Main Reason For Atheism

[Mystophilus]

Monarchy:

I would agree to without a god. But again, I do not deny there is a god, as I can’t prove that. But most atheists I know go with the definition I used. Whether it started out that way doesn’t really matter.

You could call yourself a tomato, if you so wished. Whatever you choose to call yourself, what the majority of your audience will understand by any given term is the majority usage, i.e., that which is referenced by the compilers of dictionaries. If you really want to have to continually re-explain your transference of the denotation of one existing word onto another existing word, good luck to you.

On the other hand, you could assert your logic, stand up, and proudly call yourself an agnostic, regardless of what the dogmatic God-deniers may say, although that would mean placing yourself outside of two groups, rather than one.

Indefensible how?

A non-existence is unprovable for any generalised situation. I suspect that you already know this, because of your comment regarding avoidance of the positive denial of the existence of a god.

 

[cheddarsox]

Gilbert Keith:

MONARCHY

*I do find the teachings of the church to often turn to tortured mental gymnastics to explain dichotomies, weave old teachings and traditions to new understandings. I have to say that often I think the church puts more energy into saving face and developing convuluted theology and doctrine than it does in sharing the truth about god. That is just my take on it.
*
These remarks seem to indicate that you are typical of atheists who visit Christian boards. Like Monarchy, you are here to attack religion, not merely to defend or explain atheism. Then you turn around and say you have no agenda to convert us to your way of thinking.

This is disengenuous, to put it mildly.

I’m not an atheist, so I am hardly a typical one.

People ask the reasons that others don’t believe, and when they hear them, begin to scream “ATTACK”. If you don’t want to hear why we don’t believe, or don’t believe in your version, either don’t ask, or don’t read threads where that is the topic.

I have never come here and started a thread making fun of your religion. I have never started a thread making fun of your religion on any forum I belong to, and this is one of the few Christian forums I belong to.

But since someone here regularly starts threads about Atheisim or other beliefs that don’t accept a Christian god, then I do feel I have something to add to the conversation. That is not an attack, to offer my opinion when asked.

If you are uncomfortable with people who disagree with your religion, or find fault with it, perhaps you would be better off not reading these threads. I expect contraversy, and to see my beliefs bandied about on these types of threads, it is the nature of the beast.

I participate in my religion daily, I think religion is an important and valid part of the lives of most people. So I am one of the least likely people to randomly attack it. But I also call a spade a spade. There are things I don’t agree with, things I feel are wrong, and sometimes dangerous in some religions, and I’ll speak up when and where it is appropriate.

cheddar

 

[elwedriddsche]

cheddarsox:

If you are uncomfortable with people who disagree with your religion, or find fault with it, perhaps you would be better off not reading these threads.

He seems to be on a crusade himself - trying to find a venue of attack to convert atheists to Christianity, e.g. by starting this thread.

It’s comments like “I’ve never heard an atheist in this forum say anything more important than that God does not exist” that disqualify him from getting past the elevator speech, though.

Essentially, he’s conducting market research, but willfully discounts the opinions of his target audience. Well and good…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddarsox

I participate in my religion daily, I think religion is an important and valid part of the lives of most people. So I am one of the least likely people to randomly attack it. But I also call a spade a spade. There are things I don’t agree with, things I feel are wrong, and sometimes dangerous in some religions, and I’ll speak up when and where it is appropriate.
AS I SAID:

Then you turn around and say you have no agenda to convert us to your way of thinking.

You cannot “correct” us by calling “a spade a spade” and then say you are not trying to change our way of thinking.

Be honest with yourself and don’t invite me to leave the thread if I’m not comfortable with your way of thinking. I started the thread, so I’m very comfortable discussing the subject at hand.

**

**

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

elwed

*He seems to be on a crusade himself - trying to find a venue of attack to convert atheists to Christianity, e.g. by starting this thread.
*
Why not speak to me in the first person? I might be more inclined to engage with you … unless you’re reluctant.

 

[bapcathluth]

I have to agree with Cheddarsox here. I don’t see how he is on a crusade or trying to get somebody to believe the way he does. The OP, Gilbert Keith, had a list of reasons why he thought people might be atheist. He then asked people to weigh-in with their opinions. When some people came here to contribute their opinions as asked, they are then accused of being on a crusade.

I am not an atheist. I look at our world and see so much wonder and beauty that I can’t believe there wasn’t a creator. I don’t understand when needless suffering happens to innocents.

I have a hard time understanding how anybody can believe that their religion is the only way. There are too many choices out there, and too many people convinced that theirs is the correct way. Most of us just opt for the religion we were raised in.

Does this mean I am on a crusade to get people to be as noncommital as I am. NO. Good for you if you have a strong faith, but I don’t understand it.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

bapcathluth

Does this mean I am on a crusade to get people to be as noncommital as I am.

Yes if you post over 600 times at Catholic Answers and complain about Catholic committment.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

mark a

They are afraid they may give more love than they get in return. In other words, their faith and love may be wasted if there is no God.
**
Interesting comment.

Fear of the effort required to engage with God so intense that one chooses not to engage with Him.

 

[cheddarsox]

Gilbert Keith:

You cannot “correct” us by calling “a spade a spade” and then say you are not trying to change our way of thinking.

Be honest with yourself and don’t invite me to leave the thread if I’m not comfortable with your way of thinking. I started the thread, so I’m very comfortable discussing the subject at hand.

I am interested in changing people’s way of thinking about other faiths. I am not interested in converting people to my faith,or to abandon their own faith.

I challenge people when they make incorrect, sweeping or ridiculous statements about another group of people, or when they misrepresent a group I am a part of or that I am knowledgable on.

I have not encouraged, suggested or implied that anyone should leave the Catholic, or any other faith. What you believe is your business. But when asked my opinion as to why I do not share your beliefs, I will give it. If that is your idea of an agenda or crusade, then so be it.

My behavior on these forums speaks for itself.

cheddar

 

[Prometheus1974]

siamesecat:

Also, I cant say for sure that there isnt some sort of ‘creator’,but I am absolutely sure it is not the Christian god, and that I highly doubt any form of organized religion is the correct form. In my opinion, the “creator”, if it exists, is no longer involved in world affairs.

Hi!

What makes you “absolutely sure”?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddarsox

If you are not in this forum interested in getting people to abandon their faith, why do you make such remarks as the following in an earlier post?

I do not reject the divine, but I do reject the God you are describing here, and your tortured mental gymnastics in trying to explain how that which created everything and is all powerful is still not culpable for the eternal doom of the near powerless creatures thus created.

I don’t see how you can expect any Catholic to read these words and not detect that you are trying to plant the seeds of doubt in his mind as to the mercy and love of God for all his creatures … including those who deny Him and the Church He founded to save them all.

“Tortured mental gymnastics” is the language of a crusader on the attack, not someone who is merely trying to explain his own view.

 

[cheddarsox]

Gilbert Keith:

cheddarsox

If you are not in this forum interested in getting people to abandon their faith, why do you make such remarks as the following in an earlier post?

I do not reject the divine, but I do reject the God you are describing here, and your tortured mental gymnastics in trying to explain how that which created everything and is all powerful is still not culpable for the eternal doom of the near powerless creatures thus created.

I don’t see how you can expect any Catholic to read these words and not detect that you are trying to plant the seeds of doubt in his mind as to the mercy and love of God for all his creatures … including those who deny Him and the Church He founded to save them all.

“Tortured mental gymnastics” is the language of a crusader on the attack, not someone who is merely trying to explain his own view.

I use strong words because they accurately describe my feelings and views. If that equals a crusade to you, then, as I said before, so be it.

I have repeatedly on these forums offered people advice and encouragement in their faith journeys. I have counseled people to seek spiritual advisors to assist them. There have been times I have refused to share my story on the forum so as not to be construed as trying to lead people away from the faith.I have shared the teachings of the church, even the teachings I don’t agree with, with people who had questions about doctrine. So, as I have said, my behavior on these forums speaks for itself.

cheddar

 

[bapcathluth]

Gilbert Keith:

bapcathluth

Does this mean I am on a crusade to get people to be as noncommital as I am.

Yes if you post over 600 times at Catholic Answers and complain about Catholic committment.

Whoa, you certainly do get personal and nasty. If you check my 600 posts, you will see that I mainly post at the In the News forum about politics. I have a semi-Catholic background and this is a public forum. I guess I can post and not be considered a crusader. I average 1.5 posts a day. I would hardly call that a crusade.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

bapcathluth

Whoa, you certainly do get personal and nasty.
Whoa, you certainly do get personal and nasty.

Let’s cut through the anger and get back to the debate.

 

[bapcathluth]

Gilbert Keith:

bapcathluth

Whoa, you certainly do get personal and nasty.
Whoa, you certainly do get personal and nasty.

Let’s cut through the anger and get back to the debate.

I am not angry–just surprised. I’m glad that you agree that this is a debate and not a crusade. I really don’t want to get personal nor insulting to you.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BAP

Your profile says you are a non practicing protestant. Why is that?

If someone told me he was a non-practicing Catholic, I would not be able to figure him out. How can you be a Catholic and not practice Catholicism?

It would be like calling yourself a golfer and not playing golf.

So how can you be a protestant and not practice protestantism?

 

[bapcathluth]

Gilbert Keith:

BAP

Your profile says you are a non practicing protestant. Why is that?

If someone told me he was a non-practicing Catholic, I would not be able to figure him out. How can you be a Catholic and not practice Catholicism?

It would be like calling yourself a golfer and not playing golf.

So how can you be a protestant and not practice protestantism?

The church I choose not to attend is a Protestant one, Gilbert. If I were to go to church, it would be Lutheran. I celebrate Christian holidays, not Passover or Solstice or Ramadan. That’s the best answer I can give you, Gilbert.

 

[Monarchy]

john doran:

if, on the other hand, you are subtly redescibing your example to be more like a situation where i inform someone that i will be, say, engaging in target practice on the firing range at 2pm, and then that person goes down to the gun club and jumps in front of one of my bullets, thereby committing suicide, then fair enough: this is definitely closer to the mark. but note also that i am not culpable for the death of the suicide. just as god isn’t culpable for any individual’s choice to go to and remain in hell.

Yes but god is supposed to be all-seeing correct? So even more analgolous (sp?) would be that you can see the future and you know that the person is going to jump in front of your gun, yet knowing this you still fire it. Are you still not moraly culpable?

 

[Monarchy]

Gilbert Keith:

MONARCHY

I do find the teachings of the church to often turn to tortured mental gymnastics to explain dichotomies, weave old teachings and traditions to new understandings. I have to say that often I think the church puts more energy into saving face and developing convuluted theology and doctrine than it does in sharing the truth about god. That is just my take on it.

These remarks seem to indicate that you are typical of atheists who visit Christian boards. Like Monarchy, you are here to attack religion, not merely to defend or explain atheism. Then you turn around and say you have no agenda to convert us to your way of thinking.

This is disengenuous, to put it mildly.

How am I attacking religion?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today… is christians… who acknowledge things with their lips and walk out the door and deny it by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”

This is a quote that I have heard many times. Even in a song. I don’t know who said it but it is very wise…

It’s attributed ot Brendan Manning.