Dishonest Apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter anEvilAtheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Look into it in regard to survival and nature human response and instinct sometime. It tells alot and its interesting and true based on what I have experienced in my past profession.
Human nature is a pretty big topic. Do you have any advice on how to approach it? I am interested in trying to get a better understanding of why people do the things they do, but it’s hard to know where to begin. Let me know if you have any suggestions of things to read or of how to go about trying to understand it.
 
Human nature is a pretty big topic. Do you have any advice on how to approach it? I am interested in trying to get a better understanding of why people do the things they do, but it’s hard to know where to begin. Let me know if you have any suggestions of things to read or of how to go about trying to understand it.
Here’s a suggestion of a book that is fun to read (not textbook style) and very revealing about human nature. Titled The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, it’s a timeless classic on “Hell’s latest novelties and Heaven’s unanswerable answer.” The structure is a series of letters by the senior devil to his nephew, Wormwood. One reviewer called it a “sly and ironic portrayal of human life and foibles from the vantage point of Screwtape, a highly placed assistant to ‘Our Father Below.’” It’s been described as “at once wildly comic, dealy serious and strikingly original.” (I couldn’t have said it better, lol)! Anyhow, give it a try! 👍
 
No, I don’t believe I should seek something just because other people do. I seek happiness because it makes me happy. It’s something that I think humans naturally desire.

If you were looking for a different type of answer, maybe you can clarify what you were getting at. Were you talking about the morality of seeking happiness, or something else entirely?
We seem to be on the same page, however…
No, I don’t believe I should seek something just because other people do. I seek happiness because it makes me happy. It’s something that I think humans naturally desire.

If you were looking for a different type of answer, maybe you can clarify what you were getting at. Were you talking about the morality of seeking happiness, or something else entirely?
Sometimes people seek happiness incorrectly,
Resulting in much unhappiness.
Does this happen to you?

I hope I’m being clear enough.
 
We seem to be on the same page, however…

Sometimes people seek happiness incorrectly,
Resulting in much unhappiness.
Does this happen to you?

I hope I’m being clear enough.
Well it’s a little unclear what you mean by incorrectly. But I do agree that there have been some things that I did because I thought they would make me happy that in the long run probably caused me more unhappiness than happiness.
 
Here’s a suggestion of a book that is fun to read (not textbook style) and very revealing about human nature. Titled The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, it’s a timeless classic on “Hell’s latest novelties and Heaven’s unanswerable answer.” The structure is a series of letters by the senior devil to his nephew, Wormwood. One reviewer called it a “sly and ironic portrayal of human life and foibles from the vantage point of Screwtape, a highly placed assistant to ‘Our Father Below.’” It’s been described as “at once wildly comic, dealy serious and strikingly original.” (I couldn’t have said it better, lol)! Anyhow, give it a try! 👍
Thanks for the suggestion. It does seem rather interesting. I’ll make sure to check it out. 👍
 
No, my point was that the link you sent me wasn’t a link to an article or anything. It was just a link to a tan image (not even an image of something). I thought I’d mention this in case there was a real article you had meant to copy instead. I know how easy it can be to make a mistake when you’re copying in a long list of links.
ah oh…:confused:
 
Well it’s a little unclear what you mean by incorrectly. But I do agree that there have been some things that I did because I thought they would make me happy that in the long run probably caused me more unhappiness than happiness.
There is a great book by Kathleen Norris which concerns her battles with acedia, a rather quaint monastic term from the 4th century. The book is called “Acedia & Me” and I have exerpted a couple of reading selections.

"The scholar Andrew Crislip writes that “the very persistence of the term ‘acedia’ betrays the fact that none of the modern or medieval glosses adequately conveys the semantic range of the monastic term.” He cites a French monk, Placide Deseille, who describes the word as “so pregnant with meaning that it frustrates every attempt to translate it:’ I believe that such standard dictionary definitions of acedia as “apathy’ “boredom,” or “torpor” do not begin to cover it, and while we may find it convenient to regard it as a more primitive word for what we now term depression, the truth is much more complex.

Having experienced both conditions, I think it likely that much of the restless boredom, frantic escapism, commitment phobia, and enervating despair that plagues us today is the ancient demon of acedia in modern dress. The boundaries between depression and acedia are notoriously fluid; at the risk of oversimplifying, I would suggest that while depression is an illness treatable by counseling and medication, acedia is a vice that is best countered by spiritual practice and the discipline of prayer. Christian teachings concerning acedia are a source of strength and encouragement to me, and I hope to explore its vocabulary in such a manner that benefits readers, whatever their religious faith or lack of it.

At its Greek root, the word acedia means the absence of care. The person afflicted by acedia refuses to care or is incapable of doing so. When life becomes too challenging and engagement with others too demanding, acedia offers a kind of spiritual morphine: you know the pain is there, yet can’t rouse yourself to give a damn. That it hurts to care is borne out in etymology, for care derives from an Indo-European word meaning “to cry out’ as in a lament. Caring is not passive, but an assertion that no matter how strained and messy our relationships can be, it is worth something to be present, with others, doing our small part. Care is also required for the daily routines that acedia would have us suppress or deny as meaningless repetition or too much bother."

Two excerpts here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/17/life-emerging-out-of-what-had-seemed-dead/

and here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/20/from-eight-bad-thoughts-to-seven-sins/

Acedia is a non denominational equal opportunity sin: some of the ennui I sense atheists carry about answers to it.

Regards

dj
 
I But if there is a God who rewards us with eternal life based on our actions, I don’t think I have any idea what criteria he would use. He could reward Catholics, or atheists, or philanthropists, or even rapists for all I know.
Only if your concept of reward and punishment is like this: if you do this the carrot, if you don’t the stick.

The concept of salvation and reward in heaven is much deeper than that. You have to understand first the concept of sin, original sin and how God effects salvation.

I think a simpler way to regard reward and punishment vis a vis the spiritual life is that the reward is inbuilt in the actions. Bang your head against the wall and you get a nasty bump, jump in front of a speeding car and you will get killed.
So unless I thought there was evidence which made Catholicism fairly likely, I’m not particularly worried about the ramifications of rejecting it.
It does not really matter whether you worry about it or not, now, because face it you will. Those who baked their bodies into skin cancer was not worried until they were at deaths door.
 
A little while ago I did sincerely pray for God, if he existed, to reveal himself to me. When I say that though, some Catholics say that I was making an unreasonable request. I figure it couldn’t hurt to ask once, but I’m just not going to devote my whole life to searching for something that I increasingly think is extremely unlikely to exist.
Whoever told you that it is an unreasonable request is wrong. Keep praying. Even if just after waking and before going to bed.
I realize that faith in Catholicism might be a gift, but Catholicism teaches that it’s at least possible to know that some God exists using reason. The Vatican Council declared that if anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema. If after a couple thousand years of brilliant theologians and apologists, there is still not a single solid argument which shows that God exists,
Aahh,but there are solid arguments that God exists. The ones proposed by Aquinas for one. The one that we have been discussing a few pages back. You claim that you have debunked these argument but you have not.
I have thought deeply about the issue over the years, and the more I read and think, the less likely it seems that there actually is a God. You can dismiss me as a liar and as someone who doesn’t really want to find God, but I know in my heart that I really do want to believe in God, if he exists, and have tried looking for him.
To say that one is looking for God would be like a mouse looking for a cat :). God will find you. You flee, you run but God will find you. There is no doubt about it. But… that is just one of my so called assertions:D.
 
benedictus2 said:
*We may not be able to “break-it” up into a series of causes but the principle remain. The Frist cause argument **does not ***
reast on the assumption that we can **“neatly break”**everything up into a series of causes. The first cause argument rests on the fact that causality in nature exists but that causation has to stop somewhere. We may not be able to break it down precisely to the list minute but the priinciple is there.
Fair enough. Now someone just needs to prove that “causality in nature exists but that causation has to stop somewhere.”

And if you go a few posts back, that is exactly what I tried to demonstrate with regards geneaology. One cannot go back ad infinitum to caused-causes.
 
I don’t really get what you’re saying is wrong with those criticisms I gave. Would it be possible to further explain what you were getting at?
You said "We have no basis for making definitive conclusions about what natural laws would hold in a state of absolute nothingness.”

But the point that the “Uncaused-cause” (UC-C for short) makes is not about natural laws in operation. Natural laws are in operation only because we have the natural world. The question we are asking is how did the natural world come into existence. Something cannot come from nothing.
Like my earlier example of God and a square circle, he would first have to establish the appropriateness of his analogy. In this case, it is inappropriate. If it works, all it shows is that for any **task **that has a beginning, an infinite series of actions cannot ever be completed. However, if the universe has no beginning, this would still hold true.
I think the reason you fail to grasp this concept is that you keep interchanging concepts and terminology. We are not talking about tasks but matter. You are right, if the universe has no beginning then that would hold true but you now again fall back into an eternal universe. A few posts back you accepted the theory of the Big Bang as the going theory for the origiin of the universe. If the universe has an origin then it has a beginning. I think you are being rather disingenous here.
I’d need to know exactly how you define these terms in order to give a detailed answer. But the main point is that he is trying to prove that there must have been a first cause and does not provide a valid argument.
You know very well I defined this term many posts back. An Uncaused-cause is one that does not depend on anything for its existence. A caused-cause is that which causes or determined some other being’s existence but was itself caused into existence by another being.
Except his “proof” does not work.
That you cannot understand it does not prove it does not work. All it demonstrates is that you cannot comprehend it.
 
There is no data to indicate the rate of expansion of the universe before Planck time. Until we know which theory of quantum gravity is correct, we cannot know whether or not the universe was always expanding before Planck time. Even the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which is often used as evidence that the universe had a beginning merely assumes that the universe kept expanding. There are theories in which the universe is finite and theories in which it is infinite. Until we see some evidence which points toward one theory or another, I don’t think we should make assumptions merely based on personal preference.
Maaan, are we back on that roundabout again? It does not matter whether it was contracting or expanding. The question is whether it had a beginning.
Based on our current evidence, saying that the universe had a beginning is just as speculative as saying it did not.
Based on current evidence, since you accept hte Big Bang and concur that this is the accepted theory, the universe has a begnning. We are going on circles here.
I wouldn’t say transcend because that usually means rising above time’s limits. I would say that the universe could have been eternal.
.
If the unvierse is eternal then it goes beyond time’s limits because the concept of time relates the natural world. If the universe is eternal then it must transcend time.
To my knowledge we currently don’t have data to support any of the popular theories of what happened before Planck time. Since there is no evidence to support it, it doesn’t make sense for everyone to assume that the model you like is correct. I think we should consider all theories until we get more data with which to rule some of the theories out.
Since we do not have any data to support any of the theory of what happened before planck time, why are we even considering this. This is bordering on the mythical.
 
40.png
benedictus2:
*May I ask what you think are incredible about the God that the Church teaches? *
I didn’t mean anything specific, just that I’ve heard people say how being with God, in heaven and possibly on Earth, exceeds the amount of happiness we can get from anything else
When people speak of that it is experiential. And people have experienced this. I have experienced this.
I started a thread called “if there is no heaven will you still love God?” A lot of people were angered by it but a lot of people answered in the affirmative.

When it happens to you, you will know how true it is.

St Augustine who lived a rather “un-christian life” for many years finally came to this realization and he penned that famous quote: “You have created us for yourself O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Again, this, personal and deep knowledge of God is not arrived at through reasoning. The most you can arrive at is the Creator God (which of course is a very big aspect of God). This is a gift. A gift we can always pray for. But a gift that God gives in His own time. Prepare to be surprises by the God of surprises.🙂
 
Well it’s a little unclear what you mean by incorrectly. But I do agree that there have been some things that I did because I thought they would make me happy that in the long run probably caused me more unhappiness than happiness.
You will not be able to grasp this at this stage in your life but we will always seek for more and never ever be satisfied because our hearts were made by God for Him alone. As I pointed in my above post, St Augustine is 100% correct when he wrote that our hearts will always be restless until they rest in Him.
 
I agree with you. I do not think that fulfillment lies in material possessions. I’ve never been one to think that I’d be happy if only I had the latest gadget. What I cherish most are the relationships I have with people.
And interestingly enough relationships are formed by the bond of Love. We Christians say God IS Love. All we do is mirror God who created us out of Love.🙂

We also say God is a Trinity of Father. Son and Holy Spirit. The Father loving the Son, the Son loving the Father and this love between the Father and Son is the third person - the Holy Spirit…

So yes, it is about relatinships.;)🙂
 
Hi, EvilAtheist,

You said a couple of things that I would like to comment on … but, the biggest comment goes to the nice post sent to you by the New Member, Angie. 🙂 That was really a great post, Angie 👍
A little while ago I did sincerely pray for God, if he existed, to reveal himself to me. When I say that though, some Catholics say that I was making an unreasonable request. I figure it couldn’t hurt to ask once, but I’m just not going to devote my whole life to searching for something that I increasingly think is extremely unlikely to exist.
God is NOT a star. God in NOT our sun. And, by the same token - no one really has Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. (Now, it may be that their sun won’t rise tomorrow…or, any other following day - but, that is a different story.) Faith is the virtue by which something not seen (or other-wise measureable since we can’t see the air but we can scientifically prove it is there) is believed from evidence presented.

Children believe in the storeis that their parents tell them: Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc. As they get older the children find out that while there is something going on - it is not as was described to them. While the majority simply move on - this is not true for everyone…and that may be worth a deeper assessment for another thread.

We can not treat God like the sun and say, “Show yourself and I will believe”. You probably do not say that to the sun every morning as its light chases away the darkness. Why? Because you (along with a lot of other people) have accepted its approximate 24-hour daily journey ‘back’ to us. Wondering if the sun will rise tomorrow is certainly a valid thought - because one day, when its fuel is exhausted, it won’t! :eek:

But, just like God is not the sun - He is also not a genii that we can command by rubbing a newly found lamp. God is not here to do our bidding. Actually, this is turning the actual relationship on its head. We are here to love and honor and serve God. We did not create ourselves - we were created (along with EVERYTHING ELSE) by God. To actually look - as you claim - at EVERYTHING ELSE - and say it just happened into existence takes far more faith then I have. :rolleyes:
If after a couple thousand years of brilliant theologians and apologists, there is still not a single solid argument which shows that God exists, it is really hard to believe this statement. If someone had come up with an argument for God’s existence that wasn’t flawed, I don’t think they’d be hiding it.
I have limited experience in the area of geunine atheists. From this admitted limited sample size I have come up with my own pet theory that goes something like this (and credit the Schlitz beer commercial of many years ago…:D) “Life is short, so go for all the gusto you can.” This implies at least two things: an acknowledgement that life is finite and that pleasure is the real end of life and ultimate consequences are the stuff of children’s fairy stories. The people I knew were no more concerned with the consequences their lives were experienceing then they were about being hit by a low-flying pig.😃

As you look around at all of the pagan deities from arund the world - the one thing they all have in common is a power higher then themselves was/is responsible for EVERYTHING they saw/see. The Vatican pronouncement you criticized simply takes this simple fact into account as it says, you can know that there is a higher power. Now, you still have a free will to choose to accept this - or, to reject it.

I honestly think this is where we are today.

God bless
 
Well it’s a little unclear what you mean by incorrectly.
Maybe it would be more helpful to use the word “mistakenly” instead of “incorrectly.”
But I do agree that there have been some things that I did because I thought they would make me happy that in the long run probably caused me more unhappiness than happiness.
Then,
It sounds like you naturally desire happiness in principle?

How would you distinguish between
A mistaken way to happiness
From an unmistaken way?
 
Hi, DJeter,

What an excellent post! 🙂 I did not know about acedia … thank you for the message and the links. 👍

God bless
There is a great book by Kathleen Norris which concerns her battles with acedia, a rather quaint monastic term from the 4th century. The book is called “Acedia & Me” and I have exerpted a couple of reading selections.

"The scholar Andrew Crislip writes that “the very persistence of the term ‘acedia’ betrays the fact that none of the modern or medieval glosses adequately conveys the semantic range of the monastic term.” He cites a French monk, Placide Deseille, who describes the word as “so pregnant with meaning that it frustrates every attempt to translate it:’ I believe that such standard dictionary definitions of acedia as “apathy’ “boredom,” or “torpor” do not begin to cover it, and while we may find it convenient to regard it as a more primitive word for what we now term depression, the truth is much more complex.

Having experienced both conditions, I think it likely that much of the restless boredom, frantic escapism, commitment phobia, and enervating despair that plagues us today is the ancient demon of acedia in modern dress. The boundaries between depression and acedia are notoriously fluid; at the risk of oversimplifying, I would suggest that while depression is an illness treatable by counseling and medication, acedia is a vice that is best countered by spiritual practice and the discipline of prayer. Christian teachings concerning acedia are a source of strength and encouragement to me, and I hope to explore its vocabulary in such a manner that benefits readers, whatever their religious faith or lack of it.

At its Greek root, the word acedia means the absence of care. The person afflicted by acedia refuses to care or is incapable of doing so. When life becomes too challenging and engagement with others too demanding, acedia offers a kind of spiritual morphine: you know the pain is there, yet can’t rouse yourself to give a damn. That it hurts to care is borne out in etymology, for care derives from an Indo-European word meaning “to cry out’ as in a lament. Caring is not passive, but an assertion that no matter how strained and messy our relationships can be, it is worth something to be present, with others, doing our small part. Care is also required for the daily routines that acedia would have us suppress or deny as meaningless repetition or too much bother."

Two excerpts here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/17/life-emerging-out-of-what-had-seemed-dead/

and here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/20/from-eight-bad-thoughts-to-seven-sins/

Acedia is a non denominational equal opportunity sin: some of the ennui I sense atheists carry about answers to it.

Regards

dj
 
There is a great book by Kathleen Norris which concerns her battles with acedia, a rather quaint monastic term from the 4th century. The book is called “Acedia & Me” and I have exerpted a couple of reading selections.

"The scholar Andrew Crislip writes that “the very persistence of the term ‘acedia’ betrays the fact that none of the modern or medieval glosses adequately conveys the semantic range of the monastic term.” He cites a French monk, Placide Deseille, who describes the word as “so pregnant with meaning that it frustrates every attempt to translate it:’ I believe that such standard dictionary definitions of acedia as “apathy’ “boredom,” or “torpor” do not begin to cover it, and while we may find it convenient to regard it as a more primitive word for what we now term depression, the truth is much more complex.

Having experienced both conditions, I think it likely that much of the restless boredom, frantic escapism, commitment phobia, and enervating despair that plagues us today is the ancient demon of acedia in modern dress. The boundaries between depression and acedia are notoriously fluid; at the risk of oversimplifying, I would suggest that while depression is an illness treatable by counseling and medication, acedia is a vice that is best countered by spiritual practice and the discipline of prayer. Christian teachings concerning acedia are a source of strength and encouragement to me, and I hope to explore its vocabulary in such a manner that benefits readers, whatever their religious faith or lack of it.

At its Greek root, the word acedia means the absence of care. The person afflicted by acedia refuses to care or is incapable of doing so. When life becomes too challenging and engagement with others too demanding, acedia offers a kind of spiritual morphine: you know the pain is there, yet can’t rouse yourself to give a damn. That it hurts to care is borne out in etymology, for care derives from an Indo-European word meaning “to cry out’ as in a lament. Caring is not passive, but an assertion that no matter how strained and messy our relationships can be, it is worth something to be present, with others, doing our small part. Care is also required for the daily routines that acedia would have us suppress or deny as meaningless repetition or too much bother."

Two excerpts here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/17/life-emerging-out-of-what-had-seemed-dead/

and here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/20/from-eight-bad-thoughts-to-seven-sins/

Acedia is a non denominational equal opportunity sin: some of the ennui I sense atheists carry about answers to it.

Regards

dj
Thanks for recommending that book. It’s something I probably never would have thought of reading, but it does seem rather interesting. I added it to the list of books I want to read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top