. Atheism in general is a statement of non-belief, not a statement of knowledge.

You don’t know that God does not exist, yet you believe that the universe’s entire existence, can be explained through naturalistic explainations. It hasn’t been proven that the cause of the “universe”, as a whole, is a naturalistic one; there for the statement “i am an athiest” is a statement of faith, not a statement of Science. You believe in what you cannot prove; that is faith. Saying that your an athiest, is not the same as saying that one is agnostic. As far as emprical evidence is concerend, we are all “agnostic” about the question of God, but we can have “faith” based on the “probabilities” of one of either side being true.

 

[MerryAtheist]

You don’t know that God does not exist, yet you believe that the universe’s entire existence, can be explained through naturalistic explainations. It hasn’t been proven that the cause of the “universe”, as a whole, is a naturalistic one; there for the statement “i am an athiest” is a statement of faith, not a statement of Science. You believe in what you cannot prove; that is faith. Saying that your an athiest, is not the same as saying that one is agnostic. As far as emprical evidence is concerend, we are all “agnostic” about the question of God, but we can have “faith” based on the “probabilities” of one of either side being true.

There is more to my being an atheist than simply my opinion that the universe was caused by non-supernatural means.

 

[freesoulhope]

There is more to my being an atheist than simply my opinion that the universe was caused by non-supernatural means.

No other reasons can amount to a “Justified Atheism”.

Lets say for instance that future science found out that some kind of God existed and was as necessary as an atom; it would not make any sense calling your self an atheist.
Everybody will automatically be Deist as much as we are human beings when this happens, because it will not be a matter of faith, but fact: At that point, saying that you don’t believe in God just because you don’t like his personality, will make little sense in philosophical circles. The new “athiesm” (For lack of a better word; basically rebellion agains’t a Personal Christian God) would be something like Deism vs Theism; that will be the last ground upon which an Agnostic-Deist will be able to stand.

On a reasonable level, you can be athiest for only one reason, and that is the “belief” that the existential-whole can be explained by natural causes, as opposed to the existence of a creator God. Any other reason, by itself, in my opinon, is not a Good reason to not believe in the existence of a God.

 

[freesoulhope]

The same goes for your God, if we cannot demonstrate that he exists, then we have no logical basis for belief.

The universe had a beginning; a natural-cause is canceled out completly because there was no time before the Bigbang in order for a natural cause to be actualised; according to the current BigBang theories, the universe began at zero, nothing. Therefore “If” there was a cause (Which i am rational to assume, since everything that “begins” to exist must have a “reason”, a cause to exist) We are forced to accept due to the evidence, that such a cause would have to be timeless, immaterial and with out quantity or space and would have to, logically, have a will, since there are no natural forces to guide that causation. That sounds alot like God to me.

 

[Suat]

The universe had a beginning; a natural-cause is canceled out completly because there was no time before the Bigbang in order for a natural cause to be actualised; according to the current BigBang theories, the universe began at zero, nothing. Therefore “If” there was a cause (Which i am rational to assume, since everything that “begins” to exist must have a “reason”, a cause to exist) We are forced to accept due to the evidence, that such a cause would have to be timeless, immaterial and with out quantity or space and would have to, logically, have a will, since there are no natural forces to guide that causation. That sounds alot like God to me.

The current theories also state that all potential outcomes, including the one we are living in now, have non-zero probabilities. Asking why we have the universe we have now is as pointless as asking why the alpha particle tunneled through the barrier after 4.200 seconds instead of 4.199 seconds.

 

[freesoulhope]

The current theories also state that all potential outcomes, including the one we are living in now, have non-zero probabilities…

So what?

Asking why we have the universe we have now is as pointless as asking why the alpha particle tunneled through the barrier after 4.200 seconds instead of 4.199 seconds.

Nothing, as in zero, actualises zero potentiality. Why we have the universe we have now, is irrelevent to the qeustion of “how” we have the universe. There cannot be a natural cause, because in order for there to be a “natural cause”, one needs “time” existing prior to the existences of the universe. You seem to over look that fact in your post. A probability needs an existents upon which all possibilities can be regognise. The universe had a beginning, and time began with it, therefore it is not logical to speak of the probability that a universe will be actualise un-less you posit a natural-cause that is existing apart and prior the existence of the universe. We should both both know thats not possible

For everything that begins to exist, there must be a reason, a cause. The universe demands that it is one that is not bound by time space or matter. Something wholly apart from nature; rather a Super-nature. I think thats clear to see when veiwing the scientific evidence.

Peace.

 

[MerryAtheist]

The universe had a beginning, and time began with it

This is the logical consequence of that statement: If there was no time before the universe, then there was no time at which the universe did not exist. Hence the universe has always existed.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

The question of time is much like the question of the tree falling in the wood.

If time passed and there was no one to perceive it, did any time pass at all?

 

[MerryAtheist]

The question of time is much like the question of the tree falling in the wood.

If time passed and there was no one to perceive it, did any time pass at all?

Thank you for that mysterious reply. I will now show my appreciation with the sound of one hand clapping…