INSIGHTS ON ATHEISM

[Carl]

You mean it’s taboo, unless God “commands” otherwise, and then it’s not taboo.

If we follow the commands of God, how can they be taboo? Abraham was ready to follow God’s command, though it meant the taking of his own son’s life. He trusted God. God rewarded him by staying the command.

It is when WE take it upon ourselves to break the commands of God that we sin. If we killed savagely on our own authority and for our own reasons every man, woman and child of a foreign tribe, that would be mass murder. But if we did the same at God’s command, we are exempt from the taboo.

Anticipating your answer, you will say this is a savage and self contradicting God. Not really. God’s laws are for God to give and suspend. That’s why miracles may occur in the natural world. Jesus raised Lazarus. Jesus contradicted the natural law by raising the dead. That was his prerogative as Creator: to give life, to take life, and to return to life.

Keep in mind that God takes all our lives sooner or later. Someone earlier came dangerously close to saying that this makes a murderer of God. No; God makes the rules, and God is free to change the rules. We saw some of this with the coming of Jesus, when the harshness of the Old Gospel was followed by the merciful gift of the New Gospel.

 

[Carl]

I said:

Based on your own evolutionary theory, rational is what we do on Thursday rather than Tuesday, because Thursday came after Tuesday and therefore we are enjoying the fruits of evolution. So if Thursday says no more slavery, but next Tuesday says let’s go back to slavery … THAT’S evolution. No violation of natural law … just evolution.

You said:

That is not my position, nor does it reflect my statements. I’ve already told you it would NOT be evolution, it would be devolution.

You have a tendancy to make statements that are generally undeveloped. Mind explaining this? What is devolution? Would an example of devolution be something like *homo sapiens * returning to something less than homo erectus?

I am not aware that this has ever happened in the evolutionary process. So you have some explaining to do.

You seem to be trying to develop a psychological concept using evolutionary language. If by devolution you mean that slavery would be returning to a nasty habit of our ancestors, you have not answered my point about the natural law; because instead of answering me whether going back to slavery would be wrong since it violates the natural law, you would merely be saying it’s devolution (a gassy abstraction).

When I taught writing classes in my lusty youth, such polysyllabic evasions as yours would not have escaped my wrathful pen.

This is not Christian swagger. This is father/son talk.

Be healed.

Carl

 

[Carl]

SOLARWNZ

Welcome to our discussion. Hope you stay.

You said:

*I’m captivated by the ideas being posited here but I am also incensed at the level of ad hominem being thrown around. I must say, certain individuals here are doing an awful lot of generalizing, name calling and debasing for people who profess to either: faithfully follow loving paths dedicated to the truth or those who commit to the challenge of intellectual discourse; or both! *

Yes, in the heat of battle, tempers do flair. However, I wonder if you don’t exaggerate.

You say:

*Here are some examples:

“If you believe in evolution you are not a true Christian”.
“You’re either an atheist and right or a theist and wrong”.
“If you don’t believe in god you have no morals.”
“You’re either a Christian or a disciple of the devil.”
“Theists blindly follow religion to comfort thier fear of death.”*

Would you mind giving the post number of the person who made the first point? I don’t remember hearing it.

Would you do the same for the second point? I don’t see this remark as slanderous or uncharitable. It is a necessary conclusion for any atheist to draw, even if the conclusion is wrong.

I’d really love to hear you identify the speaker (and the post) of the third point. So far as I know, no Catholic in this forum has said that all atheists have no morals. I certainly have not. You would know this if you have read the whole thread. What I have said, several times because it was provoked by atheists, was that Bertrand Russell liked to paint Christianity as a dangerous religion, while at the same time never conceding that atheism has proven in modern times (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) how dangerous it could be.

The fourth point likewise. I don’t recall reading this in any post. However, memory may fail me. If it was said, I apologize on behalf of the offender.

If the fifth point was made, I’d like to see the post, presumably by an atheist. I would have to agree with the post, by the way; so how can it be unfair or slanderous? Faith is blind trust in the goodness of the Lord even when we are assailed by monumental evils.

Around each of your five points you have placed quotation marks, which should mean that you have found these exact words in certain posts. If these are not exact words, you should not have used quotation marks. If they are indirect quotes, all the more reason why should identify the number of the posts where you found these remarks. Only that way can anyone reply to your allegations by pointing out that any interpretation of what was said might be correct or in error.

You have identified yourself as a non-theist. Sounds cryptic to me. Does it mean you haven’t quite decided whether you are an agnostic or an atheist? Does it mean something else?

Peace,
Carl

 

[Booger]

Hello, I’m an atheist and I’ve just joined. I arrived here via a link from the Internet Infidels discussion board. Firstly, I’d like to say that I’m in the same boat as Solar. I’ve noticed that many of you make gross generalizations about atheists. I understand that everybody has an opinion, but no insights on atheism are being offered by sitting around in the comfort of a Catholic forum and bashing atheists with fellow Catholics. If any of you would like real insights on atheism, I would recommend that you visit an atheist web site or discussion forum and then report your findings here. Otherwise, you will continue to sit around and reinforce your misunderstandings about atheists and you will learn nothing. I recommend iidb.org/vbb/index.php, infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Forums, or atheistnetwork.com/modules.php?name=Forums. Get involved in disucssion or debates with atheists. Interact with atheists and learn what atheism is about before forming an opinion. Sorry if this is long.

 

[Carl]

BOOGER

I understand that everybody has an opinion, but no insights on atheism are being offered by sitting around in the comfort of a Catholic forum and bashing atheists with fellow Catholics. If any of you would like real insights on atheism, I would recommend that you visit an atheist web site or discussion forum and then report your findings here. Otherwise, you will continue to sit around and reinforce your misunderstandings about atheists and you will learn nothing.

No thanks. Been there, done that. Atheist web sites were not friendly to me. They get really hopping mad when a Christian scores a solid point.

Moreover, you labor under the assumption that there are not an adequate number of atheists in this forum to stimulate interesting or fruitful dialogue. You obviously haven’t read much of the thread, especially the last four pages. This forum is not exactly dull or preaching to the choir.

Be fair now.

Peace,
Carl

 

[Carl]

JPASTA

Welcome to the forum.

I have just returned to the faith of my youth…but I am having problems with this thread…no one is going to convince an atheist that there is a God…and vice versa…

I agree. Conviction generally does not come from debate. As Newman said, it is no easier to argue than to torture a person into believing.

That said, it truly does beat T.V. Also, you never know; somewhere along the way something might be said that strikes a sensitive nerve.

Peace,
Carl

 

[Carl]

This thread is approaching 300 messages and 2,500 views. Thank you all for your contributions.

God bless,
Carl

 

[wildlifer]

You mean it’s taboo, unless God “commands” otherwise, and then it’s not taboo.

If we follow the commands of God, how can they be taboo? Abraham was ready to follow God’s command, though it meant the taking of his own son’s life. He trusted God. God rewarded him by staying the command.

It is when WE take it upon ourselves to break the commands of God that we sin. If we killed savagely on our own authority and for our own reasons every man, woman and child of a foreign tribe, that would be mass murder. But if we did the same at God’s command, we are exempt from the taboo.

This also brings to bear the problems of the questionable character of self-proclaimed messengers of god. Suicide is taboo, unless of course the Messenger-of-God Jim Jones says to drink the cool-aid.
Anticipating **your **answer, how do you know he was not a messenger of God? Did God tell you so? Where you privy to Jim’s conversations with God?
How do you **know **Abraham had a private line to God? Or the leaders of the Jewish forces for that matter. Perhaps, if that atrocity actually ocurred, they were just using the name of God to perform their own version of bigoted ethnic cleansing.

Anticipating your answer, you will say this is a savage and self contradicting God. Not really. God’s laws are for God to give and suspend.

You find this concept rational? Taboo means something is banned on grounds of morality or taste. Either something is taboo, or something is not taboo.

That’s why miracles may occur in the natural world. Jesus raised Lazarus. Jesus contradicted the natural law by raising the dead. That was his prerogative as Creator: to give life, to take life, and to return to life.

Too funny, using mythology to support your mythology. I do not believe Jesus existed anymore than I believe gods exist. But by all means if you have other evidence of this alledged miracle, bring it forth.

Keep in mind that God takes all our lives sooner or later. Someone earlier came dangerously close to saying that this makes a murderer of God. No; God makes the rules, and God is free to change the rules. We saw some of this with the coming of Jesus, when the harshness of the Old Gospel was followed by the merciful gift of the New Gospel.

That’s not my understanding. The “Old Gospel” was not suspended, even though some off-shoots of the Christian cult have interpreted the “New Gospel” as such.
Your mythical Jesus himself allegedly proclaimed:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill**.**" (Matthew 5:17) [emphasis mine]

And I will also anticipate verses in which Jesus contradicted himself, as that is one thing your bible seems to have no shortage of, contradictions.

ps. I’ll respond to the devolution post tonight after work.

 

[wildlifer]

Carl:

I said:

Based on your own evolutionary theory, rational is what we do on Thursday rather than Tuesday, because Thursday came after Tuesday and therefore we are enjoying the fruits of evolution. So if Thursday says no more slavery, but next Tuesday says let’s go back to slavery … THAT’S evolution. No violation of natural law … just evolution.

You said:

That is not my position, nor does it reflect my statements. I’ve already told you it would NOT be evolution, it would be devolution.

You have a tendancy to make statements that are generally undeveloped. Mind explaining this? What is devolution? Would an example of devolution be something like *homo sapiens * returning to something less than homo erectus?

Devolution, would be a decline in intellect/rational thought.

I am not aware that this has ever happened in the evolutionary process. So you have some explaining to do.

You seem to be trying to develop a psychological concept using evolutionary language. If by devolution you mean that slavery would be returning to a nasty habit of our ancestors, you have not answered my point about the natural law; because instead of answering me whether going back to slavery would be wrong since it violates the natural law, you would merely be saying it’s devolution (a gassy abstraction).

No, you declared: "So if Thursday says no more slavery, but next Tuesday says let’s go back to slavery … THAT’S evolution.
And I told you, no it would be devolution, an intellectual decline and not evolution. It was intellect, and an evolved sense of right and wrong, which freed the slaves, not your “natural law.”

When I taught writing classes in my lusty youth, such polysyllabic evasions as yours would not have escaped my wrathful pen.

This is not Christian swagger. This is father/son talk.

Be healed.

Carl

Hey, if you feel froggy, jump.

 

[Booger]

Carl,
I think that you misunderstood me. I spent a couple hours reading this entire thread before I decided to join. Don’t make assumptions about me. Actually, that is why I joined. I joined to refute many of the unfounded assumptions and generalizations of atheists. That is why I have encouraged many here to seek out atheists for debate/discussion and learn more instead of hiding in a Catholic forum, reinforcing misconceptions and “preaching to the choir”. I think that is most definitely fair.

 

[ArisSlatr]

I have to agree with “Booger”, Ive read this thread thouroughly, and there are many misconceptions.

Evolution is very sound, it is even, dare I risk saying it? Fact!

Why do I say this. I live with a biologist apprentice for one(student of anatomy and physiology), and she never hesitates with a response.

My point is that christians will frequently shun atheists, and blame them for the majority of lifes problems. They’ll even go as far as to say that science is a religion, and that “science is dumb”. Religion is about faith, I would know.

After a period of time, you’ll realize that unless you can be comfortable with the idea that the bible has murder, and a lack of sense in many areas, you won’t have a strong faith.

I trust that we will not fall to the level of ranting about how I will go to hell, or that I am a pagan who has never read the bible.

I was catholic, and was confirmed, and I did believe everything. I only grew out of religion when I emersed myself in it, and learned everything about it I could.

 

[Carl]

I trust that we will not fall to the level of ranting about how I will go to hell, or that I am a pagan who has never read the bible.

There is no need for anyone in this forum to rant about anything. If a strong point is made, you falsely define it as ranting. Here is another strong point made about atheism and all false religions. Guess who made it.

Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you,
go out into the streets and say,
‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet,
even that we shake off against you.’
Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.
I tell you,
it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town.

No doubt you will call this more ranting, when it is really Jesus talking about the willfull loss of their immortal souls.

 

[ArisSlatr]

Carl, you dissappoint me. I took you as the type of person who might understand where I’m coming from.

I have never defined a strong point as ranting. If there was such a strong point, I would observe it, and I would then make a desicion over time.

I would hardly call the wiping out of a city an act from an ever-loving merciful god.

You repeatedly make assumptions about me that are quite false.
I see multiple times you assume something about me, or assume that I will assume something as if I were ignorant to what you were talking about.

I indeed know that quote, but you know, I have a quote that is just as legitemant for you.

“The great eagle spirit watches us all…We have many souls, we can have a thousand! You have to earn them.”

This is a quote from the religion of an indian tribe of a personal friend of mine in New York. They are a well off people, they dont live on any reservatation, they pay taxes. They are just as good people as any catholics, general christians, and so on. And they’re book was handed down by their spirits.

God never revealed himself to these indian tribes, what makes you think your religion is any better than theirs.

My point is, they are stories, and they are stated by people. Anyone can say anything to debate religion, and the reply is always faith. There needs to be more.

You show me god as much as he shows me the eagle spirit, so why should I beleive you?

 

[Carl]

Such juvenile logic. The notion that all religions are the same, none are better than the others, is on a par with the notion that a woman should marry any man because none is any better than the others.

Your remark is typical of atheists who sometimes contradict themselves when they look at certain other atheists and wish they were not in the same camp.

 

[ArisSlatr]

So tell me your religion and your evidence is better than my indian friends. I still dont see anything other than unreasonable accusations, and attempts to cause me to be upset by saying I’m a typical atheist.

The sheer fact that you consider all atheists the same is sad.

Please also tell me where Ive contradicted myself.

I gave an example of why I dont think my friends religion is any better or worse than christianity, give reason to beleive otherwise.

To be honest I think that the native americans lead better lives. They make peace with themselves to earn their soul. They strive to be one with nature. They can at least see what they strive for.

Now what intrigues me is that you assumed that I think all religions are all the same, I asked you to tell me why yours is better. I never actually said that they were all the same. You shouldn’t assume that. In all honestly I consider christianity as one of the worst religions.

Why do I consider it one of the worst?
Here are some quick simple reasons.
Infinite punishment for finite actions. Do you think that is fair?
If there was no god, would man have created him?
Merciful god who wipes out the world, and entire towns.
This miraculous god stops doing miracles in a world where more than half the people are destined for hell.

There are dozens upon dozens of reasons.

Don’t think I am attacking you. I’m not. I simply don’t like the religion, and am trying to show you that it isn’t entirely based on love and caring, and that there are indeed many wrinkles and tears in the fabric making the final product.

 

[Carl]

So tell me your religion and your evidence is better than my indian friends. I still dont see anything other than unreasonable accusations, and attempts to cause me to be upset by saying I’m a typical atheist.

If you are upset, it is less because I have attempted to make you upset than that you made a poor argument and now are upset that it was exposed as such.

Your problem, and the problem of every atheist I have ever known, is that you insist on easy answers to hard questions. When you don’t get your easy answers, you simplistically say, “Aha! Gotcha!” Yes, I know the mentality. Been there, done that myself as a former atheist.

The bottom line is that religion deals with mystery even more so than the knowable. The Church has long acknowledged the mystery of Evil. Many centuries before you were born theologians grappled with God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son on a bloody altar. Harsh command, but Abraham had faith. The Old Testament is filled with incidents hard to believe as the will of a loving God. You aren’t the first nor the last to notice them. But unlike Abraham, you will not submit to the mystery. It was Abraham who would. And later Jesus too would submit to the atoning sacrifice. Why should the Innocent One give himself up to butchery? Jesus never demands any more harshness of us than he would himself submit to.

Yes, evil is a mystery. You want all the pieces to fall in place like a puzzle. When you can’t make the pieces fit, you say it is because there is no puzzle to solve in the first place. Throw all the pieces aside. Shred them! Just like a child who gets angry with a toy that will not obey his command. Scream! Stamp on it! Wipe it out!

Then you will feel better. Or will you? Or will you go back to intrude on those who have more patience with the puzzle and try to scatter the pieces before their eyes?

Isn’t that why you are at Catholic Answers?

And when atheists here want us to go to Atheist web sites, isn’t it because they want to persuade Catholics to shred their religion?

 

[ArisSlatr]

If you are upset, it is less because I have attempted to make you upset than that you made a poor argument and now are upset that it was exposed as such.

What are you talking about? I never said I was upset, or even unsure. Im not looking for answers, I’ve found mine. I’m here to share what I’ve learned.

Your problem, and the problem of every atheist I have ever known, is that you insist on easy answers to hard questions. When you don’t get your easy answers, you simplistically say, “Aha! Gotcha!” Yes, I know the mentality. Been there, done that myself as a former atheist.

Easy answers? Science is not easy. I have never had to study and reasearch since I converted to atheism. The key is that the answers make sense as an Atheist. They aren’t just “becuase god works in odd ways”.

You even have as far as saying my arguments are poor. We both know this isn’t true.

You talk of all of these mysteries, evil, creation, and free will. Apparently you want manipulate my emotion. I fear your running out of good arguments.

Now this isn’t a challenge from me. I simply want to state what I feel, and defend my point.

When you can’t make the pieces fit, you say it is because there is no puzzle to solve in the first place. Throw all the pieces aside. Shred them! Just like a child who gets angry with a toy that will not obey his command. Scream! Stamp on it! Wipe it out!

Then you will feel better. Or will you? Or will you go back to intrude on those who have more patience with the puzzle and try to scatter the pieces before their eyes?

Isn’t that why you are at Catholic Answers?

And when atheists here want us to go to Atheist web sites, isn’t it because they want to persuade Catholics to shred their religion?

It’s that we cannot solve the puzzle as atheists, we simply provide a more sound approach to the answer. I’m here to share my ideals, no better or worse than a catholic goes to share his.

If a person loses his faith, or gains more faith from my statements, so be it. I hope to show people what I do know though in the process.

And again I’m going to say, “Infinite punishment for finite actions, this is unjust.”

 

[Monarchy]

Carl:

Your problem, and the problem of every atheist I have ever known, is that you insist on easy answers to hard questions. When you don’t get your easy answers, you simplistically say, “Aha! Gotcha!” Yes, I know the mentality. Been there, done that myself as a former atheist.

More like Straightforward answers that don’t torture logic. In my experience it is the theists who want the easy answers. Don’t know the answer to a tough question? No Problem, the answer is God did it.

The bottom line is that religion deals with mystery even more so than the knowable. The Church has long acknowledged the mystery of Evil. Many centuries before you were born theologians grappled with God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son on a bloody altar. Harsh command, but Abraham had faith. The Old Testament is filled with incidents hard to believe as the will of a loving God. You aren’t the first nor the last to notice them. But unlike Abraham, you will not submit to the mystery. It was Abraham who would. And later Jesus too would submit to the atoning sacrifice. Why should the Innocent One give himself up to butchery? Jesus never demands any more harshness of us than he would himself submit to.

‘Submiting to the Mystery’ requires putting my ability to reason on cruise control.

Yes, evil is a mystery. You want all the pieces to fall in place like a puzzle. When you can’t make the pieces fit, you say it is because there is no puzzle to solve in the first place. Throw all the pieces aside. Shred them! Just like a child who gets angry with a toy that will not obey his command. Scream! Stamp on it! Wipe it out!

This is the stuff I am here combatting. You sit here and compare atheists to angry little rotten brats. Also, your analogy is incorrect. Atheists put the puzzle together, but it doesn’t match the picture on the box.

Then you will feel better. Or will you? Or will you go back to intrude on those who have more patience with the puzzle and try to scatter the pieces before their eyes?

Isn’t that why you are at Catholic Answers?

Personally (I can’t speak for the OP)I have posted here to combat the biogotry against atheists I have seen in this forum. See above in this post to see what I am talking about.

 

[Monarchy]

So tell me your religion and your evidence is better than my indian friends. I still dont see anything other than unreasonable accusations, and attempts to cause me to be upset by saying I’m a typical atheist.

If you are upset, it is less because I have attempted to make you upset than that you made a poor argument and now are upset that it was exposed as such.

Exposed?? Carl, you have yet to answer his question.

 

[Carl]

MONARCHY

Sorry, guess I missed the question. You know he has a way of raising so many questions all at once, you can’t answer all of them without writing a book.

I generally pick the points I find most worthy of being answered and ignore the rest.

I think that if you atheists would ask single questions and wait for the answer to your question, instead of shooting buckshot, you might get more answers, and more satisfacoty answers. But no, I’m not going to play the buckshot game.

Make your posts short and to the point. You will get an answer. These are rational rules and I won’t play by any other.

I have addressed the mystery of evil. That was in response to one of his points. I have also addressed the question of whether all religions are equal. If he wants to make the case that Indian religion is equal to the Christian religion, that is for him to prove, not me. I’d be interested in his proof. I think he has some homework to do if he wants to make any kind of case.

Peace,
Carl