How do I turn the table on atheists?

[MindOverMatter2]

Isn’t it interesting that you and I have come to the same conclusion

No we have not come to the same conclusion. But it is not surprising to me that you would try to make it seem as if we did.

about discriminating against people, you, because you think discriminating violates something of God’s nature in people,

It violates the objective moral value intrinsic to the nature of love that God allows people to participate in, that is in so far as he allows us to participate in his existential act.

and me, because it simply hurts, belittles, insults and denies the underlying worth and value in all human beings.

How does being insulted and belittled according to your subjective desire for worth demonstrate that people have true objective worth and value?

I find that curious.

Its curious only in so far as you are incapable of realising that you take the concept that people have worth and value for granted. It seems that all you have is straw-men for your defence.

I appeal to reason,

No you do not. You have been appealing purely to your emotions and making straw-men of other peoples opposing arguments, beliefs, and religion, in-order to satisfy those emotions.

you appeal to what you believe is something of God’s nature and we both come to the same conclusion.

There is a nature that I worship and understand to be God. We have not come to the same conclusion at all.

If you did not know anything about God,

Please don’t dictate to me what I know and don’t know, unless you can demonstrate it as such. You are again twisting my argument to suit you.

would you not be able to work out by yourself that discriminating against people is wrong, or murdering, or raping or cheating on your spouse, or stealing?

Unlike you I have worked it out rationally.

If the fundamental nature of objective reality is not objectively love, If we do not existentially participate in an objective nature that is intrinsically and holistically love, then right and wrong does not exist because no act can be objectively selfish without ontological objective love. Otherwise Moral value does not exist. Its a subjective fantasy in your head.

A person has to have true moral value in order for that value to be truly belittled, discriminated, cheated, etcetera etcetera. Its not possible for me to be truly selfish to you unless I am withholding something that I ought to give you which reflects your true moral value. Otherwise such words are meaningless and are only an expression of the humanistic fantasy you invented to console yourself.

 

[karebear92]

Isnt it interesting that you and I have come to the same conclusion about discriminating against people, you, because you think discriminating violates something of God’s nature in people, and me, because it simply hurts, belittles, insults and denies the underlying worth and value in all human beings. I find that curious. I appeal to reason, you appeal to what you believe is something of God’s nature and we both come to the same conclusion.

If you did not know anything about God, or His nature, would you not be able to work out by yourself that descriminating against people is wrong, or murdering, or raping or cheating on your spouse, or stealing?

Well, when you consider that many countries that are not Christian directly oppose those laws which we find moral (or before Christianity in general), it is curious. Either way you look at it, the typical Western view of morality is shaped by God.

This is another perspective issue, as Christians say it was formed by God (the true and real God) and you would say it was formed by the overwhelming belief in Him, which ultimately shaped (or evolved) human morality into what it is in most of the world today.

I do disagree with your view that you worked it out rationally, as there were many good people who burned “witches” at the stake. And I am sure that many of the ancient tribes or even the Egyptians were not ill willed when performing human sacrifices. And in many African countries today, many soldiers steal and rape because to them it is just part of war.

 

[theistgal]

You can’t run away forever. Sooner or later you gonna have to stop for a breather, and will be there again annoying you with the truth.

That seems unnecessarily threatening IMHO.

Are you trying to usurp Christ’s position as the “Hound of Heaven”?

 

[atheistgirl]

[Otherwise such words are meaningless and are only an expression of the humanistic fantasy you invented to console yourself.

It seems you are just arguing for the sake of it. We have indeed come to the same conclusion, the difference being I came to mine rationally, you came to yours by a variation on the theme of divine command. But we both agree humans have intrinsic value and worth, and actions which violate that value and worth are not moral.

Sarah x
[/quote]

 

[atheistgirl]

That seems unnecessarily threatening IMHO.

Are you trying to usurp Christ’s position as the “Hound of Heaven”?

I have noted a very unfriendly and patronizing tone from this poster, there was a distinct change in the way he/she engaged with me when I didnt marvel at their arguements and found them quite deficient. Other posters have been a delight to engage with, and always communicate charitably even when we profoundly disagree. Some not so much, unfortunately.

I feel quite restricted in my arguementation because I am so worried about crossing the line as Im not terribly sure where that line lies. So far, Ive done ok. Sometimes it’s better to stay quiet and not risk sanctions, that go all out to prove a point, and get banned

Sarah x

 

[theistgal]

I kind of have to agree with this. The discussion Atheistgirl and I were having was cleared up by Saint Augustine quite some time ago. Do you see things from a different perspective now, Theistgal? And if so, do you think that the different perspectives is the major issue in an atheist accepting Catholicism or a Catholic becoming atheist?

Actually, I think the difference isn’t so much between Catholicism and atheism as it is between theism itself and atheism. Once you’ve accepted the possible existence of a deity, then you can move on to a specific religious viewpoint. But if you don’t accept that possibility, then there’s no point (IMHO) in debating specific religious doctrines.

I’d like to recommend a book I’ve recommended before in these forums, “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener” by the late Martin Gardner. Gardner, a skeptic, was the founder of CSICOP (the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) and a brilliant mathematician, who also happened to be a theist. In this book of essays, he attempted to explain the rationale behind his belief in the face of what seemed like overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It’s important to be aware that he was very definitely NOT a Christian, so don’t go out and buy it and get all disappointed because he rejects Christ. The main point is that he provided a basis for which a rational, skeptical, thinking person might reasonably acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a god. It’s challenging reading no matter which side of the divide you’re on.

 

[DCNBILL]

Isnt it interesting that you and I have come to the same conclusion about discriminating against people, you, because you think discriminating violates something of God’s nature in people, and me, because it simply hurts, belittles, insults and denies the underlying worth and value in all human beings. I find that curious. I appeal to reason, you appeal to what you believe is something of God’s nature and we both come to the same conclusion.

If you did not know anything about God, or His nature, would you not be able to work out by yourself that descriminating against people is wrong, or murdering, or raping or cheating on your spouse, or stealing?

The Christian would say that you are appealing to a faculty that is a gift of God, using your mind, which is a gift of God, all of this being accessible to you due to your participating in in God’s creation which is well… a gift of God. All the while making use of the free will that God created you with, and choosing to deny Him and His works. All of this just so we can be free to love.

Gods peace and love be with you, you do not have to believe for it to happen btw.

 

[atheistgirl]

. And in many African countries today, many soldiers steal and rape because to them it is just part of war.

Many ‘christian’ pastors in Africa and elsewhere take a literal view of the Bible and do not ‘‘suffer a witch to live’’. There was a program on a while back showing these pastors at work. The abuse they handed out to children and women was apalling. And to them, it is not only moral, it is commanded by God in Leviticus.

There is no part of me that would think for a moment it was ever or would be ever, ok to own slaves, take virgins as war booty, or slaughter every man woman and child of a neighboring nation. I would never strike someone down dead in anger simply for stumbling!

Guess where I can find this?

We would never say such things are ok today though, would we?

So, it is once ok, but now it’s not ok … relativism???

 

[Bobber90]

None of these things tell me that not buying from you, for what ever reason, would be immoral. It just tells me that you would like people to treat you as if you truly had value. That is irrational if you don’t truly have value, even if its beneficial to indulge in that irrationality.

Human beings do truly have value, morally speaking, and this does not have to be objective meaning. If you consider it for a moment, it is actually a contradiction to require that people have objective value, given that value is the value of something to someone. Value is therefore subjective.

So all of those things do actually make it immoral to treat someone as if they had no value. It is another question whether it is immoral to avoid buying from a particular company for personal reasons. It is much easier to argue that it would be wrong to boycott a business because of the beliefs, rather than behaviour, of the proprietor.

 

[karebear92]

Actually, I think the difference isn’t so much between Catholicism and atheism as it is between theism itself and atheism. Once you’ve accepted the possible existence of a deity, then you can move on to a specific religious viewpoint. But if you don’t accept that possibility, then there’s no point (IMHO) in debating specific religious doctrines.

I’d like to recommend a book I’ve recommended before in these forums, “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener” by the late Martin Gardner. Gardner, a skeptic, was the founder of CSICOP (the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) and a brilliant mathematician, who also happened to be a theist. In this book of essays, he attempted to explain the rationale behind his belief in the face of what seemed like overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It’s important to be aware that he was very definitely NOT a Christian, so don’t go out and buy it and get all disappointed because he rejects Christ. The main point is that he provided a basis for which a rational, skeptical, thinking person might reasonably acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a god. It’s challenging reading no matter which side of the divide you’re on.

I will have to put it on my reading list.

As for your first point, I agree. I generally, and probably subconsciously, revert back to defending Catholicism because it is what I know and am defending, if you know what I mean.

 

[atheistgirl]

The Christian would say that you are appealing to a faculty that is a gift of God, using your mind, which is a gift of God, all of this being accessible to you due to your participating in in God’s creation which is well… a gift of God. All the while making use of the free will that God created you with, and choosing to deny Him and His works. All of this just so we can be free to love.

Gods peace and love be with you, you do not have to believe for it to happen btw.

Hi

If I understood you correctly, what you are saying is the reason I am moral, and do the right thing, which although I think things through logically and use human empathy which we know has a biological basis, it happens to fully comports with God’s objective morality, is that it is gift I am using, but at the same time, I am taking His gift, which is using my mind to come to right minded moral decisions, but using my free will to reject the Gift Giver.

In other words, if I am a moral being, I can only be moral because God makes me so, while I at the same time reject Him???

Is that it? Or am I waaaaay of the mark??

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I forgot to thank you for your participation on this thread:thumbsup:.

God-bless

You’re most welcome. I appreciate and value your contributions to this forum .

 

[atheistgirl]

The main point is that he provided a basis for which a rational, skeptical, thinking person might reasonably acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a god. It’s challenging reading no matter which side of the divide you’re on.

This is deism, right? The belief there is a God, but not a personal one, one that can be revealed, or one that answers personal prayer or takes an interest in His creation?

 

[karebear92]

Many ‘christian’ pastors in Africa and elsewhere take a literal view of the Bible and do not ‘‘suffer a witch to live’’. There was a program on a while back showing these pastors at work. The abuse they handed out to children and women was apalling. And to them, it is not only moral, it is commanded by God in Leviticus.

There is no part of me that would think for a moment it was ever or would be ever, ok to own slaves, take virgins as war booty, or slaughter every man woman and child of a neighboring nation. I would never strike someone down dead in anger simply for stumbling!

Guess where I can find this?

We would never say such things are ok today though, would we?

So, it is once ok, but now it’s not ok … relativism???

I am aware of that, too, but for some reason a documentary where a twelve or thirteen year old boy says “we only do it because it is war” or something like that, so I wrote it down.

Once again there is the perfectly rational and biblically supported view that God slowly reveals Himself to us, and indirectly to everyone, at least so long as there is a christian majority (I mean this in no way negatively towards anyone).

What I mean is, in the Old Testament certain things were tolerated by Him. As time progressed, however, Jesus was reveled to us, and with Him a deeper meaning of the fullness of God, which allows us to follow Him more closely. We won’t fully be with God until we are in heaven (at least as much as we ever will). Through the Church, which (I don’t want to say evolves, as its teachings are infallible) applies and teaches the laws relevant to our times continues to adapt and deepen our understanding of Him. So seeing as the Church will never fall until the end of time, God will slowly reveal Himself to us through time, and it will continue to have a profound impact on the morality of everyone, even those outside the church, so long as they play a significant role in society.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I apologize but I really don’t understand these objections.

I, too, must apologize as well as it seems we are wasting each other’s time.

It would appear that getting on track is not feasible as you are primarily interested in ensuring that individuals recognize your hypothesis is correctly formulated. That’s immaterial to the issue at hand. To make it clear, I do not accept your hypothesis as compelling confirmation of anything.

Through your own admission, your definitions are evils arbitrary in terms of names. Also, you’ve indicated that we are not committed to their existence. I’ve asked for substantiation and warrant in what you defined. Since you did not, I cannot accept your hypothesis as proof for anything and relegate it as an exercise of creative sophistry.

Further, to continue to give instructions as to the applications of Bayes Theorem, logic and et al, not only demonstrates you may not understand where the disconnect is, it can come across as condescending. I do realize that you want help but only adds insult to injury. Regardless, I do appreciate the extra effort from you to try to clarify matters.

 

[DCNBILL]

Hi

If I understood you correctly, what you are saying is the reason I am moral, and do the right thing, which although I think things through logically and use human empathy which we know has a biological basis, it happens to fully comports with God’s objective morality, is that it is gift I am using, but at the same time, I am taking His gift, which is using my mind to come to right minded moral decisions, but using my free will to reject the Gift Giver.

In other words, if I am a moral being, I can only be moral because God makes me so, while I at the same time reject Him???

Is that it? Or am I waaaaay of the mark??

Hello back!

With this alteration in your last statement.
In other words, if I am a rational being, I can only be moral because God gives me the capicity to be so, while I at the same time reject Him

That is exactly what I am saying. The Christian believes that all is gift from God! We are only alive because we are participating in His gift, like it or not, know it or not. Part of this gift is free will. If God created us all with only the capacity to return His creating love back to Him, then that would not be love for love has to be freely given or it does not fit the definition of love. So in making us with free will we have the ability to either accept and love Him or choose to deny Him and not return His love.

Note that our reaction to God in no way changes the way God acts toward us, we do not have the ability to change God, so He continues to love and support our existence and to participate in His nature and reality no matter what we do or say, always leaving that door open to us the one that allows us to turn to Him and say sorry, thanks, I love you.

 

[atheistgirl]

If you bother to educate yourself beyond the pro-atheist books that promise to save you from the guilt of denying God,

I am really resisting raising to your argumentative tone, however, I do not read pro-atheist books that promise to save me from the guilt of denying God, as you put it. You are being quite judgemental about my reading lists arent you? I would post you the list of books recommened to me here via pm’s and which I have purchased, except posting the content of pm’s is against most forums rules, I am guessing it is here too. But thank you to those that have sent me such lists.

I have a copy of the CTS Bible and The Dhouy-Rheims Bible which I read and refer to, and the book I am currently working my way through is Understanding Catholicism by Monika Hellwig.

Please dont be so presumptious in future.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

, God will slowly reveal Himself to us through time, and it will continue to have a profound impact on the morality of everyone, even those outside the church, so long as they play a significant role in society.

All very well and good, but if something was ok and now no longer is, then that’s relative. The very thing atheists are accused of day in day out.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

so He continues to love and support our existence and to participate in His nature and reality no matter what we do or say, always leaving that door open to us the one that allows us to turn to Him and say sorry, thanks, I love you.

Heres another bit that loses me. God, you say, loves us, and wants us to love Him back. We are only moral because God gives us the capacity to be so. Ok, so, why the eternal punishment and hell fire and damnation for not loving back?

If it truely is free will, then there should be no punishment attached. Thats like me saying to my husband, I love you, and I want you to love me back, but if you chose not to, then that’s ok, I will always love you, and you are free to leave - however, know this, if you do leave, I will remove your menparts with a rusty blade and give you the death of a thousand cuts, dosing you in vinegar just before you expire!!!

That’s hardly free will is it???

Sarah x

 

[karebear92]

All very well and good, but if something was ok and now no longer is, then that’s relative. The very thing atheists are accused of day in day out.

Sarah x

There is absolute truth, which existed in the Old Testament, but with a poor understanding of it, they did not follow it correctly. God does not change, so the truth is absolute, but the proper understanding of it is gradual through time.

Does that make sense?