The Absurdity of Atheism

[Lucretius]

A few witnesses, whose second hand testimony was written many years after the event in reports that don’t agree with each other. But anyway, you are saying that witness accounts are reliable as to our understanding of events. In which case I’m sure that you’d agree that the more witnesses one has, the greater the possibility of the reported facts being true.

What if we have a few hundred? Or a few thousand? How many would you need to be sure about the veracity of the events being reported?

It’s not the quantity of witness, but the quality of witness. One good witness is worth more than a billion liars.

That the Gospels are second hand isn’t a problem, given Jewish emphasise on oral memory and that importance of the events in the minds of those who were remembering them.

But even more devastating, most of the time, the second hand nature of the Gospels is assumed, rather than demonstrated. The author of GJohn bluntly says he’s an eyewitness, and at the very least the authors of GMatthew and GMark are ambiguous.

And finally, the most devastating of all: you are ignoring the thousands of eyewitnesses who helped found the Institution that still survived today. Their testimonies, orally or otherwise, have been passed down to day.

you think I am unreflective? Do you think that I am apathetic? Do you think I do not reflect on life in general and my life in particular? Do you think that these claims that you make are insulting, not just to atheists and agnostics to but to everyone who has a different belief system to yours?

Atheism here keeps getting defined as an absence, which sounds apathetic to me. Do you not care to reflect about the meaning of the universe or God, or do you actively reject both the existence of meaning and God?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

We covered this already. The point I’m making is that an atheist will help another *without *an "Obligation

However, eventually human hearts will clash with each other and within itself. What does we do now?

When this happens, there is two options: force one person down, or change both their hearts. The problem is that the second option is only possible with God, and so in the end mankind is doomed to war, in the atheists worldview.

What atheism lacks is not Obligation, but Grace.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

I don’t think I’m on a “superior perch”; I was asking an honest question.

If you were an atheist as you described, I have to say that you are/were unlike any atheist I’ve ever met.

Re suicide, I’ll check the stats–thanks. But my first thought in answer to your question is…perhaps fewer theists commit suicide because they are afraid of going to hell?

.

Why do we entertain such questions? There is such a thing as a happy unbeliever, and an unhappy believer.

Furthermore, if I were an atheist, Charlemagne, I would see all this about the happiness of believers and unbelievers as proving the point that religous people use relgion as a crutch, and care nothing of the truth.

It is the heart of the atheist that causes him to see your argument in this light, because he is working with the assumption that religion is false for some other reason other than the differences between the contentment of believers and unbelievers. So, when you speculate on happiness as a reason for being religious, all he sees is the words “crippled” and “crutch.”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

What does that mean? "…eventually human hearts will clash"…?

One man will want one thing strongly, and the other its opposite strongly as well. A clash of wills.

Why do you say that a change of heart is only possible “with God”?
This makes no sense…

The heart is the inner part of a person…and this interior thing can’t be forced to change from the exterior directly. You can hold a gun to a man’s head to get him to do what you like, but he won’t like it.

However, there is one who can enter hearts from the inside, and change them: the God of the Human Heart.

When you say “Grace”…if you mean the Christian meaning of the word, then of course an atheist would not embrace that definition. But they can have grace in a non-theist way–a beauty of character, a humbleness of nature, a loving heart, a purity of intention, a joy of living every moment…

It’s all there, but within a different paradigm.

These things can only be mimicked without Grace, which just is an internal principle for partaking in Divinity. These things might exist for a time in a heart lacking Grace, but eventually they will be lost, because they have no Substance behind them.

Grace is the spring from which these qualities flow; even though the creek bed might have water in it occasionally, without the spring, there won’t be water in the bed constantly or consistently.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You’re so patronizing.

You are most welcome!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, did you know that suicide is higher among intelligent people?

An interesting correlation between intelligence and lack of religion can be made.

You mean, of course, in the view you just expressed in another thread, that more scientists are atheists. Does that mean the more intelligent scientists are more suicidal, and the less intelligent scientists are not atheists?

Please go back and look at that thread and see how many Nobel winners were atheists who committed suicide.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, when you speculate on happiness as a reason for being religious, all he sees is the words “crippled” and “crutch.”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

No doubt about it, the usual atheist contempt for Christian hope and happiness.

 

[Lucretius]

No doubt about it, the usual atheist contempt for Christian hope and happiness.

I see it more as two people shouting pass each other

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is a lack of belief do any good? Does a lack of belief explain anything? Is a lack of belief rational? Is a lack of belief beautiful? Is a lack of belief moral?

What nonsensical questions.

More of the usual atheist contempt. So tiresome. Good night.

 

[Bradski]

It’s not the quantity of witness, but the quality of witness. One good witness is worth more than a billion liars.

You only need one who says what you want him to say. But surely if there were hundreds of thousands of witnesses, including government officials, police, priests, journalists and it wasn’t a one off event but happened regularly over many months, this would be a guaranteed miracle.

Surely so many people wouldn’t simply see, or at least report, that which they wanted to see. It must be a cast iron guaranteed bone fide miracle according to your criteria.

Maybe you are familiar with Zeitoun.

Atheism here keeps getting defined as an absence, which sounds apathetic to me. Do you not care to reflect about the meaning of the universe or God, or do you actively reject both the existence of meaning and God?

So it’s not now apathetic but sounds apathetic. If, according to you, it is an absence. Well, any lack of belief is an absence of belief. Maybe you are apathetic of other religions. Or maybe you mean that if one is not a Christian then one is apathetic. Perhaps you could clarify that for me.

And should I reflect on all religious beliefs or just yours? And meaning in my life or meaning within the universe itself? It seems to me that one can only reject the possibility of any given god and any teleological end for the universe itself if one has actually reflected on both.

Maybe you just need to know if I’ve done all that reflectin’ and thinkin’ business.

The problem is that the second option is only possible with God, and so in the end mankind is doomed to war, in the atheists worldview.

Isn’t it funny that all nations believe that God is on their side. Well, their God in any case.

 

[o_mlly]

No. Atheism is lack of belief in god(s). Prove God exists.

Sigh. Poor debate tactic. If one does not believe in multiple gods then one does not believe in one god. Prove one god does not exist.

 

[Aloysium]

God exists and it is through the grace of the Holy Spirit the we come to know Him. The proof is in the pudding. Looking for the proof in recipes will always leave one wanting. Search for Him in your heart. There is One Love.

 

[o_mlly]

Is it absurd to not have faith in God? I think not.

Rather it is a blessing to believe in Him. Faith is His gift, freely given, a proposition not an imposition from God. We can reject faith.
*
This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye*.
William Blake

Signing off this thread.

 

[DCNBILL]

So you are trying to set up some kind of gotcha thing correct?

Nope, just looking for an honest answer to a simple question. No problem, don’t worry about it.

 

[Lucretius]

You only need one who says what you want him to say. But surely if there were hundreds of thousands of witnesses, including government officials, police, priests, journalists and it wasn’t a one off event but happened regularly over many months, this would be a guaranteed miracle.

Surely so many people wouldn’t simply see, or at least report, that which they wanted to see. It must be a cast iron guaranteed bone fide miracle according to your criteria.

Maybe you are familiar with Zeitoun.

All I’m saying is there isn’t a reason not to trust many of these witnesses, except for dogmatic materialism, of course.

So it’s not now apathetic but sounds apathetic. If, according to you, it is an absence. Well, any lack of belief is an absence of belief. Maybe you are apathetic of other religions. Or maybe you mean that if one is not a Christian then one is apathetic. Perhaps you could clarify that for me.

When I read this thread all I saw was the atheist side continuously sayig the “atheism is a lack of belief,” “atheism is an absence of belief.” I just took you all at your word…

And should I reflect on all religious beliefs or just yours? And meaning in my life or meaning within the universe itself? It seems to me that one can only reject the possibility of any given god and any teleological end for the universe itself if one has actually reflected on both.

Of course. Humans naturally believe in meaningful universe. I usually takes mental gymnastics, to use a phrase, and a decaying culture to make atheism, materialism, etc. sound plausible.

Isn’t it funny that all nations believe that God is on their side. Well, their God in any case.

So, wouldn’t that mean that some, or even all nations are wrong, at least some of the time? You seem to using an interpretation of the fact that nations believe God is protecting them to dismiss theism, while a theist interpretation perfectly as worlds as well.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Sigh. Poor debate tactic. If one does not believe in multiple gods then one does not believe in one god. Prove one god does not exist.

Arguments don’t come with a burden of proof a priori.

Regarding the a priori belief that the theist has the burden, remember that police can’t shoot somewhere even if they don’t have evidence that there aren’t innocents there. The burden of proof, we say, is on the police to prove that there isn’t innocents.

In the same way, if atheists don’t see evidence for God, shouldn’t they act as if God exists, just as the police act as if there are innocents, until proven otherwise?

Of course, most theist arguments work with premises that everyone takes to be true. The First Way, for example, assumes that there is change, and proves God’s existence from the facts. God’s existence isn’t a hypothesis (at least until the POE is brought in).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[NM505StKate]

Sigh. Poor debate tactic. If one does not believe in multiple gods then one does not believe in one god. Prove one god does not exist.

Burden of proof is on you for proving Yaweh exists. Shifting of burden is popular here.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Nope, just looking for an honest answer to a simple question. No problem, don’t worry about it.

When I got asked the same question here some years ago I found it perplexing. Usually if I’m asked a question of the form “Is A better than B” or “Do you think there is a best ‘a’ in set ‘A’” I find it ambiguous if there isn’t some evaluation criteria or method implied. It’s possible that even with honest intent your question can’t be interpreted in a way that would render an answer. At least that’s my response to it.

 

[NM505StKate]

God exists and it is through the grace of the Holy Spirit the we come to know Him. The proof is in the pudding. Looking for the proof in recipes will always leave one wanting. Search for Him in your heart. There is One Love.

That means nothing. That is like saying the apple exists because of pie.

 

[Lucretius]

That means nothing. That is like saying the apple exists because of pie.

You might not like this, but he’s saying that the reason you can’t see God is because of a fault in your heart blinding you from the overwhelming evidence.

It’s not something that is uncommon, though. We all have weak hearts for something at some point.

Christi pax,

Lucretius