Mistaken emnity between theists and atheists

[Dameedna]

I am Catholic, but I understand the position of someone who holds to materialism and does not have a belief in God/gods or who does not believe that God or gods exist. That is to me a completely rational position and one that can be supported within the materialist framework. I also understand that elements of my faith* are *irrational and that is not a problem for me as I am human and not a machine.

What I would like from some agnostics/atheists/anti-theists is the respect that I accord others. I do understand their map of the world - I’ve been there and followed all sorts of twisting routes. Whilst I cannot expect these people to have been where I am, I do expect them to not be dismissive and downright rude. I deplore that behaviour in anyone who engages in it.

This is kind of the point of what I was saying. Too many people claim they understand the mindset because they’ve been there. Are you entirely sure you’ve been there? I once came across a blogger that said he understand athiesm, because he almost chose it. Anyone that’s ever been an athiest, with a little thought will realize it was never a choice. So no, this so called understanding believer had never even come close. I can alway’s tell, by what they say.

I’m not saying you haven’t, all I’m saying is that you’ve been where you have been. The only mindset you know is your own.

It is extremely rare for a certain type of athiest(I don’t want to debate the term right now) to become a believer, and I’ve only read of 2 individuals who I actually think fit the bill. I’m met many a “former” athiests who are now religious. They weren’t even close to me with regards to their “lack of faith”. Why were we both athiests and so different?

An athiest doesn’t hold to materialism. They lack a belief in Gods by definition.

Some believe in alternative universes, some believe we were created from aliens, some believe we are plugged inot a matrix, some say we dont’ know. From your comments, I suspect you only held to materialism, you didn’t believe in God, and therefore you presume that everyone else that doesn’t believe, held your previous view. It’s simply not true.

If some-ones reason for being an athiest is different than yours, then no, you haven’t been there and you dont’ understand their map. It’s the same for believers It’s our shared humanity that holds us together, not out beliefs.

Cheers
Dame

 

[Dameedna]

Dameedna,

Good points. I think there is one common ground we could find: a commitment to the truth. For the sake of argument, we discard our assumptions and our worldview. Then we see what we get. When another person makes an argument we have no answer to, we should admit that. But the fact that a person wins an argument does not mean that their words are objectively true.

The most interesting thing I’ve discovered in this journey I call life, is that people become religious because they begin to appreciate and accept the truth. People also become athiests because they begin to appreciate and accept the truth.

Both sides, actually do have a dedication in some way to truth. Yet we disagree on that truth.

This leads to the conclusion for me, that although absolute truth won’t change, our own view on what is true will change. What makes THE truth change for us and why is it so important? Why do we often negate everything we want, in it’s name? Both athiests and believers do this.

It is our common ground, but we end up with different conclusions. Why? I have an answer, but am not going to give it since I don 't want to detract too far from the thread.

interesting thought though isn’t it?

Cheers
Dame

 

[Dameedna]

Which just goes to prove that, without God, there can be no Atheists!

If everyone accepted there wasn’t a God, then there would be no need for the term athiest I agree.

But athiests existing doesn’t mean a God is required. The only requirement is that other people believe there is a God for the rejection of that belief to become a definition or term. God , is not necessary in this equation.

Your statement is illogical, but kind of proves my point. Mindset is everything isn’t it?

 

[Dameedna]

Indeed and it strikes me as rather ironic that atheists seem to want to wear their ‘belief’ like a badge.

On the contrary. Athiests have no belief. It is the believers who continue to convince themselves that we do.

 

[Touchstone]

The article states that a researcher has been unable to explain why the cloth has not deteriorated despite the conditions in which it has been kept and unable to explain the associated miracles.

It says nothing about ‘not being painted by human hands’.

Please try to summarise news/research accurately. You discredit much of what you report with this type of sloppy post. Indeed, TS illustrates this in his post above by leaping to an assumption that the Church is selling snake on the basis of your report.

I can go dig up more sources if you want, but it’s not a case of ‘isn’t that strange, make your own conclusion’ – it was JPII who canonized Juan Diego, and did so based on the apparitions, and proclaiming the “sign” of the image on the tilma, which Juan Diego reportedly claimed was “divinely rendered” on it.

If I recall, JPII’s pronouncement came some years after one of the abbots of the basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe raised questions about the authenticity/historicity of Juan Diego and his miracles. The commission found support for a historical person by that name at the time and place, which was apparently sufficient to validate the miracles themselves.

In any case, JPII’s homily canonizing Juan Diego does proclaim the “sign” of the “blessed image” discovered on the tilma. That’s official enough for me – there’s not much further to go up the chain of command in the church than that.

-TS

Edited to add: in case that wasn’t clear, it wasn’t based on Ed’s report that I made that comment. As I said in my reply to Ed, this was an miracle commended to by Catholic friends several years ago as I was planning a conversion to Catholicism, and was thus an issue I read up on quite a bit back then. I think Ed’s claim is right, that the Church does teach that the image was not painted the way all our other paintings are.

 

[paully]

JP II, Perhaps the greatest pope in the history of the Church!