Athiests - Why is rejection better than acceptance? Why is No Hope Better than Hope?

[stenlis]

We can take a different look. Religion elevates man by pointing to something (and someone) greater. So, we find that there is someone greater than CAF’s yankee_doodle, for example – not that you are not great yourself, but there is someone greater than you.

When we look to that and emulate that person – we ourselves are elevated.

It truly is a different look.

When I look around I see a lot of things greater than me. Greater people, greater beauty, greater harmony of things. Timelessness of ideas.

You on the other hand can’t find anything greater than you other than an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving being. That is hubris.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I think the religious man would argue that imaging the characteristics of an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god is in itself a constant learning process (and no less so than an atheist who looks around and sees how, for instance, harmony is achieved through randomness, and continually gains more insight and develops intellectually through observation and constant learning).

I think it’s the empirical facts that are fatal to religion (besides that it merely represents the age old desire of mankind to answer profound questions like why do we exist).

 

[SFO]

I think I could invent a myth of an even better god than the Judeo-Christian version.

Okay, shoot!

 

[reggieM]

You on the other hand can’t find anything greater than you other than an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving being.

You’re saying something false about me here. I would appreciate an apology and a correction to this.

Insulting members of CAF is a violation of the forum policies – and it’s off-topic.

 

[stenlis]

Let me rephrase it as a question then:

Do you believe one can see something greater than oneself and yet it does not have to be an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving superbeing?

If the answer is yes, then you surely must see an atheist can entertain that virtue (of recognizing something greater than oneself).

If not, then my what I said about you was not false

 

[AntiTheist]

Again, in an atheistic worldview that ends with meaninglessness and nothingness, there is nothing more stupid than thinking there is a purpose in discussing it.

There’s not a “purpose” in discussing it. It’s something that I want to do and that is fun.

Just because our discussions will ultimately one day be meaningless doesn’t mean that they don’t have meaning for me right now.

I enjoy talking about this stuff because I’m constituted to enjoy it – my natural dispositions, shaped by my life experience, have brought me to a point where I get a kick out of having these conversations.

 

[reggieM]

Let me rephrase it as a question then:

You made a statement. The statement was false. So, no - I won’t “let you”. An apology is required. Period.

Do you believe one can see something greater than oneself and yet it does not have to be an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving superbeing?

You already stated: You on the other hand can’t find anything greater than you other than an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving being.

As I said - you posted a false statement about me on this forum. You are wrong and you should own up to that fact.

 

[stenlis]

You made a statement. The statement was false. So, no - I won’t “let you”. An apology is required. Period.

You see, I am not convinced that my statement was false.

That is why I asked and I ask again - do you believe there is something greater than a man (than you) other than a god or anything supernatural? What is it?

 

[josie_L]

You see, I am not convinced that my statement was false.

That is why I asked and I ask again - do you believe there is something greater than a man (than you) other than a god or anything supernatural? What is it?

If I could answer the question I would say “love” (but then again I believe that God is love so . . . ).

 

[reggieM]

There’s not a “purpose” in discussing it. It’s something that I want to do and that is fun.

Accordingly, there is no purpose in you discussing this matter. It has no purpose at all. As a guest on this forum you are required to have a minimum of good will and purpose for being here.

Just because our discussions will ultimately one day be meaningless doesn’t mean that they don’t have meaning for me right now.

The ultimate value and meaning of the discussion is determined by its end, goal or purpose – in this case, it has none. Whatever meaning you find in it now is illusory. Thus, you embrace illusion while claiming that religious faith is based on illusion.

I enjoy talking about this stuff because I’m constituted to enjoy it

Yes, as I said – that is the hedonistic view. In this case, “talking about stuff” is something you’re constituted to do, like various bodily functions.

– my natural dispositions, shaped by my life experience, have brought me to a point where I get a kick out of having these conversations.

The primary point I raised that we have neglected thus far was the selfishness of the atheistic view as exemplified by your quote (or the idea that there is nothing to mourn upon death because nothingness is peaceful). What about those you leave behind? What about your sins which are left without reparation?

The idea of communication is thus rendered as a self-stimulating exercise. Passing along ideas that you consider to be ultimately purposless and meaningless says something about how you regard the people around you – your audience, so to speak.

In that view, the emptyness inside you is communicated to others and the world is filled with purposeless drivel, simply because it amuses you.

 

[SFO]

Well I’m amused too!

 

[reggieM]

That is why I asked and I ask again - do you believe there is something greater than a man than you) other than a god or anything supernatural? What is it?

Now I can see your lying behavior as you change your false statement (highlighted).
But even still – what you said is false. The fact that you’re now asking questions proves that you didn’t know what you were talking about when you made the statement.

We can observe your first statement:

Do you believe one can see something greater than oneself and yet it does not have to be an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving superbeing?

Then we can see how you had to change it:

*That is why I asked and I ask again - do you believe there is something greater than a man than you) other than a god or anything supernatural? *

So, you stated something false, and then you lied (by claiming that “you asked” the same thing).

But even after your dishonest change of the statement – you’re still wrong.

But it gives me a good idea since you can’t imagine something greater than a man than me. This indicates that you can’t think of something greater than a man than you. Because if you could – you would know that I could do so easily.

You also seem to know very little about Catholicism. Perhaps you would do better to ask about the Catholic Faith, so you would learn something here on this Catholic website – instead of making false statements about the believers here.

 

[AnAtheist]

Thus, Epicurous the Hedonist.

Have you read Epicuros, or only the usual lies about him?

 

[NoWings]

Have you read Epicuros, or only the usual lies about him?

Hedonistic as Epicurus may have been, his Riddle is still used and is still valid.

 

[AntiTheist]

The ultimate value and meaning of the discussion is determined by its end, goal or purpose – in this case, it has none.

I told you that I’m not interested in its “ultimate meaning,” whatever that means. I’m interested in what it means right now to me, in practical terms.

Yes, as I said – that is the hedonistic view. In this case, “talking about stuff” is something you’re constituted to do, like various bodily functions.

Absolutely. Gee, if performing bodily functions makes me a “hedonist,” then please sign me up, by all means.

The primary point I raised that we have neglected thus far was the selfishness of the atheistic view as exemplified by your quote (or the idea that there is nothing to mourn upon death because nothingness is peaceful). What about those you leave behind? What about your sins which are left without reparation?

What about them? A lot of people are motivated by the idea of leaving others with good memories of them. Some people are not.

And by the way, it’s not exactly a revelation that most people do things that they enjoy or that give them pleasure. Even people who make lots of sacrifices in their lives – parents who give up a lot for their children, for example – typically do so because they enjoy the sense of satisfaction that it gives them. Are they “hedonists” too? Are they “selfish” people? Your take on reality is absurd.

purposeless drivel, simply because it amuses you.

Sounds like a good summary of this thread, at least.

Seriously, if you think that anyone’s mind is ever changed by discussions like this – if you think that discussions like this are ever anything but fun mental diversion – you need to get out more.

 

[gamewell45]

It’s certainly much harder to say atheists or agnostics or others who hold minority views towards religion (who have no churches or global organizational structures like the Catholic or Anglican Churches) have a uniform “agenda”?

It frankly almost strikes me as irrational paranoia (when the statistics speak for themselves).

Any organization, no matter how small in numbers and even an individual can have an uniform agenda that they want to impress upon the public.

 

[reggieM]

Even people who make lots of sacrifices in their lives – parents who give up a lot for their children, for example – typically do so because they enjoy the sense of satisfaction that it gives them. Are they “hedonists” too?

A person who sacrifices pleasure for a higher motive is not a hedonist. Whether some satisfaction is the result of the sacrifice or not, the goal is not personal pleasure but care of others for the sake of serving God.

Seriously, if you think that anyone’s mind is ever changed by discussions like this – if you think that discussions like this are ever anything but fun mental diversion – you need to get out more.

I think people can benefit from seeing responses. If you mean that atheists will not be changed by such argumentation, then I think you’re right. For myself, I see atheism as a spiritual and mental disorder that needs to be healed, and not merely refuted by argumentation. If the spiritual faculty of the person is damaged then there is no sense in expecting that faculty to enlighten and evaluate.

But since atheists come to CAF very often and spread their false beliefs, then it’s very important to make sure that these errors are corrected - not that it will convert the hardened atheist, but that it will show others the evil effects of atheistic thought.

 

[JRKH]

To both Stenlis, and Reggie,
As the originator of this thread I am asking that this line of discussion be dropped.
Whether an apology is needed or not, it is better to drop it for the sake of the discussion and offer it up to God.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by AntiTheist
Sure, it can be beneficial to accept lies. We tell kids lies all the time because we think it’s beneficial to shield them (temporarily, hopefully) from reality.

I note that my post number 40, quoted above, has been roundly ignored in the subsequent almost 40 posts.
So -
In an effort to get back on track of the original question, just what is this reality that we Christians are ignoring, or not getting, or whatever - So much so that some atheists feel it is necessary to try to convince us of our error?

What reality - that can be proven - are we missing?
Is it that God can not be quantified and therefore, from some “scientific” view must not exist?

I keep hearing that we cannot prove that God exists, but then neither can an Atheist prove he does not exist.

The original question had to do with the idea, not of whether one or the other idea is true or not, but rather the need on the part of some to “preach” it.
It seems obvious to me that a person who believes in God, Afterlife, Heaven, Hell, etc. wishes to share this with a person who does not believe it because the believer is, in True Love, hoping for the non-believers highest good. that is the atainment of eternal life and happiness.
On the other hand a person who believes, as some have posted here, that we are merely deluded and that God, Afterlife, Heaven, Hell, etc. Do NOT exist really have nothing of worth to convince us of. If, as was quoted earlier,
“Death holds no terrors. While I am, it is not. When it is, I am no more.”
(Epicuros)
Then what is there for Atheists to “convict” us of and so “convert” us to their ideas? If the above statement is true, then we will all find out at our mutual and morally “neutral” end.
Thus it seems that to the eyes of the Atheist, we should be permitted our “god delusion” so long as that “delusion” is one of Constructive nature, rooted in Love of our fellows and all of God’s Creation.

So again I must ask of those who feel the need to convince us of our error, why? You say you offer reality that we ignore. Yet when I ask, “what reality?”, I am ignored.


Peace
James

 

[AnAtheist]

So again I must ask of those who feel the need to convince us of our error, why?

Actually, I don’t care at all what you believe as long as it doesn’t concern me. If whatever you believe makes you happier than if you would believe what I believe - be happier with it.
You may very well believe in astrology if that’s what make feel better and helps you living your life or getting your hopes up. But when someone wants astrology taught in public schools as an alternative scientific theory, then some preaching about reality becomes necessary.