Athiests: What do you do when....

[jinminn]

Go for it; and make it contemporaries rather than using a list of theists extending back to the 300’s or something.

Why? Are you trying to load the dice in favor of the atheists?

This digression started when someone pointed out that it wasn’t until evolutionary theory that some even felt atheism as plausible. I would add that it carried with it quite the social stigma as well… and still does. Are you aware, for example, that a relatively recent GALLUP POLL found that 53% of Americans wouldn’t vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president? The next highest anti-vote qualifier is homosexuality… at 43%. That’s a pretty high bias I’d say!

I asked for contemporaries only because we’re dealing with a time when the flow of information is far higher, discussions and debates happen with far more regularity and openness than ever before. Active inquisition activity was happening as late as 400 years ago in the case of Galileo. I’m not bringing this up to cite death tolls, I’m merely adding that in extremely recent times one could be put in a very intense spotlight for even suggesting something that might negatively affect the Church or be considered heretical. Biblical criticism barely got off the ground until about 300 years ago.

Again, it’s barely been until very, very recent times that people have truly had the freedom to ask questions, discuss answers to those questions, etc.

Are we supposed to discount that the scientific method of moderns times was mostly developed by religious men and institutions in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance?

Most anything invented by anyone back then was done by a religious person.

Again, I need you to give me the name of an atheist in science who ranks near Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, or Darwin.

Well, I actually don’t have to give you anything. You requested any atheist and said that you could provide up to three who were or are religious. Personally, I don’t think this is going to accomplish anything much. Also, these men are great scientists because 1) their work truly was revolutionary 2) they excelled in times where scientific knowledge in their area was relatively poor (minus Einstein perhaps) and 3) we’re looking back on their achievements and where they’ve led quite a ways in the future (lesser so with Einstein and perhaps Darwin).

Honestly, I don’t really care to have you actually accomplish this. In your spare time, dig up however many scientists you want from past or present. You’ll still have a tough time rounding up the 4500 you need even for the current membership of the NAS at a 1:3 ratio.

Incidentally, as a Catholic what would you give as the reason why so many lesser scientists have turned to atheism in modern times?

What do you mean as a Catholic? How does this relate? I hardly see you qualified to judge ‘lesser’. Neither am I. I think critical thinking applied to religion and holy books can lead the mind to see irreparable flaws in plausibility when compared to natural explanations coupled with a humble acceptance of the validity of saying: ‘I just don’t know.’

I’ll end with a gem from Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Laureate (but probably just a ‘lesser’ scientist):

Most scientists I know don’t care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists. And that, I think, is one of the great things about science – that it has made it possible for people not to be religious.

P.S. I won’t respond to more posts along this line in order to try to get things back on track with the original posting.

 

[aperture]

jinminn I want to thank you for some of the posts you’ve made here. They express ideas that are very similar to my own. I also have had intensely felt periods of closeness with God, followed some days, weeks, or months later by nagging and persistent doubts and the fear and anxiety that results.

While it’s not necessarily nice to see someone else struggling like this, I’m pretty sure I empathize.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So, having shared all this, as an atheist do you think about being an atheist all the time the way I think about God all the time?

Not at all…

Do you think about being Atheist towards Wotan and Thor, or being atheist towards Allah, or atheist towards the Joo-joo in the sky? Would you describe yourself as a Tooth Fairy skeptic or a Loch Ness Monster agnostic?

Of course not. You dismiss those claims out of hand. What puzzles me is why you make a special exception for the God of the Israelites?

There is exactly the same evidence for God as there is for Tooth Fairy, and claims for the existence of either in the absence of evidence should be treated with the same incredulity.

 

[Moonstruck888]

And since Einstein lived well after Darwin, I don’t think you can say that he was impressed by evolution as doing away with the idea of God (a governing Intellect) altogether.

For one thing, I don’t believe that Einstein believed in your God. I think he is incessantly misrepresented by creationists in a rather desperate way to try to give iron aged superstition some kind of semblence of respectability.

Secondly, and most importantly, I don’t really give a damn what Einstein believed. If, as you say, he did believe in God, it doesn’t mean I have to.

I should advise you to stick with portraying Newton as the great theist. You would actually be justified in that, and he was as smart as Einstein.

 

[JRKH]

Einstein made a lot of quotes that have been taken out of context be religious people. For some reason they seem to erroneously believe that if they can prove by hook or by crook that Einstein was religious that people like myself would have to stand down.

Einstein actually said quite a lot of things that were wrong. For example, he refused to accept Quantum Theory until it was ratified by experiment, proving that even the most towering intellect does not protect a man from being utterly, stupidly wrong…

Not to go off on another tangent… but I find the bolded above to be an interesting statement to be made by an athiest. Einstein was “Stupidly wrong” for not accepting “Quantum theory” until it was “ratified by experiment”, but an athiest is NOT “stupidly wrong” for rejecting God, just because it/he has not been “ratified by experiment”???

It seems to me that Einstein was doing precisely what he should be doing as a good scientist. Refusing to accept until it was proven.

To equate this -
Einstein looked at the theory, the math, the evidence for Quantum theory and rejected it. Other scientists/theorists looked at the same evidence and accepted it.
Until it was “proven by expereiment” is it fair to say that one or the other side was “Stupidly wrong”?
Theists and Atheists likewise look at the same “evidence” (creation itself) but come to different conclusions. Some accept that it points to a “Godhead” others say it does not.
Since this is a cunumdrum that is likely too big to ever be “experimentally proven”, would it be fair to declare one side or the other to be “stupidly wrong”?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

How does a skilled person treat a progressive, incurable neurological disorder, such that the patient was committed to a geriatric ward, treated and then subsequently released, with no behavioral issues since being released?

Are you suggesting that your wifes Alzheimer’s has been cured or the progression of the disease halted?

alzheimer.ca/english/disease/faqs.htm

’Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive, degenerative disease of the brain where brain cells continue to die over time. There is no cure to stop the progression '

Of course not. That was not the question you asked.

You asked what benefit was derived from prayer and I attempted to answer that question. The treatment involved some adjustments in medications.

God has already answered our prayers for a healing in this matter. The answer was no. This is our cross. This is how Karol is to leave this life for the next one. BUT - -
contained within this cross and this journey are huge lessons and learning about Love, care, patience, forebearance and other virtues, as well as healings of a spiritual nature.

God will call each of us from this life in some fashon or another whether it be disease, or accident. That is a fact that cannot be denied, and more importantly should not be feared. There is more to come. An evolution, if you will, from this primative and finite life, into something far greater and infinite.

Peace
James

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

If this is the case…indeed, it’s quite the dilemma.

As an Atheist lies waiting for death to take them, the stress of choosing the right God in the last few moments of life, of the thousands to choose from, would be stressful to say the least.

This, I think is a very good point - very well expressed. But maybe not for the reason one would think.

There is but one God, but there are many dscriptions of Him. It seems to me that many atheists are atheist because of the apparent confusion brought about by these various descriptions. It’s getting thrown by the “details” and closing off the “possibility” of God because of the “variations” in the descriptive data.
I’m sure that in science there are many things that are generally accepted as fact without a full consensus on the details.

In this Agnostics and Theists have the advantage of at least leaving the door open to the possibility of God - Even the Hope of God. In this case, these people can at least reach out to God’s mercy on their deathbed, with the prayer, “Have mercy on me”, and be speaking to the one whom they have suspected, but never quite grasped to their own satisfaction.

The Atheist on the other hand, at death will be hard pressed to ask for mercy from one whom they have actively denied. In all likelihood pride would prevent such a one from asking for mercy from He/That which he as refused to admit, even as a possibility. Regardless of the particular correctness of the various human descriptions of God.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

If a poster is going to bring up anecdotal and personal stories, they’d better be prepared to answer questions. The op has made some extraordinary claims…I’m asking fair questions.

Actually the reason I brought up my wife’s hospitalization was in relation to people praying together and providing immediate, tangable, and personal support rather than a more remote support.
Take a look at the posts that led up to my posting and you will see what I mean.

I don’t mind trying to answer your questions so long as you recognize that our "world views’ may cause difficulties in clear communication.

Peace
James

 

[Moonstruck888]

Not to go off on another tangent… but I find the bolded above to be an interesting statement to be made by an athiest. Einstein was “Stupidly wrong” for not accepting “Quantum theory” until it was “ratified by experiment”, but an athiest is NOT “stupidly wrong” for rejecting God, just because it/he has not been “ratified by experiment”???

It seems to me that Einstein was doing precisely what he should be doing as a good scientist. Refusing to accept until it was proven.

To equate this -
Einstein looked at the theory, the math, the evidence for Quantum theory and rejected it. Other scientists/theorists looked at the same evidence and accepted it.
Until it was “proven by expereiment” is it fair to say that one or the other side was “Stupidly wrong”?
Theists and Atheists likewise look at the same “evidence” (creation itself) but come to different conclusions. Some accept that it points to a “Godhead” others say it does not.
Since this is a cunumdrum that is likely too big to ever be “experimentally proven”, would it be fair to declare one side or the other to be “stupidly wrong”?

Peace
James

Einstein should have suspended judgement. He decided Quantum Theory was wrong. He didn’t say he was skeptical about it, he didn’t say there wasn’t enough evidence to support it, he made the positive claim that it was wrong. In fact, he was the one who was mistaken, in my opinion given the evidence that was piling up in favour of QT at the time, stupidly so. Nobody never misses, not even Einstein.

As for Atheism vs a Godhead. That is another matter entirely. An atheist does not make a claim that there is no God. An atheist simply points out that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that there is a God. If there is no evidence for a claim, then the claim is patently ridiculous and it’s belief the sole provenance of the brainwashed and the uneducated.

I assume you yourself are an atheist to most Gods? You don’t believe in every God worshipped on Earth, do you? I put it to you that you are atheist to all God’s except one, the Christian God.

 

[JRKH]

The actual OP posted a thread asking some simple questions about atheists in order to improve he understanding-the thread went along quite nicely for several pages before starting to succumb to becoming a debate thread.

If you persist you may win the battle in being “right” on this point, but you will lose the war by contributing ammunition to those who claim that atheists are heartless, uncharitable people with no sympathy or concern for others who would toss their deceased loved ones in a Hefty bag and leave them by the curb. Don’t help them promote that myth-it doesn’t help the public perception of atheists nor does it help others to seek an unbiased explanation of your views.

Much better to let it go, understand the difficulties faced in life by those who have to deal with that particular disease and try and bring the thread back to a charitable discussion of atheist’s actions and motivations.

Thanks for your support on this matter.
As I told Zatzat, I have no problem trying to answer his questions.

This thread has been quite charitable so far. I hope we can all keep it that way.

Peace
Jaems

 

[JRKH]

Just like those scientists who are deeply religious and accept the religious doctrines outside their specific field of research - but within their specialty they behave exactly as their atheist peers do. They look for natural causes and natural explanation - **they discard the “goddidit” as unnecessary. **

This is a presumptuous remark on your part. In no way does the religious scientist no longer regard “goddidit” as unnecessary. What he does regard is the necessity of understanding how “goddidit.” He will not know that until he can begin to fathom the laws of nature at work, which are the product of the mind of God.

I think this is the one point that is often missed. Science can often explain how and can sometimes explain why things exist or happen.
But this ability fails when it come to the ultimate “Why”.
Why did certain amino acids come together and at point did these chemicals develop some rudimentary conscienceness?
Why did these amino acids begin to convert other materials for their own “survival”?
Why did these amino acids begin to “split” to make others just like themselves?
Why did these amino acids begin constructing, not just “single celled” entities, but multicelled entities - each with a specific task to perform?

In other words the root cause answer of WHY life started.
Put the same amino acids together and nothing happens. “Life” is something entirely seperate from simple, or even complex chemistry.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The point was that those religious scientists behave just like their atheist peers, they use reason and logic and the much-maligned scientific method (hypothesis forming - testing - verification) in their research - not wishful thinking (aka: faith). They seek natural explanation, not intangible “magic”.

Who maligns the scientific method??
Certainly not the Catholic Church that has started and ran thousands of hospitals around the world and down through many centureis.
Certainly not the Catholic Church who has championed universities with large scientific research facilities.

Nope - there is really no contradition between Science and the study of “How” God did (and does) things, and Religion and thankiing God FOR doing things.

Peace
James

 

[Moonstruck888]

In other words the root cause answer of WHY life started.
Put the same amino acids together and nothing happens. “Life” is something entirely seperate from simple, or even complex chemistry.

That’s a very strong claim. A pity there isn’t any evidence for it.

 

[rwillenborg]

I have always wondered what an atheist does to get through difficult times in life.

During the days after the Sept. 11th attack in NY, churches were full. People dropped everything and turned their eyes and hearts upward in prayer. What did the atheists do?

And what do atheists do when a loved one dies? Do they believe that death is the end of the road for them? Where do they find comfort when a loved one is injured or ill?

I am soooo curious to know how you get through difficult times, times when most of us draw closer to God and get comfort from His promises.

I am not trying to start a debate - I am just very curious.

Hello annemariels,
Having spent all but the last bit of my life as an atheist, I think I can answer your questions, at least, the best that I can.

1. Atheists didn’t pray. They did everything else, mourned, were shocked, appalled, just didn’t pray.
2. Death is the end, for loved ones, and ones not so loved. I suppose when someone died I always took solace in the fact that they had a life well lived. And for those who didn’t have a life well lived? Well, there was no comfort. (I’m afraid as a christian, there still isn’t)

You had also asked about how we were raised:
My parents were occasional christians. Church on christmas and easter. I can’t say I was ever fully taught the faith, but I most certainly rejected everything I had learned by the time I was a teenager. Not my folks fault, they’re good people and I am lucky to have been raised by them.

One more thing…even when I was an atheist, I thought the likes of PZ Meyer and Dawkins and their ilk were just SOOOO crabby! Sheesh! For being people who said they were free of the shackles of a pretend god, they sure didn’t seem very happy about it!!
It’s odd though, the overwhelming majority of the atheists I have known weren’t anywhere NEAR that crabby. So, I have to say that I think the atheist authors represent a particularly aggressive and angry vein of atheism that at least in my life most of my atheist friends did not subscribe to.
Sadly, I see this sort of happy-go-lucky atheist leave my life in recent years. I either see my friends mellowing and finding a faith or intensifying and staying atheist. I can’t really explain it. And I’m not even sure which here is the cause and which is the effect. Did my friends who found faith do so because they were mellowing or did they mellow because they found a faith? I don’t really have the answer.
And those who are staying atheists seem to be getting angrier. I’m not suggesting by the way that this is the experience of atheists at large, but certainly in my little corner of the world it is.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Thanks for your support on this matter.
As I told Zatzat, I have no problem trying to answer his questions.

This thread has been quite charitable so far. I hope we can all keep it that way.

Peace
Jaems

Understood-I’ll leave things be on that account.

One thing to note perhaps, the OP wanted to hear firsthand from atheists their frame of reference and ways of relating to life and its challenges in order to help her daughter who is working to defend her faith. Turning the thread into a debate where an atheist has to defend every comment might make them reluctant to share and hinder the OP’s goal. It’ll be interesting to see if a balance can be struck.

 

[JRKH]

Continued…

In essence, I think the ‘blindfold test’ describes it best: if I were to be blindfolded and asked ‘what do you that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence would look like in a world created, from the beginning, by a being with those characteristics?’, every answer I would write down would be purely wrong if Christianity is right. We trust our reason in multitudes of other facets of life… yet in religion I’m told that not only am I completely wrong (and even prideful to suspect I know better), but that, in fact, the way things are is the only way that god even could have done things.

Intellectually, I’m an agnostic/atheist. Emotionally, it has been extremely difficult to contemplate ‘leaving the fold.’ I keep praying, talking to people, posting on forums/blogs, thinking, listening to debates, etc. thinking that I may have missed that one key argument that I needed to hear to make it all work. Instead I’m left seeing so many impossibilities about Christianity that I can’t bring myself to believe, yet emotional fear about it possibly being right such that I can’t walk away.

At the end of the day, with respect to the comfort questions and such, it’s up to me and the community I choose in order to find support and make it through calamity. I find it interesting to suggest that during calamity, believers may take refuge in god’s ‘promises’… yet what are those and how are they fulfilled? Ultimately, I am usually answered that they will be fulfilled only in heaven for a life lived in patient trusting faith despite any contrary evidence. I am facing the prospect that there is no being watching out for me.

In that case, it’s up to me and, again, my community (as I believe community is a human need, not a religious one) to become the best human being I can. I wish to surround myself with others who wish to lead fulfilling and fruitful lives of accomplishment. Though it’s often suggested that atheism leads to a lack of care for anyone but one’s self, I find that it ends up being like most other philosophies/world views: it’s presented and one must either accept or reject it as a basis for positive living. The same is true of religions. All of humanity presents a clear picture that across all world view and beliefs, humans are excellent at doing horrible deeds, being indifferent, and excelling as pinnacles of human success (and at doing everything in between).

Long winded… the post is quite pertinent so I thought I’d add my story and views.

Thank you for sharing.
Yes very pertinant and speaks to some things that I struggle with as well.
I have found my refuge in simplicity. Not trying to nail down all the details.
Jesus told us that everything stems from Love. He told us what all the law and prophets are based on (See Mt 22:36-40). He also told us to first seek His kingdom and everything else will come. He also mentions about being perfect, which can only mean perfect in Love since everything stems from that.
Using this as a basis, and looking into faith from the angle of the mystics (who also tried to keeop things simple) has really allowed me to focus on what is important to faith and not get entangled in the “details”. Remember the old saying - “The Devil is in the details”.

Hope this might help you.

Peace
James

 

[rwillenborg]

This, I think is a very good point - very well expressed. But maybe not for the reason one would think.

There is but one God, but there are many dscriptions of Him. It seems to me that many atheists are atheist because of the apparent confusion brought about by these various descriptions. It’s getting thrown by the “details” and closing off the “possibility” of God because of the “variations” in the descriptive data.
I’m sure that in science there are many things that are generally accepted as fact without a full consensus on the details.

In this Agnostics and Theists have the advantage of at least leaving the door open to the possibility of God - Even the Hope of God. In this case, these people can at least reach out to God’s mercy on their deathbed, with the prayer, “Have mercy on me”, and be speaking to the one whom they have suspected, but never quite grasped to their own satisfaction.

The Atheist on the other hand, at death will be hard pressed to ask for mercy from one whom they have actively denied. In all likelihood pride would prevent such a one from asking for mercy from He/That which he as refused to admit, even as a possibility. Regardless of the particular correctness of the various human descriptions of God.

Peace
James

I think your first observation is correct - as an atheist, when i would see christians in particular arguing over what the bible said regarding the nature of God, it only served to reinforce the idea that they hadn’t figured it out either. And once you threw in how much disagreement there was among all the faiths of the world, it certainly muddied the waters.

I understand your point about the moments leading to death, but I don’t think that’s really a question that enters an atheist mind. When you don’t think you need mercy, and there’s no one to ask for it anyway, it doesn’t really bother a person.

ps - you are correct. Many scientists can and do accept an overarching theme without agreeing on the details. Happens all the time.

 

[JRKH]

Einstein should have suspended judgement. He decided Quantum Theory was wrong. He didn’t say he was skeptical about it, he didn’t say there wasn’t enough evidence to support it, he made the positive claim that it was wrong. In fact, he was the one who was mistaken, in my opinion given the evidence that was piling up in favour of QT at the time, stupidly so. Nobody never misses, not even Einstein.

As for Atheism vs a Godhead. That is another matter entirely. An atheist does not make a claim that there is no God. An atheist simply points out that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that there is a God. **If there is no evidence for a claim, then the claim is patently ridiculous **and it’s belief the sole provenance of the brainwashed and the uneducated.

I agree that if there is no evidence, but in this case there is. However - you claim the evidence does not support “God” and I say it does.
Therefore the claim is only “patently ridiculous” to those who deny (or misread) the evidence.

I assume you yourself are an atheist to most Gods? You don’t believe in every God worshipped on Earth, do you? I put it to you that you are atheist to all God’s except one, the Christian God.

Not at all - The reason is because, as I expressed in an earlier post, There is only one God but many descriptions. The major religions describe God in similar terms, give him different names, and build their faiths on similar principles.
I might also point out that I believe firmly in God and also firmly in evolution as being one of God’s tools.
In fact I believe that our journey out of this finite life into the next infinite one is, in a sense, a form of evolution.

Peace
James

 

[Zatzat]

There is only one God but many descriptions. The major religions describe God in similar terms, give him different names, and build their faiths on similar principles.

There is only one Jesus.

’ No one comes to the father, except through me.’

I don’t know that one could argue that Brahman is described in similar terms as Jesus.

However you and your Church reconcile the fact that approximately 3/4 of the worlds population doesn’t believe Jesus is the son of God…I suppose is your concern.

 

[JRKH]

There is only one Jesus.

’ No one comes to the father, except through me.’

I don’t know that one could argue that Brahman is described in similar terms as Jesus.

However you and your Church reconcile the fact that approximately 3/4 of the worlds population doesn’t believe Jesus is the son of God…I suppose is your concern.

I’m afraid that this will take this thread even farther afield than it already is so I’ll not comment on it here.

Suffice it to say that a person who believes, even imperfectly, in God has a better chance of “evolving” properly into the next life than one who rejects the idea of God.

So internal belief and acceptance, even without understanding, is the beginning point and then following that “Instinct for survival” that is key to any “adaptive or evolutionary change” that allows for the continuation of the species, or the development of a new one.

Peace
James