INSIGHTS ON ATHEISM

[Carl]

squirt:

If you saw a gang of thugs on one side of the street and a group of people toting “Candide” on other side of the street, which side of the street would you rather be on?

Voltaire’s side. Voltaire had no use for thugs or atheists.

 

[squirt]

Carl:

Voltaire’s side. Voltaire had no use for thugs or atheists.

The people holding Candide are no more Voltaire than the people holding the Bible are St Paul.

Setting up a situation where one side consists of thugs (high likelihood of danger) and one side holding books of any sort (relatively low likelihood of danger) proves nothing.

 

[Carl]

Neither does your original comparison of people in the workplace.

Good night.

 

[squirt]

Carl:

Good night.

Bon soir, bonne nuit. A bientôt.

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

The question I must ask an atheist is whether our reasoning powers always serve us well. Is it not possible that three groups of people can reason without God and all three come up with moral systems that are self-destructive?

No, of course our reasoning are fallible. And yes three groups of atheists can setup self-destructing systems (e.g. communism).
On the other hand, atheists won’t kill each other off while quarrelling about how God should be worshipped.

Carl:

If this is denied, then reason is perceived by the atheist as infallible, a position clearly false based on our perception of individual and group behavior.

No argument from me, quite right.

Carl:

On the other hand, a moral system handed down from above is sure to guide us well: Love God and love one another. I would like to hear an atheist moral system that is as clear and succinct as the one laid down by Jesus.

I won’t start argueing now, whether Jesus’ morals are clear or not, but generally atheists do not deliver easy, handed-down explanations, because we obviously cannot ultimately resort to “goddidit”. Therefore chances are an atheist moral system will always be more complicated as a religious.

 

[AnAtheist]

S.J.:

I am having a hard time understanding why an atheist would be motivated by anything other than self interest? If this is all there is, why not grab all you can for yourself? If there is no consequence (a God of justice) then why not act at all times and in every way to benefit yourself? I am not talking about law breaking - I mean acting within the bounds of societal laws with your own self interest in mind.

Acting on the basis “treat others like you want to be treated” is self-interest. E.g. setting up a social wellfare system is a kind of insurance, and that’s self-interest as well. And even without a judging God, there is a consequence. If your offsprings are born into an anarchy thier chances of survival are lower than in a social environment. Thus the procreation instinct helps in developing morale.
S.J.:

I do not see how atheism can not ulitmately descend into mirror worship. The “cult of self”, in my humble opinion, becomes too strong. If there is no belief system beyond what is observed, measured and calculated, then what is more observed, measured and calculated to us then ourselves? We become the end all and be all. We do what it takes to make ourselves happy and comfortable.

Yes, except I hardly expect atheists to worship something. Worshipping is a notion, which has no place in an atheistic worldview.

 

[Mijoy2]

Richard Lamb:

It takes more faith not to believe in God in light of the evidence… :tiphat:

I couldn’t agree more. How it can be considered that the complexity and beauty of the universe, the earth and life(particularily human life), resulted from a micro-organism explosion of sorts that has evolved over time I just can’t imagine. This seems so much more a leap-of-faith (pardon the expression) then the belief in a creator.

If some lone single-cell entity began to seperate and ultimately “evolved” into our world today as we know it, came to be through the process of becoming better over time, or more fit and adaptable in some effort to survive, where did this “betterment” or “fitness” standard emerge from? And why the desire to survive? Survive what? It would seem it would make a whole lot more sense for this evolution process to have died away instantly as opposed to have created creatures who craved survival when survival is not ultimately attainable (we all ultimately die). Through Faith, survival is not only attainable but is attainable in the most wonderous and beautiful of ways. It is everlasting. Think I’ll throw my hat in that arena

 

[Mijoy2]

AnAtheist:

Acting on the basis “treat others like you want to be treated” is self-interest.

I agree with this. It is the believers self-interest in desiring others to be cared for, happy and loved. We all desire to strive for a better and eternal good. This so called “self-interest” doesn’t negate the interest of the “others”, it assists it’s coming to be. A two-fold good.

 

[Carl]

On the other hand, atheists won’t kill each other off while quarrelling about how God should be worshipped.

There it is again, you see. Just when I thought we could leave Hitler, Stalin, and Mao behind, you start it up again. Why?

You claim a high moral ground for atheists over worshippers, then you totally ignore the millions who were killed by atheists in the last century for their religion.

You really are getting to be tedious.

 

[Carl]

but generally atheists do not deliver easy, handed-down explanations, because we obviously cannot ultimately resort to “goddidit”. Therefore chances are an atheist moral system will always be more complicated as a religious.

We agree. Been there, done that. As an atheist, I became very adept at playing complicated head games with my own morals.

• This [moral] sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this; even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a plowman and a professor. The former will decide it as well and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.*

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Carl]

MORE VOLTAIRE:

“… the Roman Senate was composed almost entirely of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous, who ruined the republic.”

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability.”

Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary

So much for the much vaunted moral and intellectual superiority of atheists.

 

[Shibboleth]

Carl:

MORE VOLTAIRE:

“… the Roman Senate was composed almost entirely of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous, who ruined the republic.”

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability.”

Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary

So much for the much vaunted moral and intellectual superiority of atheists.

I enjoy reading Voltaire he was a great political satirist but not the greatest philosopher. Consequently, he is not the best source to use on the issue. David Hume did quite a bit of work on Rome, Government, the purpose of Religion, and Atheism. I would start with him if you plan to use a philosophical argument.

I believe that it was Voltaire that was asked on his deathbed to renounce the devil – his response was, “Now, my good man,this is no time for making enemies.”

The same people that led Rome to its height also led Rome lead to its demise.

 

[Carl]

*I would start with him if you plan to use a philosophical argument. *

Never liked Hume. Even in my atheist days. Too dry.

You might find Francis Bacon more worthy than Voltaire. Try reading his essay on Atheism.

Carl

 

[Carl]

*An atheist I can never be. *

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

You claim a high moral ground for atheists over worshippers, then you totally ignore the millions who were killed by atheists in the last century for their religion.

Ok, once and for all: It is wrong to kill someone for what he believes or not believes, no matter whether it is belief in a god, a religion or a ideology. It is wrong, if the killer is an atheist and it is wrong if the killer is a believer. It is wrong, if the victim is an atheist and it is wrong if the vicitm is a believer. That makes four wrong scenarios.

 

[mkw]

Just my little take on Atheim. I was one of them for over 30 years. Like others have said on this forum, its a very lonely world.

I believed that ALL religions was a man made idea created to help people explain the unexplainable and to make them feel good. As such, I have never had a problem with religions, taking the veiw that if it made you feel good about yourself and others, no harm. Just don’t try and convince me of a God. NO amount of talking by Christians would have gotten through to me. I just refused to listen.

By the grace of God, I happened to be attending my son’s baptist church one Sunday and felt such a “strong pull” coming from within me (anti-Catholic to beat all).

I now KNOW it was the Holy Spirit “grabbing” onto me (Praise God). I read Pascal’s Wager and found it to be a interesting challenge. I took it!..Between that, and massive amounts of reading and, I know, the Holy Spirit, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church this Easter Vigil…

Any Atheist out there?..send them to me,would love to chat with them.

In God’s Mercy :angel1:

 

[Carl]

Ok, once and for all: It is wrong to kill someone for what he believes or not believes, no matter whether it is belief in a god, a religion or a ideology. It is wrong, if the killer is an atheist and it is wrong if the killer is a believer. It is wrong, if the victim is an atheist and it is wrong if the vicitm is a believer. That makes four wrong scenarios.

Well done!

 

[Carl]

MKW

I now KNOW it was the Holy Spirit “grabbing” onto me (Praise God). I read Pascal’s Wager and found it to be a interesting challenge. I took it!..Between that, and massive amounts of reading and, I know, the Holy Spirit, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church this Easter Vigil…

Halleluiah!!!

Yes, Pascal is the model for many of those who have resisted mightily with their intellects and finally took the plunge.

I work with two RCIA groups, one in a parish and one in a prison. I have witnessed many conversions like your own, and my own conversion parallels yours in that for me Pascal’s “proof” became the visceral challenge that could not be denied.

 

[squirt]

Carl:

MKW

I now KNOW it was the Holy Spirit “grabbing” onto me (Praise God). I read Pascal’s Wager and found it to be a interesting challenge. I took it!..Between that, and massive amounts of reading and, I know, the Holy Spirit, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church this Easter Vigil…

Halleluiah!!!

Yes, Pascal is the model for many of those who have resisted mightily with their intellects and finally took the plunge.

I work with two RCIA groups, one in a parish and one in a prison. I have witnessed many conversions like your own, and my own conversion parallels yours in that for me Pascal’s “proof” became the visceral challenge that could not be denied.

The mathematician in me doesn’t like Pascal … there are some weird implications that make for strange possible conclusions.

The Catholic in me loves Pascal. When I was an agnostic, somebody had me read a book by Reschner on Pascal’s Wager. Can’t remember the title, but it’s an interesting book.

Months later, I walked into a Catholic Church and had my first perceptible experience of God. There was no immediate ‘conversion’, in fact it’s been a long struggle since then, but Pascal made a big difference in my life.

 

[larryo]

For an understanding of the atheistic mindset, I highly recommend Dr. Paul Vitz’s book, *The Faith of the Fatherless. *I particularly remember a quotation from the Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard: “It is hard to believe because it is so hard to obey.”

It seems to me that this brief quote gets to the crux of the problem of dissension within the Church today. We often refuse to live in accordance with the Magisterium. This disobedience in turn can lead to a weakening of our faith or even unbelief. The essence of Catholicism is obedience grounded in humility, a total obedience to God’s commandments contained both in Holy Scripture and in Sacred Tradition.