No! Atheists are NOT like that!

[Jenni_Anne]

Maybe I’m alone in this, but I think science and faith can coexist and even complement each other. I’m on my own quest in spirituality if you will. I believe that perhaps the reason mankind cannot prove or disprove that God exists because of what He is. I’ve stated before that I feel matter and energy which can neither be created nor destroyed may be a part of God. This not only links every living thing in the universe a part of Him. Now if this is true, then perhaps since this is the basic foundation for everything, it may be that God is the universe in a manner of speaking. We don’t know how large it is or if it even has an end. This is awesome in the original way as is God. I can’t speak for atheists as I’m not one of them. It’s just a theory, but it became more solid for me when scientists discovered large pockets of antimatter. I taught in Jewish preschools for a long time and the Hebrew ideas of Heaven and Hell involve how close one is to God. If God is part matter, energy, and the universe, these patches of antimatter (usually near a black hole which subsequently is usually found surrounding black holes which not even light seems to escape), then perhaps those desolate pockets are places in Hell as they are removed from two of the three things which may encompass what we ourselves cannot fully grasp. The major difference between the Hebrew and Christian versions of Hell is temperature and placement. The closer one is to God, they say is warmer and happier. As you become more removed it grows cold, hopeless, and sorrowful. I’m not entirely sure how that perspective was changed or learned to be different. I simply know that the Israeli women I worked with were eager to help me understand what we were teaching the children and this was one of the subjects.

 

[polytropos]

It should not be called “anger”. Those who point out the internal inconsistencies of the god-concept might be upset at the acceptance of this logically inconsistent concept, but that is not “anger” by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, it is not just a reaction against a perceived logical inconsistency. Part of the reaction is against the content and implications of the inconsistency. Atheists are not “angry” just because they find it wrong but because it causes people to hold values that they do not hold. That is why the reaction is more vehement than when someone, for instance, commits a logical error and gets a math problem wrong.

Again, I would probably not use the term “anger” to describe the emotion in this case, but I get what C.S. Lewis is saying.

 

[Mumbles140]

But although he converted from staunch atheism, I can’t really see him convincing someone who really understands naturalism.

Ironically, in the Socratic Club he helped found, he had several essays written in response to an argument presented by a Professor Price. In these arguments, just as he does in Chapter 3 of “Miracles”, Lewis breaks down the fatal flaw of Naturalism - how it advances and advances until it reaches the human mind, and that is when it undoes itself. For if all thought is really just reactionary, then we can never trust any thought, including Naturalism, and so all the blocks come tumbling down.

This is also echoed (though not as directly) in “The Abolition of Man”

 

[Mumbles140]

Ironically, in the Socratic Club he helped found, he had several essays written in response to an argument presented by a Professor Price. In these arguments, just as he does in Chapter 3 of “Miracles”, Lewis breaks down the fatal flaw of Naturalism - how it advances and advances until it reaches the human mind, and that is when it undoes itself. For if all thought is really just reactionary, then we can never trust any thought, including Naturalism, and so all the blocks come tumbling down.

This is also echoed (though not as directly) in “The Abolition of Man”

Looks like I was a little late to the party with this comment…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . When I happen to wander over in the “Moral Theology” sub-forum, I always get sad and depressed when I see the amount of frustration and guilt expressed there by some unfortunate teenagers, who try to live according to the church’s teaching on sexuality.

People should have self-control; it is a virtue.
The same way one does not run away in the face of a challenge; one should be able to cope with the allure of desires that take one away from people and into fantasy.
The church’s teaching is not onerous to follow with the help of prayer and of the Holy Spirit.
It is joyous to be free.
I would concur with those who say that this may not happen quickly or easily.

 

[Aloysium]

People should have self-control; it is a virtue.
The same way one does not run away in the face of a challenge; one should be able to cope with the allure of desires that take one away from people and into a solitary fantasy.
The church’s teaching is not onerous to follow with the help of prayer and of the Holy Spirit.
It is joyous to be free.
I would concur with those who say that this may not happen quickly or easily.

(oops, sorry about the double post, was trying to edit)

 

[snarflemike]

Actually, it does matter, because I am compassionate (another fault of mine), and because the concept of God definitely exists. When I happen to wander over in the “Moral Theology” sub-forum, I always get sad and depressed when I see the amount of frustration and guilt expressed there by some unfortunate teenagers, who try to live according to the church’s teaching on sexuality.

Yes, because no atheists ever have frustration or guilt regarding sexual matters. I see your point.