The absurdity of atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God does exist so in these discussions it will boil down to “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
This is more than an intellectual contest; it is a long hard journey to transcendence, that has been made easy.
To expect too find the keys under the street lamp because that is where one can see, when they are lying in the darkness beyond, is irrational. To go further and claim that they do not exist, reflects a misplaced faith in the capacities of the street lamp.
 
God does exist so in these discussions it will boil down to “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
Which is the ultimate con-game.
This is more than an intellectual contest; it is a long hard journey to transcendence, that has been made easy.
So, is it hard, or is it easy? :confused:
To expect too find the keys under the street lamp because that is where one can see, when they are lying in the darkness beyond, is irrational. To go further and claim that they do not exist, reflects a misplaced faith in the capacities of the street lamp.
Why would God hide that “key” where it cannot be found, and even when you pray for guidance, he does not give a “hint”? Placing that “key” under the street light would enable everyone to make a real decision, whether one wishes to open the door or not.

The contradiction is obvious: Supposedly God “wishes” everyone to come to him, so they can be saved. But in this case it makes no sense to hide that “key”. One can only make an informed decision when one has the pieces of the puzzle. This is not supposed to be a “hide-and-seek” game.

Of course I am aware that “blind faith” is supposed to be superior to reason (“Reason must be trampled underfoot” and “reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”) but that kind of “reasoning” is not acceptable. If it was God who gave us reason, it is unreasonable and irrational to demand that we abandon reason. Yes, I am also aware of the words: “blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”, but this is just another cop-out.
 
Not true. The supernatural refers to non-physical and non-conceptual, and yet physically active “something” (gods, angels, demons, ghosts, etc…). You are the one who attempts to redefine it to be able to play with those loaded dice.
Suddenly, the rules about what is “real” changes to exclude the non-physical AND the non-conceptual. How convenient for you.

Why are concepts suddenly natural? I would say they are less natural than a purple ghost in a fireplace because a purple ghost at least has some physical characteristics such as colour and spatial location - it is IN the fireplace, after all. Where do concepts reside? Locate them spatially for us, then?

Please don’t say, “In you mind or in your brain,” because all of reality exists in my mind at this moment.

If we want to be seriously consistent, the entire universe only consists of representations in my mind. There may, in fact, be no self-existing or subsistent “material” universe “out there” because everything that I know about the universe, ALL of its properties are conceptual endowments that I grant to it in order to propose to my intellect that it exists in some distinct form or other. How is that for “good-epistemology?” The best as far as I can see.

Furthermore, if I chose to be as adamant about “concepts” and the purported “natural” states of things as you, I could simply insist everything is conceptual since even the “natural” is merely an idea that I arbitrary impose on aspects of reality to distinguish them from other aspects. Again, “good epistemology” because it “works” to explain why all of reality is completely available to the intellect - it is all ideality and, hence, all accessible to the intellect.

Ideas, by the way are physically active. Ideas get things done and make things happen all the time. It was a set of ideas that caused me to write this reply. If you seriously think ideas do not cause anything then don’t act in any reason or internal impulse, wait for falling objects to push your fingers onto the keys of your keyboard.

I’ll wait patiently here to see what physical objects have to, causally speaking, say about reality.

To claim the supernatural is “non-physical” and “non-conceptual” is absurd, actually, since it doesn’t demonstrate why concepts are to be excluded from the supernatural, you merely exclude them by fiat. Hardly epistemologically sufficient. Dogmatic and without evidence or proof. I could bring God back under the same terms.

Reality refers to the physical, the conceptual or the supernatural by MY definition - MY rules. Prove it isn’t. Ergo, the supernatural is part of reality. Prove it isn’t. :hey_bud:
 
Why would God hide that “key” where it cannot be found, and even when you pray for guidance, he does not give a “hint”? Placing that “key” under the street light would enable everyone to make a real decision, whether one wishes to open the door or not.
You are assuming that the “key” is some object outside of you and the “place” to be opened is also some physical space where admission is strictly “come as you are.” What if it isn’t like that at all?
The contradiction is obvious: Supposedly God “wishes” everyone to come to him, so they can be saved. But in this case it makes no sense to hide that “key”. One can only make an informed decision when one has the pieces of the puzzle. This is not supposed to be a “hide-and-seek” game.
What if YOU are both the place and the key? And that specifically, Christ is the “key” in the sense of the master key which permits you to become your true self – the Imago Dei in whose image you were made? So you must be re-keyed in the image of the Master key in order to access that secret place – your true self in whom you encounter the Truth of all reality as it is. Christ became the human “key” in order to enable human beings to encounter God.

Surely, he will not permit just any party-crashers in, ergo the “key” is finding AND becoming your true self in Him, one worthy of being in God’s presence and only by reforming (or re-keying) your existing self in the proper configuration – truly and not falsely nor in some counterfeit way – can you enter the place within yourself where you can become your true self in order to be saved. You must become your true self in order to enter and you only enter to the extent that you become your true self.

*…from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent bear it away. (Matt 11:12) *

The “violent” not longer “bear it away” because a secure door is in place and those who permit God to turn themselves into a proper key to the Kingdom will enter through the secured door.

If you are both the key and the secret place, then both are “hidden” right under your nose where only you, by becoming your true self, can both find and become them.

The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

All this is ingenious really. Jesus says, “You must become perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect” in order to enter the Kingdom. Jesus provides the template by becoming fully human in you – this was the point of the Incarnation, in fact – his grace provides the power to enable your becoming fully you, the Holy Spirit and the Church provide the guidance and you provide the persistence (the faithfulness - or faith) to do so.

All within your reach. All under your nose. It is no “hide and seek” game unless you choose to make it one by deceiving yourself. Seek and you will find, continue seeking and you will continue finding – in fact, we are required to because the “re-keying” of self is a long process (much like turning a rabbit into a man) because we tend to resist and defer, but He is faithful, loving and merciful.
Of course I am aware that “blind faith” is supposed to be superior to reason (“Reason must be trampled underfoot” and “reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”) but that kind of “reasoning” is not acceptable. If it was God who gave us reason, it is unreasonable and irrational to demand that we abandon reason. Yes, I am also aware of the words: “blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”, but this is just another cop-out.
Again, it isn’t very clear that you understand that faith means “faithfulness” or “stay-with-it-ness.” To act according to “reason” means “having warranted reasons for.” Faithfulness absolutely requires “having reasons for,” otherwise a person does not continue. Now, the question to be asked is what reasons do you have for doing most of what you do?

You might argue that you have no reasons for continuing to have “faith,” but I would bet my bottom dollar that you can provide plenty of “reasons” for doing the things you do every day, and MOST of those “reasons” would be indistinguishable from rationalizations AND most of the things that you justify or “purchase” with those rationalizations are counterfeit items not worth the price, yet you likely purchase those items at a deep discounted, Boxing Day sale price with a high degree of frequency.

What did you say about having a bridge for sale? I bet you picked up that bridge real cheap and it wasn’t worth even that price, which is why you are trying to sell it again, yes? :takeoff:
 
If it was God who gave us reason, it is unreasonable and irrational to demand that we abandon reason. Yes, I am also aware of the words: “blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”, but this is just another cop-out.
It is reasonable and rational to demand that one abandon reason when reason is powerless to function reasonably. The assumption that reason can or will eventually understand **all things **is itself irrational. One of the things it certainly cannot understand with absolute clarity is the mind of God, and this is because God is infinite, not finite, Reason. It is arrogant, presumptuous and absurd to assert that if I cannot read the **whole mind **of God, there is no such mind to read.
 
Again, it isn’t very clear that you understand that faith means “faithfulness” or “stay-with-it-ness.”
Indeed.

Anyone who is comes to a Catholic forum and talks about “blind faith” demonstrates an impoverished understanding of Catholicism.

“Blind faith” is a heresy.

We are commanded to use our intellect in coming to an understanding of God.

And this quote: “Reason must be trampled underfoot”–why, oh, why, would anyone with any knowledge of Catholicism use a quote by Martin Luther to represent our faith?

Does he not know that Luther does not represent Catholic theology?
 
It is reasonable and rational to demand that one abandon reason when reason is powerless to function reasonably. The assumption that reason can or will eventually understand **all things **is itself irrational. One of the things it certainly cannot understand with absolute clarity is the mind of God, and this is because God is infinite, not finite, Reason. It is arrogant, presumptuous and absurd to assert that if I cannot read the **whole mind **of God, there is no such mind to read.
'zactly.

As Blaise Pascal so trenchantly and pithily stated: 2 errors-to exclude reason, and to exclude all but reason.
 
Apart from copyright, patents and other forms of intellectual property rights.
So these “copyright, patents and other forms of intellectual property rights” are evidence that human beings accept the reality of supernatural ideas and are willing to endorse their reality by acknowledging proprietorship.

Was that your point?
 
Suddenly, the rules about what is “real” changes to exclude the non-physical AND the non-conceptual. How convenient for you.

Why are concepts suddenly natural? I would say they are less natural than a purple ghost in a fireplace because a purple ghost at least has some physical characteristics such as colour and spatial location - it is IN the fireplace, after all. Where do concepts reside? Locate them spatially for us, then?

Please don’t say, “In you mind or in your brain,” because all of reality exists in my mind at this moment.

If we want to be seriously consistent, the entire universe only consists of representations in my mind. There may, in fact, be no self-existing or subsistent “material” universe “out there” because everything that I know about the universe, ALL of its properties are conceptual endowments that I grant to it in order to propose to my intellect that it exists in some distinct form or other. How is that for “good-epistemology?” The best as far as I can see.

Furthermore, if I chose to be as adamant about “concepts” and the purported “natural” states of things as you, I could simply insist everything is conceptual since even the “natural” is merely an idea that I arbitrary impose on aspects of reality to distinguish them from other aspects. Again, “good epistemology” because it “works” to explain why all of reality is completely available to the intellect - it is all ideality and, hence, all accessible to the intellect.

Ideas, by the way are physically active. Ideas get things done and make things happen all the time. It was a set of ideas that caused me to write this reply. If you seriously think ideas do not cause anything then don’t act in any reason or internal impulse, wait for falling objects to push your fingers onto the keys of your keyboard.

I’ll wait patiently here to see what physical objects have to, causally speaking, say about reality.

To claim the supernatural is “non-physical” and “non-conceptual” is absurd, actually, since it doesn’t demonstrate why concepts are to be excluded from the supernatural, you merely exclude them by fiat. Hardly epistemologically sufficient. Dogmatic and without evidence or proof. I could bring God back under the same terms.

Reality refers to the physical, the conceptual or the supernatural by MY definition - MY rules. Prove it isn’t. Ergo, the supernatural is part of reality. Prove it isn’t. :hey_bud:
Thank you for the laugh of the century. 😃 Let’s see… the supernatural concept of “behind” actively cooperates with the supernatural concept of “honor” and together they beget the supernatural concept of “beauty”… which in turn creates the supernatural concept of “next to”… hmmm. Who would’ve thunk it?
 
I see you didn’t address any of my points.

You must see the degree of cognitive dissonance we Catholics have when we examine your arguments for being atheists.

We simply are astonished at the amount of logic that must be suppressed in order to embrace your position.
I believe in nothing without evidence.

You believe in something without evidence.

We share that in common. We’re the same in that regard. 🙂
 
We are commanded to use our intellect in coming to an understanding of God.
As a former Roman Catholic, I used my intellect in coming to an understanding of God.

I determined that the God of Abraham was a work of fiction.
 
ThinkingSapien???

Do you wish to recant your original position?
Not yet. Recall that I had said “you won’t find many (if any).” Now if I start to see this become a trend then I’ll reconsider my position on this.
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.
Assuming that the person isn’t asserting the existence of any other god a person that makes such a declaration is necessarily an atheist, but an atheist doesn’t necessarily make this declaration. I think our disagreement is primarily semantic. The term “agnostic atheist” probably is not as familiar to the general public. The term " agnostic theist " may be even less familiar.I’ve come across people within this forum that identify as “agnostic atheist” from time to time. Take a look in the Is Atheism Positive" thread to find one such person.
Can hardly wait until someone proposes ignostic as well.
Not needed. I think someone already said this, but ignosticism is treated by many to be a position within agnosticism. Such a person would be seen as being without knowledge of the existence of a god.
I am saying that even if atheists here profess, “Well, we really aren’t making a positive assertion. We’re simply saying there’s not enough evidence to declare God to exist”…it’s an obfuscation.
I can see how it can be confusing when viewed from certain perspective (especially the “They are either for us or against us” perspective). But the world isn’t always quite so polarized. The position may be disambiguated through more discussion.
The reality is: atheism declares that God does not exist.
Let’s take a look at what a certain British philosopher has to say on this.
Antony Kenny:
Worshipping an Unknown God

Probably a substantial majority of philosophers in Great Britain in the last fifty years have been atheists of one kind or another. But perhaps this statement needs qualifying. If a pollster approaches a philosopher with the question ‘Do you believe in God?’ the answer may very well be ‘Well, it depends on what you mean by “God”.’ But even if questioner and answerer agree on a meaning – e.g. an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being who created the universe – there may still be reluctance to give a yes/no answer. One reason for the philosopher’s reluctance may be that there is an ambiguity in saying ‘I do not believe there is a God’.

Someone who says such a thing may mean ‘I believe there is no God’: the speaker is a positive atheist, someone who positively believes in the non-existence of God. Or what is meant may be something less definite: ‘I have no belief that there is a God’: such a person is only a negative atheist, someone who lacks a belief in the existence of God. A negative atheist is an a-theist or non-theist in the sense of not being a theist or believer in the existence of God.
…]
There are, then, four positions which philosophers may adopt with respect to the proposition ‘There is a God’, as follows:
(1) It is meaningless and neither true nor false.
(2) It is meaningful and false
(3) It is meaningful and may be true or false
(4) It is meaningful and true: Theism.
This paper discusses more the topic of Apophatic/negative theology but it also included a decent amount of discussion on the variations of atheism.
 
I believe in nothing without evidence
This is not true.

Your own words attest to this.

Do you wish me to re-post your own words which state that you do believe in something without a shred of evidence?
 
Which is the ultimate con-game.
You honestly think I am trying to con you. Hmm.
So, is it hard, or is it easy? :confused:
It is very difficult, witness the efforts made by holy men of every time in every part of the world. Easy because Christ has made it possible for all of us.
Why would God hide that “key” where it cannot be found, and even when you pray for guidance, he does not give a “hint”? Placing that “key” under the street light would enable everyone to make a real decision, whether one wishes to open the door or not.
It is hidden in plain sight. It is all about love. Everything else is transient, unfulfilling and illusory.
The contradiction is obvious: Supposedly God “wishes” everyone to come to him, so they can be saved. But in this case it makes no sense to hide that “key”. One can only make an informed decision when one has the pieces of the puzzle. This is not supposed to be a “hide-and-seek” game.
What happens is a change in oneself. The journey to the Truth involves a transformation of oneself into Jesus.
Of course I am aware that “blind faith” is supposed to be superior to reason (“Reason must be trampled underfoot” and “reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”) but that kind of “reasoning” is not acceptable. If it was God who gave us reason, it is unreasonable and irrational to demand that we abandon reason. Yes, I am also aware of the words: “blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”, but this is just another cop-out.
You’ve got it wrong again.
 
Not yet. Recall that I had said “you won’t find many (if any).” Now if I start to see this become a trend then I’ll reconsider my position on this.
Really? In just 25 hours after posting that your assertion was refuted.

I think that’s quite telling.

I mean, really, if someone here on this thread had waited a week to refute your assertion that would have been enough.

But just 25 hours after your posting???

 
I believe it is your intellect that is faulty.

Everything you throw at me, you should look in the mirror.
You have yet to refute a single point of Catholicism, mk.

And you have demonstrated a glaring double standard in which you permit yourself to believe something without a shred of evidence.

Without. a. shred. of. evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top