Athiests: What do you do when....

[Moonstruck888]

As a matter of fact it does not.By chance I have seen many atheists argue against the Big bang because they believe it is a religious conspiracy…

Then they have not understood the theory.

if there is a ‘creation’ there must be a creator, the word itself implies it.

Creation is simply a label, in my opinion a very silly one, for the Universe.

The big bang seem to point that indeed there IS a beginning of time, space and matter/energy. We do not know what was before that (perhaps we never will, some scientists argue).

Correct.

Does this prove immediately that there is a God? Perhaps not. But it is logical to think of a non-created source for existence itself.

No. The only tautology that can be drawn from that is that we don’t know.

You cannot falsify reality itself either, because to do so you’d have to go outside reality.

Reality is a subjective interpretation. It is not an observable fact nor an objective truth.

If by chance we would live in some fantasy world like ‘The Matrix’ science could not prove it. Science could indeed only aaply within this ‘fantasy world’ or ‘Matrix’ but could not prove that this world is a fake world and not realy.

That is one of the reasons I give no credence to solipsism.

Many eastern philosphers and also some western ones have argued that physical reality is merely an illusion.

They should find a job or a girlfriend or both. They clearly have far too much time on their hands. joking

Still you take for granted that what you perceive is real?How do you know you are not just a ‘brain in a vat’ and all that you perceive is some artificial construct? How do you really know and test for it? You cannot.

Like I said, reality is subjective. My perception of reality is not the same as yours. No two people’s are. That is because what is “real” is not an objectifiable fact.

So in answer to your question, no, I do not take for granted that what I perceive is “real” whatever that might mean.

Hence the argument ‘non falsifiable = not real’ is wrong, unless you admit reality itself is not real.

Yes, I admit that reality itself is not real. It has been soundly falsified even before modern science was invented.

If a tree falls in a forest, a compression wave still propagates in the time domain, but the sound is an interpretation created by someone or something’s ears and brain.

 

[Moonstruck888]

moonstruck

*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. *

Much of what you say is true. However, internal inconsistencies, or even contradictions, can be overcome by faith not only in the inspiration of God, but also by faith in our inability to understand that maybe some of these inconsistencies are only apparent because we do not know the context in which they were written.

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

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moonstruck
*
If a tree falls in a forest, a compression wave still propagates in the time domain, but the sound is an interpretation created by someone or something’s ears and brain. *

Um, is that objectively or subjectively true?

 

[AntiTheist]

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.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck
*
If a tree falls in a forest, a compression wave still propagates in the time domain, but the sound is an interpretation created by someone or something’s ears and brain. *

Um, is that objectively or subjectively true?

Six and half a dozen…

 

[Karmartia]

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.

What you say does make some sense if you accept the stages model of the grief-cycle, a popular but not scientifically verifiable description. I would argue that how we deal with grief is much more complicated and individually varied than any universal model could describe. How common it is that faith locks the grieving person into the so-called denial phase after a death or tragedy would be very difficult to determine. I can’t imagine how it could at all be demonstrated to feed a denial mechanism previous to the persons death. I would think that faith in an after-life would be just as likely to make the anticipation of physical death more acceptable to both the dying and the grieving, skipping over denial completely.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jinminn

The NAS, as I stated was about 90% atheist/agnostic and a recent study of philosophers were found to be about 70% atheistic.

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.

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.

Moreover, since neither you nor I can be present at the deathbeds of these 90% and 70 %, I have as much right as you to speculate that these statistics will not hold on those occasions. 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. :bowdown:

 

[AntiTheist]

I would argue that how we deal with grief is much more complicated and individually varied than any universal model could describe.

No doubt this is true – but I’m saying that in general, the grieving process itself has some similar features, and it’s not fundamentally different for a believer versus a non-believer.

How common it is that faith locks the grieving person into the so-called denial phase after a death or tragedy would be very difficult to determine. I can’t imagine how it could at all be demonstrated to feed a denial mechanism previous to the persons death. I would think that faith in an after-life would be just as likely to make the anticipation of physical death more acceptable to both the dying and the grieving, skipping over denial completely.

Well, I was thinking of examples I’ve heard whereby a person was essentially able to ignore the reality that a loved one was dying, either by thinking, “Well, even if he dies, he’ll really live forever!” or thinking, “God will heal him,” or some other fantasy.

In these examples, the grieving person – by basically avoiding coming to grips with the reality of the situation before the loved one’s death – makes the actual process of grieving twice as bad in the long run, since when the loved one actually dies, the grieving person can be overwhelmed by being forced to face the reality of a situation that he or she had been denying for some time.

I wasn’t thinking of a specific model of grief – merely of potential problems that can be posed by various supernatural belief. And that is not to say that a supernatural belief cannot be a useful crutch – I’m simply saying that it’s not always a useful crutch at all.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

‘What we godless folk know is that the universe is a heartless place, almost entirely inimical to our existence, and that there is no guiding father figure with our best interests in mind who is shaping our destiny. There is no god. There is no absolute good. We’re free to struggle to make a better world for ourselves, with no illusion of an all-powerful superman to help us out.’

P.Z. Myers

What a sad, sad thing to believe.
:nope:

For me, I rely on my own personal strength. This is my only life, so I need to do what it takes to move through the difficult times and make a name and a life for myself that I can enjoy, especially now that i’m trying to build a family.

It’s very interesting. Atheists constantly talk about family and friends, and love, and their own strength as their source of happiness in this life. Did you not know that God is at the heart of all those things? Yes, tell an atheists that God is love and love is God, I pray they will not cease to love. You praise God when you mean to curse Him.

Love is the source of all good in your life, my friend. God is love.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What a sad, sad thing to believe.
:nope:
It’s very interesting. Atheists constantly talk about family and friends, and love, and their own strength as their source of happiness in this life. Did you not know that God is at the heart of all those things? Yes, tell an atheists that God is love and love is God, I pray they will not cease to love. You praise God when you mean to curse Him.

Love is the source of all good in your life, my friend. God is love.

So, if I can explain love in a context that doesn’t involve God, will you become an atheist?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

So, if I can explain love in a context that doesn’t involve God, will you become an atheist?

I would love to hear your definition, and I cannot make any promises.

 

[Shredderbeam]

It’s very interesting. Atheists constantly talk about family and friends, and love, and their own strength as their source of happiness in this life. Did you not know that God is at the heart of all those things? Yes, tell an atheists that God is love and love is God, I pray they will not cease to love. You praise God when you mean to curse Him.

Love is the source of all good in your life, my friend. God is love.

You’re using the equivocation fallacy here (fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html). When atheists speak of love, we speak of the intense emotion. If a God exists, he may be loving, but he is not the same thing as the emotion that we feel.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I would love to hear your definition, and I cannot make any promises.

Oh, I don’t know much about the neural basis of love, but I don’t see much evidence of it being supernatural…

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that humans tend to fall in love with other humans, usually of the opposite sex, nor that humans tend to love their own offspring. It seems pretty obvious to me that love is goal seeking motivational behaviour.

How does love create the Universe?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

First off, I forgot to say thank you both for coming to Catholic Answers. I’m very happy to be answering your questions as well as asking some of my own. Let’s help each other, shall we?

You’re using the equivocation fallacy here (fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html). When atheists speak of love, we speak of the intense emotion. If a God exists, he may be loving, but he is not the same thing as the emotion that we feel.

Let me try to broaden things. I’m talking about the love that is not just between a man and woman, but love as a feeling for a good friend, a perfect day, or gratitude in being alive. These things come from love. Without love, our lives mean nothing. As a Catholic Christian, I believe that this same love comes from a God who made us to love us.
Have you ever read 1Corinthians 13:4-8:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

This very same definition of love is what motivates us to do well in life. To feel accomplished, full, and content. My argument to you is God is the one who gave us this very same love, and defines it.

So to say our lives mean nothing without love at the center, it is also true to say that our lives mean nothing without God at the center.

Oh, I don’t know much about the neural basis of love, but I don’t see much evidence of it being supernatural…

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that humans tend to fall in love with other humans, usually of the opposite sex, nor that humans tend to love their own offspring. It seems pretty obvious to me that love is goal seeking motivational behaviour.

How does love create the Universe?

Yes, that is what I was saying to Shredderbeam. Love is motivating. It helps us get things done, ya know? We feel as if we can do anything with love at our side.

God’s love created the universe. He created all out of love. To stay on topic, when we experience a great loss in our lives, do we mourn the person because we love them or for the sake of mourning? Of course we mourn because we love. I think there is a saying that goes, “where there is great loss, there is great love” or something like that. It is in our nature to give love away, but we also want to receive it. Why not put God into the mix and say that although love allows us to hurt, it can also heal us. Remember, I said God is love. Wherever love goes, He goes.

 

[AntiTheist]

This very same definition of love is what motivates us to do well in life. To feel accomplished, full, and content. My argument to you is God is the one who gave us this very same love, and defines it.

So to say our lives mean nothing without love at the center, it is also true to say that our lives mean nothing without God at the center.

I understand that you believe that a supernatural being is behind that sense of love that you have. But the question is why do you believe that?

There’s absolutely no evidence that suggests that the diverse feelings that you are grouping together under the label “love” are anything more than the effects of brain chemistry.

I understand why a person would want to attribute good feelings to a magical source, but you’re not justified in doing so.

And incidentally, you’re making a logical fallacy when you assert god is love and then say, “Well, the feeling of love exists; therefore god exists.”

It would be like me saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the feeling of being full after you eat, and the feeling of being full after you eat exists, so therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Can you spot the flaw in that argument?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Yes, that is what I was saying to Shredderbeam. Love is motivating. It helps us get things done, ya know? We feel as if we can do anything with love at our side.

God’s love created the universe. He created all out of love. To stay on topic, when we experience a great loss in our lives, do we mourn the person because we love them or for the sake of mourning? Of course we mourn because we love. I think there is a saying that goes, “where there is great loss, there is great love” or something like that. It is in our nature to give love away, but we also want to receive it. Why not put God into the mix and say that although love allows us to hurt, it can also heal us. Remember, I said God is love. Wherever love goes, He goes.

Firstly, let me thank you for your cordial welcome.

I agree with you that love is a beautiful thing. I just don’t see how you make the assumption that love has to be supernatural.

My question to you is the opposite of the one you posed in the above paragraph. Why put God into the mix?

 

[mo2169]

Caricatures like this do no one any good. They make believers look a fool and just tend to leave a bad taste in the mouth over those targeted.

To address this, as well as the OP (and perhaps to re-rail things):

• I was not raised Christian, became Catholic in 2000, had two significant conversions in 2002 and 2003 which led me to be convinced that I knew the risen Lord, that he was alive in my life and in the scriptures, and that he was the reason for life.
• I lived the Christian life for about 6 years, living in a house of other believers during college who were part of a campus outreach group, I led music at prayer meetings, I gave talks at retreats, I strove to read the Bible every single day, went to daily Mass, during one difficult time went to adoration daily for more than a month, frequented confession and the like. I even printed out all of my most encouraging Bible verses and taped them to my wall during college – probably 50 of them plastered all over the place to remind me about god.
• I’ve read the NT at least twice all the way through and all of the gospels more times than that. I started reading the OT all the way through and stopped in Joshua. I’ve read all of the psalms. This was all in the context of meditative prayer, not just ‘reading’. One chapter per day and then reflecting on striking meanings.

This past Christmas, the thought popped into my head on whether any non-gospel writers wrote of Jesus’ miracles, life, or other points of interest. I was astonished to find that other than the gospels, contemporary historians were nearly silent. This was very troubling to me. They took the time to note his name, but nothing else other than his existence, that some thought they saw him after death, and that he had followers? I was astounded. Had I found answers that mentioned miracles, birth place, mother/father’s names, raising anyone from the dead, sayings, etc… I would have closed the browser and gone on with my belief.

Since then (4.5 months) I’ve been questioning everything. I have found the hypothesis that no religions are true far more explanatory than the hypothesis that one is true. With the evidence at hand, I have been intellectually all-but-convinced that a no god or disinterested god hypothesis deals with these facts far better than an omnimax god that aligns with Christianity.

• inspired scriptures containing immoral commands
• geological and archaeological evidence contradicting things like the flood, exodus, and the fall of Jericho
• how to explain the fall and entrance of evil into the world via human actions in light of evolution
• why Christianity is not compelling to other believers
• humanity has been in the habit of inventing gods for answers to life’s various questions for at least 25,000 years
• animals have displayed various examples of morality and intelligence suggesting that there is a true progression of capabilities rather than a black-and-white line of soul/no-soul between animals. See HERE and HERE.
• why miracles are on the decline in magnitude and number and are reported by all faiths, not just one
• why morals are quite consistent across the globe and across other characteristics whereas the religions explaining what god put that moral sense there are quite different. See HERE
• the existence of evil at all given an omniscient and omnibenevolent god

To be continued…

Good luck on your Journey for proof. I really hope you do find Jesus.

I know you mentioned that my earlier post made believers look like fools, but I’d just like to add that by reading the Bible, it gave me the strength, humility, and most importantly the Faith that I have and needed; it completely changed my life.
I really do Believe in Jesus with all my heart.

Isa 5:21 Cursed are those who seem wise to themselves, and who take pride in their knowledge!
Isa 2:22 Have no more to do with man, whose life is only a breath, for he is of no value.

God Bless…

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I understand that you believe that a supernatural being is behind that sense of love that you have. But the question is why do you believe that?

There’s absolutely no evidence that suggests that the diverse feelings that you are grouping together under the label “love” are anything more than the effects of brain chemistry.

I understand why a person would want to attribute good feelings to a magical source, but you’re not justified in doing so.

And incidentally, you’re making a logical fallacy when you assert god is love and then say, “Well, the feeling of love exists; therefore god exists.”

It would be like me saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the feeling of being full after you eat, and the feeling of being full after you eat exists, so therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Can you spot the flaw in that argument?

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?

 

[Shredderbeam]

I think that AntiTheist is asking the same questions as I am, so to spare you from answering twice, I’ll let AntiTheist handle the questioning. I’ll pop in if I have additional questions.

 

[j1akey]

lil_flower_luv:

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

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.

Why we have feelings and not instincts like animals?

Actually we have feelings and instincts. Animals have feelings as well. Take your typical family dog for example. You can tell when he’s happy, sad, scared, etc. These aren’t instincts. When your house pet runs for the basement and finds the darkest corner it can and shakes uncontrollably until it passes then that’s fear. When he jumps at the door whenever you come home, that’s being happy. Humans also have instincts. Your bodies fight or flight response is an instinct for example. Your senses become sharper, your body fills with adrenaline, you become more aware of your surroundings, etc.

I decided to define all things that had no real meaning to me before: Love, Mercy, Forgiveness…Truth.

Things only have meaning if you give them meaning but some of these aren’t exactly abstracts. Truth is a yes or no answer when you get right down to it, either something is true or it isn’t. There isn’t much room for middle ground here.

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?

Love is an abstract, it’s what we call chemical reactions in the brain that prodcues a sense of euphoria. Without trying to get into an evolutionary debate, there is an evolutionary explanation for this that is perfectly natural and non-spiritual which basically goes like this; Human babies take a long time to grow up and mature, during this time they are very vulnerable and both parents needed to stay together so the child could be raised and protected since one parent can’t go out hunting for food all day and still take care of the kid. A mechanism was needed to keep both parents together so the child didn’t starve to death or get eaten by wild animals. With love there was a higher percentage chance that the offspring would be able to survive into adulthood.