How do I turn the table on atheists?

[Whadyamean]

Hi, Whadyamean,

Ah, whadyamean, Whadyamean…? I would never make such a mistake … your posts have been perfectly clear and a hallmark for those seeking truth and enlightenment as they just roam around…

Looking at the list is up to you - it just shows some folks who wound up roaming off the edge of the map and then were able to find God. Sometimes - but, not always, people’s experiences in finding God can help others whose critical thinking of religious ideas has wound up drifting with the next current.

God bless

Ok, so you understand that I’m not an atheist and yet you are telling me to look at lists of people who came back to several religions, which lists are above links to lists of people who left their religion. If I’m clear, then what are you trying to show me? That I can listen to you and get confused as to your intent? Done.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Whadyamean,

Actually, I was being facetious. Your statements appear to be simply contradictory - but, do point to atheism. Why play games or is this just part of the circular inquiry of criticizing religion?

The list of former atheists is there to look at. It represents a sign that others who once denied the existence of God have found Him. This may be a real-time critical look at atheism - at least while there still is time.

God bless

Ok, so you understand that I’m not an atheist and yet you are telling me to look at lists of people who came back to several religions, which lists are above links to lists of people who left their religion. If I’m clear, then what are you trying to show me? That I can listen to you and get confused as to your intent? Done.

 

[ManOnFire]

Hi, ManOnFire,

Very good

I enjoy your posts … please join us more often.

God bless

Thanks bro. While I was at mass, I thought my post was a little harsh once I considered that some people have had really had some unfortunate circimstances. My post was more designed for those without a tragedy to emphasize the role of free will. God Bless.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The list of former atheists is there to look at. It represents a sign that others who once denied the existence of God have found Him. This may be a real-time critical look at atheism - at least while there still is time.

I wouldn’t put a lot of weight in that list. Towards the bottom it links to list of former xxxx (where xxx is Jews/Muslims/Protestants/Roman Catholics/Latter day Saints/Christians). It looks that there’s movement in a lot of directions, and from glancing at those lists it almost looks that Islam is pretty popular.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

Yes, I noticed that, too. But, thanks for looling at the list. We find people going in many different directions. All I am looking at is two: God either exists or He doesn’t. Of course this is an ‘over-simplification’ but, the real issue is laid bare before us - and this list divides all of these humans into these two groups. I am not aware of any real sub-groups in Atheism - once one is in the camp of ‘There is no God’ what else is there to argue about? Ah, but look at the differences of opinion coming from all those who claim that there is a God!

Not every scrap of information is the precise key to fit a previously identified lock. But, for most people, there is more than one lock in their life - and maybe this will open a lock that we were not focused on. My guess is that for best results, we need to open as many locks as possible, and that means keeping an open mind … ah… to be a ‘thinking sapien’ as it were…

God bless

I wouldn’t put a lot of weight in that list. Towards the bottom it links to list of former xxxx (where xxx is Jews/Muslims/Protestants/Roman Catholics/Latter day Saints/Christians). It looks that there’s movement in a lot of directions, and from glancing at those lists it almost looks that Islam is pretty popular.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hi, I am not aware of any real sub-groups in Atheism - once one is in the camp of ‘There is no God’ what else is there to argue about? Ah, but look at the differences of opinion coming from all those who claim that there is a God!

There’s a few. But they are usually just conflated together. Instead of using their labels I’ll make a few statements that are reflective of some of the different sub-classifications.

• All religion of any type is bad and I am against it.
• There are no gods, so I don’t believe in any.
• There may be a god or gods, it’s a possibility. But I don’t hold a belief of any
• I don’t really care whether or not there are gods, I’ve got other things to do.

I don’t think there’s much general interest in these classifications (they have names, and there are others). Of what I listed the last two are easy to ignore and may go unnoticed all together, plus they are not making any positive assertions and may be seen by some as neutral. The first two do make positive assertions in opposition to Christianity or other religions and seems to be the ones that are addressed the most.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

Thank you for the clarification.

God bless

There’s a few. But they are usually just conflated together. Instead of using their labels I’ll make a few statements that are reflective of some of the different sub-classifications.

• All religion of any type is bad and I am against it.
• There are no gods, so I don’t believe in any.
• There may be a god or gods, it’s a possibility. But I don’t hold a belief of any
• I don’t really care whether or not there are gods, I’ve got other things to do.

I don’t think there’s much general interest in these classifications (they have names, and there are others). Of what I listed the last two are easy to ignore and may go unnoticed all together, plus they are not making any positive assertions and may be seen by some as neutral. The first two do make positive assertions in opposition to Christianity or other religions and seems to be the ones that are addressed the most.

 

[OMGJ]

Yes, I agree with Psalmodius. My Mentor agreed within himself to speak if asked, and otherwise remain silent. But if there is an actual and sincere question, then there is receptivity present.

I am a fan of questioning, but not of belief, especially in spiritual matters. In my book belief is inherently error, but will do until there is knowledge. Eventually, whether it seems a personal decision to you or not, you will discover a greater and deeper understanding of God through Grace.

Yes, God, as misleading as that term can be, is the very power to what we can call our heart.

Just as there are grades in school, so it might be said that there are “grades” in spirituality, though not in an Absolute sense. That is in a way acknowledged by Thomas Merton’s Seven Story Mountain, and certainly in other systems of spiritual understanding. What many have turned to is Reality itself, not personalized, and yet Holy, Conscious, and an unfailing font of Love.

My apologies, I saw you wrote down “Roaming Catholic” as your Religion and explained what you meant by “roaming” to tqualey. I had assumed that you had roamed home to Catholicism but by your replies, it seems that you have roamed elsewhere. It seems that you’ve embraced some New Age thinking. Could you please clarify your spiritual/religious beliefs so I will have a better understanding of where you’re coming from?

In Christ,
OMGJ

 

[Bobber90]

Hi, Bobber90,

This is not really what I was disappointed about … but … at this point it really makes no difference…

Considering that that there are so many natural wonders that remain unexplained - to dismiss them… pending a thorough explanaition that meets with everyone’s approval … well, just seems like a waste of precious time to me. We do not know quite a lot when you really start looking critically at the statement you have made. While we can know somethings and guess at other things - not is simply not good enough… right?

You know, the Ancient Greeks - were pretty smart guys, especially those in Athens and, it looks like they were predominately polytheists … gods kept on multiplying to the point where it bacame an embarrassment to the Athenian Chamber of Commerce, or whatever the ancient equivalent of this group was - so they put a moritorium on any more gods being recognized! (Now, that is pretty bad by anyone’s standards! ) Naturally, I am telling you this for a reason - a famous writer debated those who tried to negotiate a compromise on this issue - and I offer this as a link: usccb.org/bible/acts/17 The operative section picks up around v16 … read it and let me know what you think…

God bless

As you rightly draw attention to, there have been numerous types of gods conceived in the past, some of which were thought to interact in all too human ways with each other. I read the passages you linked, and the following seemed most relevant:

22 Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: “You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious.

23 For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God.’* What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.

24 The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands…

If I was to convince others about a new god among many competing new gods, how useful to be able to fit it in where already there was a space that was under-theorised and overlooked: the altar To an Unknown God. Of course, it may be a true god, or it may be a mistaken belief, but rhetorically speaking it is a clever device on Paul’s part. However, I do not think that genuine ignorance and speculation about the unknown basis of the universe is the same as a solid foundation for belief in any specific deity. The altar ought to remain to an unknown god, because we cannot know and yet we hope for one or for the certainty, assurance and purpose it represents.

I may have focused on a different section from what you expected, so let me know! I liked the historicity of it though, or rather, thinking about the reality that Paul or his followers traveled around discussing belief and philosophy, and people were moved to write it down.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

You selected the section I had in mind.

Thank you for looking at it and for sharing your thoughts.

God bless

As you rightly draw attention to, there have been numerous types of gods conceived in the past, some of which were thought to interact in all too human ways with each other. I read the passages you linked, and the following seemed most relevant:

22 Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: “You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious.

23 For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God.’* What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.

24 The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands…

If I was to convince others about a new god among many competing new gods, how useful to be able to fit it in where already there was a space that was under-theorised and overlooked: the altar To an Unknown God. Of course, it may be a true god, or it may be a mistaken belief, but rhetorically speaking it is a clever device on Paul’s part. However, I do not think that genuine ignorance and speculation about the unknown basis of the universe is the same as a solid foundation for belief in any specific deity. The altar ought to remain to an unknown god, because we cannot know and yet we hope for one or for the certainty, assurance and purpose it represents.

I may have focused on a different section from what you expected, so let me know! I liked the historicity of it though, or rather, thinking about the reality that Paul or his followers traveled around discussing belief and philosophy, and people were moved to write it down.

 

[sharptiger999]

They demand proof that there is a God. We demand proof that there is no God.

You should believe in unicorns! You don’t need proof. Since you can’t disprove them, therefore you should believe!

They can never be certain there is no God since that is impossible to prove.

You can never be certain there is no magical divine space alien since that is impossible to prove.

Moreover, the real proof of God is in the love of God.

Moreover, the real proof of the magical divine space alien is in the love of the magical divine space alien.

Learn to open up your “heart” to the alien.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

You should believe in unicorns! You don’t need proof. Since you can’t disprove them, therefore you should believe!

You can never be certain there is no magical divine space alien since that is impossible to prove.

Moreover, the real proof of the magical divine space alien is in the love of the magical divine space alien.

Learn to open up your “heart” to the alien.

Ah! I think I was talking about this kind of ‘offensive atheism’ a few posts ago…

The real proof in abiogenesis is… erm… casually ignoring the absurd unlikelihood of it? On the basis of the method which is used to support it?

Actually, the article I’ve just been looking at on the subject pretty much implies we’ve currently no particular idea how all this could have happened at all… not bad considering it’s on the talkorigins site, refuting the idea it’s too unlikely to believe in abiogenesis, referring to the damned lies of creationists (presumably YEC fundamentalists), whilst itself distorting the concept of what abiogenesis is in terms of refutation

Still, you can never be absolutely sure it never happened… maybe if I loved the idea of it a bit more? :newidea:

 

[Al_Moritz]

Ah! I think I was talking about this kind of ‘offensive atheism’ a few posts ago…

The real proof in abiogenesis is… erm… casually ignoring the absurd unlikelihood of it? On the basis of the method which is used to support it?

Actually, the article I’ve just been looking at on the subject pretty much implies we’ve currently no particular idea how all this could have happened at all… not bad considering it’s on the talkorigins site, refuting the idea it’s too unlikely to believe in abiogenesis, referring to the damned lies of creationists (presumably YEC fundamentalists), whilst itself distorting the concept of what abiogenesis is in terms of refutation

Still, you can never be absolutely sure it never happened… maybe if I loved the idea of it a bit more? :newidea:

You have looked up the wrong article then when it’s the one with “damned lies”. That article is old, nobody talks about hypercycles anymore, and in the meantime we have quite concrete ideas how things might have happened. Try mine, also on Talkorigins.org:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

There is no absurd unlikelihood at all.

By the way, if you look at the upper right corner of my post, I am not an atheist.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sharptiger999,

Welcome - glad you could join us!

Since you obviously did not bother with most of the previous posts, and since you claim no religion (upper right hand corner identification) - tell us, just what do you believe in?

God bless

You should believe in unicorns! You don’t need proof. Since you can’t disprove them, therefore you should believe!

You can never be certain there is no magical divine space alien since that is impossible to prove.

Moreover, the real proof of the magical divine space alien is in the love of the magical divine space alien.

Learn to open up your “heart” to the alien.

 

[Bobber90]

Moreover, the real proof of the magical divine space alien is in the love of the magical divine space alien.

Learn to open up your “heart” to the alien.

If by magical divine space alien you mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then yes you have reached true enlightenment. But if you mean some other alien thing, you have been deluded by your senses I’m afraid. Look always for the tentacles, and you will not be disappointed. String theory: just a coincidence? I think not! Explain that, Catholics

 

[tonyrey]

If by magical divine space alien you mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then yes you have reached true enlightenment. But if you mean some other alien thing, you have been deluded by your senses I’m afraid. Look always for the tentacles, and you will not be disappointed. String theory: just a coincidence? I think not! Explain that, Catholics

Your faith in String theory is touching but it won’t help you to live…

BTW Does String theory explain how entities that can explain that they have been produced by String theory have been produced?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

BTW Does String theory explain how entities that can explain that they have been produced by String theory have been produced?

That sounds kind of like asking if kinetic theory explains how my fossil fueled powered ground transport (which makes use of kinetic theory) was manufactured.

 

[Reivax]

I found the best arguments for God have always been metaphysical arguments, but that is partly because I don’t know much about metaphysics. I don’t find moral arguments to be particularly strong, simply because many of the arguments assume that our deepest desires and hopes have some universal importance and preference. It just comes down to what we ‘want’ rather than how truthful it is. For example “If you’re an atheist that means that you think that it is OK to rape children”. Which is a poor argument, because atheists can indeed have morals, but these morals come from reason, not God. To say that morality can only come from God or religion is simply absurd.

Hope this helps!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Reivax,

Actually, it did not help at all.

I really do not know what you mean by, “I found the best arguments for God …” when it does not sound like you have found any that you understand. And, the ones you presented you really do not understand very well. I can only speak for myself - but, I do not honeslty think that there is a greater proportion of child rapists amongst Atheists than amonst those who profess any belief in any god. Most countries have laws against this type of particularly vicious behavior - and it does not take a lot of faith to believe that if one is caught they will be punished for their criminal behavior.

Maybe it is this disconnect that leads you to conclude that ‘…morality can only come from God…’ because man has reason. Well … where do you think reason came from?

God bless

I found the best arguments for God have always been metaphysical arguments, but that is partly because I don’t know much about metaphysics. I don’t find moral arguments to be particularly strong, simply because many of the arguments assume that our deepest desires and hopes have some universal importance and preference. It just comes down to what we ‘want’ rather than how truthful it is. For example “If you’re an atheist that means that you think that it is OK to rape children”. Which is a poor argument, because atheists can indeed have morals, but these morals come from reason, not God. To say that morality can only come from God or religion is simply absurd.

Hope this helps!

 

[Whadyamean]

I found the best arguments for God have always been metaphysical arguments, but that is partly because I don’t know much about metaphysics. I don’t find moral arguments to be particularly strong, simply because many of the arguments assume that our deepest desires and hopes have some universal importance and preference. It just comes down to what we ‘want’ rather than how truthful it is. For example “If you’re an atheist that means that you think that it is OK to rape children”. Which is a poor argument, because atheists can indeed have morals, but these morals come from reason, not God. To say that morality can only come from God or religion is simply absurd.

Hope this helps!

I agree. because there really cant be an “argument” for God as God is not a matter of argument, intellection, or perception. All reasoning about God is just that and keeps one in the last refuge of both the atheist and the religious: mentality. God is beyond the human mind, which is why it is necessary as a first step to Spiritual practice to follow Taj Mahal’s sage advice (because it agrees with the Saints and Sages of the Ages) “Take a GIANT step–outside your mind.” Otherwise you are in belief paradigms, faiths, and opinions.