I just wanted to clarify something out about Atheist

[Sideline]

I don’t claim to speak for all atheists either (especially since I’m not one), but every atheist I have ever talked with always had “God-subsitutes”…i.e. in explaining their rejection of an unobservable God, they will present forth a different, equally unobservable substitute by another name.

Interesting, the way I see it Christians and other believers are always calling the things that they can’t observe “God”.

Q: What caused the universe?
A: God.

Q: Where do my ethics come from?
A: God.

Q: Why do miracles occur?
A: God.

It’s a perfect one word answer to all of the big questions of life. I guess you would say I am one of those people who uses “God-substitutes” in the sense that I have different answers to those questions:

Q: What caused the universe?
A: Matter and energy working under universal laws that are not entirely understood.

Q: Where do my ethics come from?
A: Social conditioning and biology. Human beings are social animals and don’t live in isolation.We need social rules to keep harmony in our social systems. This is tempered by a need to preserve our individuality, and so we will sometimes break with the group to protect certain individual interpretations of morality.

Q: Why do miracles occur?

A: Several factors can cause a “miracle”. One is fortunate events happening to an individual who doesn’t understand probability. It can be a fraud. Or it can seem miraculous because those witnessing the miracle didn’t have all the information.

I guess you would say that all of my answers are merely substitutes for God, but that assumes that the most rational and fulsome explanation to those events is God. Which if you look at the answers, it isn’t.

At least my answers, abbreviated as they are, attempt to make some explanation of the events they describe. “God” doesn’t explain anything at all.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
A well-behaved atheist would have no trouble whatsoever for 30 years in a society of Christians.

In the US there are states where a self-proclaimed atheist cannot be elected to a public office, cannot even obtain a notary public license. Of course, if they would lie about it, they could.

And atheists DO lie through their teeth to become politicians and notaries.

The reason they can’t become these things, or shouldn’t become these things (as I’m not really sure this is true but will accept the proposition) is because they have no basis on which to take oathes.

NO true atheist can ever be trusted, as they have no “gound” (basis) for their “ethics and morals”. No God = No ethical/moral foundation.

So who is a “well-behaved” atheist? The one who lies about his stance?

The “well-behaved” atheist is the one who realises that they shouldn’t run for office or become notaries, or do any other activity which relies on having a well-founded ethic/moral-system.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I guess you would say that all of my answers are merely substitutes for God, but that assumes that the most rational and fulsome explanation to those events is God. Which if you look at the answers, it isn’t.

I have much respect for people who have a drive for the sciences, and I do not criticize anyone’s effort for drawing reasoned conclusions about something they cannot see, but use deduction about what is behind what they can see. However, I have less respect for those who mock theists for believing in something in essence unempirical, when they do the same. Hopefully you are not one of those people.

p.s. I think Christianity should be viewed by the secularist in light of prophecies made long before Christ, which were actualized, the testimony of miracles, and the scope of those who were willing to die for the notion that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. That’s a starting point.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Any who burned to death, or otherwise put anyone to death was doing so not in the name of the Church, but only in the name of some temporal power. Look it up.

By temporal power, you mean the Church? lol
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

“Temporal power” means specifically and definitionally NOT the Church. Period.

If some “Churchman” does the job of a temporal power, he is a temporal power and not a Churchman.

That some possibly very sinful Church member exercised temporal power in a sinful way is irrelevant to The Fact that The Church qua The Church does not exercise temporal power.

 

[Sideline]

“Temporal power” means specifically and definitionally NOT the Church. Period.

If some “Churchman” does the job of a temporal power, he is a temporal power and not a Churchman.

That some possibly very sinful Church member exercised temporal power in a sinful way is irrelevant to The Fact that The Church qua The Church does not exercise temporal power.

Is the Pope not ex officio the head of Vatican City?

If not, who is?

 

[Sideline]

I have much respect for people who have a drive for the sciences, and I do not criticize anyone’s effort for drawing reasoned conclusions about something they cannot see, but use deduction about what is behind what they can see.

Your initial post said most atheists substitute unobservable entities for God. However much I praise your respect for those with a scientific bent, I’d really like to hear if you would consider my answers as God-substitutes.

However, I have less respect for those who mock theists for believing in something in essence unempirical, when they do the same. Hopefully you are not one of those people.

No, I don’t mock theists for their belief in the unobservable, but I don’t think it is a useful tactic in discovering the answers to the big questions in life.

p.s. I think Christianity should be viewed by the secularist in light of prophecies made long before Christ, which were actualized, the testimony of miracles, and the scope of those who were willing to die for the notion that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. That’s a starting point.

This is really a whole other conversation, but nothing I’ve read in those prophecies in any way supports a Christian view.

 

[Nans]

I grew up in an Atheist home, more accurate would to call it a NON-religious home where God was never mentioned. Try living in That environment in the “Bible Belt” south.

For some atheist (like me before my conversion), I could admire a beautiful sunset or the birth of a baby or any other great miracle of God and never once think it came from Him. Everything I believed could be explained by pure science, even the “Big Bang” theory made absolute sense to me (unless I tried to explain where the gases and dust came from). I didn’t understand why it even important to believe in God given the great advancements of modern science.

As an atheist, I thought that believing in God was for emotionally weak people or for people who could not explain life through science. If believing in God helped them live their lives, then so be it, just Don’t expect me to.

Atheist in some weird twisted way IS a religion, I came to realize this only after my conversion.

I agree with this.

Most Athiests are really agnostics, as the OP actually states because he admits that in his mind there is no evidence for or against. That is being “not sure” instead of being sure there is no God.

The fact is, that there is no amount of evidence that will convince an athiest that there is a God, even when God himself walked the earth. The bible is a history book, yet it is the most hotly challenged history book of all time. Why do we not debate the historical accuracy of facts with those of us that have had college history classes? We sit back and accept and quote it as fact without demanding that people prove to our satisfaction that it actually happened. lol

I could go on and on. Its amazing when you think about it, how deep deception lies.

 

[Sideline]

The fact is, that there is no amount of evidence that will convince an athiest that there is a God, even when God himself walked the earth. The bible is a history book, yet it is the most hotly challenged history book of all time. Why do we not debate the historical accuracy of facts with those of us that have had college history classes? We sit back and accept and quote it as fact without demanding that people prove to our satisfaction that it actually happened. lol

.

If you ever really study history? It is all debate, all the time.

Did Cleopatra really commit suicide with an asp? (Probably not)
Was Julius Caesar gay? (Who knows?)
Was there a Trojan Horse (Could be argued either way.)
Why didn’t Hannibal sack Rome? (He never said.)
How many people died in the plague? (Seems like everyone exaggerated, but by how much?)

People seem to think that the Bible is unduly picked on as a history book, but that is partly because for so many years it was given a free ride.

It has swung back and forth as being a reliable testimony and hasn’t really settled yet. It is hard to objectively study a book that the majority of people demand a special dispensation for.

 

[JimO]

At least my answers, abbreviated as they are, attempt to make some explanation of the events they describe. “God” doesn’t explain anything at all.

You see, we are missing one another completely. I admit that what an earlier poster said is true and it handicaps us all. It’s hard to understand what it is like to be an Atheist if you aren’t and it’s hard to understand what it is like to be a Christian if you aren’t. And, I don’t mean people who were baptised and raised Christian and then left the faith behind. I mean people who have a deep, abiding relationship with God. For those of us who take our relationship with God seriously, the answer “God” to your three questions isn’t just a pat answer in the absence of any other response. The Christian God is Creator, He is way beyond our understanding, He is THE answer. Our understanding of God explains everything. It all makes sense. But, if you won’t even accept the possibility that God exists, then it does sound silly to respond “God” to all life’s questions. As far as miracles, historical evidence and the like, I addressed that in my previous post.

Unfortunately, the blind man continues to demand that we prove that light exists…and we continue to talk past one another.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
It is a burden on the (so-called) atheist because it is the root of all anxiety and bad judgement. Even when a non-atheist is anxious and/or forms bad judgements it’s because of their lack of belief (the basic principle of the atheistic mind) in God.

How odd. Im alot more mellow now that I no longer have to worry about some invisible deity wanting an excuse to torture me.

As a line in <I can’t seem to find the movie reference> said, “There’s something calming about being totally scrOO’ed!”

We torture ourselves. God just gives us marvelous opportunities to get as perversely sadistic (masochistic?) with ourselves as we like.

My judgement has also improved now that I rely exclusively on reason as opposed to really really wanting something and wishing for it.

Then you were doing your “religion” wrong.

Acting according to true “faith and morals” (Catholic) has nothing to do with “wishing” and “wanting” but rather “doing rightly in hope” and “expecting to get what is best”.

It’s heartbreaking to see so many people “doing” their religion in the wrong way which guarantees that they will be frustrated, then blaming their religion for their own failings.

Oh well. It IS a constant source of discussion here, though, isn’t it.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Yes they do. Would like like to play “The Naked Assertion Game” for $200, Alex?

Main Entry: 1wor·ship
Pronunciation: \ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe -ship
Date: before 12th century
1chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

Now do explain how I as an atheist worship anything, let along science.

Definition #3 and #4.

The religious practice of the atheist is accepting the religious dogma that “there are no dogmas”, and then devoting themselves to the proposition that “man is perfectable for no reason other than ‘it’s a good idea’”.

That is the faith and worship of the (relatively good) atheist.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Lying IS very unChristian-like, but VERY VERY atheist-like.

Oops, you’ve done it again. Do explain your supposid correlation between lying and being an atheist.

Once again the atheist confuses the act with the person.

Atheists TEND to lie more than most “normal people” due to the efficacy of lying, and their valuing “efficacy of action” over “rightness-goodness of action”.

Lying is a stated evil to Christians, while it is an “acceptable option” to an atheist.

Atheists will SAY that their ethics prohibit lying, while having no basis for lying being “worthy of prohibition”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
What atheists call “universal law” is the real universal law minus one.

The one “law” that atheists compulsively leave out is the “uncaused cause” law.

The ability of an uncaused cause to affect it’s self-caused creation is NOT “proof” of the invalidity of the uncaused cause!

Is is simply THE answer to the otherwise necessary infinitely regressive “problem” of the “start” (and “end”) of existence.

Proof of God does not prove “universal lawlessness”, and the fact of universal law does not prove the nonexistence of God.

Well, there is no uncaused cause law.

Then what caused the first “thing which exists”?

Secondly, if everything needs a cause then so do any alleged gods. [/qoote]

That is true of “the gods” but not of God. The uncaused cause is the definition of God.

If everything doesn’t need a cause there is no need for any gods or any uncaused causes. You can’t have it both ways.

Your statement only shows your ignorance of what “God” means.

Finally, invoking a double standard is always an admission of a failed argument.

There is no double standard. Please explain to me what this supposed double standard is?

God is capable of action which overides what you consider normal universal (physical) law, just as you can overide gravity by picking up your fork to eat your lunch.

 

[Sideline]

It’s hard to understand what it is like to be an Atheist if you aren’t and it’s hard to understand what it is like to be a Christian if you aren’t.

I agree with this. If you have ever looked at those vase/face pictures you know that you can look at it as a face, or as a vase, but not both at the same time. It’s strictly either/or.

And, I don’t mean people who were baptised and raised Christian and then left the faith behind. I mean people who have a deep, abiding relationship with God.

This is a perfect example of Christian-think.

What makes you think that a person who that left their faith behind had a more shallow faith than you have? I have no idea what your faith is like, but I find to imagine that you were more committed to it than I was.

Consider the following statements, all of which ***I ***made before I cast off what must have been my shallow, transitory faith in God:

“The only thing I know for sure is that God exists. Everything else could be a lie, but I can’t imagine being wrong about God.”

“I find it depressing going to a Catholic school. I haven’t found another student who seems to think that God is important all. Why doesn’t anyone else at school seem to feel any urgency about pleasing God.” (This probably isn’t an exact quote. I can’t imagine that I would have used the word “urgency” when I was in grade 2, but I can’t think of what word I would have used.)

“You don’t understand, when you insult God, you are insulting my best friend. I feel caught in the middle of my two closest friends having a fight, and I can’t do anything about it.”

“She has to get better, we all prayed for it.”

I said all of those things in perfect sincerity. My faith wasn’t trivial to me. You shouldn’t assume it was.

For those of us who take our relationship with God seriously, the answer “God” to your three questions isn’t just a pat answer in the absence of any other response. The Christian God is Creator, He is way beyond our understanding, He is THE answer. Our understanding of God explains everything. It all makes sense.

That’s what I told myself too. Until I started digging deeper and realizing that my profound and deep answers were simply justifications to deal with all of the contradictions I was faced with.

Perhaps your understanding is far deeper than mine, but I could never make all of the puzzle pieces fit.

Unfortunately, the blind man continues to demand that we prove that light exists…and we continue to talk past one another.

Are you the one who is blind in this analogy, or me?

Because I’m pretty sure if I said you were blind to the truth you would find that insulting.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Atheists can’t believe that this “hate the sin not the sinner” behavior is possible because it’s NOT possible for them, because the “faith” of atheism REQUIRES that “sins” and “sinners” be an IDENTITY!

Oh, I perfectly understand the concept, hate X not the Xer. One can hate Christianity but get nicely along with Christians. No problem.

That would be correct!

Those who hate Christianity qua Christianity (meaning Christianity as it is and not as haters of it imagine it) do so for reasons which can be shown to be in error.

Those who hate Atheism qua Atheism do so for reasons which can not be shown to be in error.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
“Temporal power” means specifically and definitionally NOT the Church. Period.

If some “Churchman” does the job of a temporal power, he is a temporal power and not a Churchman.

That some possibly very sinful Church member exercised temporal power in a sinful way is irrelevant to The Fact that The Church qua The Church does not exercise temporal power.

Is the Pope not ex officio the head of Vatican City?

If not, who is?

I’m not an expert in Vatican Temporal affairs. This would be an excellent question to ask in it’s own thread.

You have to remember though, that as long as the temporal laws of a “state” don’t contradict the Church’s “rules” (dogma) there is nothing to keep a Church member from temporally ruling that “state”.

It’s when temporal laws violate Church dogma that the exercisor of those temporal laws is never acting in the name of the Church.

 

[ateista]

And atheists DO lie through their teeth to become politicians and notaries.

Just another unproven assertion of yours.

The reason they can’t become these things, or shouldn’t become these things (as I’m not really sure this is true but will accept the proposition) is because they have no basis on which to take oathes.

NO true atheist can ever be trusted, as they have no “gound” (basis) for their “ethics and morals”. No God = No ethical/moral foundation.

The “well-behaved” atheist is the one who realises that they shouldn’t run for office or become notaries, or do any other activity which relies on having a well-founded ethic/moral-system.

I wish I could use a stronger word, but I will just say “baloney”!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcoPolo
I have much respect for people who have a drive for the sciences, and I do not criticize anyone’s effort for drawing reasoned conclusions about something they cannot see, but use deduction about what is behind what they can see.

Your initial post said most atheists substitute unobservable entities for God. However much I praise your respect for those with a scientific bent, I’d really like to hear if you would consider my answers as God-substitutes.

Whatever you consider “the creator” (even if it is “there was never any noncreated state”) is the atheistic “God the Creator”.

Whenever a person behaves in such a way that is not permissible by Catholic dogma, they make themselves their own “God the Orderer”.

Those are the two “biggies”.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Your initial post said most atheists substitute unobservable entities for God. However much I praise your respect for those with a scientific bent, I’d really like to hear if you would consider my answers as God-substitutes.

I did not say they present an “entity” as a substitute, but they will provide explanations that also involve the unobservable. That’s what I meant by “substituting” for God. I would say your answers to origins of the universe and miracles meet that criteria. But unlike how some atheists view the Christian view of God, I would not say your views are tantamount to believing in unicorns just because neither can be proven definitively.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
And atheists DO lie through their teeth to become politicians and notaries.

Just another unproven assertion of yours.

You’re quite right! I have no proof. But does it seem statistically reasonable to YOU that not ONE atheist who REALLY wanted to be a politician or a notary would not lie about the atheism?

You’re the “scientist”! What do you suppose the numbers look like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
The reason they can’t become these things, or shouldn’t become these things (as I’m not really sure this is true but will accept the proposition) is because they have no basis on which to take oathes.

NO true atheist can ever be trusted, as they have no “gound” (basis) for their “ethics and morals”. No God = No ethical/moral foundation.

The “well-behaved” atheist is the one who realises that they shouldn’t run for office or become notaries, or do any other activity which relies on having a well-founded ethic/moral-system.

I wish I could use a stronger word, but I will just say “baloney”!

Of dourse you’d say that!

The question is WHY what I said is “baloney”?

How about being a good “forum citizen” and actually ADDING some information with your postings in response to others!?

Breathlessly awaiting your response…