Hello Athiests!

[j1akey]

I actually became an athiest long before I ever even heard of Richard Dawkins or any other person like him. I went to church when I was a kid and even then it just seemed like alot of hot air to me and I was just going through the motions because I thought that’s what was expected of me. I never really bought any of it. I became an atheist before I even realized I was an atheist or really started to think about why or how. It wasn’t even a consious decision on my part until a few years ago when I started getting into conversations about religion and realized what I think and why.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I was interested in knowing how many of you have read the “God Delusion” and whether or not this had an effect on your decision to become an atheist? And can you please give the reasons posited by Dawkins that you agreed with? If you haven’t read Dawkins you’re still very much welcomed to respond and add your two cents (in a respectful manner).

God bless!

never read it … so obviously it hasn’t influenced my decision?

Looks like the thread is getting choppy (of course what else can be expected when mythology meets reason)?

 

[josie_L]

How long did it take for the Church to instruct Spain and Portugal that the rights granted under those Papal Bulls were fully rescinded (not restricted or partially limited as some Catholic writers seem only able to see)? How hard would it have been to say in another Papal Bull, “no slavery”? To be sure, there were many subsequent Papal Bulls that placed *restrictions *on who could be enslaved, which was good news for natives of the Americas, but when did the first communication come out and with an unqualified abolitionist position? 1839. So in 1452 the Church allowed chattel slavery, and in various forms it limited or regulated it, but not until 1839 did it forbid all slavery. Nearly 400 years. By 1839 most governments in Europe had already abolished slavery and even the US had abolished slave importation for decades.

So if that’s from the top, what about the clergy and lay Catholics? Until 1839, let’s just take the US for example. The highest concentration of Catholics in antebellum US was in Maryland – the colony more or less set up by Catholics, named for a Catholic Queen, and initially populated mostly by Catholics. So was Maryland an abolitionists state? No. In fact, even a Jesuit plantation in Maryland held hundreds of slaves. What about the only other state at the time primarily populated by Roman Catholics? Was Louisiana an abolitionist state?

This is not even to mention antisemitism, which was even more systematic. There are a whole series of Bulls dealing with persecution and protection of Jews. Now we have no Bulls calling for persecution of Jews, nor Bulls requiring protection of them. What has changed?

Are you not reading my posts thoroughly, I have already indicated that through scripture (and tradition) the Church’s stance was unequivocally against chattel slavery. If she at times failed to live up to these standards does not change her theology/doctrines on the matter. You could cite a freakin thousand religious who expounded and supported slavery throughout her 2000 year reign and it would not make a lick of difference. And apart from Tradition and Scripture, I have given more than one bull stating that under no uncertain terms (there is therefore no ambiguity) should they (the Spanish and Portuguese) be enslaving indians of the new world. Go back and read what I posted.

 

[josie_L]

never read it … so obviously it hasn’t influenced my decision?

Looks like the thread is getting choppy (of course what else can be expected when mythology meets reason)?

Thanks, Francis for your imput and help.

P.S. I don’t mind if it gets choppy I like chaos at times, it’s challenging.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Moral relativism is at the root of Atheism. No God equals no uniform moral standard to uphold humanity. Thus, monsters like Mao Tse Dung, Stalin, Pol Pot … etc. who viciously clung to the atheistic ideology of Communism did so under no threat of everlasting reprisal, in other words, they were their own “gods”, they issued their own standards. And if you want to put this in religious terms, their faith (ideology) complied with their actions (standards). THAT is what happens when God is taken completely out of the picture.

By the way, more than 70% of Christians (in the last two millenia) were martyred in the 20th century by atheistic ideologies.

I had to chop this out of I think Josie’s post (you had quote blocks around it so I couldn’t reply to post). Anyways … this is a truly disappointing thing to hear & of course the inference it draws is logically absurd. First atheism didn’t drive communism – but rather communism compelled atheism (since they viewed religion as, to put it simply, an obstruction to their worldview).

If you want to look at what a secular society looks like – look at Scandinavia. All of its countries consistently rank as the “happiest” in the world. They’re extremely compassionate to their people and even warmly treat refugees and other foreigners. They have the worlds highest per capita income, lowest unemployment, lowest crime, lowest STD and other disease rates, etc. etc. This is what rational atheism looks like … not Stalin’s Russia. Scandinavians became atheist themselves – they were never compelled toward or away from religion by their government (in fact either the Lutheran or Catholic churches remain the official state churches of these countries & religious schools actually receive public funding).

Here in the US we see the same thing. Atheists have by far the lowest incarceration rates, we’re in the top tier of income earners, tend to be among the most educated in our society, etc. etc. We’re not a bunch of roving communists … quite the opposite in fact (and frankly the inference is just plain old fashioned bigotry)

 

[aileron]

What WOULD be an acceptable form of proof for you? (sincere question)

It is open ended for me. In other words, there’s no one thing among many that would have to happen in order to be persuasive. It could be what I least expect.

Some examples though that I would accept:

– Convincing evidence (physics) that necessitates creation ex nihilo.
– Convincing evidence (biology) that rejects naturalistic abiogenesis or evolution
– A few trillion years in hell or purgatory
– A verifiable event best explained as a miracle rather than a natural occurrence
– Specific, unambiguous, and improbable events in Revelation happening

 

[aileron]

And apart from Tradition and Scripture, I have given more than one bull stating that under no uncertain terms (there is therefore no ambiguity) should they (the Spanish and Portuguese) be enslaving indians of the new world. Go back and read what I posted.

Yes, I know about these Bulls and mentioned them. They came shortly after the discovery of the Americas. That doesn’t stop them from enslaving other people, which they were known to be doing at the time, does it? If they wanted to stop all slavery, why not say all? They didn’t. Not until the 1800’s after most European governments had outlawed it anyway.

As far as scripture – here’s are some that were favorites among anti-abolitionists:

Ephesians 6:5-9: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.”

1 Timothy 6:1-3 “Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.”

 

[josie_L]

I had to chop this out of I think Josie’s post (you had quote blocks around it so I couldn’t reply to post). Anyways … this is a truly disappointing thing to hear & of course the inference it draws is logically absurd. First atheism didn’t drive communism – but rather communism compelled atheism (since they viewed religion as, to put it simply, an obstruction to their worldview).

If you want to look at what a secular society looks like – look at Scandinavia. All of its countries consistently rank as the “happiest” in the world. They’re extremely compassionate to their people and even warmly treat refugees and other foreigners. They have the worlds highest per capita income, lowest unemployment, lowest crime, lowest STD and other disease rates, etc. etc. This is what rational atheism looks like … not Stalin’s Russia. Scandinavians became atheist themselves – they were never compelled toward or away from religion by their government (in fact either the Lutheran or Catholic churches remain the official state churches of these countries & religious schools actually receive public funding).

Here in the US we see the same thing. Atheists have by far the lowest incarceration rates, they are in the top tier of income earners, tend to be among the most educated in our society, etc. etc. We’re not a bunch of roving communists …

No, it is not logically absurd, atheism has no moral standard, it cannot decide what is or isn’t moral because it does not look to a higher power for its source of truth except through the individual practicing it, as such, it perfectly fits into “isms” like communism where godless men created godless societies based on godless standards.

Also, secular does not mean atheistic, it means separation of church and state. So for example, the U.S. is a secular state but it does not have a high proportion of atheists either. Secondly, I did some fact finding on some of the Scandinavian countries (they still have a high proportion of believers).

P.S. There could be many reasons that Atheists are underrepresented in prisons, maybe they’re too smart to get caught , or maybe they commit many white collar crimes which don’t get accounted for as much as blue collar crimes, or maybe they were atheists when entering prison and then found Jesus (I’m not kidding you)? What I’m really trying to say is that you cannot just relay statistical information without analyzing the “why” or “how”.

 

[josie_L]

We’re not a bunch of roving communists … quite the opposite in fact (and frankly the inference is just plain old fashioned bigotry)

I resent your inference that I’m bigoted, Francis.

 

[DavidHume]

Moral relativism is at the root of Atheism. No God equals no uniform moral standard to uphold humanity. Thus, monsters like Mao Tse Dung, Stalin, Pol Pot … etc. who viciously clung to the atheistic ideology of Communism did so under no threat of everlasting reprisal, in other words, they were their own “gods”, they issued their own standards.

Funny how you mention them, but don’t mention Warren Buffett, Henry Salt, Jawaharlal Nehru, etc.

I guess this gives us carte blanche to name-check Tomás de Torquemada, Benito Mussolini, François Duvalier, Théoneste Bagosora, etc.

 

[josie_L]

Funny how you mention them, but don’t mention Warren Buffett, Henry Salt, Jawaharlal Nehru, etc.

I guess this gives us carte blanche to name-check Tomás de Torquemada, Benito Mussolini, François Duvalier, Théoneste Bagosora, etc.

These people although Christian do not act Christian, can you see what I’m getting at? As an atheist what standard of morality do you uphold, and how do you even know it’s moral if others may differ with you? Do all atheists uphold the same morality?

Mussolini was an atheist. As for the others, I don’t know them well enough to remark upon them, except that Torquemada (who was a Jewish convert to Catholicism) was the grand inquisitor for the King and Queen of Spain whose job was to fish out the conversos, (Jews and/or Muslims who converted to Christianity for the purposes of infiltrating high positions in the government).

 

[Eleve]

Umm.

Jews in Spain were converted under pressure from the Spanish government, and then denied access to government positions in some cases. The notion that Jews converted in order to infiltrate the Spanish government strikes me as a vestige of some old anti-Semitic myth.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, I know about these Bulls and mentioned them. They came shortly after the discovery of the Americas. That doesn’t stop them from enslaving other people, which they were known to be doing at the time, does it? If they wanted to stop all slavery, why not say all? They didn’t. Not until the 1800’s after most European governments had outlawed it anyway.

As far as scripture – here’s are some that were favorites among anti-abolitionists:

Ephesians 6:5-9: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.”

1 Timothy 6:1-3 “Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.”

You must have missed this in the “hello” thread:

Firstly, I meant to say the NT rather than the Bible (sorry I was in a rush when I wrote that post). Secondly, the NT does not provide tacit approval of slavery, heres why? Because Jesus viewed all of humanity whatever their station and/or economic stature . . . etc as being equally loved and created by God.

“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3: 26-29

Having said this, the NT through Paul does speak of master/slave relations without denouncing the institution outrightly (but if Jesus claimed we are to love our neighbors as ourselves than this would include slaves too!), it does not mean that Christians, however, approved of such an institution, they tolerated it in as much as they could considering their mission was to save men’s soul (it was not to save us from physical harm that Jesus came to earth to die and resurrect). It was a spiritual revolution the apostles/disciples were seeking to create wherein by changing men’s heart they would succeed in destroying all the evils of the world (including slavery). God bless.

P.S. This is why an authoritative interpreter is necessary in divining scripture (otherwise any Joe shmoe could take things out of context), and the Church being that interpreter has through scripture and tradition delineated the evils of chattel slavery.

 

[josie_L]

Umm.

Jews in Spain were converted under pressure from the Spanish government, and then denied access to government positions in some cases. The notion that Jews converted in order to infiltrate the Spanish government strikes me as a vestige of some old anti-Semitic myth.

Why do you think they had an inquisition (in Spain)?

 

[DavidHume]

These people although Christian do not act Christian, can you see what I’m getting at?

I sure do. Pol Pot et al, although atheist, do not act atheist. Real atheists act like Mark Twain, Douglas Adams, Jawaharlal Nehru, Warren Buffett, etc.

Mussolini was an atheist.

He was baptized Catholic in 1927.

As for the others, I don’t know them well enough to remark upon them

Then educate yourself.

If you insist on trying to put atheists in some kind of position to apologize for Stalin or whoever, then I insist you apologize for Bagosora. Whatever apology you believe is acceptable for Bagosora is just as acceptable for the people you cited as atheists, so we can move on past this dishonest sophism.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, it is not logically absurd, atheism has no moral standard, it cannot decide what is or isn’t moral because it does not look to a higher power for its source of truth except through the individual practicing it, as such, it perfectly fits into “isms” like communism where godless men created godless societies based on godless standards.

OK so you believe atheists are inherently immoral (i.e. bad) – yet you’re shocked when we think you’re bigoted against atheists? Hmmm …

Oh but let’s see … maybe you’ll say it’s atheism not necessarily atheists; but how can you distinguish between the two? If there’s some good atheists and some bad – then atheism itself cannot be the problem (logically speaking); so you are bigoted against atheists. Hey we all have our prejudices I suppose (IMO it’s healthier to simply concede the obvious rather than going around in a circles).

Also, secular does not mean atheistic, it means separation of church and state. So for example, the U.S. is a secular state but it does not have a high proportion of atheists either. Secondly, I did some fact finding on some of the Scandinavian countries (they still have a high proportion of believers).

they have some believers … but the overwhelming majority are agnostic or atheist.

P.S. There could be many reasons that Atheists are underrepresented in prisons, maybe they’re too smart to get caught , or maybe they commit many white collar crimes which don’t get accounted for as much as blue collar crimes, or maybe they were atheists when entering prison and then found Jesus (I’m not kidding you)? What I’m really trying to say is that you cannot just relay statistical information without analyzing the “why” or “how”.

Sure … but the numbers are dramatic. A sliver of a fraction of 1% (atheists in prison) compared to something like two thirds of all prisoners who profess Christianity (this while roughly 11% of Americans these days claim to be either agnostic or atheist). So yes we’re seriously unrepresented in prisons (frankly that’s one place I hope we never gain a strong representation ).

Now if you’re ready to discuss the merits of faith in your religion … I’m ready to debunk it (unless there’s some other point to this thread besides just tossing jabs back and forth)?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I sure do. Pol Pot et al, although atheist, do not act atheist. Real atheists act like Mark Twain, Douglas Adams, Jawaharlal Nehru, Warren Buffett, etc.

He was baptized Catholic in 1927.

Then educate yourself.

If you insist on trying to put atheists in some kind of position to apologize for Stalin or whoever, then I insist you apologize for Bagosora. Whatever apology you believe is acceptable for Bagosora is just as acceptable for the people you cited as atheists, so we can move on past this dishonest sophism.

I would only add Winston Churchill to the list!!!

 

[josie_L]

I sure do. Pol Pot et al, although atheist, do not act atheist. Real atheists act like Mark Twain, Douglas Adams, Jawaharlal Nehru, Warren Buffett, etc.

Oops, I thought you were refering to bad Christians.

He was baptized Catholic in 1927.

And he was an apostate, in that he became an atheist.

Then educate yourself.

Thanks I will.

If you insist on trying to put atheists in some kind of position to apologize for Stalin or whoever, then I insist you apologize for Bagosora. Whatever apology you believe is acceptable for Bagosora is just as acceptable for the people you cited as atheists, so we can move on past this dishonest sophism.

No, I’m not trying to do that, all I wish to do is convey that in atheism (not atheists) there is no uniform moral standard.

 

[DavidHume]

And all we are conveying is that there is obviously no uniform moral standard followed by Catholics either.

Oops, I thought you were refering to bad Christians.

Don’t know Jawaharlal Nehru? I guess he didn’t really do much of import – only little stuff like founding the world’s largest democracy.

That one country has the same number of people as the entire Catholic Church.

 

[josie_L]

OK so you believe atheists are inherently immoral (i.e. bad) – yet you’re shocked when we think you’re bigoted against atheists? Hmmm …

I am not saying atheists are immoral. But I don’t like atheism and the fact that it can relegate moraliity to a standard based on the person practicing it, are you shocked? There are moral absolutes, not moral ambiguities.

Oh but let’s see … maybe you’ll say it’s atheism not necessarily atheists; but how can you distinguish between the two? If there’s some good atheists and some bad – then atheism itself cannot be the problem (logically speaking); so you are bigoted against atheists. Hey we all have our prejudices I suppose (IMO it’s healthier to simply concede the obvious rather than going around in a circles).

I am not bigoted against atheists. I don’t like moral relativism.

they have some believers … but the overwhelming majority are agnostic or atheist.

No, the majority are not agnostic or atheist. I will have to get you the data tomorrow.

Sure … but the numbers are dramatic. A sliver of a fraction of 1% (atheists in prison) compared to something like two thirds of all prisoners who profess Christianity (this while roughly 11% of Americans these days claim to be either agnostic or atheist). So yes we’re seriously unrepresented in prisons (frankly that’s one place I hope we never gain a strong representation )

I said you need to understand the “why” and “how” of the data, so your logical imput is not enough.

Now if you’re ready to discuss the merits of faith in your religion … I’m ready to debunk it (unless there’s some other point to this thread besides just tossing jabs back and forth)?

Fine.