Hello Athiests!

[jam070406]

OK so then what would be the status of persons in prison who identify themselves as Christians of whatever stripe? I assume most of them were raised Christian (since most Americans are); and they obviously screwed up in life – but they’re at least repentant enough to remain professing Christians.

So what will you say then – they were Christians prior to their crimes, during the moment they sinned they weren’t Christians, but now that they’re tucked away in prison praying for redemption they get to be Christians again?

Boy I’d love to see what you would say if I made the same sort of absurd excuses for non-theists?

A Christian that willingly and knowingly commits a crime puts himself in a state of mortal sin, like the atheist that is already in that state over his refusal of God. Both can repent and be forgiven, by the grace of God, and be in right relationship with God.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No thanks. And I would also venture to guess that those people live in a society influenced by Christian morality, so it wouldn’t prove anything.

that’s an old argument … i.e. since Christianity has influenced western civilization for many centuries it’s responsible for our societal mores. In the early years of the Roman republic they were a very disciplined and orderly society. It was only in its latter years that they became decadent and prone to excess. Well, during those early years they were pagan with absolutely no Christian or Judaic influence (since it was centuries before Christ & they didn’t encounter Jewish people until they began to move east).

Japanese society was always very orderly (as was Chinese society) and they never had any significant Christian influence. So your line of reasoning here is fallacious – pure & simple!

 

[jam070406]

Boy I’d love to see what you would say if I made the same sort of absurd excuses for non-theists?

You seem to assert that atheism somehow keeps people out of prison, because there are more Christians in prison, which is absurd!

 

[jam070406]

It was only in its latter years that they became decadent and prone to excess.

You just said it was a great society! Now that you see Christianity has had a bigger impact there then you thought, you twist it to say Christianity is the reason for the decadence! Man, you are something, talk about fallacious reasoning!

 

[Nebogipfel]

And why do you guys find it so hard to accept the fact that after calm and considered reflection we believe God exists.

Why do think I find it hard to accept that?

And as such find it difficult to speak to Atheists who think they should dissuade us of our beliefs.

Sorry, you started this thread asking atheists to comment on why they believed what they believe. I have only been responding to the questions I have been asked. I am not trying to dissuade anyone of their beliefs, I am merely stating why I do not share them.

Do you think that your statements about the non-existence of God will not be fervently argued by us?

I am sure you will fervently argue about it. But what does this have to do with my comment to jam above?

Do you think we won’t be asking you difficult questions in order to defend your position?

You asked me some questions. I have given answers to them as I see them. Did you think I would not be asking you some difficult questions in order to defend your position? But what does this have to do with my comment to jam above?

Did we force you to come to CAF (only to have you complain that we don’t understand you)?

Again, I must point out that you started this thread asking why atheists believe the things they do. I’m puzzled as to why you complain when we, er, do what you ask us to do.

Why do I come to CAF? Because as an ex-Catholic, I am still interested in understanding Catholics believe and why they believe it. Maybe I missed something when I left my faith behind. But on the basis of what I read here at CAF, I suspect not.

And I am constantly astounded by how shocked atheists seem to be when they discover we’re not so easily fooled.

I’m sorry, at what point have I expressed shock that you did not immediately abandon your faith in response to a few short postings from me in an internet forum? I have to say, you seem to be shocked by the fact that, in response to hearing about Our Lady of Guadaloupe, I have not immediately renounced my atheism and returned to the fold of the Church.

The only shock feel at CAF is at the constant grinding of the if-you-left-the-Church-it-can-only-be-for-dishonest-reasons axe. Every thread I have participated in, it pops up sure as mushrooms after rain.

So again, I ask the question, which I put to kalt and jam (and not yet heard an answer) - Do you think it is possible for someone to leave the Church for “honest” reasons, rather than selfish, dishonest ones?

 

[jam070406]

So again, I ask the question, which I put to kalt and jam (and not yet heard an answer) - Do you think it is possible for someone to leave the Church for “honest” reasons, rather than selfish, dishonest ones?

Perhaps honest to you, misguided to us. How’s that?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You just said it was a great society! Now that you see Christianity has had a bigger impact there then you thought, you twist it to say Christianity is the reason for the decadence! Man, you are something, talk about fallacious reasoning!

no … you totally read that one into it. I don’t say Christianity made Rome decadent (it can hardly be said first or second century Italian Christians were decadent, indeed quite the opposite was true). Rome became decadent independent of religious influence, it was the same thing it always is … wealth and success (which inevitably leads to decadence).

My sole point is that Christianity and good behavior are not exclusively related to one anther. There’s more Chinese than Catholics & I think it’s fair to say the Chinese are better behaved than the average Catholic (even according to Catholic standards). Good moral fiber, discipline, avoidance of excess, kind nature, etc. are not exclusive to any religion or social system. They’ve been around long before religion and they’ll be around long after religion.

The idea that if society moves away from Christianity we will somehow fall apart is merely something you’ve programmed yourself to believe – it has no basis in fact and no precedent in history.

 

[aileron]

I know the answer. It’s been given to us by your arguments in these threads. All one has to do is read between the lines.

There is a moral issue that you and the Church don’t see eye to eye on. Now you come in here to try and discredit the Church (perhaps to ease your own mind and conscience, I can’t say.)

You don’t strike me as the cynical type, so I hope you’ll accept my explanation at face value. I will try to explain in more clarity.

I would also like to point out that is is not “me and the Church”. The implication here is that I’m on my own vs. the indefatigable institution. On most of the issues I’m at odds with the Church it is more like the greater part of humanity (even in some cases the majority of Catholics) vs. the Church hierarchy.

It is no concern to me what pronouncements the RCC make regarding internal matters. If one day the Church were to amend or alter its position on transubstantiation, I would not bother to argue it one way or the other. It’s really none of my concern what the RCC teaches its members about the use of birth control or IVF or physician assisted suicide or a host of other issues. They can choose to follow the direction of the leaders or not.

What I do care about is when the RCC leadership, indeed the leadership of many religious organizations, attempts to influence secular laws. I think that religious leaders in a pluralistic society have a role in debating policy making for secular laws, but with caveat. My position is, I think, equitable:

When dealing with secular government law, any and all groups wishing to influence public policy should provide verifiable secular reasons for their argument. Yet this is often not the case. I hear arguments for how IVF “violates the rights of the embryo.” Great. Tell me how. What are the reasons for this. Instead, they go unexplained perhaps with the old unspoken expectation of deference to the cloth.

When we are told it’s immoral help a person end life even though they may have only weeks or months to live and are in abject agony, I don’t want to hear why secular laws should be such and such a way because (if we are to be honest about it) some group is saying that they know God’s will. It’s perfectly evident from history that these groups can and have gotten it wrong (assuming the newer position is right).

Various religious leaders attempt to rely on an unspoken, traditional expectation of deference. Non believers are astutely aware of this, but it should be a concern for all believers too. No denomination in this country holds a majority population. Religiously speaking, we are a plurality. If religious group A gets to invoke the privilege of deference rather than secular reasons, what is to stop group B, whose positions are objectionable to group A from doing the same once they can sway political power more?

But somehow you thought it would be easy and Catholics would roll over to your superior intellect. Which didn’t happen. And around and around we go.

Do you really think this? I’m trying to find a peaceful co-existence. I’m trying to argue my points and learn yours, but it only seems like I can’t get past certain Church history because certain people are astonishingly defensive (not you though, thank you very much).

Put another way, I’m not interested in taking God off of money and out of the pledge. I’m not interested in feigning psychological trauma every time someone says a sectarian prayer in a government function. I can walk by a Ten Commandments tableau in front of a courthouse without breaking into hysterics. History, tradition, culture, ethics, etc. of which religion has an important role can be a valid secular argument.

What I want in return is a shift in attitude in public debates about secular laws. Honestly, I’ve lost count the number of times I’ve heard the priest and pastor (who often disagree) tell us why God wants or does not want a law to pass. If they want to tell us what they think God wants, that’s great. Until we hear secular reasons for secular laws, they should not expect serious considerations of the I know God’s fiat argument.

 

[jam070406]

no … you totally read that one into it. I don’t say Christianity made Rome decadent (it can hardly be said first or second century Italian Christians were decadent, indeed quite the opposite was true). Rome became decadent independent of religious influence, it was the same thing it always is … wealth and success (which inevitably leads to decadence).

My sole point is that Christianity and good behavior are not exclusively related to one anther. There’s more Chinese than Catholics & I think it’s fair to say the Chinese are better behaved than the average Catholic (even according to Catholic standards). Good moral fiber, discipline, avoidance of excess, kind nature, etc. are not exclusive to any religion or social system. They’ve been around long before religion and they’ll be around long after religion.

The idea that if society moves away from Christianity we will somehow fall apart is merely something you’ve programmed yourself to believe – it has no basis in fact and no precedent in history.

In the same post you say Christianity is not the reason for decadence, quite the opposite, and then you state that moving away from Christianity does not result in decandence.
The morality you mention is what Paul referred to as the law written in the hearts of men.
So yes, it was around before God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Nebogipfel]

I guess you don’t know much about the tilma of Guadelupe do you?
…

sognodargento.blogspot.com/2007/06/scientists-certify-our-lady-of.html

I’ll see your Argent By the Tiber blog, and I’ll raise you a Skeptical Brief

Can you put a name to the NASA scientist mentioned, and reference the paper he wrote? Does someone really need divine help to paint a picture of constellations in the sky, or a map of the area where they live? Human beings are always seeing faces and shapes in random arrangements of clouds or rocks. Is it possible that someone in the 16th century could have already seen a picture painted in the 1st century? Why doesn’t your blogger give references for the reports he cites, particularly when someone asked for them 2 years ago? What your blogger sites is anecdote not evidence.

look, I don’t want to be rude, or to poke holes in anyone’s beliefs. As I mentioned before, the world is full of “supernatural” and “unexplained” events which “leave scientists baffled”. There is no reason why scientific investigations into these things should not turn robust evidence to support them if they actually happen. When the evidence turns out to be thin, I just draw my own conclusions.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

In the same post you say Christianity is not the reason for decadence, quite the opposite, and then you state that moving away from Christianity does not result in decandence.

why do you view this as a contradiction? The Romans started out as well behaved and disciplined pagans. They wound up as a rich, powerful, and decadent society. In the mix there was Christianity (during the latter empire period). Regardless of Christianities influence on Rome (which is debated by scholars) the important point is that Christianity had nothing to do with Rome’s culture early in its history (and its discipline, strong moral fiber, and family focus) – since of course early Rome predates Christianity.

Moreover, it’s hard to say a religion that promotes piety and a quasi-stoic virtue system was responsible for the sort of decadence seen in late Roman antiquity. So I’m confused as to where the contradiction lies? Please elaborate …

The morality you mention is what Paul referred to as the law written in the hearts of men.
So yes, it was around before God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

prove it!

 

[Nebogipfel]

Perhaps honest to you, misguided to us. How’s that?

I have no objection to people thinking me “misguided”…

 

[aileron]

You seem to assert that atheism somehow keeps people out of prison, because there are more Christians in prison, which is absurd!

The actual data is this: The percentage of self-reported atheists in prisons is lower than the percentage of self-reported atheists in the USA at large.

 

[jam070406]

why do you view this as a contradiction? The Romans started out as well behaved and disciplined pagans. They wound up as a rich, powerful, and decadent society. In the mix there was Christianity (during the latter empire period). Regardless of Christianities influence on Rome (which is debated by scholars) the important point is that Christianity had nothing to do with Rome’s culture early in its history (and its discipline, strong moral fiber, and family focus) – since of course early Rome predates Christianity.

Moreover, it’s hard to say a religion that promotes piety and a quasi-stoic virtue system was responsible for the sort of decadence seen in late Roman antiquity. So I’m confused as to where the contradiction lies? Please elaborate …

I apparantly misunderstood what you were trying to say. Sorry.

prove it!

I could say read his epistles, but that really won’t do any good will it?

 

[jam070406]

You don’t strike me as the cynical type, so I hope you’ll accept my explanation at face value. I will try to explain in more clarity.

I would also like to point out that is is not “me and the Church”. The implication here is that I’m on my own vs. the indefatigable institution. On most of the issues I’m at odds with the Church it is more like the greater part of humanity (even in some cases the majority of Catholics) vs. the Church hierarchy.

It is no concern to me what pronouncements the RCC make regarding internal matters. If one day the Church were to amend or alter its position on transubstantiation, I would not bother to argue it one way or the other. It’s really none of my concern what the RCC teaches its members about the use of birth control or IVF or physician assisted suicide or a host of other issues. They can choose to follow the direction of the leaders or not.

What I do care about is when the RCC leadership, indeed the leadership of many religious organizations, attempts to influence secular laws. I think that religious leaders in a pluralistic society have a role in debating policy making for secular laws, but with caveat. My position is, I think, equitable:

When dealing with secular government law, any and all groups wishing to influence public policy should provide verifiable secular reasons for their argument. Yet this is often not the case. I hear arguments for how IVF “violates the rights of the embryo.” Great. Tell me how. What are the reasons for this. Instead, they go unexplained perhaps with the old unspoken expectation of deference to the cloth.

When we are told it’s immoral help a person end life even though they may have only weeks or months to live and are in abject agony, I don’t want to hear why secular laws should be such and such a way because (if we are to be honest about it) some group is saying that they know God’s will. It’s perfectly evident from history that these groups can and have gotten it wrong (assuming the newer position is right).

Various religious leaders attempt to rely on an unspoken, traditional expectation of deference. Non believers are astutely aware of this, but it should be a concern for all believers too. No denomination in this country holds a majority population. Religiously speaking, we are a plurality. If religious group A gets to invoke the privilege of deference rather than secular reasons, what is to stop group B, whose positions are objectionable to group A from doing the same once they can sway political power more?

Do you really think this? I’m trying to find a peaceful co-existence. I’m trying to argue my points and learn yours, but it only seems like I can’t get past certain Church history because certain people are astonishingly defensive (not you though, thank you very much).

Put another way, I’m not interested in taking God off of money and out of the pledge. I’m not interested in feigning psychological trauma every time someone says a sectarian prayer in a government function. I can walk by a Ten Commandments tableau in front of a courthouse without breaking into hysterics. History, tradition, culture, ethics, etc. of which religion has an important role can be a valid secular argument.

What I want in return is a shift in attitude in public debates about secular laws. Honestly, I’ve lost count the number of times I’ve heard the priest and pastor (who often disagree) tell us why God wants or does not want a law to pass. If they want to tell us what they think God wants, that’s great. Until we hear secular reasons for secular laws, they should not expect serious considerations of the I know God’s fiat argument.

I can’t even answer this because we have two completely different world views. It would require people as myself to abandon their Faith or people like you to be converted.
In the meantime, I’ll pray for the latter.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You seem to assert that atheism somehow keeps people out of prison, because there are more Christians in prison, which is absurd!

well no … I use it to illustrate the non-necessity of theism to temper behavior. Of course atheists are usually highly educated, more affluent then the population at large (or will be when they grow up), etc. So it’s already a group far less likely to see the inside of a jail cell as compared to most.

 

[josie_L]

Why do think I find it hard to accept that?

Your statement was to Christians in general, was it not? So I too spoke of Atheists in a general manner.

Sorry, you started this thread asking atheists to comment on why they believed what they believe. I have only been responding to the questions I have been asked. I am not trying to dissuade anyone of their beliefs, I am merely stating why I do not share them.

Again the statement was a general one for all atheists. And the reasoning behind my thread was because not so long ago we had a hoard of Atheists whose main intent was to belittle our beliefs (with a few exceptions). There was no purpose to their dialogue, and most of them came just so they could brush up on their debating skills. I also found out through the process of dialoguing, that quite a few had read “The God Delusion”.

I am sure you will fervently argue about it. But what does this have to do with my comment to jam above?

It is not so much the comment you made to Jam, as the general approach that most atheists have when coming here. It’s like they’re out to prove something.

You asked me some questions. I have given answers to them as I see them. Did you think I would not be asking you some difficult questions in order to defend your position? But what does this have to do with my comment to jam above?

I have no problems with difficult questions, ask humble in doubt if you don’t believe me? And furthermore, if your aim is to learn something about Catholicism, then maybe you should be more open-minded about such things as the Tilma of Gaudelupe before answering with some inane response that it was probably due to natural paints. As if no one thought of this while experimenting on the tilma for the last century or so. You showed an unwillingness to find out the facts.

. . . I must point out that you started this thread asking why atheists believe the things they do. I’m puzzled as to why you complain when we, er, do what you ask us to do.

Already answered that question.

Why do I come to CAF? Because as an ex-Catholic, I am still interested in understanding Catholics believe and why they believe it. Maybe I missed something when I left my faith behind. But on the basis of what I read here at CAF, I suspect not.

If your interested in knowing than show your interested. Case in point, the Tilma of Gaudelupe.

I’m sorry, at what point have I expressed shock that you did not immediately abandon your faith in response to a few short postings from me in an internet forum? I have to say, you seem to be shocked by the fact that, in response to hearing about Our Lady of Guadaloupe, I have not immediately renounced my atheism and returned to the fold of the Church.

Firstly, the statement was for atheists in general (I did put an “s” at the end of atheist). Secondly, well since you are fixated on having that comment directed to you, my answer is this, that you showed your uninterested position in not wanting to learn about the faith when you commented on the tilma (you didn’t even take the time to know that the tilma had been experimented upon numerous times) as you did. Do you think that in all this time people (some from NASA) weren’t bright enough to realize that it was natural paints?

The only shock feel at CAF is at the constant grinding of the if-you-left-the-Church-it-can-only-be-for-dishonest-reasons axe. Every thread I have participated in, it pops up sure as mushrooms after rain.

So again, I ask the question, which I put to kalt and jam (and not yet heard an answer) - Do you think it is possible for someone to leave the Church for “honest” reasons, rather than selfish, dishonest ones?

I think you were honestly mistaken.

 

[aileron]

I can’t even answer this because we have two completely different world views. It would require people as myself to abandon their Faith or people like you to be converted.

I am very curious why you think you’d have to abandon your faith to provide good, secular reasons for secular laws.

That is how the U.S. Government works.

 

[aileron]

I also found out through the process of dialoguing, that quite a few had read “The God Delusion”.

I’ve got through Chapter 2.

So far, I’ve already heard all his arguments, so I suppose this book was aimed at the fence straddlers. Other than one paragraph, there’s nothing in it more offensive than some of the more forceful but not deliberately antagonistic atheistic posters here.

In fact, so far in the book despite the provocative title Dawkins seems more reserved than in some of his speeches.

 

[josie_L]

well no … I use it to illustrate the non-necessity of theism to temper behavior. Of course atheists are usually highly educated, more affluent then the population at large (or will be when they grow up), etc. So it’s already a group far less likely to see the inside of a jail cell as compared to most.

For hopefully the last time, the fact that atheists are fewer in number means nothing. These statistics are being used for propagandic value. Unless you can make sense of the contextual background for this data, it is useless. You need to know the “why” and “how”. Otherwise I’ll start bringing up my own data in order to state my case.