I am an atheist thread 5

[JonW]

It stands to reason that, given that nobody assumes all people NEED religion, that it can go the other way and that religion isn’t necessary for people to be good.

In following that logic, it is possible (and does appear) that without religion, some people will be or are bad.

Conversely, having religion does not make a person do good or be good.

Your first premise is that there is nobody who thinks that all people “need” religion. Most Catholics I know think that everyone does in fact need religion, specifically the Catholic faith. I happen to agree. Thus, your premise is false. I have shown it to be false by citing obvious counterexamples to your claim.

Then you say that “it can go the other way” in that “religion isn’t necessary for people to be good.” Nothing is going another way here; you simply have what is called an unstated premise, namely: for those people who do “need” religion, they “need” it as a condition of their being “good”. You need this unstated premise in order to conclude what you do. That unstated premise of yours is actually a substantive claim requiring proof, and should actually be the first premise. Please provide proof. I’d also be interested to read your definition of “good.”

Your conclusion is then that “religion isn’t necessary for people to be good.” Apart from quibbles as to undefined terms here, since I showed that your first premise, which as I showed should actually be your second premise, is false, this conclusion does not actually follow. The first premise was stated without proof and is not self-evident, and in any event does not imply the conclusion, and so your conclusion does not follow.

Then you “follow that logic”, which wasn’t actually logic at all, but rather sloppy thinking, and claim that some people without religion “will be or are bad.” Actually, assuming that your first conclusion is true, nothing is thereby implied about the “badness” (non-goodness?) of non-religious people. What you would have shown is that some non-religious people are “good”, which ironically is a claim that nobody would sensibly reject.

Finally, your “converse” is not a converse at all. The converse of what you say would be that “if you are not ‘good’, then you are religious.” Obviously, you did not say this anywhere, and so what you claim is the converse of what you concluded, said, or even indirectly hinted at is no such thing. Now, if your “converse” statement was merely poorly-worded (and I’m quite sure it was), what you meant to say was that “there exist faithful people (at least one) for whom religion does not make them ‘good.’” Anyway, this statement falls prey to my intial objections.

So you have shown nothing.

Well wrote ehtheist

The phrase as rendered would be “Well written, ehtheist”, which it was not.

Incidentally, I used to be an atheist.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[eagertolearn]

Conversely, having religion does not make a person do good or be good.

“Good” or “bad” requires a discerning action from a data base called conscience. That data base can be askewed depending on how we acquire information. Thus understanding and chosing a certain faith or religion are important.

The laws in our society are there to help us to interact and live with each other in a civil orderly manner. Some like it, some don’t! But, they are there and there are penalties for not understanding them or not following them. Those laws follow the basis tenets of faith. Disregard faith is self contradictory and self destruction!

It is also nice to work things out thoroughly with great concern for our spouse/children/neighbors as well; not just our own free thinking alone. Self control and sacrifice for the benefit of the whole, not self love!

ETL.

 

[ehtheist]

Your <–snip–> claim.

Then <–snip–> “good.”

Your <–snip–> follow.

Then <–snip–> reject.

Finally, <–snip–> objections.

So you have shown nothing.

Incidentally, I used to be an atheist.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

Teapot Bless!

Amazing, absolutely amazing.

It’s true because I said so is a valid argument to make - when you truly believe that god exists because the bible says so and the bible is the word of god.

Catholics who think that everyone needs religion are self-serving.

If you were not able to grasp the point that was being made by myself of phooney, I apologize. I can’t dumb it down any more than this.

Religion does not make a person good.
Having no religion does not make a person bad.

Steve Weinberg said it well…
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

 

[phooney]

As far as self- control, I think it is the other way around. There are lots of us believers reading the thread but don’t feel the need to butt in. It is like this clip, please watch.

youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c

Have a great day.

ETL.

I don’t get it. Have a nice day, yourself

 

[Jacafamala]

ehtheist;]I can’t say that I’ve ever been offended by someone making a joke about my non-belief. “You’re going to hell” or “We’ll miss you in heaven” (the latter being a joke because I’m sure anyone saying that will hardly “miss” me) are all fine and dandy with me. I think it isn’t the case when you believe in a religion that, using the same reasoning you use to discount the other religions, would be discounted itself.

Well maybe you have a thick skin.

I doubt the weak reference as it applies to you. I suspect you don’t “need” the church to stay or be moral. I think that it is in the church’s despite that you stay moral - it is definitely contrary to the very book in which they claim is the word of god.

Still in all, Christ in me is the best I have to give.

Do you like films? Have you seen “Fanny and Alexander”, by Igmar Bergman? Bergman was an atheist and also an existentialist–I’d guess…It’s an amazing film. I think it’s autobiographical to some extent. If you haven’t seen it, you may want to check it out.

 

[Ronald_E]

Teapot Bless!

Amazing, absolutely amazing.

It’s true because I said so is a valid argument to make - when you truly believe that god exists because the bible says so and the bible is the word of god.

Catholics who think that everyone needs religion are self-serving.

If you were not able to grasp the point that was being made by myself of phooney, I apologize. I can’t dumb it down any more than this.

Religion does not make a person good.
Having no religion does not make a person bad.

Steve Weinberg said it well…
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

ehtheist, I am not going to get on you for your response. I can see why your hair is up(oh no, I just sounded like the old man that I am).
When I quit smoking and became vegetarian and started running in '78 I must have been pretty intrusive in other people’s lives who would smoke and drink and eat meat with me.
His statement to you was not made with loving kindness.
Good people do not do evil things because of religion. Evil people do evil things through religion.

 

[mom_of_ten]

I thought all things were created by God. For suffering to exist it had to be created. Are you saying that man created sin? That man has the power to create separately from God?

Suffering is not a “creation”…it is a consequence of the actions of an already-created being…MAN…it is a result…it does not “exist” unto itself as “matter”…it OCCURS because of the actions of man.

 

[mom_of_ten]

It doesn’t matter what I think, I am asking what the RCC teaches. According to your statement suffering and death did not exist prior to the apple. If it did not exist then it had to be created. Who created suffering and death?

The RCC Teaches that suffering and death of the body entered the world due to man’s sin…“If it did not exist then it had to be created” is not correct…it did not exist, because prior to it, all actions had been toward the Glory of God…when all action is good…all results and consequence of those actions are also good.
Suffering and death are results/consequences of BAD ACTIONS…therefore, it was not “created” but “occurred” as a consequence of man’s sinfulness…it was CAUSED…not “created” as you are thinking of the term.

 

[Pier]

Teapot Bless!

Is this how atheists greet each other?

Catholics who think that everyone needs religion are self-serving.

Oh my…

Well, you are here singing the praises of your pov…

And in actuality, Catholics are trying to share the joy.

Steve Weinberg said it well…
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Who?

And what he said doesn’t make sense when applied to Catholicism. Nothing in it dictates evil.

 

[phooney]

Is this how atheists greet each other?

Not neccesarily. All atheists must have in common is a lack of belief in a god, not a special greeting or a secret handshake. In fact, I’m sure most atheists and people in general wouldn’t have heard of Russel’s Celestial Teapot.

Who?

And what he said doesn’t make sense when applied to Catholicism. Nothing in it dictates evil.

A nobel prize winning physicist. And perhaps your interpretation of it doesn’t dictate evil, from the perspective of other people. You are perhaps a good person, able to choose the good bits of the bible and religion in general. Some people’s interpretations of it most certainly do seem to dictate evil, like that ridiculous Phelps family.

 

[Ronald_E]

Not neccesarily. All atheists must have in common is a lack of belief in a god, not a special greeting or a secret handshake. In fact, I’m sure most atheists and people in general wouldn’t have heard of Russel’s Celestial Teapot.

A nobel prize winning physicist. And perhaps your interpretation of it doesn’t dictate evil, from the perspective of other people. You are perhaps a good person, able to choose the good bits of the bible and religion in general. Some people’s interpretations of it most certainly do seem to dictate evil, like that ridiculous Phelps family.

I must return to work. However, if we look at the bible from the perspective that it is an open confession of the correct and incorrect way we are to live our faith then truth can be understood from the comparison of man’s responses to faith.

 

[Pier]

All atheists must have in common is a lack of belief in a god.

So what brings you here?

(Not that you’re not welcome. )

 

[phooney]

I must return to work. However, if we look at the bible from the perspective that it is an open confession of the correct and incorrect way we are to live our faith then truth can be understood from the comparison of man’s responses to faith.

Pier:

…what brings you here?..

It is just too vague and open to interpretation. It also many times seems to put forth the view that it is the final word on many matters. Matters that aren’t ‘faith’, or don’t need ‘faith’

To very succinctly sum up what I recall from the ‘faith’ entry in my Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ‘faith’ is apparently a trust in God. As I have mentioned countless times in these threads though, the common understanding of ‘faith’ and the most common usage on these boards and others is that of ‘belief with insufficient evidence, or without evidence’ as in a ‘leap of faith’.

So which is it, I wonder? Is it equivalent to giving weight of authority, or ‘trust’, to an expert in a particular field? Or is it a blind, albeit personally uplifting and personally certain, leap into a true unknown.

When the very existence of that ‘expert’ is what is in question, I don’t see how faith of either kind can be rationally used to determine the existence of that ‘expert’.

This is one reason why I am most interested in the objective evidence for a God. I see it as the only rational path to formation of such a belief, a belief that I think must logically come before such ‘trust’. The momentous unforced belief that is the faith of common understanding is inherently illogical.

Either conclusion has far-reaching implications for all of us. I think it is important, and I think it is interesting. I also hope to represent my current position in a reasonably friendly and rational way, and show that even if one lacks a belief in God you can still be a good person, have good reasons for being a good person, have a life full of meaning and love. Atheists can deny evolution, believe in ghosts, think elvis is still alive, etc, etc Atheism is not a philosophy or a religion, it is just a stance on one specific question of belief.

I happen to believe in evolution, enjoy reading about science, lack belief in ghosts, think Elvis is dead and think long and hard about theological questions.

I hope to help others understand (to the best of my ability) why everything I have ever looked into or had presented to me here doesn’t require a God to make it tick. Some things I don’t know, and some things are unknown to everybody. “I don’t know” to “God” is a massive irrational step that people take all too often.

I don’t know how we developed language, so god exists. I don’t know how the eye formed, so god exists. I don’t know why the universe is so good for life, so god exists, etc, etc.

Personally, I don’t know much about the Eucharistic miracle that somebody mentioned here. I asked if anybody had read any books on it that they could recommend and got a deep silence on the topic in return. That doesn’t mean god exists.

I hope I’ve unweaved the rainbow a bit for some people. The demonstrable reasons behind many of the things that have been presented by theists in these threads I find far more facinating and satisfying than that all-encompassing and arbitrary infinite regression terminator of ‘goddidit’

This is why I am here.

 

[Pier]

It is just too vague and open to interpretation. It also many times seems to put forth the view that it is the final word on many matters. Matters that aren’t ‘faith’, or don’t need ‘faith’

To very succinctly sum up what I recall from the ‘faith’ entry in my Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ‘faith’ is apparently a trust in God. As I have mentioned countless times in these threads though, the common understanding of ‘faith’ and the most common usage on these boards and others is that of ‘belief with insufficient evidence, or without evidence’ as in a ‘leap of faith’.

So which is it, I wonder? Is it equivalent to giving weight of authority, or ‘trust’, to an expert in a particular field? Or is it a blind, albeit personally uplifting and personally certain, leap into a true unknown.

When the very existence of that ‘expert’ is what is in question, I don’t see how faith of either kind can be rationally used to determine the existence of that ‘expert’.

This is one reason why I am most interested in the objective evidence for a God. I see it as the only rational path to formation of such a belief, a belief that I think must logically come before such ‘trust’. The momentous unforced belief that is the faith of common understanding is inherently illogical.

Either conclusion has far-reaching implications for all of us. I think it is important, and I think it is interesting. I also hope to represent my current position in a reasonably friendly and rational way, and show that even if one lacks a belief in God you can still be a good person, have good reasons for being a good person, have a life full of meaning and love. Atheists can deny evolution, believe in ghosts, think elvis is still alive, etc, etc Atheism is not a philosophy or a religion, it is just a stance on one specific question of belief.

I happen to believe in evolution, enjoy reading about science, lack belief in ghosts, think Elvis is dead and think long and hard about theological questions.

I hope to help others understand (to the best of my ability) why everything I have ever looked into or had presented to me here doesn’t require a God to make it tick. Some things I don’t know, and some things are unknown to everybody. “I don’t know” to “God” is a massive irrational step that people take all too often.

I don’t know how we developed language, so god exists. I don’t know how the eye formed, so god exists. I don’t know why the universe is so good for life, so god exists, etc, etc.

Personally, I don’t know much about the Eucharistic miracle that somebody mentioned here. I asked if anybody had read any books on it that they could recommend and got a deep silence on the topic in return. That doesn’t mean god exists.

I hope I’ve unweaved the rainbow a bit for some people. The demonstrable reasons behind many of the things that have been presented by theists in these threads I find far more facinating and satisfying than that all-encompassing and arbitrary infinite regression terminator of ‘goddidit’

This is why I am here.

Thanks phooney.

Here’s a link where you might find some books that interest you:

ignatius.com/Books/index.aspx?SID=1&

 

[Ronald_E]

It is just too vague and open to interpretation

I agree. What influences us to believe or not believe is interpretation of our personal history with human beings first and foremost. This is the foundation of reality based on the 5 senses and survival instincts. We form beliefs based on emotional reactions to those who have authority over us. Is it a safe authority or a dangerous authority. Do we react with fear or comfort? Then what beliefs do we form to conform to these feelings.

. It also many times seems to put forth the view that it is the final word on many matters. Matters that aren’t ‘faith’, or don’t need ‘faith’

Actually belief in anything seems to be the final word. Opposing beliefs seem to be rejected whether between atheists or theists or between theists and theists. When somebody tells me to have faith my blood begins to boil.

To very succinctly sum up what I recall from the ‘faith’ entry in my Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ‘faith’ is apparently a trust in God.

Before I began to know God I knew that whatever created me was life giving. To be given life from no apparent life form consumed me. Then I began to realize that to experience being desired by another person energized me and I would say things that I never thought of before and feel emotions that were all consuming in a joyful bliss. When I lost the source of that feeling pain was overwhelming. From this I believed that it is better to love which meant that I had to give love and not wait for it. So, we do better at loving than we do at hating. Whatever created me created me to prefer love over hate.
Phooney, I will have to continue this free association tomorrow. I love what you bring to this thread to help me formulate my thoughts about my development of belief in God.

 

[phooney]

Thanks phooney.

Here’s a link where you might find some books that interest you:

ignatius.com/Books/index.aspx?SID=1&

Search Results
No products match your Search Criteria.



What book(s) on there can you recommend to me? I’m not ordering them all on the off chance that one of them might mention the eucharistic miracle, I want a reasonably in depth discussion of the tests and processes that were used to verify this miracle.

 

[ehtheist]

ehtheist, I am not going to get on you for your response. I can see why your hair is up(oh no, I just sounded like the old man that I am).
When I quit smoking and became vegetarian and started running in '78 I must have been pretty intrusive in other people’s lives who would smoke and drink and eat meat with me.
His statement to you was not made with loving kindness.
Good people do not do evil things because of religion. Evil people do evil things through religion.

Ron, as I mentioned to Jon, I sure wish I had a “regular” job where I would be able to respond quicker to some comments.

I will admit that I am possibly wrong and that some people do believe, albeit incorrectly, that everyone NEEDS religion.

However, and the proof is in the pudding, religion is not a necessity for someone to be good or do good.

As with god, believing something doesn’t make it true. And, in my opinion, “needing” god in order to do good is scary.

 

[phooney]

I agree. What influences us to believe or not believe is interpretation of our personal history with human beings first and foremost. This is the foundation of reality based on the 5 senses and survival instincts. We form beliefs based on emotional reactions to those who have authority over us. Is it a safe authority or a dangerous authority. Do we react with fear or comfort? Then what beliefs do we form to conform to these feelings.

I agree that it is difficult, pehaps impossible, to avoid those formations of belief based on emotional reactions to those who have authority over us, especially our parents and especially when we are still very young. Much of that goes on ‘behind the scenes’ so to speak, in our sub-conscious. It is unfortunate that emotion has no place in logical arguments besides as a subjective premise. Deciding if an authority is safe or dangerous, trustworthy or deceitful is difficult and I don’t know of any surefire way off the top of my head of assessing this. All other things being equal, and given no experience of the authority in question, game theory seems to indicate that the first step should be trust, then respond in kind depending on how that first interaction goes. Again, I don’t see how this applies in the case of the existence of that authority-bearing entity being in question.

A somewhat easier question to answer is “how did they come across this information/gain this authority?” I would say that no matter how long the chain of experts/authority between oneself and any particular event or fact or claim, there must be evidence at some stage. The source of that information, the ultimate source of the formation of belief in regards to any particular event, fact or claim should not be an unverifiable act of faith, of either kind.

Actually belief in anything seems to be the final word. Opposing beliefs seem to be rejected whether between atheists or theists or between theists and theists. When somebody tells me to have faith my blood begins to boil.

Unfortunately, this is often true, and I think A might agree with you in regards to beliefs. He considers belief to be something that gets in the way of learning. I consider belief differently. For me, a ‘belief’ is nothing more than a reasonable expectation about the nature of reality. Easily maleable or dissolvable upon contact with contrary evidence. That is not to say that beliefs aren’t important though, because while we have them I still think they play a large part in dictating our other actions.

Would you mind expanding on that reaction of anger when people tell you to have faith? What do you perceive they are actually telling you to do, and why does it make your blood boil?

Before I began to know God I knew that whatever created me was life giving. To be given life from no apparent life form consumed me.

Haploid cells?

Then I began to realize that to experience being desired by another person energized me and I would say things that I never thought of before and feel emotions that were all consuming in a joyful bliss. When I lost the source of that feeling pain was overwhelming.

Good old evolution!

From this I believed that it is better to love which meant that I had to give love and not wait for it. So, we do better at loving than we do at hating. Whatever created me created me to prefer love over hate.

This goes back to game theory and it’s evolutionary implications. We are a social animal. Looking into primate evolution and our nearest evolutionary cousins we see many disconcerting parallels. Many of them too seem to do better at loving than hating and unfortunately, much like us, the loving is mostly done in-group and much of the hating is done out-group. Don’t get caught at ground zero between two rival tribes of Chimps. Did you know that some chimps have been observed making spears and hunting with them now?

Regardless of the existence of God, I see the absolute certainty that seems to exist in religions so prevalently, and on such shakey reasoning, as one of the biggest barriers we face today to changing our collective perception of what is in-group and out-group and thus causes of division and physical conflict. Of course, if there really is a god and he/she/it really wants to be worshipped in a particular way, then who am I to argue?

Phooney, I will have to continue this free association tomorrow. I love what you bring to this thread to help me formulate my thoughts about my development of belief in God.

Glad you’re enjoying it!

 

[Pier]

Search Results
No products match your Search Criteria.



What book(s) on there can you recommend to me? I’m not ordering them all on the off chance that one of them might mention the eucharistic miracle, I want a reasonably in depth discussion of the tests and processes that were used to verify this miracle.

Hi phooney,

Is this what you’re looking for?

amazon.com/Eucharistic-Miracles-Joan-Carroll-Cruz/dp/0895553031

 

[Exalt]

You the know the funny thing is that God could stop all of this debate right now, if he wanted.

I mean, let’s say I was having a forum debate on if my real-life dad was alive. Well, if my dad knew about it he’d be pretty concerned I think. So if my dad never posted on the forum or did anything about it, he would probably be in a capacity where he either *couldn’t *or didn’t want to. If he didn’t want to, maybe he just didn’t care about the discussion? I mean, after all, what are the real consequences of someone debating if he’s alive or not? Well, there aren’t that many.

But God, on the other hand… God is certainly *capable *of responding, he just chooses *not *to. Curious. He certainly would *care *about the discussion, right? And he certainly would do something to change someone’s mind - because there’s a pretty HUGE consequence to *not *changing someone’s mind: hell. Eternal damnation and suffering forever and ever.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. The existence of a thread like this is, in itself, an illustration of an argument against the existence of God.