I am an atheist thread 3

[_A]

I agree that “better” and “worse” are better descriptions than “good” or “bad”. However, I’d just like to know, what standard you go by to determine your “goals”, which you say determine whether something is “better” or “worse”? And do the goals of others not count, or do you make exceptions in some cases when they interfere with yours?

Of course I make exceptions - that is part of living in a society.
How to determine my goals? That is complex and varied. How can I answer except to say that I think about what I want, and set goals to achieve.

 

[_A]

He didn’t place it there, he allowed it. Big difference. There could be numerous reasons why he allowed it. I tend to think it was to help both my friend, and myself believe in him and his power. We both had pretty shaky faith then for different reasons, but now we’re both much stronger because of the event. Plus there could be reasons I may never see or know of… Here we’re going back to the whole thing on why God lets bad things happen to good (or bad) people. I think this has been explained throughly already.

People put a bunch of words down, but I wouldn’t say that it has been explained.
I still don’t see why an omnibenevolent being needs to torture souls in hell, or here on earth. The myth makes no sense when held to the light.

 

[_A]

That you can’t draw meaning from what someone else says doesn’t mean that others can’t, or that there is no meaning there to be had.

I appreciate your inability to make sense of that which makes no sense to you. That is what conversation is for. To figure out what the other means by what they say.

All atheists are, by definition, fascists, as they are only interested in “power relationships”, via “gangs”, because they admit to no “higher authority” than “he who has the most power makes the rules”.

You show how much you know. Keep up the good work.

 

[_A]

In the atheist point of view death is the end. In the Christian point of view it is only the beginning.

Same as saying that the atheist view is based on observed reality and the christian point of view is based on the imaginary.

 

[_A]

Yes, that’s what I believe. It also helps me to know that science does back it up. Of course they don’t bring the soul into question because that’s not a scientifically definable thing, but they agree it is human. So in this case I don’t have to choose. They’re in agreement. But if science wasnt’ sure, I’d go with my Church. Or if the Church is unclear, then I’d go with the science untill I learn otherwise… I hope that answers your question…

So that first day, the clump of cells has a soul…an identity of it’s own?

 

[_A]

“If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:31)

There is no convincing these people. I think we have tried. But because of their skepticism I don’t think we will ever convince them.

GOOD! Now that you have given up convincing me, perhaps we can learn a little about each other. You know, to help us get along peacefully.

 

[psyche23]

So that first day, the clump of cells has a soul…an identity of it’s own?

Yes. Can you prove otherwise?

 

[psyche23]

People put a bunch of words down, but I wouldn’t say that it has been explained.
I still don’t see why an omnibenevolent being needs to torture souls in hell, or here on earth. The myth makes no sense when held to the light.

As we’ve said before, it all boils down to free will. God doesn’t get his kicks off watching us suffer… far from it. But in the same way a father must let his children make their own choices (good or bad), so does God do with us. If he prevented us from choosing love freely, we’d either rebel or give up and give in not knowing differently. Perfect love has to be given freely - both ways. If you restrict that love, then it’s not perfect anymore.

We choose our own paths. For better or worse. God our father is there to support us and accept us back when we make mistakes like any father should . If we choose to disown ourselves, that’s our problem and he’s given us plenty of help in the meantime.

I believe (although this is speculation- and that there is no Church document that even mentions this but it’s still within possibility), that when we die, we have the power to choose either heaven or hell. Those of us who have lived good lives, trying to please the lord will accept that they hold enough good within themselves to accept heaven. Those of us who have lived poor lives and fought God every step of the way will see their errors and knowing how perfect God is, would be so ashamed as to choose an eternity of suffering. When you’re in front of a perfect being, you recognize all the flaws within yourself and are either humbled or ashamed. I think ultimately it’s our choice. I mean just imagine being in front of an all-perfect creator and father, then think of everytime you’ve ever sinned, rejected him ect… I think the shame would be so incredibly great, you would just go into despair… Of course, that’s probably hard for you to imagine since you don’t believe at all, but I’d still suggest you try, just to get an idea of what I’m talking about.

Repeating the previous disclaimer, this is just speculation on my part. Nothing tells me it isn’t true so I am free to philosophize on this. If the Church were to say otherwise, I’d believe them over my piddly speculations, but I doubt they would ever say one way or the other on this particular matter. Still possible though.

Even if that particular belief that when we die, we get to make the ultimate choice weren’t true, it doesn’t take away from the previous statement of free will and perfect love.

 

[psyche23]

" As a child I found a sparrow that had falled from it’s nest. And I nursed it back to health till it grew stronger than the rest. But when i tried to hold it, then it pecked and scratched my chest till I let it go. And I watched it fly away from me with it’s bright and cheerful song. And a part of me was cursing I had let it grow so strong. And I feared it might go hungry and I feared it might go wrong. Cause you can not hold the acorn once the oak begins to grow. And you can not close your heart to what it fears and needs to know, that the hardest part of love…and the rarest part of love… and the truest part of love… is the letting go".

-Children of Eden.
Musical

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

In the four gospels, jesus said nine times if you are a believer your prays would be answered. You are a believer. Pray that this happens. If it doesn’t your jesus was lying. He plainly said if you believe your prayer WOULD be answered. )

This would be sufficient evidence for the world and myself.

Amazing! Only Ikkie’s choice of what an answer to prayer should be is acceptable, of course, so if God doesn’t supply HIS (Ikkie’s) answer, God didn’t answer!

That’s precisely like saying that if your Dad doesn’t give you the tricycle you want after you’ve asked for (or rather DEMANDED via a tantrum) the tryke, your Dad obviously CAN’T exist as he didn’t “prove” himself adequately.

How very interesting a train of thought!

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I am an atheist because there are no gods convincing enough to believe.

Do you, or do you not, understand the mutually exclusive difference between “gods” and “God”?

Firstly, do you understand why a “god” cannot exist if “God” exists?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

People put a bunch of words down, but I wouldn’t say that it has been explained.

I still don’t see why an omnibenevolent being needs to torture souls in hell, or here on earth. The myth makes no sense when held to the light.

Do you not understand that it is not God, but those in hell themselves who have chosen to be there, and are only tortured (in hell) by those things which they decided to “hang onto” which are not of God?

All suffering qua suffering is due to the consequences of sin. The simple application of pain, such as having one’s leg knocked off by a falling meteor, let’s say, is not the infliction of “suffering”.

We CHOOSE to suffer, which is a REACTION to pain, and we either choose to suffer such that we “condemn the gods (or God, or the fates, or random-chance)”, or such that we look for the “lesson” in that suffering.

Your understanding of “hell” is also in error. Since atheists have no concept of hell per se and when they use the term they are refering to the Catholic concept, might you be interested in actually finding out what “hell” means, and avoid making statements devoid of relevance to any “valuation” of the so-called “myth of hell”?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

You show how much you know. Keep up the good work.

Thank you!

So, where do you disagree with my concepts of things?

I gave you some “source material” to use in contrast to your own so that we can come to an understanding of where we disagree.

Your rather terse uniformative “responses” lack anything with which to talk about! How about doing what you claim that you are here to do, and actually “converse”?

 

[psyche23]

You know, until I came to this thread I was unaware of how much my faith is a gift. It seemed to me easy to believe if you were open to God (in face unavoidable). But being open to God is a grace in and of itself. So if I get anything out of this conversation at all, it’s more of an appreciation for that which God blessed me with. Don’t know about the rest of the Catholics/Christians here. It’s just amazing to me that some people can still doubt after all these talks…

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Same as saying that the atheist view is based on observed reality and the christian point of view is based on the imaginary.

Don’t you just love the “one liner” mentality of our hero here?

Do anyone else see this character as not exactly listening to understand, but only “listening” to mock and spit upon what he doesn’t have any interest in understanding, even while still disagreeing with it, but only “bashing” Christ with the “tools” of “Scientism”.

(( Scientism, by the way, is the result of making a religion of the tool which is science, such that theory is propounded as dogma. ))

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

So that first day, the clump of cells has a soul…an identity of it’s own?

Yes. In fact, the moment that there is a “process union” of the sperm and egg, such that they are no longer a separate sperm and egg, there is there a person.

A person has a soul, by definition.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

GOOD! Now that you have given up convincing me, perhaps we can learn a little about each other. You know, to help us get along peacefully.

Your version of “getting along” with Christians is for them to “go away”, in one way or another.

I never EVER operate under the assumption that I can “convert” anyone! That is shear folly.

But, the athiestic lack of interest in digging to the basic (axiomatic) differences in world view with “believers”, and merely doing the usual “gaming” of looking for advantage over their “opponents”, and looking to “understand” them only so as to more effectively gain that “power advantage”, is why when an atheist says, “Let’s find a way to get along!”, we hear, “Please tell me how best to destroy you!”

I’m being a bit harsh, really, as this hypothetical “atheist” that I’m always so down on, doesn’t really exist. Most atheists are merely “recreational atheists” (aka children playing with a new toy) until such time as their “comfort” in life is threatened, at which point they become either “religiously angry-at-the-‘non-God’-who-IS-God” or “religiously humble-before-God-Himself”.

If one truly wants to get along, listen for understanding and not advantage.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

… might you be interested in actually finding out what “hell” means…

He’s not. He just wants to be able to parrot “love me or burn, love me or burn!” I tried at length, to no avail.

Feel free to give it a shot, of course. Maybe you can do better.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

You know, until I came to this thread I was unaware of how much my faith is a gift. It seemed to me easy to believe if you were open to God (in face unavoidable).

But being open to God is a grace in and of itself.

Amen to that! The hyper-intellectual (a disease which I suffer from) has THE greatest talent possible for the construction of idols. They make them utterly indestructible, but they do that by breaking the very rules with which they build them! They CLAIM that “all is reason and evidence without faith”, then claim to KNOW that which by the method of science can only be claimed as true by faith!

A good example is: Does God exist? No. Why? Because He hasn’t proven Himself to me. Why does He need to prove Himself to you? I don’t know. So God doesn’t exist because you don’t know why, or if, He needs to prove Himself to you? Yes. Shouldn’t you then, by your own rules, simple call God a “theoretical possibility”? No, certainly not! Why not? Because I’m an ATHEIST, not an agnostic! Oh, of course, how foolish of me.

Another: Does God exist? No. Why? Because everything can be explained by science. Does science explain the universe’s existence? Yes, eventually. Does science allow for the possibility of God? No. Why? Because God would “violate science axiomatically”. Is science “sure” of anything? No. Then how can it be sure about God’s non-existence? Because science simply precludes God. (( This is “scientism”, where an admittedly impossible certainty is nontheless claimed as certain. ))

So if I get anything out of this conversation at all, it’s more of an appreciation for that which God blessed me with. Don’t know about the rest of the Catholics/Christians here. It’s just amazing to me that some people can still doubt after all these talks…

Just as we axiomatically hold that God is “the best in all things”, they axiomatically hold that God is unecessary because all is utterly relative to all else.

Atheists love to claim that “reason/evidence must always precede faith (hypothesis)”, and having faith in this axiom find evidence of it.

The scientific method states, clearly, that “faith precedes reason”, in that one holds a hypothesis in faith then observes reality to confirm or correct the held hypothesis.

The initial “reason”, which is not “a reasoning” but only a “seeming observational fact”, for holding a hypothesis is the “grace” (always from God) for the opportunity to observe something of “importance”. But we are then to “reason”, make a decision that this important thing is “probably re-occuring”, that faith in this “thing” is worth holding, until proven otherwise.

This “proving” is the next “reasoning” that happens. First we “have reason”, then we “reasonably decide to have faith”, then we “reason” out how to prove our faith.

Faith in an observation (presented ALWAYS by God for our edification) is the PRE-requisite of reasoning out it’s validity.

Faith ALWAYS comes before “reason”, as “reason” is known to the atheist!

The faithful (believers) know the great gift of that initial allow-ance of something to observe. The atheist sees the great gift of being able to observe anything as “what is owed them”. This “arrogance” pervades thinking, and makes all gifts something “due me”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

He’s not. He just wants to be able to parrot “love me or burn, love me or burn!” I tried at length, to no avail.

Feel free to give it a shot, of course. Maybe you can do better.

I’m not interested in force feeding anyone anything. That is the “way of the atheist”.

He most likely wants to have the “glory” of being a “martyr” for his faith, and loves to hear that he’s DAMNED by those judgemental Catholics!

Little does he want to know that he only damns himself, and while we find that very regretable, we’re not particularly distressed by someone getting precisely what he wants.

And since he identifies his behavior with the actual “him”, such that both MUST be treated as an inseparable unit, he will get his wish of being “persecuted” as a person, while we see the truth of merely persecuting his error, and loving him for the person he is.

Little does he realize that the “belief in the inseparable-ness of person with behavior” is PRECISELY the force that drags him to hell, in that error-filled behavior WILL go to hell whether we “desparately hang onto it”, as one hangs onto “comforts” when threatened by truth which negates those comforts (aka “panic”), or not.

And that “slow drag to hell” starts well before our death.