INSIGHTS ON ATHEISM

[Accipiter]

What benevolence springs from telling children they go to the worms?

Well, from my perspective, “honesty”.

Again, it’s kinda how you frame it. I remember when I was a child that even “eternity” sounded terrifying because of the way it was framed as eternal boredom. It seriously did. I understand that if I thought that were a likely outcome now, and thusly honest, I would explain it differently to a child.

The question begins with—what do I believe is true? I think it is possible that a scenario could exist whereby it might be necessary to say something untrue to a child, though Ithink it would have to be extreme. I think it more common that I would leave out *all *of the gory details of various topics depending on their developmental stage. But I’m not sure that for myself, personally, I think that telling what *for me *is a fib is doing them a favor in the long run. They may or may not feel betrayed later? I know that Santa Claus made Christmas very exciting! But I also know that when I found out the truth later I felt betrayed. >shrug< I think that my parents could have spun this a bit differntly witha different outcome, but most are not sophisticated enough to do that frankly. And it’s hard enough to be “sophisticated enough” for parenting as it is----it’s tough, from what I’ve seen!

Back to the worms.

An atheist perspective [your mileage of course can vary and you can of course come to different conclusions]:

Death can be frightening for anyone. But acceptance of our mortality is something that comes with maturity ideally. I don’t remember what happened before I was born, I likely will be at approximately the same level of awareness after I die. So I don’t think I need fear “suffering” post-death. Millions of people have crossed over before me and will after. It’s natural, and quite do-able. It’s how it is. And it makes this life very precious. Fun, and the easing of suffering, and quality of life, are so very important because of it. Worms? We return to the circle of life, nature, the Earth, all that stuff. And our energy gets recycled into something interesting and often beautiful.

But yeah, death is something i will try to avoid. It’s not going to be the highlight of my life probably. I’d like to stick around for more fun, as long as I can. But so far, it’s simply what happens like it does for all living things, it’ll be ok. In the meantime, I try to have some responsible pleasure and do some good!

Resume…

 

[Drew98]

Carl:

I never heard of a life form that didn’t care whether it lived or died. Could you name one for me?

No, I can’t and that’s the point. Any life form genetically disposed to apathy towards survival would be at disadvantage compared to those that fear death. Thus, the “apathy” gene would die out pretty quickly.

 

[Dismas]

Drew98:

No, I can’t and that’s the point. Any life form genetically disposed to apathy towards survival would be at disadvantage compared to those that fear death. Thus, the “apathy” gene would die out pretty quickly.

I think you meant the’fight or flight’ mechanism that exist in animals, but apparently Man seemed able to go beyond that mechanism. The countless saints matyred for the faith should have renounced their faith in the light of certain harm. Yet this mechanism seems to evaporate as they die the most horrible of deaths. I must also ask why some human beings seemed to choose vocations that inflict unnecessary suffering upon themselves when instinctively such suffering is not wanted. Mother Teresa was a famous example of our decade. Finally, if the ‘apathy’ gene does not seem to found in humans, does that not imply that a Creator willed that such gene to be non-existent in the beginning? I have never heard of an ‘apathy’ gene in the years as a biology student in school, perhaps you would care to explain the tremendous faith in random gene formation, than a faith in a maker of genes?

 

[Carl]

ACCIPITER

What benevolence springs from telling children they go to the worms?

To which you answered:

*Well, from my perspective, “honesty”. *

Honesty presumes that you are telling the truth. There are two truths, to which you claim possession, that are worth telling children in the name of honesty:

(1) There is no God.
(2) There is no afterlife.

How do you know that each of these sentences is true? What is your proof that there is no God nor is there an afterlife?

The agnostic admits these sentences might not be true. The atheist claims a certainty they are true. If you are an atheist, you need to supply proof for the claims.

Let’s hear it.

 

[Monarchy]

Carl:

ACCIPITER
*
(1) There is no God.*
(2) There is no afterlife.

How do you know that each of these sentences is true? What is your proof that there is no God nor is there an afterlife?

The agnostic admits these sentences might not be true. The atheist claims a certainty they are true. If you are an atheist, you need to supply proof for the claims.

Let’s hear it.

Acctually atheism is just the absence of theism

a = without theism = god belief

therfore

atheism = without god belief

I do not claim that there is no god, because that is a inntelectualy dishonest position. You cannot physicaly prove the non-existance of something. Thefore it is up to the person making the positive assertion (i.e. There is a god) to prove their claim.

Put it another way:

Theist: There is a god!!!

Me: Really? Got any Proof of that?

 

[Accipiter]

Pretty much what Monarchy said when it comes to proof.

Again, from my perspective.

What happens to us after we die, for certain?

Is there an intelligent designer that has a special interest in humanity, for certain?

Is there a “meaning of life”, for certain?

I would simply say that I have seen no convincing evidence presented positively from those that assert decisive answers to those questions. The decisive answers I have heard are simply not convincing, for me.

Therefore, I would not tell a child that I know there is no god but simply that I don’t see any reason to think so, and that I don’t know for certain what happens after death and neither does anyone else and that he/she should be very, very careful about those that tell him/her that they do know. I don’t know, and neither do they sort of thing. I *have met *the unscrupulous----they are real. I have not met god. I’d warn the child to be aware of the fact that people throughout history have recognized the basic hopes and fears of people and they claim to have the answers, sometimes because they are mistaken, other times because they know it is easy to take advantage of someone by doing this.

What happens after we die? Part of it’s [what happens to the consciousness] one of the biggest mysteries we all face in life, and we all “find out” the answer individually, on a journey that we as of yet cannot avoid, and no one can take for us. But I would share that the mind is a product of the brain, and the brain, with the body, returns to nature in other forms. It is likely we simply go where we were before we were born. What else happens? Who knows?

We create our own meaning for our lives, and it has a practical, tangible result when we behave as if what we do matters. There is no ultimate meaning in nature as far as I know.

At some point I’d ask, “What do you think?”

I think I’d take that approach, personally.

 

[mkw]

Carl,could write a book, but lack the skills To make this short and sweet. I attended my son’s VERY anti-Catholic southern baptist church and felt a “strange” (for lack of a better word) feeling “tug” at my heart. I went home and did a google search on religions. I read them all, or at least the major religions of the world. The very last one I read was The Roman Catholic Church. The history and beauty of the church was overwhelming to me, but what struck me was the datings. Our Catholic Church has been around since the time of Jesus, the protestants could only go back as far as the 1500’s (thats enough to get ANYONE thinking). I looked up the Catachism(spelling) and started reading, when I got to the part about the Blessed Mother, I just started crying, could not stop and didn’t understand why. I spent a couple of days thinking about this and came to the conclusion that it was LOVE of HER that touched my heart with such power.

Within the week, I was sitting in Father’s office asking about the faith and how I could learn more. Joined RCIA and was received into the church Easter Vigil 2004, Praise God

I have NEVER had a problem with Marian Doctrine and give my Holy Mother thanks for leading me completely to her Son and the ONLY church that teaches the COMPLETE truth.

To Love Jesus, is to Love His Mother

God’s Blessings to you all

 

[S.J]

What strikes me when I read of former atheists who are now believers was the dismay and sadness that accompanied their becoming an atheist. It was not a joyous or celebratory occasion - it was the ultimate let down. The revelation is that every second that ticks by is one step closer to absolute nothingness.

I believe that there are no true theological atheists - only politcial ones. Their goal being to remove God from the public realm. Many also believe that organized religion is the source of many of the world’s problems (wars and violence especially). Atheism can not be proven, so why not just be an agnostic? Even if I was an atheist, I would at the very least subscribe to Pascal’s wager. Why take the chance that you are horribly wrong? Definitely not worth it in my book.

If I was an atheist I would have a very hard time explaining love. God is love. I know of no other satisfactory way to explain love (not sentimental love, but selfless love). It is instinctively Divine.

 

[Chris_W]

Monarchy:

Theist: There is a god!!!

Me: Really? Got any Proof of that?

Interesting question. Yes I do have proof. The problem is the evidence is typically ignored. For example, miracles: There are many that have been well documented, even by secular physicians/doctors, who state the event was so far outside of scientific explanation that they can be explained no other way other than a miracle. How can they be explained?

Another proof is the life of Jesus. You don’t need to believe in the inspiration of the Bible, or even what it teaches, to acknowlege that it is at the very least an authentic historical document. The Bible describes literally hundreds of prophesies about a coming Messiah. These prophesies were written hundreds of years before Jesus walked the earth. How do you explain the fact that all of the Old Testament prophesies came true in one man, Jesus? These prophesies included miracles, and many of the prophesies depended on the actions of others (His enemies) to come true. How can this be explained?

These are but two examples. The point is that evidence does exist for a belief in God, but the evidence is thrown out by the athiests I know. It is simply ignored. They merely to refuse to give an answer.

Instead, athiests look only to science and ask for proof. But science by definition deals with observable measurable phenomena. And by definition, God is invisible and immeasurable. The existence of God is therefore not a scientific question.

What we do know is that science cannot disprove God either. There are evidences supporting the existance of God but that evidence is ignored.

If therefore atheists draw conclusions based on proof, but can accept only certain kinds of proof (science), then atheists really should call themselves agnostics, because the only acceptable proofs cannot answer the question.

 

[Chris_W]

On second thought, I would argue that there is even scientific proof: The Law of Biogenesis, which states that life cannot come from non living, (although widely ignored by evolutionists), still stands officially unchallenged. Current scientific law therefore seems to refute the only alternative to creation (evolution).

 

[Carl]

Thank you all for a spirited exchange. Interesting points made on both sides.

ACCIPITER

*I would simply say that I have seen no convincing evidence presented positively from those that assert decisive answers to those questions. The decisive answers I have heard are simply not convincing, for me. *

This would seem to be your core argument. Not very convincing. What convincing evidence did you expect to get? Did you expect God to appear in person and shake your hand? Sorry, but that was tried two thousand years ago. Those who did not want to see Him then, did not. Those who wanted to see Him, did.

Since you adopt at least partly Monarchy’s position, it appears you are backing off from calling yourself an atheist, because you lack the ability to prove that God does not exist. That makes you an agnostic. This is an intellectually more honest position to take, though personally you are still alienated from God.

So when you talk to your son, I suppose, to be honest, you would say something like: “I don’t know for sure whether God exists. He might and He might not. Most people say he does. Some say he doesn’t.”

Would that be an intellectually honest statement for you to make to your son?

Then, trying to be fair to both sides, you might go on to say, “Some people use religion to control other people. On the other hand, some people oppose religion because they can’t stand authority figures. Also, most people need religion because they are weak and need a crutch to lean on. But then some people oppose religion because they like to sin and the idea of God would get in the way of their sinning.”

Then you can make a list of famous atheists. After that you can make a list of famous theists. Would that be fair and instructive?

Then you can point to all the charitable organizations in the world and identify how many of them are run by religious people as opposed to atheists.

Don’t forget to weigh the pathetic performance of certain priests and bishops in the pedophilias scandal of recent years against the more pathetic performance of all the God defying drug- runners, whoremasters, pornography pedlars et. al. who have wrecked the youth of the last two generations.

After that you can survey the Crusades and the Inquisition and wax eloquent over the sins of the Church. Then you can survey the twentieth century and list all of the wars and revolutions started by religious leaders, and all of the same started by atheists (don’t forget to put Hitler, Stalin and Mao in the latter camp).

You see where this leads, don’t you? If you are going to be intellectually honest, you have to argue both sides, considering the preponderance of evidence and motives for why we believe or do not believe.

Pax,
Carl

 

[so_crates]

Hey there, another atheist/agnostic joining the discussion. I am also a former Catholic. I was even in the Knights of Columbus in college.

Shortly after college, I was in a very confused state of being and started looking for answers,. but couldn’t find any within Catholicism/Christianity, nor any other religion. So I suppose I began to question the ideas upon which Christianity was based. After wading through apologist after apologist, I simply decided the whole thing was bunk, and I looked at myself in the mirror, and just started laughing hard. It took a month or two, but I finally I coudln’t believe I had really believed all this bunk for so many years! Incidentally I believe I am a little happier now that I don’t have to live with the burdens that Christianity

Interesting question. Yes I do have proof. The problem is the evidence is typically ignored. For example, miracles: There are many that have been well documented, even by secular physicians/doctors, who state the event was so far outside of scientific explanation that they can be explained no other way other than a miracle. How can they be explained?

I don’t know, by the will of Allah, or maybe just even group hysteria? What miracles are you referring to?

The Law of Biogenesis, which states that life cannot come from non living, (although widely ignored by evolutionists), still stands officially unchallenged. Current scientific law therefore seems to refute the only alternative to creation (evolution).

Just because something hasn’t been figured out yet, doesn’t mean that we should just say Goddidit and stop looking for answers. That mindset is inimical to rational inquirty.

 A question for all you hard core catholics out there is, how do you know Catholicism is true, and not Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism? Whats so special about **our** miracles, divine intervention, etc. ?  Why are they any more or less believable ?

Was Hitler an atheist?

This is a complex subject which has not be answered definitively. Hitler was obviously anti-Christian, but keep in mind he hated Bolsevism even more(supposedly he believe that Christianity was a manifetation of Bolshevism, what a wacko!) His beliefs were probably a mix of German paganism that tied in with his belief in racial supremacy, that also included some kind of deity. Also keep in mind that German soldiers often wore brooches that bore the slogan “God is with us”, and Hitler did nothing to stop the practice. This site has some good quotes for those interested.

homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

 

[chemcatholic]

so crates:

Incidentally I believe I am a little happier now that I don’t have to live with the burdens that Christianity

Burdens of Christianity? Maybe you’re speaking of no sex outside of marriage. Yeah, this is a horrible burden. I mean, who doesn’t mind wondering if your partner has an STD, especially one like HIV / AIDS? Or maybe you’re speaking of attending Mass every week (or a worship service of some sort). Who wants to go worship for an hour when you could be sleeping in for once? Or is it the call to charity? Why give money to needy people when you could have a new 37" plasma TV?

Today was a bad day for me. I haven’t enjoyed much of it and I’ve been fairly cranky at times during the day (check out some of my posts from today if you don’t believe me). In retrospect, I realize that I didn’t set aside any time to talk to God. I found plenty of time to worry about my financial situation for the next few months, plenty of time to go to work, and plenty of time to surf the internet. But no time for God or the “burdens” that come with Christianity, and look how my day turned out. Strangely enough, it seems that my experiences are the exact opposite of yours. In the morning, I’m going to go through the “burden” of saying a Rosary, and I bet my day will turn out much better.

 

[briand]

Carl:

snip
Unlike the atheist, who sees in the idea of God a monstrous tyrant of evil oppressing our freedom, the theist can see in God only the most tolerant and absolute Liberal. God permits us to love or reject Him, to do good or evil, to choose heaven or hell (with the caveat, of course, that actions have consequences).

Actually when I got the left foot of fellowship not to many years ago, it was a few atheists who helped me remain a Christian. They let me speak about issues, told me not to chuck my faith because of emotion and never one time tried to get me to leave my faith.

 

[Carl]

BRIAND

Actually when I got the left foot of fellowship not to many years ago, it was a few atheists who helped me remain a Christian. They let me speak about issues, told me not to chuck my faith because of emotion and never one time tried to get me to leave my faith.

I’ve had the same experience, from the other direction. Atheists have helped me remain a Christian by reminding me of what I would be throwing away if I became one of them. I know what I would become because *I was one * in midlife. My friends remarked that a certain coldness and pain had entered me (they did bot tell me this until after I had returned to the Church).

SO CRATES

You say whether Hitler was an atheist has not been answered definitively. Why not? If he was not a Christian, what religion was he? Ancient pagan? Which gods did he worship? Zeus? Apollo? Athena? Where’s your proof? That he may have used certain ancient rituals and symbols does not mean that he worshipped any gods. What it means, as historians of Hitler often point out, is that he was a masterful showman for his cruel ideas.
If anything, he had the crafty instincts of a magician. But magic is not religion. In every culture the magician has been dedicated to feathering his own nest, not God’s.

 

[Carl]

SO CRATES

Shortly after college, I was in a very confused state of being and started looking for answers,. but couldn’t find any within Catholicism/Christianity, nor any other religion. So I suppose I began to question the ideas upon which Christianity was based. After wading through apologist after apologist, I simply decided the whole thing was bunk, and I looked at myself in the mirror, and just started laughing hard.

Well, this is common with young Catholics who become atheists. They go to college, read lots of Socrates (as your handle suggests), and start to question even the existence of God. They want rational proof for everything, and they want it yesterday. They don’t want to grow into God. That takes too much effort, or, as you put it, too many burdens must be overcome. Read Scott Peck’s book, The Road Less Traveled. There’s a little chapter in it on “Entropy,” or the laziness of Adam and Eve who were quick to take the serpent’s offer rather than making the effort of thinking through what they were about to throw away.

But in Catholic theology, as you know if you have read the Gospel of John, Satan is above all a liar. And it might or might not be true that he may spend more effort getting us to lie to ourselves than to lie to each other. After all, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they had already told themselves the most colossal lie: that the serpent was more believable than God. Now it was just that brief moment when Adam and Eve lost track of God as God, and became the first atheists.

 

[trogiah]

This discussion has been fascinating to me. Time to throw in my 2 cents. (Like the widow, it may be all I have). For the record, I am a cradle Catholic and still a practicing one.

I saw the quote here and other places " There are less then a hundred people in this country who hate the Catholic Church but there are millions who hate what they think is the Catholic Church" (Bishop Sheen) I hope I got the quote right.

I would say that this is true and at least part of the reason it is true is the failure of some Catholics in some places to live their faith. The same can be said for other Christian faiths.

The best thing we can to help atheists to “see the light” is to live out the light as best we can. Someone who has experienced real pain and injustice at the hands of a believer (consider those abused by priests) will not likely be moved by any amount of words.

I never knew about those atheists who tried to match Mother Teresa’s work. I can’t help but believe they are on the road to real faith. All because of someone’s good example.

Anyone out there read “The Missionary Position” I can’t remember the author. It is basically an attempt to discredit Mother Teresa and it raises some challenging issues but in the end it fails (in my opinion) It does provide some insight into at least one atheists mind.

Accipiter - you seem to have great respect for truthfullness and a love for living. I think those are admirable qualities. You add a lot to this discussion.

-Jim

 

[Chris_W]

so crates:

I don't know, by the will of Allah, or maybe just even group hysteria?  What miracles are you referring to?

 Just because something hasn't been figured out yet, doesn't mean that we should just say Goddidit and stop looking for answers. That mindset is inimical to rational inquirty.

You confirm my understanding of Atheism. You don’t know how miracles can be explained, so you ignore the problem this poses for atheism. (BTW the miracles I am referring to as well documented by scientists/physicians are those like the healings that have occurred at Lourdes).

And, also confirming my conclusions, you cannot dispute that current scientific law rejects the alternatives to creation. So atheists ignore the issue and hope someday, somehow, the law will be refuted.

You also did not address the problem the life of Jesus poses to atheism. Once again the issue is ignored.

The atheists I have encountered thus far ask for proof, (giving the impression that they have explored the possibilities and have determined there is no God), and then when something is presented which can have no explanation other than God they ignore the issue.

The pat answer is, “I don’t know…but I know it can’t be God.”

 

[Accipiter]

Hi Carl,

What a timesink the internet is, eh?! Thanks for your civility and interest.

Carl:

What convincing evidence did you expect to get? Did you expect God to appear in person and shake your hand?

That would be interesting. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. >shrug<

Answers to prayers would probably go along way toward convincing a lot of people, even some answers to requests. Or some truly consistent and apparent, inexplicable interventions to reduce suffering. That sort of thing.

So far I see spotty coincidence and some things that happen because we do not understand what happened. I do not see angels swooping down and moving children from in front of moving cars etc. If there are genuine miracles then they are tremendously subtle, inconsistently displayed, and infrequent. And far outweighed by strife and injustice. Also, many things that humanity has not understood well in the past, and made up supernatural or incorrect explanations for, we have since moved beyond. That we *do know, and thusly *seems the place to start with “unlikely” or puzzling phenomena.

Personally, I have not witnessed any miracles of which I am aware [tho some interesting coincidences] even back when I was an altar boy.

Carl:

Since you adopt at least partly Monarchy’s position, it appears you are backing off from calling yourself an atheist, because you lack the ability to prove that God does not exist. That makes you an agnostic. This is an intellectually more honest position to take, though personally you are still alienated from God.

I don’t think so. What Monarchy said is the standard response to that problem: the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof.

For instance, if I tell you to worship a purple dragon in another dimension that only I have seen, you would be quite skeptical. If I were to demand that you prove it does not exist you would find that absurd and demand that I prove it *does *exist.

The terms “atheist” and “agnostic” among others, are traditionally problematic. But many atheists would probably say that they have not seen sufficient evidence for a “god”, and thus they are “without belief in a god”. Do they know that one could never exist? Do they know decisively the meaning of life? No. Just that there is no reasoning that they personally find compelling to embrace sucha belief as of yet. So maybe a new term altogether is needed, or not? But that’s where I live.

As for your comments on how one could cover the pros and cons of religion/theism vs nontheism with a child, I think you shared with some candor and I really don’t have a problem with that premise----I simply didn’t expound on that feature in my prior comments. That’s a pretty good approach, tho I think that we would see that story a little differently and include some slightly different examples and imply some slightly different conclusions from one another. But the premise of intending full disclosure we could agree on.

Pax atcha!

 

[so_crates]

Chris W:

You confirm my understanding of Atheism. You don’t know how miracles can be explained, so you ignore the problem this poses for atheism. (BTW the miracles I am referring to as well documented by scientists/physicians are those like the healings that have occurred at Lourdes).

How does claiming something is a miracle really “explain” the event? Can miracles be predicted? Are they regular? Can they be independentally verified? Can we bring about conditions that cause them? Can they be explained by means of simpler processes that cause similiar results?
Chris W:

And, also confirming my conclusions, you cannot dispute that current scientific law rejects the alternatives to creation. So atheists ignore the issue and hope someday, somehow, the law will be refuted.

Yes my hope is someday that abiogenesis will be more fully understood then it is currently without resorting to a divine cop out which has zero evidence. Yeah, many biological structures such as phospholipds and amino acids have never been observed to be synthesized from simpler components without already existing biological species to construct them, but once again that does NOT mean that we should simply give up and claim that it was a special act of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. No scientist worthy of respect would ever do this, even most theistic ones. I am no biologist, but it was once thought that homo sapiens was specially created, now the best explanation is that we evolved from simpler primates millions of years ago through a process mutation and natural selection. This theory has a good body of evidence to support it. Even the Vatican acknowledges this possibility.

The atheists I have encountered thus far ask for proof, (giving the impression that they have explored the possibilities and have determined there is no God), and then when something is presented which can have no explanation other than God they ignore the issue.

I do not claim that there is no god, only that the Abrahamic god in particular as perceived by Christians, Jews and Muslims is unlikely to exist given the information I have at hand, along with a host of other deities such as Thor, Zeus, Zoroaster, etc. My views as a secular humanist are that I do not believe in any god or gods, and even if there were, their existence is unimportant to humanity.