I am an atheist thread 2

[_A]

Well, no, it doesn’t really show your point, because you were presenting that picture as “evidence” of faith, and I am not convinced of its authenticity.

You aren’t convinced that there are suicide bombers? Have you heard that some of them got the world trade centre?

 

[justinthemartyr]

We don’t, and I would rather think it was a fake. It does show my point, though.
There are men and women who have so much faith that they would strap explosives on and blow up themselves to carry out the will of their god.
That is quite a lot of faith demonstrated there.

except that the result is not good, for anyone. The fruits of this so called faith is destruction by the human being, not love.

This same group strapped a bomb on 1-3 years olds and blew them up with everyone else also.

 

[_A]

except that the result is not good, for anyone. The fruits of this so called faith is destruction by the human being, not love.

This same group strapped a bomb on 1-3 years olds and blew them up with everyone else also.

Good point about the 1-3 year olds. That must be an even larger show of faith.
When you say their ‘so called faith’, what prevents me from doing the same about yours? My point is that being derisive about their faith proves nothing but your mood.
Or your faith.
Catholocism has plenty of murder and torture (for Yahweh) in it’s past. As far as the destruction of the human being goes, how about burning women because they are suspected of witchcraft?
I am seeing little difference between them from my objective viewpoint. Is there some way to tell the difference?

 

[justinthemartyr]

the children had no choice, they were murdered.

This is not of God, and the results prove it.

Please do not try using the evils of men calling themselves catholics as proof of faith or as evidence that the church is somehow the same.

Wherever humans are, there will be good and bad alike, but you will know them by their fruits. We are speaking of the actual teachings.

Where does the Catholic Church teach to murder others for their faith? It doesn’t.

Certain other religions do teach to murder others, and that they will be rewarded.

 

[_A]

the children had no choice, they were murdered.

Their parents, having strong faith, sacrificed them much like Isaac would have(if another hallucination had not intervened).

This is not of God, and the results prove it.

So it is the results of faith which provide the proof?

Please do not try using the evils of men calling themselves catholics as proof of faith or as evidence that the church is somehow the same.

It was not the ‘evils of men’. It was the criminal violence of the church, which, by the way, went unchecked as long as the church has had political power.

Wherever humans are, there will be good and bad alike, but you will know them by their fruits. We are speaking of the actual teachings.

So the catholic church continues to condemn abortion (something that a creator, if he exists, does to about half of all pregnancies). The catholic church has been wrong about this for years. It causes much pain and suffering now in the world.
By their fruits, you say?

Where does the Catholic Church teach to murder others for their faith? It doesn’t.

It does, however, teach that having a lack of faith, or the wrong faith gains eternal torture. That is much worse than a simple murder.

 

[Mr.Bee]

Why, Mr. Bee?

Please - I hope you aren’t reading tone that isn’t there. My posts may not be full of smilies, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that my questions aren’t being asked with a smile or a gentle nature. I think if I were face-to-face with A, we would be drinking tea, or fishing, while having these conversations.

I think I have some valid questions, just as A has some valid questions.

Thank you,

This thread has actually been more civil and rational than most others I’ve been involved in. I agree, a face-to-face conversation with all you guys and gals in a Starbucks somewhere would probably be more fruitful. The “internet tone” is unavoidable.

But A brings up a question that cannot be answered, and in doing so challenges one’s faith, the tone, real or not, then becomes angry.

I then have to resort to my actions, and what is in my heart, to justify my opinion, which I find impossible to do on a forum thread.

I believe faith without question is superstition, but you have to be careful about what questions you ask, you might not like the answers.

Right now I’m not angry and I sleep pretty good at night.

 

[Mr.Bee]

The faith of that woman in the picture was arguably stronger than most. Why are you not following her religion?

That implies that one should follow based solely on the strength or sincerity of that persons faith. If it only were that simple.

My spiritual mentors have something more to offer than just blind faith.

I don’t know A, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m running away from this conversation, but I’m starting to not understand your point.

 

[Mr.Bee]

If it made testable claims, I would likely check that first. I would also likely ask someone close to me for their opinion.
A most likely second stop, if I were hearing voices, would be to get checked out by a doctor for schizophrenia.
A medical doctor, I should say. A doctor of divinity might be still using the ‘demon possesion’ theory of medicine. I would like better to have the kind that uses modern medicine.

I know this is only my opinion (and not very helpful), but…

God doesn’t like to be tested, and would likely throw you a curve ball.

You’d be on your own, having to figure it out for yourself.

 

[_A]

I believe faith without question is superstition, but you have to be careful about what questions you ask, you might not like the answers.

I believe that faith without evidence is superstition.
I don’t mind if I don’t like the answers. How much I like reality has absolutely nothing to do with what reality is.

 

[_A]

That implies that one should follow based solely on the strength or sincerity of that persons faith. If it only were that simple.

My spiritual mentors have something more to offer than just blind faith.

I don’t know A, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m running away from this conversation, but I’m starting to not understand your point.

My point is, this.
One of you, either you, or the woman pictured, is correct about what they believe in. I would think that it is fair to say that her view and yours are mutually exclusive.
Many offer their faith, and nothing more, as evidence that their god/religion is the right one.
Clearly, one of you is wrong, and if we ask both of you what evidence you have to present, you both have faith to offer. Hers is disastrously strong, yours has strength also.
How does one not yet accepting of a religion decide which of you is wrong? Is it you? Her?
I suspect any ‘belief without evidence’ is wrong to act on.

 

[_A]

I know this is only my opinion (and not very helpful), but…

God doesn’t like to be tested, and would likely throw you a curve ball.

You’d be on your own, having to figure it out for yourself.

So your god intentionally makes the evidence difficult? What about stupid people? (like me).
I am too slow to take things on faith, so I will end up with eternal torture?
What about that young lady? She believed in her god so strongly that she went willingly to her death - and according to you, chose the wrong god. Her faith was strong, but she will get the everlasting torment with me.

Does any of this actually make sense to you? It doesn’t look that way to me.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

What about stupid people? (like me).
I am too slow to take things on faith, so I will end up with eternal torture?

Too slow to take things on faith? Skepticism ain’t Stupidity.

 

[_A]

Too slow to take things on faith? Skepticism ain’t Stupidity.

I know that I spoke callously, but the majority of catholics whom I know have this idea that it is my lack which makes me unable to believe this stuff without evidence, so I thought it was my turn.

 

[Mr.Bee]

I believe that faith without evidence is superstition.
I don’t mind if I don’t like the answers. How much I like reality has absolutely nothing to do with what reality is.

Evidence? Yeah, that would be nice wouldn’t it. But then it wouldn’t require faith then, don’t you think?

So your god intentionally makes the evidence difficult? What about stupid people? (like me).
I am too slow to take things on faith, so I will end up with eternal torture?
What about that young lady? She believed in her god so strongly that she went willingly to her death - and according to you, chose the wrong god. Her faith was strong, but she will get the everlasting torment with me.

Does any of this actually make sense to you? It doesn’t look that way to me.

Does God intentionally make the evidence difficult? Yeah, it certainly looks that way doesn’t it. Kinda PO’s you, very unfair. We seem to be taking a test we didn’t really ask for.

All I can do now is try and pass the test I guess…

And yeah, makes no sense. Please explain.

I suspect any ‘belief without evidence’ is wrong to act on.

Really? That seems pretty bold, or cowardly (I do not think you’re a coward, quite the opposite actually, so don’t get offended) But think about the implications of that statement for a minute…

I have no evidence that my child is alive in that burning building, I don’t care to waste my time about evidence at that point. So I run in to save them and die in the process, my faith killed me… Is that the same as that woman in the picture?

 

[_A]

I have no evidence that my child is alive in that burning building, I don’t care to waste my time about evidence at that point. So I run in to save them and die in the process, my faith killed me… Is that the same as that woman in the picture?

Yes it is. You both died for a belief. You both died performing an act of love. If you don’t think what she did was for love and faith, what do you think it was for?
Again, whether you were correct or not about if you child was in the building is not what I have been asking about.
I want to know how you seperate a ‘true experience of faith’ with an hallucination.

 

[water]

I want to know how you seperate a ‘true experience of faith’ with an hallucination.

Blessed are those who do not see but believe.

 

[Mr.Bee]

Again, whether you were correct or not about if you child was in the building is not what I have been asking about.
I want to know how you seperate a ‘true experience of faith’ with an hallucination.

AAHHHHHH!!!

I don’t know.

 

[Mr.Bee]

Yes it is. You both died for a belief. You both died performing an act of love. If you don’t think what she did was for love and faith, what do you think it was for?

deep breath… hold… exhale…

The difference is: she committed her act of faith to further her position with God, to get into heaven. It was all about her. And she got what she wanted, her picture in the paper. I don’t think suicide in that instance is a selfless act.

If the hallucination is all about you, then I’d be suspicious of it’s intention.

 

[_A]

Blessed are those who do not see but believe.

So the young lady who blew herself up is ‘blessed’?

 

[mmm1]

Yes it is. You both died for a belief. You both died performing an act of love. If you don’t think what she did was for love and faith, what do you think it was for?

Hi, Everyone. I have to agree with Mr. Bee on this one. A, you probably anticipated we would have difficulty with this point. While I think she definitely died for her faith & loved God, I believe their must have been a lot of fear, anger & retribution smoldering there as well. Hatred & pride might have played a part. Not a lot of warm, fuzzy feelings of love ruled the day.