I just wanted to clarify something out about Atheist

[JimO]

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.

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

First, I had no idea that you had been Catholic and was speaking generally. I had no intention of insulting you or passing judgment on you. I apologize if I insulted you. I’m not trying to judge the depth of anyone’s faith, I just know a lot of people who don’t practice the faith and their reasons are not that they quit believing based on examining the evidence. In each case where I am familiar with the circumstances the reasons typically involve a lifestyle choice that is in conflict with the teachings of the Church or disappointment that God’s will didn’t line up with their own. I’ve known people who lost a loved one and got angry at God and “became Atheists.” I’ve known others who have grown closer to God through suffering. The people that I have known who have lived a life-long relationship with God have accepted circumstances as His will, seek His will and not their own, reach out to others in humility and selflessness, and are at peace. I have never seen anyone with a mature faith like this become an Atheist.
Sideline; 4115585:

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.

I really didn’t intend my post to be a personal attack on you. This analogy speaks to someone asking for proof of something they do not believe in to start with and who refuse to engage the only part of themselves that could accept the evidence used for the proof because they do not believe that part exists. Doesn’t this describe the Atheist? Most Atheists start with the premise that God doesn’t exist and that the human person does not have a spirit or soul and that faith is just blind belief without any evidence. I contend that the faculty allowing one to evaluate metaphysical and experiential evidence is the spirit or soul. So the analogy fits and there is no insult in it. It is a choice you make to reject certain evidence because simply acknowledging the evidence in and of itself would compromise your position. No insult is intended. I am simply pointing out the realities involved in the Christian and the Atheist even entering into a debate.

The biggest problem I have with the Atheists I know personally is that they think that they are intellectually superior to the Theist by virtue of the fact that they have accepted the truth and that they don’t need a psychological crutch to cope with the hopelessness that this life is it. These same individuals also place a great emphasis on their own opinion as though their personal lack of belief in God causes Him not to exist. They won’t even consider the possibility that God exists. I’ve seriously considered the possibility that God doesn’t exist and I’m at peace with myself. If He doesn’t and I die into nothingness, then I have no regrets. I also know that there are a lot of arrogant Christians out there who act very un-Christlike towards those who don’t share their beliefs. That is simply wrong. My primary point in this thread is that even framing a debate between a Christian and an Atheist is problematic because we can’t even agree on the ground rules for the discussion.

 

[Sideline]

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”.

I’m all-knowing. I think that you should just accept that, because this entire post will make more sense that way.

When you disagree with me, you are not really disagreeing with me, you are merely substituting other ideas for my ideas.

So when you say, “Your argument is illogical.” You are merely substituting the idea, “I can be right,” with the truth, which is “Sideline is right, because he is all-knowing.”

It is a common mistake for people to make. Not everyone is all-knowing the way that I am, and so their logic often falls short of perfection.

Now you might think that this argument isn’t the same as your argument, but again that is merely substituting the idea that you can be right about something independently of agreeing with me.

 

[JimO]

I’m all-knowing. I think that you should just accept that, because this entire post will make more sense that way.

CaD deserved that!

 

[Sideline]

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.

Why not?

Why wouldn’t you say that my beliefs are the same as belief in unicorns? Are you just holding yourself back to be nice, or do you really think there is something more to my position than there is to unicorn-belief?

 

[Sideline]

CaD deserved that!

Thanks Jim!

That means a lot coming from you. :tiphat:

Edit: That wasn’t meant to be sarcastic. I appreciate that the comment has come from a Catholic whom I believe is reasonable and arguing in good faith.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Why not?

Why wouldn’t you say that my beliefs are the same as belief in unicorns? Are you just holding yourself back to be nice, or do you really think there is something more to my position than there is to unicorn-belief?

Unless you can present some kind of forensic rationale for the existence of unicorns like you could for say, the Big Bang, then unicorns are simply a fanciful creation of fiction whereas the Big Bang theory is based on what we know about current physics and atoms and geology and other fun stuff. You think the existence of unicorns are just as logical as our assumptions about what dinosaurs looked like based on the skeletons we find? That’s deduction too.

 

[Isambard]

Unless you can present some kind of forensic rationale for the existence of unicorns like you could for say, the Big Bang, then unicorns are simply a fanciful creation of fiction whereas the Big Bang theory is based on what we know about current physics and atoms and geology and other fun stuff. You think the existence of unicorns are just as logical as our assumptions about what dinosaurs looked like based on the skeletons we find? That’s deduction too.

Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible. There also reports from eye witnesses across history of unicorns.

If this is enough to verify Jesus, why not unicorns?

 

[Isambard]

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.

Ah the Naked Assertion, a bigot’s favorite.

I really would love to see what atheist creed you got your hands on to demonstrate what you mentioned above. Else, Im afriad you’ll have to confess lying on a public forum to your priest come friday.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible. There also reports from eye witnesses across history of unicorns.

If this is enough to verify Jesus, why not unicorns?

Ok we’re talking about Jesus and not God the first cause so we’re on the same page here. As I stated, prior to Jesus’ Incarnation there were prophecies which he fulfilled, there were multiple witnesses to his miracles, and a myriad of witnesses from the earliest who died for that belief. Miracles even continue today in His name.

The “unicorn in the Bible” is a translation from the Hebrew word re’em which may be indicative of a single horned animal or not. Nevertheless, this animal is described in a list in the book of Job along side a number of other real animals. Whether single-horned or multi-horned, this animal called “unicorn” in the Bible could have been anything from an Assyrian wild ox called an auroch which apparently went extinct in the 17th century to other types of rhinoceroses.

 

[Sideline]

First, I had no idea that you had been Catholic and was speaking generally. I had no intention of insulting you or passing judgment on you.

For future reference you might want to consider that ***all ***fallen away Catholics are individuals. Some of them may never have cared about their faith, but many probably did.

I apologize if I insulted you.

Apology accepted.

The people that I have known who have lived a life-long relationship with God have accepted circumstances as His will, seek His will and not their own, reach out to others in humility and selflessness, and are at peace. I have never seen anyone with a mature faith like this become an Atheist.

Well, by definition, a life-long Catholic would be one who never became an atheist. So I guess I have to agree with that one.

You really haven’t met any bitter, self-important, and resentful life-long Catholics? Try living in a monastery for awhile. I promise you, you’ll meet several of them. I was out on a walk with a man who had been a priest for 30 years. There was a 15 year old girl walking on the opposite side of the street. They had had problems with students sneaking out after hours to visit her. He shouted out, loudly, and in front of at least a dozen people, “Why don’t you go sell it on another street.”

Of course, I met many wonderful people there as well. But they certainly weren’t all as you described.

I contend that the faculty allowing one to evaluate metaphysical and experiential evidence is the spirit or soul. So the analogy fits and there is no insult in it. It is a choice you make to reject certain evidence because simply acknowledging the evidence in and of itself would compromise your position.

Let’s say that I live in a society of people who can’t see. I am the only one who has the ability to see. At first it might seem impossible to prove to these people that I can see. But if we think about it, there is a way.

We could have me stand a long distance away from people and tell them how many fingers they are holding up. I could tell them things that I could not possibly know if I had to touch, taste, smell, or hear them. Odds are I would be right every single time I tried it.

Now, you claim I have a soul, right? I apparently posses the ability to perceive God, but I am just not trying or allowing myself to see Him. This should make proving Him all the easier. I am quite willing to accept I have a soul, at least provisionally. Let’s test it.

How can we distinguish my soul’s awareness of God from my other senses? We are talking about something different from just an emotional reaction aren’t we? How will I know if I am perceiving God, and when do I know I am just imagining it?

Perhaps you can’t think of a test, that’s okay. Just demonstrate to me that your soul is functioning. Demonstrate to me something that would be impossible for me if I were not perceiving God. Could God tell you something about me that you couldn’t have gleaned form your other senses?

Or is God more abstract than that? Is God more of an equation that I don’t possess the faculties to understand? That’s a little different than lacking a sense, but perhaps we can still work with it.

Seriously, if you can demonstrate that you have the ability to perceive God, and can teach me to do the same, you are my new best friend.

I have no patience with someone who is going to try and get me to imagine that there is a God, or to try and become emotionally attached to the idea of God. But if you are really talking about a whole new sense that will allow me to perceive God, like I said, you are my new best friend.

No insult is intended. I am simply pointing out the realities involved in the Christian and the Atheist even entering into a debate.

I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you think it is.

The biggest problem I have with the Atheists I know personally is that they think that they are intellectually superior to the Theist by virtue of the fact that they have accepted the truth and that they don’t need a psychological crutch to cope with the hopelessness that this life is it.

I have seen this in both theist and atheist arguments as well. People who think they are right tend to think they are superior to the people they think are wrong. I’m in the fortunate position of knowing both theists and atheists who are far smarter than I am.

My primary point in this thread is that even framing a debate between a Christian and an Atheist is problematic because we can’t even agree on the ground rules for the discussion.

Well, I’ve suggested a place to start. What do you think?

 

[Sideline]

Unless you can present some kind of forensic rationale for the existence of unicorns like you could for say, the Big Bang, then unicorns are simply a fanciful creation of fiction whereas the Big Bang theory is based on what we know about current physics and atoms and geology and other fun stuff. You think the existence of unicorns are just as logical as our assumptions about what dinosaurs looked like based on the skeletons we find? That’s deduction too.

So… not to get sidetracked onto unicorns.

What is the basis for our deductions about God? On what are they based?

Can you base them in the sciences the way you can the Big Bang, or is there something different about them?

 

[MindOverMatter]

The reason someone is an Atheist is due to lack of EVIDENCE. That is the only thing that can lead you to become an atheist.

There are two kinds of Atheists.

1. Atheists by desire: People who reject God in response to some desire that is not fulfilled by a belief in God. Such persons is unlikely be persuaded by reason to theism, because they base their disbelief on irrational grounds. However, if belief in God becomes a more profitable desire due to circumstance, you might see a conversion or two.
2. Philosophical Atheists: People who reject God only because they believe that naturalism is a more logical system and can explain reality better then God. They do not necessarily “desire” disbelief. In addition, if they are arguing against the Christian God, they may reasonably raise the problem of evil as an indicator that God most probably does not exist. The smart ones do not say that it is impossible. If such a person is presented with a more plausible explanation then naturalism, then they might convert.

Atheists can sometimes be a mixture of 1 and 2. Together, they make what I call an Invincible-Atheist. It is very improbable that such a person would convert; since the union of the two would reinforce disbelief. Such persons sometimes harbor a deep prejudiced and hatred for anything religous.

1. And then you have socail Agnosticism (Not Empirical Agnosticism): Agnosticism necessarily leads to an Atheistic-lifestyle (They have no faith); however, a true Agnostic is not prejudiced of Theism or supernatural explanations. An Agnostic is usually somebody who has come to the conclusion that neither Naturalism nor the various strands of Theism, provide enough evidence to convert to either side. An Agnostic would also point out that God is most probably beyond the human ability to prove. Some Agnostics are simply at a stage where they are not sure about God, and will eventually sit on one side of the fence or the other as a matter of faith. However, Some Agnostics treat Agnosticism as a philosophical principle that any rational person should hold. In other words, they do not believe in “Faith”. In other words, they do not want to believe in “God”. This kind of Agnostic is really a number one Atheist who knows deep down that Naturalism is a fundamentally flawed system, but does not want to believe in God; and so they promote Agnosticism as a rational system; working vigorously to downplay the concept of “rational-faith”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The evidence for the existence God is the same as the evidence for the existence of unicorns, dragons and gnomes.

If this idea makes somebody more at ease about the concept of God, then so be it.

First of all, A unicorn has no explanatory power concerning existence; the meaning of life, morality, fulfillment, destiny and ultimately death. The concept of God does. A unicorn is irrelevant concerning these issues, since it itself is not an ultimate being.

Secondly, I cannot argue logically from the existence of things to the existence of a unicorn. There is nothing to imply that such a being exists. However, there are things about reality which implies Gods existence.

Thirdly, a Unicorn is a three-dimensional being that is said to exist, but nobody in any great number has ever seen one. Therefore we know that it is highly improbable that such a being exists and we can therefore ignore it; otherwise there would at least be fossils of gnomes and unicorns or some evidence of their existence.
God, on the other hand, has contacted many. God is invisible, not becuase of magic, but because God is an “Immaterial-Entity” by nature of existence, by nature of being the “first-cause” of absolutely everything we experience; God has to be immaterial by neccesity, if he is to explain physical reality. You cannot be the first cause of the Universe if in fact you are the Universe to begin with. God is the root cause of space/time, rather then a mere participant in it. Therefore our inability to see a physical being that is “God”, is explained by the fact that Gods nature transcends all dimensions of physical reality, while a Unicorns only excuse for not making more appearances is because it is hiding somewhere in a magical underground cavern somewhere. Gods miracles are explained by the fact that God controls reality and is the Creator of it, and so therefore it is reaonable that such a being can heal or change something within the space/time continuum.

It is a common flaw and a fallacy to think that the concept of God and the concept of a mythical creature such as a unicorn, share the same condition. People who make these kinds of arguments are not really interested in truth as such, but are merely looking for an excuse to side step the issue all together.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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”.

I’m all-knowing. I think that you should just accept that, because this entire post will make more sense that way.

I agree that if you were all-knowing that it would make perfect sense. Do you in fact claim to be all-knowing?

When you disagree with me, you are not really disagreeing with me, you are merely substituting other ideas for my ideas.

So when you say, “Your argument is illogical.” You are merely substituting the idea, “I can be right,” with the truth, which is “Sideline is right, because he is all-knowing.”

It is a common mistake for people to make. Not everyone is all-knowing the way that I am, and so their logic often falls short of perfection.

Now you might think that this argument isn’t the same as your argument, but again that is merely substituting the idea that you can be right about something independently of agreeing with me.

So, do you claim to be all-knowing?

I do not claim to be all-knowing. God, on the other hand, is all-knowing and from information given by Him I do claim what I claim.

So, let’s get down to brass tacks. Are you indeed all-knowing so that your words above should have ANY meaning whatsoever other than the ramblings of a counterfeit “god”?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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.

Ah the Naked Assertion, a bigot’s favorite.

What have I done that is “bigoted”?

I really would love to see what atheist creed you got your hands on to demonstrate what you mentioned above. Else, Im afriad you’ll have to confess lying on a public forum to your priest come friday.

Do atheists reject dogmas dogmatically, or not?

Do atheists propose that “man is perfectable for no reason other than ‘it’s a good idea’”, or not?

Please show me how that is “bigoted” and lying? I never claimed that all people who claim to be atheists (the so-called atheists) believe those two things, but ALL true atheists believe those two things.

Prove me wrong?

 

[Sideline]

I agree that if you were all-knowing that it would make perfect sense. Do you in fact claim to be all-knowing?

Let he who has ears hear the truth.

And yet I will only reveal the fullness of truth to those who approach me with humble heart.

I do not claim to be all-knowing. God, on the other hand, is all-knowing and from information given by Him I do claim what I claim.

Now all you need to do is show that God backs you up on this assertion.

So, let’s get down to brass tacks. Are you indeed all-knowing so that your words above should have ANY meaning whatsoever other than the ramblings of a counterfeit “god”?

I sense that you have it in your heart to test me. I will not be tested. Either you accept what I say with faith or you must do without my loving wisdom.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
I agree that if you were all-knowing that it would make perfect sense. Do you in fact claim to be all-knowing?

Let he who has ears hear the truth.

And yet I will only reveal the fullness of truth to those who approach me with humble heart.

Well, I haven’t heard of “your-supposedly-all-knowingness” from the Magisterium, so I think it wise to consider you a false-god.

Quote:
I do not claim to be all-knowing. God, on the other hand, is all-knowing and from information given by Him I do claim what I claim.

Now all you need to do is show that God backs you up on this assertion.

Why should I have to show this to “your all-knowingness”, unless you’re not all-knowing, which seems to confirm my conclusion that you are a false-god above.

Only God Himself can “back up” with certainty that anyone’s received information is from God. I certainly can’t “show you” that God has informed me of His existence and truths via the Magisterium. Only God can do that.

Quote:
So, let’s get down to brass tacks. Are you indeed all-knowing so that your words above should have ANY meaning whatsoever other than the ramblings of a counterfeit “god”?

I sense that you have it in your heart to test me. I will not be tested. Either you accept what I say with faith or you must do without my loving wisdom.

You will not provide what God alone can provide because God alone shows us how to tell false-gods from the true God.

I have no interest in testing you. You have tested yourself, failed, and shown yourself for what you are without any prompting whatsoever.

Thanks for making short work of yourself!

 

[ateista]

Well, I haven’t heard of “your-supposedly-all-knowingness” from the Magisterium, so I think it wise to consider you a false-god.

But it is merely your super-inflated ego and sinful pride that urges you to look for excuses when confronted with the Truth! Sideline’s omnsicience is an axiom. That you are unwilling to accept it only shows your sinful nature.

Why should I have to show this to “your all-knowingness”, unless you’re not all-knowing, which seems to confirm my conclusion that you are a false-god above.

Tsk, tsk… your pride again got into your way to understanding. It is simply axiomatic that Sideline is omnisicent. No one can deny it, and certainly you cannot, whose clear judgment is clouded by worshipping the devil. The devil is rejoicing when he sees how easy it was to sidetrack you when you keep spouting about “false gods”.

Only God Himself can “back up” with certainty that anyone’s received information is from God. I certainly can’t “show you” that God has informed me of His existence and truths via the Magisterium. Only God can do that.

No, no… you still do not comprehend. Sideline gave you the best, the perfect proof. It came from his own mouth, and you do not have to worry about possible distortions, mis-translations. The omniscient spoke, and you close your ears to his wisdom. It is your stubborn rejection of the axiomatic truth which prevents you from accepting the revelation!

You will not provide what God alone can provide because God alone shows us how to tell false-gods from the true God.

Evasions again. It is truly pathetic how you wish to evade the revealed Truth, the only Truth. It is quite obvious that the devil took all your reasoning powers away, and clouded your vision. But you can be strong and you can conquer it! You must repent, and pray to Sideline so he can enlighten you to his everlasting wisdom. Go and try. You must go and attempt to conquer the devil, after all it is your immortal soul that depends on it. I am sure if you pray long and hard enough, Sideline - in his benevolence - will open your eyes! It may take years and years, but you should persist and keep on praying. After all he answers all the prayers.

I have no interest in testing you. You have tested yourself, failed, and shown yourself for what you are without any prompting whatsoever.

How typical of the ones who are given the proof, but do not want to accept it! They try to catch straws and attempt to close their eyes and ears. It is surely their sinful pride that prevents them from accepting the one and true revelation.

Thanks for making short work of yourself!

Don’t give up. The cheap jokes you make are just another indication that your pride prevents you from seeing the light!

Important caveat: This post was directed to CaD only! It is not to be taken as a mockery of the faith of Catholics in general!

 

[MarcoPolo]

So… not to get sidetracked onto unicorns.

What is the basis for our deductions about God? On what are they based?

Can you base them in the sciences the way you can the Big Bang, or is there something different about them?

Not arguing Jesus’ divinity here…just for God the Father, the Creator…we know from all properties of motion, an outside force had to initiate time and space.

For further elaboration, may I recommend the philosopher Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existence of God. See also in that link his “Objection 2” on nature and first cause also applies here.

 

[AnAtheist]

If you deny the existence of the spirit, …]I realize that by definition a true Atheist cannot acknowledge the spirit, so we are stuck and we debate endlessly around the same old tired issues.

I don’t deny the existence of spirit, I just don’t assume it is something supernatural.

Finally, I have found that there are two general types of Atheists, those who simply do not believe in God and those who have rejected God.

To reject God one has to believe in his existence in the first place.
And for, “if God existed, I’d disliked him”: Depending on whom you ask, God isn’t a god worthy of worship, esp. the one from the AT. But for atheists that is a purely fictional issue, like “do I like Darth Vader, if he existed”? If Mars or Kali existed, would you like them?