Calling All Aetheists

[Gilbert_Keith]

kellie

Just letting you know that Gilbert seems to have a thing for atheists, and loves debating with them, and trying to get them to admit they are intellectually dumb for failing to acknowledge the world was created by God.

These are your words, not mine. Rather insulting too, don’t you think?

There is certainly a huge difference between demanding of atheists that they prove their main thesis (which is intellectually indefensible) and calling them dumb.

As a matter of fact, I believe, and have stated it often enough in these forums if you have been following me as you say you have, that atheism is not an intellectual position (very rarely do intellectuals of top quality ever defend it) but rather an emotional one. People are atheists because they want to be; they are in open rebellion against God (and perhaps someone else) and they order their intellects to supply the necessary intellectual amunition to kill God. That’s not dumb. That is, however, a mental disorder.

Dr. Paul Vitz, a fellow Catholic, has made a brilliant case for it being so. Kellie, read his book and we’ll talk some more. Until then, try to remember you are Catholic. You are not supposed to excuse atheists and you are supposed to remember such passages of scripture as the one in Psalms:

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.”

If you repudiate this saying, you repudiate your own scripture, not me or Dr. Vitz.

 

[R_McGeddon]

This can probably be the hardest debate on the message board. When a Catholic talks to a Protestant, there is at least some common ground to debate on. Even then, however, it is hard to argue with someone’s belief system. When a person has been raised a certain way, their individual paradigms will determine how they understand the universe.

It seems to me that we should at respect aetheists if they lead moral and virtuous lives. We also have to allow some latitude on the understanding of morality, since it could vary widely. All we can do is be loving and witness (show the merits of Catholicism).

At the same time however, it seems to me that we do not have to soley provide the burden of truth. Since Aetheism is a belief system, in as much as non-conformists are conforming to something, they too need to explain why they do not believe in any kind of god.

The most likely answer is that science might prove that there is not a god. I use the small ‘g’ as there are many world religions. The truth is, many of our theories concerning the nature of the universe are exactly that. They are beliefs (and some of them I find quite interesting), with an attempt to mathematically (and sometimes just philosophically explain the meaning of the universe. E.G. I believe the idea of ‘Big Bang’, but it is just a belief. The mathematical estimates of the universe’s age are theoretical at best. I do like the idea, and it makes sense to me. But many aspects of it are belief, since we cannot measure it as a Law of Physics (like Newton).

For me, and again this is just for me, I think of Pascal’s wager. Since both are just beliefs, he would say the betting man would choose some sort of Theism. This is not the reason in and of itself to believe, but it is at least something to think about.

As a pilot, I do look at the Earth and wonder how someone could just assume that it is all probability. Again, these are just questions, I respect people who believe otherwise. I just think that if distance of the S, P, D, F, orbitals were just a bit different on an atom, the universe would be completely different - and surely there would be no Earth. Same thing, if the mass of a proton was not exactly 1836 more times massive than an Electron. The chance of finding a planet like Earth that could support life, and then evolve the way it did is almost infintesimily small. When you look at the nearly immensily vast number of variables that need to be adjusted with almost deliberate percision to create a habitable universe first - and then planets (even that much more rare), it seems to me that some kind of higher power has to be involved.

Again, someone could respond by saying that the chances of finding ‘Earth’ are infinite in an infinite universe. Most scientists do not believe that the universe is infinite, as it expands and hopefully collapses (that is debated as well - we could expand forever ). But scientists do agree that the variables involved in a stable universe are quite expansive. Of course, if you like parallel universes you are GTG! Then there would be an infinite chance of our existence (kind of scary).

Not to keep going on, as I am too tired to think, I hope you can see the point. What helps me is looking at the vast array of scientific theories. It lets me know that we in no way ‘know’ what is correct. As humans, with our limited technology, we have to choose to believe something.

There are other Philisophical questions as well. The natural law of man, conciousness, our evolution which really does not supply advantages ( I can’t see how humans could make it without help). Heh, with our pathetically weak stature, young that can’t survive on their own till they are like 30 (just kidding), it is truly amazing that we survived.

Take care. I need some sleep. Sorry for the rambling. I promise to make more coherent statements when I get some sleep.

I strongly urge you to familiarise yourself with what a scientific theory is before saying:
“it’s only a theory”.

You’d be surprised to find out exactly what it takes to become a theory in the first place.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

loginus

And if so who created God, who created God’s dad etc?

You’re going to have to do much better than this to get my attention.

 

[Valke2]

My understanding of God may be flawed. Alert the media.

 

[R_McGeddon]

There is certainly a huge difference between demanding of atheists that they prove their main thesis (which is intellectually indefensible) and calling them dumb.

Who says it’s intellectually indefensible?

As a matter of fact, I believe, and have stated it often enough in these forums if you have been following me as you say you have, that atheism is not an intellectual position

You got it exactly right when you stated that you believe rather than know it for a fact.

(very rarely do intellectuals of top quality ever defend it)

Irrelevant, just because they don’t shout it from on high, doesn’t make a difference.

People are atheists because they want to be; they are in open rebellion against God (and perhaps someone else)

Utter balderdash, people are atheist because they don’t believe, simple as that. It is an oxymoron, saying they are in open rebellion against God. How does one rebel against something one doesn’t believe to be real?

they order their intellects to supply the necessary intellectual amunition to kill God. That’s not dumb. That is, however, a mental disorder.

Far from it, this argument holds no water at all. Atheists are not interesting in “killing God”, they don’t believe there’s one to kill in the first place. How is that a mental disorder?

Dr. Paul Vitz, a fellow Catholic, has made a brilliant case for it being so.

Or try reading something by an atheist author, who will no doubt make an equally brilliant case for the opposite view being so.

try to remember you are Catholic. You are not supposed to excuse atheists

You could try forgiving them though, as per christian teachings.

and you are supposed to remember such passages of scripture as the one in Psalms:

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.”

This is only a part of the passage, try remembering it all. Christians are quick to say when something has been taken out of context, it works both ways.

If you repudiate this saying, you repudiate your own scripture, not me or Dr. Vitz.

Psalms is OT, christians like to distance themselves from parts that are, to be honest, quite brutal. So you don’t mind repudiating some of your own scripture when it suits.

 

[callador]

Since I actually slept a bit, I am going to expand on my point a bit. Last night, I was pushing into the realm of metaphysical science, but that in no way undermines my understanding of what a theory is. I will post some information found on a website that does not agree with creationism. This is to prove that my understanding of theory and fact is not incorrect.

"Creationists argue that evolution is “only a theory and cannot be proven.”

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn’t change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to “peer review.” This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their “theories” to peer reviews, because they know they don’t fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of “good science” (creationism) vs. “bad science” (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation “scientists” are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs."

I think we can agree with these definitions of theory and fact. Now lets attempt to correlate this with something that I do believe - ‘Big Bang’.

Some of the measured facts concerining Big Bang would be:

1. Galaxy’s velocity is proportional to its distance. Measured via Red Shift.
2. Measurement of extraterrestrial ‘noise’. It was found to be everywhere that they could measure. Assumed to be radiation after Big Bang.
   3.Cosmic Microwaves detected from outer reaches of the universe. The microwaves are were almost uniform in nature.

There is more to this, but I think these three facts will illustrate my point. Measured facts give credence to theories. This does not mean that the theory is fact. Example 1 can help illustrate the point. Not all galaxies Red Shift. They have found ones that Blue Shift is as well. It seems to me that most Red Shift, and I believe the theory concerning expansion to be correct. But at least we know that the original theory concerning the universe’s expansion had to be adapted.

As noted above, a theory is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. Reasoning is sometimes my issue of contention. That was my point from yesterday. One might argue that a theory has to be accepted by at least some of the peer commumity. This is true, but since most of the peer community is thinking along ‘party’ lines, sometimes I wonder if all of our theories are being challenged to their fullest extent.

Even with similar evidence, sometimes 2 conflicting theories can be created using the same facts. Some scientist believe T-Rex to have been a predator, some a scavenger, and others - both. All of them use similar evidence, yet their reasoning differs. All three of these theories are “accepted” by their peers.

I agree with the scientific method. It seems to me that it is our duty as human beings to determine the How’s, Who’s, and When’s. At the same time however, as technology advances, many theories change. This is not only based on new evidence, but sometimes we find old measurements to be either incorrect or hold lesser value.

Continued …

 

[callador]

…

All I ask is that people take this into consideration when they might say, “The universe is 15 billion years old.” “We know this based on fact.” The truth is that we don’t know its exact age, as many scientists debate that point. At the same time, I wonder if things like omnipresent extraterrestrial noise can automatically determine the validity of the Big Bang. Couldn’t there just BE radiation at the outer expanses of the universe? Why did it have to come from Big Bang? Alas, the working model at the time was Big Bang, and it seemed to fit. I say seemed, because again, we are taking a FACT and adding it to the THEORY.

I believe Big Bang to be true. I say believe because I know the theory is just that, a specualtion. We attempt to measure things, but for a civilization that can’t leave our solar system (we even recenty changed our theories concerning the solar system when the Kuiper belt was discovered), it seems almost too bold to say we understand something as expansive as the universe. And to add to that, these theories become fact in some circles. This “fact” is then considered to be LAW for some. So much so that they find the idea of Theism to be foolish. Theism does not prove the existence of a god. Scientific theory does not disprove it either.

Again, this is getting long. If you disagree with me, please tell me where. Be a bit more specific, considering a 1 line reponse does not further the conversation.

 

[R_McGeddon]

…post edited for space…

Everything you said in your posts is very sound analytical thinking and in a lot of ways is how I approach things. I don’t believe things just because people say I should, I like to investigate for myself. I usually find that much more satisfying.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

Far from it, this argument holds no water at all. Atheists are not interesting in “killing God”, they don’t believe there’s one to kill in the first place. How is that a mental disorder?

If you are not interested in killing the idea of God, what on earth are you doing here at Catholic Answers? Perhaps it would constitute a mental disorder to spend lots of time at a Catholic web site trying to kill even the idea of something you don’t think exists?

And if you’re not trying to convert us to atheism, what else would be your objective in being here? Please don’t try that worn-out cliche that you just want to correct false impressions Catholics have of atheists. We know very well what you are about … and our culture today reeks of it.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

callador

I believe Big Bang to be true. I say believe because I know the theory is just that, a specualtion.

But there is far more substantial evidence for the Big Bang than there is for Darwinian Evolution. It isn’t just speculation. The Big Bang is still going on and we can see it through our telescopes. That’s more than we can say for evolution.

 

[Loginus]

callador

I believe Big Bang to be true. I say believe because I know the theory is just that, a specualtion.

But there is far more substantial evidence for the Big Bang than there is for Darwinian Evolution. It isn’t just speculation. The Big Bang is still going on and we can see it through our telescopes. That’s more than we can say for evolution.

How is Natural Selection speculation? Just because you dont understand it doesnt make it speculation.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

McGeddon

Or try reading something by an atheist author, who will no doubt make an equally brilliant case for the opposite view being so.

Indeed, someone like Freud, who has done precisely that. Vitz’s book is an answer to the atheist Freud. So after reading Freud and Vitz, you get both sides of the question and are more fully able to decide.

Isn’t that fair enough? Have you read Vitz? Have you read Freud? Would you be opposed to reading both and then deciding the merits of the case?

 

[R_McGeddon]

If you are not interested in killing the idea of God, what on earth are you doing here at Catholic Answers? Perhaps it would constitute a mental disorder to spend lots of time at a Catholic web site trying to kill even the idea of something you don’t think exists?

You must have met some rather unusual atheists, I have no intention of killing the idea of God. The time I spend on this forum is reading other peoples’ ideas and opinions. I find it incredibly interesting to get an idea of how other people perceive things.

And if you’re not trying to convert us to atheism, what else would be your objective in being here?

I’m not the slightest bit interested in conversions, providing people get some kind of comfort and don’t harm others, I don’t care what they believe.

Please don’t try that worn-out cliche that you just want to correct false impressions Catholics have of atheists.

Catholics do have a false impression of most atheists, but that’s down to your church wrongly telling you that all atheists are bad. You shouldn’t believe everything you’re told.

We know very well what you are about … and our culture today reeks of it.

You haven’t got the faintest idea.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Indeed, someone like Freud, who has done precisely that. Vitz’s book is an answer to the atheist Freud. So after reading Freud and Vitz, you get both sides of the question and are more fully able to decide.

Isn’t that fair enough? Have you read Vitz? Have you read Freud? Would you be opposed to reading both and then deciding the merits of the case?

I’ll give it a go.

 

[Loginus]

You must have met some rather unusual atheists, I have no intention of killing the idea of God. The time I spend on this forum is reading other peoples’ ideas and opinions. I find it incredibly interesting to get an idea of how other people perceive things.
I’m not the slightest bit interested in conversions, providing people get some kind of comfort and don’t harm others, I don’t care what they believe.
Catholics do have a false impression of most atheists, but that’s down to your church wrongly telling you that all atheists are bad. You shouldn’t believe everything you’re told.
You haven’t got the faintest idea.

Well said

 

[bella5110]

You must have met some rather unusual atheists, I have no intention of killing the idea of God. The time I spend on this forum is reading other peoples’ ideas and opinions. I find it incredibly interesting to get an idea of how other people perceive things.
I’m not the slightest bit interested in conversions, providing people get some kind of comfort and don’t harm others, I don’t care what they believe.

Catholics do have a false impression of most atheists, but that’s down to your church wrongly telling you that all atheists are bad.

You shouldn’t believe everything you’re told.
You haven’t got the faintest idea.

All aetheists are not bad, they’re awful.

 

[Image_of_God]

All aetheists are not bad, they’re awful.

I would advise you to take that back. Such an uncharitable comment could result in suspension.

 

[bella5110]

I would advise you to take that back. Such an uncharitable comment could result in suspension.

But this is a non-Catholic Religion forum and aetheists are not religious, so I don’t see myself breaking any rules here. I was not being uncharitable toward aetheism because they don’t believe in anything. furthermore, if one were to be suspended for their comments, there are several on these forums that should of already have done so. To me denying Christ openly and gloating about it means you are not a nice person.

Anyway, I will apologize because I am needed on this forum as a defender of My Lord. sorry.
Because of my love for Christ I will no longer visit this aetheist site, sorry I started the thread.

 

[callador]

R McGeddon,

Whew! At least I can be semi-coherent at times. I apologize for the late night discourse. It can get rough when you can’t really see what you are typing.

As for the other poster, both the theory of evolution and the big bang have factual evidence that has been found. The question is, are we, as the observers of said phenomenon, putting it all together the right way. Even though we can measure the universe’s expansion, I can say with some certainty, that we need to collect much more evidence to create a solid theory. It seems to me that SOME of these theories, especially concerning matters of space and time, are borderline metaphysics. I think the scientific method proves much more sound when applied to more ‘earthly matters’. Newton’s Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and a host of other things I am sure, have been made known because of science. I respect science. Without it, well we would be the Cavemen from the Geiko commercials (j/k).

As I mentioned last night, the Theist / Aetheist conversations cencerning the existence of god can hard to debate, since Theology and Science are to seperate disciplines. Theology really can’t be subject to the scrutiny of the scientific method, as it is a belief and has nothing to prove. The scientific method can not directly prove the existence of god, since it measures quantifiable data. E.G. Even if someone believes God created the universe via the Big Bang, science can only show that the Bang happened, it really cannot move into the realm of theology.

Is there some kind of middle ground? Metaphysical Philosophy? I don’t know. But it might lead to some interesting conversations. We could start another thread and chat about such things as: Laws of Man, Causality, etc. Heck, I will even play Devil’s Advocate and pretend I am David Hume Master of the Taverns!

 

[Image_of_God]

But this is a non-Catholic Religion forum and aetheists are not religious, so I don’t see myself breaking any rules here. I was not being uncharitable toward aetheism because they don’t believe in anything. furthermore, if one were to be suspended for their comments, there are several on these forums that should of already have done so. To me denying Christ openly and gloating about it means you are not a nice person.

Anyway, I will apologize because I am needed on this forum as a defender of My Lord. sorry.
Because of my love for Christ I will no longer visit this aetheist site, sorry I started the thread.

Sorry then. Sorry Moderators!