Athiests: What do you do when....

[Moonstruck888]

Thank you very much for pointing that out. My position would attract no one without the why.

Love is possible, and we are able to practice it because we are created in the image of God. To experience love and in this way to cause the light of God to enter into the world—this is the invitation I would like to extend with the present Encyclical. Pope Benedict XVI

Our current Pope’s encyclical letter, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) has better equipped me to understand love’s origin, love’s mission, and love’s importance. A while back, I found myself beginning to wonder if maybe all the terrible things in this world outnumber all of the good. There is so much suffering. I knew this was a result of sin and I faltered in my faith for a time because I believed sin had won. Then, with some help from spiritual advisors, I was able to see with new eyes that unless you look for it, you will be blinded to all of the goodness that can come out of life. Sorry to go on rambling, but with a new outlook on life, I decided to define all things that had no real meaning to me before: Love, Mercy, Forgiveness…Truth.

Love is something like truth, forgiveness, and mercy that you have to believe in before it can work it’s magic in you. Have you ever wondered why all the things that are important are things we cannot ever see? Why we have feelings and not instincts like animals? It’s because we have a nature set apart from all other things on this planet. A loving nature. So, how did these feelings begin? A mother may give her child dark hair, and a father give that child blue eyes. But who gave that child the ability to think, to reason, to hope? Who ever heard of the love gene? Obviously, this all had to start somewhere. Not even the first human beings on earth could have given a loving nature to another. So, that opens up the idea that a loving being started it. One who first was love, and wanted to give love away. You can only give brown eyes to your kid if you have brown eyes yourself. But something that is not physical (the ability to love) cannot be given from one human being to another. It is already there.

A person who says love does not exist can use the argument, “I don’t believe in it because I do not see it.” Does that make love any less existent? What would you say to someone who does not believe in love just because they cannot see it?

Can you actually justify a single word of this? You link totally unrelated concepts together in a flowery eloquent package that is completely and utterly riddled with assumptions based on wild surmise.

A loving nature cannot be pased from one human to another.
How do you know this? How have you established this?

That opens the idea that a loving being did it.
An assumption based on a assumption. If I don’t know how something happens, there must be a divine being pulling the strings. Why must there be?

Assumption no. 3. Love is not physical.
How do you know?

We have feelings and not instincts?
We are almost completely governed by our instincts. Love, fear, anger, anxiety, greed, vanity, sex drive, … Our actions are guided by feelings, not by reason. We respond to stimuli through these instincts. Feelings are what drives instinct in animals, even intelligent animals with big egos.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

moonstruck

*How does love create the Universe? *

Not with a whimper; more like a bang! “Let there be light!”

*Why put God into the mix? *

Why take God out of the mix?

 

[Moonstruck888]

moonstruck

*How does love create the Universe? *

Not with a whimper; more like a bang! “Let there be light!”

I’ve heard and dismissed the rhetoric. It’s what you believe to be the method I’m interested in…

*Why put God into the mix? *

Why take God out of the mix?

I asked first.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I’m sorry but this doesn’t really explain the “why” part of it. All this does is call upon a person of authority to basically say the same thing you just said earlier in this thread but using different words and it doesn’t offer any additional information on “why” part of it.

You’re right. I’m not being fair at all. I’ve never been in your shoes–asking such questions or wondering about these things.

Can you actually justify a single word of this? You link totally unrelated concepts together in a flowery eloquent package that is completely and utterly riddled with assumptions based on wild surmise.

I’m sorry if I was a bit unclear but these kind of discussions are not usually right down to the point. I got to where I was through many different experiences, and so did you. We both have a pretty good idea of Truths in the world–one includes God and the other doesn’t.

That opens the idea that a loving being did it.
An assumption based on a assumption. If I don’t know how something happens, there must be a divine being pulling the strings. Why must there be?

Assumption no. 3. Love is not physical.
How do you know?

We have feelings and not instincts?
We are almost completely governed by our instincts. Love, fear, anger, anxiety, greed, vanity, sex drive, … Our actions are guided by feelings, not by reason. We respond to stimuli through these instincts. Feelings are what drives instinct in animals, even intelligent animals with big egos.

Are you not doing a lot of assuming yourself? I have said many times on these boards that the existence of God will not be found anywhere but your heart. That is not an assumption. Ask anyone with faith. So who is right: those with faith or those without it?
I guess I’m trying more to bring out the Truth of God rather than the Truth of love. I’m sorry for that being so hard to understand. I always try to pray to the Holy Spirit before hand to give me the right words

Pressed for time, currently. I promise to be back later!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Why put God into the mix? *

Because the universe and everything in it it, according to the materialistic and atheistic model, is meaningless. And that must include love. Everything ends with eternal death, including all species of life sooner or later. Even the universe stretches outward and onward into a meaningless black hole of nothingness … more eternal death.

Welcome to the atheist universe. Abandon all hope, ye who enter. No one is riding to your rescue, and at the end you are never even going to rescue yourself.

And the haters are as right as the lovers, because there is no authority on earth to say otherwise. And if the haters kill the lovers, that’s because they are better at the old “survival of the fittest” game.

Or as that eloquent atheist Jean Paul Sartre put it, “Hell is other people.”

Or as I would put it, “Hell is for the hopeless.”

 

[Zatzat]

I have said many times on these boards that the existence of God will not be found anywhere but your heart. That is not an assumption. Ask anyone with faith. !

For the better part of my life I looked for this God and yes, my heart and mind was open to the God of Abraham. However, after years of fruitless efforts, I am now quite certain that this God does not exist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*I am now quite certain that this God does not exist. *

Interesting qualification. Quite is not the same as absolutely certain. Why aren’t you absolutely certain?

Many have struggled with an open heart and mind, and have come to believe that there is a God. There isn’t any way to explain why the conclusion you draw is different from the conclusion they draw. I’ve often believed that hope is at the heart of belief. People who hope there is a God are more likely to find God, just as people who hope there is a cure for a certain disease are more likely to find it.

Hope is not just a state of mind. It is a virtue. Some practice it with all their heart. Others have no use for it. Hope is father to many realizations. We believe that hope is not a chimera. It is a desire planted in our hearts by God as a way to find Him. Without it, there is no finding Him. That is why over the gates of Hell the poet Dante imagined were engraved the words “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.” They have already abandoned hope in life, and will do so in death.

 

[AntiTheist]

A person who says love does not exist can use the argument, “I don’t believe in it because I do not see it.” Does that make love any less existent? What would you say to someone who does not believe in love just because they cannot see it?

I understand that you honestly think that your long post actually addresses the question “why do you believe this?” so I’ll try to be as nice as I can in saying that it doesn’t come anywhere close to addressing it.

I’ll ask my question again, this time giving a few more details: I recognize that love – a label that you’re putting on quite a few human emotions – exists. I also recognize that these emotions are chemical reactions in the brain that we have studied…yes, they feel very nice and special, but what they actually are are a bunch of chemical reactions in the brain.

You are making a claim about these emotions. You are claiming that the source of these emotions is a supernatural intelligence that (apparently) does not require a brain in order to think and feel and act.

For what reason do you believe this?

 

[AntiTheist]

*Why put God into the mix? *

Because the universe and everything in it it, according to the materialistic and atheistic model, is meaningless. And that must include love. Everything ends with eternal death, including all species of life sooner or later. Even the universe stretches outward and onward into a meaningless black hole of nothingness … more eternal death.

Bad answer #1: “Because it would make me sad if there were no god!” is not a valid response.

 

[AnAtheist]

*Why put God into the mix? *

Because the universe and everything in it it, according to the materialistic and atheistic model, is meaningless. And that must include love. Everything ends with eternal death, including all species of life sooner or later.

I will never understand this attitude. We do live, isn’t that meaning enough? And the shorter we live the more valueable life gets.
Supposing for a minute nothing ends, everything endures forever - what meaning does that have? Why should we be together or apart from “God” forever? What for?
Shifting the answer to the question of life’s meaning to the next world doesn’t really answer it.

 

[HelenaMT]

I will never understand this attitude. We do live, isn’t that meaning enough? And the shorter we live the more valueable life gets.
Supposing for a minute nothing ends, everything endures forever - what meaning does that have? Why should we be together or apart from “God” forever? What for?
Shifting the answer to the question of life’s meaning to the next world doesn’t really answer it.

Why must something be short and finite to have a meaning? Why does forever imply unchanging and meaningless to you ?

 

[AnAtheist]

Why must something be short and finite to have a meaning?

I didn’t say that it *must *have a meaning.
Generally a limited resource is more valueable than an unlimited one. The less we have of something the more valuable it is.

Why does forever imply unchanging and meaningless to you ?

I am just looking for the alleged added meaning to life if there was an afterlife. If the question for the meaning of life is a valid one, then the same question applies to an afterlife. Esp. if changes are possible there.

 

[HelenaMT]

I didn’t say that it *must *have a meaning.
Generally a limited resource is more valueable than an unlimited one. The less we have of something the more valuable it is.

I actually don’t know if life having “meaning” really means anything to me other than to have a life where you try to do things that have a purpose outside of simple self-gratification. Whether I live forever in some form or not, my definition of meaning would stay the same. And life on earth IS finite in the minds of theists, so they value those decades as much as any atheist.

I am just looking for the alleged added meaning to life if there was an afterlife. If the question for the meaning of life is a valid one, then the same question applies to an afterlife. Esp. if changes are possible there.

I guess the added meaning is the tangible connection you’d have to the past and the future, and the connections you’d retain to loved ones living and dead. That and knowing that your actions have far reaching repercussions that you might get to see (good and bad).

Personally, if there’s an afterlife, I would hope change is possible-if not, any eternity would either be a hell, or no better than non-existence. No point surviving death if you can’t think or learn.

 

[JRKH]

It’s an interesting idea, and I accept that your analysis and your reasoning are sound. There would be little point in trying to explain the Universe in God’s own terms when we obviously cannot create Universes as of yet nor fully comprehend the underlying structure behind this one, however, I would have to say that the bible is absolutely riddled with internal contradictions, because it is clearly not the work of one mind.

I can see where it can appear that way. But again we must remember that man was (and is) evolving andGod is working, teaching, and drawing us toward him through that evolution. So what might seem like contraditions to a single reader in a single time, might not actually be contradictory. Also, remember that God uses the minds of men to write what He inspires. That inspiration, filtered through the mind of multiple men, can account for certain inconsistancies.

The Bible is a compilation, if you will, of tomes written by many different authors at many different times for many different reasons. If the knowledge in the Bible had been vouchsafed them by a single mind, God’s mind, then the internal incosistencies, like cursed is he who withdraws his sword from blood vis a vis Thou shalt not kill would not be there.

A more proper translation of the 5th commandment is, “thou shalt not commit murder”. The Bible, just like modern Law, provides for instances where killing is justifiable. While I have not looked into the Jerimiah verse, it appears this was in connection with war. Even our modern, enlightened morals allow for killing in war. That said I do see what you mean. It would be much easier for you if these things were not in there.

Just as an aside, and placing “God” in more general terms. If we reject the bible as the true and unalterable word of God, does this negate God? or the possibility of God?
Or rather does it only nagate one description of God?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I accept that. I accept you faith. I don’t mock it, I salute you for it.

Moonstuck - This is why discussion with you is a pleasure.
I hope that I, and others here are treating you the same way.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I don’t see the grieving process as fundamentally different for believers vs. non-believers. People turn to others for support, work through their feelings, and come to terms with their loss, regardless of whether or not they believe in supernatural things.

I’ve heard it argued that some kinds of belief can be detrimental to the grieving process in that they can insulate you from reality. For example, if you strongly believe that people live forever after they die, then this belief might feed into a strong denial mechanism that will prevent you from fully confronting the fact that someone is dying – until it actually happens.

I’m not sure how common that is, but it makes sense, and I thought I’d throw it out there.

Can’t say I’ve ever heard that argument. I also cannot see how belief in “life after death” fails to prepare one for “death” which is the necessary passage to that life.
Perhaps there can be issues for those who place a large emphasis on faith healing through prayer etc. They will hold try to hold that faith and hope right up until the end, and when the person dies anyway, it can delay their coming to terms, and also shake their faith.
However, for the vast majority of people of faith, earthly death is expected, normal and, while we might grieve the personal “loss” of our loved ones company, should also be a time of joy for our loved ones passing on to be with God in Heaven which is our goal.

Peace
James

 

[jinminn]

I think you have used this statistic several times to bolster you view that intelligent philosophers and scientists do not believe in God. A strange argument coming from a Catholic. Nor do you offer to explain as a Catholic where you think the defect is in all that supposedly superior thinking.

• didn’t both correcting my forum identification status. Now fixed thanks to Ferde.
• I don’t think there are defects in it, necessarily
• I use this statistic because philosophy is the traditional means used to offer arguments for god’s existence and a lot of those arguments rest on some statement by science
  — the statistics are interesting because they show that the very individuals familiar with the typical methods to argue for god are, themselves, not satisfied with those arguments

So I think the intelligent answer to give you is that philosophers and scientists have been seduced by their presumptuous brains into thinking there cannot possibly be a bigger brain than their own.

Yes. That’s the obvious answer. Actually, I have a better one: the devil.

I believe that 90% of the 90% and 70% of the 70% will, in their very last hours, be cringing and begging for the mercies of the
Almighty.

Perhaps, though I’d not believe without documentation. I would hardly call this a rational decision, however.

 

[jinminn]

I will never understand this attitude. We do live, isn’t that meaning enough? And the shorter we live the more valueable life gets.

There are a lot of questions/assumptions in this discussion:

• universe created without god = meaningless
• finite life in which we go ‘bye bye’ = meaningless
• theistic meaningless means we should all kill ourselves
• being here by chance would mean that nothing I feel matters

A lot of that garbled stuff. I stumbled upon THIS last night and watched it with my wife. It’s a presentation by Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist, and is absolutely fascinating. He does an incredible job summarizing the theory of general relativity along with quantum physics and where we are with our understanding of the universe, it’s origins, and what that means for us.

A few encouragements:

• Theists: it’s from the Atheist Alliance International conference in 2009. Please listen anyway. It’s a presentation from a bona fide scientist. What he presents is worth knowing even if you have to put up with some comments you won’t like. They are few and far between.
• Everyone: note his interest, excitement, passion, etc. Compare that to his conclusion about our place in the universe and what we mean.
• Take note of his explanation for the origins of the universe.

Enjoy!

 

[jinminn]

Jesus had great regard for authority, even the teaching authority of the sinful pharasees. (See Mt 23:2-3). Jesus mission in his ministry was to bring the “Law” from the realm of “Written word” related to “actions” into the realm of “interior word” (written on the heart) and related, not just to actions but to thoughts and intent as well.

Fair enough, but:

• Jesus was living amidst a physical community and did show regard for that community as he lived in it (paying taxes, for example)
• Jesus also prevented stoning of a prostitute, associated with the woman at the well, etc., showing that he also had no problem changing people’s minds about customs and laws.
• Yahweh was no in a physical community and provided the laws himself… laws which were only competing, at that time, with pagan practices. He had no authority to regard and nothing needing gentle correction. He could have easily made it clear that animal sacrifices were, in fact, not pleasing and let them cut it out rather than continue communicating with them in that manner (even to the point of feigning a child sacrifice with Isaac). What ‘authority’ was god respecting by continuing slaughtering unbelievers and perpetuating the cult practice of burning animals?

He was allowing us to mature. A parent explains a behavior one way ot a 3 year old (because I said so that’s why) and a different way to a 13 year old and still a different way to a 23 year old.

Perhaps, though it seems more like he treated us like 5 year olds and then suddenly brought out the PhD material with Jesus. I don’t see the progression, apparently, that you see. I see a continuation of practices that were pretty much the same for thousands of years with littler ‘gearing up’, and then I see Jesus who did away with almost all of it.

I’ll grant that to a certain point, you’ve got me here. I don’t understand much of this either when it comes to some of the killing between nations.

Indeed – here we reach an impasse. I look with reason and note that we would never accept a present-day individual’s testimony that he killed in the name of god. We accept that testimony of individuals back then. You’re defense is essentially circular: I believe god is all good and can do no wrong → he instructed the Israelites to kill nonbelievers for the sake of unbelief or for land → this was not wrong → why? → because I believe god is all good and can do no wrong.

I simply start with no assumptions and then compare these statements:

• Premise: god is all good, loving, and the source of perfect morality
• History: god commanded Israel to kill men, women, children, and animals of unbelieving tribes

The premise doesn’t match with recorded observation (and there’s a lot of those types of observations), so the premise must be false.

I say it shows that either god was severely misunderstood and made up; you say that you don’t understand everything. I would submit to you that you are disregarding the reasoning skills you readily apply in all other areas. You are forced to keep this area in a little compartment or else it will fall apart. When I embarked on my journey, I did not withhold my reason as I figured if god was the source of it all, he could not be shaken apart by me simply asking for answers.

What is more important, to me anyway, is what we know through God’s own Son. From His mouth we have the great teachings of Love, and Inclusiveness, and Forbearance, etc.

You are correct - the NT is quite a bit more palatable… but it does not excuse the OT. If the Father acted in ways incompatible with our notion of god, the trinity fails. It’s that simple. The Church may have done better by abandoning the OT, but it did not. Thus it is subject to criticism.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstuck - This is why discussion with you is a pleasure.
I hope that I, and others here are treating you the same way.

Peace
James

Yes, I’ve been made to feel more welcome here than I’d imagined I would…

Thank You…