Does Atheists think of God too?

[4Horsemen]

Yes, I think you could have a point there…

Hmmm . . . maybe we can agree on something of eternal verities.

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.

(lol!) Here’s a quote for you: “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”
(G.K. Chesterton

It’s interesting to study those creatures called atheists. My hypothesis is that atheists seek eternal truths. Observation examines this hypothesis from the friendly dialogue atheists partake in on Catholic forums. Conclusion is that atheists partake in friendly dialogue to find eternal truths. (rather simplified concept of atheists ) (also, the intent is some humor, not logic or science)

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

That sounds like a riddle wrapped in a mystery hidden in an enigma!

 

[4Horsemen]

Moonstruck

You are aptly named, stuck on the barren moon of scientism.

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.” Max Born, Quantum Physicist

---

Consider what Charles Darwin, a self-described agnostic, said to Edward Aveling, a dogmatic atheist, in 1881: “Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?”

Also, “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist.”

Someone wrote the definition of an agnostic in these words: He “swears there ain’t no heaven, prays there ain’t no hell.” (I think it comes from a song).

 

[_Locke]

:slapfight:

lol!

Woah this thread took a turn for the nasty. I’m leaving because I don’t see this going anywhere useful, but I’ll leave this parting comment: Attack the idea, not the person. Attack the idea, not the person

 

[Mystic_Banana]

According to the criteria that the predictions made by a hypothesis must be able to be verified or falsified by experimental testing. As I’ve already stated.

How do your test the existence of God? Or a ghost? Or the afterlife? Personally, I suspect many things existed and continue to exist without experimental testing being even capable of verifying it, but if that’s your superstition, it’s up to you.

Of course, so far abiogenesis has been failed, despite sickening amounts of public money been thrown at it, to have even been proven possible, so presumably you reject that as well as a failure?

No. The big nasty establishment won’t let science and theology be fudged in a public school arena because even the most hateful republican wing nut is aware that without competent scientists and engineers, the USA will be jeered at footnote in the history of how not to run a successful society with manufacturing, engineering, medicine and critifcal evaluation with scientific peer review in academia.

I wasn’t talking about religion vs. science. I was talking about Christianity vs. Atheism. Atheism isn’t Science, although modernist dogmatic Science (Scientism), which personally I think is a betrayal to the very concept of Science, becomes inevitably an atheism. Anyway, these debates have already occurred, and Atheism has lost. Several times…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

---

Consider what Charles Darwin, a self-described agnostic, said to Edward Aveling, a dogmatic atheist, in 1881: “Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?”

Also, “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist.”

Someone wrote the definition of an agnostic in these words: He “swears there ain’t no heaven, prays there ain’t no hell.” (I think it comes from a song).

The 2nd quote is quite funny in the face of Dawkinistic Atheism, with a the flag of Darwin waving embarrissingly on our British fivers! True though, when you discover that Catholicism laid half the groundwork for Darwinism anyway… or at least half of it did!

Doesn’t stop me being angry at Darwin for casually laying the foundations for the horror of modern racism, however…

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

The poll is meant for all Atheists only. However, all religious individuals are welcome to (name removed by moderator)ut/share their thoughts.

If God is not in their mind, where is He?

Any atheist who regularly comes here, yet says he doesn’t often think of God, would seem split-minded, to me.

 

[4Horsemen]

Mystic_Banana:
The 2nd quote is quite funny in the face of Dawkinistic Atheism, with a the flag of Darwin waving embarrissingly on our British fivers! True though, when you discover that Catholicism laid half the groundwork for Darwinism anyway… or at least half of it did!

Doesn’t stop me being angry at Darwin for casually laying the foundations for the horror of modern racism, however…

This may sound dumb to you, but could you explain “British fivers?” Sounds like a five dollar bill to me. Another question: In your opinion, how did Catholicism lay “half the groundwork for Darwinism . . .?” I imagine you’re considering the shallow approach to catechetics and the lackadaisical clergy?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

This may sound dumb to you, but could you explain “British fivers?” Sounds like a five dollar bill to me. Another question: In your opinion, how did Catholicism lay “half the groundwork for Darwinism . . .?” I imagine you’re considering the shallow approach to catechetics and the lackadaisical clergy?

The (once) proud British Five pound note, sirrah!

Well, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both considered evolution a possibility (telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html), Bishop Stenno invented Stratigraphy (a crucial mover in the longer datings of the Earth), and Father Lemaitre was the first to hypothesize the big bang (blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/12/catholic-priest-proposes-new-model-for-creation/), the latter admittedly after Darwin, but, on the other hand, before anyone else.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The (once) proud British Five pound note, sirrah!

Well, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both considered evolution a possibility (telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html), Bishop Stenno invented Stratigraphy (a crucial mover in the longer datings of the Earth), and Father Lemaitre was the first to hypothesize the big bang (blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/12/catholic-priest-proposes-new-model-for-creation/), the latter admittedly after Darwin, but, on the other hand, before anyone else.

They both have nothing whatsoever to do with religion, everything to do with science.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

They both have nothing whatsoever to do with religion, everything to do with science.

Very portentous! Fancy elaborating? And *everything * has something to do with religion, whether you like it or not

Incidentally, secular humanism - contradiction in terms, isn’t it? Sometime someone will notice that…

 

[4Horsemen]

They both have nothing whatsoever to do with religion, everything to do with science.

Rationalism, which is thinking all by itself, as modern history has shown, has led to nihilism." (Donald DeMarco, professor-emerituss of philosophy)

“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of understanding.” (Plato)

We, humans, have a natural desire for perfection, which is consistent with a reality where ultimate perfection has intrinsic meaning. We seek this perfection through our senses and, more fully, through reason. We find ultimate perfection in God Himself. His perfect nature is the root of logical propositions which form the basis for the body of knowledge as we know it. All science is a part of the body of knowledge, whether it be the empirical sciences or the higher sciences of philosophy and theology which encompass all of creation.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Very portentous! Fancy elaborating? And *everything * has something to do with religion, whether you like it or not

Science is a matter of understanding the Universe. The scientists, being scientists, were more motivated by science more than anything else.

Incidentally, secular humanism - contradiction in terms, isn’t it? Sometime someone will notice that…

No, it’s not. Secular Humanism is more of a philosophy than a religion, very much like Buddhism (you will sometimes hear people say that Buddhism isn’t a religion). If you look at wikipedia:

Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, or practice that focuses on human values and concerns.

Add secular to that and it simply means that it is a non-religious philosophy that focuses on human values and concerns. Non-religious humanism is entirely possible.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Rationalism, which is thinking all by itself, as modern history has shown, has led to nihilism."

It can also lead to finding meaning in existence. Although if you’re wanting purpose, you’re going to have to look in another Universe.

“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of understanding.”

People seem to think that simply because they quote a famous philosopher then it’s probably true.

We, humans, have a natural desire for perfection, which is consistent with a reality where ultimate perfection has intrinsic meaning. We seek this perfection through our senses and, more fully, through reason. We find ultimate perfection in God Himself. His perfect nature is the root of logical propositions which form the basis for the body of knowledge as we know it. All science is a part of the body of knowledge, whether it be the empirical sciences or the higher sciences of philosophy and theology which encompass all of creation.

You’re simply asserting things without evidence.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Science is a matter of understanding the Universe. The scientists, being scientists, were more motivated by science more than anything else.

Rather a sweeping statement, and rather an ambiguous, almost meaningless one - I doubt very much this pseudo-grail of science you’re presenting as motivation has anything to do with the motication of many of these…

No, it’s not. Secular Humanism is more of a philosophy than a religion, very much like Buddhism (you will sometimes hear people say that Buddhism isn’t a religion). If you look at wikipedia:

…you see this under religion:

“Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

If you can’t realise your own dogma, I can try and help you notice it if you want

Certain forms of Buddhism have, much to my sadness regarding the probable loss of integrity, redefined themselves according to the Western materialist interpretation of what they originally were - amazing, all this revisionistic obfuscation!

Add secular to that and it simply means that it is a non-religious philosophy that focuses on human values and concerns. Non-religious humanism is entirely possible.

Philosophy is logical thought, and a school of philosophy one which pertains to a particular perspective of logical thought. Theology is a form of philosophizing, and science is a philosophical method of investigation. I’ve never met a humanist that could justify themselves without resorting to faith statements of the most unconscious variety and ferociously blind dogma, however

 

[4Horsemen]

It can also lead to finding meaning in existence. Although if you’re wanting purpose, you’re going to have to look in another Universe.

It’s reason, aided by divine revelation, that leads our understanding to finding meaning in existence. Rationalism doesn’t go far enough to obtain knowledge of our purpose in life, which is to find Wisdom, that is, God. I would think that meaning presupposes purpose. It is on this particular universe we are placed in order to find meaning, so it would be unnecessary to look in another universe even if we could.

People seem to think that simply because they quote a famous philosopher then it’s probably true.

Not everything is true somebody says, of course, famous or erudite, but as St. Paul reminds us, we should test the spirits.

You’re simply asserting things without evidence.

Of course you mean empirical evidence that can be tested in a laboratory. I’m talking about those things unseen, that is, except with the eyes of the spirit.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

For example

It can also lead to finding meaning in existence. Although if you’re wanting purpose, you’re going to have to look in another Universe.

Is a statement of sheer unqualified dogma . Hypocritically so, given your succeeding statement in the same post

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If you can’t realise your own dogma, I can try and help you notice it if you want

It is only dogma if one does not consider the possibility that they may be wrong, and do not correct themselves when they are shown that they are wrong. I consider the possibility that I may be wrong and I will be happy to correct myself if I am indeed wrong.

I’ve never met a humanist that could justify themselves without resorting to faith statements of the most unconscious variety and ferociously blind dogma, however

I assure you my arguments, whatever they may be about, are well thought-out. By the way, how many humanists have you met? Did you even meet them? Or did you argue with them on the Internet? Are you yourself making a dogmatic generalization about humanists?

For example

Is a statement of sheer unqualified dogma . Hypocritically so, given your succeeding statement in the same post

You caught me there. I will change it to you’ll *probably *have to look in another Universe, because I am not certain that there is no purpose in this one. I consider self-correction to be a virtue.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you of the opinion that without religion (at least, a *correct *religion), any dogma is equally acceptable, and those without religion must, necessarily, have their own dogma?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

It is only dogma if one does not consider the possibility that they may be wrong, and do not correct themselves when they are shown that they are wrong. I consider the possibility that I may be wrong and I will be happy to correct myself if I am indeed wrong.

You caught me there. I will change it to you’ll *probably *have to look in another Universe, because I am not certain that there is no purpose in this one. I consider self-correction to be a virtue.

…well, you presented it as definitive… OK, you can downgrade it to a tenant of faith, if you want, but again I’d suspect you’d be less kind to a theist who made such a retraction . The core dogma of your beliefs, however, you wouldn’t ever abandon, even if it were explained to you how it is at fault logically, without losing your faith as a whole

II assure you my arguments, whatever they may be about, are well thought-out. By the way, how many humanists have you met? Did you even meet them? Or did you argue with them on the Internet? Are you yourself making a dogmatic generalization about humanists?

In order - Well I’m glad you’re convinced! Too many! Meet them?!? Some of my best friends…(etc.) - can you say the same about theists? I’ve argued both on the internet and in real life, and find more blind dogmatism in your average humanist than in a dozen Christians. I prefer arguing on the internet - it causes less social friction of any negative consequence. Er, no

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you of the opinion that without religion (at least, a *correct *religion), any dogma is equally acceptable, and those without religion must, necessarily, have their own dogma?

I think that everything boils down to faith and trust in the veracity of ideologies. Those without any strong faith, in my experience, often live either very essential, very unmotivated or very impulsive lives…er, what part of what I said made you think I was saying that first part? Mmmmmph mmmph mmph - what’s that being put in my mouth?!? Oh, it’s words…

Everyone trusts, believes, whatever, in certain ideas to a greater or lesser extent - it’s pretty much essential to function