C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I don’t, its not, it is, its not. 1 out of 4. Not great but atleast it wasn’t 0.
- Status
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
lol its so funny this forumIt is not a question of my opinion or being romantic but of correspondence to the right to life, the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, the belief in truth, justice, free will and responsibility which is the basis of judicial systems throughout the world and of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The notion that physical survival is more important than everything else, that life is a purposeless accident, that morality is a human convention and that love is an illusion is falsified by the way in which all civilized human beings behave and live. I’m quite sure that in your daily life you don’t live according to those negative assumptions.That is the best test of any philosophy - whether it is just a theoretical exercise or whether it corresponds to everyday reality…
. People make up in their mind what they think you believe, then argue against their self. Why even post, why not just have a silly we argument in your head.Who on earth believes any of the tosh you just posted, other than “morality is a human convention” (which it clearly is).
M
Matthias123
Guest
lol its so funny this forum
Who on earth believes any of the tosh you just posted, other than “morality is a human convention” (which it clearly is).
On the contrary, your an Atheist posting on a Catholic forum, who has some very erroneous metaphysical positions, and then when we try to explain them, you call us silly. Instead of posing arguments, you resort to mocking and disbelief.
Here is an idea, why don’t you avoid us “silly Catholics” all together? We are called to preach the Good News, not be door mats. If you cannot be humble enough to refrain from mocking others, why don’t you take your pride somewhere else?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
“silly Catholics”??? Excuse me? Show me ANYWHERE i have…
- called ANYONE a “silly catholic”
- said physical survival is more important than everything else
- claimed that life is a purposeless accident
- said love is an illusion
A
authenticity
Guest
If you have the opportunity, pick up Pope Benedict’s “Introduction to Christianity”. It’s heavy reading, but well worth it.
M
Matthias123
Guest
I am sorry, I misread your post. Mea culpa.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
My apologies i should not have went off on one, i know how annoying i can be sometimes. Let me just say i hold no prejudice against any group of people.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You rejected the teaching of Jesus as nonsensical, implying that love is an illusion, life is ultimately purposeless, morality is man-made and physical survival is the driving force behind evolution.
- If survival is not more important than everything else what is?
- If life is not a purposeless accident what is it?
- If love is not an illusion what is it?
- If morality is just a human convention why can’t we choose to ignore it?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
You rejected the teaching of Jesus as nonsensical, implying that love is an illusion,
Nope
life is ultimately purposeless,
Nope
morality is man-made
Yep
and physical survival is the driving force behind evolution.
Nope
1. If survival is not more important than everything else what is?
We all die
2. If life is not a purposeless accident what is it?
If you believe that scientist posit that life is a purposeless accident then you don’t even have the most basic understanding of science. Evolution is NOT accidental.
4. If morality is just a human convention why can’t we choose to ignore it?
To a certain extent you can, many many people (including christians) do. However there are lines, and if you cross them then you are judged by society (have you ever heard of a thing called jail?). Are you saying the only reason you behave is because your scared god will spank you when you die? So you really want to go out commiting countless crimes, but your to scared to?
B
buffalo
Guest
Basically, yes, because of man’s fallen nature he is inclined to sin. It takes illuminated self mastery to overcome this inclination.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Then why did you reject the teaching of Jesus as nonsensical?
Then what is the purpose of life?
So all the rules can be changed?
What is the driving force behind evolution?
How does that affect the way you live?
Do you believe the origin of life was due to a fortuitous combination of molecules?
Did fortuitous genetic mutations occur before natural selection?
Are you saying the only reason you behave is because you’re scared of jail?
What makes you believe that?
What makes you believe that?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Well you might feel that way but i most certianly do not.
B
Benadam
Guest
What better revelator of most other than least?
J
josiah
Guest
Hi I’m protestant but I am not hostile towards the Catholic Church (I actually admire some of the rich history to Catholicism).
I’ve been reading this thread and I am curious how do Atheists deal with the problem of evil? I think every worldview has to tackle this issue, so I am curious how an atheist deals with suffering and evil? Thanks.
I’ve been reading this thread and I am curious how do Atheists deal with the problem of evil? I think every worldview has to tackle this issue, so I am curious how an atheist deals with suffering and evil? Thanks.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
In what way? Wouldn’t evil be a problem for the one positing a “loving” god?
All atheism is, is a reject of a set of claims. It say nothing about suffering or evil. ALL it says is I reject your claim there is a god.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Then why did you reject the teaching of Jesus as nonsensical?
Not so much his teachings more just the whole christian story.
Then what is the purpose of life?
Well that depends on the person.
So all the rules can be changed?
The rules constantly change, do you still do as the bible says and stone cheeky children to death???
What is the driving force behind evolution?
Many things. talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
How does that affect the way you live?
Way to much to write about in a few 1000 chars.
Do you believe the origin of life was due to a fortuitous combination of molecules?
No
Did fortuitous genetic mutations occur before natural selection?
No
Are you saying the only reason you behave is because you’re scared of jail?
No
What makes you believe that?
Why else would you think a belief in god is need to make on moral?
What makes you believe that?
Why else would you think a belief in god is need to make on moral?
Not so much his teachings more just the whole christian story.
Then what is the purpose of life?
Well that depends on the person.
So all the rules can be changed?
The rules constantly change, do you still do as the bible says and stone cheeky children to death???
What is the driving force behind evolution?
Many things. talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
How does that affect the way you live?
Way to much to write about in a few 1000 chars.
Do you believe the origin of life was due to a fortuitous combination of molecules?
No
Did fortuitous genetic mutations occur before natural selection?
No
Are you saying the only reason you behave is because you’re scared of jail?
No
What makes you believe that?
Why else would you think a belief in god is need to make on moral?
What makes you believe that?
Why else would you think a belief in god is need to make on moral?
B
buffalo
Guest
This is not a feeling, it is a fact. Man has to fight against sin and disordered passions.
S
Solus_vistor
Guest
Dear atheists and agnostics, I see religion as the proverbial “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a philosopher, an ethicist, a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but are confused about what is its purpose or why it is there at all; that is, unless they have an indwelling knowledge of it (Polanyi) through faith.
Taking the philosopher‘s point of view (but always aware of the six others) there are in principle only two presuppositions, hypotheses: Either - as Carl Sagan put it - the physical universe is all there is, without cause and without purpose (”nobody created it”), or there must be Something (different religions model It differently, we call Him God) not reducible to the physical universe, which has no cause and no purpose but is the carrier of the cause and purpose of the physical universe.
There is no rational way to decide a priori in favour of the one or the other presupposition. There are only arguments, including rational ones, that can support one’s preconceived preference. One of them might be the Occam‘s razor principle that would favour Sagan. For a believer his/her preference comes from some of the realms of interest to the other “blind men”, like a personal (religious) experience or just simple marvel at the world around him/her that he/she simply cannot accept as being without cause and without purpose, combined with education and cultural environment. However, one cannot convey this experience, this marvel and admiration for the Creator, to an atheist or agnostic who for whatever reasons has no sense of it. Like you cannot convey to a blind man the beauty of a sunset, or to a deaf man that of a nice piece of music.
Of course, a Christian’s belief system is richer than just a rejection of the Sagan alternative. The case of non-Euclidean geometry can illustrate that there is not such a big difference between axioms as understood by contemporary mathematicians, and a Catholic‘s “axioms“ or “articles of faith“ understood as “necessary truths”: Until about 1800 the Euclidean axioms were understood even by mathematicians as “necessary truths”, since they were convinced that Euclidean geometry was the only correct idealisation of the properties of physical space. Today no mathematician speaks of axioms as necessary truths any more. In case of metaphysical/religious models of reality the situation is more complicated: for a believer his/her “axioms“ are even today “necessary truths”; for an unbeliever they deal with undefined concepts. So in a certain sense, to ask a believer to prove (give evidence for) the articles of faith his/her belief system is built on is like asking a mathematician to prove the axioms he builds his/her theory on.
Taking the philosopher‘s point of view (but always aware of the six others) there are in principle only two presuppositions, hypotheses: Either - as Carl Sagan put it - the physical universe is all there is, without cause and without purpose (”nobody created it”), or there must be Something (different religions model It differently, we call Him God) not reducible to the physical universe, which has no cause and no purpose but is the carrier of the cause and purpose of the physical universe.
There is no rational way to decide a priori in favour of the one or the other presupposition. There are only arguments, including rational ones, that can support one’s preconceived preference. One of them might be the Occam‘s razor principle that would favour Sagan. For a believer his/her preference comes from some of the realms of interest to the other “blind men”, like a personal (religious) experience or just simple marvel at the world around him/her that he/she simply cannot accept as being without cause and without purpose, combined with education and cultural environment. However, one cannot convey this experience, this marvel and admiration for the Creator, to an atheist or agnostic who for whatever reasons has no sense of it. Like you cannot convey to a blind man the beauty of a sunset, or to a deaf man that of a nice piece of music.
Of course, a Christian’s belief system is richer than just a rejection of the Sagan alternative. The case of non-Euclidean geometry can illustrate that there is not such a big difference between axioms as understood by contemporary mathematicians, and a Catholic‘s “axioms“ or “articles of faith“ understood as “necessary truths”: Until about 1800 the Euclidean axioms were understood even by mathematicians as “necessary truths”, since they were convinced that Euclidean geometry was the only correct idealisation of the properties of physical space. Today no mathematician speaks of axioms as necessary truths any more. In case of metaphysical/religious models of reality the situation is more complicated: for a believer his/her “axioms“ are even today “necessary truths”; for an unbeliever they deal with undefined concepts. So in a certain sense, to ask a believer to prove (give evidence for) the articles of faith his/her belief system is built on is like asking a mathematician to prove the axioms he builds his/her theory on.
S
Spock
Guest
Triple cheers! Very well said!
J
josiah
Guest
Every worldview basically needs to answer 4 questions to life:
*]Origin
*]Purpose
*]Basis for what is right or wrong
*]Destiny
My question to you pertains to #3. I think I can fairly rephrase “Evil” as “what ought not to be”. Even Atheists as you, I’m sure, have opinions on “what ought not to be”. What is the moral compass for the atheist? Or how does an atheist anchor morality outside of God?
- Status