Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[ThinkingSapien]

However, as with most things Catholic, it’s not an either/or but rather a both/and (which is what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute).

Not that I have interest in refuting Catholicism, but can’t say I associate what might be describe as an application of Set Theory instead of bivalence with difficulty in refutation. But okay.

(Incidentally, Judaism is like this, too…as well as a whole lot of other Christian denominations…so please be aware, when you are making statements such as the above, that you may be demonstrating an impoverished understanding of what it means to be a member of a particular religion).

Or I may only be sharing my observations of what has typically been part of past conversations here on the topic without having yet shared my own view.

 

[PRmerger]

Or I may only be sharing my observations of what has typically been part of past conversations here on the topic without having yet shared my own view.

It certainly* sounds *as if you’re using a fundamentalist approach to what it means to be a member of a religion.

The idea that one is a member of God’s family (via, say, circumcision or baptism) seems to have been discarded in your assessment of religion.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It certainly* sounds *as if you’re using a fundamentalist approach to what it means to be a member of a religion.

You’ll need to differentiate between me talking about what I have seen when others exchanges ideas on a topic from expressions of my own ideas to better characterize my approach.

The idea that one is a member of God’s family (via, say, circumcision or baptism) seems to have been discarded in your assessment of religion.

I couldn’t tell you on whether someone is a member of God’s family or not. I can talk about whether members of a religious group consider others to be within their group and what they may have said or demonstrated on in-group/out-group selection and induction. But that approach is probably better for a discussion occurring from a sociological or behaviourist perspective.

 

[PRmerger]

You’ll need to differentiate between me talking about what I have seen when others exchanges ideas on a topic from expressions of my own ideas to better characterize my approach.

I couldn’t tell you on whether someone is a member of God’s family or not.

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.

But after being here for as long as you have, you should have been able to comment on what makes a Catholic a member of God’s family. (Baptism)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But after being here for as long as you have, you should have been able to comment on what makes a Catholic a member of God’s family. (Baptism)

Linda, a Christian of some denomination, tells me that she is a child of God and when she dies she is going to be in heaven. But Linda tells me that Austin isn’t really isn’t a Christian and isn’t going to heaven after death. When I ask Austin I’m told otherwise. They are both giving me assessments consistent with their denomination of Christianity. Which one (if any) is correct? I couldn’t tell you. Do I know the requirements given for being part of their religion and denomination. Sure.

From this you might understand why I see the question of what is required to be part of a group’s religion and what is required to be part of God’s family as distinctly different questions. I get the impression you see them as synonymous. It also looks that you took number #245 as my “assessment of religion.” It’s not.

If I had mentioned how to meet the requirements of converting to Judaism or participation in the sacraments I don’t believe it would have helped out in determining if belief of god/gods/God is innate or imbued.

 

[PRmerger]

Linda, a Christian of some denomination,

STOP. right. here.

Are you on a Catholic forum?

Then…

you ought to know a little bit about what Catholicism professes.

Especially after being here for as long as you have.

 

[inocente]

This is nonsense. A minority of Protestant fundamentalists believed Catholics should not rule Protestants, but even Protestant fundamentalists did not condone bombing Catholic bars.

In the 1960’s the Republican movement was a socialist movement that wanted to unite working class Protestants and Catholics against the British.

There many have been some Irish Republican’s who thought in eyes of God their actions were justified, but if they were bombing bars in the name of Jesus how come they declared their acts were carried out in the name of the Republic?

Atheist bars? There is no such thing.

Bars were targeted not simply because Protestants or Catholics drank there. They were targeted because members of the security forces or people believe to be in IRA drank there. Yes, innocent people also died because neither side cared if they got caught in cross fire - so long as they got their targets.

You can read all the encyclopedia’s you like. I grew up in Belfast in the 70’s and still live in Northern Ireland. As such I am better placed to comment on the realities of the conflict than an encyclopedia or Bob Dylan. This said if you want to believe people in Ireland bombed bars in the name of Jesus that is your prerogative.

Protestants and Catholics were polarized as consequence of their religious beliefs, but from the Peace Process and the Good Friday Agreement the world now knows it was national identity and governance that lay at the heart for the conflict - not religion.

Nonsense? Perhaps you’re right or perhaps you were too close. I know three Catholics whose families were caught up in the Troubles and they wouldn’t agree with you. Many historical pieces such as this one frame the conflict in terms of religion, and I’ll link but will not repeat quotes from a politician of the time, for they speak of a deep divisive religious bigotry. He definitely believed God was on his side in his twisted religion.

btw I think there probably are atheist bars and cafes. Like-minded intellectuals, artists and students gather at watering holes, unless all the secularists have fled the country.

*So who said he was?

There is nothing in my posts that suggest I am stereotyping all atheists - quite the opposite.

Religious fundamentalists are religious fundamentalists - end of.*

True. It was your claim in post #198 that “radical atheists are the new fundamentalists”, which I see as highly tenuous. For instance, you said all fundamentalists assert that “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination”, but surely that’s stereotyping par excellence. Fundamentalists are bible literalists, not necessarily religious fanatics. And some of the regular Catholic posters on this forum assert daily that atheism is to blame for all the worlds ills.

 

[minkymurph]

Nonsense? Perhaps you’re right or perhaps you were too close.

Or perhaps you are too far away and are not sufficiently read on the topic.

There are any amount of authoritative works that argue it was not a religious war. It cannot be said nationality and governance had nothing to do with the conflict.

I know three Catholics whose families were caught up in the Troubles and they wouldn’t agree with you. Many historical pieces such as this one frame the conflict in terms of religion, and I’ll link but will not repeat quotes from a politician of the time, for they speak of a deep divisive religious bigotry. He definitely believed God was on his side in his twisted religion.

And do these three Catholics you know say both the IRA and UDA bombed bars ‘in the name of Jesus?’ Did they say it was a religious war and nothing to do with nationality and governance?

I did not say no one believed God was on their side. I said bars were not bombed ‘in the name of Jesus’ The fact three Catholics you know believe God was on their side is not evidence the IRA never mind the UDA bombed bars in the name of Jesus unless they were ones who planted the bombs. There were atheists in both the UDA and IRA. Why did they bomb bars?

btw I think there probably are atheist bars and cafes. Like-minded intellectuals, artists and students gather at watering holes, unless all the secularists have fled the country.

You think wrong. There is no such thing as an ‘atheist’ bar or cafe.

Of course secularists have not fled the country. Yes atheists frequent bars and cafes, but there is no such thing as an ‘atheist’ bar or cafe.

True. It was your claim in post #198 that “radical atheists are the new fundamentalists”, which I see as highly tenuous. For instance, you said all fundamentalists assert that “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination”, but surely that’s stereotyping par excellence.

I certainly did not. I don’t what you are trying to achieve here other than to completely distort what I posted and misinterpret Irish history for reasons best know to yourself.

Fundamentalists are bible literalists, not necessarily religious fanatics.

I didn’t say they were. You are one who said radicals may be categorised as fanatics. I said some radicals may be fanatics and it cannot be said none are.

And some of the regular Catholic posters on this forum assert daily that atheism is to blame for all the worlds ills.

And what does any of this have to do with my posts? Go argue with them.

 

[inocente]

Or perhaps you are too far away and are not sufficiently read on the topic.

There are any amount of authoritative works that argue it was not a religious war. It cannot be said nationality and governance had nothing to do with the conflict.

Sure but it is not framed as primarily political but as religious. The rantings of that politician speak of others as sub-human. That’s not merely a dispute over governance, it goes far deeper into psyches. There’s the whole tribal internecine thing going on, them and us, they worship false idols, they’re a different race, they cut us up 300 years ago so we’ll do the same to them, etc.

And do these three Catholics you know say both the IRA and UDA bombed bars ‘in the name of Jesus?’ Did they say it was a religious war and nothing to do with nationality and governance?

They were baptized and educated Catholic but formally renounced it when they left school (they held a ceremony in an atheist bar ) and have stayed that way. They wanted nothing more to do with religion, for them religion was and still is the cause of all evil. Yes, agreed, seems a bit over the top to me too, but that’s how they saw it.

I did not say no one believed God was on their side. I said bars were not bombed ‘in the name of Jesus’ The fact three Catholics you know believe God was on their side is not evidence the IRA never mind the UDA bombed bars in the name of Jesus unless they were ones who planted the bombs. There were atheists in both the UDA and IRA. Why did they bomb bars?

I can’t think of any logical reason to bomb bars. I think primal hatred doesn’t run on logic. It comes from a deep deep place within us, somewhere in the primitive brain where there are no words. If you want to argue that religious belief is too superficial to go as deep, be my guest.

inocente;14742054:

True. It was your claim in post #198 that “radical atheists are the new fundamentalists”, which I see as highly tenuous. For instance, you said all fundamentalists assert that “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination”, but surely that’s stereotyping par excellence.

I certainly did not. I don’t what you are trying to achieve here other than to completely distort what I posted and misinterpret Irish history for reasons best know to yourself.

:ehh: Here is what you posted.

I would also say radical atheists are the new fundamentalists. I say this based on their words and actions. In my parents time fiery evangelical preachers stood on street corners shouting through megaphones, ‘Get saved or burn in hell.’ There has been a contemporary revival of this in my home town - though not on the same scale, and every week there are insertions in the local paper, ‘Remember the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah.’ In other words - Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination.

So it seems you certain did.

I didn’t say they were. You are one who said radicals may be categorised as fanatics. I said some radicals may be fanatics and it cannot be said none are.

I said “a synonym of radical is extremist” and “Fundamentalists are bible literalists, not necessarily religious fanatics”.

inocente;14742054:

And some of the regular Catholic posters on this forum assert daily that atheism is to blame for all the worlds ills.

And what does any of this have to do with my posts? Go argue with them.

In the post I quoted above, you wrote that you infer evangelical ads in your local paper say “In other words - Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination”. That’s what it has to do with your posts. The stereotype ignores that there are Catholic posters who likewise claim “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills”.

We seem to have got into a lot of detail. My only purpose in joining this thread is that imho at best stereotyping reduces persons to one dimension and at worst it divides by appealing to tribal instincts.

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly my point. And children automatically believe what they are told. Tooth fairy, gods and monsters, Santa, they are a tabula rasa on which you can write anything at all. And yes, that would include not believing in things.

Maybe I should have written ‘effectively’ an atheist when referring to young children, but I was expecting people to understand the point I was making. And those who know me well enough would be fully aware that I have previously made the point that you can’t self declare as a Christian or an atheist until you have reached whatever you might consider to be the age of reason.

Fair enough but what is your reaction to this view:

To be precise, atheists don’t believe God exists - which is different from not** believing in God** (which entails trust). Ultimately atheists don’t trust anything because they believe nothing has any reason to exist. It is a sobering thought which highlights the stark emptiness of a Godless universe which is soul-destroying in every sense of the term. Without religion we live in a spiritual desert which ultimately becomes so oppressing that death becomes a liberation from despair and desolation. Without religion we are left utterly alone without anyone to share our thoughts and feelings. It is in fact a hell of our own making because it is impossible to know for certain there is no God. Saints experienced the Dark Night of the Soul but at least there was light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s hope it’s true there are no atheists in dugouts… It would be ironic if no one finishes up in that plight when they die!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

To be precise, atheists don’t believe God exists - which is different from not** believing in God** (which entails trust). Ultimately atheists don’t trust anything because they believe nothing has any reason to exist.

That’s not true. People, including atheist, can and do have feelings of trust and confidence about others.

It is a sobering thought which highlights the stark emptiness of a Godless universe which is soul-destroying in every sense of the term.

I’ve heard of this type of reaction from someone that had been religious but has recently had doubts or become unconvinced; as though their safety net has been pulled from under them. But people at times have limited capacity to worry about something and that reaction and feelings may diminish overtime.

Without religion we live in a spiritual desert which ultimately becomes so oppressing that death becomes a liberation from despair and desolation. Without religion we are left utterly alone without anyone to share our thoughts and feelings.

And this sounds more like a reaction to complete involuntary social isolation (which is still a form of punishment here in the USA) or something akin to it such as loosing all of the most loved people in ones life at once. Social connections, feeling loved by others, and having others that one loves contribute to a motivation to continue living even in otherwise negative circumstances.

it is impossible to know for certain there is no God.

Strong Agnostics of the world agree!

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not true. People, including atheist, can and do have feelings of trust and confidence about others.

Indeed.

One has to wonder why atheists seem to permit this in themselves but oppose this in Theists.

“It’s ok to believe in someone based on their testimony alone” and
“You Theists believe in Someone based on their testimony alone”.

 

[minkymurph]

Sure but it is not framed as primarily political but as religious. The rantings of that politician speak of others as sub-human. That’s not merely a dispute over governance, it goes far deeper into psyches. There’s the whole tribal internecine thing going on, them and us, they worship false idols, they’re a different race, they cut us up 300 years ago so we’ll do the same to them, etc.

I have never heard Protestants say Catholics are different race or vice versa. A different nationality yes. But a different race? No.

I personally can’t think of a ‘cutting up’ that happened 300 years ago.

Tribal politics yes, among a minority, but how do you get bars were bombed in the name of Jesus out of that? The vast majority of the population didn’t bomb bars. Of those who did I have never heard it claimed it was bombed in the name of Jesus. In the name Ulster or the Republic yes - but what would I know? You have three Irish Catholic friends.

They were baptized and educated Catholic but formally renounced it when they left school (they held a ceremony in an atheist bar ) and have stayed that way. They wanted nothing more to do with religion, for them religion was and still is the cause of all evil. Yes, agreed, seems a bit over the top to me too, but that’s how they saw it.

When I was growing up people there were ‘ACDC’ bars - so called because anyone could frequent it irrespective of who or what you are. ‘Catholic bars’ were those frequented most by Catholics, owned by Catholics and in a Catholic area. ‘Protestant bars’ were frequented by Protestants, owned by Protestants and in Protestant areas. Certainly an atheist may own a bar, but I know of no bar that was frequented only by atheists, and know of no ‘atheist area.’

Ask your friends what the name of this bar is. I’d be interested to know. And also why they consider it an atheist bar.

I can’t think of any logical reason to bomb bars. I think primal hatred doesn’t run on logic. It comes from a deep deep place within us, somewhere in the primitive brain where there are no words. If you want to argue that religious belief is too superficial to go as deep, be my guest.

You know fine well I’m not arguing that - and wouldn’t.

:ehh: Here is what you posted.

So it seems you certain did.

It seems certain I didn’t unless -

Atheists are the new fundamentalists translates asall fundamentalists assert “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination” out of ?

Fiery evangelical preachers stood on street corners shouting through megaphones 'Get saved or burn in hell translates as all fundamentalists assert “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination” out of

Every week there are insertions in the local paper, ‘Remember the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah.’ In other words - Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination translates as all fundamentalists assert “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination.”

I said “a synonym of radical is extremist” and “Fundamentalists are bible literalists, not necessarily religious fanatics”.

So who said they were? I know I didn’t. But it cannot be said none of them are. There are radicals and extremists in every group.

In the post I quoted above, you wrote that you infer evangelical ads in your local paper say “In other words - Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination”. That’s what it has to do with your posts. The stereotype ignores that there are Catholic posters who likewise claim “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills”.

It is a fact that’s what they mean. Putting these biblical quotes in local newspapers that state homosexuality is an abomination started when a prominent politician who is a fundamentalist Christian stated publicly homosexuality was an abomination. Inserting the biblical quote that refers to homosexuality as an abomination led to a court case. The court ruled this part of the quote could not be cited in a national newspaper as it constituted ‘hate speech’ and thus unlawful. Thus, the biblical quote is still cited in newspapers minus the ‘abomination’ reference. In light of these facts are you to tell me they don’t mean to infer homosexuality is an abomination and to infer they are is stereotyping them?

Just because I did not write Catholic posters who likewise claim "Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills in this post does not mean I am ignoring this fact. I can’t cover everything in one post. I openly acknowledged in other posts there are Catholics who can be categorised a fundamentalists, and have consistently argued anyone can be a ‘fundamentalist’ on this thread.

We seem to have got into a lot of detail. My only purpose in joining this thread is that imho at best stereotyping reduces persons to one dimension and at worst it divides by appealing to tribal instincts.

Note the absence of the word all. If it is a fact an individual or group of people believe something, it is a fact they believe it. That is not stereotyping. Thinking they believe it when they in fact don’t is stereotyping. It is a fact there are religious fundamentalists - note religious fundamentalists and not specifically Protestant fundamentalist’s, who believe homosexuality is an abomination, and godlessness is largely responsible for the worlds ills. We know it is fact as they themselves have stated this what they believe.

 

[PRmerger]

It seems certain I didn’t unless -

Atheists are the new fundamentalists translates asall fundamentalists assert “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination” out of ?

And that is…amusingly…a fundamentalist interpretation of SAAFAF.

 

[ANV]

Indeed.

One has to wonder why atheists seem to permit this in themselves but oppose this in Theists.

“It’s ok to believe in someone based on their testimony alone” and
“You Theists believe in Someone based on their testimony alone”.

What testimonies do atheists believe in? or even more, base their beliefs or skepticism on, if anything, they wouldn’t include any supernatural interactions.

 

[goout]

What testimonies do atheists believe in? or even more, base their beliefs or skepticism on, if anything, they wouldn’t include any supernatural interactions.

Atheist testimonies?
What is it you are doing here?
Do you believe in what you say?
Do you think what you say about God is reliable and true?
If not, then…what? That makes what you are doing here a contradiction.
“You don’t really have a testimony and belief to give, and you are happy to give it.”

And Christians do not base the entirety of their faith on supernatural interactions. Very few fortunate people have them.

 

[PRmerger]

What testimonies do atheists believe in? or even more, base their beliefs or skepticism on, if anything, they wouldn’t include any supernatural interactions.

How 'bout this one:

People got excommunicated for contradicting church teachings on how the world worked (e.g. Dr. Gregorio Chil y Naranjo, in 1878, for scientific work supporting Darwinian evolution.) Now, its fine to say what you have said, but the end result is that even things that look an awfully lot like official church teachings (and get people excommunicated today) may not turn out to be quite so official 100 years from now, when times have changed.

JK believes the testimony from some complete stranger to him that Dr. Naranjo was excommunicated for scientific work supporting Darwinian evolution.

He doesn’t know this for any other reason, except that he believes in the testimony of someone (probably an online person) whose credentials I’m quite certain he never investigated.

(Proof of JK’s atheism here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13736320&postcount=122)

 

[PRmerger]

What testimonies do atheists believe in? or even more, base their beliefs or skepticism on, if anything, they wouldn’t include any supernatural interactions.

And this one:

Excuse me for hijacking the thread temporarily, but there is an excellent BBC documentary on the Phelps family. Having watched it a couple of weeks back I can say that there is absolutely no doubt that the late Fred Phelps was a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. But quite a few of the rest of his family come across as reasonably intelligent. Especially his granddaughters. Quite fascinating.

You can find the programme here: topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-most-hated-family-in-america/

Bradski here is accepting the testimony also of some other people he’s never met, declaring Fred Phelps to be “a couple sandwiches short of a picnic”.

I doubt that Bradski has ever met the (late) Rev Phelps, nor provided him with a intelligence test…

He’s just going by the testimony of others.

So…

 

[PRmerger]

What testimonies do atheists believe in? or even more, base their beliefs or skepticism on, if anything, they wouldn’t include any supernatural interactions.

And here’s someone who also believes the testimony of someone, even declaring that “there’s no reason to think they’re not completely true” (based on what?

Wait for it…

Wait for it…

the testimony of others) :

If you read ‘‘And the wall came tumbling down’’ you get a sense of not only MLK’s vision, but also his weaknesses.
If the stories told by Abernathy, his close friend and fellow activist about the sex parties, the beatings of prostitutes, the drugs and orgies, are even half true, and theres no reason to think theyre not completely true, I cant imagine MLK gave two hoots about women or the unborn, regardless of what his public persona portrayed.
If one of those prostitutes he beat up ended up getting pregnant, I doubt very much MLK could care less for either the woman or the baby. And if it came close to causing him scandal Im sure both could have been made to disappear conveniently.
Oh, and on the subject of MLK, why is he allowed to continue to be refered to as Dr, when a german guy has just been stripped of his ph.d for plagiarizm. Kings plagiarizm was unearthed when his papers were donated to Stanford. Yet the press played it down, and even though there is a note now attached to his original thesis saying large tracts are copied and uncredited from other sources, Boston still refused to withdraw the doctorate - most likely because they were terrified of the backlash when dealing with such a ‘‘great’’ man.
I have no problem believing King would not be the slightest bit bothered about abortion given his attitude to women and his deceitful character.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

What testimonies do atheists believe in? or even more, base their beliefs or skepticism on, if anything, they wouldn’t include any supernatural interactions.

And this guy:

Reminder that Trump has a personal interest in seeing the Dakota Access Pipeline built.

He believes the testimony of some strangers who write in a country an ocean away.

Quite certain he has no person knowledge of Donald Trump’s pipeline investment.