How do you feel about atheists?

[Glomung]

I feel sorry for them, really.
I used to be an agnostic myself, so I understand the thought processes.

It must be a real drag to go through life being that profoundly alone and profoundly ignorant.

No wonder the rabid anti-theists are so angry, they have a huge hole in their soul and have no idea how to fill it!

 

[MrEmpiricism]

So we have to take it on faith?

take what on faith?

 

[estesbob]

take what on faith?

Just because we do not understand something now does not mean we never will

 

[adamhovey1988]

I feel sorry for them, really.
I used to be an agnostic myself, so I understand the thought processes.

It must be a real drag to go through life being that profoundly alone and profoundly ignorant.

No wonder the rabid anti-theists are so angry, they have a huge hole in their soul and have no idea how to fill it!

I used to be Agnostic, then Buddhist. Buddhism is depressing. All life is suffering, according to them. That said, I did learn somethings as a Buddhist that I still carry with me. Remember, it Catholicism we don’t reject what is true in other religions. When I was an Agnostic, I don’t think I ever actually believed there was no God. I think I just happened to be a teenager. Same with Buddhism. Remember, I was not raised in a churchgoing family (we might go on occasion). You want to know something though? My experiences with Catholicism came early on, we did go to Mass when I was a kid (my mother has never Baptized and dad was a Lutheran), even went to a Catholic school briefly. I was always astounded by how beautiful Catholicism is. A world without God, is a world without beauty.

 

[Contarini]

Nope what I arguing is that

A. Just because we do not understand something now does not mean we never will

And no one disputes this. Our objection is to any “explanation” that reduces human choice to a physical event. It remains unclear how human freedom can coexist with such a view, and as I’m sure you’re aware there are people who bite the bullet and say that it doesn’t.

B. Just because we do not understand something does not mean a god has anything to do with it, if one wants to present that theory then they must demonstrate it to the same standards of any other sound explanation.

That’s a straw man. For one thing, as I’ve pointed out several times, no one here is arguing about “a god” but about God. Until you are willing to make that distinction, you are unwilling to have a serious conversation with theists. You are engaging in a kind of juvenile rudeness. The rudeness isn’t important (God, if God exists, is not harmed in any way by being spelled with a lower “g”), but the lack of clarity introduced into the discussion is important.

In the second place, I am not sure that you need a theistic account of reality to explain free will any more than to explain everything. In other words, there are two questions:

1. Is there such a thing as immaterial reality?
2. Is there a single immaterial source of all reality, to which concepts analogous to what we call “intellect” and “will” (i.e., “personhood”) in human beings rightly apply? (I.e., “God.”)

There might possibly be immaterial reality without there being a single immaterial source (as Jains and, if I understand them rightly, Buddhists believe–though Buddhism is tricky). I have trouble envisioning such a situation myself, but then I’m a modern Westerner for whom believing in the immaterial is relatively difficult. I believe in immaterial reality largely because I believe there must be an immaterial source of the material world. Only the authority of the Church would constrain me to believe in a wholly immaterial created being.

But be that as it may, when we’re talking about free will the objection most of us have to your position is, strictly speaking, its materialism and not its atheism. If all reality can be accounted for in strictly physical terms, then it seems that free will, and even thought itself, is an illusion.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

And no one disputes this. Our objection is to any “explanation” that reduces human choice to a physical event. It remains unclear how human freedom can coexist with such a view, and as I’m sure you’re aware there are people who bite the bullet and say that it doesn’t.

That’s a straw man. For one thing, as I’ve pointed out several times, no one here is arguing about “a god” but about God. Until you are willing to make that distinction, you are unwilling to have a serious conversation with theists. You are engaging in a kind of juvenile rudeness. The rudeness isn’t important (God, if God exists, is not harmed in any way by being spelled with a lower “g”), but the lack of clarity introduced into the discussion is important.

In the second place, I am not sure that you need a theistic account of reality to explain free will any more than to explain everything. In other words, there are two questions:

1. Is there such a thing as immaterial reality?
2. Is there a single immaterial source of all reality, to which concepts analogous to what we call “intellect” and “will” (i.e., “personhood”) in human beings rightly apply? (I.e., “God.”)

There might possibly be immaterial reality without there being a single immaterial source (as Jains and, if I understand them rightly, Buddhists believe–though Buddhism is tricky). I have trouble envisioning such a situation myself, but then I’m a modern Westerner for whom believing in the immaterial is relatively difficult. I believe in immaterial reality largely because I believe there must be an immaterial source of the material world. Only the authority of the Church would constrain me to believe in a wholly immaterial created being.

But be that as it may, when we’re talking about free will the objection most of us have to your position is, strictly speaking, its materialism and not its atheism. If all reality can be accounted for in strictly physical terms, then it seems that free will, and even thought itself, is an illusion.

Edwin

Thank you for this, Edwin.

It is strange indeed that one can be capable of denying immaterial reality while at the same time engaging in immaterial thought in order to arrive at that very conclusion.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Faithdancer]

God may not be harmed, but the blasphemer condemns himself. As I’ve already said, I won’t dignify those posts with a response.:tsktsk:

 

[Faithdancer]

I feel sorry for them, really.
I used to be an agnostic myself, so I understand the thought processes.

It must be a real drag to go through life being that profoundly alone and profoundly ignorant.

No wonder the rabid anti-theists are so angry, they have a huge hole in their soul and have no idea how to fill it!

And they are so often angry, aren’t they? And stubbornly prideful.

 

[Lou2U]

I feel sorry for them, really.
I used to be an agnostic myself, so I understand the thought processes.

It must be a real drag to go through life being that profoundly alone and profoundly ignorant.

No wonder the rabid anti-theists are so angry, they have a huge hole in their soul and have no idea how to fill it!

I don’t know if your post is only aimed at Atheists, but as an Agnostic I do not consider myself to be “profoundly alone and profoundly ignorant”.

It seems to be that some posters on this thread believe Atheists are only Atheists because they do not bother to research different religions. As I have said many pages ago, this is not true. I know several Atheists who have looked into Christianity and other religions. They have not found themselves convinced.

 

[estesbob]

God may not be harmed, but the blasphemer condemns himself. As I’ve already said, I won’t dignify those posts with a response.:tsktsk:

You appear to trying hard to get this thread shut down.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

estesbob:
No estesbob we should never accept anything on “faith”, when we do not know, we simply admit that we do not know.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

And no one disputes this. Our objection is to any “explanation” that reduces human choice to a physical event. It remains unclear how human freedom can coexist with such a view, and as I’m sure you’re aware there are people who bite the bullet and say that it doesn’t.

That’s a straw man. For one thing, as I’ve pointed out several times, no one here is arguing about “a god” but about God. Until you are willing to make that distinction, you are unwilling to have a serious conversation with theists. You are engaging in a kind of juvenile rudeness. The rudeness isn’t important (God, if God exists, is not harmed in any way by being spelled with a lower “g”), but the lack of clarity introduced into the discussion is important.

In the second place, I am not sure that you need a theistic account of reality to explain free will any more than to explain everything. In other words, there are two questions:

1. Is there such a thing as immaterial reality?
2. Is there a single immaterial source of all reality, to which concepts analogous to what we call “intellect” and “will” (i.e., “personhood”) in human beings rightly apply? (I.e., “God.”)

There might possibly be immaterial reality without there being a single immaterial source (as Jains and, if I understand them rightly, Buddhists believe–though Buddhism is tricky). I have trouble envisioning such a situation myself, but then I’m a modern Westerner for whom believing in the immaterial is relatively difficult. I believe in immaterial reality largely because I believe there must be an immaterial source of the material world. Only the authority of the Church would constrain me to believe in a wholly immaterial created being.

But be that as it may, when we’re talking about free will the objection most of us have to your position is, strictly speaking, its materialism and not its atheism. If all reality can be accounted for in strictly physical terms, then it seems that free will, and even thought itself, is an illusion.

Edwin

Free will may well be an illusion, it may not, we do not know. Maintaining that it is not because you do not like the alternative is not a meaningful argument.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Thank you for this, Edwin.

It is strange indeed that one can be capable of denying immaterial reality while at the same time engaging in immaterial thought in order to arrive at that very conclusion.

Peace.

Steve

It is not strange in the slightest, it is called biological emergence. I am all for everyone here arguing for their own position but one should at least study the opposing positions before blindly claiming such things cannot be explained.

No one is claiming to know everything that is going on, quite the contrary. However, we must be humble and admit when we do not know is it then pointless to assert an answer.

We do not understand X, or you cannot explain X, therefore this supports Y is a fallacious arguments.

 

[Contarini]

It is not strange in the slightest, it is called biological emergence. I am all for everyone here arguing for their own position but one should at least study the opposing positions before blindly claiming such things cannot be explained.

No one is claiming to know everything that is going on, quite the contrary. However, we must be humble and admit when we do not know is it then pointless to assert an answer.

We do not understand X, or you cannot explain X, therefore this supports Y is a fallacious arguments.

Yes, I should be distinguishing more carefully between what Aristotle would call efficient and formal causality.

Or, without the Aristotelian language, between what causes something to occur and what is an adequate description of it.

Something that cannot be described in purely material terms might well emerge from natural processes. I don’t think that free will requires “substance dualism.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Free will may well be an illusion, it may not, we do not know. Maintaining that it is not because you do not like the alternative is not a meaningful argument.

But if reductionistic versions of materialism are true, it’s hard to see how there could be any meaningful argument at all.

By thinking at all, we have to act as if materialism were not the whole story.

And again, that doesn’t have to imply a monotheistic God or even a distinctive spiritual substance, but some aspect of reality (which might well be “emergent”) that cannot be described adequately in terms of its physical causes.

Edwin

 

[Faithdancer]

You appear to trying hard to get this thread shut down.

Perhaps you don’t consider persistent deliberate belittling of God (little “g”) to be blasphemy. However, if so you would be at odds with the Roman Catholic definition of blasphemy:
“Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, “to injure”, and pheme, “reputation”) signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem.”
(newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm)

I think after a dozen incidences or so of belittling, it measures down to the standard of “gross irreverence.” You are free to think otherwise.

 

[Faithdancer]

I don’t know if your post is only aimed at Atheists, but as an Agnostic I do not consider myself to be “profoundly alone and profoundly ignorant”.

It seems to be that some posters on this thread believe Atheists are only Atheists because they do not bother to research different religions. As I have said many pages ago, this is not true. I know several Atheists who have looked into Christianity and other religions. They have not found themselves convinced.

This is not the case with any Atheists I know. I see people who do not mind what religion others practise, as long as there is mutual respect. Also, not all Atheists are prideful - again, they don’t mind.

Lou

“Often” prideful was my wording, I believe, "often"modifying both angry and prideful. From a Christian standpoint, any time we think we can figure it all out by ourselves without any faith, any reliance on God and His word whether through “rationalism,” “skepticism,” “reductionism,” “materialism,” etc. we are being prideful.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic please

 

[PRmerger]

First off, I’m an atheist, but I don’t use the problem of evil as a basis for my atheism.

That said, if God did exist, then the existence of evil would demand a reappraisal of His nature. None of this “God is Infinite Love” nonsense. Something like the Gnostic Demiurge: God as malicious, capricious jerk. This is not without precedent in the Bible. I mean, He sent a bunch of bears to attack a group of kids who were mocking one of his prophets. I always felt the use of bears points to a streak of absurd humor in His nature.

I never know how to take atheistic interpretations of the Bible.

It’s such a fundamentalist’s approach.

And I find it so curious, esp. coming from an atheist.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for this, Edwin.

It is strange indeed that one can be capable of denying immaterial reality while at the same time engaging in immaterial thought in order to arrive at that very conclusion.

Peace.

Steve

:sad_yes: