Emotions, God, and Atheism

[warpspeedpetey]

There is a technique the FDLS use to teach children to remain “sweet”.

 

[Fran65]

Aha.

I think Dameedna that you are allowing your justified feelings about the child abuse that occurs (according to you, I don’t know either way) in one cult to interfere with your judgement about the reality of others’ subjective experiences and the reality of God’s existence.

There is a difference between objective reality (accessible to all) and subjective reality (private experience). No one can reject the subjective reality of one person’s experience. For example, we both see a spider. The spider is objectively there and can be verified by others. If I tell you that I am very afraid and feel sick do you honestly think that you can dismiss my experience as not real because you don’t experience it? How very alienating for those around you.

‘God told me to’ is a very poor defense for abuses of any kind and is not tolerated in Catholicism.

I am certain that God himself weeps about the terrible things that are done in His name. He, however is not responsible, weak, misguided and at times, evil people are.

 

[crowonsnow]

No I mean , are you capable of placing something above yourself, IE above your own desire to believe.

If you are not willing to accept all possibilities on your journey toward truth, inlcuding God not existing, then you are not willing to embrace truth.

It will simply hurt to much and you will reject it because you don’t want it to be true.

Do athiests have any kind of absolute truth? No…they do not.

But, they are much stronger than you because they can accept the very thing, you cannot. They accept there may in fact not be a God. Until you have gone through athiesm you will not understand it. They…do not believe what they want. They accept the very thing, you fear the most.

You will continue to believe what you want. Truth…won’t be important to you.

So no, I don’t think you are “ahead” of the game. You just feel very comfortable.

Absolute truth is clearly a subjective notion. In that sense, atheists and non atheists both have their “absolute truth.” The only difference iw what the “absolute truth” is defined to be. If we’re talking gods, in absolute terms having a god and having no god are equivalent.

 

[crowonsnow]

Exactly a point that we (Catholics) have been trying to make.

As humans we do not understand God. His ways are a mystery to us. We know that we will never (while on earth) ‘have it all figured’ out as a poster (also atheist) put it on another thread.

We are not setting ourselves up as capable of understanding everything on heaven and on earth using our human intellect.

Thank you for reminding me of that.

Catholicism is not like that at all. Catholicism puts a premium on conformance, obedience and reward, not on knowledge. Never is the catholic god portrayed as aware of its own limitations due to it’s high level of knowledge.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Never is the catholic god portrayed as aware of its own limitations due to it’s high level of knowledge.

we dont believe that G-d has any limitations at all specifically

“nothing is impossible for me”

he has no limitations

 

[davidv]

Catholicism is not like that at all. Catholicism puts a premium on conformance, obedience and reward, not on knowledge.
{snip}

This pure and simply false. If it were true, our priests would not be required to undergo the exacting academic training that they do.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Catholicism is not like that at all. Catholicism puts a premium on conformance, obedience and reward, not on knowledge. Never is the catholic god portrayed as aware of its own limitations due to it’s high level of knowledge.

one word. Jesuits

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Passion for goodness…

Where does it come from?
1)Our personal passion for goodness could come from seeing/experiencing the pain and suffering of the world, and our desire to do something about it.
2)…

Is this (answer #1) exclusive to non-atheists? No.

Does holding this belief (answer #1) make a so-called atheist in fact INTO a non-atheist? Yes, in my opinion.

“God” to this kind of so-called “atheist” is “that-which/He-whom makes it ‘worthwhile’ to act to alleviate suffering”.

Why do we have it?
1)To make the world a better place to live in.
2)…

Is this exclusive to non-atheists? No.

But the question then becomes what is meant by “better place to live in”?

What causes people to twist their passion for goodness into doing evil and calling it good?
1)Their belief in whats right and wrong become skewed somehow…but how?
2)…

Their definitions of good and evil become skewed because they don’t have a true standard with which to compare their deviations, “deviations” due to the attractiveness of their wants which are in fact evil but SEEM to be good, due to the “temporary/superficial good feelings” created by the “holding” of these evils as goods, and therefore these misinterpretations of good and evil aren’t corrected.

Why do “good (so-called) atheists” really not want to be subjected to God? Because they value “options” very highly, and they vehemently (if not violently) buck at the idea that their option to define good and evil as they wish should in any way be “violated”.

“Good (so-called) atheists” aren’t really atheists at all. They are “self-theists” who simply assume that they are their own best “God”.

Where their morals/ethics are congruent with God’s revealed morals/ethics they are in fact “good people”.

Where their morals/ethics are not congruent with God’s revealed morals/ethics they are, because of the inherent intransigence (intellectual stubbornness) of the “self-deified”, the single greatest “tool” of the demonic in the universe.

Can these persons be both “good people” and “agents of the demonic” nearly simultaneously? Yes, just as no sinner IS his sin, but merely DOES his sin, and can do some other non-sin at nearly the same moment.

So-called atheists (better called self-theists) are not evil people. But they are more likely to be STUBBORNLY evil-doers than those with a true standard of good and evil.

That is why they are dangerous, and need to be prevented from “organizing” into effective groups. (Only slightly joking about that! )

:shamrock2:

 

[frankblahnik]

Belief in God makes that belief true for that person. Not neccessarily absolute truth because absolute truth will only become real when the truth manifest itself to be real. By the time absolute truth becomes real it will be too late for non-believers because their time on earth will be done. So why not just believe “as if” there is a God, and call it truth? You don’t have to call it absolute truth. No believer really does have absolute truth. Absolute truth reveals it self after you die. Believe “as if” there is a God, and let that be true for you. Have faith in your truth of the belief otherwise you are lieing to yourself. I’m sorry if you think that you are not capable of doing this…but you are capable, just not willing.

Science doesn’t ever prove anything, but it calls what seems proven to be true. It doesn’t say it is absolute truth because someone can always come along and prove it wrong, but until then it calls it true and believes it to be true (but not absolute truth).

Prove God does not exist and then you are justified in your non-belief. Otherwise, why not create that truth in your life for the sake of your eternal soul.

I love you Big Daddy.

 

[JDaniel]

Absolute truth is clearly a subjective notion. In that sense, atheists and non atheists both have their “absolute truth.” The only difference iw what the “absolute truth” is defined to be. If we’re talking gods, in absolute terms having a god and having no god are equivalent.

What?

So, I guess 2 + 2 = 4 is a subjective notion? So, I guess a triangle is a triangle, both physically and abstractly is a subjective notion? So, I guess:
Whatever has two (rear) legs is bi-pedal;
But, man has two (rear) legs, therefore,
Man is bipedal.
is a subjective notion? Shall I continue?

So what you are saying is that the above sampling of three absolute truths is NOT objective?

The conundrum for the thinking atheist is that he/she does, in fact, have God, but, denies His existence.

“Having a God and having no God” is not equivalent.

JD

 

[Sarcalogos321]

Absolute truth is clearly a subjective notion. In that sense, atheists and non atheists both have their “absolute truth.”

It would be helpful if you attempted to prove the subjectivity of truth before deriving conclusions from it. Simply making an unqualified statement does not make it true. While I happen to be Catholic, I do not believe that the statement “there is a God” proves that there is indeed a God, I think the statement must be qualified, examined, and proven in order for it to have any value.

The only difference iw what the “absolute truth” is defined to be. If we’re talking gods, in absolute terms having a god and having no god are equivalent.

Opinions are subjective, the truth is not. I can deny the law of gravity, but I’ll always be subject to it.

 

[HappyRevert]

No I mean , are you capable of placing something above yourself, IE above your own desire to believe.

If you are not willing to accept all possibilities on your journey toward truth, inlcuding God not existing, then you are not willing to embrace truth.

It will simply hurt to much and you will reject it because you don’t want it to be true.

Do athiests have any kind of absolute truth? No…they do not.

But, they are much stronger than you because they can accept the very thing, you cannot. They accept there may in fact not be a God. Until you have gone through athiesm you will not understand it. They…do not believe what they want. They accept the very thing, you fear the most.

You will continue to believe what you want. Truth…won’t be important to you.

So no, I don’t think you are “ahead” of the game. You just feel very comfortable.

I’ve got to say that was sort of nasty - unworthy of you. You do not know whether I passed through atheism or not on my journey, yet accuse me of not wanting to seek truth. I have yet to throw accusations at atheists, I would think you would provide the same consideration. I do feel comfortable because I have examined the possibilities open to me and decided on truth. I don’t force my ideas upon you, you asked and I answered. It is okay if you don’t accept what I say, but please don’t insult me when I answered directly and honestly what you asked.

 

[frankblahnik]

Is is possible atheist are prideful of their humility? I think Einstein was prideful of his humility (not that Einstein was atheist, but he wasn’t a believer either). Pride is a sneaky demon. It gets you caught in a loop that is very difficult to get out of.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The discussion is getting too personal, people. Please keep the discussion civil. Thank you everyone.

 

[crowonsnow]

This pure and simply false. If it were true, our priests would not be required to undergo the exacting academic training that they do.

I’ll admit to being ignorant of the academic curriculum priests undertake. Is it essentially an undergraduate degree with a major in theology? Would you be kind enough to post an example link? And their texts?

 

[crowonsnow]

Opinions are subjective, the truth is not. I can deny the law of gravity, but I’ll always be subject to it.

The theory of gravity is not a truth as I understand the religious use of truth. Religious truth is subjective truth. Scientific truth is not subjective, simply because it is reproducible. You cannot reproduce miracles for example, but you can reproduce scientific experiments that demonstrate the presence of the gravitational force.

All observations are ultimately subjective, but I think you understand what I mean.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’ll admit to being ignorant of the academic curriculum priests undertake. Is it essentially an undergraduate degree with a major in theology? Would you be kind enough to post an example link? And their texts?

you start with a B.A. or B.S. and then you attend seminary for four more years, then you take an internship, becoming a deacon, for at least six months, the same work it takes for a doctorate, plus the asectic requirements, such as abstaining from romantic invovlement, it takes more than just an education, it takes determination, sacrifice, and above all, an actual call to the vocation.

you can google the curriculum or see one seminaries here

aodonline.org/SHMS/Courses+15098/08FallU.htm

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The theory of gravity is not a truth as I understand the religious use of truth. Religious truth is subjective truth. Scientific truth is not subjective, simply because it is reproducible. You cannot reproduce miracles for example, but you can reproduce scientific experiments that demonstrate the presence of the gravitational force.

All observations are ultimately subjective, but I think you understand what I mean.

I think you’re mixing up your arguments here. A few messages ago you started with “Absolute truth is clearly a subjective notion.” then segued to religious ‘truth’ then to ‘observations are subjective.’ Let’s take the first first.

‘Religious truth’ is an oxymoron. Since the claims of believers can’t be proven to all, they cannot be true except to those who believe. In that case, it’s called ‘faith.’ A believer can claim a faith based on the ‘truth’ of her experiences, but the proof is subjective so it’s not ‘truth’ per se. However, some miracles are reproduced, some are inexplicable by modern science and many have been verified. Athiests will deny it by declaration. They have set the rules for themselves by announcing they don’t have to prove what they believe or deny in what others believe.

‘Absolute truth’ is redundant. Something is either true or it isn’t irrespective of what we think about it. Truth stands on its own and is unassailable. When secular relativism says, “What’s true for you isn’t nessarily true for me.” what’s meant is, “I don’t necessarily agree with what you think.” Thus ‘true’ has lost its meaning and doesn’t mean ‘true’ anymore to those who are not clear thinkers. Which takes in a lot of people in our society.

Gravity is not a religious concept, it’s a scientific concept. It’s called a theory because it can’t be explained, but it’s true nonetheless. I don’t know of any scientist who challenges the truth of it, which you have demonstrated.

‘Scientific truth’ is up for grabs. There are many instances in science where something has been declared ‘true’ which has later been proven false. These deal with the processes of disease, the structure of molecules, the workings of the human mind, the composition of the universe, etc. Which is the result of science’s most proven method, trial and error.

I don’t know what you mean by “All observations are ultimately subjective.” Maybe you can tell us. Before I disagree.

 

[Leela]

Is is possible atheist are prideful of their humility? I think Einstein was prideful of his humility (not that Einstein was atheist, but he wasn’t a believer either). Pride is a sneaky demon. It gets you caught in a loop that is very difficult to get out of.

Hi Frank,

If what you mean by humility is that atheists prefer not to pretend to know things that they don’t know and have evidence in support of their beliefs, then I agree.

I am always struck by believers claiming that atheists are arrogant and that humility is a Christian virtue while simultaneously claiming to know things about science and history that no scientist or historian could claim and claiming that the creator of the universe takes a personal interest in them. To me that sounds like narcicism rather than humility.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

truth
adj. latin, truthus

anything which either denies or supports the denial of a creator G-d

peteys dictionary of commonsense, 3rd edition, 2008