INSIGHTS ON ATHEISM

[Chris_W]

so crates:

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?

The miracles at Lourdes are indeed independently verified. In order to be an event defined as a miracle the medical condition must be verified by doctors on the board at Lourdes (about 20 doctors) and then it goes to an international comittee (open to any doctor who wishes to participate…even to try to disprove). Then the same groups look at the evidence after the claimed miracle. I think the most recent case was a frenchman named Bely. He suffered for 12 years from M.S. until he ended up paralized, spending about 6 years hospitlaized. At Lourdes he stood up and has been symptom free since then. This is attested by numerous doctors/physicians/scientists who examined the evidence both before and after the event (in about 1992?). I can research the particulars if you want more verifiable info.

No it is not predictable, and no, they can not be explained by simpler means (i.e. coincidence), that is why it should be considered by the atheist. The point is, in considering this evidence (miracles) Theism gives at least a possible answer. Atheism does not. And so, it is ignored.
so crates:

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.

The interesting thing about this statement is that Theism at least does not contradict current scientific law. Atheism does! Atheism requires more faith than theism in this case, because the atheist has to adhere to his belief, by faith, even though it contradicts science.
so crates:

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 point exactly. You should (sounds like you do) call yourself an agnostic, if indeed your conclusions are based on scientific proof. The benefit of this position is that nobody can challenge you to provide evidence for your belief, because your belief is not defined. Therefore you are at liberty to question everyone else’s beliefs without subjecting yourself to the same scrutiny. I wonder if you question the atheist with the same vigor and methods as you question the theist? (after all, that position is certainly not provable).

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

We may need an atheist in this forum to kick it up a notch.

As I am always enjoying a decent debate, I am open to anything…
Greetings

 

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

Do athiests not fear death? There should be nothing to fear if we are merely particles that come together for a time and then cease to be. Yet, in my experience, even athiests do fear death. Why? Because we are designed for eternal life. Death is contrary to our design.

Death is a part of life (the last actually ). Why should I fear something that is totally natural?
Do I want to die? No, at least not yet, but I can’t do something about it.
What I fear is that my mind and/or body becomes demented when I am aged, then I’d rather be dead.

 

[AnAtheist]

squirt:

That makes you … an atheist

Welcome.

Thanks!

squirt:

It’s amazing the number of theists who think that atheists actually believe in gods of some sort.

I guess most of that assessment comes from the passage in Romans. Actually (in some sense) every theist is also an atheist, because he doesn’t believe in the other theists’ gods. Like a muslim does not believe in Jesus, a Hindu not in Allah, etc… Compared to a christian a die-hard atheist just believes in one god less.

 

[Chris_W]

Monarchy:

Care to list a few? Have they been independantly verified by a non-biased source? How do they prove God exists?.

See my reply to So Crates regarding an example of a miracle. How do they prove God? Good question. Please provide an alternative answer (if you answer “I don’t know”, that is not an answer).

Monarchy:

Please prove that jesus did miracles. The best you have with the bible is hearsay. The writers of the NT could easily craft their ‘messiah’ to fit the prophesies of the OT.

Miracles are just one of the things Jesus did. I am asking if you have ever considered the whole of Jesus’ life as fullfilling literally hundreds of prophesies written in the OT. If your reservation is the idea that the authors of the Bible were writing fiction, would you give credibility to supporting writings of the era that are not included in the Bible, perhaps by secular historians? Or would you conclude the supporting documents were also part of this great fraud?

Monarchy:

Bring it on!! I’ll will be happy to answer anything you offer!

No need for more topics until these ones have been addressed.

Monarchy:

Science is the study of the natural world, it cannot say anything about supernatural things.

Are you an agnostic then?

Monarchy:

Exactly. You cannot physicaly prove the non-existance of ANYTHING You cannot disprove the exisatnce of Allah, Zeus, Oden, Ra, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Unicorns, Leprachauns, etc…

Do you believe in the above as well? They have as much evidence for their existance as God does.

Other gods are not considered by me. Once a person has explored Christianity, at the center of which is a man who claimed to be God, and one sees how Jesus fulfilled the OT prophesies, no other God can possibly be God. This is the law of non-contraditcion. But for the purpose of this thread, we need not discuss which god.

Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc are not on the same level of credibility as God. I have never seen a documented miracle from belief in one of these. These figures cannot explain the existance of the universe. One can truely say there is NO evidence for the existance of these. Interesting tactic though, to relate belief in God to belief in fairy tales.

True, you cannot prove the non-existence of God. But there is indeed evidence that supports the belief in God, as stated above.

Monarchy:

Please list what other type of proof is available.

There are other reasons I hope to explore in this thread, but too lengthy for this post. However, in general, here is my reasons for putting forth small evidences:

I have never been to Egypt. Yet I believe Egypt exists. Why? I mean, someone could show be a postcard from Egypt, but I could claim it is fake. Someone could show me Egypt on an atlas, but I could say the atlas could be wrong. I could meet someone from Egypt, but I could claim he is not really from Egypt. I could see a news report about Egypt, but I could claim it a video trickery.

So why do I believe Egypt exits? Because of the convergence of evidences. Each individual evidence could be disputed, but to believe all these evidences exist as the result of fraud, is simply not reaonable to believe.

Why do I recognize the existance of God? Because of the convergence of little evidences and the absense of a better explanation.

 

[Carl]

“What I complain of is vague popular philosophy which supposes itself to be scientific when it’s really nothing but a sort of new religion and an uncommonly nasty one.”

I think G.K. was right in identifying the religious aspect of modern atheism. It (atheism) has taken on a messianic role nowadays, appointing itself to save the world from the oppression of offensive religious symbols. It never occurs to atheists that Christians are far more offended than atheists can be by the removal of their symbols from the public square. One wonders how much time might elapse from the removal of the symbols to the attempt to remove the religion that made those symbols. Such an attempt will, of course, be futile. As Voltaire pointed out, the atheist senators of ancient Rome succeeded in openly mocking the ancient gods. Little did they know that the unknown God was waiting in the wings to take center stage.

In Rome that God is still front and center.

 

[Carl]

An Athiest

Welcome to the thread. I hope your contributions stimulate interesting discussion. I only ask that you read the entire thread before posting, as many items have been covered that should not have to be covered all over again.

In an earlier post you quoted me.

*Hitler was an atheist. So was Stalin. So was Mao. These men were shameless bigots against all religions. *

To which you answered:

*And that prooves what? All atheists are psychopathic mass-murders? All atheists are evil? Atheism is wrong? You cannot conclude general statements from three examples.

So what about the popes calling christianity to the crusades, thus starting some decent killing? Does their bad example make all christians evil?*

If you read the posts leading up to my post, you would know that my citation of Chesterton was the basis for my remarks. I was defending his view that there is no bigot like an atheist bigot. Hitler,Stalin, and Mao are typical examples. Please don’t start up the Hitler debate again until you have read the whole thread.

Not anywhere did you see me say that all atheists are bigots or uncharitable. Nor does Chesterton say that. The point is that if atheists are going to slam certain Church leaders for the Crusades and the Inquisition, they had better be prepared to recognize and admit plenty of bigotry coming out of their own tribe.

Come now, you can see the fairness of Chesterton’s remark.

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

If you read the posts leading up to my post, you would know that my citation of Chesterton was the basis for my remarks. I was defending his view that there is no bigot like an atheist bigot. Hitler,Stalin, and Mao are typical examples. Please don’t start up the Hitler debate again until you have read the whole thread.

Hi, granted and sorry. This whole thread has become enormous by now, difficult to grasp completely. Perhaps we should split up certain aspects and discuss them separately?

Carl:

Not anywhere did you see me say that all atheists are bigots or uncharitable. Nor does Chesterton say that. The point is that if atheists are going to slam certain Church leaders for the Crusades and the Inquisition, they had better be prepared to recognize and admit plenty of bigotry coming out of their own tribe.

Come now, you can see the fairness of Chesterton’s remark.

I almost totally agree with you. It is completely ridiculous to blame all christians for the crusades, the inquisition, conquistadores, etc. Noone can be blamed for other people’s deeds. I do not like the phrase “their own tribe” though. Atheism is not an organised movement nor share atheists a common canon. I hardly see any connection between atheism (as not believing in gods) and the atrocities Hitler et al. have performed.

It just makes me mad when those really bad examples are brought up in a debate about atheism, the possible inferences are simply leading a wrong direction. As bringing up the inquisition, same fallacy.

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

Atheism is not an organised movement nor share atheists a common canon. I hardly see any connection between atheism (as not believing in gods) and the atrocities Hitler et al. have performed.

I think atheism is much more organized than you think it is. Atheism showed how well organized it could be during the reign of the Soviet Union when theism was virtually outlawed for members of the Communist Party. For the common Russians who were churchgoers, church leaders were appointed or approved only by an atheist beaurocracy.

In this country, the ACLU, based on its posture on many social and moral issues, strikes me as a meeting place for concerted atheist action.

As to not seeing the connection between atheism and Hitler’s atrocities, I think common sense makes the point that if you do not fear judgment because you do not believe there is a judgment, you are capable of anything. Hitler’s arrogance was unrivaled in twentieth century Europe. So were his atrocities.

“If there is no God, everything is allowed.” Dostoevsky
“There is no God.” Nietzsche
“Everything is allowed.” Hitler

I’m sorry these connections make you uncomfortable, but we cannot ignore the facts of history.

By the way, the Catholic Church is a “tribe” of the faithful, as were the ancient Jews when led by Moses through the desert.

 

[Chris_W]

The horrific acts of Hitler bring up a question I have regarding atheism: To what can we attribute the value of human life?

What I mean is this: If God did not create mankind, then mankind is just like the rest of the animals (a point that atheists have confirmed to me before). If the value of human life and the life of animals are equal, then really there should be no more value to animal life than to plant life either. For to what could we attribute more value to animals than to plants? If all living things are the result of chance (evolution) then all living things are equal in value. Sure, some will dominate others, but the value of the life is equal…they all have equally little value.

Therefore, does an athiest feel the same disgust and outrage over me killing my lawn, as he does about Hitler killing all those people?

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

Atheism showed how well organized it could be during the reign of the Soviet Union when theism was virtually outlawed for members of the Communist Party.

Communism does not equal atheism. The driving force behind communism is not denial of dieties. Actually the early christian church performed a sort of communism (see Acts 4-5).

Carl:

In this country, the ACLU, based on its posture on many social and moral issues, strikes me as a meeting place for concerted atheist action.

Well, to put it in other words: Atheists do not have gospels, or credos, not even non-credos, do not gather in services, etc…, thus no common canon. I don’t know anything about ACLU, but here we have the IBKA, which is probably a similar organisation, and they are hardly recognised by anybody including atheists.

Carl:

“If there is no God, everything is allowed.” Dostoevsky
“There is no God.” Nietzsche
“Everything is allowed.” Hitler

Interesting syllogism (sort of). It has so many holes, a whole thread can be set up for it:

1. 
   *]Quoting three different people out of context and then merge them together does not really make a point.
   *]Why is everything allowed, if there is no God? What is the basis of this assumption? This may be obvious to you, but I fail to see that.
   *]Did Hitler really say that? Do you have a citation?
   
   “One cannot think of an Aryan religion, that lacks the conviction of an afterlife in any form.” (A. Hitler, Mein Kampf, Book 1, Chapter 11; translation by myself) Doesn’t sound that atheistic to me.

 

[sohpdica]

“One cannot think of an Aryan religion, that lacks the conviction of an afterlife in any form.” (A. Hitler, Mein Kampf, Book 1, Chapter 11; translation by myself) Doesn’t sound that atheistic to me.

Not to mention Hitler’s whole obsession with the occult including seizing the “Holy Lance”/“Spear of Destiny” and strange fascination with King Arthur.

Regardless, the whole introduction of Hitler et al. into the debate is nothing more than a Guilt By Association fallacy. nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

 

[paul2]

Hi, another atheist here, born and raised Catholic too. There seems to be alot of misconceptions about atheists in general in here, we’re really not bad people. One person earlier said that atheists were the biggest group of bigots or whatever, I can easily turn that around and apply the same irrational generalization on Christians, but I won’t. Hitler being an atheist? Mao atheist? Stalin atheist? Who cares. Are you asserting that if they were Christians none of that would have ever happend? Countless crimes have been commited by people who call themselves Christians. again, this type of reasoning is stupid. To assume that all morality comes from some god, and that without some god, people are free to do whatever reguardless of concequences, is in my opinion a foolish assertion. Our legal system in America is enough of a deterant to keep most people on the straight and narrow. Personally, I don’t need the iron fist of justice hovering over my head to keep me a good little boy, I have my own set of morals from where I determine what actions are right and wrong. If you can honestly say that without the threat of eternal damnnation you would rape and pillage the country sides, I fear for you and i fear for our society as a whole. Chris W mentioned something about if not for god, why do we humans have any value? I say we have value because we give ourselves value. I value the life of a crack whore more than i do the life of a thousand panda bears. Why? Because that crack whore, worthless as she is, is of more value because she is who she is, a human. Baseless assertion? Probably, but hey what are values really, they’re just a “value” we apply on an object. Carl’s attack on the ACLU as an “atheist” organization only show’s how ignorant he is of the ACLU and what they actually do. I’d like to direct you to this link of the ACLU fighting FOR the rights of Rush Limbaugh so he can keep his medical records secret. I know, yuo don’t like the stance the ACLU puts on posting things such as the 10 commandments in federal buildings. How would you like it if i as a federal judge who happened to be a Muslim put the Muslim equvilant? The ACLU would fight that also. But really though, trust me, you don’t want the government to be involved in your religion.

(Begin jibba-jabba)
Another thing, I don’t hate you, or your God. I have no reason to hate you because most of you are full of good intentions. I also have no reason to hate your God, because I don’t think he exists. Much like i don’t hate Vishnu or Zeus. Most of my family, except for a few of my cousins, are Catholics. My sister is heavily involved in the youth group, as was i when i was her age. You’ll meet some of the nicest people at church, and i love the architecture of the old cathedrals. I really dislike the new style churchs. Oh and i went to church with my faily at christmas… what’s the deal with everyone holding hands and singing the Our Father? When did that start? The thing i like about Roman Catholicism is that they keep the “spirit alive” if you will, by maintaining the old rituals and practices. The churches stance on science is in my opinion, one of the best as they officially recognize evolution (with divine touch here and there i think) plus the big bang. (again with divine touch here and there i think) Ever try to talk about the big bang and or evolution with a devout Muslim (much less, a southern Baptist)? It’s a waste of time.

I appologize for the long post. Let me sum it up for those with short attention spans:

1. All atheists are not bad people
2. The ACLU is an equal opportunaty “Fighting for Freedom” association.
3. Human life has value because we’re able to apply terms such as “value” to it.
4. Atheists and theists are alike, except that the atheist believes in one less god.

 

[Chris_W]

paul2:

Chris W mentioned something about if not for god, why do we humans have any value? I say we have value because we give ourselves value. I value the life of a crack whore more than i do the life of a thousand panda bears. Why? Because that crack whore, worthless as she is, is of more value because she is who she is, a human. Baseless assertion? Probably, but hey what are values really, they’re just a “value” we apply on an object.

…Human life has value because we’re able to apply terms such as “value” to it.

Interesting. Are you saying you recognize something different about humans than all other life forms? I have not encountered this acknowlegment from an atheist before.

C.S. Lewis makes the following case:

If we look at the world around us we can try to describe what is happening as the result of Laws of Nature. Laws of Nature describe how nature acts. A rock will always fall to the ground (gravity). When it comes to animals, the Laws of Nature are driven by what we describe as instinct. Animals are described by the way they act, instinctually. But when it comes to humans, there is a difference.

For example, a man is in danger and calls for help, and another man hears the cry. He has two options: He may have the instinct to help, (a “herd” instinct), or he may have the instinct to flee (self-preservation). The Laws of Human Nature says you “ought to help.” It decides between the two instincts, as to what you should do. A second example might be sexual desire. The sexual instinct is the desire or drive, but Moral Law dictates restraint (in public for example).

If we can judge that Nazi morality was wrong and that the rest of the world was right, then we must all know a standard by which to judge. This standard is called Moral Law. All other animals are described by how they do act, but humans are for some reason aware of how they ought to act.

One might argue that we are taught moral law, rather than just knowing it. Just like we are taught to drive on the right side of the road, or how we are taught mathematics. And that what we naturally want to do is what is good for society. But we all act in ways that we do not want to act. We do things because we feel we should, not because we are naturally inclined toward doing good. The rest of nature is survival of the fittest, but human nature tells us to care for the sick and elderly. Even though societies have dramatically changed, this moral law has always remained the same, even in mid-evil, barbaric times.

In contrast to the Laws of Nature, we do not have to obey Moral Law. It cannot be stated as a fact of the way things are, yet it is real, it does exist. It is not man-made and it is constantly pressing on us.

This Law of Human Nature (or Moral Law) only affects man. Humans are different from all other animals in that we know how we ought to act and, that urging causes us to decide between conflicting instincts.

Once we acknowlege a sender of the message we have no choice but to hear, we have acnowleged God.

 

[Carl]

“The religions are all alike, not matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler

The Voice of Destruction, Rauschning

“It is great satisfaction for me to find myself totally foreign to the world of Christianity. I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure forever. I believe in truth.” Adolf Hitler

Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1953

The so called “lies” still endure, while Hitler’s “truth” lasted 12 years.

Nor should we forget the famous photo of Hitler admiring the recently sculpted bust of the “God is dead” atheist philosopher Nietzsche.

 

[squirt]

I fail to see what Hitler has to do with anything regarding insights into atheism.

Also, there are lots of atheist philosophers out there, and very few of them think along the same lines of Nietzsche

There are a few real, live atheists participating on and off in this discussion. Why not ask them about how they view the world? How they approach issues dealing with morality? Etc …

 

[S.J]

I think what Carl is trying to show is that “atheism” is an organized (albeit indirectly in many instances), acitve movement. Active being the operative word. It is the attempt to remove God from the Pledge, the removal of Christmas symbols from the public square, etc. Organized religion is the source of much of what is wrong throughout history and in our modern world according to atheism.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, allows that God may exist but that we do not have direct contact (of course this is simplified) and that there is much left unanswered. My problem with agnostics as previously stated is that agnostics have given up the search. Many will go to their grave without expending too much effort in finding the meaning of their lives.

I would recommend to the atheists on this board to read Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton. He was an agnostic who found the true meaning of life. He may not convince you, but he will certainly challenge you, and since you are here on this board, I am fairly confident that you are still searching. If you were 100% at ease with your atheism, would you be posting on a Catholic web board?

 

[Prof]

If you were 100% at ease with your atheism, would you be posting on a Catholic web board?

As yet another atheist poster, I’m just here to try and clarify a few misconceptions I’ve seen on this board.

Although this has been said before, I’ll repeat it: atheists are simply people who do not believe in God or the supernatural. Most atheists are normal, happy individuals who live stable and decent lives.

Also, atheists do not tend to organize well or operate under set agendas. Some, such as Dr. Newdow (who argued the Pledge case), take action not as an attack on religion but in defense of their right to not be forced (or have their children forced) to profess belief in God.

Except in a few cases, it’s definitely not true that atheists believe “Organized religion is the source of much of what is wrong throughout history and in our modern world.” In fact, most atheists don’t give much thought to organized religion unless it is forced on them in some way. Although there are always a few in every group of people who are militant or hold grudges against other groups, it doesn’t make sense to apply this to all individuals involved.

Thanks for reading!

Prof

 

[squirt]

S.J.:

I think what Carl is trying to show is that “atheism” is an organized (albeit indirectly in many instances), acitve movement. Active being the operative word. It is the attempt to remove God from the Pledge, the removal of Christmas symbols from the public square, etc. Organized religion is the source of much of what is wrong throughout history and in our modern world according to atheism.

Organizing atheists is akin to herding cats. :banghead:

(And by the way, I ain’t American, so I have a much different experience with respect to political activism by ‘atheist’ special interest groups who probably represent only a very small percentage of atheists … )

 

[Monarchy]

S.J.:

I think what Carl is trying to show is that “atheism” is an organized (albeit indirectly in many instances), acitve movement. Active being the operative word. It is the attempt to remove God from the Pledge, the removal of Christmas symbols from the public square, etc. Organized religion is the source of much of what is wrong throughout history and in our modern world according to atheism.

The pledge should be the way it was originaly: One nation, Indivisible…

Would you accept One Nation, Under Allah or Under Budda or Under No God?
S.J.:

If you were 100% at ease with your atheism, would you be posting on a Catholic web board?

So all those Xians who post at Internet Infidels are not 100% at ease with their theism?