S
- Status
J
JDaniel
Guest
Hoko:
There is a well written, solidly argued book out called, The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day. In that book, Mr. Day provides a well reasoned argument for religion’s side. If you can find it, it may be worth you reading it.
No you can’t. Find us a Stalin, or a Pol Pot, or a Hitler from the side of religion. I think you need to do some more searching and reading, particularly about Thomas More. Somewhere along the way you bought someone’s line. You really should find Vox Day’s book.
God bless,
jd
H
Hokomai
Guest
I’ll have a look for Mr Day’s book. Thomas More had many admirable qualities, but I think you will find he did burn people for their beliefs. I think that is a bad thing. Hilter was religious, although I don’t think you could call him a Catholic (although he said it of himself). His writings cannot be understood as anything but religious (especially the bits where he talks about God and Providence". For a Catholic equivalent I offer the fascist leader of the Nazi-puppet state Croatia during WWll; a mass murderer. I think you may find Marshal Petain of Vichy France, or Salazar of Portugal are good examples on the religious and Catholic side of the Fence.
J
Jocko_VT
Guest
We’ve already been through this. You’re not actually doing any homework. I’m not going to do it for you. All you need to do is look into the burden of proof.
Agnosticism is still a lack of belief. Atheism is just a lack of belief. Some atheists believe there’s definitely no god, but it’s in the same sense that they believe there’s definitely no easter bunny. If anyone wants to argue there is an easter bunny, the burden of proof is on them.
J
Jocko_VT
Guest
The concepts I’m using are simple and common.Jocko:
Really? Would you mind explaining to me exactly how my words were ad hominem? And, no, I am not going to look up your naked assertions. (I guess this stuff works both ways, doesn’t it?)
Yes they do.
Then you shouldn’t have a hard time at all proving your assertions.
Oh! I’m sorry. I thought that this was a disparagement session and that it was my turn!
Whose?
You see? I was right!!
No; it’s the ‘atheist argument’ all right.
You asserted first!
That’s what you said. Am I now supposed to interpolate your writings?
Actually, if you just think about it a bit, you might come the the realization that it’s the other way round… Religion was already in the schools then the non-theists had it removed.
Are you sure you want to say this?
Well, then, go and look. Come back when you’ve found some.
Look: I am not trying to be mean. I began by answering you on the same tone level you were using to hurl assertions at us. If you really want some answers that you can really chew on, try asking questions; not belittling the responders. After all, this is a Catholic (Christian) forum.
God bless,
jd
That this is a catholic forum is all the more reason I assumed, incorrectly it turns out, that there would be more level-headed, charitable discourse. You’re not providing it, and you’re blaming me!! God bless you!!
J
Jocko_VT
Guest
Because I read. It’s not secret knowledge.
J
Jocko_VT
Guest
Yet, all the arguing and nipicking in this thread came from the christians. And, in response to merely answering the thread, I’m called an idiot by you, dishonest by others, etc.
I now bow out, because this is not what I’m interested in.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jocko
**If anyone wants to argue there is an easter bunny, the burden of proof is on them. **
And if anyone want to assert the universe is godless, infinite, and eternal, as atheists do, the burden of proof is still on them. It can’t be done!
**If anyone wants to argue there is an easter bunny, the burden of proof is on them. **
And if anyone want to assert the universe is godless, infinite, and eternal, as atheists do, the burden of proof is still on them. It can’t be done!
P
Pieman333272
Guest
The problems people have called out in your worldview are FAR from nitpicking. Unless you consider demonstrating a flaw in the foundation of your worldview nitpicky.
D
dostoyevskyfan
Guest
I for one am very glad that God created atheists. It’s actually somewhat ironic when you think about it from a theistic perspective: atheists exist. God exists. Upon deep reflection, there must be some teleology in the whole thing. Why did God create atheists? From our perspective He did so purposefully, just like He allows the fantasy religions to exist.
It was then that I realized that “atheism” is the perfect platform to combat heresy against the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, I am also an atheist with respect to all of the other religions. Vishnu or Thor, for example, to me is synonymous with “unicorns”.
When an atheist engages a muslim in a debate, the muslim has no belief system to counter-attack, so he is forced on the defense. “Atheism”, so it seems, is an impervious suit of debate armor. Catholicism, being the Truth, does not need to be defended. As Kierkegaard wrote that the truth does not need defense.
I would assume (and this is just speculation) that an atheists place in hell is distinct and separate from a heretic’s location. One does not believe in God out of ignorance whether vincible or invincible, and the other (heretic) worships a false god and violates one of the ten commandments given to Moses.
It would seem that it would be better for humanity if there were only “Catholics” and “Atheists”. That way no one would be worshiping idols. The more non-catholics that atheists are successful in deconverting the better. I don’t like people flying planes into buildings any more or less than these atheists do. But if I critique other religions I have to defend the crusades, the inquisition, and homosexual pedophile priests. It can be done, but…no thanks I grow weary of doing it.
Godspeed to the atheists!! God bless them!
It was then that I realized that “atheism” is the perfect platform to combat heresy against the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, I am also an atheist with respect to all of the other religions. Vishnu or Thor, for example, to me is synonymous with “unicorns”.
When an atheist engages a muslim in a debate, the muslim has no belief system to counter-attack, so he is forced on the defense. “Atheism”, so it seems, is an impervious suit of debate armor. Catholicism, being the Truth, does not need to be defended. As Kierkegaard wrote that the truth does not need defense.
I would assume (and this is just speculation) that an atheists place in hell is distinct and separate from a heretic’s location. One does not believe in God out of ignorance whether vincible or invincible, and the other (heretic) worships a false god and violates one of the ten commandments given to Moses.
It would seem that it would be better for humanity if there were only “Catholics” and “Atheists”. That way no one would be worshiping idols. The more non-catholics that atheists are successful in deconverting the better. I don’t like people flying planes into buildings any more or less than these atheists do. But if I critique other religions I have to defend the crusades, the inquisition, and homosexual pedophile priests. It can be done, but…no thanks I grow weary of doing it.
Godspeed to the atheists!! God bless them!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
God does not create atheists. He creates babies who grow up to become atheists on their own dime. 
F
followingtheway
Guest
I agree one hundred percent!God does not create atheists. He creates babies who grow up to become atheists on their own dime.
high fives
J
Jocko_VT
Guest
I read your original point as saying that the the desired proof was only for God’s nonexistence. I don’t recall you saying anything about the infinite and eternal universe. I agree, none of those three things can be proven, so far as I know.
Concerning the question of god(s)’ existence, I agree, god(s)’ nonexistence can not be proven. You can not prove a negative. This is why the burden of proof is on the theist in this instance. The only proof that can be offered for certain things (particularly things that lead to no testable hypotheses) is positive proof of its existence.
Personally, I don’t care to argue that there’s no god. Why would I? Are you only speaking of the situation where an atheist comes out of nowhere to demand you prove there’s a god? If that’s the only thing you’re referring to, then I’d certainly agree that you’re under no obligation to attempt a proof.
As a side-note: If god can be defined to a reasonable extent, and is considered to have actual effects in the natural world that are measurable and distinguishable from other effects, god’s existence may be put to the test.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jocko
As a side-note: If god can be defined to a reasonable extent, and is considered to have actual effects in the natural world that are measurable and distinguishable from other effects, god’s existence may be put to the test.
By the same token, if the atheist wants to assert the eternity and infinity of the universe (which I think he has to do since he believes there is no Creator) he should have to point to “actual effects in the natural world that are measurable and distinguishable from other effects.” He cannot do that. On the contrary. The available evidence of the Big Bang only indicates that the universe is not infinite, and that it began on a “day” without a “yesterday.”
The plausibility of a Creator (an Intelligent Designer at that) is more attractive to reason than the plausibility of an eternal, uncreated, and purposeless universe.
As a side-note: If god can be defined to a reasonable extent, and is considered to have actual effects in the natural world that are measurable and distinguishable from other effects, god’s existence may be put to the test.
By the same token, if the atheist wants to assert the eternity and infinity of the universe (which I think he has to do since he believes there is no Creator) he should have to point to “actual effects in the natural world that are measurable and distinguishable from other effects.” He cannot do that. On the contrary. The available evidence of the Big Bang only indicates that the universe is not infinite, and that it began on a “day” without a “yesterday.”
The plausibility of a Creator (an Intelligent Designer at that) is more attractive to reason than the plausibility of an eternal, uncreated, and purposeless universe.
J
Jocko_VT
Guest
I’m not sure what your point is, but okay.
I don’t know that it’s an atheist’s place to do these sorts of things. One does not have to have an answer to every question or every mystery or an explanation for every wonder. But, I’m pretty sure there are scientists working on issues like this. Hawking, or Brian Greene, for example.
Would you think it reasonable for me to reject the notion that Zeus really exists while simultaneously accepting that I have no answer for where the universe came from, or is this just applicable to your god? You don’t really think I have to know everything to be an atheist, do you?
I don’t think this is accurate. Time and matter are far more complex than this, being tied together as they are, unlike in Newton’s universe. Thus, to talk about a “day without a yesterday,” even in quotes, is, I think, to misunderstand the point about it being “the beginning of time.” It’s certainly beyond my math skills to comprehend this, though. But, every time I hear scientists seriously talking about the Big Bang, they argue that “before the big bang” is a nonsensical, not that the big bang was the beginning of everything. Furthermore, I’m hearing physicists talk increasingly matter-of-factly about multiple universes, which makes the big bang itself about as relevant to the big picture as I am to the universe. I’m no physicist, though.
I agree that to most people, it’s more attractive. But, I don’t see how it’s more attractive to reason to replace “i don’t know” with “i don’t know, but if we take literally certain sections of this book which is filled with allegory and metaphor written by humans to help humans understand their place in the world, we can ignore that we still don’t know.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**You don’t really think I have to know everything to be an atheist, do you? **
No, but if you are going to make certain demands of theists, you should make them of yourself as well.
The notion of multiple universes is purely speculative, and has no scientific justification.
It is an attempt by atheist scientists to skirt the problem of Creation.
**I agree that to most people, it’s more attractive. **
What I find peculiar is that the opposite view attracts anyone. What is the reason people prefer to believe in multiple universes (for which there is no scientific proof at all) than to believe in a Creation event for which there is abundant scientific proof?
Genesis, 1000 B.C. : God said, “Let there be light.”
Carl Sagan in Cosmos said in 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
No, but if you are going to make certain demands of theists, you should make them of yourself as well.
The notion of multiple universes is purely speculative, and has no scientific justification.
It is an attempt by atheist scientists to skirt the problem of Creation.
**I agree that to most people, it’s more attractive. **
What I find peculiar is that the opposite view attracts anyone. What is the reason people prefer to believe in multiple universes (for which there is no scientific proof at all) than to believe in a Creation event for which there is abundant scientific proof?
Genesis, 1000 B.C. : God said, “Let there be light.”
Carl Sagan in Cosmos said in 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I disagree with that. At the bottom of most atheism is actually a deep hatred and fear of God. They are very angry at what they PERCEIVE and WANT to be “God.” Bishop Sheen and former atheist-turned-portestant preacher Howard Storm both speak of this eloquently.Well, its quite simple. Their atheism is a product of genetic influences, genetic mutations, and chemical imbalances in the brain. There is a section in the brain called an “atheist module” etc etc…
On a serious note, dawkins and hithchens, deep down, are miserable creatures and they don’t want God to exist, and they have found purpose and meaning in their miserable lives by trying to refute his existence and destroying peoples faith. For them it is an exilirating experience to be able to say God is evil, even though they contradict themselves. Yet the contradiction is subtle, and thus they can get away with it. So you can expect more where that came from.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I agree that there is a hatred of God in atheism. What is it exactly that you disagreed with in my post. You do realize that the first paragraph was just a joke.
D
dostoyevskyfan
Guest
Ok well he indirectly created them by means of thousands of years of evolution if you want to use technical terms. In the same way that God “created” natural disasters indirectly (it could be argued that “atheism” is a “natural disaster” to the landscape of 2,000 years of western thought and philosophyGod does not create atheists. He creates babies who grow up to become atheists on their own dime.
). When I say “God created” something, I just mean that those things are in His will; he willed for “atheism” to exist. Atheism and Atheists are within the realm of the will of God, since things that are not…do not exist. Just because something is within the realm of the will of God does not necessarily mean that God is directly responsible. God is not directly responsible for atheism, natural disasters, or AIDS.Yet all three of those things are contained in His will, that is to say that the existence of those three things is necessary even if we are unable to comprehend why. Catholicism, our brand of theism, teaches that God does everything with purpose and intent; that is to say there is not a single superfluous creature, thing, idea, or lack of an idea, in existence. The mosquito who feasted on your flesh last night did so for a reason and was fulling a necessary and essential part of God’s mysterious plan. Maybe because of the bug bite you went to the store to buy anti-itch cream and met your future wife at the supermarket. God only knows. Maybe atheists are just a bunch of pestiferous mosquitoes who constantly bite us but do so for a reason, maybe strengthening your faith or learning more about it. Who knows? My other hypothesis is that God is tired of false religions and idol worshipers, so he “hired” a bunch of atheists to do his dirty work–point out all of the flaws of the wrong religions. Of course atheists will never be able to stamp out Catholicism because there are people who are willing to peacefully die or be persecuted for their beliefs. That’s how our religion spread and evangelized itself in the beginning…with the blood of the martyrs.
So if the unthinkable ever happens and an atheist like Stalin gets in a position of absolute authority and decides to make the “rational” decision that religious people aren’t “rational” and should therefore be exterminated in the name of atheism, rationality, and secular progress, many Catholics will just take their beliefs to the grave rather than deconvert. Just like in the time of Nero. And our religion will just propagate itself even more. You can’t kill Catholicism. It would have died off already, 2k years is a long time.
So the question “Why did God create atheists?” has a definitive answer in our world view and is a legitimate question to ask since God created everything with complex intent, reason, and purpose.
Conversely, operating under the atheist position that there is ultimately no complex intent, reason, or purpose for anything, there is no real reason or need to explain or existentially justify anything; even beliefs or lack of beliefs. A person’s decision to believe in unicorns has just as much justification for not believing in them. It is just a whimsical decision in a random universe devoid of any objective meaning. The meaning of life is to live. To live according to the principles which allowed for our existence, those principles of natural science and evolutionary theory. Our purpose is to survive and reproduce. So long as we survive and reproduce our beliefs or lack of beliefs are extraneous. The meaning of life is to live. What an intolerable tautology!
T
tonyrey
Guest
- Status