Man created God? [edited]

[Veridical16]

Because we all, no matter where we were born, have the inherent need to believe that there is something more to this life than simply being born, dying, and rotting for all eternity? Don’t get me wrong, I am a believer, but on that note, I can see how very, very easy it could be to believe that religion, all of it, is nothing more than a man made method for control of the people, as well as comfort zone.

Yes, I find that “people need to feel there’s an afterlife, a heaven, for themselves and loves ones” used a lot by Atheists or just non-religious types, as a value statement on religion/belief.

Too bad for Atheists they’re looking in the wrong direction…it’s not really the end of life, but the beginning that illuminates the question about God…

Where does consciousness come from?
Why do we feel connected with those we love?

How does a beginning come into being at the start of life itself?

Why does man need to create a concept of God, of logic for creation? Where does that logic come from? Where the heck did the Jews get the words “in his image” compared to all others…What is truth…

atheists (not all, who are open to learn, but many) act as if they are ahead of the curve, seen everything, and conclude on their own that they know best. They can act as one of the few individuals apart of group who have new answers–when in reality atheists and those without faith have always existed and posed the same questions for the sake of worldly things…and that those just as rational and intellectual open to the possibility of God were asking the same questions…
To understand God we need to look back, not forward–to the obvious, “our deaths”–but our forefathers, and acknowledge that it has been asked forever and that it persists because faith cannot be judged, as one respectful non-believer has said, “it’s faith, you can’t judge a person’s faith/belief”
God, our creator has been sought since the beginning…it only takes a hardness of heart, or the lacking of ears to reject this fact…

The Universe does not have to be ordered… It could just be a continued vaccuum of chaos, filled with neutrinos, quarks, random electrons, positrons, etc…
But alas, here we are…if you take a bit of O-chem, and Biochem, you’ll know what I’m talking about…

To borrow a quote from Trey Parker one of the creators of South Park (who aren’t really friendly to the Catholic religion or every Catholics’ cup of tea) … (paraphased until the last two words)"It’s ridiculously arrogant to believe with certainty that the universe was created, ‘just cause’ "

That said, if an atheist does not want to believe sincerely and shows no malice towards those with faith, to me it’s a matter of agree to disagree…
I have that attitude because the other day when I was driving on the freeway I saw a billboard attacking atheism using the “nothing comes from something” standard argument…I shook my head because I don’t think that will win converts from atheism, nor is it very respectful towards a person’s individual conclusions, or temporary reflections…

But anyway, I don’t think the “Man created God” is very clever after a first glance…I can see why it’s charming to some because it can stroke the egos of some…but…
If man created God, then God wouldn’t puzzle us so much. The rules of morality would be simple and solved…obviously God is a concept that is still being struggled to understand.? Why is that? Could it be because God has a consciousness beyond the limits of human mind? How can something created by man continue to be a mystery?
Why do we struggle , yet prevail, and continue to prevail in this life, to have hope and keep living?

I don’t think man is capable of creating a god that won’t dissolve in a few centuries of being created. The concept of God, the debate about him, shouldn’t keep persisting, unless that God existed in the first place. Man by himself is weak, therefore, if God was created in man’s image, he would probably be pretty crummy, corruptible, with the nature of man at its worse. For instance, we have proof of gods being created in the image of man… We have Zeus, and warring gods, etc.
Then we have a persistent God that speaks of natural laws, and recommendations towards a stabler existence, of life…of order. And this God has been transcendent, though partially understood by others, but more understood by the Jews, to later God with us, in Jesus.

I’m just grateful that my faith has been strengthened lately enough where I’m not one of those insecure believers, like I was when I was younger…who was influenced by my atheistic/agnostic friends.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

severntofall

*Oh yes, the lemming argument for the existence of god “If god does not exist then why does everyone believe in him” or from the perspective of the lemming “If leaping off that cliff is dangerous then why is everyone else doing it” or “if the world is round then why does everyone think that it’s flat” or “If the earth orbits the sun then why does everyone think the sun orbits the earth”?

Belief =/= reality. Sadly, this argument for the existence of a god appears to be the best argument theists have left. *

What you leave out here is that religion is a universal phenomenon. The search for God in your mind is man-made, lemming-like. Yet, if there is a God, that search is the most natural as well as supernatural thing in the world. There isn’t any other idea in the world that has taken hold of the mind and heart of man with such force as the idea of God. Not even science.

And since as an atheist you cannot prove that God does not exist (you can only suppose it) you have to wonder at the same time why all the atheists of the world are, lemming-like, fleeing from even the idea of God, never mind the reality.

There are, after all, two breeds of lemmings … the theists and the atheists. You can’t escape being a lemming. Live with it.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually these questions are not only being answered by non-believers, they are being studied in a laboratory.

Science just takes all the magic out of life doesn’t it?

Why don’t you give some indication as to how these questions are being answered and studied?

If you think science explains everything it must explain itself. Can you see a problem in that hypothesis?

 

[Touchstone]

Are you telling me that man could not know God because God was fundamentally illusory; yet, through abstract reasoning, man could imagine God? Isn’t abstract reasoning an ability that depends on something that exists? Furthermore, that slew of questions involves more than psychological difficulty. Regarding your phrase “end of self” – are you referring to who you are rather than what you are? Does one see his “self” as being unique?

It’s worth pointing out that God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis through all of these questions. No matter how thoroughly these questions get explained in natural terms, one can always push things back one more step: And how did nature and humans get set up for that without God. So, theists can rest safe from worry that God as transcendental remains safe from any falsification. It’s a truism of sorts, for those who want to adopt it.

Abstract reasoning as a faculty depends on the mind as a function of the brain, which exists as a part of human physiology, of course. But if you are asking whether abstract concepts themselves must exist to be apprehended, of course not. The square root of -1 doesn’t exist as a tangible entity – it’s a concept, a complex pattern of electrons and chemicals in the brain. But that number itself is not something you can point to as something ‘extended in space-time’. “Abstract” is the key word, here, decoupling concepts from simple conceptual bindings to perceived objects.

As for the “self”, death signals to all men the end of consciousness, the end of anything and everything that represents self, faith commitments that tilt against it notwithstanding. What we know is that a man dies, and that is the end of him; we shall never interact with him as an individual again, so far as our experience can tell.

My apology to you because I will not be able to continue this conversation because of some commitments. You present some very interesting ideas and I do intend to get back to you in the near future.

In the meantime, I am very glad that in my younger days, high school to be exact, I decided that God did indeed exist. Ever since, I have never found myself “waiting for Godot.”

Blessings and good thoughts
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

No worries, thanks for the interesting feedback.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

As for the “self”, death signals to all men the end of consciousness, the end of anything and everything that represents self, faith commitments that tilt against it notwithstanding. What we know is that a man dies, and that is the end of him; we shall never interact with him as an individual again, so far as our experience can tell.

Hello again!

Yes, the event called death is certainly an end of our visible relationships of give-and-take. That is especially true for the atheist. For the theist death is not the absolute end. All our doubts notwithstanding, faith tells us that every relationship we had in life has been a preparation for our final relationship with God … the relationship that matters most of all. Searching for God or fleeing from God are merely opposite sides of the same coin. Those who flee God do not cease to have a relationship with Him.

The presence of atheists pleading their cause in this forum is proof enough of that.

Why are they fighting something that does not exist?

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

As for the “self”, death signals to all men the end of consciousness, the end of anything and everything that represents self, faith commitments that tilt against it notwithstanding. What we know is that a man dies, and that is the end of him; we shall never interact with him as an individual again, so far as our experience can tell.

Hello again!

Yes, the event called death is certainly an end of our visible relationships of give-and-take. That is especially true for the atheist. For the theist death is not the absolute end. All our doubts notwithstanding, faith tells us that every relationship we had in life has been a preparation for our final relationship with God … the relationship that matters most of all. Searching for God or fleeing from God are merely opposite sides of the same coin. Those who flee God do not cease to have a relationship with Him.

I’m an atheist, but my imagination regularly suggests that it really would be pleasant to suppose my consciousness, my “self” continued on past death. I can’t say that the idea of living forever is a pleasant prospect, either, but the appeal of thinking of death as a “door” to something beyond is a visceral one. When you say “faith tells us”, that phrase really resonates with that bit of psychology in my head that suggests death is not the end. I wonder if you “tell” is the same as my “suggest”? Neither seem to be grounded in anything empirical or objective, something extramental.

The presence of atheists pleading their cause in this forum is proof enough of that.

Why are they fighting something that does not exist?

Well, ancient astronomers fought against the idea that the gods pushed the sun across the sky. Superstition has been battled ten thousand different ways over the millenia by (proto-)scientific thinkers.

Do you suppose those ancient astronomers thought they were fighting imaginary gods who didn’t exist and weren’t pushing the planets around?

This kind of dialog is just resistance against superstition, not against the objects of superstition. When I critique astrology I don’t suppose I’m fighting against cosmic forces that are wont to fashion my destiny and personality based on my birthday.

-TS

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

The Lost day
NASA scientists discovered a “missing” day in time which corresponds to Biblical accounts of the sum standing still in the sky.
For All scientists out there and for all students who have a hard time convincing these people about the truth of the Bible…heres something that shows Gods awsome creation and shows that He is still in control.
This happened to the astronauts and space scinetists iat GreenBelt, Maryland and a consultant in the space program, relates the following developement.
They were checking the position of the sun, moon, and planets out in space where they would be 100 years and 1000 years from now.We have to know this so we won’t send a sattlelight, up and have it bump into something later on in it’s orbits. We have to lay out the orbits in terms of the life of the sattlelight, and where the planets will be so the whole thing will not bog down.
They ran the computer measurement back and forth over the centuries and it came to a halt. The computer stopped and put up a red siginal, which meant that there was someth8ing wrong with the information fed into it or with the results as compared to the standards. They called in the service dept. to check it out and they said, “What’s wrong?”
Well they found there was a day missing in space in elasped time. They scratched their heads and tore their hair. There was no answer.
Finally a christain man on the team said"You know, one time i was in Sunday School and they talked about the sun standing still" While they didn’t believe him, they didn’t have an answer either, so they said,“Show us.”
He got a bible and went back to the book of Joshua where they found a pritty rediculous statement fo any one with “common sense” There they found the Lord saying to Joshua,“Fear them not, I have delivered them into thy hand: there shall not a man stand before thee” Joshua wa conserned because he was surrounded by the enemy and if darkness fell they would over power them. So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still! That’s right-“The sun stood still and the moon stayed- and hasted not to go down about a whole day!“Joshua 10:12-13
The astronauts and scientists said"There is a missing Day!” They checked the computers into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough. The elasped time that was missing back in Joshuas day was 23 hours and 20 minutes- not a whole day. They read the bible and there it was “about (approximately) a day” These little words in the Bible are important, but they were still in trouble because if you cannot account for 40 minutes you’ll still be in trouble 1,000 yrs. from now. Forty minutes had to be found because it can be multiplied many time over in orbits. As the christian employee thought about it he remembered somewhere in the bible where the sun went BACKWARDS. The scientists told him he was out of his mind, but they got out the book and read these words in 2Kings. Hazekiah, on his death bed, was visited by the prophet Isaiah who told him that he was not going to die.
Hezekiah asked for a sign as proof, Isaiah said"do you want the sun to go ahead 10 degrees?,” Hesikiah said"“it is nothing for the sun to go ahead 10 degrees, but let the shadow return backward 10 degrees.”
Isaiah spoke to the Lord and and the Lord brought the shadow 10 degrees BACKWARD!
10 Degrees is exactly 40 minutes! Twenty-three hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in 2Kings Makes the missing day in the universe! “Isnt that amazing” Nancy

 

[Charlemagne_II]

When I critique astrology I don’t suppose I’m fighting against cosmic forces that are wont to fashion my destiny and personality based on my birthday.

As you know, you’re not the only one who critiques astrology. It is a superstition supposedly based on objective criteria. I have no idea what that “objective” criteria could be. Neither faith nor skepticism are based on “objective” criteria if you mean scientifically verifiable phenomenon. God does not submit Himself to the criteria of science. That is why many scientists caught up in scientism find the very idea of Him so offensive.

Speaking of human egos, science has the biggest one going. The object of religion is to diminish the human ego by making it conform to the will of God. That is why the science of ethics (at the heart of true religion) is so much more important than, let us say, the science of physics … for the simple reason that it is vastly less important to be able to invent a bomb than to be able to persuade someone not to use it. The same is true of the science of medicine … which exists not for its own sake but to serve the ethical end of improving health and saving lives.

Men of science who create arsenals of weapons sufficient to annihilate the race, and men of science who rip babies untimely from their mother’s womb, have not learned to submit their will to the will of God. The notion that we should do something because we can do it, not because we *should * or should not do it, is a notion that will give some modern scientists the biggest of heads.

“Science means specialism, and specialism mean oligarchy.” G.K. Chesterton

 

[severntofall]

You speak a little overconfidently about something you cannot “prove” yourself.

I wasn’t trying to prove anything, just stating an undeniable fact: belief =/= reality. Truth exists independent of our ability to realize it and vice versa.

Faith is logical; it is induction. Observing specific factual phenomena and then making an inductive leap (leap of faith) to a conclusion. I may be one of the few Christians that will admit that the existence of God really cannot be proven in lab settings, especially to materialists which many atheists tend to be. But materialism isn’t the only reality.

If faith were the result of the logical deduction (or induction) of facts or evidence, then it would not be faith. Faith is essentially a belief (or beliefs) held independent of evidence. If your beliefs are based upon facts, then it is not faith.

The “lemming argument” as you call it cannot be dismissed so easily, especially when you follow it up with a string of non-sequiturs. And there are many other arguments for and against the existence of God which are posted in these forums daily. Proving God exists isn’t such an issue for me anymore, when daily God proves to *me *that he exists.

By non-sequitur I assume you mean: “examples that illustrate that belief is not the same as reality”. Again, if you believe in your god based upon facts and logical reasoning then your beliefs of god are not faith based. Now, to my knowledge, every argument for the existence of the god of Christianity has failed miserably, but that’s just my opinion.

This last statment of yours is condescending to say the least. Frankly, condescension bores me.

I suspect that it would have been condescending if not so accurate, but it’s true that this particular argument is the one I hear the most these days. Apparently my condescension was not so boring as to prevent you from responding to it.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

When I critique astrology I don’t suppose I’m fighting against cosmic forces that are wont to fashion my destiny and personality based on my birthday.

As you know, you’re not the only one who critiques astrology. It is a superstition supposedly based on objective criteria. I have no idea what that “objective” criteria could be. Neither faith nor skepticism are based on “objective” criteria if you mean scientifically verifiable phenomenon. God does not submit Himself to the criteria of science. That is why many scientists caught up in scientism find the very idea of Him so offensive.

Speaking of human egos, science has the biggest one going. The object of religion is to diminish the human ego by making it conform to the will of God. That is why the science of ethics (at the heart of true religion) is so much more important than, let us say, the science of physics … for the simple reason that it is vastly less important to be able to invent a bomb than to be able to persuade someone not to use it. The same is true of the science of medicine … which exists not for its own sake but to serve the ethical end of improving health and saving lives.

Men of science who create arsenals of weapons sufficient to annihilate the race, and men of science who rip babies untimely from their mother’s womb, have not learned to submit their will to the will of God. The notion that we should do something because we can do it, not because we *should * or should not do it, is a notion that will give some modern scientists the biggest of heads.

“Science means specialism, and specialism mean oligarchy.” G.K. Chesterton

I believe i was quoting scripture more than science,i was showing the faults of science, and the truth of the WORD OF GOD. Thank you!

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

I wasn’t trying to prove anything, just stating an undeniable fact: belief =/= reality. Truth exists independent of our ability to realize it and vice versa…

Of course this is true. We have not discovered even a fraction of all that there is left to discover. We only have the barest knowledge of the infinite God, but that doesn’t mean that all of our current knowledge is faulty.

If faith were the result of the logical deduction (or induction) of facts or evidence, then it would not be faith. Faith is essentially a belief (or beliefs) held independent of evidence…

Not for a true believer it isn’t. This is based on an assumption that all religious people believe in a common fantasy.
Induction, yes. Not deduction. I have long held the position that the “leap of faith” is an “inductive leap” at least for those of us whom are not willing to have “blind faith.” I think I invented this but then again it’s probably my vanity talking. There are many believers in all faiths that do not question what is handed to them, which is sad even if their faith is true. When Marx said religion is the “opiate of the masses” I don’t think he was wrong, but that doesn’t discredit the existence of God. Man does indeed create God in his own image at times (and I’m speaking of people that often use God to justify their claims or their wars, or people that “reinvent” God when the following of the scriputres is too hard). But that is not to say that there is a God and that God is knowable. So many, even believers, do not challenge their own beliefs nearly enough.

By non-sequitur I assume you mean: “examples that illustrate that belief is not the same as reality”. Again, if you believe in your god based upon facts and logical reasoning then your beliefs of god are not faith based. Now, to my knowledge, every argument for the existence of the god of Christianity has failed miserably, but that’s just my opinion. .

It is your opinion. And it is mistaken. I try not to have opinions anymore. I prefer to rely on judgements based on evidence, and to continually have my judgements tested because I for one will not allow myself to believe in a lie, even lies I try to tell myself. To say “every argument…has failed” is fallacious. Even I would not say that every atheist argument for the non-existence of God has failed. But that’s where faith comes in. The inductive leap leaves us without that concrete bridge between evidence and conclusion. It is faith based in logic, but still faith.

I suspect that it would have been condescending if not so accurate, but it’s true that this particular argument is the one I hear the most these days. Apparently my condescension was not so boring as to prevent you from responding to it.

True. But your condescension came from your assumption that theists only have, essentially, one leg left upon which to stand. That is certainly not the case, and that is what provoked me to respond. Condescension bores me precisely because it is a crutch often relied on by those without the strength to argue. I hope I have not seemed condescending to you. If I have, then I apologize.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

The presence of atheists pleading their cause in this forum is proof enough of that.

Why are they fighting something that does not exist?

Actually, I think they think they are trying to save us. I count that as heroic, to an extent, and rather touching. Hopefully we can help them. And really, attempting to answer atheist arguments helps us in our faith. I quite like having atheists around at times.

 

[severntofall]

Of course this is true. We have not discovered even a fraction of all that there is left to discover. We only have the barest knowledge of the infinite God, but that doesn’t mean that all of our current knowledge is faulty.

I agree. The problem starts when we claim to know that which we have no knowledge of.

Not for a true believer it isn’t. This is based on an assumption that all religious people believe in a common fantasy.
Induction, yes. Not deduction. I have long held the position that the “leap of faith” is an “inductive leap” at least for those of us whom are not willing to have “blind faith.” I think I invented this but then again it’s probably my vanity talking. There are many believers in all faiths that do not question what is handed to them, which is sad even if their faith is true. When Marx said religion is the “opiate of the masses” I don’t think he was wrong, but that doesn’t discredit the existence of God. Man does indeed create God in his own image at times (and I’m speaking of people that often use God to justify their claims or their wars, or people that “reinvent” God when the following of the scriputres is too hard). But that is not to say that there is a God and that God is knowable. So many, even believers, do not challenge their own beliefs nearly enough.

I find nothing to disagree with here.

It is your opinion. And it is mistaken. I try not to have opinions anymore. I prefer to rely on judgements based on evidence, and to continually have my judgements tested because I for one will not allow myself to believe in a lie, even lies I try to tell myself.

I merely qualified my understanding of the failed arguments for the Christian god as being “my opinion”, because the moderators on this board care little for bold proclamations that contradict their faith. In truth, I consider my statement in my previous post to be “just my opinion” in exactly the same manner as it is just my opinion that the sun is hot.

To say “every argument…has failed” is fallacious. Even I would not say that every atheist argument for the non-existence of God has failed.

Could not disagree more. Mind you, I have never said that there is no god or gods; however I do claim that in my opinion the theory of the christian god is a hypothesis that has throughly failed…again, just my opinion. I have seen every argument and cannot think of one that holds water.

 

[severntofall]

Actually, I think they think they are trying to save us. I count that as heroic, to an extent, and rather touching. Hopefully we can help them. And really, attempting to answer atheist arguments helps us in our faith. I quite like having atheists around at times.

Quite astute of you; however we are not attempting to save individuals, but rather the entire species. We proceed with the understanding that as long as there exists poverty and insufficient education opportunities for most of us, then religion will always have its niche. None-the-less we endeavor to make the world a better place. We can realistically only hope to provide a voice to counter the hollow promises and lies told us by certain of the faithful. Our goal is the world of tomorrow, where todays liberal Christians are tomorrows agnostics and todays moderates would be considered the right winged zealots of the future.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

severntofall

Quite astute of you; however we are not attempting to save individuals, but rather the entire species.

Good luck. I hope you do better than Stalin, Hitler, and Mao … atheists all.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Quite astute of you; however we are not attempting to save individuals, but rather the entire species. We proceed with the understanding that as long as there exists poverty and insufficient education opportunities for most of us, then religion will always have its niche. None-the-less we endeavor to make the world a better place. We can realistically only hope to provide a voice to counter the hollow promises and lies told us by certain of the faithful. Our goal is the world of tomorrow, where todays liberal Christians are tomorrows agnostics and todays moderates would be considered the right winged zealots of the future.

Religion is a word; Belief is were power, authority, life, love,and substance resides and God is a reality and resides in us, he is all powerful, and big enough to rule the universe and small enough to live in our hearts ( thats if you want Him there?) I do Love You ! Nancy, Peace

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

severntofall
Good luck. I hope you do better than Stalin, Hitler, and Mao … atheists all.

Was that really necessary, Charlemagne II? severntofall and I had an accord. You certainly can’t believe that all atheists fall into this category? That’s the fallacy of false analogy.

Are you a young man? That might explain your rashness, but it does not excuse it. I really do believe as Fulton J Sheen wrote that we and atheists are brothers in faith; we cannot *prove *that God exists as they cannot *prove *that he doesn’t

Think of the parable of the two servants. Both were asked to go out and work in the field. One said “Yes I will” but didn’t go, and the other said “No I won’t” but did eventually. severntofall is not one of the “bad guys.” He speaks of fighting poverty and improving education. Those are virtues. From our perspective as Catholics, we can say “he is not against us; therefore, he is for us.” Even if our ideologies are different, we have common goals. As for his hope that religion will dissipate over time with education, do you think that is possible? Would God allow such a thing? My hope is that faith can only be strengthed by education.

If religion disappears it is our fault, not atheists. If we are not witnesses of the love of Christ, then we have already lost. Try not to blame someone for not being where you are. Obviously you spoke from a conviction that you were defending the faith. But I think I was defending the faith too.

 

[wxboss]

It’s worth pointing out that God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis through all of these questions. No matter how thoroughly these questions get explained in natural terms, one can always push things back one more step: And how did nature and humans get set up for that without God. So, theists can rest safe from worry that God as transcendental remains safe from any falsification. It’s a truism of sorts, for those who want to adopt it. -ts

As opposed to the truism you propose? It does appear that ‘no matter how thoroughly these questions get explained’ you will remain ‘safe from any falsification’ as it is something you are unwilling to adopt.

Abstract reasoning as a faculty depends on the mind as a function of the brain, which exists as a part of human physiology, of course. **But if you are asking whether abstract concepts themselves must exist to be apprehended, of course not. The square root of -1 doesn’t exist as a tangible entity – it’s a concept, a complex pattern of electrons and chemicals in the brain. **But that number itself is not something you can point to as something ‘extended in space-time’. “Abstract” is the key word, here, decoupling concepts from simple conceptual bindings to perceived objects.-TS

Abstract?! Since when has the law of mathematics become abstract? I would suggest you choose something more abstract to explain the meaning of abstraction otherwise you are using absolutes to prove that absolutes don’t exist.

As for the “self”, death signals to all men the end of consciousness, the end of anything and everything that represents self, faith commitments that tilt against it notwithstanding. What we know is that a man dies, and that is the end of him; we shall never interact with him as an individual again, so far as our experience can tell.-TS

I’m of the opinion that consciousness (by today’s standards) precedes death - at least there seems to be little evidence to support the argument that it is currently alive and well.

Evidence is evidentiary - it connects us to what we know, but it also reveals more of what we don’t know. Scientists and theologians share a common bond in that we both believe that there is something just beyond our reach. The point in where these two thoughts differ is that scientists will justify what they know proves what they still yet don’t know, while theologians know what they are unable prove (at least to the satisfaction of scientists) .

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Was that really necessary, Charlemagne II? severntofall and I had an accord. You certainly can’t believe that all atheists fall into this category? That’s the fallacy of false analogy.

Are you a young man? That might explain your rashness, but it does not excuse it. I really do believe as Fulton J Sheen wrote that we and atheists are brothers in faith; we cannot *prove *that God exists as they cannot *prove *that he doesn’t

Think of the parable of the two servants. Both were asked to go out and work in the field. One said “Yes I will” but didn’t go, and the other said “No I won’t” but did eventually. severntofall is not one of the “bad guys.” He speaks of fighting poverty and improving education. Those are virtues. From our perspective as Catholics, we can say “he is not against us; therefore, he is for us.” Even if our ideologies are different, we have common goals. As for his hope that religion will dissipate over time with education, do you think that is possible? Would God allow such a thing? My hope is that faith can only be strengthed by education.

If religion disappears it is our fault, not atheists. If we are not witnesses of the love of Christ, then we have already lost. Try not to blame someone for not being where you are. Obviously you spoke from a conviction that you were defending the faith. But I think I was defending the faith too.

Back in the 50’s Fulton may have been right but today we have alot of proof God exists,and as far as being Brothers in the faith we are just the opposit, wet land verses dry land, if you believe something is Black and i say it is White we are not together in our opinions or beliefs,I think he might of ment we are all Gods creation and he loves everyone and wants all to come to the knowledge of His Son Jesus Christ. we all have our own ways of thinking but Gods people are of one mind, solid and firm unshakable, unmoveable. And lack nothing! Love of Christ Nancy

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Nom the Wise

Was that really necessary, Charlemagne II? severntofall and I had an accord. You certainly can’t believe that all atheists fall into this category? That’s the fallacy of false analogy.

It’s not a fallacy at all. And if it were a fallacy, it certainly wouldn’t be the fallacy of false analogy as anyone who has taken a logic course can tell you. Have you ever taken a logic course?

People who say atheists are going to save the world need to have it pointed out to them that the record of atheists doing that in the 20th century is pathetic. So what’s changed? Why is it that now the atheists are going to save the world?

You need to encourage this discussion rather than get yourself judgmental about others you deem judgmental.

Are you a young man? That might explain your rashness, but it does not excuse it.

Pretty rash of you to say so? And let’s leave age out of it. I’ll bet I’m closer to dying than you are.