Atheists:

[AirLiner]

In response to both Warrior Angel and AirLiner, these types of debates really are nearly impossible to win–meaning, it’s impossible to convince the other. Usually, the believer does win… but only by default. Nonbelievers (if I may generalize) are well-aware of who they’re dealing with when they bring up religious topics. I’ve seen a lot of videos on YouTube of a news anchor (Sorry, I forgot the dude’s name) vs. Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or some other Atheist, and I’ve always noticed that the anchorman/woman (i.e. the believer) never lets the opposer talk.

And here’s where the difficulties lie half the time, the believer just doesn’t get it. :nope: I mean, I don’t really blame you, of course, but you really have to see the nonbelievers side to understand what we’re trying to say, which actually brings us back to the OP’s question: Why are Atheists or Agnostics here?

Did you notice the Catholic members’ attempt? They assumed their own opinions about nonbelievers and simply answered incorrectly, which is probably why we’re getting into this mess. The point is: Your own assumptions and beliefs (as well as my own, of course) taint the argument… as bad as that sounds. :ehh:

WarriorAngel, you assume God is a constant, which makes it impossible for you to see my arguments.

AirLiner, your trust in Catholic opinions and teachings of homosexuality fail to help you understand why nobody even wins these debates… unless it’s by default.

That’s probably this thread isn’t going to settled until a moderator decides to shut it down. We stand by our own opinions, even after the battle is lost. I know I will and I know you will; we’re all just that stubborn. :yup:

When using your definition of debate there really are nearly impossible to win. However as I said there can be truth in debates and that’s why they are worth having. Oh, and don’t watch videos where news anchors talk with atheists. I’ve watched them, they don’t offer very good arguments for Theism. Instead go watch some William Lane Craig debates.

The believer just doesn’t get it? While a lot of them don’t don’t assume that’s the same for all of them, that’s just dishonest stereotyping. I am on this board because I’ve seen dozens of atheist arguments in writing, in videos, on recordings. I’ve already had other online discussions with atheists and haven’t been impressed. I’ve seen how they think, evaluated it to be unsound and am here to present my position.

Your third paragraph was not worded in the best way possible, but I think what you’re trying to say is that the Catholics on here did not understand what you were trying to say and unintentionally set up a strawman. Well I beg to differ, mine and others’ arguments were well worded and made sense from what I see.

However it is you who has avoided arguments and have (only twice) had poor wording.

Now your fifth line made me seem like I’m a blind devotee following anything the Catholic Church teaches. Please make the distinctions between all those false fideistic religions and Catholicism. As I stated, Catholic teachings derive from natural law. We don’t just make things up, they have to conform to reason. Did you not see my signature? Freud, through reason and logic was able to come to the same conclusion towards human sexuality as the Catholic Church.

Now, I’m going to ask politely. Will you please stop changing the subject and answer my previous question on the nihilistic nature of atheism?

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

When using your definition of debate there really are nearly impossible to win. However as I said there can be truth in debates and that’s why they are worth having. Oh, and don’t watch videos where news anchors talk with atheists. I’ve watched them, they don’t offer very good arguments for Theism. Instead go watch some William Lane Craig debates.

The believer just doesn’t get it? While a lot of them don’t don’t assume that’s the same for all of them, that’s just dishonest stereotyping. I am on this board because I’ve seen dozens of atheist arguments in writing, in videos, on recordings. I’ve already had other online discussions with atheists and haven’t been impressed. I’ve seen how they think, evaluated it to be unsound and am here to present my position.

Your third paragraph was not worded in the best way possible, but I think what you’re trying to say is that the Catholics on here did not understand what you were trying to say and unintentionally set up a strawman. Well I beg to differ, mine and others’ arguments were well worded and made sense from what I see.

However it is you who has avoided arguments and have (only twice) had poor wording.

Now your fifth line made me seem like I’m a blind devotee following anything the Catholic Church teaches. Please make the distinctions between all those false fideistic religions and Catholicism. As I stated, Catholic teachings derive from natural law. We don’t just make things up, they have to conform to reason. Did you not see my signature? Freud, through reason and logic was able to come to the same conclusion towards human sexuality as the Catholic Church.

Now, I’m going to ask politely. Will you please stop changing the subject and answer my previous question on the nihilistic nature of atheism?

:ehh: Is that all you wanted? Well, alright. Atheism is the disbelief in a God; Nihilism is the belief that values are not only nonexistent, but invented. Nihilists just believe that our lives are without meaning or purpose.

Now, just because Atheists don’t believe in a God, it doesn’t mean that life is completely worthless. I’m not an Atheist, so it would be difficult for me to explain it in an Atheist viewpoint. All I can say: People in general have different views on he meaning(s) of life. Personally, I know for a fact, there are Atheists who value life, or else they wouldn’t have made it to their 60s and 70s.

As for the underlined sentence: Uh, yeah, that totally can’t happen, and it won’t. When you’re in my position you just see through things like that. It’s not pretty, but what can you do? It took me a very long time to realize that they really are about the same in a general picture, and the day I said, “I’ve seen enough,” was the day I understood the striking similarities between religions. Not that that’s bad; it’s a wonderful painting you just can’t tear your eyes from. But, I don’t expect you to know that because I am aware that you view your faith as very special and absolute truth. :yup:

 

[Veritas248]

(Romanticism is awesome. Wordsworth and Blake were the best! )

I get my general beliefs from my observances on human behavior. I think I’ve said that a fair few times.

(I hate romanticism)
You should probably broaden your observances.

As to your continued insistence on religions as a “work of art”, it is quite laughable. Religions is far closer to science than art.
Objective Truth remember?

In any case, I can see that no matter how much logic and reason we provide, you won’t listen. Its almost like you don’t care about logic and reason. Fine by me. but know this: you can’t hide from the light forever.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

(I hate romanticism)
You should probably broaden your observances.

As to your continued insistence on religions as a “work of art”, it is quite laughable. Religions is far closer to science than art.
Objective Truth remember?

In any case, I can see that no matter how much logic and reason we provide, you won’t listen. Its almost like you don’t care about logic and reason. Fine by me. but know this: you can’t hide from the light forever.

I was about to say the same thing to you. But, now that I think about it, I don’t think I have to. I know this’ll be a shock–and possibly offensive-- for you to read, but I can’t picture you as a believer. It’s… strange that I feel that way about you. Ah well, I may be wrong. When I was Catholic, I thought I’d be Catholic for life; my goodness, was I wrong.

 

[Veritas248]

I was about to say the same thing to you. But, now that I think about it, I don’t think I have to. I know this’ll be a shock–and possibly offensive-- for you to read, but I can’t picture you as a believer. It’s… strange that I feel that way about you. Ah well, I may be wrong. When I was Catholic, I thought I’d be Catholic for life; my goodness, was I wrong.

See what happens when you stereotype? We Catholics aren’t all the same. As for me, I’d rather be dead than non Catholic. I love the Truth far too much.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

See what happens when you stereotype? We Catholics aren’t all the same. As for me, I’d rather be dead than non Catholic. I love the Truth far too much.

Whoa! Flashback! I remember saying that too. :ehh: [creepy]

Oh, and this isn’t stereotyping… :nope: as much as you’d like that. It’s more like a gut feeling… or a prediction if you want to call it. Thankfully, predictions are fifty-fifty. Just remember:

*“The best-laid schemes of mice and men/Often go awry.” *

 

[Veritas248]

Whoa! Flashback! I remember saying that too. :ehh: [creepy]

Oh, and this isn’t stereotyping… :nope: as much as you’d like that. It’s more like a gut feeling… or a prediction if you want to call it. Thankfully, predictions are fifty-fifty. Just remember:

*“The best-laid schemes of mice and men/Often go awry.” *

LOL

What I meant by stereotyping was that you have a specific idea about what Catholics are. Well obviously I don’t fit into that idea of yours.
Predict away. It won’t change anything.

 

[AirLiner]

Now, just because Atheists don’t believe in a God, it doesn’t mean that life is completely worthless. I’m not an Atheist, so it would be difficult for me to explain it in an Atheist viewpoint. All I can say: People in general have different views on he meaning(s) of life. Personally, I know for a fact, there are Atheists who value life, or else they wouldn’t have made it to their 60s and 70s.

As for the underlined sentence: Uh, yeah, that totally can’t happen, and it won’t. When you’re in my position you just see through things like that. It’s not pretty, but what can you do? It took me a very long time to realize that they really are about the same in a general picture, and the day I said, “I’ve seen enough,” was the day I understood the striking similarities between religions. Not that that’s bad; it’s a wonderful painting you just can’t tear your eyes from. But, I don’t expect you to know that because I am aware that you view your faith as very special and absolute truth. :yup:

Well I definitely got transparent nonsense.

Logically, if God exists then there is no meaning to life. I stated how scientists believe that values, free will, morals, etc are all illusions and also explained why, yet you defy that reasoning?

Now I also know that atheists aren’t all libertines. I repeatedly stated that. However I used that as evidence to show that atheists are being illogical by behaving morally, because there are no morals in the materialist universe that is believed in by the atheists.

My question wasn’t “doesn’t atheism lead to nihilism?”
It was “does that mean you’re willing to agree that atheism is inherently nihilistic and any atheist who behaves morally, while doing the right thing, is being illogical by their own reasoning?”

I wasn’t asking whether atheists are nihilists I know that’s false. Instead I was asking about whether morals in an atheist world are illogical due to the fact that they are all illusions in the atheist materialist worldview. The fact that you can’t tell the difference between those two questions reflects poorly on you.

As to your second paragraph. All I can say is that you didn’t know your own religion very well. If I ask you what Thomism is, without looking it up can you tell me? Have you ever read any Thomist works? Do you know what Natural Law is?

The point is that you have made the absurd error that the Catholic Church is like all other religions. Let’s take Protestantism for example. Now there’s not too much logical basis for their beliefs. They merely cite Bible passages, and tell you that’s what you’re supposed to do. They don’t rely on philosophy, they rely on personal interpretation. Protestantism is also filled with much hypocrisy. They’ve changed their doctrines. For example, Protestants changed their stance on birth control in 1930. That’s terribly illogical. By changing a doctrine they’re blatantly admitting, that they were a false religion in the past, why should I think they aren’t false now? Now the Catholic Church has never changed a single doctrine. Cite one example, I’m sure you think there are plenty of things we’ve changed, but I’ve seen quite alot, and all of those claims are nonsense. Go on give me something that you think the Church has changed. Anyways, this aspect makes the Church very distinct amongst the world’s religions.

I also noted how Catholic teachings rely heavily on logic and reason. I asked you to cite one example of a Catholic teaching that didn’t conform to reason. You cited homosexuality and I refuted it. There is no Catholic teaching that isn’t backed up by reason. The fact that you thought there was also shows how you didn’t now the Catholic faith very well. I’ve seen it again and again. Having, blatantly false idea of what Catholicism really is, is a major reason for people abandoning their faith.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

LOL

What I meant by stereotyping was that you have a specific idea about what Catholics are. Well obviously I don’t fit into that idea of yours.
Predict away. It won’t change anything.

Oh no, I don’t see you as the “general Catholic” because I wouldn’t know who the general Catholic would be. It’s not about what Catholics are, it’s about who they are. :yup:

Within the Catholic community (or any community for that matter), you see people for who they are. When religious differences are violently thrown out the window, you see the true person.

I was once Catholic and I have no hesitation in saying I was different. And that’s where it starts… However, I’m really not trying to change you or anything because that’s not my style. You just seem… different–in a good way, of course.

To AirLiner:

I think you just proved my point about winning only by default because I officially feel as if my response to it would be a waste of my time. :ehh: What I gave you was not nonsense, I assure you.

Your faith is just a constant in your mind… not that that’s bad… It doesn’t allow you to see my side. People have different views and beliefs, and there’s little to nothing you can do about it. You have your constants and I accept that because it seems to make you happy. I have mine, but I can warp them in a way that I am able to see your viewpoints… well, I was once a Catholic, so it’s a no-brainer.

As far as nihilist ties with atheism goes: You would definitely see nihilism in some Atheists, but it’s not a constant… Without a god, there can still be a purpose in life.

That’s my final word.

Ironically Yours.

 

[Veritas248]

Fine.

As to Atheism and Nihilism, I have to agree with Airliner. The logical consequence of Atheism is Nihilism. Individual Atheists can chase Superfluous meanings all they want. It won’t affect the logic.

That is it from me until Monday.
Have a Happy Easter!!!

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Fine.

As to Atheism and Nihilism, I have to agree with Airliner. The logical consequence of Atheism is Nihilism. Individual Atheists can chase Superfluous meanings all they want. It won’t affect the logic.

That is it from me until Monday.
Have a Happy Easter!!!

I’m done with that conversation. The answer is in some previous post of mine, and I stand by it.

Happy Easter!

 

[AirLiner]

Saying I have my beliefs you have yours doesn’t really get the conversation anywhere. Where are the rebuttals? Answers were not to be found in Blade and Blood’s previous posts, she ignored most of my points, and then ditched the conversation. This is a tactic that I’d expect to see people like pagan fideists use, but an agnostic? I guess after watching so many atheist videos on youtube and debating some on another board, I just expected more. You know like lots of arguments that are cleverly filled with sophistry intertwined with science. Oh well.

Anyways, yes Happy Easter everyone.

 

[WarriorAngel]

In response to both Warrior Angel and AirLiner, these types of debates really are nearly impossible to win–meaning, it’s impossible to convince the other. Usually, the believer does win… but only by default. Nonbelievers (if I may generalize) are well-aware of who they’re dealing with when they bring up religious topics. I’ve seen a lot of videos on YouTube of a news anchor (Sorry, I forgot the dude’s name) vs. Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or some other Atheist, and I’ve always noticed that the anchorman/woman (i.e. the believer) never lets the opposer talk.

And here’s where the difficulties lie half the time, the believer just doesn’t get it. :nope: I mean, I don’t really blame you, of course, but you really have to see the nonbelievers side to understand what we’re trying to say, which actually brings us back to the OP’s question: Why are Atheists or Agnostics here?

Did you notice the Catholic members’ attempt? They assumed their own opinions about nonbelievers and simply answered incorrectly, which is probably why we’re getting into this mess. The point is: Your own assumptions and beliefs (as well as my own, of course) taint the argument… as bad as that sounds. :ehh:

WarriorAngel, you assume God is a constant, which makes it impossible for you to see my arguments.

Even if we are unfaithful - He is still faithful and cannot deny Himself.

Regardless of the dark nights of the soul - God is still there.
Your test might include not seeing Him anymore [given wisdom via grace]
But that doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist.

Certainly - and honestly - you can feel the difference.

I don’t need to add anything of my opinion - you dont know my life.
I have had dark nights of the soul - but notwithstanding the ‘ideas’ that come to my mind - i already have been thru quite enough to show me that He is real.

I lived a full life with Him a huge part of it.
He carries me thru thru dark nights by reminding me what He has already shown me. And I accept Him - and thus cooperating the doubts become like feeble nonsenses.

AirLiner, your trust in Catholic opinions and teachings of homosexuality fail to help you understand why nobody even wins these debates… unless it’s by default.

That’s probably this thread isn’t going to settled until a moderator decides to shut it down. We stand by our own opinions, even after the battle is lost. I know I will and I know you will; we’re all just that stubborn. :yup:

Exactly - you stand by your opinion. And humans are faulted.
So how much do you trust yourself?
Enough to wager life on it?

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

So how much do you trust yourself?
Enough to wager life on it?

Bring it on.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Bring it on.

[SIGN]I have nothing to do with it.[/SIGN]

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

[SIGN]I have nothing to do with it.[/SIGN]

Of course you don’t. Why would you? :ehh:

 

[Richard_James]

I know there are at least a few atheists who post here and also on other Christian forums. I’m wondering why. As an atheist, why do you care that people believe in God? I would think that you couldn’t care less if there are believers, yet you try to convince people to stop believing.

The question will inevitably be turned around and you will ask why Christians try to convince you that there is a God. Obviously, we believe in an afterlife and would like to save souls. If we are wrong, at least it is done out of love and no harm will become you. But, you try to convince us that there is no salvation, no soul and if you are wrong, eternal hell awaits. So, you’re not trying to convince us out of love or compassion or anything good that I can think of.

Thanks for the responses.

You must remember misery loves company. That is why in John` s Gospel it says, “Those who do not believe have already been condemned.” Most atheist however, are atheist not because they are in opposition to Christianty and its teachings. Most of them make up the “facts of Christianity”. More so because they are tired of Protestan extremist. The successors of the Puritan religion. Those who constantly poorly evangelize through fear. Which never works. So I somewhat sympathize with atheist. However, I do not believe their methods are right.

 

[Oneheartway]

I once considered myself an athiest and later an agnostic. During this time, I continued to search various religions (many protestant ones) under the guise of study. It was not until recently while reading the first section of the catechism that why I searched was revealed. It was simple…

CHAPTER ONE
MAN’S CAPACITY FOR GOD

I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

In spite of my declaration of atheism or agnosticism, God continued to draw me to him. For me this resulted in first my finding god, then to find myself amongst likeminded men (in my case, Freemasons), then to approaching my local priest and now starting my journey to join the catholic church.

All this time, I sought something, but could not identify it. I debated religion with religious men, argued against the existence of god, but all that time I was communicating with these individuals, and they with me. I learned from them, turned to God and have not looked back.

So don’t ever stop bringing God to the godless, for these are men seeking something - they just don’t know what that something is.

 

[pyreshadow]

What if the Catholic view of god is all wrong and god really turns out to be the god of the Seventh Day Adventists? Convincing me to become Catholic will also doom me.

and so that’s why the catholic church is based on faith, not knowledge. i based this statement by the words of two catholic priests i’ve talk’n to that dont know each other.

personally i feel that for those who saw/felt or remember (as in been born before and remembers the afterlife word) that god/s are real, KNOWS that no one can convinces someone who doesnt believe in god/s because that person will have to experience it themselves. i know god and other gods and goddess are real. but i would never force that info into an atheist such as yourself. the way i see it, if you have not received by a god of proof they are real of some sort, you have the right to not believe in them. no human can prove a god is real to you in anyway, such as in this forum. most people do not get that chance of proof and again thats why there is a thing called faith.

 

[North_of_Nod]

I posted this elsewhere, but I think it might also be applicable here. This is my abbreviated case for the existence of God:

The coming of Jesus was prophesied/foreshadowed LONG before he appeared on earth. He fulfilled the Old Testament perfectly, right down the piercing of his side on the cross. Jesus’ crucifixion occurred during the precise time it was predicted (it was foretold long before the Old Testament was even completed). No blind guess could have predicted something that accurately. During Jesus’ lifetime, He foresaw MANY events (such as the destruction of the temple) that happened exactly as described. From a scientific perspective, it is common knowledge that the universe had a beginning, so whatever (Whoever) created it could not have been subject to time or space. The laws of physics did not exist before the beginning of the universe, nor did anything physical. As God told Moses, “I AM,” meaning He is the infinite Creator of a finite universe. The sun, moon, and stars were positioned perfectly, and the earth was formed from a formless mass, as Genesis describes. There were no astronomers at the time of Genesis’ recording to have creatively hypothesized any other way. Also, the probability that any kind of life could have formed by chance is so minute, that the possibility is hardly worth considering. Please consider this information:

Simply assembling the components to create the simplest kind of a cell would have about 1 chance in 10^112,827 chance of randomly happening. Any mathematician would agree that these odds are virtually zero. The reason for this improbability is that many things are necessary for the key components of DNA and protein chains to work properly. First, molecular orientation must be perfect for both. Second, only life-specific amino acids must be used. Third, the amino acids must be put in the proper place. Fourth, the correct material must be put in the right place for the DNA molecule. Fifth, the sequencing of genes must be correct for the DNA molecule to function. ALL of these requirements MUST be fulfilled. Further complicating the problem of proper assembly of the components of the first cell of life is the fact that time is limited. Even taking the largest scientific estimate of the age of the universe – fifteen-sixteen billion years, there is not nearly enough time for such an improbable event to even happen. Finally, even if everything miraculously came together, life would still need to be added to non-living matter. We have never seen this happen, nor do we know how to make it happen. The only alternative to the random “evolution” of the first living cell is special creation by a supernatural Source. (source: 101 Reasons You Can Believe by Ralph O. Muncaster, former atheist.)

If that is what it would take to form the simplest, single cell, there is no way that intelligent beings complete with a conscience could have formed by chance. Creatures do not evolve features for which they have no use. Personality, for example, is not vital to survival. The Lord created Man in His Image, giving him a personality and general likeness to Himself. Chemicals/chance do not yield personality; only personality begets personality. Additionally, the Bible, unlike the writings of false religions, does not contradict itself on any significant points during its span of thousands of years. Any claim to such fault is almost always the result of gross misinterpretation on the part of the individual. One might say that Judaism raises the questions and Christianity provides the answers.

There is definitely ample proof of God’s existence. If He provided anything more obvious, He’d be taking away our free will. God is all powerful, but He desires that we love Him by choice – not by force. After all, isn’t that the essence of real love? In short, it is a lot easier to prove God’s existence than to disprove it.

I hope this helps! I apologize for the length of my post.