How do you feel about atheists?

[Mike_from_NJ]

Here from my deck with the DH, dogs and a beverage. I understand. What I disagree with is excluding human experience. We all experience things differently, while at the same time, completely similar. To discount experience is to deny our humanity.

The problem I think comes when only one side can include the human experience. Hindus, Muslims, Rastafarians, and many other groups can provide human experiences as well, and we both agree their beliefs are not accurate. On a personal level we should be respectful of others’ beliefs and not be mocking of them, but because the same concrete ability to garner truth from those experiences is equal all around we can’t use them on an analytical. This is especially true if we only accept the human experiences of one group and not all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The problem I think comes when only one side can include the human experience. Hindus, Muslims, Rastafarians, and many other groups can provide human experiences as well, and we both agree their beliefs are not accurate. On a personal level we should be respectful of others’ beliefs and not be mocking of them, but because the same concrete ability to garner truth from those experiences is equal all around we can’t use them on an analytical. This is especially true if we only accept the human experiences of one group and not all.

I don’t hold a belief that people of other faiths do not experience God.

Human experience is not a controlled lab, where X (name removed by moderator)ut provides the exact Y result every time. this includes human experiences of faith.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Where did I ever say that self-evident works are the only basis for believing in God? Perhaps you’ve misunderstood me. Faith is also critical. Fides et ratio, faith and reason.

I think you’ve added the word only there. What I said was that you pointed to the self-evident works and did not provide any other material. Would you agree though that self-evident works by themselves are insufficient to prove God (the Christian version)?

 

[Faithdancer]

I have to get ready for 5 pm Mass, so will take a break. Yes, RC Mass, I do everything but receive, know the liturgy quite well and revere it. Even if I take Holy Orders in the Anglican church, I hope I will be able to continue attending RC services. I’m just on the other side of the Tiber, after all!

I will pray for everyone here as one of my prayer intentions.

 

[Faithdancer]

I think you’ve added the word only there. What I said was that you pointed to the self-evident works and did not provide any other material. Would you agree though that self-evident works by themselves are insufficient to prove God (the Christian version)?

They should be sufficient, was our reason not clouded by sin.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

What other God is claimed to be the un-moved mover, un-caused causer, and outside of space and time? God is not just another being amongst other beings. I can see why you would think that would be ridiculous for Chrisitians to believe.

The god of the Baha’i faith is also said to be the sole creator of the universe, eternal, and uncaused. Whether that exact terminology is used I couldn’t say.

 

[JD1789]

The god of the Baha’i faith is also said to be the sole creator of the universe, eternal, and uncaused. Whether that exact terminology is used I couldn’t say.

Then they would be claiming the same God.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Then they would be claiming the same God.

They do not believe in the Trinity. Jesus is not the god of the Baha’i faith. He interacted with people differently than did God (the Christian version).

They are not the same. A person worshipping in the Baha’i faith would be breaking the first commandment.

Edited to add:

You asked “What other God is claimed to be the un-moved mover, un-caused causer, and outside of space and time?” If you’re including every single deity that possesses those same characterists and you ignore any other characterists that differ from God (the Christian version) then the question has no meaning.

 

[JD1789]

They do not believe in the Trinity. Jesus is not the god of the Baha’i faith. He interacted with people differently than did God (the Christian version).

They are not the same. A person worshipping in the Baha’i faith would be breaking the first commandment.

Then they would be mistaken about the nature of God. They would be mistake about the divinity of Jesus, just like many other heretics including Muslims make. The fundamental aspects of God used to prove His existence are still present. Who uses the trinity to move that God exists? I’m pretty sure even Aquanis speaks of how the trinity can only be proven from divine revelation.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Then they would be mistaken about the nature of God. They would be mistake about the divinity of Jesus, just like many other heretics including Muslims make. The fundamental aspects of God used to prove His existence are still present. Who uses the trinity to move that God exists? I’m pretty sure even Aquanis speaks of how the trinity can only be proven from divine revelation.

I brought up the Trinity to show that they are not the same god.

I edited my previous post likely as you were typing your response. If you could I’d be interested if you could take a look at that last question.

 

[JD1789]

They do not believe in the Trinity. Jesus is not the god of the Baha’i faith. He interacted with people differently than did God (the Christian version).

They are not the same. A person worshipping in the Baha’i faith would be breaking the first commandment.

Edited to add:

You asked “What other God is claimed to be the un-moved mover, un-caused causer, and outside of space and time?” If you’re including every single deity that possesses those same characterists and you ignore any other characterists that differ from God (the Christian version) then the question has no meaning.

I believe you are naming the thought up god’s first then you are addressing the necessary truths I’m proposing. I am using Aquanis’s 5-ways to determine what God must be and then naming Him God. If there is another diety that possesses those traits, then that diety has just been incorrectly labeled and is the same God I’m proposing.

 

[Contarini]

The god of the Baha’i faith is also said to be the sole creator of the universe, eternal, and uncaused. Whether that exact terminology is used I couldn’t say.

That’s not a “god.” That’s just God.

We believe the Bahai are wrong in rejecting the Trinity and in regarding God’s revelation of himself in Jesus as something less than fully ultimate.

But you will not find that the Catholic Church, in any of its official utterances, suggests in any way that the Bahai worship some god other than the true God.

You may find poorly informed or fanatical Catholics who maintain this.

Edwin

 

[AllieT]

I hope and pray for them, because I want them to be saved…and for them to have what I have found…the Truth, and God’s love…

 

[Contarini]

They do not believe in the Trinity. Jesus is not the god of the Baha’i faith. He interacted with people differently than did God (the Christian version).

They are not the same. A person worshipping in the Baha’i faith would be breaking the first commandment.

I am not sure where you think you get the right to pontificate on who is or is not breaking the first commandment. I’m sure you can find fundamentalists who think that Bahai are.

But don’t you think, since this is a Catholic forum, that you might at least acknowledge the existence of the Catholic position?

No monotheists break the first commandment (in their religious worship–they may break it in other ways).

Also, consider this: by the logic you are endorsing, everyone in the OT was breaking the First Commandment. But, of course, the First Commandment came in the OT.

Christians have, on the whole, more in common with Bahais (and Muslims) than with ancient Hebrews, religiously.

But for the purposes of this discussion, you really don’t have standing to argue the point theologically. If you are considering returning to Christianity and this issue stands in your way, I’m happy to discuss it. But for the purposes for which this issue was originally raised, what matters is simply that the Catholic position, and that of many other mainstream Christians, is quite different than you imagine it to be.

Edwin

 

[spedteacherita]

Actually, I think exactly the opposite is the case. We lose a lot of people from Christianity because they are taught in their churches that Biblical literalism and the denial of clear scientific evidence are essential truths of the Faith.

How do you propose to convince atheists of this, when you can’t even convince most educated Christians?

I was brought up creationist. I do not find creationism believable. The Catholic Church does not teach creationism. Why on earth would you embark in such a leaky. . . . ark?

Well, that’s what they say. The evidence doesn’t hold up. Almost no scientists with credentials believe it. (To be fair, my doctor does, and he’s not only a fine doctor but has a research background in molecular biology. . . . )

By the way, evolution is banned as a discussion topic, so this may get the thread closed down. . . . .

Edwin

Thanks for your feed back…Have you checked their website and listened to their hypotheses? God bless!!!

Rita

 

[Faithdancer]

Thanks for your feed back…Have you checked their website and listened to their hypotheses? God bless!!!

Rita

In any case, God bless you Sister for the work you do. I sub SPED classes occasionally and I know how challenging the job is. Some of them are so sweet, though, especially the Down’s Syndrome kids!

 

[PRmerger]

What of the Crusades? These were glorious struggles against the enemies of God, and were usually initiated via papal bull.

It is a mistake to appropriate the acts of sinful men to acts of God.

Thus, the lines between sacred and venal tend to blur, I think.

You are correct.

That has always been the case, of course.

 

[PRmerger]

But it’s still dependent on the definition accorded by a segment of humanity. It’s merely a conceptualization of God. It may perhaps be more applicable, or may make more sense than many others, but it’s still a concept reliant on human definition and interpretation.

No doubt.

But when you are in discussions here the fall back position is to use the God of the Philosophers as the God we are discussing with atheists.

 

[PRmerger]

There is a difference.

When I was a child, my parents placed presents under the tree as though Santa had brought them. He didn’t, of course, but it was an illusion that they presented and I, in my naivete, eagerly believed.

In hindsight, the illusion of Santa Claus was nonsensical, but it made sense because there were tangible results. If you believed in Santa Claus, and were a good child for the year, then you would be rewarded; the bicycle under the tree came from somewhere.

What’s there to say that God itself isn’t a similar illusion, only more elaborate and far-reaching? If you’re a child and you’re a good little boy and follow your parent’s rules, then a bicycle will magically appear under your tree. If you’re a good adult and follow the rules of a church, then you will be rewarded with eternal life. The genius of this is that once you catch mommy and daddy putting presents under the tree, the illusion of Santa is forever shattered; however, since the presents a church promises are non-corporeal, *their *illusion stretches out in perpetuity.

Before we get into the tributary of whether God is a “similar illusion” to Santa, why don’t you stick with my point, first?

Are we agreed that we don’t believe in something just because it makes us good and happy?

We believe in something because it’s true, right?

Can we agree on that?

We wouldn’t encourage a sane adult to continue to believe in Santa even if it made him the happiest and most moral person in the world?

 

[PRmerger]

(I put the word “atheist” in quotes because I don’t believe there can be any logical “atheists,” since the absolute denial of the existence of God cannot be based on any empirical evidence but is itself founded on a belief, and the “atheist” refuses to believe in anything that cannot be “proven empirically” ).