Religious foundation authority

[STT]

The ignorance wasn’t imposed by God but by self.

Yes, it was. You can never be 100% sure once you don’t have any evidence, in this case the presence of God. What is your evidence to convince an atheist? Nothing. You just believe as an atheist believe otherwise, that is all.

One only has himself to blame for remaining ignorant.

That is not correct.

You have freewill to decide whether you want to know God or not.

How could we know God when He is absent?

If one is obese and/or unhealthy, one can choose a healthier lifestyle by engaging in proper diet and exercise. If one is spiritually unhealthy, the same reasoning applies. How can one claim ignorance or special pleading? Why should God reward anyone with the right to live with him in heaven who didn’t want to have anything to do with him in the first place? So at the very least one would need to acknowledge that there is no obligation by God to reward the atheist.

You example really cannot be applied to our discussion. Do you know anyone who try to find God and find God in person?

Don’t bother trying to convince me. I am not the Judge and I can’t know the hearts of men. Try pleading ignorance to the judge. It doesn’t even work with secular judges.

I would say that even ignorance is not a good word to describe this situation. Left alone? Left without evidence? Do you have any better suggestion?

And I rest my case. There is no reason or obligation for God to take care of this group of people. And Hell by definition is the absence of God. Without God, I doubt anyone will be enjoying nice balmy sunshine. Without a nice habitable Earth, the rest of the universe is either the frigid cold of empty space or fiery fusion of atoms in the suns/stars. Take your pick of which one is least desirable and then put in a multiplier effect for the spiritual realm plus the company of Satan and his demons.

All I can say is that we can never be sure. Perhaps these are all games played by Satan. Do you have any evidence to prove contrary?

But wait, atheists don’t believe in the after life. It’s ok. But when reality sets in, see who is the thinking gambler. Pascal Wager is a powerful weapon for the proper exercise of probabilistic reasoning and understanding expected payoffs. . Why is it non-sincere? The educational approach of this method is rather good to understand probabilistic payoffs. On the other hand, trying to hang on to the probabilistic emergence of a universe and intelligent life by random chance is truly insincere.

What is non-sincere? You need to love God without any expectation whether He get you to Heave or send you to Hell. Can you love God if He send you to Hell because you follow Wagner’s prescription? You cannot. You can say a God who is just would never do that. I would say that you are not God so you cannot judge. Sometimes things become appear when it is too late, it can apply to you more than a sincere atheist.

 

[ericc]

Yes, it was. You can never be 100% sure once you don’t have any evidence, in this case the presence of God. What is your evidence to convince an atheist? Nothing. You just believe as an atheist believe otherwise, that is all.

And you can provide evidence that the ignorance was imposed by God? For a non-God believing atheist, somehow it is funny to blame on someone that you don’t believe exist in the first place.

We don’t need 100% proof for the brain to know that something exist or not. Just enough information/doubt will do. Can an atheist prove 100% that God doesn’t exist? I don’t believe our argument requires 100% proof in either direction. Just enough so that one can not plead full ignorance.

That is not correct.

It certainly is. Knowledge comes from self. Failure to act or seek knowledge definitely is from self. It is definitely not caused by God since no evidence has been presented that God caused the ignorance. If blame is laid upon God for causing the ignorance of the atheist, then the atheist 1) tacitly agree such a person exist 2) need to prove that God caused his ignorance. With 1), the atheist is not sincere. He says God doesn’t exist openly yet he is quick to lay blame on a supposedly non-existent God. With 2) he hasn’t prove the case that God is the culprit and yet already lynched God in public.

How could we know God when He is absent?

He never is absent. God is existence. God is knowledge, to Christians that is. Why is that important to an atheist?

You example really cannot be applied to our discussion.

You didn’t explain why my example is not applicable. We were discussing ignorance and the solution to reduce ignorance. I hope you are not like the Russians going to space and came back saying they didn’t see God in space. If you don’t know what you are looking for, you wouldn’t know even if you find it. If you don’t know where you are going, it doesn’t matter which direction one takes.

Do you know anyone who try to find God and find God in person?

Every Sunday, I see people at His house enjoying a meal there. They have found Him.

For Catholics, it is a daily meal that is served around the world at His house.

I would say that even ignorance is not a good word to describe this situation. Left alone? Left without evidence? Do you have any better suggestion?

I’d like to stick with this word since you relied on it in the very beginning. Changing words mid-stream is not helpful. Anyway, it doesn’t help your case in explaining why an atheist deserve heaven. I am very sure there are many people who are interested to know of such gateways to heaven.

All I can say is that we can never be sure. Perhaps these are all games played by Satan. Do you have any evidence to prove contrary?

At this juncture, it is premature to request for evidence when we are still awaiting your explanation why the sincere atheist deserves heaven not withstanding whether he is invincibly or willfully ignorant or not. Leave Satan out of this. Introducing new players tend to detract from the original argument.

Indeed, I have no need to prove anything. We just need you to explain why the sincere atheist deserves heavenly rewards.

What is non-sincere? You need to love God without any expectation whether He get you to Heave or send you to Hell. Can you love God if He send you to Hell because you follow Wagner’s prescription? You cannot.

Based upon the verse, it is a possibility that the sincere atheist may go to hell. You think not, claiming ignorance. But ignorance is not grounds for receiving heavenly rewards is it? You are welcome to make the case for it.

You misunderstand what love is. Love is not what you expect to get from the other fellow. It is not a business transaction. It is not “I do this to get rewards”. Parental love can not be bought. Fringe benefits is a bonus. Getting to live in the mansion of your father is a bonus, but to be together with your loved ones is the key goal. You can not buy love, if you have no love to begin with. And you can not love for what you do not know.

I am puzzled by the impression that atheists paint that it is a love me or else hell for you system. How did they come up with this idea? We don’t love God out of fear. He doesn’t need or want our fear. But I guess like most people, we would like to be loved out of freewill and not out of compulsion by fear. There is no such thing as forced love, is there?

You can say a God who is just would never do that. I would say that you are not God so you cannot judge. .

I didn’t say that . I didn’t bring up God’s Justice. I do not judge either. I already claim that I am not fit to judge.

Sometimes things become appear when it is too late, it can apply to you more than a sincere atheist

Yes, eventually one may run out of excuses and/or time. It has never been about me. We just want your explanation why you think a sincere atheist deserves heaven.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your treatise on invincible atheism is not convincing.

Then you are not convinced by the Teaching of your own Church’s Catechism .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I believe this defense is available only for those who never had the opportunity to know of God.

What Magisterial docs do you source this position from?

I believe you are mistaken if you interpret this to mean “you were told of Christ, you heard it, now you have no excuse.” Ignorance can be due to both internal and external limitations.

Original Sin, which is not personal sin, is often responsible for such ignorance:
“As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance,
suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called
“concupiscence”).” CCC 418.

"Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. " CCC597

“Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance,
inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” CCC1735

 

[ericc]

I think that believers suffer from invincible ignorance too otherwise they would never doubt. Have you ever doubted?

Believers do have recourse to resolve their ignorance. Moral diligence is expected of a sensible and prudent believer. There is an obligation for everyone to acquire sufficient knowledge to live responsible lives, physically or spiritually. Invincible ignorance is involuntary, and hence will not be applicable.

Of course I have doubts over many, many things. That does not excuse me of not pursuing the knowledge to alleviate my doubts and increase my knowledge. I may not understand everything but I do not need to know 100% because I am aware I may not be smart enough to comprehend all topics to a suitable depth. Nor do I have the time and resource to pursue every single bit of knowledge. But the most important thing is to get to know God to the best of my ability.

There are those who deliberately avoid acquiring the relevant knowledge from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to acknowledge them which he secretly desires not to comply if he were to be made aware of it. For those , only God knows their hearts and I won’t want to second guess their intent.

Moreover, one needs to witness the act of creation by an agent to make sure that the agent is God.

Nonsense and you know it. The universe is 13.5 billion years and our solar system 4.5 billion years old. Humans are a very late addition. Are you suggesting humans witnessing the Big Bang? Too many late nights for you.

That is true since God is the creator. Otherwise one can even blame believer since anybody can claim that s/he is God.

Anyone can claim. And that’s that. A claim only.

 

[ericc]

What Magisterial docs do you source this position from?

I believe you are mistaken if you interpret this to mean “you were told of Christ, you heard it, now you have no excuse.” Ignorance can be due to both internal and external limitations.

Actually I was leaning towards the “Outside The Church There Is No Salvation”.

See ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm

Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

    We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

From the CC
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”[59] In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

Invincible ignorance is involuntary in nature. Unless you can show that a person is an involuntary atheist , I fail to see how the defense of invincible ignorance can apply. So far, the atheists at least on the forums here are pretty much knowledgeable, scripture quoting folks and using that knowledge to discredit the faith or to lead others away from the faith. They are atheists by choice.

Even for argument sake one can utilize the defense for one moral error, I doubt the atheist can claim to be sin-free in other areas and pleading the same defense for all. He is still subject to the law of moral conscience. Without baptism, repentance, forgiveness, I think it is a tough act to get to heaven by that route. Voluntary ignorance may lessen the culpability though. Notwithstanding bad upbringing, non-conducive environment, bad friends, lousy education, these are inadequate to alleviate the responsibility one makes in making choices, as these choices are made freely, and they are able to reject these choices till the very end of their lives. God is very accessible to them. But by choice , they reject Him. Some may quote silly demands like God popping in front of them in order for them to believe Him. But I think we need not consider those types of requests seriously. Or those requiring 100% proof.

 

[STT]

And you can provide evidence that the ignorance was imposed by God? For a non-God believing atheist, somehow it is funny to blame on someone that you don’t believe exist in the first place.

Yes, there is evidence that the ignorance was imposed by God. God is simply not present to us.

We don’t need 100% proof for the brain to know that something exist or not. Just enough information/doubt will do. Can an atheist prove 100% that God doesn’t exist? I don’t believe our argument requires 100% proof in either direction. Just enough so that one can not plead full ignorance.

That is true. That is why I claimed that an atheist is equal to a theist when it come to divine justice. No one can prove or disprove God so everything is matter of believing or disbelieving.

It certainly is. Knowledge comes from self. Failure to act or seek knowledge definitely is from self. It is definitely not caused by God since no evidence has been presented that God caused the ignorance. If blame is laid upon God for causing the ignorance of the atheist, then the atheist 1) tacitly agree such a person exist 2) need to prove that God caused his ignorance. With 1), the atheist is not sincere. He says God doesn’t exist openly yet he is quick to lay blame on a supposedly non-existent God. With 2) he hasn’t prove the case that God is the culprit and yet already lynched God in public.

Knowledge about God doesn’t come form self. We have some sort of inner knowledge, like feeding our vulnerable children, etc.

He never is absent. God is existence. God is knowledge, to Christians that is. Why is that important to an atheist?

He might exist but He is personally and physically absent to us.

You didn’t explain why my example is not applicable. We were discussing ignorance and the solution to reduce ignorance. I hope you are not like the Russians going to space and came back saying they didn’t see God in space. If you don’t know what you are looking for, you wouldn’t know even if you find it. If you don’t know where you are going, it doesn’t matter which direction one takes.

Because we know by fact, we learn it, that unhealthy life style leads to unhealthy life and vice verse. That doesn’t apply to knowing God.

Every Sunday, I see people at His house enjoying a meal there. They have found Him.

For Catholics, it is a daily meal that is served around the world at His house.

So you mean that they meet God in person?

I’d like to stick with this word since you relied on it in the very beginning. Changing words mid-stream is not helpful. Anyway, it doesn’t help your case in explaining why an atheist deserve heaven. I am very sure there are many people who are interested to know of such gateways to heaven.

Ok.

At this juncture, it is premature to request for evidence when we are still awaiting your explanation why the sincere atheist deserves heaven not withstanding whether he is invincibly or willfully ignorant or not. Leave Satan out of this. Introducing new players tend to detract from the original argument.

Indeed, I have no need to prove anything. We just need you to explain why the sincere atheist deserves heavenly rewards.

Because s/he was a good sincere person. Maybe that is enough for God. How do you know?

Based upon the verse, it is a possibility that the sincere atheist may go to hell. You think not, claiming ignorance. But ignorance is not grounds for receiving heavenly rewards is it? You are welcome to make the case for it.

You misunderstand what love is. Love is not what you expect to get from the other fellow. It is not a business transaction. It is not “I do this to get rewards”. Parental love can not be bought. Fringe benefits is a bonus. Getting to live in the mansion of your father is a bonus, but to be together with your loved ones is the key goal. You can not buy love, if you have no love to begin with. And you can not love for what you do not know.

I am puzzled by the impression that atheists paint that it is a love me or else hell for you system. How did they come up with this idea? We don’t love God out of fear. He doesn’t need or want our fear. But I guess like most people, we would like to be loved out of freewill and not out of compulsion by fear. There is no such thing as forced love, is there?

What I am claiming is that a non-sincere person who his/her main aim to reach Heaven might not deserve Heaven either.

Yes, eventually one may run out of excuses and/or time. It has never been about me. We just want your explanation why you think a sincere atheist deserves heaven.

All I am saying is that we can never be completely sure.

 

[STT]

Believers do have recourse to resolve their ignorance. Moral diligence is expected of a sensible and prudent believer. There is an obligation for everyone to acquire sufficient knowledge to live responsible lives, physically or spiritually. Invincible ignorance is involuntary, and hence will not be applicable.

Of course I have doubts over many, many things. That does not excuse me of not pursuing the knowledge to alleviate my doubts and increase my knowledge. I may not understand everything but I do not need to know 100% because I am aware I may not be smart enough to comprehend all topics to a suitable depth. Nor do I have the time and resource to pursue every single bit of knowledge. But the most important thing is to get to know God to the best of my ability.

There are those who deliberately avoid acquiring the relevant knowledge from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to acknowledge them which he secretly desires not to comply if he were to be made aware of it. For those , only God knows their hearts and I won’t want to second guess their intent.

I was talking about doubting the existence of God.

Nonsense and you know it. The universe is 13.5 billion years and our solar system 4.5 billion years old. Humans are a very late addition. Are you suggesting humans witnessing the Big Bang? Too many late nights for you.

I am saying that we cannot be 100% certain about God if we could not witness that the person who is claiming to be God created universe. The Big Bang could be the result of mere physical process. Who knows?

Anyone can claim. And that’s that. A claim only.

But people believe in a person who claim to be God. Don’t they? Don’t you?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is true. That is why I claimed that an atheist is equal to a theist when it come to divine justice. No one can prove or disprove God so everything is matter of believing or disbelieving.

And following the natural law God has planted in our hearts, as the Catholic Church teaches.

It is not a defense of invincible ignorance that protects the atheist from culpability. As others have said here, it is difficult to imagine an atheist having invincible ignorance when in order to deny God he must have an knowledge of the God he denies.

And as I pointed out earlier, the atheist who dies an atheist has died without admitting his sins and begging God for his mercy, a sure recipe for perdition as every Catholic has been taught all his life by the Church.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am saying that we cannot be 100% certain about God if we could not witness that the person who is claiming to be God created universe. The Big Bang could be the result of mere physical process. Who knows?

Again, you are turning God into a concept rather than a person who created you in his image and likeness and planted in your heart the desire to know him.

Big Bang is fine as a logical demonstration of the Creator at work, but it in no way supersedes the command of our hearts to reach out toward God. We can obey that command or not, but it is perilous not to.

Adam and Eve knew nothing of the Big Bang, and they were God’s children anyway … until they became God’s first brats.

 

[STT]

And following the natural law God has planted in our hearts, as the Catholic Church teaches.

That is not correct. There is not such a thing like natural law planted inside our heart. There was a period who I was theist, then atheist and now I am agnostic. Have you ever been agnostic or atheist? Have you ever have a sincere agnostic or atheist relative or friend?

We of course have inner knowledge toward some certain things, so called instinct which of course has survival value but that is all. The rest is the result of human imagination.

It is not a defense of invincible ignorance that protects the atheist from culpability. As others have said here, it is difficult to imagine an atheist having invincible ignorance when in order to deny God he must have an knowledge of the God he denies.

I think we have to define ignorance in order to reach to a good conclusion. Perhaps it is not even a good word for sake of our discussion. All I am saying is that we cannot gain knowledge about the existence of God. We cannot prove or disprove Him. We have no evidence for His existence or opposite. That is all.

And as I pointed out earlier, the atheist who dies an atheist has died without admitting his sins and begging God for his mercy, a sure recipe for perdition as every Catholic has been taught all his life by the Church.

I disagree with you on topic but I agree that your understanding of Bible is correct. It is very explicit: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish…”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is not correct. There is not such a thing like natural law planted inside our heart.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually I was leaning towards the “Outside The Church There Is No Salvation”.

See ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm

Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

    We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

From the CC
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”[59] In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

Invincible ignorance is involuntary in nature. Unless you can show that a person is an involuntary atheist , I fail to see how the defense of invincible ignorance can apply. So far, the atheists at least on the forums here are pretty much knowledgeable, scripture quoting folks and using that knowledge to discredit the faith or to lead others away from the faith. They are atheists by choice.

Even for argument sake one can utilize the defense for one moral error, I doubt the atheist can claim to be sin-free in other areas and pleading the same defense for all. He is still subject to the law of moral conscience. Without baptism, repentance, forgiveness, I think it is a tough act to get to heaven by that route. Voluntary ignorance may lessen the culpability though. Notwithstanding bad upbringing, non-conducive environment, bad friends, lousy education, these are inadequate to alleviate the responsibility one makes in making choices, as these choices are made freely, and they are able to reject these choices till the very end of their lives. God is very accessible to them. But by choice , they reject Him. Some may quote silly demands like God popping in front of them in order for them to believe Him. But I think we need not consider those types of requests seriously. Or those requiring 100% proof.

Yes you have quoted from the CCC the exact grounds why some Atheists, Protestants, contraceptors, “adulterers” in irregular marriages etc may still reach their final reward without a change in lifestyle. Invincible ignorance.

As I say, to think that ALL the above persons can NEVER be invincibly ignorant simply because “they’ve been told” or because their own searching for truth has not yet been fruitful is a common lay misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching on conscience. There are many involuntary and psychological obstacles to understanding.
May I quote back to you the ETWN ref you yourself quoted but may not have fully grasped:

And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

You for example I predict are likely invincably ignorant of the Church’s clear teaching on the nature of invincible ignorance. Despite the somewhat evident fact you have had little or no
Tertiary training in your faith (my apologies if I am mistaken) you try to punch here like a heavy weight on this topic where in fact even experts in theology fear to tread.

Informing ourselves accurately about the nature of the world, morals, our own faith and indeed the meaning of the existence of God is a life long task for all of us and only terminated at death. Do you not agree?

 

[goout]

Yes you have quoted from the CCC the exact grounds why some Atheists, Protestants, contraceptors, “adulterers” in irregular marriages etc may still reach their final reward without a change in lifestyle. Invincible ignorance.

As I say, to think that ALL the above persons can NEVER be invincibly ignorant simply because “they’ve been told” or because their own searching for truth has not yet been fruitful is a common lay misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching on conscience. There are many involuntary and psychological obstacles to understanding.
May I quote back to you the ETWN ref you yourself quoted but may not have fully grasped:

You for example I predict are likely invincably ignorant of the Church’s clear teaching on the nature of invincible ignorance. Despite the somewhat evident fact you have had little or no
Tertiary training in your faith (my apologies if I am mistaken) you try to punch here like a heavy weight on this topic where in fact even experts in theology fear to tread.

Informing ourselves accurately about the nature of the world, morals, our own faith and indeed the meaning of the existence of God is a life long task for all of us and only terminated at death. Do you not agree?

The Gospel points a person to his/her beatitude.
A person does not find fulfillment by embracing every lesser and indifferent god that comes along. A person only finds fulfillment by being who God desires them to be.
Our proclamation of the Gospel should reflect this exhortation to be our best selves, and not merely accept indifference in the name of tolerance.

Put another way, you don’t allow a child to handle a pot of boiling water because it’s possible they might not get hurt. It is true they might not be hurt. They could even boil you some potatoes with it, which would be a good thing.
They might also get burned badly. Only God knows .

That would be irresponsible to present indifference. If you want someone to thrive, you tell them the full truth which leads them to beatitude.
You steer them away from the boiling pot of water by showing them where full and true life is.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

… the atheist who dies an atheist has died without admitting his sins and begging God for his mercy, a sure recipe for perdition as every Catholic has been taught all his life by the Church.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

“If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.”
2nd Timothy 2:11-12

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.” Matthew 22: 37-40

The impossibility of invincible ignorance about the existence of God is not a strictly Catholic doctrine. John Calvin agreed with it.

“Lest anyone, then, be excluded from access to happiness, he not only sowed in men’s minds that seed of religion of which we have spoken, but revealed himself and daily disclosed himself in the whole workmanship of the universe. As, a consequence, men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him.”

 

[STT]

Again, you are turning God into a concept rather than a person who created you in his image and likeness and planted in your heart the desire to know him.…

I don’t believe on the bold part. We just have a sense of curiosity. By the way, what is image of God?

 

[STT]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
…

Again, I agree that what you believe coincide with the Church teaching but I don’t agree with it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t believe on the bold part. We just have a sense of curiosity. By the way, what is image of God?

You can Google the phrase or read this:

gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Again, I agree that what you believe coincide with the Church teaching but I don’t agree with it.

Just thought I would flesh out for you what the Church teaches about natural law.

Didn’t expect you to agree with it, nor would I expect any atheist to agree with it.

 

[goout]

I don’t believe on the bold part. We just have a sense of curiosity. By the way, what is image of God?

MAybe the most basic observation of man is that we exist. Our existence flows from “God who is”. If you object to “God”, then you must at least observe that you exist, and you did not create yourself.
So,
You’re very being says something about where, or from who, you “emanated” from. Your existence and your being are not silent or meaningless.

By analogy, an artist creates a work. The work “speaks” about it’s origin. From this “speech” we can gain an image of the artist.
Likewise a human being speaks about origin. Our physical and spiritual unity, our whole being, speak about that pure being and existence that creates us.

And this also points to relationship. If we are in reference to, or in the image of, an “other”, then we are not alone, we exist in and for relationship to that other.

I suppose the alternative to this is random accident that has no meaning or reference to anything other than one’s self.