INSIGHTS ON ATHEISM

[kjvail]

Continued…

Someone opined there was a difference between athiesm and secular humanism, there really is not. Both deny the existance of a transcendent source of morality. Both make the mistake of assuming the perfectibility of man and worship at the altar of man’s intellect.

Main Entry: athe·ist [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis02.wav=atheist’))
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

• athe·is·tic [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis03.wav=atheistic’)) /"A-thE-‘is-tik/ *or *athe·is·ti·cal [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis04.wav=atheistical’)) /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
• athe·is·ti·cal·ly [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis05.wav=atheistically’)) /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: secular humanism
Function: noun
**: HUMANISM **3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion

• secular humanist noun or adjective

In any case, I remained a Wiccan for a few years. I never joined a group, I was what is called a ‘solo practicioner’, but I didn’t really practice much of anything. I just had a belief system. The belief system did what was necessary for my recovery, as far as that went. I stayed clean.
During this time I became interested in politics. My father had been a staunch Republican, active in the local party. In college, I guess as a form of rebellion, I became interested in Marxism. It was athiestic, as I was at the time, and I thought very intellectual. Again I was guilty of excessive pride, I thought I was part of some elite group of people that was just so much smarter than everyone else.
In recovery I became interested in conservative and libertarian politics, I was working overnights at a chemical dependency hospital and I would listen to Rush Limbaugh 3 hours a night on the radio.
I managed to keep my political beliefs and my spiritual beliefs separate for a while, most pagans are politically leftist, into environmental movements and stuff such as that. Which makes sense because they worship the Earth.
Within the last two years I finally admitted to myself that what I was doing was unsatisfying and I found that politically I agreed with the so-called “religious right” about 95% of the time. I finally broke down this last wall and began to study Christianity.
As a conservative I belief that ideas are tested by time and experience, considering that most Protestant denominations are less than 200 years old I would consider them still untested. There was really only two Churchs to consider - Catholic or Orthodox. Once I discovered that the Orthodox church was a spin-off of the Catholic Church I knew where I had to begin.
I’m still there now, I plan to take the RCIA classes this year and will make my final decision when it comes time for baptism.
In the mean time I’ve devoured all the Catholic theology I can find. I couldn’t have been more wrong about Christianity being simplistic, I find my intellect stimulated by 2000 years of philsophy and discussion. I wish I could say I had a conversion experience or something, that the Holy Spirit had grabbed me but it hasn’t so far. I am still at the intellectual level, but my mind and heart are open and that is a signficant change. It is a process, the 2nd step of AA says “we came to believe in a power greater than ourselves” this is a statement of a process, not an event.

 

[S.J]

Kevin,

Great story. The intellectual journey comes first for many. Pray often and strive for holiness. The conversion of the heart takes place in many instances after once has accepted Christianity intellectaully and has led a good Christian life.

You may want to get the story of Fr. John Corapi over at catholcity.com. It is free! He was born Catholic but drifted off into materialism and worshiping the god of self for many years. Eventually he became a mulit-millionaire and a cocaine addict. Now he is a Catholic priest. His story is incredible. I would highly recommend it given your history.

 

[wildlifer]

Carl:

WILDLIFER

As far as I’m concerned, anyone who claims once to have been an athiest and then “converted,” was never an athiest in the first place

That’s like saying anyone who was a Christian and became an atheist was never a Christian in the first place. You can’t have it both ways. By this logic, such a person cannot claim to have any knowledge or experience of Christianity because he was always an atheist, and therefore doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he mouths off against it.

Being since I’m new here, I won’t get too bent out of place about my statements being misquoted.

I finished the statement, by saying they were agnostic.

If you quote me do it honestly please.

 

[wildlifer]

Carl:

WILDLIFER
I commented on the decline of morals over the last fifty years by pointing to NAMNLA. To which you answered:

Oh yes, and the Catholic Church has set a fine moral example here haven’t they?

Well, you’ve made my case, haven’t you? Moreover, the sins of pedophilia were committed by certain bishops and priests, not by the Catholic Church. You own the shallow assumption that the Church is the clergy. The Church is much bigger than that clergy. It is even much bigger than the laity. It is the Body of Christ on Earth and in Purgatory and in Heaven.

I was speaking also of the harboring and protection of said pedophiles by the Church.

 

[wildlifer]

Carl:

WILDLIFER

Wrong decade. the 50s was the era of McCarthy’s communist (read atheist) witch hunts.

Hmmmmm.

Then, of course, the Soviet Union later had its own little Communist witch hunt, didn’t it?

After which you go on to comment on pornographic comic books in the 1940’s and 50’s. I was born in 1940. Never saw them. Which makes my point, that children were generally protected from the sordid aspects of that sub-culture. But the sub-culture today has become the super-culture. Children today have easy access to pornography, and child pornography is rampant in a way unimagineable in the 1940’s.

True, the form of medium has changed. But my point is, the information has always been out there.
And again, for concerned parents, there’s always an off switch. But that would mean they actually have to interact with their children, because the TV could no longer babysit.

 

[wildlifer]

S.J.:

The intelligence of the most primitive of men was still far superior to the animals of today.

Then again there are always exceptions. But evidence would be nice.

You may look to random evolution and natural selection to explain this glaring discrepancy - whereas I attribute it to further evidence of our Divine nature.

What you call a discrepancy, I call evidence for evolution.

There is something very special about man - we are not the by-product of random biological and chemical reactions.

Yes that’s the problem of anthropocentric thinking.

BTW, there are more than a few evolutionary biologists who are stumped by the argument that I have presented here.

LOL, this I’ve got to see.

 

[Carl]

kjvail

I found your conversion story very interesting. I’m wondering if there is a CONVERSION STORIES thread anywhere at Catholic Answers. If not, you might be the best person to start one with your own story. If you do, let me know.

God bless,
Carl

 

[Carl]

I was speaking also of the harboring and protection of said pedophiles by the Church.

See post # 237.

 

[Carl]

ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC?

The atheist is certain. The agnostic is not certain. The atheist has an intense dislike for the very idea of God, and, generally speaking, can barely contain himself from lashing out at the true believers. The agnostic is merely indifferent to the idea of God and leaves believers alone, perhaps hoping they will do him the same favor.

There are, of course, exceptions to the rule. Bertrand Russell called himself an agnostic, rather than an atheist.Yet, scattered throughout his essays are remarks indicating a virulent dislike of anything Christian. Russell loved to disparage the Catholic Church for the crimes of individuals who called themselves Catholic. Never once did he show any inkling of understanding about the Church and how it works in the world. The Church is a bulwark against evil. That does not mean there are not evil men and women who claim membership in the Body of Christ. Judas claimed membership. His crime was not the crime of all the apostles and all those who truly believed. Christianity was not a grand hypocrisy because Judas betrayed his friendship with Christ. Nor is the Catholic Church a grand hypocrisy because a few priests and bishops have betrayed their calling.

The argument of people like Russell and Wildlifer is no more valid than would be the argument of anyone who said that the medical profession is hypocritical because a few physicians violate their Hippocratic Oath by exploiting their patients.

But that never stops atheists from using the argument. All we have to know is how to answer it.

 

[Shibboleth]

S.J.

I do not know what scientist that you are talking to but they should have their doctorates taken away until they have a better understanding of evolution theory.

I agree that God has intervened and that has led to an animal that transcends the rest of the animal kingdom, but intelligence does not have anything to do with it.

First off, evolution does not mean that animals are working to become more and more intelligent. It means that when genetic mutations happen if they have a positive effect on the possibility of survival of the animal then that mutation will become more prevalent over time. This eventually leads to changes in the species.

We have not seen more intelligent animals arise because either the genetic mutations have not happened or they have not helped in the survival and procreation of the species. However, shorter beaks, elephants born without tusks, and the like have started showing up to be more prevalent in the animal kingdom.

As you brought up Neanderthals existed and had a higher intelligence than the other primates of today. This is actually detrimental to your argument. Humans did not evolve from Neanderthals, in fact we cohabitated the earth for a short period of time. In addition, DNA testing is showing that we may have even cross mated with the species, but this is uncertain at this time.

It took how many years for humans to gain the intellegence that we have today through evolution? We killed off the last of the Neanderthals not too long ago. The world has not had time to create another intellegent species, I don’t know if it ever will. It might go the route of the dinosour next - bigger, badder, bolder - not more intellegent.

Man did not evolve from Apes either; evidence has shown that they coevolved with us…

Here’s another kicker – some of our ancestral species actually had larger brain cavities, hence larger brains…

 

[Carl]

DNA testing is showing that we may have even cross mated with the species, but this is uncertain at this time.

None of this *may have * stuff. DNA testing is very positive proof. Either we did or we didn’t. Get your facts(?) straight!

*It took how many years for humans to gain the intellegence that we have today through evolution? We killed off the last of the Neanderthals not too long ago. *

How do you know we did? Were you there to witness the great event?

More specious evolution theory.

 

[S.J]

Shiboleth,

I was commenting on the general theory that life has evolved from the simple to the complex over time. Your point that complexity does not equal intelligence is valid. My contention was to counter the evolutionary argument that man is simply and only an animal, and that genetics are soley responsible for the gap in intelligence between man and the other animal species.

And BTW, there are holes in the evoultionary model that are not explained, and in fact, do not make sense. Evolution is not a fact, even though it is one of the holy grails of atheism.

And to answer a previous post - yes - there are evolutionary biologists who can not account for human cognitive ability in their evolutionary model. For example, the whole idea of “consciousness” is a complete mystery to neurobiologists.

Wish I could chat more - off for a week at the beach enjoying God’s wonderful creation

 

[S.J]

Carl:

ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC?

The atheist is certain. The agnostic is not certain. The atheist has an intense dislike for the very idea of God, and, generally speaking, can barely contain himself from lashing out at the true believers. The agnostic is merely indifferent to the idea of God and leaves believers alone, perhaps hoping they will do him the same favor.

There are, of course, exceptions to the rule. Bertrand Russell called himself an agnostic, rather than an atheist.Yet, scattered throughout his essays are remarks indicating a virulent dislike of anything Christian. Russell loved to disparage the Catholic Church for the crimes of individuals who called themselves Catholic. Never once did he show any inkling of understanding about the Church and how it works in the world. The Church is a bulwark against evil. That does not mean there are not evil men and women who claim membership in the Body of Christ. Judas claimed membership. His crime was not the crime of all the apostles and all those who truly believed. Christianity was not a grand hypocrisy because Judas betrayed his friendship with Christ. Nor is the Catholic Church a grand hypocrisy because a few priests and bishops have betrayed their calling.

The argument of people like Russell and Wildlifer is no more valid than would be the argument of anyone who said that the medical profession is hypocritical because a few physicians violate their Hippocratic Oath by exploiting their patients.

But that never stops atheists from using the argument. All we have to know is how to answer it.

Exactly Carl -

Medicine itself is not bad if there are bad doctors.

Law is not bad if there are bad attorneys.

As an aside, abuse of minors is no greater among the Catholic clergy than it is among the gerenal population. In fact, I just read a report showing that the highest instances of child abuse are taking place in our public school system. See what happens when you take God out of the classroom.

 

[Shibboleth]

DNA testing is showing that we may have even cross mated with the species, but this is uncertain at this time.

None of this *may have * stuff. DNA testing is very positive proof. Either we did or we didn’t. Get your facts(?) straight!

What the heck. I didn’t expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. With test on some humans they are seeing spikes in their DNA samples that do not come from the Homohabilis, Homoerectus, lineage. However they do show signs that these spikes are in line from what we would expect from Neanderthals. So we can only conclude that Humans have spikes that do not come from our ancestry – same with some mitochondria test.

Carl:

How do you know we did? Were you there to witness the great event?

More specious evolution theory.

Nope, I didn’t witness the flood or dinosaurs either… I have not witnessed France or electrons or gastrointestinal infection, this is not evidence for non-existence.

Scientific evidence has shown that homosapiens most definitely walked the Earth the same time as Neanderthals. If you want to discard science fine, but never use it to defend your point of view.

If you want to argue against some of the problems with science proper (Thomas Kuhn and the like)- I am all ears. I will probably agree with you on some points.

media.isnet.org/iptek/Evolution/Neanderthals.html

 

[Shibboleth]

S.J.:

And BTW, there are holes in the evoultionary model that are not explained, and in fact, do not make sense. Evolution is not a fact, even though it is one of the holy grails of atheism.

And to answer a previous post - yes - there are evolutionary biologists who can not account for human cognitive ability in their evolutionary model. For example, the whole idea of “consciousness” is a complete mystery to neurobiologists.

Yes there are some massive holes in evolution that are problematic. I agree with you there.

Consciousness is a metaphysical thing that Science will most likely never be able to explain through empirical evidence or Logical Positivism – the same with “causal connection.” Many psychologists, mostly in the behaviorist area, do not think that consciousness actually exists but is an illusion created by underlying physiological processes. This belief is called epiphenomenalism.

Other people will hold that all things have some sort of consciousness or at least awareness. Sunflowers turn with the sun therefore they are aware of the external. I find this point of view to be highly problematic.

 

[Shibboleth]

Carl:

How do you know we did? Were you there to witness the great event?

I missed what you were getting at here. No I do not think that we killed off all of the Neanderthals. They were adapted to cold climates and the ice age this was one of their major downfalls.

 

[kjvail]

Continued…

Someone opined there was a difference between athiesm and secular humanism, there really is not. Both deny the existance of a transcendent source of morality. Both make the mistake of assuming the perfectibility of man and worship at the altar of man’s intellect.

Main Entry: athe·ist [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis02.wav=atheist’))
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

• athe·is·tic [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis03.wav=atheistic’)) /"A-thE-‘is-tik/ *or *athe·is·ti·cal [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis04.wav=atheistical’)) /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
• athe·is·ti·cal·ly [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis05.wav=atheistically’)) /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: secular humanism
Function: noun
**: HUMANISM **3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion

• secular humanist noun or adjective

In any case, I remained a Wiccan for a few years. I never joined a group, I was what is called a ‘solo practicioner’, but I didn’t really practice much of anything. I just had a belief system. The belief system did what was necessary for my recovery, as far as that went. I stayed clean.
During this time I became interested in politics. My father had been a staunch Republican, active in the local party. In college, I guess as a form of rebellion, I became interested in Marxism. It was athiestic, as I was at the time, and I thought very intellectual. Again I was guilty of excessive pride, I thought I was part of some elite group of people that was just so much smarter than everyone else.
In recovery I became interested in conservative and libertarian politics, I was working overnights at a chemical dependency hospital and I would listen to Rush Limbaugh 3 hours a night on the radio.
I managed to keep my political beliefs and my spiritual beliefs separate for a while, most pagans are politically leftist, into environmental movements and stuff such as that. Which makes sense because they worship the Earth.
Within the last two years I finally admitted to myself that what I was doing was unsatisfying and I found that politically I agreed with the so-called “religious right” about 95% of the time. I finally broke down this last wall and began to study Christianity.
As a conservative I belief that ideas are tested by time and experience, considering that most Protestant denominations are less than 200 years old I would consider them still untested. There was really only two Churchs to consider - Catholic or Orthodox. Once I discovered that the Orthodox church was a spin-off of the Catholic Church I knew where I had to begin.
I’m still there now, I plan to take the RCIA classes this year and will make my final decision when it comes time for baptism.
In the mean time I’ve devoured all the Catholic theology I can find. I couldn’t have been more wrong about Christianity being simplistic, I find my intellect stimulated by 2000 years of philsophy and discussion. I wish I could say I had a conversion experience or something, that the Holy Spirit had grabbed me but it hasn’t so far. I am still at the intellectual level, but my mind and heart are open and that is a signficant change. It is a process, the 2nd step of AA says “we came to believe in a power greater than ourselves” this is a statement of a process, not an event.

 

[wildlifer]

Carl:

ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC?
The atheist has an intense dislike for the very idea of God, and, generally speaking, can barely contain himself from lashing out at the true believers.

This is false, as well as a bigoted stereotype. The only reason I jumped into this thread was to defend atheism from those lashing out in an apparent “intense dislike for the very idea.”
I am not evangelical and can care less about people’s private beliefs, as long as they are kept private. I’m also not out to convert anyone, because my beliefs aren’t validated by the number of people agreeing with them.

The agnostic is merely indifferent to the idea of God and leaves believers alone, perhaps hoping they will do him the same favor.

There are, of course, exceptions to the rule. Bertrand Russell called himself an agnostic, rather than an atheist.Yet, scattered throughout his essays are remarks indicating a virulent dislike of anything Christian. Russell loved to disparage the Catholic Church for the crimes of individuals who called themselves Catholic. Never once did he show any inkling of understanding about the Church and how it works in the world. The Church is a bulwark against evil. That does not mean there are not evil men and women who claim membership in the Body of Christ. Judas claimed membership. His crime was not the crime of all the apostles and all those who truly believed. Christianity was not a grand hypocrisy because Judas betrayed his friendship with Christ. Nor is the Catholic Church a grand hypocrisy because a few priests and bishops have betrayed their calling.

That wasn’t my point and you know it. You created a strawman of my argument so you could burn it down. Well done.
You held up your religion as a beacon of light in a cesspool of moral decay and I showed you that wasn’t the case when I spoke of the “moral” example set by its systemic coddling and protection of criminals. It wasn’t just a “few priests and bishops,” it went all the way to Rome. Does that make all Catholics pedophiles? No, but it does speak to its legitimacy as a source for “absolute” morality.
That old adage about throwing stones seems appropo.

The argument of people like Russell and Wildlifer is no more valid than would be the argument of anyone who said that the medical profession is hypocritical because a few physicians violate their Hippocratic Oath by exploiting their patients.

Well it is a capitalist society, so all physicians do exploit their patients, in one way or another.

 

[wildlifer]

Carl:

WILDLIFER

How can you make so many false statements in one post?

No murder wasn’t taboo

Read the story of Cain and Abel, where God appeals to Cain’s conscience and urges him to follow it.

Taboo? Where to start …?
*When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations–the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Deuteronomy 7:1-2
*

 

[Carl]

*We killed off the last of the Neanderthals not too long ago. *

How do you know we did? Were you there to witness the great event?

More comic strip evolution theory.