I am an atheist thread 3

[psyche23]

I still say that torturing souls for eternity is evil when he could just uncreate them.
Also, killing every creature in the world by drowning(the great flood myth) is vile and horrible, too. Your god seems to like suffering.
Perfect, you say? I say that you are fully capable of thinking for yourself. Think about that.

Of course I can think for myself. Never said otherwise. I would hope my posts here have been able to show that…

You seem to think the worst of things. God has given us every opportunity to recieve his mercy and love. If we choose otherwise, that’s our problem. And I still stand by my posts. So can we move past this now???

 

[psyche23]

It is not so much that I doubt, it is that there is nothing convincing enough to believe.
For example, I asked what is in heaven that is so attractive - noone seems to have an answer. I have not heard anyone say what heaven is. Hell has been described as a ‘furnace of fire and gnashing of teeth’, but nothing so specific for heaven. What would someone do for an eternity in heaven? Worship? That sounds like life in North Korea…with everyone worshipping their god-king.

My brother plans on writing a book about heaven to help us learn more about it. Part of the reason we can’t explain heaven as well as hell is because on earth we are so fully aware of suffering! It’s like second nature to us. But perfect love and beauty is harder for us to understand much less come up with an earthly description of it.

I can tell you in heaven after the second coming of Jesus, our bodies become glorified versions of what they were on earth. Our sould reunite with our glorified bodies. (that’s a whole thread in and of itself!) We can do an infinite amount of things an infinite number of times. There is no limit to heaven.

 

[psyche23]

OK, I want to butt in, too…hope it’s OK

Do you just leave the door open for Yahweh, or is the door open also to the possibility that Krishna exists? How about Allah?
Did you choose the god of the catholics because your culture provided a bias in that direction, or because of an exhaustive search of your own?

Exhaustive search on my own.

 

[psyche23]

Which god?

I think I’ve covered this thoroughly. I don’t have time at this particular moment to get into it again, but I’ll return to try later if the thread hasn’t closed. If it does close, I will have to make a point to visit the next thread, but can’t guarantee similar involvement. I’ve been spending far too much time here as is.

 

[psyche23]

Send him up and we will go fishing! I don’t by any stretch think that all priests are nasty folk, any more than I think that all imam’s are. I just happen to have had no interaction other than what I mentioned there.
There are priests here, they just don’t run in my circle of friends. In fact, I have never known priests to participate in any ‘circle’ other than their parish…
Perhaps outreach is not as much a priority for the church in areas where the ‘word’ has been spread already.

It’s more like they have to run a business so have little time to go out and interact with other social circles. Instead the people in the parish are to take up the slack Fr. can’t. The priest I work with now works at the very least 14 hour days…

 

[psyche23]

So the other faiths, if they are convincing enough, are just as valid.
What about no faith? Is my position OK, too? I was raised Catholic, and learned all about it. I was not convinced.

If you are doing your best with all the information you have, I don’t think God can fault you. Same with other faiths… ignorance isn’t by itself a mortal sin, but *willful *ignorance is. However, with all this information we’ve given you now I would hope you would look into it further and not just stop here on this forum… I was raised Catholic too and doubted like you, but probably not to that extreme… Still when I really studied, I couldn’t find better truth.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

To Phooney, re: moral evolution

In a nutshell, the best explanation I can come up with is that our morality evolved with us, destructive behaviour towards the society is generally legislated against, and the legislation is the codified representation of our morality. ‘Wrong’ behaviour hurts other people, and the evolutionary mechanism that usually stops us from doing that is a neurochemical reaction that causes us to feel ‘bad’ about it or to empathise with the people we have hurt. Of course, I realise that people still do go around killing people all the time. Naturally, it must be noted, many of these examples are over religion, but I’m sure those aren’t the examples you were meaning to dredge up. In many cases, I think it is probably a matter of perspective (as in “I’m so poor and I can’t think of any other way to get some money/food” or “these foreigners want to take away my country”) that causes people to go around killing.

I missed the moral evolution post in its original context, so maybe you’ve already addressed my concerns. Hope not!

OK, so you’re starting with the observation of a fairly common conscience, and you’re hypothesizing that this is caused by a neurochemical response which has been acquired via natural selection. Right?

First question would be why we don’t see any hint of this in other animals. Conscience is uniquely human. If it had evolved gradually, we would expect to see various gradual forms of it throughout nature. I can’t think of any. Animals rape and steal and kill with no hint of any such neurochemical response.

This question may be more fundamental, though: Why would natural selection work against immoral behavior? Particularly in the sort of primitive (or even pre-) societies where the selection would occurred. Why would someone with a very slight neurochemical disposition against, say, lying, have a reproductive advantage over someone without that disposition?

With physical traits, it’s easy. A gazelle who is 1% faster than the rest of the herd will be at the front of the line, so the cheetah is less likely to catch him. But I don’t see an analagous scenario for a 1% moral disposition.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

It is not so much that I doubt, it is that there is nothing convincing enough to believe.
For example, I asked what is in heaven that is so attractive - noone seems to have an answer. I have not heard anyone say what heaven is. Hell has been described as a ‘furnace of fire and gnashing of teeth’, but nothing so specific for heaven. What would someone do for an eternity in heaven? Worship? That sounds like life in North Korea…with everyone worshipping their god-king.

Why does it matter what heaven is like? If we’re right, you have a simple dichotomy: Hell, whatever that is like, or Heaven. We know by metaphor that hell is unpleasant. Why do you need an hour-by-hour itinerary of a day in heaven to make that choice?

But anyway, motivations other than heaven exist. Avoiding sin feels good. Do it!

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Natural, you offered YOUR interpretation. I am sure that it makes you feel right about your belief. I used the biblical interpretation. It is unacceptable to both of us, as is evidenced by the fact that you don’t like to accept ‘furnace of fire’ either. Makes that Yahweh look like he burns people who don’t love him in just the right way.

You used your biblical interpretation. You are not qualified to interpret it.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

So the other faiths, if they are convincing enough, are just as valid.
What about no faith? Is my position OK, too? I was raised Catholic, and learned all about it. I was not convinced.

My friend, you really didn’t learn “all about it”. Your catechesis is sadly lacking. This is clear from a few points you’ve made:

1. The bible should be *sufficient *for individuals to reach conclusions about the faith.
2. Priests are claimed to be sinless.
3. Ummmm… dagnabit, I can’t remember. I’m getting too hungry! But I had a good third point when I first started typing. So please give me credit, I’m good for it.

 

[dessert]

I expect this thread to be closed soon, since it is over 1000 posts. I will continue here until it is closed, then I will make thread 4. I hope you all join me.

You sound like you are under a lot of stress or bored with the whole thing so maybe it would be best to not start another thread #4, try one with a differrent title.

 

[_A]

It is a person no matter the age. And I was under the impression everyone here was looking for proof for either side of the arguments. That’s why I brought that up.

I don’t want to present evidence until you have firmly stated your opinion (which you have, thanks)
I refer to it as your opinion since it does not agree with biological fact. I am no biologist, but I can see that what you say is clearly false. No ethics need enter it yet. Can you see it?
It is really clear…

 

[_A]

You used your biblical interpretation. You are not qualified to interpret it.

I suppose that, since I have not agreed to read it uncritically, you would say that I am not qualified. Tell me, is there any way to be qualified other than believing it all first?

 

[_A]

My friend, you really didn’t learn “all about it”. Your catechesis is sadly lacking. This is clear from a few points you’ve made:

1. The bible should be *sufficient *for individuals to reach conclusions about the faith.

Right…I am also supposed to take the word of men who have something vital to lose if they don’t convince me. Doesn’t make them the most trustworthy witnesses ( I mean the priests/bishops/cardinals/pope)

1. Priests are claimed to be sinless.

I had not suggested that, just that they were quite fallible and so not a divine source of knowledge.

1. Ummmm… dagnabit, I can’t remember. I’m getting too hungry! But I had a good third point when I first started typing. So please give me credit, I’m good for it.

No problem. The way that you have been working to keep up with all the conversations on here is definitely appetite-worthy!

 

[_A]

You sound like you are under a lot of stress or bored with the whole thing so maybe it would be best to not start another thread #4, try one with a differrent title.

You may have something there, I will give it some thought, thanks.

 

[dessert]

You may have something there, I will give it some thought, thanks.

You are welcome and am busy with clean up of the house today and going out tonight see you later.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I don’t want to present evidence until you have firmly stated your opinion (which you have, thanks)
I refer to it as your opinion since it does not agree with biological fact. I am no biologist, but I can see that what you say is clearly false. No ethics need enter it yet. Can you see it?
It is really clear…

How about you help us all out?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Right…I am also supposed to take the word of men who have something vital to lose if they don’t convince me. Doesn’t make them the most trustworthy witnesses ( I mean the priests/bishops/cardinals/pope)

You’ve made this implication a number of times. Can you back it up? Give us an example of a teaching that has been changed to keep the money coming in. You make it sound like this happens all the time. I’m betting you can’t come up with a single example.

You’re accusing the clergy of some level of duplicity, to maintain their nice lifestyles, right? First off, I submit that most priests would have much more comfortable lives if they were not in the priesthood. Sure, they get a cozy rectory and maybe they can use the parish car when they go visit dying people in the hospital. But you have to remember, these guys have lots of education. Enough that they would be mid-to-high level professionals, and probably that much more comfortable, if they weren’t priests.

Secondly, if that were the case, where are the deathbed confessions? Can you find me a documented case where a dying priest admitted that the Church is a massive conspiracy to trick people into throwing a few bucks into the collection plate? Of course not.

You have no evidence for you conspiracy theory. By your own standard, you should stop believing it.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I suppose that, since I have not agreed to read it uncritically, you would say that I am not qualified. Tell me, is there any way to be qualified other than believing it all first?

The organization that is qualified to authoritatively interpret the Bible is the organization that gave it to us - the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I’m pretty sure they don’t take atheists. So yeah, I guess you have to believe it first.

 

[psyche23]

I don’t want to present evidence until you have firmly stated your opinion (which you have, thanks)
I refer to it as your opinion since it does not agree with biological fact. I am no biologist, but I can see that what you say is clearly false. No ethics need enter it yet. Can you see it?
It is really clear…

Well, thanks for waiting to hear my beliefs. I appreciate that.

No it’s not clear. Biology says everything needed to be a human being is present at the moment of conception. It needs nothing else. So at what point would you say it’s a human? When it is born? When it reacts to outside stimuli in the mother’s womb? When it sucks it thumb? When it starts to act like a human? Where does that happen? If science can’t tell me, then why shouldn’t I believe my Church?