Is this the call for a confused Atheist?

[josie_L]

Is there anything you won’t say to try and win an argument? Anything not too logically absurd? I mean geesh … atheists date before marriage (and sometimes live with their partner without marrying them). Hmmmm … but nahhh Catholics never do that do they?

Why is it absurb because it doesn’t agree with your nifty world view?

All Catholics are virgins before they get married (and never live in sin … yeah right)??? What planet do you live on Josie? I heard Canada was a little behind the times, but I didn’t think you guys were still living out the Puritan dream up there

I know of some virgins believe it or not (and yes, they’re Catholic). Oh, and by the way, STOP BELITTLING ME!

Lest you forget I grew up Catholic, I know hundreds of American Catholics, and let me assure you nearly everyone I know has lived with an opposite sex partner at some point (and yes they were sinning as often as physically possible). You might say, urrr they’re not real Catholics. Well then don’t take their money on Sunday …

I do not believe in co-habitation, and I think people should wait to have sex before they get married. Scoff and make fun of me all you want!!!

nearly every atheist I know is either married or looks forward to marriage. I don’t know where you’re getting these ideas from, but it’s not from the real world that’s for sure. You’re starting to sound pretty sheltered to me??

So now you know 6 000 000 atheists (that is apparently how many there are in the U.S.)?

of course that survey didn’t distinguish between theists and atheists did it … so it’s logically irrelevant to this discussion (nice try … if I was an idiot that is).

The point of the WHOLE article (provided in the link) was to debunk the idea that Atheists have lower rates of divorce than other groups (so it does compare and contrast). It uses a well known study.

Come on Josie … you’re skewing statistics to try and make a fallacious and fictitious point.

Well, I can hardly skew the statistics since I myself did not gather and compile the data.

 

[ricmat]

basically if you’d like you can call every Christian who ever gets a divorce a non-Christian (that way you could say you have a 0% divorce rate). Of course church will pretty empty on Sundays now won’t it.

Perhaps.

But then, a church is a hospital for sick souls, hoping to make them better.

So call us hypocrites if you wish. But even though few ever hit the bull’s eye, at least there are standards which we set as goals.

Of course, it is much easier to meet the standards in those philosophies which have none.

 

[prodigal-sun]

ALL OF YOU #@*^&@^%% THAT ARE OFF TOPIC SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES. THIS IS NOT YOUR THREAD AND YOU ARE WAY OFF TOPIC. GO TO ONE OF THE SEVERAL THREADS DISCUSSING THIS TOPIC OR START YOUR OWN.

A 15 YEAR OLD BOY CAME TO THIS FORUM FOR SUPPORT AND ADVICE AND YOU BUNCH OFF YAHOO’S START BIKERING AND HIJACK THIS PERSONS THREAD. A GREAT WITNESS FOR THE YOUNG MAN YOU ALL ARE!

NOW YOU BUNCH OF POTLICKERS SHOULD APOLGIZE AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

why shouldn’t this 15 year old boy actually see what religious people quibble about? My advice to the young man was to reach out to his parents … but still the same 15 is old enough to make informed choices about some things (and certainly old enough to discuss things and think at an intelligent level).

I’m glad the boy is here to watch you folks bicker against each other about whose theology is right, beat each other over the head with your holier than thou sticks, etc. Whatever the boy decides I hope he doesn’t become a deluded zealot whose dumb enough to think he’s right and everyone else is wrong.

I stake my ground as an atheist, so much I admit. However, I believe I have good empirical reasons for my position (and I’m willing to discuss them openly). Why shouldn’t a boy in his learning stage be exposed to this … only deranged people seek to deprive others of knowledge IMO.

 

[prodigal-sun]

why shouldn’t this 15 year old boy actually see what religious people quibble about? My advice to the young man was to reach out to his parents … but still the same 15 is old enough to make informed choices about some things (and certainly old enough to discuss things and think at an intelligent level).

I’m glad the boy is here to watch you folks bicker against each other about whose theology is right, beat each other over the head with your holier than thou sticks, etc. Whatever the boy decides I hope he doesn’t become a deluded zealot whose dumb enough to think he’s right and everyone else is wrong.

I stake my ground as an atheist, so much I admit. However, I believe I have good empirical reasons for my position (and I’m willing to discuss them openly). Why shouldn’t a boy in his learning stage be exposed to this … only deranged people seek to deprive others of knowledge IMO.

Because this is not what the thread is about. YOu are off topic! He Jamesbond does not have to look far to see lots of bickering and that is where you should be. You gave your advice on the topic which is great, excellent, good for you. But everything after that was off topic so shut it and take it else where.

Peace:thumbsup:

 

[StAnastasia]

I stake my ground as an atheist, so much I admit. However, I believe I have good empirical reasons for my position (and I’m willing to discuss them openly). Why shouldn’t a boy in his learning stage be exposed to this … only deranged people seek to deprive others of knowledge IMO.

Since atheism is a metaphysical claim (like theism is), how can you claim you have empirical reasons for your position?

 

[Faith_at_Large]

Just as the less educated are more predisposed to religion. Doesn’t this all tell you something? Smart people are less likely to do dumb things (I know … no duh, seems intuitive enough right).

Why do you think the bible attempts to preempt the objection it rightly anticipates from the intellectual elite? Because they’re trying to convince stupid people they should be frightened of them (since we’ll no doubt thrust our pesky logic upon them). Not a bad tactic (but that’s all it is … just a tactic).

Now I have to disagree with you on that point. I come from a family that has an average IQ of 150, and most of us are Catholic. There is one atheist in the bunch, but he is not exactly a beacon of brilliance. No worries, I would not assume that all atheists are stupid just because of one relative.

And many of the great scientists in the world have been believers. Many Catholic. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and the father of genetics. Nicholas Coppernicus and Galileo were both Catholic and even though Galileo did get into some hot water, he firmly believed that science and the Bible were compatible and he died a faithful Catholic.

One of the nice things I like about my Church is that I do not need to worry about whether the Theory of Evolution ever becomes proven fact - if it does it does not change anything about what I believe as a Catholic. And as a Catholic I am not prohibited from believing in the possibility of evolution.

Evolution has not been proven, but it has a lot going for it. What has been shown is that a species can evolve/adapt, whether or not it evengually becomes something else entirely. One of the basic Laws of Biology is that life comes from pre-existing life - cats from cats, dogs from dogs, ducks from ducks - and amoebas from amoebas.

I do not look at evolution as a threat to religion but rather that all science is the study of God’s handiwork.

They say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I tend to agree. Many atheists that I have met have just enough knowledge to get themselves into trouble. But it does not have to stop there, the more one knows about creation - the universe and all that is in it - the more one discerns the Architect (a paraphrase of someone else’s idea, but so true).

 

[StAnastasia]

One of the nice things I like about my Church is that I do not need to worry about whether the Theory of Evolution ever becomes proven fact - if it does it does not change anything about what I believe as a Catholic. And as a Catholic I am not prohibited from believing in the possibility of evolution.

You need to understand how science works. Of course evolution will never be proven as “fact”; neither will gravity. Theories never become facts; rather, theories explain facts. Gravity is a theory that explains why things fall down; evolution is a theory that explains why all life on earth is genetically related through descent from a common ancestor billions of years ago. Humans, cats, redwood trees and amoebae all descend from a common origin.

StAnastasia

 

[josie_L]

ALL OF YOU #@*^&@^%% THAT ARE OFF TOPIC SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES. THIS IS NOT YOUR THREAD AND YOU ARE WAY OFF TOPIC. GO TO ONE OF THE SEVERAL THREADS DISCUSSING THIS TOPIC OR START YOUR OWN.

A 15 YEAR OLD BOY CAME TO THIS FORUM FOR SUPPORT AND ADVICE AND YOU BUNCH OFF YAHOO’S START BIKERING AND HIJACK THIS PERSONS THREAD. A GREAT WITNESS FOR THE YOUNG MAN YOU ALL ARE!

NOW YOU BUNCH OF POTLICKERS SHOULD APOLGIZE AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!

You should not be talking in such a manner, if you are that concerned about what the boy will think.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

They say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I tend to agree. Many atheists that I have met have just enough knowledge to get themselves into trouble. But it does not have to stop there, the more one knows about creation - the universe and all that is in it - the more one discerns the Architect (a paraphrase of someone else’s idea, but so true).

You probably haven’t met many atheists then (or at least ones who have a well developed understanding of why they believe as they do).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Since atheism is a metaphysical claim (like theism is), how can you claim you have empirical reasons for your position?

I have many empirical reasons for my position, albeit when asked “can I prove the non-existence of god” it is a demand that I prove a negative. No matter … I believe it is provable (as I’ve explained ad nausea in various threads here).

 

[josie_L]

I have many empirical reasons for my position, albeit when asked “can I prove the non-existence of god” it is a demand that I prove a negative. No matter … I believe it is provable (as I’ve explained ad nausea in various threads here).

Have you nothing to say about my post? DId you read the whole article, and if not the article, the study which it was based on (Barna I believe)?

 

[StAnastasia]

I have many empirical reasons for my position, albeit when asked “can I prove the non-existence of god” it is a demand that I prove a negative. No matter … I believe it is provable (as I’ve explained ad nausea in various threads here).

Do you mean ad nauseam"?

My point is that the non-existence of God is no more empirically provable than is the existence of God. Both are metaphysical claims, not susceptible to scientific demonstration.

StAnastasia

 

[JamesBond]

For most kids I would say 15 is too young to make these sorts of decisions independent of your parents. Reading the OP I can say you’re no atheist … you’re entertaining too much doubt (and you lean toward the Christian faith in one form or the other).

I would advise the young man to make an informed decision. Talk about this with your parents, discuss it with your Presbyterian Pastor, perhaps even explore the Presbyterian faith more in depth (most Presbyterian denominations are also very pro-life, and just as conservative as the CC). If you’re still intent on exploring the CC then go for it, but tread slowly and understand what you’re getting yourself into.

If you read my short profile on this forum I can identify with you pretty well, except that I’m older than you, I’ve earned my college degrees, and I studied theology for years. After gaining the insight I now have into theology; my intellect drove to me to the my current position on faith. However, I was raised Catholic, and when I was a devoted Christian I became a fan of John Calvin (the theological inspiration of the Presbyterian church).

I became an atheist because I concluded that god (at least as framed by religion) just doesn’t exist. However, that’s not a decision anyone should make before they gain some notches on their belt and intellectual fortitude, which requires time, experience, and study. Even if you commit to something now … it’s not to say you won’t change your mind again, because you most likely will (just keep that in mind as you proceed, religion isn’t the Army … you can up and leave if you want to).

This is why I feel so strange. I arrived at the Atheistic conclusion along time ago, and was pretty sure of myself. Only recently have I felt a bit more Agnostic.

 

[josie_L]

Do you mean ad nauseam"?

My point is that the non-existence of God is no more empirically provable than is the existence of God. Both are metaphysical claims, not susceptible to scientific demonstration.

StAnastasia

Taken from “The Language of God”, by Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, one of the world’s leading scientists.

**"If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove His existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason. ** Perhaps the most colourful encapsulation of this point of view comes from an unlikely source. Stephen Jay Gould, who outside of Dawkins is probably the most widely read publicc spokesperson for evolution of the past generation. Writing in an otherwise little-noticed book review. Gould chastised the Dawkins perspective:

"To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time. Science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it, we simply can’t comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInnerney (Gould’s third grade teacher) and have their knuckles rapped for it. . . Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example). Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwinia, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discover of the Burgess Shale Fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct the history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G.G. Simpson was a humanistic agnostic, Theodosius Dobzhansky, a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs - and equally compatible with atheism. **So those who choose to be atheists must find some other basis for taking that position. Evolution won’t do. **

 

[josie_L]

This is why I feel so strange. I arrived at the Atheistic conclusion along time ago, and was pretty sure of myself. Only recently have I felt a bit more Agnostic.

Hi James,

Is there something for which you feel compelled to consider Christianity, I mean are there “coincidences” of a kind that are leading you away from atheism, or a sense of being called that is letting you question your atheistic viewpoint? Also, James I would like for you to do something if you could, can you say a prayer to “God” asking Him that he help you to believe? Sometimes it takes just one act of sincerity to find Him. I hope that you do in the end find him, there is nothing more freeing than knowing the Truth, and that Truth being, how much He loves you.

God bless.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

This is why I feel so strange. I arrived at the Atheistic conclusion along time ago, and was pretty sure of myself. Only recently have I felt a bit more Agnostic.

why?

Hey guys we can play the devil versus the angel of light game … I guess I’ll be the devil

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Have you nothing to say about my post? DId you read the whole article, and if not the article, the study which it was based on (Barna I believe)?

none of that is relevant to the question of whether god exists or whether Christianity is true is it (which is what the comment you responded to here focused on). Even if it’s true that a sense of community, belonging to a group, meditation or prayer, etc. can lead to less stress, it doesn’t make religion true (in fact it’s not even relevant to the question).

First of all remember, the Barna study merely contrasted people who attend church regularly verses those who don’t (they made no inquiries or at least distinctions regarding the percentage of the non-church goer group whom were avowed atheists … my guess it’s pretty small as is the percentage of Americans overall who claim to be atheists).

Therefore, it’s just as likely that the regular church goer group were more healthy than the general population because they live a better lifestyle. They probably have irresponsible sex less frequently than most, they probably don’t drink as much or use drugs, etc. However, the funny thing is real atheists generally live the same sort of lifestyle. So if Barna were to re-do his study & contrast church goers against actual atheists (not just people who don’t go to church) I bet the story would be inverted. I bet atheists actually live longer and are happier (at least if contrasted to highly intelligent people, who generally do have higher stress levels as compared to less intelligent people, given they generally have more responsibility).

 

[josie_L]

none of that is relevant to the question of whether god exists or whether Christianity is true is it (which is what the comment you responded to here focused on). Even if it’s true that a sense of community, belonging to a group, meditation or prayer, etc. can lead to less stress, it doesn’t make religion true (in fact it’s not even relevant to the question).

First of all remember, the Barna study merely contrasted people who attend church regularly verses those who don’t (they made no inquiries or at least distinctions regarding the percentage of the non-church goer group whom were avowed atheists … my guess it’s pretty small as is the percentage of Americans overall who claim to be atheists).

Therefore, it’s just as likely that the regular church goer group were more healthy than the general population because they live a better lifestyle. They probably have irresponsible sex less frequently than most, they probably don’t drink as much or use drugs, etc. However, the funny thing is real atheists generally live the same sort of lifestyle. So if Barna were to re-do his study & contrast church goers against actual atheists (not just people who don’t go to church) I bet the story would be inverted. I bet atheists actually live longer and are happier (at least if contrasted to highly intelligent people, who generally do have higher stress levels as compared to less intelligent people, given they generally have more responsibility).

Oh, and what does a real atheist believe in as opposed to a fake one?

P.S. We’re keeping you busy tonight aren’t we?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Oh, and what does a real atheist believe in as opposed to a fake one?

P.S. We’re keeping you busy tonight aren’t we?

now your just trying to amuse yourself with silly questions