The absurdity of atheism

[zyzz]

I suppose if you find turtles “all the way down” to have explanatory sufficiency, then we have no reason to expect that you have the competency to assess how evidence could be of any value whatsoever.

Aren’t you familiar with the best explanations of all: “The turtlesdidit”?

 

[tonyrey]

You still try to appeal to the concept that majority can decide such questions?

Please dig up the post where I said this. It is the rule of the board that such claims MUST be supported - by evidence, no less.

When and where did I claim 100% infallibility? Quote, please. I asked for a method to find out if we have an immortal soul… got nothing.

Again, you must present a quote where I said that. No one has first dibs on being right. I explicitly asked for evidence and received nothing - not even an HONEST admission that there is no evidence.

And by the way, don’t confuse “proof” with “evidence”.

The evidence for the intangible mind precedes the evidence for tangible things. We have direct knowledge of our perceptions from which we infer the existence of the physical world. The method is direct: introspection. We can’t deceive ourselves about our thoughts and sensations but we often deceive ourselves about what they signify. We can imagine there is water in the desert but we can’t imagine we are seeing shapes and colours. Like charity all our knowledge begins at home, not in the outside world. Nor can we get outside our mind: we are in what is described as the “egocentric predicament”. Everything else is a subsequent discovery from the moment we are born till the moment we die. Descartes was right in saying “Cogito ergo sum” if he meant “I know I exist because I am thinking”. He would have been wrong to say “My mind exists because the world exists.” That would be putting the horse and the cart at the same level when one is far superior to the other! The world doesn’t know anything but we do - and that shows we transcend the world in at least one respect. We can also change it for better or for worse - which is a remarkable achievement for minute creatures. It doesn’t pay to underestimate our power and significance. As he was so often Shakespeare was right:

“What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god.”

Let’s try to live up to that reputation in 2016!

%between%

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You still try to appeal to the concept that majority can decide such questions?

Please dig up the post where I said this. It is the rule of the board that such claims MUST be supported - by evidence, no less.

A majority cannot decide absolutely any matter of contention, but a majority on a jury are more to be trusted than a minority. The jury of mankind has voted more for God than against Him.

If you do not believe you are infallible, please say so.

It would reveal a lot about you to hear you say that you might be wrong about the fate of your immortal soul, but you don’t really mind throwing away what small chance you might have for immortality.

 

[zyzz]

A majority cannot decide absolutely any matter of contention, but a majority on a jury are more to be trusted than a minority. The jury of mankind has voted more for God than against Him.

No, they are not more trustworthy. The majority of mankind “voted” for the flat Earth, but that does not make the flat Earth a respectable theory. No “majority” should be trusted on the matter of “existence”. Something either exists or not, whatever the majority (or the minority) happens to say. It is NOT subject to voting, or majority conviction.

If you do not believe you are infallible, please say so.

Of course I am NOT infallible and never said so. No one is, whatever they claim. But I am not interested in 100% certainty. I am only interested in “beyond any reasonable doubt”.

It would reveal a lot about you to hear you say that you might be wrong about the fate of your immortal soul, but you don’t really mind throwing away what small chance you might have for immortality.

The chance is so miniscule that I have no problem with disregarding it. There is a non-zero chance that a meteor will strike me down when I go out to the grocery store, but I am NOT going to act on that possibility. Even though I KNOW that meteors DO strike once in a while, but I have never seen any evidence for the existence of an “immortal soul”. Come to think of it, I have never ever seen a coherent definition of a “soul”, immortal or otherwise.

By the way, there is nothing enticing about the eternal bliss. Sitting on a cloud in mindless stupor, with virtual saliva dripping on my nonexistent chin is not a picture in which I would prefer to be included.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Aren’t you familiar with the best explanations of all: “The turtlesdidit”?

Well, that you think “the turtlesdidit” is “the best explanations of all” is telling with regard to your understanding of the word “explanation.” It will be instructive, I suppose, to observe how you reconcile the place and value of “evidences” with what you accept as “best explanations.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

By the way, there is nothing enticing about the eternal bliss. Sitting on a cloud in mindless stupor, with virtual saliva dripping on my nonexistent chin is not a picture in which I would prefer to be included.

Clearly, your problem is a lack of imagination.

If that is the best you can do vis a vis a concept of paradisal bliss, I am puzzled by how you can possibly find the motivation to get up in the morning – sitting on your bed in a mindless stupor, with saliva dripping, etc., etc.

 

[Peter_Plato]

.
By the way, there is nothing enticing about the eternal bliss. Sitting on a cloud in mindless stupor, with virtual saliva dripping on my nonexistent chin is not a picture in which I would prefer to be included.

Ah, but what if there are turtles? It would make all the difference, would it not?

Or a kitten?

A puppy, perhaps?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Aren’t you familiar with the best explanations of all: “The turtlesdidit”?

Actually, this is a far better explanation…

youtu.be/dH0oLqS_d6A

Apparently, the evidence grows a million times stronger every month.

Details here…

reasons.org/finetuning

The only thing is that the evidence is not merely concerned with why there is something rather than nothing, but, rather, with an explanation for why the universe is the way that it is.

All the “evidence” you were allegedly seeking, but to now have been deprived.

No turtles, unfortunately.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, they are not more trustworthy. The majority of mankind “voted” for the flat Earth, but that does not make the flat Earth a respectable theory. No “majority” should be trusted on the matter of “existence”. Something either exists or not, whatever the majority (or the minority) happens to say. It is NOT subject to voting, or majority conviction.

The majority of scientists have ruled in favor of a round earth. Isn’t that respectable?

Would you rather we elect presidents based on the minority than the majority vote?

You see, it is not whether the majority or minority is absolutely right, but whether one is more likely to be right than the other. The recorded verdict of the human race from earliest times is the instinctive belief (not based on what they could see, round earth versus flat earth) in what they felt intuitively to be true … that in some form or another we do indeed get out of this life alive.

You are free to repudiate the majority, but as you said, you are not infallible, and that is a good thing to keep in mind. What you really can’t be certain of, however, is whether your judgment is beyond a reasonable doubt. Since you are here at Catholic Answers, this suggests you have some reasonable doubts that need to be resolved. If you had no doubts, why would you be here?

 

[zyzz]

The majority of scientists have ruled in favor of a round earth. Isn’t that respectable?

No, they did not “rule”. They observed and came to a conclusion based upon the observation and evidence.

You see, it is not whether the majority or minority is absolutely right, but whether one is more likely to be right than the other.

And the answer is: “neither” is more likely to be right. But of course, the questions about existence are NOT decided on “majority rule”, or on “intuition”. They are decided on research and investigation.

For example, there is an ongoing assertion that prayers will have a positive result. Just look at the “Prayer Intentions” sub-forum. Hundreds and thousands of intercessory prayers are offered. It would be very easy to set up a statistical analysis to show if those prayers “work” or not. The trouble is that the apologists are intellectually dishonest. If a prayer “seems” to work, they chalk it up under the positive side. If it does not work (which is the overwhelming majority of the prayers!!! - and here is your “majority vote” for you) they simply disregard it, saying that it was not God’s will.

So we are back to your usual con game. If the toss of the coin is “heads”, you win, if the toss is “tails”, I lose. I would really like to meet some intellectually honest apologists, who do not try to explain away the negative results.

The recorded verdict of the human race from earliest times is the instinctive belief (not based on what they could see, round earth versus flat earth) in what they felt intuitively to be true … that in some form or another we do indeed get out of this life alive.

Intuition is a great FIRST step… but until it is supported by evidence it is empty speculation. And that evidence is sorely missing.

You are free to repudiate the majority, but as you said, you are not infallible, and that is a good thing to keep in mind. What you really can’t be certain of, however, is whether your judgment is beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not “100% Cartesian certainty”, but it is beyond any reasonable doubt. As I said before, there is a miniscule chance that I am wrong. Just like there is a miniscule chance that I might be struck by a meteor. I will not act on these incredibly small chances.

Since you are here at Catholic Answers, this suggests you have some reasonable doubts that need to be resolved. If you had no doubts, why would you be here?

No, I don’t have reasonable doubts. But I wish to learn about your thought processes, which I find fascinating. As a side benefit, it would be nice if you could present actual evidence for your beliefs, but it did not happen so far. The only argument you presented is that “intuitively” many people believed in an afterlife.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For example, there is an ongoing assertion that prayers will have a positive result. Just look at the “Prayer Intentions” sub-forum. Hundreds and thousands of intercessory prayers are offered. It would be very easy to set up a statistical analysis to show if those prayers “work” or not. The trouble is that the apologists are intellectually dishonest. If a prayer “seems” to work, they chalk it up under the positive side. If it does not work (which is the overwhelming majority of the prayers!!! - and here is your “majority vote” for you) they simply disregard it, saying that it was not God’s will.

So we are back to your usual con game. If the toss of the coin is “heads”, you win, if the toss is “tails”, I lose. I would really like to meet some intellectually honest apologists, who do not try to explain away the negative results.

As opposed to the intellectually “honest” critics who completely ignore the fact that if it truly is THE omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God being prayed to then at least some of the determination as to which answer is the BEST answer to any prayer is BEST left to God. After all, a good human parent would not willy-nilly grant every single thing asked by a three or four year old merely because they asked.

*Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a snake, will give a snake instead of a fish? Or if your child asks for a scorpion, will give a scorpion instead of an egg? *

**"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” **(Luke 11:13)

So the question isn’t really whether particular prayers are answered but what would be the best answer to each of those prayers.

Have the “studies” you refer to taken into account that God is, after all, God, with much greater capacities to make autonomous determinations regarding how prayers are BEST answered and not a jinn or genie fully prepared to answer every human bidding?

The most those allegedly “scientific” studies have proven is that God does not function as a genie, granting every wish. At least let’s be “honest" about that. :hey_bud:

The “apologists” on the Prayer Intentions sub-forum are not apologists, just ordinary thankful human beings who, for the most part, are grateful to God for his gifts to them, but they don’t hold it against him when their every desire is left unfulfilled. I would suppose which desires are fulfilled and which are not may be instructive to those making the requests with regard to the place in journey that they are on.

You will likely have a wry response, for example, to the martyrs who were thrown to lions, burned alive or crucified in the Roman era in return for their faithfulness to God. The problem here is that you use a completely different calculus for determining “good” as compared to Christians. Your ultimate “good” is the temporary, the transient and the dispensable whereas Christians would view the true “good” within a far more full-bodied perspective. You are entirely free to hang on to a sinking ship and call that safe or secure, if you wish. You can even shout angrily at those who, demonstrating more insight, don’t share your point of view.

 

[zyzz]

After all, a good human parent would not willy-nilly grant every single thing asked by a three or four year old merely because they asked.

Except that the human parent did not promise UNCONDITIONALLY that “ask and you will receive” and “knock and the door will be opened”. But that human parent would give the proper medication to a child in great pain - if he would be a loving, caring parent, and would not close his “ears” and stay silent.

So the question isn’t really whether particular prayers are answered but what would be the best answer to each of those prayers.

Well, the question is actually different. Is there a statistically different result in the favor of the prayers? And of course, I just have to shudder when I contemplate the horrible results which might come out if the prayer asking for world peace, or a little rain in the drought stricken areas, a cure for AIDS and other insofar incurable diseases … and trifles like that - if those requests would be granted. Granting the request for a cure for a cancer? Apage, Satanas! Bring rain to Africa? Yikes! Should a loving God heal a sick child, or feed a hungry one? Inconceivable!

The intellectually honest apologist would admit that these questions are beyond his power to answer. That the Bible is just a human concoction, it has no divine origin. He would accept his ignorance, and say that despite his ignorance he still trusts God… and then would add that this trust is totally unfounded, and rests on blind faith. At which point he would be accepted as an honest person.

The most those allegedly “scientific” studies have proven is that God does not function as a genie, granting every wish. At least let’s be “honest" about that. :hey_bud:

Nope. What they prove is that the promises in the Bible are not fulfilled, and even the most benevolent requests fall on “deaf ears”. No one asks for granting EVERY wish, even though that is exactly what the Bible promises. But at least SOME indication, that the prayers are not ALL uttered in vain, that there is at least SOME chance that they will be answered in a positive fashion.

Like this, here: God answers prayers of a paralyzed little boy.

And all you can do is try to explain away the silence of God. And you fail, just like all the other apologists.

The problem here is that you use a completely different calculus for determining “good” as compared to Christians. Your ultimate “good” is the temporary, the transient and the dispensable whereas Christians would view the true “good” within a far more full-bodied perspective.

So the two “goods” are logically incompatible? Not even God can create a “good” living in the “temporal realm” and also grant that “eternal bliss”? You know the fable about “sour grapes” in La Fontaine’s book?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Atheists don’t believe that good and evil are relevant to Atheist theory. They say there is no necessary good nor is there any evil. It’s all relative to the person’s experience.

However, every atheist code of morality is rooted within religion. Atheists don’t believe in murder but for what they say are other reasons, other than religious moral code. They believe that they can do evil, if they must, without any holy consequence.

They claim to be righteous because they are worldly, however, they fail to reason any greater good; and that that good is necessary.

Their spirits are weak because they only do good for what suits them to do good. I would never trust an atheist with life because their desires can change on a whim; since good and evil are not relative to their “reality”.

I agree with them that an atheist has no soul. For one to have a soul they must believe in eternal life and the Son of God who is Eternal Life. Jesus even says that for one to have eternal life you must believe in Him and He who sent Him.

An atheist soul is a poverty; for they cannot even recognize the beauty of the movement of what Faith is. They tend not to their souls and therefore are dim and fading out of life.

1. There is no such thing as an “Atheist” theory. A theory is related to science.
2. There are people on the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that are non-religious. I have friends and family members that are non-religious and religious.
3. The soul is the mind. Every living creature has a mind. Is every mind spiritual. No. Is every spiritual mind spiritual all the time. No.
4. This website is open to people!

Thank you! I hope to get back to another topic you were on recently that was dealing with science. Have a happy new year. Be positive and happy! Have happy thoughts my mom used to say as I went to school when I was a child. What a beautiful woman she was. I’m sure she is in heaven with my dad.

 

[PRmerger]

1. The soul is the mind.

This is not correct. I am not sure where you are getting this information, but it’s definitely NOT a Catholic articulation you have just expressed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And all you can do is try to explain away the silence of God. And you fail, just like all the other apologists.

The alleged “silence” of God can only be characterized as silence if you have insider and certain knowledge regarding what omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence ought to say or do in any particular instance.

We have no reason to suppose that you do.

Your opinions have been noted – as YOUR opinions.

 

[zyzz]

The alleged “silence” of God can only be characterized as silence if you have insider and certain knowledge regarding what omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence ought to say or do in any particular instance.

We have no reason to suppose that you do.

Your opinions have been noted – as YOUR opinions.

Since both “omnipotence” and “omniscience” are undefined categories, they can safely be disregarded as meaningless words. But the non-action of God and the alleged omnibenevolence are contradictory. And the “silence” is silence… of that there can be no doubt. You might try to explain away WHY God is silent, but the fact of silence is unquestionable.

As for the efficacy of prayers, try the following experiment. Collect a few hundred (or few thousand) faithful Christians who will fervently pray for some “good” cause. Also collect another group who will be the control group - the same number of people. These people will pray to a milk bottle for the same cause. My prediction is simple: there will be NO difference between the efficacy of the two groups. The milk bottle is just as “willing” to grant your wishes as God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And all you can do is try to explain away the silence of God. And you fail, just like all the other apologists.

So the two “goods” are logically incompatible? Not even God can create a “good” living in the “temporal realm” and also grant that “eternal bliss”? You know the fable about “sour grapes” in La Fontaine’s book?

Actually, I am quite happy with the “good” of living in the temporal realm – precisely because I have perspective with regards to expectations. I seek to accept and be thankful for whatever the circumstances, but I also know that he is God and his choices will always be for the best.

I have no reason to think that whatever “grapes” I get are, in any respect, sour – as Paul exhorts…
Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)

If the truth be told, the one who comes across closest to the fox in La Fontaine’s fable, complaining about how the grapes MUST be sour because he doesn’t get precisely what he wants, is YOU.

God hasn’t given you all that you expect or want and therefore whatever grapes he has to offer you must be, in your opinion, only “sour” ones.

Which of the two of us is complaining more of the “grapes” that are available?

Your claim, in fact, is that God NEVER answers prayer, which is why you are supposedly grumbling…

Nope. What they prove is that the promises in the Bible are not fulfilled, and even the most benevolent requests fall on “deaf ears”. No one asks for granting EVERY wish, even though that is exactly what the Bible promises. But at least SOME indication, that the prayers are not ALL uttered in vain, that there is at least SOME chance that they will be answered in a positive fashion.

Apparently, you do suppose that NO prayers are ever answered.

I think you have overstated your case, and, thereby, falsified it.

 

[Bradski]

The alleged “silence” of God can only be characterized as silence if you have insider and certain knowledge regarding what omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence ought to say or do in any particular instance.

Surely there is no silence. Everything is God’s will. Surely He makes Himself known in every situation.

You cannot ask for God to step in and cure your child from cancer because, as you say, you have no insider knowledge. What will be, will be. If your child dies, it will be for the greater good. How could it be otherwise? It is surely a human failing for someone to believe that one’s personal views should be considered in the grand scheme of things.

The prayer must never be: ‘Save my child!’ It’s not your call. It should always be: ‘If she is to die, please help me cope with the loss’.

Apparently, you do suppose that NO prayers are ever answered.

I think that it is undeniable that you are never given anything simply because you want it. If you are granted any prayer it is simply because God was going to act that way in any case. For the greater good. It’s like praying for your team to win a game after it’s been played and then saying your prayer has been answered when you discover that they had won.

So no. Prayers are not answered at all. It’s just that sometimes they align with what God was going to do in any case.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Since both “omnipotence” and “omniscience” are undefined categories, they can safely be disregarded as meaningless words. But the non-action of God and the alleged omnibenevolence are contradictory. And the “silence” is silence… of that there can be no doubt. You might try to explain away WHY God is silent, but the fact of silence is unquestionable.

Both “omniscience” and “omnipotence” are quite well-defined categories AND the “non-action” of God can only be “contradictory” with omnibenevolence if you can categorically detail precisely what it is that omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence would actually do in any instance.

We have NO REASON for assuming you would know what the considered decision of the 3-Omni God would look like, since there is NO WAY that you can possibly provide a FULL accounting of the moral repercussions of any action YOU might take on all human beings forward into the future to the end of time.

As for the efficacy of prayers, try the following experiment. Collect a few hundred (or few thousand) faithful Christians who will fervently pray for some “good” cause. Also collect another group who will be the control group - the same number of people. These people will pray to a milk bottle for the same cause. My prediction is simple: there will be NO difference between the efficacy of the two groups. The milk bottle is just as “willing” to grant your wishes as God.

I’ve already conceded God is not the genie from the Arabian Nights story. I wouldn’t, therefore, suppose that a few hundred or a few thousand “faithful” Christians praying will necessarily make a difference with respect to what is being asked or whether God can be cajoled according to your “method.” That would all depend, NOT upon the contrived nature of the “experiment” – which God would, for that very reason, have every cause to ignore the pretense of coaxing and flattery, but on far more significant criteria.

This is not to deny that a few hundred or few thousand earnest Christians fervently praying could not make a difference, but that all depends upon the nature of the request, the possible outcomes and the difference those would make – all of which I am certain God would consider. I highly doubt passing your contrived “test” or “experiment” would provide God any reason or incentive whatsoever for stepping into the breach. (Cf. Ezekiel 22:30)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Surely there is no silence. Everything is God’s will. Surely He makes Himself known in every situation.

You cannot ask for God to step in and cure your child from cancer because, as you say, you have no insider knowledge. What will be, will be. If your child dies, it will be for the greater good. How could it be otherwise? It is surely a human failing for someone to believe that one’s personal views should be considered in the grand scheme of things.

The prayer must never be: ‘Save my child!’ It’s not your call. It should always be: ‘If she is to die, please help me cope with the loss’.

I think that it is undeniable that you are never given anything simply because you want it. If you are granted any prayer it is simply because God was going to act that way in any case. For the greater good. It’s like praying for your team to win a game after it’s been played and then saying your prayer has been answered when you discover that they had won.

So no. Prayers are not answered at all. It’s just that sometimes they align with what God was going to do in any case.

Well, now you have fallen off on the other side of the fence.

Understanding the middle or “balanced” position is what is required in a spiritual sense.

It is NOT that the prayer should ALWAYS be: ‘If she is to die, please help me cope with the loss.’

The prayer SHOULD always be, “Your will, not mine, be done. (Luke 22:42) Help me to love with your love and come closer to you in whatever your will determines for those who strive to love as they should.”