I am an atheist thread 2

[phooney]

Hmmm… Captain Omnimax then, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[Battle_of_Tours]

The name, or designation, given to the ‘God of the Philosophers’ doesn’t matter much, so long as you are aware of the definition or concept that it is meant to signify.

 

[phooney]

That will depend on which philosophers we’re talking about now I guess…

Why are you being so vague?

 

[Battle_of_Tours]

Of course, “Flying Speghetti Monster” is just a silly name, as it implies that God is a material entity.

 

[phooney]

Maybe you should honestly pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster every day for a while though?

 

[Battle_of_Tours]

The ‘God of the Philosophers’ is the concept of God which has easily been the most consistently discussed, believed in, and agreed upon among Western philosophers and religious thinkers since the time of Socrates.

This fundamentally Western concept of God is not shared, of course, by most of the Eastern religious traditions, but, then again, most of the Eastern religious concepts of God are either pantheistic or logically incoherent (due to the denial of the axiom of identity, or law of non-contradiction, in the East).

 

[Battle_of_Tours]

phooney:
Why not pray to the ‘Flying Speghetti Monster’? For the simple reason that such a creature, if it exists, is not deserving of our reverence. Why would you want to pray to something edible?

Please note: I’m playing along, but will not answer any more inane questions.

 

[phooney]

You speak like there’s some kind of consensus about what God is, when there clearly is not.

I see no reason to start this praying excercise you’ve suggested again, I had enough of that with no results in school.

 

[phooney]

But the agreed definition of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the all knowing, all powerful, tasty, creator of everything… if it exists, is it not worth worshipping, just as much as the concept of Yahweh is?

 

[Battle_of_Tours]

There is a consensus about what God is in the West, viz. the uncreated Creator of the universe, who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.

Of course, different Western religions add different and incompatible properties to this God. (For example, Christians believe God is a Trinity, while Jews and Muslims deny this.) But this does not erase the fundamental agreement upon a basic concept of God within the West.

As to the prayer exercise that I’ve suggested:

1. This is the first time I’ve suggested it, so I’m not suggesting it “again.”
2. You say you’ve tried it in school with no results. But I have to ask you: Did you pray every day? And did you abstain from mortal sin?

 

[phooney]

Sorry, by “again” I was referring to my having already done it in school, not suggesting that you were repeating yourself.

Abstaining from mortal sin… probably, I was a reasonably innocent child. Of course I take the concept of being born guilty to be ridiculous, offensive and bordering on mental child abuse if that concept is taught to a person too young to think critically for themselves.

 

[Battle_of_Tours]

Ah, I see now. I misread the referent of “again.”

So you “probably” abstained from mortal sin when you undertook this exercise of prayer as a child.

If there’s any doubt about whether you did, I think you should certainly try this exercise again.

You can’t tell me you fully accept the idea of childhood innocence. Have you ever seen a child try to hit its mother or father? The child is only innocent insofar as it doesn’t have the means to do any real damage. But that isn’t real innocence, since it intends to hurt the parent. And do you really believe that children are any less selfish than adults? In my experience, they are generally more selfish than adults.

 

[_A]

Now you have shown that you are a person of tremendous faith.

I have not. You are making things up.
Faith means ‘action from belief’. The analogy I have used to help me try to understand it is this - if a person is standing on top of a building considering the drop, and he thinks that his god will save him if he jumps, then he has belief.
If he jumps, he has faith.

As with G D he is the same today as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow. the way man choose to worship and acknowledge him may change but G D does not. How ever science changes daily.For what is scientific truth yesterday is considered obsolete today.

Tell me, where did you learn about scientific ‘truth’? I have not heard of such a thing.

you can take about any subject in the world and the stance and knowledge about has changed many times. i am not just talking about over 100’s of years even I’m talking daily.

Yes, of course. In this fashion, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has been one of the most tested and well-demonstrated theories I can think of. We have refined our knowledge from being able to make radio contact just a few decades ago, to being on the internet.
Religion is the philosophy that has ‘truths’, which means that there is a good chance that it will be (has been) demonstrated wrong with just about every advance science has made.

May question to you now is this. You came to a religious web site with questions about G D, But it seems you have made up your mind already, so why ask?

Well one of the reasons which you may be able to help me with (unless I misread your intent with that question), is this. I am trying to understand what, aside from internal feelings, has convinced everyone to believe.
One of the ways I have been trying to figure it out is to see how you all would tell the difference between a ‘faith’ experience or ‘Yahweh’ experience, and an hallucination of same.
All that I have read here so far is that they are based on a feeling of certainty.
Have you got anything else that someone who has not been ‘bitten by the faith bug’ can understand?

 

[_A]

It is an interesting fault you seem to have with your ‘o’ key…

I noticed that every single one of his posts starts with the name he chose, which spells out god quite clearly…
'oneGODoneCHURCH ’
…but seems to be unable to spell it out in a message.
So what is the deal with that oneGODoneCHURCH ?

 

[_A]

Hello A:
If you’re having difficulty believing in God, and find yourself unnecessarily skeptical, embittered, and antagonistic toward those who are able to believe in God without difficulty, then I suggest you adopt a routine of prayer. I haven’t found myself to be unnecessarily skeptical, I am certainly not embittered. As far as antagonistic goes, I don’t think so.
Battle_of_Tours;3094602:

And I mean *real *

prayer, i.e., prayer which includes reflection upon your sins.Is this your way of saying that if I have tried this, and it didn’t work, I should try it again because it is my fault?

For I’ve noticed that it is often the case with skeptics that their evident inability to be persuaded by reason

is, in the final analysis, due the effects of sin, which corrupts the intellect. If you can cite peer-reviewed research, I will have a look at it, but I think you are just saying I am dumb because I am sinning.
You can’t know what your god wants of me, or whether he is getting it, so I think you are just making noise here.

So I suggest to you that you get in the habit of praying, at least once a day, for God to forgive you your sins, and that you make a sincere effort to abstain from mortal sins.

Which god? Why one and not another? Are there ‘immortal sins’? If there aren’t, why are some called ‘mortal’?

I have no doubt that if you follow this routine of prayer and personal confession, and if you keep yourself away from mortal sins, for, say, 2-3 months, most of your doubts will melt away, you will achieve a peace of mind and heart, and you will begin to know God. For, when you let go of sin

, cling to God, and persevere in so doing, you begin to notice God’s presence. You begin to want to love others. You begin to desire the wholesome, the good, and the pure. I think it is an awful personal attack to suggest that I can’t have a desire to love, or be good or wholesome. I would suggest that you reconsider your tone toward me if what you are after is respectful dialog.

 

[Armor_of_God]

The fact is, lots of people do good works without being bribed by heaven or threatened by a sky-bully.

Absolutely. Including me and most Catholics I know. There is no sky-bully in my life.

 

[Armor_of_God]

I can show you, but to be honest, you seem resistant. It is nothing remarkable, either, but if you really want to know, I will try to put it simply.
Optical illusions.

You may be the rare sort that does not experience optical illusions, but you would be in the rare minority.

What I’m resistant to is you telling me what’s going through my mind or what I’m experiencing.

I would say that optical illusions are in a category on their own. You see them and carry on with your day. Voices, I think, would have a bit more of an effect on someone.

Yes, I’ve seen the picture before. I see Him once a week, too.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Faith is not necessary with science. In the place of faith, science has accountability and rigor.

Why are there so many conflicting scientific theories and reports?

 

[Armor_of_God]

This is a common misconception. If you can show how there is something that someone possessing faith can do that someone faithless cannot, I may change my mind.

Someone with faith can pray for someone’s eternal soul.

 

[Battle_of_Tours]

I haven’t found myself to be unnecessarily skeptical, I am certainly not embittered. As far as antagonistic goes, I don’t think so.

That a person “finds himself” in a certain condition need not entail that that person himself be aware of being in such a condition. In saying, therefore, that you find yourself excessively skeptical, embittered, and antagonistic toward people who are able to believe in God without much difficulty, I meant to be expressing a fact about you, which I was able to infer from your posts on this thread. That you do not understand yourself to be excessively skeptical, embittered, and antagonistic doesn’t surprise me, for I believe that *self-ignorance * is also symptomatic of a corrupt intellect.

Is this your way of saying that if I have tried this, and it didn’t work, I should try it again because it is my fault?

Yes. That’s precisely what I mean.

If you can cite peer-reviewed research, I will have a look at it, but I think you are just saying I am dumb because I am sinning.
You can’t know what your god wants of me, or whether he is getting it, so I think you are just making noise here.

Yes, I am saying, in a certain sense, that you are rendered dumb because of sin. Peer-reviewed research cannot prove this because it is impossible to conduct tests which take into account varying levels of grace disposed to particular individuals and the innate intellectual capacity of particular individuals.

I *can * know what my God wants of you, because I know what my God wants of all persons, myself included.

And I can know whether he is getting it because I can inquire as to whether or not you are giving it to him.

Which god? Why one and not another? Are there ‘immortal sins’? If there aren’t, why are some called ‘mortal’?

Because if there’s a God, there’s only one of them; and this God is sufficient. (This can be proved philosophically.)

Mortal sins are those sins which seriously impair our relationship with God. They are distinguished from venial sins, which, individually, only do comparatively mild harm to our relationship with God.

I think it is an awful personal attack to suggest that I can’t have a desire to love, or be good or wholesome. I would suggest that you reconsider your tone toward me if what you are after is respectful dialog.

Of course unrepentent sinners can love others, and have wholesome desires, etc. My point was that a repentent sinner whose will has been renewed by God’s grace is placed in a better position, and feels himself more inclined, to love others and entertain wholesome desires.

I did not intend to personally attack you, and I am sorry if you misunderstood my meaning.