Challenge to an athiest

[RyanL]

As compicated as the universe is, it seems logical to me that it will take us some time to figure it all out, and perhaps we will never explain everything. That doesn’t mean we have to make up answers for the gaps in our knowledge.

Agreed. Straw man.

And lastly, I have no faith in anything. If I trust someone/something, this trust is based on some past precidents and experiences that showed reliability and responsibility.

Why do you have faith that there is no God? Why do you have faith that the universe just “came into being, all on its own”? Why do you have faith that no one has ever spoken to God? It seems to me that you have non-experiential based faith in a far greater number of things than you admit…

Faith is unjustified and illogical and dangerous.

You have not shown this to be true. Your conclusion is unjustified, illogical and dangerous.

Thanks, predator.

Your welcome.

God Bless, and Merry Christmas,
RyanL

 

[clarkal]

1. It’s not blasphemy…Chesterton is not God.
2. Off topic? A bit, but not wildly. Easily corrected, in any event. Apology accepted.
3. It’s fine to think Chesterton is wrong, just be sure you’re doing so for logical reasons. Objectively, his logical construct appears both reasonable and sound.

God Bless,
RyanL

Good. I didn’t mean actual blasphemy, but I know that a lot of Catholics have Chesterton on a pedestal, and I thought that disgareeing with him might ruffle some feathers. I’m glad it didn’t.

 

[clarkal]

1. No offense taken by any here, I’m sure.
2. Please make sure that when you say you have “no conclusion” you actually mean no conclusion. In any event, sound thinking should require that you eventually resolve this question.
3. If Jesus is God, you really have no place judging his words or acts. Just FYI.
4. Are you sure you know what is taught by “his religious system”? You might try C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and see if it fits what you believe “his religious system” to be. If you click here soon, they have a copy for $3.25.

God Bless,
RyanL

1. Thanks.
2. I meant that, from what I have read, I don’t know whether he existed. I’m not an expert, but I know some experts that have even changed their mind over time (Richard Carrier is one).
3. Yeah, if. What I meant was that I am trying to figure out whether he is god, so I’m judging whether I think his words are valid with the best of my knowledge. What else am I supposed to do? I can’t take it on faith that he is god – I don’t have any faith and see no real reason to have it at the moment. I have done the same with the words of Buddha, Krishna, and Confucius, but I do not believe in their religions.
4. I see that you quoted my phrase “religious system”. I meant no offense here. I was referring to how it works – his plan of salvation. But, yes, I believe that I am aware of how Catholicism works. I used to be a dedicated and orthodox Catholic before I deconverted. It is really a long story, but I have read the Catechism in its entirety and other older catechisms. I have read many of C. S. Lewis’ books. Mere Christianity was my first. He convinced me at first, but now he does not, especially after having read through counter arguments to his.

thanks,

clarkal

 

[awfulthings9]

predator CA:

It is illogical to querey about what existed before the big bang, since the big bang was the beginning of the universe. However, it is a theory that I admit may be very wrong. The thing about science that makes it much more sound than religion is that we can admit this. Science seeks answers through testable hypotheses, and making and analysing observations. If some observation or evidence comes up that disproves our current theory, then we can modify our theory accordingly.

Where does religion get it’s answers from? What existed before god? Who created god? If god is unknowable, than how can you know he loves us? If god is omniscient, than he created murderers knowing that they would go on to murder people, and after doing so he sends them to suffer in hell?-How does that make sense? The list of religious absurdities goes on and on: How do we know the people that supposedly talked to god aren’t just lunatics or frauds or liars. Scientists are of a much more reliable pedigree and devote their work to finding out what is fact, or most likely, not making up (Edited offensive term) answers that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside like theists do. And most importantly of all, what is god anyway? It is not possible to defend something when there is no description of what that something even is. I mean it blows my mind that people can conclude that some made-up, unsubstantiated being, god, whatever, just came into existence or always was and created the universe for whatever reason and he loves us all, but if we don’t love him back enough he sends us to burn in hell, (I mean come on) What a joke!!!

How are my beliefs illogical? A venus fly trap is completely explainable, do some resurch, read a biology book, maybe you’d learn something instead of making up some (Edited offensive term) like intelligent design.

Why do you feel it necessary to know everything anyway? As compicated as the universe is, it seems logical to me that it will take us some time to figure it all out, and perhaps we will never explain everything. That doesn’t mean we have to make up answers for the gaps in our knowledge.

And lastly, I have no faith in anything. If I trust someone/something, this trust is based on some past precidents and experiences that showed reliability and responsibility.

Faith is unjustified and illogical and dangerous.

Thanks, predator.

Ah, now I see why you’re an athiest. You’re description of what we believe is entirely NOT what we believe. If someone had taught me the way you had obviously been taught, I would be an athiest, too. Unfortunately, I thought you were a seeker of the truth, but you obviously have not read enough GOOD Catholic theology to be able to accurately express what we believe. The things you post are straw men because we don’t actually believe it the way you describe it, but you attack your own “interpretations” of our belief as if you had adequately summarized them.

I think you are also missing many of my points. I agree that a venus flytrap is “completely explainable”. My point was that since nobody was able to explain the common sense of it to the Venus Fly-trap itself, there had to be another designer at work. I see though, from your slips into edited profanity, that you are frustrated with your own inability to make much of a worthwhile point. We’ll pray for you.

 

[steveandersen]

awfulthings9:

… I agree that a venus flytrap is “completely explainable”. My point was that since nobody was able to explain the common sense of it to the Venus Fly-trap itself, there had to be another designer at work. …

I’m not sure I follow you there

 

[RyanL]

clarkal:

I know some experts that have even changed their mind over time (Richard Carrier is one).

St. Paul is another.

What I meant was that I am trying to figure out whether he is god, so I’m judging whether I think his words are valid with the best of my knowledge.

Fiar enough.

I can’t take it on faith that he is god

Well…you could…but I agree that this is not the most intellectually honest approach.

I don’t have any faith and see no real reason to have it at the moment.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, what is your response to Pascal’s wager?

Pascal:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation). How should you bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God’s existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God.

…

I see that you quoted my phrase “religious system”. I meant no offense here.

None taken. The quotes were to emphasize that you believe the system to be one; however, there are several possible systems on the table (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). Since I obviously believe the Catholic system is the one Christ taught (based on historical study and objective analysis), I naturally want you to argue against the Catholic perspective and not an erronious one.

I used to be a dedicated and orthodox Catholic before I deconverted.

I take it by this you mean that in addition to attending Mass every Sunday, Holy days of obligation, Sacramental Confession at least annually for known grave sins, Baptism, and Confirmation, you also pursued earthly good works through faith like feeding the hungry, instructing the ignorant, praying for the lost, and the various other good works which we are commanded to perform. Am I correct?

I have read the Catechism in its entirety and other older catechisms. I have read many of C. S. Lewis’ books. Mere Christianity was my first. He convinced me at first, but now he does not, especially after having read through counter arguments to his.

I would be interested in the names of the counter arguments. Also, the older I get the more I realize how much I miss things the first time through, particularly with deep theological readings. You may try and re-read Mere Christianity now that you’re a bit older and wiser.
Also, I assume you get out of the “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord” conundrum posed by Lewis with the following: " I don’t know whether he existed". Am I right? If so, you may be interested in researching the Shroud of Turin and the blood analysis done on that and all Church approved Eucharistic miracles since. As blood-type matching is a relatively new science, it’s interesting when all of the blood types from these “ancient” miracles match, don’t you think? You may also consider the psychoanalitical evidence of the Apostles’ martyrdoms (for which there is abundant historical evidence).

Just a thought.

God Bless, and Merry Christmas,
RyanL

P.S.,
I still don’t believe in George Washington or the Holocaust.

 

[awfulthings9]

predator CA:

awfulthings9 made the generalization that science is more illogical and requires more faith than religion. I was defending science from his religious “attack” (for lack of a better word).

I know many scientists believe in god, and that perhaps the two subjects can be reconciled, but awfulthings9 seems not to believe so.

And just so I don’t come across as sounding like I think science killed god, I have no problem with scientists believing in god, and I even would expect many of them to, seeing as religious is such a dominant position in our society. I do think, however, that scientists, as a result of the methods of their work, tend to look at the world more objectively and consequently are more predisposed to being not religious.

I guess one way to win an argument is to pretend the opponent said things which he did not. If you can quote where I said that science and religion can’t be reconciled, please do so. I am simply commenting on what you said on the other thread, which is that, as an athiest, you can’t explain where it all came from and perhaps you never will. That, in itself, is admitting that there are limitations to your philosophy. That’s fine if you want to follow that belief system, but I think it is a little strange to claim to know there is no God when he is the only explanation for much of what science cannot touch, such as the origin of the matter that exploded from the “big bang” (which I happen to believe in, by the way).

In fact, my point is that science without religion makes no sense. Religion explains what science cannot and science explains the practical “nature” of the miraculous existence we have. I would go so far as to say that religion without science can be dangerous as well.

 

[clarkal]

RyanL:

St. Paul is another.

:-]

RyanL:

Well…you could…but I agree that this is not the most intellectually honest approach.

Right.

RyanL:

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, what is your response to Pascal’s wager?

I think it is seriously flawed in that I think it’s a false dichotomy. I mean, in that quote, Pascal only allows the possibility of the Judeo-Christian God and his eschatology and nothing else, that we have everything to gain or everything to lose. What if there does exist a god and his eschatology is different? What if he does not care if you believe in him in this life or does not require eternal punishment for grave and immoral offenses but a finite one (or none at all?)? Maybe you can’t imagine such a god, but I can.

So, basically, I think Pascal is limiting your options to the Judeo-Christian God. He seems to be dismissing the other major world religions as mythical nonsense. I used to think this way when I was a Catholic, that all the other religions were nonsense and obviously myths, but after I deconverted, I actually read about them and their “explanations” and “apologetics” and realized that their reasons for believing were just as good as the Christian’s.

IMO, of course.
…

RyanL:

None taken. The quotes were to emphasize that you believe the system to be one; however, there are several possible systems on the table (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). Since I obviously believe the Catholic system is the one Christ taught (based on historical study and objective analysis), I naturally want you to argue against the Catholic perspective and not an erronious one.

Ah, I see. I just assumed we were talking about Catholicism that agrees with the Pope, considering the site. Also, I still think that, if Christianity were true, that Catholicism would be the right organization. :-]

RyanL:

I take it by this you mean that in addition to attending Mass every Sunday, Holy days of obligation, Sacramental Confession at least annually for known grave sins, Baptism, and Confirmation, you also pursued earthly good works through faith like feeding the hungry, instructing the ignorant, praying for the lost, and the various other good works which we are commanded to perform. Am I correct?

You are correct. I did the above.

RyanL:

I would be interested in the names of the counter arguments. Also, the older I get the more I realize how much I miss things the first time through, particularly with deep theological readings. You may try and re-read Mere Christianity now that you’re a bit older and wiser.

I don’t know if the arguments have names, but this article by Dan Barker is a good place to start. It’s called *Mere Assertions, *and it appeared as a chapter in his book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. Or it was a chapter in his book first and then reappeared as an article. I don’t know.

I would actually be interested in re-reading C. S. Lewis. I know that a lot of Christians still endorse it, so I might as well be familiar with it. It has been my impression that atheists think that C. S. Lewis, when it comes to his Christian apologetics, is … not very good, to be kind.

RyanL:

Also, I assume you get out of the “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord” conundrum posed by Lewis with the following: " I don’t know whether he existed". Am I right?

That’s part of it. I don’t think we can know for certain whether he existed; therefore, he could simply be made-up. Obviously, in this argument, C. S. Lewis is assuming Jesus existed. I think that another possibility is that he was a real person, a rabbi, a revolutionary moral teacher of his day, and people wrote stories and did a little embellishing. I think that’s a real possibility. If I remember correctly, even some of Buddha’s followers divinized him afterwards. The stories of Julius Caesar also come to mind. Apollonius of Tyana also?

RyanL:

If so, you may be interested in researching the Shroud of Turin and the blood analysis done on that and all Church approved Eucharistic miracles since. As blood-type matching is a relatively new science, it’s interesting when all of the blood types from these “ancient” miracles match, don’t you think? You may also consider the psychoanalitical evidence of the Apostles’ martyrdoms (for which there is abundant historical evidence).

Thanks, I’ll look into it.

clarkal

 

[clarkal]

I apologize for the messiness of my previous post. I’m not feeling well with this nasty headcold.