Defending Against Atheism

[not_a_theist]

I asked if there is a specific term that refers to people who do believe in ghosts and/or witches.

Don’t know about ghost believers, but a few centuries ago those who believed in witches were known as inquisitors.

You can find terms that include the belief in ghosts or witches. It’s probably safe to assume that occultists or spiritualists believe in ghosts, but there’s more baggage attached to either of these terms. There are pagan beliefs that include the belief in witches, but again there’s more baggage attached to these.

I can’t think of a term that very specifically refers to the denial of ghost belief or witch belief similar to the term atheism, even though there’ll never be general agreement on whether it’s properly defined in the sense of “lack of belief” or “positive disbelief”.

 

[Ginger2]

pork, I began this dialog concerning something “not” said.

If it is going to upset you so, maybe you shouldn’t but in to other peoples conversations.

Instead, stick with the topics you enjoy talking about.

 

[Ginger2]

Not a Theist,

I think my point was that Witches aren’t real and ghosts aren’t real so there is no specific name to refer to those who don’t believe in each group.

But God is real so we have a specific term to identify those who deny His existence.

Wiccans aren’t really witches - in my opinion - because they don’t have nor do they claim to have magical powers. They do spells to manipulate various gods and nature.

At least that is my limited understanding.

BTW What’s a nice not-a-theist like you doing in Catholic joint like this?

 

[porkscratchings]

If it is going to upset you so, maybe you shouldn’t but in to other peoples conversations.

with respect, if u don’t want anyone to join in, then conduct the discussion via PM. This is a discussion forum, sent out to all the to joe publics in the world wide web.

If i’ve got the wrong end of the stick then an explanation of what u mean would do nicely.

 

[Ginger2]

Pork,

Now you see how upset you are? You are rambling so I can’t even make sense of what you are saying.

I didn’t say I don’t want anyone to to join the conversation. I said “if it is so upsetting to you”. maybe you should talk about things that aren’t so upsetting to you.

I don’t have a clue what you are talking about in your last sentence. Why don’t you sit down with a hot cup of tea and a good book (no pun intended) and relax for awhile. Then when you have calmed down maybe you can be more articulate and I will be happy to answer your question - that is if you were trying to ask a question.

 

[not_a_theist]

Not a Theist,

I think my point was that Witches aren’t real and ghosts aren’t real so there is no specific name to refer to those who don’t believe in each group.

But God is real so we have a specific term to identify those who deny His existence.

God is as real as ghosts and witches.

As far as I know, the ancient Greek term atheos or however it should spelled used to refer to those believing in the wrong gods and it wasn’t until Christianity became the dominant religion that the term started to denote lack in belief in gods altogether. Makes sense, because mono-theism is as far as one-up-godship can be taken and if you believe there’s only one of them, it’s only a short leap to say that if you don’t believe in the right one, you don’t believe in any.

I don’t really care which term you theists use to denote those who deny the existence of your favorite god. Anyhow, I’m not shy about calling myself an atheist if the topic comes up in real life.

BTW What’s a nice not-a-theist like you doing in Catholic joint like this?

Posting at my favorite joints is slow and I got bored. Nice? You’re either sarcastic or you don’t know me.

 

[Hubriss]

WOW. Things can really be set on huge tangents and get waaayyyy off topic in these forums. Here you guys go spending 1 1/2 pages to a discussion on the definition of spiritualism, and about ghosts and witches. Jeez. Just funny.

Anyways! TDGESQ!

Really. Then why is it that I’ve seen many atheists appeal to natural law?

And it sounds to me like you know nothing about natural law. But pretending that what you’ve stated is a natural law, what’s the problem? Why is it wrong to kill someone else who is trying to take your food from you?

Atheists appeal to natural law because it is our method of explaining how we can have an ordered society created by man made laws without the need for a dictatorial god to tell us what we can and cannot do. It is our job to point through the guise of religion and show that it has been man, not god, who has been developing the morals of our societies all along.

And for your question about someone taking my food from me. If it is a large amount I might be inclined to share for some teamwork. However if it is small or he’s trying to take all of it, he’ll have to take it by force. And if it comes down to deadly force I would kill him (if it was in my ability). This is a simple situation, but this is how it has always worked. Fighting over such things as control over resources, control over people, etc. But, eventually people had realized that societies prosper more when people totally and equally work together for the benefit of themselves. If you want you can read Richard Dawkin’s book The Selfish Gene. It provides a great explanation of how morally acting societies have come about naturally, hence natural law. Reciprocal altruism is a big part of it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

WOW. Things can really be set on huge tangents and get waaayyyy off topic …

Thank you
I had become completely lost if Atheism was being discussed. So tell me how does Dawkins 1) explain the embedding of Natural Moral Law 2) And the binding of Natural Moral Law?

 

[Aleii]

Having “proof” in God would render God useless to you anyway. If God were to show Himself to you…even a glimpse…you would, in effect, be “forced” to accept Him as you would have absolutely defense. You would pretty much be an automoton. Our faith is a vehicle by which we move toward God on our own, of our own free will. As I understand it, God has no need of automotons. If that were the case he would have never bothered creating man…he would have been satisfied with the angels.

I have trouble understanding this argument. Why does proof of God make you an automaton/slave? I have received proof of many things in life but are you saying that falls in a different category? How is taking away ignorance the same as taking away free choice? Adam, Moses and many others had proof of God, did that make them automatons? If you say no, why is it different with them than the rest of the population? Why can’t I freely chose to give up my ignorance so I can know the truth? Why must I be forced to “never know”?

Are you only talking about being an automaton in the realm of choosing whether or not to believe? If so, then I ask, can you freely and truthfully (and of sane mine) chose to believe a piece of blue paper is a puppy? (I can’t truthfully say I could. My mind tells me that the evidence points to it being a piece of paper, and saying otherwise would be a lie for me) If not, how can non-Catholics chose to believe the Catholic God exists when the logic appears contradictory to them? (While I agree that actions are a choice, I don’t see how faith is one given the above)

Besides, there are many theists who would tell you that they had visions or other experiences which, to them, were proof. How then do you not define these people as automatons?

 

[porkscratchings]

Pork,

Now you see how upset you are? You are rambling so I can’t even make sense of what you are saying.

I didn’t say I don’t want anyone to to join the conversation. I said “if it is so upsetting to you”. maybe you should talk about things that aren’t so upsetting to you.

I don’t have a clue what you are talking about in your last sentence. Why don’t you sit down with a hot cup of tea and a good book (no pun intended) and relax for awhile. Then when you have calmed down maybe you can be more articulate and I will be happy to answer your question - that is if you were trying to ask a question.

Wow - i didn’t imagine the insult (name removed by moderator)lied in ur responses to me.

U said butt out of a private conversation - i said to this that if it was a private conversation. u’d done it by PM or used other means to indicate u only wish to talk to one individual. Or u could have said u only want to talk to one person when i answered ur post. i.e. politely asked me to butt out, instead of being obnoxious in ur replies to me.

I suspect u r trying to provoke me to lose my rag, since ur last post suggests u r amusing yourself by imagining me frothing at the mouth and rambling my head off. It’s rubbish when u say u don’t what i’m on about - I asked for clarification in my last post, as:

If i’ve got the wrong end of the stick then an explanation of what u mean would do nicely.

Explain how this is not articulate enough for you? How is this rambling? Tell me how high an IQ I should pitch my responses because i was under the impression i was talking to someone reasonably intelligent (yes, that means u).

since u r either unable to answer the question (or unable to), let me make it simple for u -

Why are u introducing the concept of ghosts and angels to a thread on atheism?

Why are u unhappy with the dictionary definition?

If u are unhappy with the dictionary definition of a person who believes in ghosts, what definition do u have in mind?

finally, how does this relate to atheism and/or theism?

 

[Ginger2]

Pork,

Go back and read thru the posts. You have a number of inaccurate accusations in the above post. Then ask your question or make your complaint according to what was actually written.

 

[porkscratchings]

Pork,

Go back and read thru the posts. You have a number of inaccurate accusations in the above post. Then ask your question or make your complaint according to what was actually written.

I have already done that. Adding:

If i’ve got the wrong end of the stick then an explanation of what u mean would do nicely.

I’m beginning to wonder, why u can’t seem to provide what I ask, and to keeping ducking.

I’m going to have that coffee…

 

[Ginger2]

Pork,

Not, quoted Jonathan Miller: That is what opened up the subject of ghosts.

I asked a question referring to the quote he used to explain a view Not holds. You chose to provide an answer to that question. You joined in and that was fine, until you became snotty. Why engage in the dialog if you don’t really want to discuss it?

I did not say “private” I said “other people’s conversations”.

I did not bring up the topic of ghosts.

And I still haven’t figured out what question you want me to answer. If it is what you’ve “gotten wrong” I have listed two examples immediately about this paragraph.

 

[ricmat]

Originally Posted by wjb67
Having “proof” in God would render God useless to you anyway. If God were to show Himself to you…even a glimpse…you would, in effect, be “forced” to accept Him as you would have absolutely defense. You would pretty much be an automoton. Our faith is a vehicle by which we move toward God on our own, of our own free will. As I understand it, God has no need of automotons. If that were the case he would have never bothered creating man…he would have been satisfied with the angels.

to which was replied:

I have trouble understanding this argument. Why does proof of God make you an automaton/slave? I have received proof of many things in life but are you saying that falls in a different category? How is taking away ignorance the same as taking away free choice? Adam, Moses and many others had proof of God, did that make them automatons? If you say no, why is it different with them than the rest of the population? Why can’t I freely chose to give up my ignorance so I can know the truth? Why must I be forced to “never know”?

Are you only talking about being an automaton in the realm of choosing whether or not to believe? If so, then I ask, can you freely and truthfully (and of sane mine) chose to believe a piece of blue paper is a puppy? (I can’t truthfully say I could. My mind tells me that the evidence points to it being a piece of paper, and saying otherwise would be a lie for me) If not, how can non-Catholics chose to believe the Catholic God exists when the logic appears contradictory to them? (While I agree that actions are a choice, I don’t see how faith is one given the above)

Besides, there are many theists who would tell you that they had visions or other experiences which, to them, were proof. How then do you not define these people as automatons?

I was pretty much on the “If God actually let you see him, then it would be so overwhelming that you couldn’t resist…” side of things. But then in today’s Sunday Catholic Mass reading it told this story (short version):

Lazarus is a poor man who went to heaven, and the rich man who ignored him is in hell. The rich man asks Lazarus to go visit his still living brothers and to warn them lest they come to this place of torment. Abraham (speaking for God) says “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.”

This now leads me to believe that for some, no proof will ever be good enough to persuade them. Now that I look back, this seems true with the atheists I’ve met. They all want a sign that God exists. They have Moses, the prophets, we here at CAF and other places, the wonders of creation, and so forth, and still they disbelieve.

Also, think about the Hebrews who saw dozens of miracles in Egypt and during the Exodus. Then leave them alone for a few days and they’re worshiping a golden calf. Again, God gave them all that proof and they STILL didn’t believe.

God has a tough job .

 

[Ginger2]

ricmat said: “This now leads me to believe that for some, no proof will ever be good enough to persuade them.”

Amen! That is exactly right.

I was once in a Bible study with a man who I thought was a Christian. But he said things that were totally out of character for a true believer. So…

I asked him: "If you had a dream or a vision of some sort, and YOU KNEW FOR SURE it was God asking you to do something, would you do it?

He said, “First I would have to consider how it would effect my plans.”

I have no idea what this guy was doing attending church. I think he just went because his wife wanted him to go.

Like I always say, the only thing you can do for an atheist is pray. They are spiritually blind.

 

[tdgesq]

Atheists appeal to natural law because it is our method of explaining how we can have an ordered society created by man made laws without the need for a dictatorial god to tell us what we can and cannot do.

Even if law isn’t derived from the objective nature of human beings, whether that nature has its source in God or not, it has to be derived in some way from some moral (normative) standards found in nature. Otherwise it isn’t natural law that we are talking about.

It is our job to point through the guise of religion and show that it has been man, not god, who has been developing the morals of our societies all along.

It would be interesting to know why you believe that should be your job as an atheist. In any case, the question isn’t whether people have developed laws for society, as even natural law ethical theorists admit that has happened. The question is what those laws are based upon. It is not clear to me that what you’ve described so far could be called “natural law” in any sense of the term.

And for your question about someone taking my food from me. If it is a large amount I might be inclined to share for some teamwork. However if it is small or he’s trying to take all of it, he’ll have to take it by force. And if it comes down to deadly force I would kill him (if it was in my ability). This is a simple situation, but this is how it has always worked. Fighting over such things as control over resources, control over people, etc. But, eventually people had realized that societies prosper more when people totally and equally work together for the benefit of themselves.

I will accept that this is how you would act. I also will accept that many other people would act this way. I will also accept that many people believe that societies prosper more when they work together. How does any of this let me know whether it is right or wrong to kill somebody who is trying to steal my food?

If you want you can read Richard Dawkin’s book The Selfish Gene. It provides a great explanation of how morally acting societies have come about naturally, hence natural law. Reciprocal altruism is a big part of it.

I might just read that book. I’ve been told that it is an area where Dawkin’s has some expertise. I would like to have the explanation of what moral standards exist in nature that provide the basis for laws. If we can identify those, perhaps we can figure out why it is right or wrong to act in a particular way.

 

[porkscratchings]

Pork,

Not, quoted Jonathan Miller: That is what opened up the subject of ghosts.

I asked a question referring to the quote he used to explain a view Not holds. You chose to provide an answer to that question. You joined in and that was fine, until you became snotty. Why engage in the dialog if you don’t really want to discuss it?

It’s u who became snotty

I asked if there is a specific term that refers to people who do believe in ghosts and/or witches.

You are the one who lumped everyone together calling them spiritualists.

So, let’s just deal with one. What do you call someone who believes in ghosts? Is there a specific term for them?

I did not ‘lump everyone together’ as u put it - and the accusatory flavor of the highlighted quote tells me u have a problem with the term ‘spiritualist’. But u took it out on me.

Read the damn dictionary. U asked for a specific term - I gave it. If u don’t like it - I suggest u take it up with all the universities who compile these definitions.

Or kindly explain what agenda u are trying to pull here. .

So I asked the above q - which u have not answered. If u did have an issue with spiritualism, then explaining it here would help me figure out why the snotty reply. If definition is not suited - then what explanation are u looking for?

But u followed up with sarcastic comments making out I have the prob and not u.

I did not say “private” I said “other people’s conversations”.

I said if u intended it to be private - use PM or indicate as such. U did not do that - so why is it my problem for joining in a conversation that was never indicated as private or ‘other peoples conversation’ to which newcomers are not welcome (which would suggest it is private)? If u did indicate, I would not have interrupted u. And butt out as u rudely suggested.

I did not bring up the topic of ghosts.

U asked the q on ghosts.

And I still haven’t figured out what question you want me to answer. If it is what you’ve “gotten wrong” I have listed two examples immediately about this paragraph.

The one I put in italics In other words - if my definition is unsatisfactory, please provide ur own or q again but make it clear what u want in terms of an answer acceptable to u.

I’m going to assume - it’ll probably make an a…out of myself but no doing since I’m not getting clear answers from the horse’s mouth.

I’m going to assume you want the answer to ur q what do u call people who believe in ghosts to be atheist. Am I correct?

Barring further posts, I’ll make the assumption that i’m going in the right direction.

An atheist would not believe in ghosts or angels, or anything in the ‘psychic realm’, since these can’t be scientifically proven. Richard Dawkins calls these beliefs in the supernatural to be ’ delusions’ and ’ mindless superstition’. He lumps religion as being delusional and mindless, as well.

 

[porkscratchings]

I had become completely lost if Atheism was being discussed. So tell me how does Dawkins 1) explain the embedding of Natural Moral Law 2) And the binding of Natural Moral Law?

The topic is still on atheism (i think).

In answer to ur q - he doesn’t.

In Dawkins’ book the ‘Selfish Gene’ he posits that genes will do all it can to spread themselves and survive, and we humans are slaves to our genes.Whatever good or bad comes out of this process of evolution has nothing to do with morality (in the religious sense), so there is no such thing as a natural moral law for Dawkins. Only natural law in the sense of what takes place in nature and evolutionary development.

 

[RowBoat]

There is no objective (scientific) evidence that God does not exist.

I don’t know how they get around that. They are members of a faith-based pseudo-religion, since their only “evidence” is their own subjective experience.

They don’t get around it. They agree with the statement. And they would add a number of things for there is an equal lack of scientific evidence. things like:

An orbiting teapot between Jupiter and Mars
Leprechauns
Santa Claus
Tooth Fairy
A 250 member chorus singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic in a secret chamber beneath the moon’s surface.

 

[not_a_theist]

This now leads me to believe that for some, no proof will ever be good enough to persuade them. Now that I look back, this seems true with the atheists I’ve met. They all want a sign that God exists. They have Moses, the prophets, we here at CAF and other places, the wonders of creation, and so forth, and still they disbelieve.

Except for a slight ambiguity, you’ve got it right.

You can’t prove anything to me by quoting from scripture. Miracles don’t cut it, because it’s more parsimonious to call them unexplained natural phenomena at best, outright frauds at worst, and self-delusion and honest mistakes somewhere in the middle. Apologists are not credible and in atheist circles, the term is usually carries the same connotations as “used-car salesman”. Creation, what a loaded term. Nature is wondrous enough already and who needs a solution that’s more complex than the problem? There are those who say that nothing short of a direct sign would convince them, but I’m not even willing to go that far.

Yup, still we disbelieve.

Like I always say, the only thing you can do for an atheist is pray. They are spiritually blind.

Not blind, we just prefer not to convince ourselves to see something that ain’t there.