Does Atheists think of God too?

[4Horsemen]

An athiest doesn’t “deny” the existance of a God. You cannot deny the existance of something, that doesn’t actually exist.

As an example:

I could deny the existance of a tumor in my brain, but that implies that the tumor actually exists by the very words I’m using. But, if the tumor does NOT exist, then I’m not denying anything by saying, the Tumor does not exist.

And since I (dame), do not have a tumor, when I say “I do not have a tumor” , I’m not denying the tumor. The Tumor, doesn’t exist. That is where the athiest is coming from.

Now you can disagree as to wether God exists or not, but to the athiest God simply doesn’t. A child does not by default believe in a God. Nor do they disbelieve in a God. They cannot believe or disbelieve in a hypothesis they haven’t even been introduced to yet.

Just because you could deny the existence of a tumor in your brain doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In your thinking you presuppose that there is no tumor. You could deny the existence of microscopic creatures (as people had done in the not-so-distant past), but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

The atheist is leaving out the POSSIBILITY of existence outside their realm of being. Even black snow, although out of our realm of our being could, theoretically exist somewhere at sometime in someplace. So what you are implying is that the perception of an atheist is very small indeed. Even the early philosophers envisioned a world greater than what they could see around them. This rationality preceded faith but, yet, is compatible with faith as Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Ambrose and others have shown.

According to St. Thomas, “We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. Others proceed from principles known by the light of a higher form of knowledge. Thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher form of knowledge, namely that of God and the blessed.”

 

[4Horsemen]

Wether or not there is or is not a God, all athiesm really is, is a rejection of some-one elses hypothesis. Some-one elses, belief, and some-one elses idea. We don’t make assumptions, we draw conclusions, that are different than yours.

What if your assumption (that there is no God) is wrong? You implied from the clause of your first sentence that the existence of God is plausible

 

[tonyrey]

And you can believe you are correct as much as you want! If you’re not denying that God exists you either affirm that God exists or you have no opinion on the subject. There is no other possibility.

You are changing the subject. To affirm the idea that a God exists is not the same as affirming that God exists.

I affirm that religions exist. These religions try and explain what , who and why this god exists. These religions are widespread through human society.

I disagree with the hypothesis that god exists. I disagree with the religions that are widespread.

I am denying nothing and I’ve formed an opinion, as a reaction to others beliefs. This, is the other “possibility” that you have missed. Try again.

If you are convinced you are denying nothing and at the same time you disagree with the hypothesis that God exists it’s clearly a waste of time and energy trying to explain why you are contradicting yourself…

 

[_Locke]

The atheist is leaving out the POSSIBILITY of existence outside their realm of being. Even black snow, although out of our realm of our being could, theoretically exist somewhere at sometime in someplace. So what you are implying is that the perception of an atheist is very small indeed. Even the early philosophers envisioned a world greater than what they could see around them. This rationality preceded faith but, yet, is compatible with faith as Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Ambrose and others have shown.

You’re building a straw man argument here. Atheism does not absolutely deny the possibility that God exists. That would (obviously) require a leap of faith, as absolute knowledge is impossible. That being said, if there is no evidence for a thing existing, or evidence against a thing existing, it can be said provisionally that the thing does not exist.

I’m a-leprechaun. Do I know for certain leprechauns don’t exist anywhere in the universe? Of course not! But I’ve never seen one and I’ve never heard or seen evidence of one, so I’m willing to say provisionally that they don’t exist.

Furthermore one should distinguish between the concept of a thing and the thing itself. See the use-mention fallacy. Hence, a more precise (though less parsimonious) rephrasing of the thread’s topic would be “Do Atheists think of the concept of God too?”

 

[4Horsemen]

This is the most beautiful thoughts that I have read today! (A sign of LOVE) You put a ton of joy right into my heart and mind. May God continue to bless you. Thank you for your kindness.

I appreciate your kind sentiments. They are a sign of true charity. “Where charity and love prevail, there God is ever found.”

Unfortunately, those who don’t believe in the “idea” of God, are missing so much of life, the best part of it. They are trapped in a semantics that really denies God although they try to wind their way in a fruitless attempt to pretend objectivity.

 

[4Horsemen]

You’re building a straw man argument here. Atheism does not absolutely deny the possibility that God exists. That would (obviously) require a leap of faith, as absolute knowledge is impossible. That being said, if there is no evidence for a thing existing, or evidence against a thing existing, it can be said provisionally that the thing does not exist.

I’m a-leprechaun. Do I know for certain leprechauns don’t exist anywhere in the universe? Of course not! But I’ve never seen one and I’ve never heard or seen evidence of one, so I’m willing to say provisionally that they don’t exist.

Furthermore one should distinguish between the concept of a thing and the thing itself. See the use-mention fallacy. Hence, a more precise (though less parsimonious) rephrasing of the thread’s topic would be “Do Atheists think of the concept of God too?”

What you are then saying is that you require “evidence” for the existence of God. (You must consider yourself agnostic then since you leave open a possibility of God’s existence). So . . . what kind of evidence might sway your thinking? Merely empirical? Did you ever read the Summa Theologiae? What about something more tangible like the Fatima apparitions in which 70,000 people, including those within a radius of 40 miles (I could be mistaken about the number; it may be more, though, rather than less) saw the great event of the dancing sun. It seemed to spin around as if it were a disk then hurl itself in a zig-zag fashion to the earth. People thought it was the end of the world. Even some of the atheists who saw this converted.

So if there is a “possibility” of God’s existence, even the IDEA of a possibiility (semantics dualism), then you might consider Pascal’s Wager, since if it is really true ultimately that God exists, everything revealed by Him would be your judgment. If it is not true ultimately, then there is nothingness anyhow because only God can create and sustain life. So the rational pick is belief in God.

By the way, science grew under the auspices of faith, and there are and have been many scientists with deep religious beliefs. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive; they do not contradict each other. They are united in a metaphysical way that envelopes the whole universe.

 

[4Horsemen]

Furthermore one should distinguish between the concept of a thing and the thing itself. See the use-mention fallacy. Hence, a more precise (though less parsimonious) rephrasing of the thread’s topic would be “Do Atheists think of the concept of God too?”

Linguistically speaking, there is a distinction between a concept of something and the object in question, but there is also a relationship. The example given about the “cheese” as object and “cheese” as concept or abstraction is a point in contention. Yet, we know what we’re talking about when we use that term and that it exists as an object or we wouldn’t understand the concept.

The same is true with the concept of God. We can think of what God-ness means in our minds because we have some experience of what God is–either through our own reason or because of the universality of faith that is intrinsic to humanity (rather than created under false pretenses). Or you could read what others have said concerning God (Bible, saints, philosophical proofs of Aquinas, even Platonic and Aristotelean ideas that came before Revelation).

Is it possible that this universal belief in God is some kind of con job set up by a smart person in prehistory, constantly imposed on all humanity for eons and eons, one generation after the other, culture after culture for thousands of years?

 

[_Locke]

4Horsemen:

Unfortunately, those who don’t believe in the “idea” of God, are missing so much of life, the best part of it. They are trapped in a semantics that really denies God although they try to wind their way in a fruitless attempt to pretend objectivity.

You put forth an argument from consequences; a comfortable illusion is an illusion still. Also I suggest you look up what semantics means.

4Horsemen:

What you are then saying is that you require “evidence” for the existence of God. (You must consider yourself agnostic then since you leave open a possibility of God’s existence). So . . . what kind of evidence might sway your thinking? Merely empirical? Did you ever read the Summa Theologiae? What about something more tangible like the Fatima apparitions in which 70,000 people, including those within a radius of 40 miles (I could be mistaken about the number; it may be more, though, rather than less) saw the great event of the dancing sun.

First of all agnosticism refers to uncertainty of claims to knowledge, literally from the Greek for “without knowing”, whereas theism refers to belief. Hence, you can be an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist, agnosticism itself is not a statement of belief.

With regards to evidence for the existence of God I refer you to The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists. I won’t go into detail about why the “Miracle of the Sun” doesn’t pass muster, but you may find this an interesting read.

4Horsemen:

So if there is a “possibility” of God’s existence, even the IDEA of a possibiility (semantics dualism), then you might consider Pascal’s Wager, since if it is really true ultimately that God exists, everything revealed by Him would be your judgment.

Problems with Pascal’s Wager:

• Assumption that God can’t tell the difference between genuine faith and pretending
• It doesn’t point to any one religion; I’d have to try every religion, many of them mutually exclusive
• Doesn’t argue for the truth or falsity of God’s existence. Ultimately Pascal’s Wager is just a combination bribe and threat, and the game theoretical approach would be to adopt the religion that promised the WORST consequences for disbelief and the BEST consequences for belief (if you follow Pascal’s line of reasoning)

4Horsemen:

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive; they do not contradict each other. They are united in a metaphysical way that envelopes the whole universe.

Science (as a way of thinking) requires doubt, the very antithesis of faith.

4Horsemen:

Yet, we know what we’re talking about when we use that term and that it exists as an object or we wouldn’t understand the concept.

I’m not really sure how to answer this. Obviously we have concepts of things that don’t exist as objects: unicorns, jackalopes, calculus. These are either fictional or abstract. (Contrary to what saint Anselm would have you believe, you cannot define something into existence)

4Horseman:

Is it possible that this universal belief in God is some kind of con job set up by a smart person in prehistory, constantly imposed on all humanity for eons and eons, one generation after the other, culture after culture for thousands of years?

I don’t think that anyone would would say that it is; I certainly wouldn’t.

 

[_Locke]

Science (as a way of thinking) requires doubt, the very antithesis of faith.

I’d like to qualify that by saying I’m not trying to create a false dilemma, the choice isn’t either faith or science. I meant to say that faith (by definition, belief that is not based on proof) does not rely on science for its conclusions, and science does not rely on faith for its conclusions. (And by science I mean the loosest definition, a skeptical kind of thinking that frames hypotheses capable of being disproved and relies on experimentation and observation for understanding)

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Unfortunately, those who don’t believe in the “idea” of God, are missing so much of life, the best part of it. They are trapped in a semantics that really denies God although they try to wind their way in a fruitless attempt to pretend objectivity.

Hello again, 4Horsemen. Here are two examples why I don’t believe God is an idea:

1. “This Sunday’s Gospel begins with the question that a lawyer asks Jesus: “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Lk 10: 25). Knowing him to be expert in Sacred Scripture, the Lord asks this man to give the reply himself; indeed, he formulates it perfectly, citing the two main commandments: you shall love the Lord your God, with all your heart, and with all your mind and with all your strength, and love your neighbour as yourself. Then the lawyer, as if to justify himself, asks: “And who is my neighbour?” (Lk 10: 29). This time, Jesus answers with the famous words of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10: 30-37) in order to show that it is up to us to make ourselves the neighbour of all who are in need of help. In fact, the Samaritan takes charge of the condition of a stranger whom robbers have left half dead on the wayside; while a priest and a Levite had passed him by, perhaps thinking, on account of a precept, that they would be contaminated by the contact with blood. The Parable must therefore induce us to change our mindset in accordance with the logic of Christ, which is the logic of charity: God is love, and worshipping him means serving our brethren with sincere and generous love.” (BENEDICT XVI, ANGELUS, Courtyard of the Papal Residence, Castel Gandolfo, July 22, 2010)
   vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20100711_en.html.
2. “The Pope takes us back 2,000 years and makes us become witnesses of what Jesus said and did with those men,” Carrón writes. “[The Holy Father] transports us on a spring morning to the shores of the Lake of Tiberias, where Jesus asks Peter: ‘Do you love me?’ and he lets us hear his answer, repeated several times: ‘Lord, you know everything, you know that I love you.’”
   (PAPAL CHILDREN’S BOOK TALKS OF “JESUS’ FRIENDS”, ZENIT.ORG, JULY 22, 2010)
   zenit.org/article-29967?l=english

By the way, science grew under the auspices of faith, and there are and have been many scientists with deep religious beliefs. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive; they do not contradict each other. They are united in a metaphysical way that envelopes the whole universe.

I’m reminded of this quote by Pope Benedict XVI on March 24, 2010, “St Albert the Great reminds us that there is friendship between science and faith and that through their vocation to the study of nature, scientists can take an authentic and fascinating path of holiness.” vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20100324_en.html#

I’ll take leave of this topic now. Thank you for your prayers for my friend. It’s been a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to participate in this topic. My main post #39 should be reviewed as well.

A warm and grateful “thank you” to everyone!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

An athiest doesn’t “deny” the existance of a God. You cannot deny the existance of something, that doesn’t actually exist.

As an example:

I could deny the existance of a tumor in my brain, but that implies that the tumor actually exists by the very words I’m using. But, if the tumor does NOT exist, then I’m not denying anything by saying, the Tumor does not exist.

And since I (dame), do not have a tumor, when I say “I do not have a tumor” , I’m not denying the tumor. The Tumor, doesn’t exist. That is where the athiest is coming from.

Now you can disagree as to wether God exists or not, but to the athiest God simply doesn’t. A child does not by default believe in a God. Nor do they disbelieve in a God. They cannot believe or disbelieve in a hypothesis they haven’t even been introduced to yet.

Dawkins is great! He’s provided atheists with such idiotic theories that they make even the most ill educated fundamentalist look like a genius! Scientology is beginning to look convincing by comparison!

None of what you say is true You can deny that something that doesn’t exist isn’t real. In fact, it seems sensible to do so.

E.g. “There is a realistic explanation from SCIENCE as to how intelligent organic life came into existence”

“No there isn’t”

Or even: “It is a proven FACT that Darwin was right!”

“That proof doesn’t exist”

And apparently children by default often do often believe in God, and certainly God has an uncanny knack of turning up in every culture under the sun, without any obvious causal explanation as to why (in a scientific sense, that is), if you deny the (nonexistent) evidence provided by anthropologists

And yes, you are denying the existence of a tumour in your brain, whether that tumour exists or not

 

[4Horsemen]

You put forth an argument from consequences; a comfortable illusion is an illusion still. Also I suggest you look up what semantics means.

I stand by what I said about semantics. It appears to conform to dictionary.com’s definition:

the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.example given: Let’s not argue about semantics.)
What is your interpretation of “illusion?” That which doesn’t conform to reality? Dictionary.com:

something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.

My point is that non-believers (I’ll use that terminology instead since the term “atheism” seems to have so many categories) are missing out on a most important part of reality–therefore, their thinking is illusory. Now, perhaps, you’d consider defining the word “reality.”

First of all agnosticism refers to uncertainty of claims to knowledge, literally from the Greek for “without knowing”, whereas theism refers to belief. Hence, you can be an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist, agnosticism itself is not a statement of belief.

Agnosticism is a statement of uncertainty (supposedly–maybe it’s just a linguistic attempt to sound more “scientific” since atheism is actually a direct repudiation of belief. As for the various categories mentioned, they seem to be oxymorons. Maybe you could give me a link. Like what’s the difference between a “gnostic atheist” and just a plain old “gnostic?” So if you can be an “agnostic theist”, can you be an “agnostic atheist”? lol!

With regards to evidence for the existence of God I refer you to The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists. I won’t go into detail about why the “Miracle of the Sun” doesn’t pass muster, but you may find this an interesting read.

You mean I need a guide to convert you? I think the Holy Spirit is working on you. Have you tried praying–I mean REALLY down-on-the-knees beseeching God in all humility to lead you to Ultimate Truth?

Awww. . . the “Miracle of the Sun” is fascinating and proof-positive. There is a book called Meet the Witnesses. I can’t find my copy, but several people gave their account. This was done for the non-believer.

Problems with Pascal’s Wager:

• Assumption that God can’t tell the difference between genuine faith and pretending
• It doesn’t point to any one religion; I’d have to try every religion, many of them mutually exclusive
• Doesn’t argue for the truth or falsity of God’s existence. Ultimately Pascal’s Wager is just a combination bribe and threat, and the game theoretical approach would be to adopt the religion that promised the WORST consequences for disbelief and the BEST consequences for belief (if you follow Pascal’s line of reasoning)

There are no assumptions concerning God’s ability to judge the real from the phoney. The assumption is that if you guess right (and live your life accordingly), you’re not doomed. Conversely, if you guess wrong (and you live your life accordingly), you’re in bad shape. True, Pascal’s Wager doesn’t specify a religion (as far as I can see), but Pascal was a devout Catholic. It doesn’t have to "argue for the “truth or falsity of God’s existence.” That was not Pascal’s purpose, although he has other writings that need to be considered and of which I am unfamiliar. “Bribe and threat?” Go figure! The Wager, itself, says nothing about religious systems. However, what’s so bad about considering the possible “WORST” consequences and the "BEST? "

Science (as a way of thinking) requires doubt, the very antithesis of faith.

So just because science uses a method that “requires doubt” (experimentation–looking at a hypothesis from all angles), how does that not fit into the metaphysical world of being and natural law?

[Quotte]I’m not really sure how to answer this. Obviously we have concepts of things that don’t exist as objects: unicorns, jackalopes, calculus. These are either fictional or abstract. (Contrary to what saint Anselm would have you believe, you cannot define something into existence)

Yes, of course, we have concepts of abstract words and ideas such as patriotism, heroism, joy, sorrow, etc. . . I may not have defined concepts completely.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I stand by what I said about semantics. It appears to conform to dictionary.com’s definition:

the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.example given: Let’s not argue about semantics.)
What is your interpretation of “illusion?” That which doesn’t conform to reality? Dictionary.com:

something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.

My point is that non-believers (I’ll use that terminology instead since the term “atheism” seems to have so many categories) are missing out on a most important part of reality–therefore, their thinking is illusory. Now, perhaps, you’d consider defining the word “reality.”

Agnosticism is a statement of uncertainty (supposedly–maybe it’s just a linguistic attempt to sound more “scientific” since atheism is actually a direct repudiation of belief. As for the various categories mentioned, they seem to be oxymorons. Maybe you could give me a link. Like what’s the difference between a “gnostic atheist” and just a plain old “gnostic?” So if you can be an “agnostic theist”, can you be an “agnostic atheist”? lol!

You mean I need a guide to convert you? I think the Holy Spirit is working on you. Have you tried praying–I mean REALLY down-on-the-knees beseeching God in all humility to lead you to Ultimate Truth?

Awww. . . the “Miracle of the Sun” is fascinating and proof-positive. There is a book called Meet the Witnesses. I can’t find my copy, but several people gave their account. This was done for the non-believer.

There are no assumptions concerning God’s ability to judge the real from the phoney. The assumption is that if you guess right (and live your life accordingly), you’re not doomed. Conversely, if you guess wrong (and you live your life accordingly), you’re in bad shape. True, Pascal’s Wager doesn’t specify a religion (as far as I can see), but Pascal was a devout Catholic. It doesn’t have to "argue for the “truth or falsity of God’s existence.” That was not Pascal’s purpose, although he has other writings that need to be considered and of which I am unfamiliar. “Bribe and threat?” Go figure! The Wager, itself, says nothing about religious systems. However, what’s so bad about considering the possible “WORST” consequences and the "BEST? "

So just because science uses a method that “requires doubt” (experimentation–looking at a hypothesis from all angles), how does that not fit into the metaphysical world of being and natural law?

Yes, of course, we have concepts of abstract words and ideas such as patriotism, heroism, joy, sorrow, etc. . . I may not have defined concepts completely.

Science is best when practising doubt, but Scientism (may as well call it Dawkinism) most certainly isn’t, and unfortunately the public face of science has always tended towards the latter.

It’s a dogmatic approach to science, which science, as a method of understanding, doesn’t need or benefit from. And, if, as a political animal (which in many senses it is) Science doesn’t realize this, we’re going to have problems… like we haven’t already!

Of course, all this makes Dawkinsian atheism an epic fail on it’s own terms… if only people would be sensible enough to notice!

 

[4Horsemen]

I’d like to qualify that by saying I’m not trying to create a false dilemma, the choice isn’t either faith or science. I meant to say that faith (by definition, belief that is not based on proof) does not rely on science for its conclusions, and science does not rely on faith for its conclusions. (And by science I mean the loosest definition, a skeptical kind of thinking that frames hypotheses capable of being disproved and relies on experimentation and observation for understanding)

Looks like we can basically agree. True, faith doesn’t depend on science (meaning scientific method) although faith does use reason, which is likewise used by science. Also, science need not depend on faith to come to conclusions about the workings of the universe, but scientists need wisdom in order to understand it. (You see, there is a kind of relationship we can deduce which, in turn, grants us a greater knowledge and perception of reality).

 

[4Horsemen]

Hello again, 4Horsemen. Here are two examples why I don’t believe God is an idea:

1. “This Sunday’s Gospel begins with the question that a lawyer asks Jesus: “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Lk 10: 25). Knowing him to be expert in Sacred Scripture, the Lord asks this man to give the reply himself; indeed, he formulates it perfectly, citing the two main commandments: you shall love the Lord your God, with all your heart, and with all your mind and with all your strength, and love your neighbour as yourself. Then the lawyer, as if to justify himself, asks: “And who is my neighbour?” (Lk 10: 29). This time, Jesus answers with the famous words of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10: 30-37) in order to show that it is up to us to make ourselves the neighbour of all who are in need of help. In fact, the Samaritan takes charge of the condition of a stranger whom robbers have left half dead on the wayside; while a priest and a Levite had passed him by, perhaps thinking, on account of a precept, that they would be contaminated by the contact with blood. The Parable must therefore induce us to change our mindset in accordance with the logic of Christ, which is the logic of charity: God is love, and worshipping him means serving our brethren with sincere and generous love.” (BENEDICT XVI, ANGELUS, Courtyard of the Papal Residence, Castel Gandolfo, July 22, 2010)
   vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20100711_en.html.

God is a reality whether we want to believe it or not. Our believing has nothing to do with objective truth. The example in the gospel you chose defines God as love and for those who profess to love God, it is imperative to love our neighbor as well. Thank you for the example which clarifies the nature of a loving God.

1. “The Pope takes us back 2,000 years and makes us become witnesses of what Jesus said and did with those men,” Carrón writes. “[The Holy Father] transports us on a spring morning to the shores of the Lake of Tiberias, where Jesus asks Peter: ‘Do you love me?’ and he lets us hear his answer, repeated several times: ‘Lord, you know everything, you know that I love you.’”
   (PAPAL CHILDREN’S BOOK TALKS OF “JESUS’ FRIENDS”, ZENIT.ORG, JULY 22, 2010)
   zenit.org/article-29967?l=english

Pope Benedict speaks so well on intellectual topics. His weekly address is in the National Catholic Register and in The Wanderer as well as online.

I’m reminded of this quote by Pope Benedict XVI on March 24, 2010, “St Albert the Great reminds us that there is friendship between science and faith and that through their vocation to the study of nature, scientists can take an authentic and fascinating path of holiness.” vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20100324_en.html#

I’ll take leave of this topic now. Thank you for your prayers for my friend. It’s been a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to participate in this topic. My main post #39 should be reviewed as well.

A warm and grateful “thank you” to everyone!

St. Albert the Great was the teacher of St. Thomas Aquinas. I’d love to have more time to read the great books written by the saints. I have books a-plenty waiting to be read and studied.

I hope you’ll be back again on the forum. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. God bless you and yours and many prayers for Elizabeth (on my church prayer list).

To Jesus through Mary,
4Horsemen

 

[4Horsemen]

Science is best when practising doubt, but Scientism

(may as well call it Dawkinism) most certainly isn’t, and unfortunately the public face of science has always tended towards the latter.

It’s a dogmatic approach to science, which science, as a method of understanding, doesn’t need or benefit from. And, if, as a political animal (which in many senses it is) Science doesn’t realize this, we’re going to have problems… like we haven’t already!

Of course, all this makes Dawkinsian atheism an epic fail on it’s own terms… if only people would be sensible enough to notice!"

The magazine, Catholic Answers in its July/August edition features an article titled, “Who are the New Atheists?–Why do they want to erase faith?” There’s an insert about Scientism. It seems apparent that this philosophy (anti-philosophy) attempts to explain the meaning of life using scientific principles, like Charles Darwin’s observation of sea turtles (example from the sidebar) becoming a philosophy of the “survival of the fittest.” Then there’s Karl Marx’s “screwball economic theory based on alleged scientific principles of history.” The idea is to liberate humanity from the “shackles of faith” but, instead, it led to upheavals in the twentieth century such as communism, racism, fascism and genocide.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

I so would love to ask the question of someone who claims themselves to be an atheist… I know there are some here… why does one visit a site called catholic.com?

What would attract an atheistic person to an obviously religious/catholic website? I even wonder why all the persons of other faiths are here.

I’m a Catholic, I come here to commune with other Catholics, learn more about my Church, grow in Faith… etc.

What possible attraction is there for an atheist? What attraction for and Evangelical Protestant?

It would never enter my mind to visit an atheistic website! Let alone go on there and post arguments about why there is a God. I wouldn’t go to another religion’s website and try to post Catholic ideas.

It’s not wrong for non-Catholics to be here, I’m not saying that. It’s all free. Many people enjoy arguing their points of view. I just wonder in all seriousness why?

Why go someplace where your ideas and beliefs are totally opposite to the ones being expressed and talked over on that forum?

To change the minds of others? To learn something? To argue? To exercise your right to just do it? Because it’s there? Curiosity? Ego?

I simply don’t get it. I’m a woman. If there were a man website, of what interest would it be for me to go there and speak? Let them have their website, discuss amongst yourselves, so to speak… If there were a Republican website and I were a Democrat, of what value would it be to me or to others for me to go there and discuss my views?

Again, I ask… to change minds? To learn? Curiosity?

So when the discussions turn heated and everyone is stating their views and everyone is trying to have their own views validated or understood… what is the point?

Just to lay it out there?

I realize that to remain in one’s own little sphere is non-productive in a way. One can go in circles and do it in error within one small group. Exchange of ideas is healthy. But when it’s an obvious position clearly stated in the name of the website… what attracts persons of completely opposite views to go there and engage in discussions that go in circles?

It’s all been argued since the beginning of time! There are the blue people and the red people… each holding on to their viewpoint. Eons go by, situation still unchanged. Lots of air time wasted.

Were I to see the exchange of ideas here to actually lead to better understanding, then I would perhaps understand why the exchange goes on in the first place. Yet I see time and again the circular argument.

I’m just tossing out some thoughts. If someone can enlighten me, I’d appreciate the information. I’m seriously curious about what attracts certain people to this site when they seem to have no intention of learning the wealth of information there is here to learn.
Some seem to only want to state an opposing view. I’m pointing no fingers to anyone in this group.

I ask with all good intention. I apologize ahead of time for any prejudices I bring with me, however known or unknown to myself. I’m not saying I don’t want others to chime in… I simply am curious to know what the attraction is for someone who is not Catholic and never intends to be.

Peace be with all.

 

[4Horsemen]

I simply am curious to know what the attraction is for someone who is not Catholic and never intends to be.

Peace be with all.

Maybe just to stir up a little intellectual jousting. Maybe to try and convert others to their side. Maybe for information and understanding. Maybe just curiosity.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

Maybe just to stir up a little intellectual jousting. Maybe to try and convert others to their side. Maybe for information and understanding. Maybe just curiosity.

We know that God makes it to rain and shine on everyone, no matter their mindset. All are His children. He desires salvation of each and every soul that He has created. He makes His Presence known in ways we don’t understand, but He’s been there from the beginning. “Behold I stand at the door and knock.” He knocks at the door of every soul, whether they hear or answer is another matter. We have free will to tune Him out, free will to reject His offerings. Yet, He has given each one the gift of Life. All are indebted to Him, knowingly or unknowlingly. Each will be given a final chance to say “Yes, Lord” or ‘NO’. Only then will some find the Truth. It can be rejected or embraced at that time. But all will come to believe! Even Satan believes.

Hopefully whatever draws anyone to this website… will eventually bear good fruit. God can visit one when they least expect. Visitor beware! God is watching!

 

[Moonstruck888]

Scripture says that “the fool says there is no God.” It seems atheists are too puffed up with pride to humble themselves before the Lord.

Yes, I think you could have a point there…

They fall for idols and even make of themselves little demi-gods.

I wouldn’t go that far. I’ve never killed anyone’s wife and kids just to win a friendly wager, not even with my mortal (or rather immortal) nemesis. I’ve never played a prank on anyone that involved taking him to the brink of cutting his son’s throat. I’ve never locked my son and daughter in the basement with no supper for their natural lives for eating my prized Cox’s Orange Pippin.

(I’m talking about hard-core atheists, not the lost souls who are deluded. They probably are the ones who return and are Surprised by Truth (title of a book in which re-verts tell their story). I think another is Prodigal Sons, as well as, Prodigal Daughters. I think the latter is authored by Donna Steichen.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?