The absurdity of atheism

[Charlemagne_III]

1. Would you provide the evidence that shows Pallas didn’t have this “real” relationship?
2. You seem to have knowledge of what evidence was presented to Pallas, how is this possible?
3. If you did not judge God and his behaviour, how did you know you should worship him instead of some other God?

1 Would you provide evidence that Pallas did have a “real” relationship?
2 You seem to have knowledge contrary to any knowledge I might have of what evidence was presented to Pallas.
3 I never judge God. I only judge false gods. Pallas judges God.

Do you now see how foolish all your points are?

 

[ChaosGamma]

Atheism, to put it simply and purely, is not agreeing to the proposition that a god exists.

This part I more or less agree with. Although I would argue that belief in the nonexistance of God would carry some additional philosophical considerations along with it, which seems to be what most people are really arguing with.

That is an odd thing. Because I know many wise Atheists and many unwise Theists. So while you feel you make wiser choices as a Theist–specifically, a Christian one–that connection cannot be made for everyone.
We saw some Theists in Paris make very, very unwise choices last week in Paris.

And herein lies my major problem. Unwise according to whom? From their own point of view what they did may have been eminently sensible. And if there is no God, what standard do you then point to to say that what those men did was wrong?

Just because a person doesn’t think a god exists, doesn’t mean they deny the transcendence of love.
One doesn’t necessary mean the other. Love can transcend without a god existing.

It can also be simply a chemical reaction in the brain with purely natural causes which I might believe I have no reason to pay any attention to.

An Atheist doesn’t automatically think the universe is uncaring.
I think the universe can be very caring. It can also be uncaring. Both.

I don’t know how the universe could be caring or uncaring, I would think it would just simply be. The tree in your backyard is not being uncaring when it falls over onto your house, it just is.

But gods, too, can be both caring and uncaring. We have many stories in the Christian canon that show an angry god, hurting people when they don’t deserve it.
.

And again I say, according to whose judgement? If God did exist, who could tell Him that His actions were wrong or that He was punishing someone who didn’t deserve it. And I mean God from a Christian view, the uncaused first cause, the source of all things. If such a God did exist, if such a God were the source of morality, who could possibly have the knowledge to tell Him that He is wrong?

 

[Bradski]

Ah no, my friend. For Catholics a true miracle is one which has been defined as one by Christ’s Church, not merely by individual experience.

So if the Virgin Mary appears to you tonight, in person, in your kitchen, then it won’t be a miracle until it is defined as such by the church.

What happens if they don’t? It never happened?

 

[Della]

So if the Virgin Mary appears to you tonight, in person, in your kitchen, then it won’t be a miracle until it is defined as such by the church.

What happens if they don’t? It never happened?

If I informed the bishop about such an event (which I would have no reason to do unless I believed I was to pass on some message) he would investigate and make one of three rulings: 1) it was a private occurance meant solely for the one who had it, 2) nothing spiritual happened, 3) it is worthy of belief by the faithful.

So, if my bishop were to rule that nothing spiritual happened, it would not be considered supernatural in origin. There are many things that may influence people into thinking they’ve had such visitations. There are geniune ones, such as Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe, but most are nothing more than personal desires mixed with emotional need to get attention.

There was a woman at my parish who claimed to be receiving messages from Mary. Our priest got all excited about it. He was a devotee of Medjugorje and hoped that something similar was happening to revitalize the faith in his area. Many people became this woman’s followers. She claimed she had frequent messages. They met regularly to receive them and to pray. When our bishop investigated he ruled that nothing spiritual was happening. After that the whole think petered out on its own.

One of the duties of a bishop is to investigate those events that become an issue in his diocese. He doesn’t go looking for them nor desire them nor encourage them as so many seem to think. Our bishops want nothing more than to see to the spiritual welfare of their people–not run after supposed supernatural happenings.

 

[robsully]

1 Would you provide evidence that Pallas did have a “real” relationship?
2 You seem to have knowledge contrary to any knowledge I might have of what evidence was presented to Pallas.
3 I never judge God. I only judge false gods. Pallas judges God.

Do you now see how foolish all your points are?

1. It was you who made the claim of “a real relationship” or “lack of” so the burden of proof is on you, not me.
2. Once again, you have made the claim of “evidence” presented so the burden of proof is on you. Not me.
3. If you did not judge God, how did you know he was not a “false” God?
4. If God gave us the capacity to reason and debate why would he be offended that Pallas judges him?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]Although I would argue that belief in the nonexistance of God would…]

I think that description excludes a number of people that self identify as “atheist.” I don’t think that there are any within this thread that would say that’s descriptive of their position.

 

[tonyrey]

But all value judgments are relative, by definition they are judgments about whether one thing has more value than another. I don’t know how to objectively value atheism compared to my faith.

They may be relative to one another but not necessarily entirely relative. The right to life is absolute, so is truth .

An Englishman, an American and a Syrian walk into a bar. I’d suggest they have far more which joins them than separates them. An atheist, a Baptist and a Catholic walk into a bar. Surely that’s no different?

They all have the right to life, love, freedom, justice and happiness.

 

[tonyrey]

Just because a person doesn’t think a god exists, doesn’t mean they deny the transcendence of love. One doesn’t necessary mean the other. Love can transcend without a god existing.

I’m not so sure. How would love have originated?

An Atheist doesn’t automatically think the universe is uncaring.
I think the universe can be very caring. It can also be uncaring. Both.

The physical universe isn’t usually regarded as caring because it is unaware of what is happening.

But gods, too, can be both caring and uncaring. We have many stories in the Christian canon that show an angry god, hurting people when they don’t deserve it.

“stories” is the key word. The authors of the OT were inspired but not infallible.

 

[Bradski]

They may be relative to one another but not necessarily entirely relative.

You really don’t like the concept of relative value, do you. Even to the point of attempting to discount it.

‘What? The way an atheist values something can be exactly the same as the way I value it? But…that’s not…not possible…’

 

[Charlemagne_III]

1. It was you who made the claim of “a real relationship” or “lack of” so the burden of proof is on you, not me.
2. Once again, you have made the claim of “evidence” presented so the burden of proof is on you. Not me.
3. If you did not judge God, how did you know he was not a “false” God?
4. If God gave us the capacity to reason and debate why would he be offended that Pallas judges him?

Since Pallas does not believe in the existence of God, Pallas obviously did not have a real relationship with God. In a real relationship with God, can you imagine anyone deciding that this God he is having a relationship with does not exist?

The true god cannot be judged by us, but the false god can be judged. How many times do I have to repeat this?

God gave us the power to reason and debate. He did not give us this power with the intention that we should use it to repudiate him. Do you think he did?

Obviously we are free to repudiate God. Doesn’t Pallas exercise that freedom? Yet according to Pallas’ logic, God should have made Pallas in such a way that Pallas would not be free to doubt God’s existence. In other words, Pallas wants a God who is a tyrant.

 

[Bradski]

Obviously we are free to repudiate God. Doesn’t Pallas exercise that freedom? Yet according to Pallas’ logic, God should have made Pallas in such a way that Pallas would not be free to doubt God’s existence. In other words, Pallas wants a God who is a tyrant.

So God must be quite at ease with the fact that people don’t believe in Him. He must actually feel quite satisfied that this business of free will is working quite well.

Hey, I’m doing God’s will even though I don’t believe in Him.

And God as a tyrant? You should read the OT, Charles.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Since Pallas does not believe in the existence of God, Pallas obviously did not have a real relationship with God.

Don’t you get it? When I was young, I DID believe in God, but there was no “relationship” that I could discern. I believed, I prayed (as honestly as only a poor, ignorant, gullible child can pray… and that was IT. Nothing ever happened. God never responded.

Obviously we are free to repudiate God. Doesn’t Pallas exercise that freedom? Yet according to Pallas’ logic, God should have made Pallas in such a way that Pallas would not be free to doubt God’s existence. In other words, Pallas wants a God who is a tyrant.

Oh, please! I am certain that you exist… That does not make you a “tyrant”. To know that God exists, does not compel anyone to anything. Of course, as I mentioned before, I would have nothing against a God who is a BENEVOLENT tyrant, who would protect the innocent from the psychopaths. It is YOU, who supports the terrorists and their ability to spread wanton killings.

You know, Charlie, Charile, it is amazing that you keep disregarding everything that we say… and keep on repeating what we DO not say. Why is that? Wouldn’t it be more productive to acknowledge the ACTUAL arguments?

 

[robsully]

Since Pallas does not believe in the existence of God, Pallas obviously did not have a real relationship with God. In a real relationship with God, can you imagine anyone deciding that this God he is having a relationship with does not exist?

The true god cannot be judged by us, but the false god can be judged. How many times do I have to repeat this?

God gave us the power to reason and debate. He did not give us this power with the intention that we should use it to repudiate him. Do you think he did?

Obviously we are free to repudiate God. Doesn’t Pallas exercise that freedom? Yet according to Pallas’ logic, God should have made Pallas in such a way that Pallas would not be free to doubt God’s existence. In other words, Pallas wants a God who is a tyrant.

1. I understand your premise, but you offer zero evidence to support your claim. You cannot prove if Pallas did or did not have a “real” relationship. The only person who can answer that is Pallas.
2. “The true God cannot be judged by us”, I judge the Christian God all the time, so by your logic…I guess his not a true God.
3. God created us equal…yes? God gave all of us the power to reason…yes? I use my power of reason to repudiate many things, such as God saying it is all right to own and beat slaves.
4. I do not see Pallas’ logic as you do. A God which made his/her presence known to all does not remove the freedom to doubt. The evidence that the world is round has been here a long time, but there are doubters to that fact. The freedom remains.

 

[OU812]

Why would I blame them? They do not have the knowledge or the power to prevent destructive behavior.

Or - as I was alluding to with my second paragraph - the individual is really to blame. Hence my brother’s keeper comment.

I highlight the negatives, because they are in direct contradiction with God’s alleged “loving” and “caring” nature. A loving and caring person would not allow terrorists go rampant and keep on slaughtering people.

I would actually be in concurrence with you if free will were not a thing and we just had nothing but blind servitude, but alas, that’s not the hand that was dealt.

If you would have foreknowledge of a terrorist attack, and could prevent it, would you let it happen in the name of “free will”? This is the question that people on your side do not want to face.

Hard for me to answer because I’ve never been in a position to be truly omnipotent, know every universal truth, and know each and every possible outcome/end game. Not only that, would I want people loving and devoting their time to me through their own fruition, or - as you’ve implied you’d feel more comfortable in - showing their devotion in nothing more than slave/servitude form.

And people on my side have answered that question in varying degrees. The problem is people like you try to fix God into a box of your liking, or walk away believing this is how a god should behave.

 

[tonyrey]

Hard for me to answer because I’ve never been in a position to be truly omnipotent, know every universal truth, and know each and every possible outcome/end game. Not only that, would I want people loving and devoting their time to me through their own fruition, or - as you’ve implied you’d feel more comfortable in - showing their devotion in nothing more than slave/servitude form.

And people on my side have answered that question in varying degrees. The problem is people like you try to fix God into a box of your liking, or walk away believing this is how a god should behave.

Excellent response!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So God must be quite at ease with the fact that people don’t believe in Him. He must actually feel quite satisfied that this business of free will is working quite well.

Hey, I’m doing God’s will even though I don’t believe in Him.

And God as a tyrant? You should read the OT, Charles.

God is not at ease that people don’t believe in him.

That’s why we have the New Testament, which apparently you have not read?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

1. I understand your premise, but you offer zero evidence to support your claim. You cannot prove if Pallas did or did not have a “real” relationship. The only person who can answer that is Pallas.
2. “The true God cannot be judged by us”, I judge the Christian God all the time, so by your logic…I guess his not a true God.

I cannot judge Pallas as having a false relationship with God, but you can judge God to be a false God?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is YOU, who supports the terrorists and their ability to spread wanton killings.

This is totally irrational and you need to wash your mouth out with Ajax.

 

[robsully]

I cannot judge Pallas as having a false relationship with God, but you can judge God to be a false God?

Your judgement is not in question, your evidence is. And your evidence is lacking.
I have not judged the Christian God to be a false God …YOU did by your own logic.
I question, repudiate, and doubt many things about the Christian God, but I cannot prove or disprove if he is 1) God 2) a false God 3) or even exists.
If you believe the Christian God is the “real” God, then by definition you have “judged” God. And since you have stated " the false God can be judged" then he must be the “false” God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you believe the Christian God is the “real” God, then by definition you have “judged” God. And since you have stated " the false God can be judged" then he must be the “false” God.

You apparently haven’t read any of my posts.

I do not judge the real God. I recognize the real God.

Recognition is not judgment.

Repudiation of false gods is a judgment against them. Your false gods, for example.

One of your false gods is Self, since you judge there is no one higher than Self.