The absurdity of atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pallas_Athene said:
Persecuting the Christians was only part of all the purges, especially the purges of their own comrades. They were afraid of all the possible oppositions. The point is still the same:

Atheism does not lead to persecution of others. Some atheists do, most others do not. If your only information is about someone that he is a theist / atheist, you CANNOT draw any conclusion about his overall decency or goodwill.

Anti-theism is expressed hostility toward all religions. Just because one is an atheist, it does not imply hostility. That is all I say.
Click to expand...
Of course. There are peaceful atheists just as there are violent believers.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
His comments are so obviously anti-God and anti- Christian. And yet he says he is not!🤷
Click to expand...
Admitting the truth is the best policy in the long run. Otherwise sooner or later we contradict ourselves. There’s nothing wrong with being an atheist if it is a sincere “conviction” - even though the word is associated with guilt. 🙂
 
Randy_Carson said:
*]The atheist says: I don’t believe in the 10 Commandments, but it doesn’t bother me that a copy is posted in the county courthouse.
The anti-theist says: All vestiges of religion must be removed from the public square.

*]The atheist says: It’s not my thing, but if you want to believe in God, that’s cool.
The anti-theist says: You’re an idiot for believing fairy tales, and teaching that **** to your children is a form of child abuse that should be investigated by the state.
Click to expand...
The atheist says that if you want the ten commandments up there, then you have to give equal concern to those who want quotes from the Koran up there as well. And the Bahavagad Gita. And some literary gems from Joseph Smith. And the Torah. And Hindu Vedas.

He then goes on to say, over the cacophony of objections of each region to the perceived promotion of others that it would be a very good idea to keep religious texts within places of worship.

The atheist says that if you want to believe in God, then that’s cool. He says that if you want to point your children in a particular direction, whilst allowing them to make their own decisions, then that’s cool too. He also says that if you want to teach children that the world is 6,000 years old then you are an idiot and he will do everything that he can to prevent that from happening.
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
Can you describe what you mean by anti theist. Perhaps I misunderstood by assuming you meant something similar to “New Atheism”, which is definitely not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...
Anyone who opposes the idea and reality of God.
 
Bradski said:
The atheist says that if you want the ten commandments up there, then you have to give equal concern to those who want quotes from the Koran up there as well. And the Bahavagad Gita. And some literary gems from Joseph Smith. And the Torah. And Hindu Vedas.

He then goes on to say, over the cacophony of objections of each region to the perceived promotion of others that it would be a very good idea to keep religious texts within places of worship.

The atheist says that if you want to believe in God, then that’s cool. He says that if you want to point your children in a particular direction, whilst allowing them to make their own decisions, then that’s cool too. He also says that if you want to teach children that the world is 6,000 years old then you are an idiot and he will do everything that he can to prevent that from happening.
Click to expand...
An atheist says “whatever, it’s of no concern to me”, and anti-theist say “whatever, unless you disagree with my opinion that God does not exist. Then there will be trouble.”
 
Pallas_Athene said:
What good is a moral “mandate” if it can be disregarded with impunity? Because HERE and NOW there is no punishment for disobeying the “mandate”. And the alleged punishment in the afterlife is not something that acts as a prohibiting factor for many believers.

Think about the Inquisition. Do you have any evidence that Stalin and Mao committed those atrocities BECAUSE they were atheists? On the other hand the members of the Inquisition committed their acts because they were certain that they carry out God’s will…
Click to expand...
The only very occasional acts of cruelty during the Inquisition hardly compare with the wholesale slaughter scores of millions by Stalin and Mao, who being atheists no doubt thought they were going to act with impunity.

Even the Inquisitors, being men of God, had to know they were subject to the judgment of God themselves along with those they judged. In the Middle Ages it was held to be a worse crime to oppose God than to oppose the King. It still is in my opinion.

Also, the “alleged punishment in the afterlife is not something that acts as a prohibiting factor for many believers” is only a half truth, isn’t it? Many believers ARE inhibited by their faith from acting like immoral cretins.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
An atheist says “whatever, it’s of no concern to me”, and anti-theist say “whatever, unless you disagree with my opinion that God does not exist. Then there will be trouble.”
Click to expand...
What trouble do you think I am likely to cause? And I mean me personally, as you seem to think that I am ‘anti-theist’.

And you could bear in mind that a lot of my relatives are Christian, a few good friends likewise, I sent both children to Catholic schools, I doubt if there would be more than 7 or 8 people who would know I was an atheist and I actually took my daughter to my old church the last time I was in the UK. To tell some old friends that ‘there will be trouble’, no doubt.

Somehow I see your definition becoming a lot more insipid. Well, it would have to be to include me.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
Anti-theism is expressed hostility toward all religions. Just because one is an atheist, it does not imply hostility. That is all I say.
Click to expand...
It does not imply hostility, but neither does it forbid hostility.

Christianity, regardless of how some of its followers may behave from time to time, is a religion of love, and that implies it is not hostile but also forbids hostility.
 
Bradski said:
What trouble do you think I am likely to cause? And I mean me personally, as you seem to think that I am ‘anti-theist’.

And you could bear in mind that a lot of my relatives are Christian, a few good friends likewise, I sent both children to Catholic schools, I doubt if there would be more than 7 or 8 people who would know I was an atheist and I actually took my daughter to my old church the last time I was in the UK. To tell some old friends that ‘there will be trouble’, no doubt.

Somehow I see your definition becoming a lot more insipid. Well, it would have to be to include me.
Click to expand...
Atheists who live in a dominantly Christian environment are likely to profit from the tolerance of that community and are therefor more likely to live in peace with Christians.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Many believers ARE inhibited by their faith from acting like immoral cretins.
Click to expand...
Sounds like an incentive to not be anti-theist. I think those people should be encouraged NOT to lose their faith. Otherwise we’re going to end up with a lot of immoral cretins running around the place.
 
tonyrey said:
There’s nothing wrong with being an atheist if it is a sincere “conviction” - even though the word is associated with guilt. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, there’s the rub.

I don’t see how atheism can be a sincere “conviction” when there is no real evidence that God does not exist.

One may get away with saying it is a sincere “suspicion.”

But why risk the fate of one’s soul upon a sincere “suspicion”?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Atheists who live in a dominantly Christian environment are likely to profit from the tolerance of that community and are therefor more likely to live in peace with Christians.
Click to expand...
Apart from the fact that I live in a predominantly secular society (and I think I know more Muslims than I do Christian), that was an answer to a question that hadn’t been asked.

Either you can tell me what sort of trouble I am like to cause as an anti-theist ot you can redefine the term or you can exempt me from your incredible short list (which, as you recall, is meant to represent most of the atheists on this forum).
 
Charlemagne_III said:
It does not imply hostility, but neither does it forbid hostility.

Christianity, regardless of how some of its followers may behave from time to time, is a religion of love, and that implies it is not hostile but also forbids hostility.
Click to expand...
Whatever it implies or forbids is irrelevant if the adherents of that principle do not follow the “teachings”. As inocente so wisely pointed out, with a “judicious” application of “quote-mining” one can find supporting verses for any kind of claim.
 
Bradski said:
What trouble do you think I am likely to cause? And I mean me personally, as you seem to think that I am ‘anti-theist’.

And you could bear in mind that a lot of my relatives are Christian, a few good friends likewise, I sent both children to Catholic schools, I doubt if there would be more than 7 or 8 people who would know I was an atheist and I actually took my daughter to my old church the last time I was in the UK. To tell some old friends that ‘there will be trouble’, no doubt.

Somehow I see your definition becoming a lot more insipid. Well, it would have to be to include me.
Click to expand...
What do you believe in Bradski? People who send their children to Catholic schools yet belittle the faith are great liars. Are you a liar Bradski? Why would you send your children to a Christian school if you do not believe in their teachings? Because they would get a better education? You people who have a lot of money and use the Catholic school system for educating your children, yet refuse the faith, are hypocrites in my opinion.
 
Well, you nailed me there, Christine. I am both a liar and a hypocrite. I am also vain, lazy, obstinate, self centred and I probably drink too much into the bargain. I was also going to say I was a cheat, but for the life of me I cannot remember an instance. It may be my one saving grace.

But then again, I wasn’t asking you for a character assessment. I asked you as to what trouble you think I might cause.

In your own time…

Edit: I can’t remember if I mentioned my wife’s faith or not. Never mind, it doesn’t concern you in any case.
 
If you guys think Bradski and Pallas Athene are “anti-theists” you need to get out more often!!

Consider: these people come to Catholic.com to discuss philosophy, religion, science, faith, politics, and other important subjects with religious believers. Many anti-theists would assume most of you are delusional and have nothing to contribute to a rational dialogue. Want to have a chat with some anti-theists? Go to the “ex-Catholic” or “ex Christian” or “ex Mormon” reddit pages. Check out the comments on youtube videos having to do with religion or philosophy. The vitriol and hatred of religion in general will astound you. Pallas Athene and Bradski are your friends guys! They respect you and your beliefs just by being here and engaging with your point of view.

Please don’t mistake a desire for well-founded arguments, solid evidence, and clear logic as an attack on your faith. 👍
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Why would you send your children to a Christian school if you do not believe in their teachings? Because they would get a better education?
Click to expand...
There is a family among our friends, who already sent their older son to a Catholic school - precisely to get a high level of education. Quite possibly they will send their other two kids there, for the same reason. It costs them an arm and leg, but they want their children to have as high level of education as possible.
CHRISTINE77 said:
You people who have a lot of money and use the Catholic school system for educating your children, yet refuse the faith, are hypocrites in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Why of Earth would you call them “hypocrites”? They are only interested in the education, not the surrounding “faith stuff”.
 
PumpkinCookie said:
If you guys think Bradski and Pallas Athene are “anti-theists” you need to get out more often!!

Consider: these people come to Catholic.com to discuss philosophy, religion, science, faith, politics, and other important subjects with religious believers. Many anti-theists would assume most of you are delusional and have nothing to contribute to a rational dialogue. Want to have a chat with some anti-theists? Go to the “ex-Catholic” or “ex Christian” or “ex Mormon” reddit pages. Check out the comments on youtube videos having to do with religion or philosophy. The vitriol and hatred of religion in general will astound you. Pallas Athene and Bradski are your friends guys! They respect you and your beliefs just by being here and engaging with your point of view.

Please don’t mistake a desire for well-founded arguments, solid evidence, and clear logic as an attack on your faith. 👍
Click to expand...
Very kind of you to come to our “defense”. I met other believers who were actually grateful for being challenged. 🙂 They said that they were “forced” to think deeper about their beliefs and that strengthened their faith. They definitely did not think of me as “anti-theists”. As the old saying goes: “large is the zoo of God, and there are all sorts of beings included in it”.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
Why of Earth would you call them “hypocrites”? They are only interested in the education, not the surrounding “faith stuff”.
Click to expand...
My son’s school has a certain percentage of places open for those who are not necessarily Catholic. They don’t require both parents to be Catholics. In fact, they don’t require either of them to be do.

We attended an interview. My wife had given me prior notice that should they ask about my beliefs I should fudge them. Say I was a lapsed Anglican. Which was true in a way. But if I told them I was an atheist and he didn’t get in, well…there were likely to have been repercussions. She was deadly serious.

They asked me.

Now I could have said ‘Lapsed C of E, I’m afraid’, but that would have made me (what was the term Christine used?) a hypocrite. So, I told them I was an atheist. It was no problem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top