Problems w/ Atheism

[yankee_doodle]

We can say time (at least our reference frame) began at the big bang, but that’s not a useful way to look at it. If the matter that formed our universe always existed, and the space that surrounds our universe always existed, then aren’t our attempts to mark a starting point for time pretty meaningless (at least from a practical and philosophical perspective)?

Not quite. The operative word here is infinity. Time is only infinite in the future. This space and matter that always existed enabled our universe to become what it is thus began Time. The question is what or maybe who is this matter and whatever or whoever it is, is infinite even before notion or existence of time. I’m speaking in laymen’s terms so please bear with me.
Check this site if you will. I haven’t read it in its entirety.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17267]

well sure, you could rely solely on a church, built on ancient myths, for science and logic, or you could expand your horizons at least a little bit more.

I see a lot of folks on CAF (atheist and Christian alike) cite biased sources. For me, if it’s not coming from at least something like Wikipedia (which honestly is probably the least reliable source I’m willing to use for information, but usually not without checking its footnotes first), or preferably a really credible source like the New England Journal of Medicine, Scientific America, a university web site, or a well known online encyclopedia … then it’s not worth much (and requires verification). Even in the rare occasion I do use a biased source, I will not use it without adequate research.

I might be prone to occasional sloppy grammar, but I try hard to present good facts (intellectual honestly is important to me).

I will say quite honestly I do not view the church as a credible source for much of anything. It lives in a self-created reality, and essentially governs itself by its own rules. To make matters worse, it changes the rules when it needs to for its own advantage. I really don’t want to pick a fight over this issue – but this is my view (and I’ve argued it enough here on CAF to assure you it will not change). So unless by chance the work of a Catholic scientist is subjected to peer review (that means other scientists, not other priests) I will consider it pseudoscience. As for church philosophy, much less how it views concepts like time, it holds no authority to me. I’d sooner trust the thesis of a PhD student in physics than I would a thousand priests or theologians. Why would I waste my time trying to understand mythology I know is not true? If I’m going to read mythology, I want it to at least have entertainment value.

That is your opinion. Did you not regard the part where the church uses science to demystify superstitions and solidify the belief in god.

 

[cantheist]

I’m curious… Why do you spend your time debating with theists? Wouldn’t this be considered a waste of time?

Why do you spend your time debating atheist sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black. See atheist need to take a stand for what they believe in. Telling me that I am going to burn in hell is like me telling you a sick insult it is not called for. I live in Las Vegas this is supposed to be sin city. There is billboard that says “heaven or hell your choice” to make it worse they took down a picture of a sexy stripper to put up the new sign. To me the sign says go to hell if your a atheist. How would you feel if I put up a sign that said God is dead or do not believe in fairy tales where something that was beautiful was?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Why do you spend your time debating atheist sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black. See atheist need to take a stand for what they believe in. Telling me that I am going to burn in hell is like me telling you a sick insult it is not called for. I live in Las Vegas this is supposed to be sin city. There is billboard that says “heaven or hell your choice” to make it worse they took down a picture of a sexy stripper to put up the new sign. To me the sign says go to hell if your a atheist. How would you feel if I put up a sign that said God is dead or do not believe in fairy tales where something that was beautiful was?

It is free speech though, and in Spain atheists are beginning to advertise on buses (and although the church is complaining fortunately there’s nothing they can do about it).

Christianity is marketed on every corner in this country & I do think it’s time atheists did the same thing. After all – we’re selling simple common sense (which seems like a pretty easy sell).

 

[Dokimas]

It is free speech though, and in Spain atheists are beginning to advertise on buses (and although the church is complaining fortunately there’s nothing they can do about it).

Christianity is marketed on every corner in this country & I do think it’s time atheists did the same thing. After all – we’re selling simple common sense (which seems like a pretty easy sell).

Well, atheists do have a ‘faith’ to sell, don’t you, Yankee?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Well, atheists do have a ‘faith’ to sell, don’t you, Yankee?

If you think not believing something is a “faith” then OK? I think you’re trying to redefine the word atheism, but it also doesn’t bother me (nor do I find it worth quibbling over).

 

[Dokimas]

If you think not believing something is a “faith” then OK? I think you’re trying to redefine the word atheism, but it also doesn’t bother me (nor do I find it worth quibbling over).

Seems to me that, if you can’t prove there is no God then and you believe there is no God you have faith that there is no God. Pretty straight forward and simple.

 

[AntiTheist]

Seems to me that, if you can’t prove there is no God then and you believe there is no God you have faith that there is no God. Pretty straight forward and simple.

Well, the problem is that I can’t prove there is no Bigfoot and yet I don’t believe in Bigfoot.

Do I have “faith” there’s no Bigfoot? I mean, no actual evidence of Bigfoot has ever been produced – despite what a few Bigfoot believers claim. Certainly, I would start believing in Bigfoot if any actual evidence appeared, but until then, I do not believe in its existence.

I would not say that I’m rejecting the claim of Bigfoot on faith – I would say that I have good, evidence-based reasons for rejecting the claim.

 

[Dokimas]

Well, the problem is that I can’t prove there is no Bigfoot and yet I don’t believe in Bigfoot.

Do I have “faith” there’s no Bigfoot? I mean, no actual evidence of Bigfoot has ever been produced – despite what a few Bigfoot believers claim. Certainly, I would start believing in Bigfoot if any actual evidence appeared, but until then, I do not believe in its existence.

I would not say that I’m rejecting the claim of Bigfoot on faith – I would say that I have good, evidence-based reasons for rejecting the claim.

You don’t see a huge difference in whether or not there is God or Bigfoot?​

If there is a Bigfoot, I dare say the lives of the vast majority of humans won’t be changed one bit.​

Can you say the same if God exists, specifically Jesus?

 

[AntiTheist]

You don’t see a huge difference in whether or not there is God or Bigfoot?

Obviously there’s a huge difference between a god and a Bigfoot. But we’re talking about what constitutes “faith” here, not the specific entity we’re having “faith” in or not.

You were implying that it takes “faith” not to believe in something, and I gave you an example of not believing in something that doesn’t require “faith.” In general, not believing in something (i.e. rejecting a claim) cannot be an act of faith, as only accepting claims is an act of faith.

It also doesn’t take “faith” to reject the claim that any of the following exist: the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Muslim god, Cthulhu, etc., etc.

 

[Dokimas]

Obviously there’s a huge difference between a god and a Bigfoot. But we’re talking about what constitutes “faith” here, not the specific entity we’re having “faith” in or not.

You were implying that it takes “faith” not to believe in something, and I gave you an example of not believing in something that doesn’t require “faith.” In general, not believing in something (i.e. rejecting a claim) cannot be an act of faith, as only accepting claims is an act of faith.

It also doesn’t take “faith” to reject the claim that any of the following exist: the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Muslim god, Cthulhu, etc., etc.

What you’re speaking of is what I call belief, not faith. Faith is belief applied to ones life. You believe there is no God and live accordingly. That’s faith.

 

[AntiTheist]

What you’re speaking of is what I call belief, not faith. Faith is belief applied to ones life. You believe there is no God and live accordingly. That’s faith.

Well, okay. Since you appear to be using words in a way that is different than others do, I will give you my definitions.

Belief: accepting a proposition as true. One can have “belief” to various degrees of certainty, depending on how much evidence one has. For instance, I believe (with almost total certainty, based on the evidence available to me) that the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe (with a fair amount of confidence, but far from total certainty) that my keys are where I left them. Etc.

Faith: a kind of belief that entails accepting a claim without evidence. If you have evidence for something, then you don’t need faith to accept it. For instance, it takes no “faith” to believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow – based on the evidence that we have, it’s almost a sure thing. It does take faith, though, to believe something like, “Humans have souls that live forever,” as there is no good evidence that this claim is true.

If you use the word “faith” to mean nothing more than “a belief that you apply in your life,” then it reduces nearly everything to “faith” (since people do apply beliefs they hold about the real world to their lives), thus making the word useless in conversations like these.

EDIT:It just occurred to me that you might be using the word “faith” in the sense of “I have faith in my abilities!”

There are two ways to use the word “faith”: one is the religious sense, accepting claims without evidence. The second is as a synonym for “confidence.”

They’re two completely different things. When we’re talking about “faith” in religious discussions, we mean the first.

 

[Dokimas]

Well, okay. Since you appear to be using words in a way that is different than others do, I will give you my definitions.

Belief: accepting a proposition as true. One can have “belief” to various degrees of certainty, depending on how much evidence one has. For instance, I believe (with almost total certainty, based on the evidence available to me) that the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe (with a fair amount of confidence, but far from total certainty) that my keys are where I left them. Etc.

Faith: a kind of belief that entails accepting a claim without evidence. If you have evidence for something, then you don’t need faith to accept it. For instance, it takes no “faith” to believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow – based on the evidence that we have, it’s almost a sure thing. It does take faith, though, to believe something like, “Humans have souls that live forever,” as there is no good evidence that this claim is true.

If you use the word “faith” to mean nothing more than “a belief that you apply in your life,” then it reduces nearly everything to “faith” (since people do apply beliefs they hold about the real world to their lives), thus making the word useless in conversations like these.

EDIT:It just occurred to me that you might be using the word “faith” in the sense of “I have faith in my abilities!”

There are two ways to use the word “faith”: one is the religious sense, accepting claims without evidence. The second is as a synonym for “confidence.”

They’re two completely different things. When we’re talking about “faith” in religious discussions, we mean the first.

So if I have enough evidence for God that I believe He exists, then I don’t have faith in God? Okay, you win.

 

[AntiTheist]

So if I have enough evidence for God that I believe He exists, then I don’t have faith in God? Okay, you win.

If you had actual evidence for the existence of a god, then you would not have “faith” in the first sense (belief without evidence). You might very well have “faith” in the second sense (confidence in the abilities of).

Of course, you don’t have any actual evidence for the existence of this god of yours. That’s the whole reason that you need faith. Isn’t that what believers always say? If god revealed himself to everyone, then everyone would believe in him – he wants people to have faith, so he makes himself obscure…

 

[Dokimas]

If you had actual evidence for the existence of a god, then you would not have “faith” in the first sense (belief without evidence). You might very well have “faith” in the second sense (confidence in the abilities of).

Of course, you don’t have any actual evidence for the existence of this god of yours. That’s the whole reason that you need faith. Isn’t that what believers always say? If god revealed himself to everyone, then everyone would believe in him – he wants people to have faith, so he makes himself obscure…

Then I have the second sense of faith.​

Just because you don’t ‘see’ the evidence, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Or just because you don’t realize things you see are in fact evidence, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

 

[humble_maid]

It is free speech though, and in Spain atheists are beginning to advertise on buses (and although the church is complaining fortunately there’s nothing they can do about it).

Christianity is marketed on every corner in this country & I do think it’s time atheists did the same thing. After all – we’re selling simple common sense (which seems like a pretty easy sell).

So basically the atheists are out to get us right? That gives you pleasure doesn’t it. To mock us is the Atheists’ Agenda?! Our total annihilation would be ‘sweet victory’ for you all. No one to tell you what is ‘right’ or what is ‘wrong’; no God to peer into your mind 24 hrs a day. Many people can live in peace regardless of their backgrounds. The problem is everyone wants primacy over the other.

Don’t worry I am confident that the righteous people of this world whatever their creed, atheist or other will come together for peace and love of humanity. One does not have to be christian to love. However it wouldn’t hurt to take lessons on ‘how to love’ by them.

 

[josie_L]

They say that it’s going to “missionary and development work”. It’s not reasonable to assume that they’re probably spending money on what they say they are?

It’s only reasonable if that’s their intended mission (every charitable organization as a mission statement), furthermore, rather than assuming give me facts that suggest what you’re implying is true, i.e., Catholic organizations spend more on missionary work than development.

I never said it was hidden. My point was that aggregate totals like the one SonofMonica presented don’t necessarily provide a good indication of where the money goes.

Holy smokes, gearhead, the fact of the matter is the Catholic Church is the most charitable institution in the world, I mean just the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul gave more than 48 million euros to the needy in Ireland.

Again, I didn’t say that the Church doesn’t engage in worthwhile causes. What I said is that a portion of its charitable expenditure goes to causes that don’t help people in need. For example, training of priests does not help needy people. Neither does evangelization.

Do you realize that training priests for the purpose of preparing them for third world life is necessary? Do you realize how important the role of the priest (and Church) is in such a society? Without the CC these people would not have schools, hospitals, orphanages . . .etc.to provide for them. And do you have any idea of the time and effort that are put in by these priests (and nuns), who if we’re being honest would be better off living in a nice cozy western democratic country? Did it ever occur to you that the people in need (who are more than likely theists anyways) need not only the creaturely comforts of food, water and shelter, but the spiritual fruits of their faith (man cannot live on bread alone)? You speak in ignorance.

And in Canada, “promotion of religion” is recognized under the law as a charitable purpose.

So what?

I realize that all charitable organizations have overhead. However, most secular charities don’t do things like spend 10% of their revenue on the training of priests as ShareLife did last year. That kind of “charitable giving” doesn’t impress me at all.

It’s not just overhead costs I refer to, it’s also fundraising costs (every secular organization needs to fundraise) which is not included with overhead, and that believe it or not can surpass 10% of the revenue raised, in fact, having done my thesis on fundraising, I have seen some charities spend more than 30 cents of every dollar they received to fundraise. Do you think that’s “charitable giving” gearhead?

 

[josie_L]

Well, the problem is that I can’t prove there is no Bigfoot and yet I don’t believe in Bigfoot.

Do I have “faith” there’s no Bigfoot? I mean, no actual evidence of Bigfoot has ever been produced – despite what a few Bigfoot believers claim. Certainly, I would start believing in Bigfoot if any actual evidence appeared, but until then, I do not believe in its existence.

I would not say that I’m rejecting the claim of Bigfoot on faith – I would say that I have good, evidence-based reasons for rejecting the claim.

How many bigfoot believers are there anyways?

 

[josie_L]

Is that the only rule of Catholicism? Good news gay people, I guess no eternal roasting in hell after all. Good news protestants, apparently you’ll be getting better real estate in heaven

OK seriously … are you going to tell me there aren’t Catholics who apologize to god when they curse (and maybe even do a quick sign of the cross), feel internal guilt for lustful thoughts, etc.?

You can probably frame it as consistent with the law of love in a theoretical sense, but that’s not the practical reality. In reality religious people believe in judgment, believe they’re being “watched” by a god, and try to behave a certain way because that’s how they believe god wants them to behave.

It’s the old carrot and the stick, reward and punishment … whereas I think integrity with no false pretenses is more probably genuine.

I guess I’m going to have to quote scripture since you’ve obviously forgotten what it means to be a Christian, Yankee:

“Dear friends, let us love one another because love comes from God. Whoever loves is a child of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. And God showed his love for us by sending his only Son into the world, so that we might have life through him. This is what love is: it is not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the means by which our sins are forgiven.”

"Dear friends, if this is how God loved us, then we should love one as other. No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in union with us, and his love is made perfect in us. . . God is love, and those who live in love live in union with God and God lives in union with them. Love is made perfect in us in order that we may have courage on the Judgment Day; and we will have it because our life in this world is the same as Christ’s. There is no fear in love; perfect love drives out all fear. So then, love has not been made perfect in anyone who is afraid, because fear has to do with punishment."

"We love because God first loved us. If we say we love God, but hate others we are liars. For we cannot love God, whom we have not seen, if we do not love others, whom we have seen. **The commandment that Christ has given us is this: whoever loves God must love others also. ** 1 John 4: 7-21

to be continued. . .

 

[yankee_doodle]

So basically the atheists are out to get us right? That gives you pleasure doesn’t it. To mock us is the Atheists’ Agenda?! Our total annihilation would be ‘sweet victory’ for you all. No one to tell you what is ‘right’ or what is ‘wrong’; no God to peer into your mind 24 hrs a day. Many people can live in peace regardless of their backgrounds. The problem is everyone wants primacy over the other.

Don’t worry I am confident that the righteous people of this world whatever their creed, atheist or other will come together for peace and love of humanity. One does not have to be christian to love. However it wouldn’t hurt to take lessons on ‘how to love’ by them.

The worse thing is you can’t even see how absurd your double standard is. Christianity is peddled on every street corner, our television sets, and your churches and chapels are strewn throughout every town, city, and village in the US (and to a lesser extent the rest of the world). Ads for local church services appear in every newspaper here in the US (at least weekly) and indeed every medium of communication we have in this country (and I suspect abroad as well) is saturated with Christianity.

Have you ever seen a street corner atheist evangelist? Are there any atheist television channels?

Of course not. I guess it wouldn’t make much marketing sense, since we probably wouldn’t have many repeat customers (once most people figure out religion is nonsense – they probably wouldn’t have much incentive to continue watching our channel) … but if we really wanted to, we probably could finish religion off pretty quickly (or at least reduce it to the status of a small bunch of cultists who no longer occupy the mainstream in our society).

Yet the intelligentsia continue to spare religion, because we know not all people can handle the truth

At some point though society will move past ancient religion and superstition (and evolve to the point of being well adjusted and even happy … atheists). Unless something cataclysmic disturbs the momentum; this is the direction western society is headed. Beware, there are some religious zealots who are so fanatical, they hope something cataclysmic will happen to alter our current momentum (and if given the chance they might even contributed to it). This is how insane religion can be (and why I say religion can be, and in many cases is, dangerous).

 

[AntiTheist]

How many bigfoot believers are there anyways?

More than you think: bfro.net/

EDIT: obviously, the number of people who believe in something doesn’t make it more true or more likely to be true. But you knew that already.