The absurdity of atheism

[PumpkinCookie]

Christopher Hitchens needed alcohol to sustain him in his barren view of life. He spent his life attacking religion because he had nothing to defend! He needed religion because without it he would have been lost! It was his main source of inspiration: the very fact that he never expressed doubt or fear about his convictions demonstrates that atheism was his religion. He worshipped his own opinion as if he were an infallible authority. Intellectual pride was the fatal flaw at the root of his scheme of things because unwillingness to admit we may be wrong is a sign of weakness not strength. It demonstrates that we are unreasonable and incapable of intellectual development. As you point out “The atheists or non-religious mostly remain where they are.” They are trapped in the hole they have dug for themselves.

And a reputation based on notoriety is not worth having. It makes money at the expense of moral integrity. To attack Mother Teresa and Pope Francis who have done far more to help poor people than he ever did is evidence of spiritual decadence. They will be remembered long after he is forgotten because he has left nothing but cynicism and despair. By their fruits you shall know them…

CS Lewis/Chesterton needed endless chain-smoking and over-eating to support them in their dismal views of life. They spent their lives attacking atheists because they had nothing to defend! They needed religion because without it, they would be unemployed! It was their main source of income, the very fact that they never expressed doubt or fear about their convictions demonstrates that their own opinions were their religions. They worshiped their own opinions of the Bible or the Catholic Magisterium as if they were infallible authorities. Intellectual pride was the fatal flaw at the root of their scheme because the unwillingness to admit we may be wrong is a sign of weakness not strength. It demonstrates they were unreasonable and incapable of intellectual development. As is obvious from census data, “religious believers only very rarely convert from the religion of their childhood.” They are trapped in the hole their ancestors have dug for them.

And, a reputation as a “professional religious believer” is not worth having. It makes money at the expense of moral integrity. To attack Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, and Hume who have done far more for our intellectual and cultural dialogue is a sign of mental decadence. The latter will be remembered long after the former are forgotten because they contributed something new and interesting to the conversation of humanity while Lewis and Chesterton engaged in polemics designed to entertain scantily-read anglophones.

Just having a little fun…only joking!! It’s either that or Englishmen have a real problem LOL!

 

[PRmerger]

You are certain a heaven as described in Christianity exists. Why is that?

Well, for many, many reasons—but the simplest one is for the same reason that you believe Nepal* exists, even if you haven’t been there: because you believe and have faith in the folks who told you Nepal exists.

*Please substitute some place you have never been in order for the conversation to progress. PLEASE do not tell us “Well, I’ve actually been to Nepal”.

The happenstance at having been born in a place and time where you were introduced to Christianity.

This proves Christianity is not true, how?

I used to believe in heaven as well. I used to be absolutely certain that heaven was real and I remember thinking ’ how can anyone not believe in God?’

I’ve been there, I understand how you think and how certain you are. I get it.

Well, this is as convincing as the anti-vaxxer who says, "I used to believe in vaccinations. I used to be absolutely certain that I was helping my child. I remember thinking, ‘How can anyone not vaccinate their child?’

I’ve been there. I understand how you think and how certain you are. I get it.

But now I am more informed and am not vaccinating my children."

What would your response to this person be?

(And if you are an anti-vaxxer, well…I am tempted to not discuss further with you because I prefer to only dialogue with people who are steeped in facts and reality, but if so, substitute any weird belief that some people have embraced, ok?)

 

[Peter_Plato]

I used to believe in heaven as well. I used to be absolutely certain that heaven was real and I remember thinking ’ how can anyone not believe in God?’

I’ve been there, I understand how you think and how certain you are. I get it.

Not to speak for PR here, but there is a difference between “what you think” and “why you think it.” This would mean that what you view as a shared certainty with regard to a belief in God does not entail you know “how” PR thinks. You may or may not have had a similar belief at some level, but that is far from establishing that you “understand” how she thinks what she does and why.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s zero evidence that the supernatural exists and I totally understand that you believe that the supernatural is just as real as our physical universe.

It’s ok.

Emmm…YOU believe in something with ZERO evidence to support it, so the above is a peculiar comment, don’t you think?

You permit yourself something that you object to in others?

Why is that, mk?

 

[Peter_Plato]

… Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, and Hume … have done far more for our intellectual and cultural dialogue… they contributed something new and interesting to the conversation of humanity …

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=15055

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Christopher Hitchens needed alcohol to sustain him in his barren view of life. He spent his life attacking religion because he had nothing to defend! He needed religion because without it he would have been lost! It was his main source of inspiration: the very fact that he never expressed doubt or fear about his convictions demonstrates that atheism was his religion. He worshipped his own opinion as if he were an infallible authority. Intellectual pride was the fatal flaw at the root of his scheme of things because unwillingness to admit we may be wrong is a sign of weakness not strength. It demonstrates that we are unreasonable and incapable of intellectual development. As you point out “The atheists or non-religious mostly remain where they are.” They are trapped in the hole they have dug for themselves.

And a reputation based on notoriety is not worth having. It makes money at the expense of moral integrity. To attack Mother Teresa and Pope Francis who have done far more to help poor people than he ever did is evidence of spiritual decadence. They will be remembered long after he is forgotten because he has left nothing but cynicism and despair. By their fruits you shall know them…

We don’t know how Hitchens ended. He may have fooled everyone.

With his last dying breath he may have uttered a sincere Our Father.

Perhaps not likely, but we may hope.

Purgatory surely is full of such hopeful cases.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=15055

LOL nice gif!

 

[Presence]

Emmm…YOU believe in something with ZERO evidence to support it, so the above is a peculiar comment, don’t you think?

You permit yourself something that you object to in others?

Why is that, mk?

It is interesting how atheists try and get away with this. There is, in fact, no evidence in support of their claim that there is no God yet all they demand of theists is evidence of God. Which we’re quite willing to offer, but they choose to either ignore the arguments or brush them aside with fallacious reasoning.

I would suggest that atheists consider their position and what it would take to change it. If they believe that there is no reason that could make them change their mind then they hold an irrational and absurd position.

I also find it curious why so strongly convinced atheists make the effort to have this discussion. What is the point? Is it merely for the enjoyment of the argument, or pride, or some other reason? By now, hopefully, most have become informed enough to know that Hitchens’ claim that religion poisons everything is simply ridiculous, and wouldn’t cling to that lame excuse. But is there a substantial reason to argue for the non-existence of God? Do they think it will make the world a better place? Is it good to disbelieve in God?

 

[PRmerger]

It is interesting how atheists try and get away with this. There is, in fact, no evidence in support of their claim that there is no God yet all they demand of theists is evidence of God. Which we’re quite willing to offer, but they choose to either ignore the arguments or brush them aside with fallacious reasoning.

Yes. The double standard is quite egregious.

#cognitivedissonance

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is interesting how atheists try and get away with this. There is, in fact, no evidence in support of their claim that there is no God yet all they demand of theists is evidence of God.

Don’t worry, you won’t find many (if any) in this thread that make the claim there there is no God.

I also find it curious why so strongly convinced atheists make the effort to have this discussion. What is the point?

There’s some discussion on that earlier in this thead if you’re interested.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheism is the dogmatic belief that** everything** is ultimately valueless yet that belief presupposes its own value! What is your view?

It presupposes a negative value and nothing else.

That is why the rate of suicide is higher among atheists than among theists.

conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_suicide

 

[Bradski]

Please substitute some place you have never been in order for the conversation to progress.

P: This place Nirvana is fantastic. Can’t wait to get there.
B: Let’s go today!
P: Well, I’m looking forward to it, but once you go, you can’t come back. So…
B: But you know it’s a great place so you must have talked to someone who’s been there.
P: No. There’s no communication with the place.
B: So who told you it was so great.
P: Well, I kinda read about it in a book.
B: Ah, is that the book with the talking snake at the beginning. And the Arc and a flood and stuff?
P: Umm…yeah.
B: And the seventy two virgins?
P: No, that’s a different book. I mean, who’d believe something like that.

I would suggest that atheists consider their position and what it would take to change it. If they believe that there is no reason that could make them change their mind then they hold an irrational and absurd position.

Indeed they would. Why don’t you go find some who think like that and bring them back here so we can point out the error of their ways.

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t worry, you won’t find many (if any) in this thread that make the claim there there is no God.

So everyone here who is an atheist is actually an agnostic?

 

[Aloysium]

P: This place Nirvana is fantastic. Can’t wait to get there.
B: Let’s go today!
P: Well, I’m looking forward to it, but once you go, you can’t come back. So…
B: But you know it’s a great place so you must have talked to someone who’s been there.
P: No. There’s no communication with the place.
B: So who told you it was so great.
P: Well, I kinda read about it in a book.
B: Ah, is that the book with the talking snake at the beginning. And the Arc and a flood and stuff?
P: Umm…yeah.
B: And the seventy two virgins?
P: No, that’s a different book. I mean, who’d believe something like that.

You would be satisfied with just believing, just a bunch of ideas.
Well that’s what you’ve got, so there’d be no difference really.

As your protagonists suggest, the whole point is to get there.

And, the first step takes place here and now.
The time here is limited, just giving you the heads up to start moving.
Maybe you are, but your posts suggests you’re simply spinning your wheels, arguing about things you do not understand.

Start praying, what’s the problem?

Btw, bodhisattvas come back. On the other hand, they also don’t because Nirvana involves a realization that one has always been there. No magisterium, so it gets even more confusing than it actually is.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So everyone here who is an atheist is actually an agnostic?

A person can be both. You and I have discussed this before.

 

[PRmerger]

P: This place Nirvana is fantastic. Can’t wait to get there.
B: Let’s go today!
P: Well, I’m looking forward to it, but once you go, you can’t come back. So…
B: But you know it’s a great place so you must have talked to someone who’s been there.
P: No. There’s no communication with the place.
B: So who told you it was so great.
P: Well, I kinda read about it in a book.

Let’s stop right there.

Have you forgotten again that you are on a Catholic forum in dialogue with (mostly) Catholics?

Because you keep thinking, I think, that you’re on a Bible Alone forum.

Let me remind you of this: * we *don’t get our beliefs from a book.

You should know that by now.

B: Ah, is that the book with the talking snake at the beginning. And the Arc and a flood and stuff?

I hope you’re going to the place that I find very rewarding when talking to atheists:

“I don’t believe in the Bible because it contains unbelievable stories like the Resurrection” and “The Resurrection didn’t happen because it’s related in the Bible, which is a book of myths”.

#circular

 

[PRmerger]

A person can be both.

I don’t think so.

At any rate, if one is an atheist, he is asserting a positive statement: there is no such thing as God. God does not exist and those who believe in God have a false sense of reality.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

At any rate, if one is an atheist, he is asserting a positive statement: there is no such thing as God.

Not necessarily. We’ve talked about that too in exchanges in this thread and others.

It may be worth asking someone that identifies as an atheist if s/he declares “there is no such a thing as God” to have a better understanding of his/her position.

 

[PRmerger]

Not necessarily. We’ve talked about that too in exchanges in this thread and others.

I really wish you would stop saying this.

Firstly, I remember everything I read, and (peculiarly)* almost *everything I type/write. So I don’t need a reminder.

Secondly, there are always new ways to discuss things that have already been discussed.

Thirdly, there’s always new folks who can chime in to offer their opinions on what’s already been discussed.

Fourthly, there’s always new lurkers who can benefit from the current discourse.

It may be worth asking someone that identifies as an atheist if s/he declares “there is no such a thing as God” to have a better understanding of his/her position.

If he doesn’t then he is an agnostic.

 

[PRmerger]

At any rate, if one is an atheist, he is asserting a positive statement: there is no such thing as God. God does not exist and those who believe in God have a false sense of reality.

Not necessarily. We’ve talked about that too in exchanges in this thread and others.

Evidence for atheism being a position which asserts: God does not exist:

(It is noted that TS asserted that no one “here” (meaning, on this thread) may make the claim that God doesn’t exist, but I propose that if they identify as an “atheist”, then this is what is meant by atheism: it is a positive assertion that God does not exist)

youtube.com/watch?v=_RmFzFM6dxA

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Que6C2NBL.SX329_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/GodScience.htm

youtube.com/watch?v=E69LMR_4hoQ