I am an atheist thread 5

[HelenaMT]

‘Modern scientific method’ relies on our observational reality. Saying that your god is not available to understanding through that method is admitting that it has no effect on observational reality.

He may not, in any way that current science has picked up on. It seems that He works through people who listen to Him, and occasionally offers up miracles to the few that can receive them. I don’t think He wants us to have “real proof”. If he broke His laws of nature on a regular basis, and interacted with us in a mundane way, we would lose the desire to learn more about His creation, others, and ourselves, which I think is part of the reason we are here in a finite body. If we all knew with certainty, scientifically, that we could not die, I doubt we’d have the curiosity and yearning to understand things that give our lives meaning, and makes us seek a relationship with Him, which He obviously wants or we wouldn’t have developed thought. If we were just His pets, we’d be pretty boring.

Your god only has effect in the minds of believers.

Maybe that is the case. That is not proof of His non-existence, however.

Are you suggesting that without your belief in a magical invisible man in the sky you would find it acceptable to molest children?

No, and that’s part of my point. Most people know this is wrong, but cannot quantify it as wrong with scientific evidence. It just follows from accepting that innocence is something to be treasured, and that victimizing a weaker person is wrong. These sentiments do have roots in the Bible.

But why is it wrong? It’s not wrong because a lab experiment said so. Right and wrong cannot be quantified, yet we still find them worthy concepts to consider. So, too, is the existence of something that must be the root of everything else. If you disagree, that’s fine. But belief in a higher power is not silly, any more than your non-belief is silly. It’s just a different worldview.

We decided, as a culture, to be decent despite the horrible advice in the bible.

And why do we come to this decision? We didn’t have a collective epiphany, we just gradually responded to cultural forces that worked for good, which would not have been possible if there was no recognition of the value of an individual life. This value is not a provable thing, but is still accepted as true, another reason I have come to accept that not everything of value needs to come out of a physics lab.

This also seems to ignore the great influence Christian teaching of mercy, social justice, and value of life had on reforming our own culture, with abolition, and reform of child labor laws , and the attention given to the rights of the individual in the US, based on God-given rights.(yes, I know the founders were deists, not necessarily orthodox Christians, but given the large # of them whose backgrounds were in seminaries or religious schools, it’s hard to say they were not influenced by it)

It ignores the fact that many who are against the death penalty are Christians, and oppose it on those grounds.

Besides, if there is no value to something that is unprovable, as you suggested earlier, why is there value in keeping a serial thief, rapist, or abuser alive when he is obviously a negative drain on society? Why is mercy a favorable trait?

It’s not because we can prove it is good by scientific method, we just use our own reason to determine that it is, hopefully. The same reason we rely on to decide good and evil can be relied on to contemplate a higher power. We can reject what is unreasonable in the Bible on those grounds, and we can reject as unreasonable religions in the modern world that likewise defy that reason. If, for you, that means every religion, that is fine. That’s where your reason has led you.

 

[HelenaMT]

The bible suggests that a child who merely curses it’s parents should be killed. What a beastly book we have all left behind.There is no value to belief that could not be gained in another way, and when it is treated and taught as fact, it is as clearly harmful as tall buildings falling down on people.To believe the bible would require disbelieving obvious and provable scientific evidence. You must worship a different god than the god of the bible. Which one, may I ask, survives obvious and provable scientific evidence?

It seems like you are talking more about people who believe in the literal Bible, like the Fundamentalists, maybe. I was under the impression that the Bible was inspired by God, but transcribed by men, and then translated and re-transalated, etc. therefore ,is subject to all the flaws that humans have when recounting information. It’s not like Joseph Smith receiving the golden plates.

It is more sensible to me that we look to the underlying meanings that can be found there, and not try to treat it like a science text or a legal treatise. What is remarkable to me is that there is so much wisdom left in a book that has come to us in such a haphazard fashion.

I realize that some never come to believe. I myself still have my atheistic days. But it is very interesting to me to find atheists on this forum at all, especially those who have been around a long time. What is there to gain from it? Do you want to convince believers not to believe? Or are you just challenging people to think through what they believe (a worthy endeavor).

 

[Armor_of_God]

Well, one is that if everyone aboard agrees to go onward, onward we go. If one person feels unsafe or scared, we go back to shore.
I go boating for fun, being scared in a boat is no fun (been there)

OK, I’m in so far…

Another is 'wear your lifejacket or get out and walk.

I think I can handle this one. I could also call on my Captain if the waters get rough.

One more - no drunkenness.
Yet another, if you litter, it will be your last trip on the ‘Moon Gin’ (named after a man)

Alright, I’m still in…

Lastly, the captain is in charge completely.
By the way, if you agree with the rules completely, and agree to be responsible for their enforcement, I don’t mind if you are the captain that day.

Hmmm, now if only I could operate a boat…

As I understand the saying, Bristol was a famous shipyard that was known for doing a good job on refits.

Yes…

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071108091415AADpdjn

 

[_A]

It just follows from accepting that innocence is something to be treasured, and that victimizing a weaker person is wrong. These sentiments do have roots in the Bible.

I think protecting children has it’s roots much further back than the bible. If not, humans would not have survived tens of thousands of years to invent the various bibles and religions.

But why is it wrong?

The best answer I can offer myself is that naming one’s ignorance ‘God’ and worshipping it is not going to lead to an answer. You could try reading up on ‘reciprocal altruism’ for a more reason-based answer.

If you disagree, that’s fine. But belief in a higher power is not silly, any more than your non-belief is silly. It’s just a different worldview.

Belief in something so obviously invented is indeed silly.

This also seems to ignore the great influence Christian teaching of mercy, social justice, and value of life had on reforming our own culture, with abolition, and reform of child labor laws , and the attention given to the rights of the individual in the US, based on God-given rights.(yes, I know the founders were deists, not necessarily orthodox Christians, but given the large # of them whose backgrounds were in seminaries or religious schools, it’s hard to say they were not influenced by it)

What about the values in the bible about how to deal with slaves or women (not that there is much difference in the bible)? Morals have improved despite the influence of Christianity, not because of it.

It ignores the fact that many who are against the death penalty are Christians, and oppose it on those grounds.

That imaginary magical god you worship sure isn’t against the death penalty.

It seems like you are talking more about people who believe in the literal Bible, like the Fundamentalists, maybe. I was under the impression that the Bible was inspired by God, but transcribed by men, and then translated and re-transalated, etc. therefore ,is subject to all the flaws that humans have when recounting information. It’s not like Joseph Smith receiving the golden plates.

|If the bible is just a good story, why not go with a nicer one, like Lord of the Rings, which has good moral lessons, but without the rape incest and genocide that is still in most bibles?

Hmmm, now if only I could operate a boat…

It is only a 14 foot open boat, a few hours of booklearning and you would be ready to pilot it yourself (not that a captain needs to be pilot).
When should I expect you? Should I pack some soup in case you can’t convince a fish to feed us?

 

[phooney]

@HelenaMT

“This is my first post here, but as a former atheist,then agnostic, then Catholic,”

Welcome to the thread. Please note that agnostic isn’t the middle position between atheist and theist. Atheism/Theism are positions on the question of belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism are positions on the question of knowledge.

“I have come to realize that no one can convince an atheist to believe in God since the only convincing evidence you can offer would be hard scientific evidence (which, if it existed, would seem to make the whole concept that He gave us free will to believe or not silly-there must be a value in the struggle to understand the world)”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the free will that your god has apparently given us is supposed to be limited to just the belief in his existence or not. I think this lack of convincing evidence, or at the very least intensly ambiguous evidence, is more indicative of a god that loves seeing the conflicts generated by opposing religious views. The concept that he gave us free will to believe in him or not is silly all by itself. Even with some actual evidence people could still choose to worship him or not, and I think that would be the more important and useful application of free will. I don’t see how following a path of evidence rather than jumping to a conclusion takes any value out of the struggle to understand the world, could you elaborate?

“The logic argument about primary causes is useless to an atheist as well because it is not able to be proven empirically, and they don’t accept that God is the one thing that can be eternal.”

Of course it’s useless to an atheist, as it should be for all. It employs the logical fallacy of begging the question.

“Someone who needs verifiable scientific evidence to come to belief simply won’t.”

So why isn’t the existence of god held up to the same standards of evidence as most other things?

“I believe that the only way an atheist can come to God is through his own personal spiritual experience. I doubt any atheists have or will ever come to God by way of some scientific proof or clever argument.”

I disagree, there certainly have been converts without (supernatural) spiritual experience by way of clever argument at least.

“Only if you take for granted that the only things worth pondering are the things that can be proven with modern scientific method.”

Not at all. Ponder all you like. The imagination is a wonderful thing that should not, and probably cannot, be restricted in this way. But please have a rational method for discerning between figments of the imagination and actual reality.

“If that is your position, that’s fine, but there are other ways to make rational decisions about what we believe that are not based on scientifically verifiable evidence, yet are not nonsensical.”

I agree.

 

[phooney]

continued @HelenaMT

"How do we decide that it is wrong to molest children? In some ancient cultures what we call child molestation was normal behavior. You can’t scientifically prove that it is wrong, but we know it is.

How do we decide that it is wrong to execute a thief rather than incarcerate him? We have concluded that this is wrong but we can’t prove it in any way. "

Yes, but as your example clearly demonstrates, even these matters are to a certain degree subjective to the cultures that they find themselves in, they are not really the same thing as a question of fact. While, yes, I agree that molesting children is wrong, I also don’t think anybody has the right to send the CSI team over to that “stone age” tribe recently found in the amazon to make sure all the girls had had their 18th birthday parties before they married the chief. Concepts of right and wrong for us have most likely been largely a result of evolution, but our evolutionary morality developed on african plains, not the environments we now live in (modern cities), and this causes problems. But before I waffle on about that too much, let me sum up by saying this is just a red herring you’ve brought up, this is a subjective standard (even though in modern times there is largely a concensus) not an objective fact.

"I’m not laying out a defense of every sort of moral standard that can justify itself within it’s own set of rules, just trying to explain my point that there is value to beliefs even though they cannot be proven empirically. "

Sure, I believe chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream for me. If most of the people in my culture agreed with me, then I guess technically it would officially BE the best flavour of ice cream, but it’s still just a cultural concensus of subjective beliefs.

I believe it is wrong to molest children. Why? Because I wouldn’t have liked that to happen to me. If most of the people in my culture agree with me then I guess technically it would officially BE wrong, but it’s still just a cultural concensus of subjective beliefs.

“As for Homer Simpson, he has a point. If we aren’t employing ANY reason to our faith (disbelieving obvious and provable scientific evidence, or believing without ever trying to understand why you believe what you do)”

What reason ARE you employing?

“He may not, in any way that current science has picked up on.”

Then there’s no reason to believe, but every reason to look for evidence and maybe learn a little about how the universe actually works along the way. Nobody is forcing you to believe, pascal’s wager doesn’t work you know.

“It seems that He works through people who listen to Him, and occasionally offers up miracles to the few that can receive them.”

Does this not count as proof for these people then? If so, does this not undermine everything you said earlier about how important the free will to believe in him without evidence is?

“If he broke His laws of nature on a regular basis, and interacted with us in a mundane way, we would lose the desire to learn more about His creation, others, and ourselves, which I think is part of the reason we are here in a finite body.”

Well, how often is rare enough to not be mundane? I think perhaps once a generation, and for everybody, not just private revelation to the leaders of churches with a massive financial and power-based interest in the subject. That would be helpful. And it would help if it was unambiguous as well, not just a cancer going into remission, wonderful as that is. I’m talking about the moon breaking out of tidal lock, spinning around to show us the dark side and the himalayan mountain range flying up into the air to carve a message, from god, on the lunar surface for everybody to to read.

Or he could just terraform the moon, after announcing that he would, as has been suggested in earlier threads.

 

[phooney]

continued @ HelenaMT

“If we all knew with certainty, scientifically, that we could not die, I doubt we’d have the curiosity and yearning to understand things that give our lives meaning,”

shrug Perhaps?

“and makes us seek a relationship with Him, which He obviously wants or we wouldn’t have developed thought.”

The natural process of evolution wouldn’t have had anything to do with this development would it? (sorry Ronald E, I couldn’t resist)

“Maybe that is the case. That is not proof of His non-existence, however.”

Correct. Mind you, the burden of proof isn’t on those who haven’t claimed that something like this exists, proof of universal non-existence isn’t the basis we have for lacking belief in an infinite amount of other things, why the special pleading for God? If this IS the case, then it just shows that the observable properties of god are equal to the properties of an entity that doesn’t exist.

"No, and that’s part of my point. Most people know this is wrong, but cannot quantify it as wrong with scientific evidence. It just follows from accepting that innocence is something to be treasured, and that victimizing a weaker person is wrong. These sentiments do have roots in the Bible. "

The bible can hardly be considered the root of these sentiments. The empathetic sentiment, which is widely known as the golden rule (do unto others etc) predates the bible by quite some time, and is expressed in many different cultures, before they were introduced to Christianity. Evolutionary biologists studying other animals know it as reciprocal altruism, it is widespread in the animal kingdom. The benefits of reciprocal altruism from a natural selection perspective are so obvious, it would be more amazing if we hadn’t codified it once we learned to write. While we all seem to recognise that the golden rule seems pretty ideal, due to the fact that there are those that would take too much advantage of that system it’s not entirely what we use in reality. Look at game theory for more information on this kind of thing.

“It’s not wrong because a lab experiment said so. Right and wrong cannot be quantified, yet we still find them worthy concepts to consider. So, too, is the existence of something that must be the root of everything else.”

As per previous comments regarding this red herring. Don’t get me wrong, I too think the existence of something that is the root of everything else is a worthy concept to consider, but without evidence it is just guesswork that is unworthy of belief. It’s too important and interesting for faith.

“If you disagree, that’s fine. But belief in a higher power is not silly, any more than your non-belief is silly. It’s just a different worldview.”

Is belief in “Uni, the universe creating Unicorn” also not silly then? If not, why not?

"It ignores the fact that many who are against the death penalty are Christians, and oppose it on those grounds. "

You seem to ignore the fact that some people who are against abortion are Christians and bomb abortion clinics on those grounds.

That quote from Steve Weinberg keeps on coming back:

“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.”

There are plenty of death penalties actioned in the bible. Especially by God.

“It is more sensible to me that we look to the underlying meanings that can be found there, and not try to treat it like a science text or a legal treatise. What is remarkable to me is that there is so much wisdom left in a book that has come to us in such a haphazard fashion.”

Of course, by doing so you must acknowledge that you already had your concepts of right and wrong without even referencing the bible, and insert your own interpretation and claim metaphor on the things that are unreasonable or incorrect. By injecting your own wisdom into this book that has come to us in such a haphazard fashion, it’s hardly surprising that you can still find relevant meaning in it for current times.

“But it is very interesting to me to find atheists on this forum at all, especially those who have been around a long time. What is there to gain from it? Do you want to convince believers not to believe? Or are you just challenging people to think through what they believe (a worthy endeavor).”

Both really. The former if I don’t think the evidence presented is compelling and if I can reasonably explain why. The latter is self-explanatory. I find the topic in general very interesting, and I think it has major implications for everybody, regardless of who is ‘right’. It’s led me down many fascinating paths of research.

 

[Verisimilitude]

|If the bible is just a good story, why not go with a nicer one, like Lord of the Rings, which has good moral lessons, but without the rape incest and genocide that is still in most bibles?

Tolkeins stories had incest and rape and genocide if you read more than the trilogy. He was also Catholic that translated a portion of the Jersualem Bible into english. Read the first 50 pages of the Silimarilion and get a glimpse of the way the heavenly court operated (in my view) better than any conjecture out there. He did not intened to write Christian anaology like Lewis did but the influence is there none the less.

 

[_A]

Tolkeins stories had incest and rape and genocide if you read more than the trilogy. He was also Catholic that translated a portion of the Jersualem Bible into english. Read the first 50 pages of the Silimarilion and get a glimpse of the way the heavenly court operated (in my view) better than any conjecture out there. He did not intened to write Christian anaology like Lewis did but the influence is there none the less.

Sorry, I was only familiar with the movies, so that is what I was referring to - my mistake.

 

[HelenaMT]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the free will that your god has apparently given us is supposed to be limited to just the belief in his existence or not. I think this lack of convincing evidence, or at the very least intensly ambiguous evidence, is more indicative of a god that loves seeing the conflicts generated by opposing religious views. The concept that he gave us free will to believe in him or not is silly all by itself. Even with some actual evidence people could still choose to worship him or not, and I think that would be the more important and useful application of free will. I don’t see how following a path of evidence rather than jumping to a conclusion takes any value out of the struggle to understand the world, could you elaborate?

Nothing to elaborate. You have actually clarified and elaborated on the point I was trying to get at, although I don’t think He wants to see bloody conflicts over Him. That’s just man’s nature and free will showing itself.

So why isn’t the existence of god held up to the same standards of evidence as most other things?

Because it obviously can’t be. God’s existence is either metaphysical, or simply not able to be physically examined yet. So those who don’t believe have every right to say its a double standard, because it clearly is.

quote:
“I believe that the only way an atheist can come to God is through his own personal spiritual experience. I doubt any atheists have or will ever come to God by way of some scientific proof or clever argument.”

quote: phooney
I disagree, there certainly have been converts without (supernatural) spiritual experience by way of clever argument at least.

I’d like to meet some. It never worked on me, I had to actually feel something myself to even start to consider it seriously. Even now, I am on and off again in my beliefs, because I was not inculcated with religion as a child. It isn’t natural to me to have unquestioning faith in anyone’s authority on what is correct, and it is not natural for me to have consistent faith in God’s existence.

There are times when I intensely feel my faith, so that I can’t doubt it, and long stretches in between where I question and question as I gain new knowledge, fall away from belief, and then out of nowhere, have it return, often when I am not looking for it.

Quote:
“Only if you take for granted that the only things worth pondering are the things that can be proven with modern scientific method.”

quotehooney
Not at all. Ponder all you like. The imagination is a wonderful thing that should not, and probably cannot, be restricted in this way. But please have a rational method for discerning between figments of the imagination and actual reality.

Any idea that cannot be empirically demonstrated can be considered a figment of the imagination by some, there’s no point in arguing that. To me, it is rational to believe that there probably was something that created the universe, and since the universe seems intelligible to us, that something more intelligible was behind it. The specifics as to what that means are still up for debate for me. But I know that beginning to believe in God led me to be more interested in learning about science and history, so believing in God led me to start thinking more rationally about the world.

 

[HelenaMT]

continued @ HelenaMT

. The empathetic sentiment, which is widely known as the golden rule (do unto others etc) predates the bible by quite some time, and is expressed in many different cultures, before they were introduced to Christianity. Evolutionary biologists studying other animals know it as reciprocal altruism, it is widespread in the animal kingdom. The benefits of reciprocal altruism from a natural selection perspective are so obvious, it would be more amazing if we hadn’t codified it once we learned to write. While we all seem to recognise that the golden rule seems pretty ideal, due to the fact that there are those that would take too much advantage of that system it’s not entirely what we use in reality. Look at game theory for more information on this kind of thing.

I don’t find it strange that our biology has developed in a way that allows for this. It doesn’t, for me, prove God’s non -existence. If God is real, why wouldn’t his creations have evolved to reflect things he values? The same goes for the study published a few years ago about the "God gene " .Those who believe in God can accept that there would be a receptiveness to His presence presented through genetic code, since that’s how the physical reality of our bodies work.

Likewise, it isn’t strange for me to think that God has inspired the other movements in the pre-Christian world that bear similarities to later Judeo-Christian beliefs. If I am to hold my belief in a real God, the creator of the universe, I can only believe that other humans not spoken of in the Bible must have felt his presence and contemplated him as well.

I came to believe in God on an emotional level before I knew much about Christanity or the Bible, so I have to believe that that would be true of others.

I too think the existence of something that is the root of everything else is a worthy concept to consider, but without evidence it is just guesswork that is unworthy of belief. It’s too important and interesting for faith.

Believing in God does not prevent me from looking into scientific information to see how the natural processes of the world work and being fascinated by them. It is not the realm of religion, though, to investigate the scientific properties of the beginnings. I do like to see how religions can manage or hold up to the information that science brings them, though. It helps me keep evaluating my own beliefs.

Is belief in “Uni, the universe creating Unicorn” also not silly then? If not, why not?

There have been no sightings of this unicorn, no historical figures claiming to be prophets of the unicorn, no supposed miracles attributed to the unicorn, and no book with any historical accuracy mentioning the unicorn’s existence as a creator. If there was, I’m sure he’d have some believers.

Believing in the God in the white robe and long beard might be as silly as Uni, but that’s not the God I believe in. I just believe in God the Creator of all and God, the entity that I have felt as a real presence separate from myself.

You seem to ignore the fact that some people who are against abortion are Christians and bomb abortion clinics on those grounds.

That quote from Steve Weinberg keeps on coming back:

“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.”

I don’t really believe that people who are not otherwise dysfunctional are the ones who bomb abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings, or blow themselves up on a bus. To lay that all on religion seems a bit much. Besides that, there have been few abortion clinic bombings, and they are generally not celebrated by the faithful. I don’t really buy that people who do evil things in the name of religion can truly be good, either. Someone so lacking in empathy that they can go through with killing innocent people is not a good person to begin with.

I would need to see evidence that if they had no professed religion, they would not just act out violently with another justification.

Religion can’t make a bad person good if that person is unable to internalize the underlying principles of that religion and is just blindly following dogma.

It can’t make a good person bad, but I’ll grant you that it might make a bad person think he’s doing good.

 

[phooney]

@HelenaMT

“Nothing to elaborate. You have actually clarified and elaborated on the point I was trying to get at, although I don’t think He wants to see bloody conflicts over Him. That’s just man’s nature and free will showing itself.”

That’s not the bit I was requestiong elaboration on. You said “the only convincing evidence you can offer would be hard scientific evidence (which, if it existed, would seem to make the whole concept that He gave us free will to believe or not silly-there must be a value in the struggle to understand the world).” And I asked “how following a path of evidence rather than jumping to a conclusion takes any value out of the struggle to understand the world?”

“There are times when I intensely feel my faith, so that I can’t doubt it”

Don’t you think it’s important enough to rely on more than a feeling?

“To me, it is rational to believe that there probably was something that created the universe,”

Great, how about we find some evidence to determine what that something was? Do you think that when there is a lack of evidence it is perfectly reasonable to just believe whatever you want with complete conviction?

“and since the universe seems intelligible to us, that something more intelligible was behind it.”

What do you mean by intelligible? Just that it seems possible to understand the laws of nature, or that the universe seems intelligent?

“But I know that beginning to believe in God led me to be more interested in learning about science and history, so believing in God led me to start thinking more rationally about the world.”

Well, kind of the same for me I suppose, except I guess I started thinking more rationally about the world by finding better explanations for things normally attributed to god, explanations with evidence. I’d go where the evidence leads, even if it let to god. Worshipping that god would depend on what god it was I suppose.

“I don’t find it strange that our biology has developed in a way that allows for this. It doesn’t, for me, prove God’s non -existence.”

Nor was it intended to prove God’s non-existence. Remember that is not what is required because it is impossible to prove a universal negative, to require that is irrational. All this would show is that natural processes are responsible for it and, yet again, God is not required.

"If God is real, why wouldn’t his creations have evolved to reflect things he values? The same goes for the study published a few years ago about the “God gene " .Those who believe in God can accept that there would be a receptiveness to His presence presented through genetic code, since that’s how the physical reality of our bodies work.”

If God is made-up, why wouldn’t the description of this God reflect the things that the people who made him up value? As far as receptiveness to a supernatural presence, I heard about an interesting study on that as well:

“Michael Persinger is a neuropsychologist at Canada’s Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as having a religious experience is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain’s feverish activities. He has attempted to create experiments to show that when the right hemisphere of the brain is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates what is felt as a ‘sensed presence.’ Many of Persinger’s studies detail the reactions that people have when their temporal lobes are stimulated with complex magnetic fields. Some of the subjects experience a ‘sensed presence’ in the form of the deity from the culture that they were raised in. They see the God (or spirits associated with their God - the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, etc) that they believe in.”

Regardless, I’m sure you agree that a vague sense of presence isn’t evidence.

“Likewise, it isn’t strange for me to think that God has inspired the other movements in the pre-Christian world that bear similarities to later Judeo-Christian beliefs.”

Is it strange for you to think that Judeo-Christian beliefs might just be modified interpretations of ancient superstitions that don’t neccesarily have anything to do with reality?

“If I am to hold my belief in a real God, the creator of the universe, I can only believe that other humans not spoken of in the Bible must have felt his presence and contemplated him as well.”

Indeed, all the cultures seem to have come up with some concept of God or Gods, but they were all different, which is what you would expect from animals that evolved with attributing intelligent agency to many inanimate objects.

 

[phooney]

continued @HelenaMT

“It is not the realm of religion, though, to investigate the scientific properties of the beginnings.”

Religion has no verifiable authority to make any claims as to any properties of the ‘beginnings’ scientific or otherwise. Not that has ever been presented to me anyway.

“I do like to see how religions can manage or hold up to the information that science brings them, though. It helps me keep evaluating my own beliefs.”

Yes, it is interesting to see, I’ll give you that.

“There have been no sightings of this unicorn, no historical figures claiming to be prophets of the unicorn, no supposed miracles attributed to the unicorn, and no book with any historical accuracy mentioning the unicorn’s existence as a creator. If there was, I’m sure he’d have some believers.”

How dare you blaspheme against Uni! It just so happens that the other day, Unilet the foal of Uni came down and privately revealed to me that Jesus was actually the prophet of Uni, as was Walt Disney. If there were no sightings of Unicorns, there couldn’t POSSIBLY be any drawings of them now could there?? Uni was responsible for the meteor that hit the earth and got rid of the dinosaurs that made way for us mammals. It wouldn’t wouldn’t have hit us otherwise. So that’s most of your objections out of the way. Is it NOW not silly to believe in Uni?

“I just believe in God the Creator of all and God, the entity that I have felt as a real presence separate from myself.”

How have you determined that it is a presence seperate from yourself?

“I don’t really believe that people who are not otherwise dysfunctional are the ones who bomb abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings, or blow themselves up on a bus. To lay that all on religion seems a bit much.”

Sorry, I did not intend to lay it all on religion, just some of it.

“I don’t really buy that people who do evil things in the name of religion can truly be good, either.”

Well, that all depends on what the culture defines as good and evil, doesn’t it? Refer to previous posts regarding these subjective standards. Any standard of good and evil which relies on external (and especially potentially ficticious) yardsticks as the ultimate measure of what IS good and evil, rather than on a benefit or harm as measured in the verifiable natural world is somewhat morally bankrupt.

"Someone so lacking in empathy that they can go through with killing innocent people is not a good person to begin with. "

I’m certaily with you there. The problem with religion is that with this double standard regarding the level of evidence that you YOURSELF have endorsed in these last couple of posts, it is possible to accuse people of crimes against God and justify anything ultimately with that lack of evidence. In so much of the war propaganda that I’ve seen, there is some variation of “If God is on our side, who could possibly be on theirs?” The atheist equivalent wouldn’t really motivate people in the same way “If nobody is on our side… who is on theirs?” hehe. Even though it isn’t true to say that there’s no atheists in foxholes, it isn’t even an argument against atheism, it should be an arguement against the requirements for foxholes.

“I would need to see evidence that if they had no professed religion, they would not just act out violently with another justification.”

You’re right, maybe they would and maybe they wouldn’t, it is difficult to say. But I think we should probably examine very carefully the divisive elements as we find them, religion is most certainly one of these, along with racism, class systems, and even qualities normally regarded as positive, like patriotism.

“It can’t make a good person bad, but I’ll grant you that it might make a bad person think he’s doing good.”

And if everybody agrees with him that he is doing good… then it is good by the standards of that culture.

 

[rusty20]

Hey guys, just butting in on the conversation. I’ve read all of this thread (none of the older ones) and I’d just like to say that as a thinking person and a cradle Catholic, I do believe in God, but do not always (perhaps never lol) have answers to your questions. I tend to agree with Helena about spiritual conversion rather than reasoned belief.

Just food for thought: Why do you put so much trust in a method created by man (scientific method) to explain everything? That seems to be equal to a leap of faith in a religion. Catholicism does not reject the scientific method, but recognizes its limits.

Someone before had mentioned that what we don’t already know through science will eventually be learned, and that science can explain everything. this statement is a polar opposite and equally faith-based as a belief in God.

I will admit that I am hardly able to debate atheism vs. theism as well as most, so I apologize beforehand if my arguments seem simplistic or easily countered. I’m trying to get better at this, as I’ve taken my faith practically blindly until I arrived at college 3 years ago.

I believe my faith has grown since I began to question it. I can’t exactly explain why, but there are many things in my life that I have experienced that I could not explain without my faith.

I’m hoping not to get involved in this discussion, and would like to remain a watcher. Perhaps I could read the other 4 threads, and gain more insight into the atheist viewpoint.

To Catholics: Any good books out there pointing towards a reasoned claim against atheism (besides the Summa Theologica)

 

[phooney]

@rusty20

“Just food for thought: Why do you put so much trust in a method created by man (scientific method) to explain everything? That seems to be equal to a leap of faith in a religion.”

Hi Rusty, welcome to the conversation.

The scientific method isn’t an entity that requires trust in it. It has developed over many hundreds of years through a process of self-correction, and proven itself time and again through yielding practical applications, falsifiable evidence and being based on observable reality. It doesn’t rely on faith, if you don’t believe some of the conclusions, then they are open to be falsified. Scientific theories are always on trial in the scientific community.

“Catholicism does not reject the scientific method, but recognizes its limits.”

The scientific method obviously does have limits, but those limits are determined by observable reality.

“Someone before had mentioned that what we don’t already know through science will eventually be learned, and that science can explain everything. this statement is a polar opposite and equally faith-based as a belief in God.”

Yeah, I noticed that comment as well. Personally I don’t adhere to that point of view. Even if I were to say that the scientific method is the best process we can go through to explain anything, that in itself does not guarantee that it will be able to explain absolutely everything. Even if science can’t explain everything though, it doesn’t mean religion has any authority on whatever remains unexplained anymore than it means the unknowns in chemistry can be authoritatively explained by alchemy.

“I will admit that I am hardly able to debate atheism vs. theism as well as most, so I apologize beforehand if my arguments seem simplistic or easily countered. I’m trying to get better at this, as I’ve taken my faith practically blindly until I arrived at college 3 years ago.”

Don’t worry, Rusty, you could hardly present less evidence than most other people in these threads

“I believe my faith has grown since I began to question it. I can’t exactly explain why, but there are many things in my life that I have experienced that I could not explain without my faith.”

Indeed, everything can be explained with an arbitrary catch-all answer, but it doesn’t have any verifiable connection to reality.

“I’m hoping not to get involved in this discussion, and would like to remain a watcher. Perhaps I could read the other 4 threads, and gain more insight into the atheist viewpoint.”

These kind of discussions do seem to be of the most benefit for the watchers. It’ll be a big undertaking to read the other 4 threads… if printed they would be a lengthy novel.

“To Catholics: Any good books out there pointing towards a reasoned claim against atheism (besides the Summa Theologica)”

Yes, are there?

 

[phooney]

img144.imageshack.us/img144/7415/sciencefighteryd4.th.jpg

 

[Armor_of_God]

It is only a 14 foot open boat, a few hours of booklearning and you would be ready to pilot it yourself (not that a captain needs to be pilot).
When should I expect you? Should I pack some soup in case you can’t convince a fish to feed us?

Yes, I think soup would be a good idea. Maybe clam chowder, so we could at least feel like we were eating fish? (I know, I know…clams aren’t fish. But they live in the water…)

 

[RobHom]

img144.imageshack.us/img144/7415/sciencefighteryd4.th.jpg

Actual the words “atheist and atheism” alone or in complex sentences are oxymoron’s.

In order to “not believe in God”…you must first accept the existence of God, because to attempt to deny the existence of what you believe does not exist is not possible. Simply put…you are wandering in the dark…with a bad flashlight, hoping someone turns on the lights…or you find the end of the tunnel and the door is not locked.

God exists…and He is “undeniable”.

 

[Minnie31]

Actual the words “atheist and atheism” alone or in complex sentences are oxymoron’s.

In order to “not believe in God”…you must first accept the existence of God, because to attempt to deny the existence of what you believe does not exist is not possible. Simply put…you are wandering in the dark…with a bad flashlight, hoping someone turns on the lights…or you find the end of the tunnel and the door is not locked.

God exists…and He is “undeniable”.

God is a concept and theory. One can accept the idea of God and not believe in this idea. I don’t believe that there are blue unicorns living on Mars, so does that mean that I must first accept the existence of blue unicorns to not believe in them? I think not.

 

[phooney]

Actual the words “atheist and atheism” alone or in complex sentences are oxymoron’s.

In order to “not believe in God”…you must first accept the existence of God, because to attempt to deny the existence of what you believe does not exist is not possible. Simply put…you are wandering in the dark…with a bad flashlight, hoping someone turns on the lights…or you find the end of the tunnel and the door is not locked.

God exists…and He is “undeniable”.

So you belive in absolutely everything. Well done, genius.