Is Religion a Scam?

[FightingFat]

The problem with the First Cause proof for the existence of God is an atheist can just reply who created God, a monotheist may say he is the first cause and wasn’t created, the atheist may say that the Big Bang just happened and didn’t need to be caused and it just goes round in circles…

Who proposed the theory of the Big Bang? Any idea? Let me tell you, he was a Roman Catholic Priest!



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Gregg, read carefully what was said:

I did read quite carefully. I never said you accused us of misrepresenting. Those fingers I was talking about were clearly pretend fingers because I know you did not actually mean it literally. I made sure I was not assuming that you thought that about us. I knew you did not.

I was just defending Catholicism and saying that it does not require misrepresentation. That is all I said about it and nothing more. With that said, I was accusing you of misrepresenting because you were and are. You certainly sized me up wrong in both your posts. I will show you in a bit.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Are you saying I exemplify atheism? Wow, this is indeed a great honor! I wish to thank you, and my parents, and everyone in the audience who could be here tonight. Unfortunately I cannot accept this honor. There are too many atheists who came before me. Indeed, I have stood on the shoulder of giants. Warren Buffet. Carl Sagan. Bertrand Russel. Ayn Rand. Thomas Huxley. That and, while there may be an archetypical follower of a particular religion, there can be no archetypical atheist, since all that ties us together is merely the lack of belief in gods and goddesses and not specific value system.

Misrepresentation #1
I was not even close to saying you exemplify atheism. I was just saying you are a typical atheist. That is all. If you wish for more compliments, the paragon of typical atheists is a bit more precise. As I said, things you say are typical things of atheists. I am not saying YOU are one. I guess I should have been more elaborate.

Ok… I would hardly consider Warren Buffet and Carl Sagan giants, especially the latter. The former’s arguments are very unreasonable. Bertrand Russell perhaps and Ayn Rand a MAYBE at best. Bertrand Russell’s works actually helped me in my journey to Christianity as ironic as that is. I am not saying these guys are unintelligent. I am just saying that they are not giants. Anthony Flew’s old self, Nietzche, Harris, Hitchens, Lacan, Krauss… These are guys worthy being called giants. This is just speculation though.

No, it’s a very appropos quote. Charlemange (the forum poster) stated “Atheists don’t see God because they don’t want to see Him.”, and the quote reveals quite the opposite–Meursault would like an afterlife, to be rich, to swim very fast, etc. I admit that Charlemange had a witty retort to that particular line.

I agree except with the first sentence. I was just stating that it was not a parallel. Interpretations are only interpretations though. I have mine. You have yours. We apparently disagree with them. Impasse.

Because I provided a quote implying some atheists did want to believe, you’re now saying that I personally do not want to believe? That’s faulty logic, and I request the following ground rules:

Misrepresentation #2
I never said that. If you THOUGHT I did, then I apologize that you did not understand. I know you do not believe those things, but you sure do not go out of your way to make sure you do not even SEEM like you believe it. I was just saying that that is what Charlemagne could have meant directly by saying it indirectly.

(a) not pretend to know what I believe about the world especially when I’ve stated the opposite.

Misrepresentation #3
Agreed. Equally to you. I have yet to do such a thing. If you think I did, then I am sorry you think that. Forgive me for not being elaborate.

(b) not to stereotype me as 'a typical ’ where is atheism, my race, my gender, my nationality, my age, my profession, etc.

Agreed. Now THIS one I did do. I am sorry for that.

These are not the ways to have an honest discussion.

I agree. We need to work together to not do it. In your defense, there were less misrepresentations and they were less major also.

God bless

 

[GreggAlvarez]

First, I never believed nor stated that Catholics in general believe in God because they want to believe in a happy afterlife.

I never said you did.

Second, you’re saying that you used to have that illogical belief, and you’re now associating me with your former self and beliefs for some reason when I doubt you and I ever had very much in common.

No, I am not associating my former beliefs with yours. AND I am not saying I had illogical beliefs. I was just saying that my statements had a lot of assumptions. Your statements and my former statements do in fact resemble each other quite nicely. Trust me. I know my former STATEMENTS better than you do. And I can see that the substance is the very much the same. I am not claiming that our beliefs and way of thinking are the same nor am I claiming that even the beliefs are alike. I was merely saying that our statements say the same things.

I sense hostility in your words I don’t get from other forum members–and I’m not going to take it personally but assume the best, that it’s probably not directed at me but rather at the former you? I’m sorry if you despise the former you so much, and hope you can come to terms with your own life. ::hugs:: I will not debate with you further.

I did not mean to debate this.

Sorry if you think I am hostile. I quip a lot and mean nothing cruelly. Thank you for assuming the best. Perhaps I quip a little too much. I love honest discussions and hate dishonest discussion. If it seemed like I was attacking your person, then sorry you think that. That is an ad hominem fallacy if I never saw one, as the saying goes. I was just attacking the statements because I know where they come from. (See above.)

And thanks for inquiring about my former self. I do not despise it. I did not hate that I was atheist. I hate the FACT that I was atheist. There is a minute difference but the difference is big enough for me. I would not be the way I am if God had not put me in that position. I would probably be a drone. I have come to terms with my own life. And thanks for the hugs my friend.

Anyway, no hostility here (unless you insult the Church, but I think we are safe with that). I just want a fair discussion is all.

Take care

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

GreggAlvarez:

Thank you for assuming the best. Perhaps I quip a little too much. I love honest discussions and hate dishonest discussion… Take care

Cheers, I’m glad we can chalk much of this up to simple miscommunication, so easy online in the absence of body language.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LifeIsAbsurd

Your above argument is only sound if you could show that atheism requires believing in an explanation for the formation of the universe that’s not supported by logical proof nor material evidence.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Where is the scientific or atheistic evidence that there was no Creation event?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Cheers, I’m glad we can chalk much of this up to simple miscommunication, so easy online in the absence of body language.

Indeed, my friend.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

What is the requirement needed for the claim of God to be accepted?

 

[kingal86]

Who proposed the theory of the Big Bang? Any idea? Let me tell you, he was a Roman Catholic Priest!



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Thanks I didn’t know that. Although, playing Devil’s Advocate (sort-of, given I’m unsure myself), a Catholic priest proposing the Big Bang theory doesn’t necessarily mean God exists, or that He caused the Big Bang, or that something that doesn’t need to be caused itself caused it, though it doesn’t preclude the possibility.

 

[kildare]

Thank you White crayon.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kildare

In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

Don’t forget your commas:

In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Another question the atheist cannot answer is why his philosophy doesn’t fit with every day human experience.

The atheist says truth is subjective; however, we all live as if it is objective.
The atheist says morals are subjective; however, we all live as if they are objective.
The atheist says life has no objective meaning; however, we all live as if it has.
The atheist says no supernatural exists; however most of us pray.

These phenomenons can be explained perfectly in the Catholic worldview; the atheist worldview fails in that regard.

 

[4Horsemen]

Another question the atheist cannot answer is why his philosophy doesn’t fit with every day human experience.

The atheist says truth is subjective; however, we all live as if it is objective.
The atheist says morals are subjective; however, we all live as if they are objective.
The atheist says life has no objective meaning; however, we all live as if it has.
The atheist says no supernatural exists; however most of us pray.

These phenomenons can be explained perfectly in the Catholic worldview; the atheist worldview fails in that regard.

I disagree with your rendering of "we all . . . " Not “all” live as if truth is objective, or morals or that life has any meaning, but most Americans do claim to be Christians and pray. Those who claim to be atheists are in the low single digits. (“Hello down there!” )

Generally the atheist is a victim of moral relativism. S/he has no objective yardstick for which to measure what is true vs. false, at least in the moral realm. So many atheists (including myself at one time) claimed to live by their own personal “value system.” Of course it was based on their particular likes and dislikes. Little demi-gods!

True that most people anyway have to live according to some objective standards even those derived from moral absolutes. For instance, the law against murder (except abortion) prohibits a person from killing another. Most people don’t steal either. Perhaps the fear is of being caught and punished by state authorities is what compels them, not an affront against God.

 

[tonyrey]

Another question the atheist cannot answer is why his philosophy doesn’t fit with every day human experience.

The atheist says truth is subjective; however, we all live as if it is objective.
The atheist says morals are subjective; however, we all live as if they are objective.
The atheist says life has no objective meaning; however, we all live as if it has.
The atheist says no supernatural exists; however most of us pray.

These phenomenons can be explained perfectly in the Catholic worldview; the atheist worldview fails in that regard.

Irrefutable! Some fall back on the “It is necessary to live as if…” excuse.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

I disagree with your rendering of "we all . . . " Not “all” live as if truth is objective, or morals or that life has any meaning,

Some may claim that they don’t, but in reality they do.

Consider objective meaning. The atheist performs a certain act, let’s say of charity, because he believes it means something. But he doesn’t beforehand take a step back and think: this act objectively means absolutely nothing, but today I’m gonna ascribe to it the meaning of… charity! He performs the act because he feels/recognizes/knows the objective meaning of charity. Only afterwards can he try to ‘rationalize’ his behaviour by claiming that he himself ascribed that meaning to it.

 

[4Horsemen]

Some may claim that they don’t, but in reality they do.

Consider objective meaning. The atheist performs a certain act, let’s say of charity, because he believes it means something. But he doesn’t beforehand take a step back and think: this act objectively means absolutely nothing, but today I’m gonna ascribe to it the meaning of… charity! He performs the act because he feels/recognizes/knows the objective meaning of charity. Only afterwards can he try to ‘rationalize’ his behaviour by claiming that he himself ascribed that meaning to it.

Hmmmm. . . as a Christian I believe we have a conscience and the law “written into our hearts,” but, it seems to me, that some unbelievers, particularly atheistic existentialists like the character from Camus’ play, Meursault, who thought of the concept “afterlife” as no more than wanting to be the fastest swimmer or having better lips (!), regard charitable acts as having no more value than uncharitable acts. I suppose he was lying to himself. I would say that is what atheism is, a lie, a scam, but how much atheists truly understand this is subject to debate.

 

[tonyrey]

Some may claim that they don’t, but in reality they do.

Consider objective meaning. The atheist performs a certain act, let’s say of charity, because he believes it means something. But he doesn’t beforehand take a step back and think: this act objectively means absolutely nothing, but today I’m gonna ascribe to it the meaning of… charity! He performs the act because he feels/recognizes/knows the objective meaning of charity. Only afterwards can he try to ‘rationalize’ his behaviour by claiming that he himself ascribed that meaning to it.

You’re arguing in effect that atheism is a scam! Yet there are certainly sincere atheists who genuinely cannot see a reason for believing in God. They are the least likely to be aggressive towards religion because they simply regard it as a mistake. If they are good-natured they feel pity rather than contempt and animosity. Those who are aggressive reveal a virulent streak which is illogical. Why such venomous hatred for an illusion? There is far more in this than meets the eye…

 

[LongJohnSilver]

You’re arguing in effect that atheism is a scam! Yet there are certainly sincere atheists who genuinely cannot see a reason for believing in God.

I believe that. I’m not mocking atheists, or think they all are insincere.
But sincere atheists still would have to come up with an explanation for why the atheist worldview seems so distant from every day human experience.

They are the least likely to be aggressive towards religion because they simply regard it as a mistake. If they are good-natured they feel pity rather than contempt and animosity. Those who are aggressive reveal a virulent streak which is illogical. Why such venomous hatred for an illusion? There is far more in this than meets the eye…

I think you’re right. It reminds me of Hillaire Belloc, who gives as one of the reasons for the tumultious and rebellious uprisings during the Reformation, an outburst of the ancient hidden hate of the True Faith, of the True Church, that can be found all throughout history.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LongJohn

*I think you’re right. It reminds me of Hillaire Belloc, who gives as one of the reasons for the tumultious and rebellious uprisings during the Reformation, an outburst of the ancient hidden hate of the True Faith, of the True Church, that can be found all throughout history. *

And as Jesus prophesied:

19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[a] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me.

John 15:19-21 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

[tonyrey]

It reminds me of Hillaire Belloc, who gives as one of the reasons for the tumultious and rebellious uprisings during the Reformation, an outburst of the ancient hidden hate of the True Faith, of the True Church, that can be found all throughout history.

Like the animosity towards the Chosen People…