I am an atheist thread 3

[_A]

It just seems like you’ve been hauling this around with you for 20 years, that’s all.
That can get heavy after a while.

I have nearly all my memories (at least as far as I remember!) with me. Is there some reason I should discard some of them?

 

[_A]

Pascal wager stands correct and with logic.

If I accepted this, I would be pretending that I believe because it is safer.
Does that sound like something that your god would like?

 

[_A]

Yes but the answer put forth is that their Islam was created from a prophet that broke a fundamental law of God–“Thou shall not murder” and mass murder at that so from it’s onset is flawed.

Mohammed was a man and is subject to the laws of God.

Have any popes broke that law? Say, passing a papal thingy that says it is OK to burn women if they are witches?

 

[_A]

Originally Posted by c659smith
It is self pride that guides an atheists heart as when self pride is stripped away ones heart and mind are open.

your post below
There we go again. You’re presuming to speak for over 1 billion of the global population again. Your bigotry, prejudice and generalisations speak more about your colossal ignorance on this subject much more than your intellect.

Let it be known you neither speak for me, or the majority of Catholics.

My response

My post if taken with it’s responses and full paragraph asks the question to refute the statement with logic and you have not done that.

My statement also asks the question in previous posts to name an atheist in history or today that has remained an atheist would do something for another without self pride (reward or boast) and you have not done that.

For if this life is all one has it is not logical to to do such at thing.

Tell me what logic you would have as an atheist to do such a thing?

Why would an atheist give his life for another if this is the only life he has? As an atheist would have to respond to first and foremost the instinct of survival. For you are an animal with a computer between 2 ears.without a soul.

please prove me wrong.

I would respond first to the safety of my daughters, then my sweetheart, then myself. In that order.
There is your proof.
Perhaps *you * would not do anything for anyone else, but that is not true for others.

 

[_A]

We as Catholics do not respect those beliefs and I think that was shown in the Terry Schavo case as feeding tubes and blood transfusions are not considered extraordinary means to extend life.
Catholic are truly one of the few religious entities that believes in the fullness of life from womb to tomb.
Abortion is extrinsically evil for it is the destruction of human life that is totally helpless and innocent. The only viable reason for abortion is to save the life of the mother if she should so choose but with todays medicine that would be very rare.

All other reasoning stems from selfishness or ignorance

So it seems fairly clear that you don’t think religious belief should have a special kind of respect just because it is religious. Murder is murder and wrong is wrong.

You do realize that same principle applies to *your * religion, too, don’t you?

 

[_A]

What about Buddhism, have you guys thought about getting involved with that? They don’t believe in an actual God. The reason I say that is because it is good to follow a spiritual path, they teach good things. After all being Atheist doesn’t mean not being religious.

It does for me. I don’t think it is sensible to believe in reincarnation. It is nearly as beastly as the concept of original sin.
I will stick to what facts I can gather, believing as little as possible.

 

[phooney]

I would respond first to the safety of my daughters, then my sweetheart, then myself. In that order.
There is your proof.
Perhaps *you * would not do anything for anyone else, but that is not true for others.

I can’t remember where the quote came from, but it had something to do with evolution.

Somebody was asked whether he would give his life for his brother. He considered it and said no, but he would for 2 brothers or 8 cousins.

I have a feeling it was from Stephen Pinker’s “How the Mind Works” or Richard Dawkins “The Selfish Gene” but it is too late at night to be going through my collection, lol.

 

[1234]

“Why would an atheist give his life for another if this is the only life he has? As an atheist would have to respond to first and foremost the instinct of survival. For you are an animal with a computer between 2 ears.without a soul.”

Actually, there are few opportunities to give one’s life for another, outside of Nazi concentration camps, but I have observed that some of the best and most generous people I know are atheists, agnostics, or have no religion to speak of.

It is Catholics who talk of Heaven and Hell and sin all the time and argue that without a fear of Hell, all one would want to do is sin, sin, sin, which usually involves rape and murder, by the way. As if they have no moral fiber at all. Whereas if one simply follows a general Epicurean philosophy, which does not involve gods, of using moderation or a golden mean, one can live a moderate life and do a lot of good without a religion.

 

[Armor_of_God]

It is phrases like ‘suffering adds to the glory of god’ .

I never said that. Can you show me where a believer said that on this thread?

Well don’t get any of that glory on me. Whatever it is, it sounds painful.

Are you afraid of pain?

Are you really hoping for a lot more of it after death?

No. Where did you get that idea?

If he is all-powerful, why did he need the appearance at all?

He didn’t need it. We need it.

Could he not just have decided to give everyone a chance at salvation without arranging to have someone kill him?

He could have, but He didn’t. Sacrificial love.

Oh, and by the way, if he wanted me to think he really knew what it was like, he would have been mortal, not rise up a few days later like some superhero.

Then you likely would say, “What kind of God is that, to be conquered by death?”

 

[_A]

I never said that. Can you show me where a believer said that on this thread?

His glory can never be added to or taken away from, but we reveal it in our suffering. Coincidentally, it eventually brings us glory as well.

I misspoke, you said suffering adds to your glory. Your god only has his glory revealed by the suffering of his creatures.

Are you afraid of pain?

I wouldn’t say that I am afraid of it. I do avoid it.

No. Where did you get that idea?

I thought you got more ‘glory’ after death.

He didn’t need it. We need it.

He could not have forgiven us without his drama? How unusual for an all-powerful being.

He could have, but He didn’t. Sacrificial love.

Sounds like this character likes pain.

Then you likely would say, “What kind of God is that, to be conquered by death?”

The point is that he didn’t ‘die for your sins’ if he isn’t really dead.

 

[BlaineTog]

Explain yourself as to what paticular logic in the past 24 hrs I stated was wrong. Stop sending blanket statements.

“Stop sending” implies I’ve been sending them over a period of time, which I haven’t, and “particular” is misspelled. But aside from those linguistic errors:

There is scientific evidence here of miracles and the unexplained.

Miracles and science have nothing whatsoever to do with each other; indeed, if they do, then the miracle isn’t so much a miracle as a happy coincidence. It may be divinely inspired and controlled, but it’s not supernatural, by definition. So what you must mean is “empirical” evidence of miracles, which is theoretically possible, but it’s still impossible to prove that the miracle is a miracle and not just something unexplained. Many things used to be unexplained, and now they are not, so the lack of any immediately obvious explanation does not a miracle make.

Abortion is extrinsically evil for it is the destruction of human life that is totally helpless and innocent.

I believe you mean “intrinsically.”

Yes but the answer put forth is that their Islam was created from a prophet that broke a fundamental law of God–“Thou shall not murder” and mass murder at that so from it’s onset is flawed.

Mohammed was a man and is subject to the laws of God.

Ah, but Judaism (and therefore Christianity) was started by a man who murdered his son. Ok, he didn’t, but he was going to, which means he was just as guilty as if he had done it (as per Jesus’ teachings).

If God tells you to murder someone, it’s ok for you to do it. Mind you, he doesn’t do that nowadays, but the principle is the same.

Again you are not being logical. I have given much in this thread more than most to show that evidence is there, If the evidence is 1/10 of a percent then I have done enough to show that Atheism is not logical.

Not at all. Even if you were to prove that a miracle had happened, it would not then necessarily follow that God exists, much less a Christian God, much less as Roman Catholicism sees him. Perhaps the incorruptible bodies of the saints are the result of a government conspiracy reaching back hundreds of years and involving aliens. Perhaps it’s something humans can do naturally through psychic phenomenon. Proof that the supernatural exists would only prove that the supernatural exists, nothing more, nothing less.

For if one believes in Jesus Christ and loves Him with your whole heart, mind, and soul and his belief is correct then he gains everlasting life. If you are right than the believer has lost nothing. If an atheist is wrong he has lost everything. If he is right he has gained nothing.

Pascal’s Wager is useless from so many angles it isn’t even funny. First, it’s possible, albeit unlikely, that there is some sort of paradise after death, but that the only way you can get in is if you’re an ardent atheist, and all Christians roast in some sort of eternal fire. Second, many religions lay claim to being true, so which one do you bet on? Third, the believer has lost something: all that lovely lovely sin they missed out on, wasting their time in Church and giving away their money when they could have been living it up. Oh sure, it’s not as good a prize as heaven, but that’s not really relevant, now is it? Fourth, the wager itself is not persuasive; it only encourages fearful hypocrisy.

It is self pride that guides an atheists heart as when self pride is stripped away ones heart and mind are open.

That is downright heretical. It is entirely possible to arrive at atheism through nothing more than simply running into the wrong data.

Again I say to kill in the name of God is illogical.

Correct. But only because God specifically forbade it. Killing is only immoral because God said not to kill. Everyone has to die. The reason it is wrong to kill someone is because you’re ending their life before the right time for them to do comes.

You honestly cannot compare suicide murders are the same as the Apostles nor do you admit you were wrong in stating such.

I’m not even sure what you’re saying here. I’d have to try to interpret the intended grammar (or maybe punctuation?), and that road is almost always perilous.

That’s just a few; I’m hardly being exhaustive.

 

[AnAtheist]

The funny thing is, when Pascal published his wager, the Church opposed it because you should not believe out of fear or out of mathematical theories but for quite different reasons that I do not need to explain to you Christians, do I?
And nowadays every second Christian thinks that nonsense is a good argument. Hilarious.

 

[justinthemartyr]

be more specific please. what “nonsense” is a good argument. please do not be vague as it pertains to the beliefs of another when you slander or calumnize them. thank you.

 

[AnAtheist]

be more specific please. what “nonsense” is a good argument. please do not be vague as it pertains to the beliefs of another when you slander or calumnize them. thank you.

Gladly, though I don’t think anybody here “believes” in Pascal’s Wager and for their own sake, if the Christian god really should exist, they do not believe in Him *because *of that wager.

This wager has several flaws. Firstly it neglects the possibility of the existence of other gods who might not be amused if one believes in the Christian god. Like Allah e.g. or some nice god like Odin. And some god might even let you into Paradise if you don’t believe in any god rather than in the wrong one, like Heimdall who doesn’t care at all what you believe.
Secondly it assumes you have no disadvantages if you believe and there is no god. Well, at least you have wasted half your life with praying and going to church, time you could have used better. Carpe diem.
Thirdly it assumes if there is a god there is an afterlife. There could be a god/creator of this universe but no afterlife. There could be an afterlife as a natural phenomenon but no god.
If that sounds too weird keep in mind that a statistical approach (which the wager claims to be) needs to consider all possibilities.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Thank you for that clarity.

as far as the “christian God” is concerned, i am assuming you are referring to the Holy Trinity? One God, three divine Persons?

This would be the God which apparently “incarnated”?

if this is the “God” you are referring to, then this is the God I believe in and worship. Why do I?

I think the fact of the preannouncment of christ, His life, death and resurrection and ascension, all foretold over 1000 years before his coming. Also the fact that pretty much the entire world was awaiting this event, and it happened and virtually oll of the over 350 foretlleings(prophecies) were fulfilled in a matter of 33 years approx. Most of which were in the last three years.

The odds against this occurring are incalculable.

So, muhammed, buddha, or anyone else claiming to be God, or a messenger of god, etc… cannot hold a candle to this fact of history, which came true.

 

[AnAtheist]

Why do I?

If you regard all that as convincing you have a good reason to believe what you believe. I don’t, but so what…
Pascal’s Wager is a bad reason. It is logically and ethically flawed, esp. by the ethics supposedly set up by the very god it tries to argue for.

 

[justinthemartyr]

but you cannot argue with the fact that jesus preannounced himself before he was ever born and fulfilled the over 350 foretellings in only less than 33 years. it is historical fact and does not have anything to do with religion on that level.

no different than it takes a male and female to have a human child and there are no exceptions to this fact, is is absolute truth.
absolutely.

therefore historically there is FAR more evidence(historical and archeological) for the Christian God than there is for the non existence of the Christian God.

it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. Just my experience from both sides of the situtation.

 

[AnAtheist]

but you cannot argue with the fact that jesus preannounced himself before he was ever born and fulfilled the over 350 foretellings in only less than 33 years. it is historical fact and does not have anything to do with religion on that level.

Yes I can.
I doubt the historical accuracy of all those events, as much as I doubt the historical fact that Apollo himself helped in erecting the walls of Troy.
And writing a story to fit to a set of prophecies in full knowledge of those prophecies is not such a difficult task.

 

[BlaineTog]

but you cannot argue with the fact that jesus preannounced himself before he was ever born and fulfilled the over 350 foretellings in only less than 33 years. it is historical fact and does not have anything to do with religion on that level.

no different than it takes a male and female to have a human child and there are no exceptions to this fact, is is absolute truth.
absolutely.

therefore historically there is FAR more evidence(historical and archeological) for the Christian God than there is for the non existence of the Christian God.

it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. Just my experience from both sides of the situtation.

But what we’re talking about is Pascal’s Wager, which is bunk.

 

[Skavau]

c659smith:

but as an atheist there is only one option there is no God is that not what an atheist is. God or no God

No.

An Atheist disbelieves in God. If it is claimed that it is reasonable to assert that God does exist (in favour of positive outcomes) then the Atheist would ask which God to follow? There is no reason for an Atheist to specifically choose Christianity over Islam or Islam over Christianity.

c659smith:

one atheist on this thred writes after each of his posts

I don’t really care. Some random Atheist does not speak for me.

“Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, nothing more.”

1. The Christian God exists.
2. The Christian God does not exist.

So Pascal wager stands.

I am not that Atheist. Mine would be:

1. A God or God(s) (of whatever definition) exist.
2. No God’s exist.

c659smith:

Your references show deiusion on a belief system and has nothing to do with 10 men being tortured, stoned, and crucified, and going to their death proclaiming that belief.

So what? A lot of people from other belief systems have been persecuted for their beliefs.