Responding to my friend

[Charlemagne_III]

“Unless we welcome the eerie invitation to suicide, our problem is to live. A half dozen intellectuals may find meaning for the absurd in the literary success they gain by it, but such justification has no value for the masses of ordinary men liberated by atheism and who, having become gods without asking for it, do not know what to do with their divinity. The latter make no pretense to save themselves, they eagerly beg to be saved. Then there appear other men who undertake to exploit atheism in their turn, and who organize the cult of the new god. It is not without a profound philosophical reason that Marxism required atheism as one of its necessary principles.” Etienne Gilson

 

[tonyrey]

“Unless we welcome the eerie invitation to suicide, our problem is to live. A half dozen intellectuals may find meaning for the absurd in the literary success they gain by it, but such justification has no value for the masses of ordinary men liberated by atheism and who, having become gods without asking for it, do not know what to do with their divinity. The latter make no pretense to save themselves, they eagerly beg to be saved. Then there appear other men who undertake to exploit atheism in their turn, and who organize the cult of the new god. It is not without a profound philosophical reason that Marxism required atheism as one of its necessary principles.” Etienne Gilson

Based on dialectical materialism which reduces men to machines - liberated from their slavery to other machines!

 

[tonyrey]

I believe most atheists, at least moderns, don’t realize the significance of what they have done. They have not yet truly experienced what it would mean for God not to exist.

As one of my favorite moralists, Freddy Nietzsche wrote:

. . .The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. " Where is God gone? " he called out. " I mean to tell you! We have killed him, – you and I! We are all his murderers!

It is tragic that Nietzsche himself became insane…

 

[without]

He’s making a category error with “flying spaghetti monster” and saying its “outside of nature.” Anything that is “flying” “spaghetti” or a physical “monster” by definition lives in a material existence and is thus a part of nature.

Um - Jesus is a physical human that ascended into heaven, correct? Mary is a physical human who was assumed into heaven, correct?

You attest to the belief that Jesus physically ascended into heaven every weekend with the reading of the creed.

The “flying spaghetti monster” can be just as real and exist in the same “heavenly” place…

 

[Aloysium]

Um - Jesus is a physical human that ascended into heaven, correct? Mary is a physical human who was assumed into heaven, correct?

You attest to the belief that Jesus physically ascended into heaven every weekend with the reading of the creed.

The “flying spaghetti monster” can be just as real and exist in the same “heavenly” place…

The way you phrase your comments suggests that you do not understand what these words mean to Catholics.

In order to facilitate discussion, could you explain a bit about what you mean by:

• Jesus
• ascended
• physically
• heaven

If one is to deny the existence of God in any sort of meaningful way, one should have a sense of

• what is actually meant by “God” and
• what is understood as being the true nature of this universe.

Being an atheist makes you dependent on theistic belief systems. You should therefore know them thoroughly. I likely also don’t believe that which you don’t believe, but I am no atheist.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In order to facilitate discussion, could you explain a bit about what you mean by:

• Jesus
• ascended
• physically
• heaven
  …]
• what is actually meant by “God” and
• what is understood as being the true nature of this universe.

All good questions to make sure everyone is on the same page! I personally appreciate the effort to discover ones term usage. It may prevent a lot of exchanges with misunderstandings.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium:

Being an atheist makes you dependent on theistic belief systems.

That’s an intriguing claim. Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Aloysium]

That’s an intriguing claim. Would you care to elaborate?

I understand someone being a humanist, a Marxist, a Maoist, a Satanist, a Capitalist, a biologist, a dentist, . . . all ways of classifying persons according to their belief system and what they do.
Being an atheist implies not believing in theism, doesn’t it? For someone to claim to be an atheist I would assume they would have knowledge about theism, but disagree.
However, listening to most (all?) atheists speak about religion and especially about God, what I hear is nonsense. I don’t believe in nonsense either.

 

[Kay_Cee]

“Flying” “Spaghetti” and “monster” are all terms to describe PHYSICAL things.

Not only that, but “spaghetti” implies man-made, and “monster” implies evil.

So a term like “flying” “spaghetti” or “monster” are all completely straw-man arguments. If he wanted to use another generic name he should say things like “the great Spirit” or “the Creator Being.”

Exactly.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I understand someone being a humanist, a Marxist, a Maoist, a Satanist, a Capitalist, a biologist, a dentist, . . . all ways of classifying persons according to their belief system and what they do.

Okay, I’m with you. Those are all based on the presence of behaviours or attributes

Being an atheist implies not believing in theism, doesn’t it? For someone to claim to be an atheist I would assume they would have knowledge about theism, but disagree.

So you are saying the term is a relative description? If so, I could see how a relative description is dependent on some other description. (like the relationship among the terms “non-smoker” and “smoker”, or some other negation being dependent on something that is negated). But that’s not the same as saying the person to which that description is applied being dependent on some other disposition (if that is what was meant by “Being an atheist makes you dependent on theistic belief systems”). If no one ever voluntarily inhaled the smoke of burning plant material there probably would not be the classifying labels for the absences of this behaviour. But the existence (being) of people that are not inhaling smoke from burning plant material isn’t itself dependent on the existence of someone that is.

However, listening to most (all?) atheists speak about religion and especially about God, what I hear is nonsense. I don’t believe in nonsense either.

There are a spectrum of belief sets that could all be classified under “[mono]theism” even if they have nothing else in common. Because of this someone might consider the propositions from a set of beliefs with which she has had experience to be untenable but that may not be universally applicable to other sets of beliefs. Picking the first thing that comes to mind, someone might find the religiously motivated prohibition on blood transfusions even at risk of death or the prohibition against women wearing pants or makeup to be nonsense. But that’s applicable to some (but not all) religious dispositions that fall under the umbrella of [mono]theism. If you come across a person that feels that religion is non-sense it may be necessary to unwrap their feelings if understanding of the attributes to which the person is applying the feelings (if there is curiosity to why the person feels that way).

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium, I disagree with you, or at least I don’t think your wording is in any way useful. By your reasoning, being a theist makes you dependent on the atheist world view.

Being an atheist is to take a view on one single issue. I don’t believe that this make the atheist dependent on the belief system of any theist per se, except inasmuch as they disagree on that one issue.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . By your reasoning, being a theist makes you dependent on the atheist world view. Being an atheist is to take a view on one single issue. I don’t believe that this make the atheist dependent on the belief system of any theist per se, except inasmuch as they disagree on that one issue.

To say there is no God implies that someone thinks there is a God.
To say there is no God offers nothing of any intellectual worth in itself.
To say I believe God is to say that the Light that shines eternally, makes everything understandable.
If atheism is synonymous with ignorance than I will agree that theism is dependent on atheism, in the sense that we can emerge out of a state of ignorance, and come to know the Truth.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium:

To say there is no God implies that someone thinks there is a God.

I disagree. Lacking a belief in a God does not necessarily imply that someone else believes that that there is a God.

Consider a hypothetical isolated tribe in the Amazon rain-forest that has never encountered any other humans. None of this tribe believe in any sort of God. In fact they have never encountered the idea of a belief in a God. They are, by definition, atheists. By them being atheists, how does this necessarily imply that theists must exist somewhere? How are these people dependent on a theistic belief system?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Consider a hypothetical isolated tribe in the Amazon rain-forest that has never encountered any other humans. None of this tribe believe in any sort of God. In fact they have never encountered the idea of a belief in a God. They are, by definition, atheists. By them being atheists, how does this necessarily imply that theists must exist somewhere? How are these people dependent on a theistic belief system?

How does anything hypothetical constitute evidence for anything?

 

[wadramli]

Such a tribe the chances are would be what they call animists . an animal dies there is a cessation of being. Baby is born life pops up. They differ in mind set from lets says subsistence agriculturists/ farming communities . a lot of what goes in the old testament accord okay with the animist . but where you really sense total relating is among African pastoralists. Cain murdering able is to be expected They loath despise farming cultures ,the feeling is mutual. With farming communities they relate to Jesus . he speaks in terms of the vine .

The bible is a very truthful books . it echo the human condition through the centuries and past that into our future … But you have to look at with the appropriate eye to understand it otherwise you’ll have a pretty hard time of understanding it if at all .such histories as that of Abraham to these pastoralists are gems to be treasured . I can’t even finish reading the thing to them . they keep interrupting and asking question to clarify this and talking among themselves . a couple of minutes of reading that should suffice to cover Abraham takes me days with them.

They don’t really think about things like why is the sky blue looking at a computer screen . their world and the changes that surround and affect their lives got nothing to do with this sort of thing. The bush the savanna grass lands , water , sudden raids , disease, famine ,ect, does . Its all in the old testament and hence their fondness for it because as a guide the old testament works great for them .jesus then uplifts to higher grounds . something to that effect .

it is in these pre literate societies that the search for an intelligible world begins.Philosophy/religion began with them as they tried to makes sense of the world .but its hard to fl the dots for you because ? you’re who you are they are who they are . but hey anytime you feel like it come to Africa I take you for a tour . word of caution though . I go there with clothes . they take them from me and wear them and I end up walking around in my under wear with my bible . I get the curdled milk in the trade. they are good to me. and you come back the expert.

 

[wadramli]

Do you realize Nietzsche advocated that one should not hesitate to sacrifice others to realize a cause ?

A lot of people go to the west and pick up the worst of western human thought and bring back home and cause trouble to the whole world .

I suspect this Etienne Gilson is talking from a Higher interest or moment to moment interest motif . interest in success, interest in exploiting people sort of thing . he is wrong however about that bit about being liberated by atheism and finding themselves gods .it is the other way around it’s Christianity that does that … somewhere in the bible Jesus asks doesn’t say we are gods ?. Jesus god with a human heart etc…

 

[wadramli]

Bush doctrine . here in Africa despite the less advanced weaponry but battle field conditions can be very fluid and at times very confused with front troops , rear guard, logistics , tanks apcs and field artillery all mixed up with the other side in a big huge confusing mess. Don’t think anyone is going to go to the border guard and ask for visa to cross the borders to flanks and whatnot . things move rapidly across last expanses of land crossing borders … not longer asking why verse reminded you of bush doctrine . if i put you on spot my apologies

 

[tonyrey]

Um - Jesus is a physical human that ascended into heaven, correct? Mary is a physical human who was assumed into heaven, correct?

You attest to the belief that Jesus physically ascended into heaven every weekend with the reading of the creed.

The “flying spaghetti monster” can be just as real and exist in the same “heavenly” place…

Has the fsm left moral teaching which is the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

 

[CommonWeal]

“Yes, science assumes that universe follows a set of laws. These assumptions have allowed us to create models which have enabled us to accurately predict events in the universe. I see no problem with that assumption since we have never observed anything supernatural. The problem with an un-falsifiable claim is that it is worthless, it cannot be used to make any meaningful and testable predictions about the world we live in. I can claim that the universe was created (in its current state ) by the flying spaghetti monster (which is outside nature etc) 3 days ago. The Burden of proof would be on me, I would have to provide evidence for my claim.
Making the claim that a supernatural being exists is un-falsifiable , but claiming that this being interacts with nature is not. We can use science to examine these claims and none of them turn out to be supernatural (the claim is made that the wafer turns into jesus’s flesh, we can easily test this) .Why do miracles described in the bible ( like the earth stopping to rotate in Joshua ) no longer occur today where we have video cameras and satellites to observe and verify it ?”

He has also stated in a previous message that because there is no scientific evidence for God that there is no basis for belief in him.

Edit: I’ve just realised there is a ban on atheist posts, I’m not sure if this counts or not? I can’t tell if it’s posts about atheists or atheism or what… Sorry if this violates the ban!

The arguments of atheists (i.e., unbelievers) are truly tiresome. First of all, I don’t really understand what they mean by an “un-falsifiable” claim. A claim that cannot be demonstrated to be false (i.e., not false) is therefore true. For example, the claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is un-falsifiable, but only because it is true. Am I missing something?

“But wait,” the atheist will say. “We can test and accurately predict that the sum of two and two is four.” To which the believer responds, “But have you ever seen a 2 before?” “Umm, no,” says the atheist, “for its existence is a necessary reality easily demonstrated by the laws of logic and, moreover, we can observe the effects in the universe. Why just this morning I saw 2 turtle doves fly past my window!” To which the believer replies, “It is the same with God, whose existence can be demonstrated from reason alone; in fact the physical sciences require that God exist.”

Atheists are people trapped by their senses. If they could only admit that “God” is not the creation but the Creator, they might at least stop saying there is no “scientific evidence” (i.e., physical evidence) that God exists. Well, duh!

 

[CommonWeal]

So the theist is left with the burden of proof because the atheist is not making any claim. As to what proof would convince the atheist that God exists, the best answer I have heard is that the atheist doesn’t know, but if there is an omniscient creator God, then that God would know what proof would convince the atheist. The atheist’s conclusion from this view is that either God does not exist, or that the God chooses not to provide convincing proof.

I don’t understand where this kind of thinking comes from. Why in your view has the theist not met the burden of proof? Where is the logical fallacy or error in the various proofs for the existence of God? Mankind has carried its burden and then some.