The Strange Case of the Atheist Believer

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

I don’t think it is. I define myself as agnostic, and it’s a position I’ve spent time considering. It currently reflects my thinking on religion, which is why I use it as a label. I don’t know if there is a God or not - that’s very different to saying agnostics are indifferent.

I did say there are agnostics who try to believe, but are unsure. That it’s like between darkness and light. Thus, I did not say all agnostics are this way. However, there is an agnosticism of the sort that spells indifference. Or it can be classified that way.

For when I say I’m agnostic to the situation. That means I am indifferent. I don’t care either way. Or I’m not really dependent on it. Or it works either way for me. Thus, there’s no definite truth. Whatever works for me. That then spells out what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said of Moral Relativism. Which does embark on that kind of Agnosticism I described.

The reality is one day, even the unbeliever, will have to come to a final decision to believe or not. Or accept or refuse. Not in the tone and way Islam prefers under the take of Submit.

But in the sense of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic sense, the Church. It is Truth provided with Charity.

God is love.

But love does not become indifferent. For as the Good Samaritan was not indifferent to the man at the side of the road, unlike the rich man who did not take care of the poor man outside of his home.

Love was not indifferent on the Cross, being Crucified.

Thus, it was not agnostic in that way.

Though Saint Paul describes that love is kind, does not think of its’ own, does not brood…love is patient.

But the same Saint was also knocked off of a donkey, wherefore a blinding light caused him to be blind for awhile. And, a voice spoke saying: “Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?”

That is the startling reality for an Atheist and an Agnostic. One day you will have to face the facts. Not because Love is not patient. Because, love like the Good Samaritan cannot leave you laying at the side of the road remaining Agnostic, uncertain.

Christ does not want those who are unbelieving to sit by the road side and not know that He is truly the Son of God. That He truly suffered and died. That He truly did take the Passion and the Cross.

I can make one suggestion. And it’s just a silly suggestion on my part. Try going to Eucharistic Adoration. You do not have to take part in prayer or worship service.

You can do this: Suppose you go back to where Catholics call the Eucharist. You sit there. And you can say: “So, they tell me you are here. And you are the Son of God. Okay, prove it?”

You can even remain an Agnostic, and keep searching. You can even go back to Him (as we Catholics say that He is truly Present there.) And show and share with Him all the different beliefs, struggles, why you do not believe or why you are uncertain.

What can happen in this way is to trust and hope in a sign from God there.

Even if you do not see it. You can always sit before Him. You do not even have to say anything. Like quietly watching a morning sunrise, or an evening sunset.

Just a silly suggestion on my part.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

The Prophet Daniel saw about the same imagery. Is that considered Lord of the Rings also?

 

[Kaninchen]

It’s Writings rather than Law or Prophets.

Your problem here is that Judaism and Christianity don’t ‘work’ in the same way, different belief structures.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

It’s Writings rather than Law or Prophets.

Your problem here is that Judaism and Christianity don’t ‘work’ in the same way, different belief structures.

So, the imagery of the Roman’s and the Babylonians described by the Prophet Daniel, were these liken to Lord of the Rings?

 

[Kaninchen]

Not what I said, stop telling people what they’re saying.

You really do need to consider how ‘scripture’ is viewed in different religions, it might help you understand the whole question of belief.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

You really do need to consider how ‘scripture’ is viewed in different religions, it might help you understand the whole question of belief.

Okay, let’s try this.

You, I believe, hold to the the Ten Commandments.

Thus, the commandment: “Thou shall not kill.”

Understood the taking away of innocent life.

Now, according to your belief structure, is it right to take away the life of an unborn human being in utero through abortion?

 

[Kaninchen]

Now, according to your belief structure, is it right to take away the life of an unborn human being in utero through abortion?

If the life of the mother is endangered - that’s non-negotiable, I’ll not respond to an A-bombed (abortion row) thread if you want to go along this path.

Now, I really do have to work.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

If the life of the mother is endangered - that’s non-negotiable, I’ll not respond to an A-bombed (abortion row) thread if you want to go along this path.

Now, I really do have to work.

#1
The argument can go two ways:

First (the test), on belief. Meaning its’ merit outside of a belief structure, but upon the tangible. Thus, reaching out of the interior arbitrary. This would be the counter to moral relativism.

Second, why do you believe it is wrong? Is it because of a commandment? Or did you reason yourself to the validity of the commandment?

On the first ground test. If a woman’s life is endangered by the birth of a baby. The question generally maintains, is it still right to take the innocent life of the unborn child even out of medical necessity? In medicine, this could come from a psychological hardship. That the baby being born (crying, needing food, water, etc.) If a woman went through some trauma. This baby might jeopardize her sanity. That can also mean endangerment to her health. Thus, the weakening or slackening of the commandment “Thou shall not kill” is slighted by the rationale or slight of mind. Thus, a belief structure that tends to adapt moral truths to the same weakening as the Roman Empire only elicits.

Second ground test. There has to be something fairly grounded in your self (i.e. a conviction) as to why you even accept defense of unborn children (even though with the slight of endangerment to a woman’s health being the exception.) That conviction would have to be based on what you are tying (or bonding to - Latin: Religare - Religion.)

Beliefs are different. That is for sure. Each one has a unique tradition and belief. And everyone should be respected. Because God gave the gift of desire to know, to seek the truth. And even though not all men are born into the world with that Truth Revealed. Nevertheless, God, out of love, gives each man the intellect, will, and thought. Seeking Him out. Prodigal Son like.

However, not every belief structure stands the same.

I generally place the question on abortion because there is tangible proof that both history, civilization, the outset of humanity, and well how things work in life that children are born. Conception and so forth. That’s generally, even without the science and medicine. Even without the refine and more precise tools of them, are pretty well observable. Or as to put it. Gravity was observed way before Issac Newton. Pottery fell off of shelves and broke. Yet, Sir Isaac Newton made observations which later gave to a better refined lens. And in this way helped improve the feat of engineering.

Likewise, medicine and science today, with the marvel of DNA. Shows that unborn human children gain a unique set of chromosomes at conception. Thus, why I place the point of asking in testing the grounds of truth.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

If the life of the mother is endangered - that’s non-negotiable, I’ll not respond to an A-bombed (abortion row) thread if you want to go along this path.

Now, I really do have to work.

#2
Since, in reality, all beliefs generally are a matter of life and death. Even someone who follows a belief, most often thinks of the afterlife. Even Buddhists’s and Hindu’s wonder about this, as well as Jewish, as well as Christian, and as well as Muslim.

Christian’s know that Hell or Heaven exists (definitely no high water.) Though as Christian’s, by the Holy Spirit. Through Baptism. We’re born from above. Meaning, out of grace. Sanctified through Christ’s Sacrifice.

But the point is not to go into Sacraments. But to refer to the test of grounds of life and death of a belief structure.

The reality of Christianity, that Hell exists. Hell is the state of sin for everlasting. Meaning, evil, sin, and wrong. The immortal soul must be faced with for eternity if these are not taken seriously. And the soul had never repented. To place it in a nutshell Theology.

Now, if morality is just what suits us here on earth. Or for the temporal manner we live and face suffering, and then death. Then even the meager and mediocrity of it is liken to what the Church expounds on as the desire for Baptism. Meaning, the moral natural order.

God created man in His image, and after His likeness. That means, man is made to be with God for eternity. Not for a temporal moment.

That bondage of sin, unrepentant, is everlasting Hell. Which means God gave man free-will. And respects man by the free-will He gave Him. Since that comes from charity. Man can accept or reject Him.

Thus, how deep, how far, and to what purpose, and extent does a belief structure deal with life and death, varies.

Christianity, namely deals with the moral natural order from merely man’s own conscience. But knowing that God is Just. He gives each their due at the end of life. If they choose Hell over Heaven. And freely reject God’s will (which is Love.) Then man has the choice to live in everlasting sting of death.

But God does not will that man live in Hell. Hence, why man exists as an Immortal Soul, which is meant for immortal love, time immemorial.

That is the Christian view.

I honestly don’t believe when someone passes away, will hold onto something like abortion. But if they come before God, and tell God that they lived a good life because they cut down the population to save earth through abortion. Then the Love that God has and shows them will be seen as a menace. Since it was in that love children came to life, to begin with, through the means of conception. Thus, the person will be ever so tormented in the everlasting pit of Hell, because the love they spoke before God was in the sight of reality, severed. And hence, when all is revealed to them. If they are obstinate and unrepentant. They will be in the eternal pit of Hell. Because, they will turn from the sin of murder to the sin of pride. Saying they were never wrong. Like the devil, they will take no admonishment.

 

[Mary888]

Agnostics usually just struggle with accepting the practice (prayer, religious community) of the religion they are aiming at. A bad experience can just push them back in their own shell at the end. Institutionalized religion and the people running it is what makes them just pray privately and that’s that.
For an atheist all of it, belief and practice, is superstition and it’s categorized as such and the case is pretty much closed. They feel stress free and happy with the lack of fear they believe religion brings. An atheist may talk about deities in abstract, many of them, just as an argument that it’s all nonsense, like “do you believe in Khrishna? Then if Thor is fake how do you know Khrishna is not?”
You should respect them enough to understand them.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

They feel stress free and happy with the lack of fear they believe religion brings.

I doubt they feel this way if their house is on fire. Or if their child is missing. The idea of that a religion brings fear is baseless. Since they have to face the fears and struggles of everyday life. I doubt it’s because of religion. It is rather, as I suspect and believe, to do with their incapability to really cope with suffering and fear of death.

But, if a Atheist is turned off by the fear of everlasting torment of Hell. Something to base where an instance of fear comes into play. It’s not the religion they should be turned off or away from. But turned away from Hell itself. Thus, the Atheist will have mistaken what to actually fear. Not the religion, but Hell itself.

Would the Atheist enjoy a place of peace and love wherefore the brute that kidnapped your child can still continue the same torments in an everlasting life? Perhaps on your child’s soul? Or, as in the parable of the poor man outside of the rich man’s house. That between Heaven and Hell, there is not a bridge. So that those in Heaven may not fall.

I think the Atheist should consider that a religion that says suffering comes as a consequence of evil. Ought not to make haste to disdain that belief. Even if they do not really hold to it. But to hold onto what is noble and true. That, namely, it is good that evil is punished. And, if man does live forever. It may not be a bad idea afterall, those who would continue to serve out the horrors and torments of abuse of children in the afterlife, might otherwise find it more suitable to be in everlasting Hell where they will torment children no more.

I don’t think that fits a logical criteria for an Atheist to refute. But is more inclined to that religion.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I think you’re doing an extraordinarily good job of convincing yourself, to convince others you might find it a good idea to listen to them first.

Maybe.
But this is a really interesting thread.

Thanks Saint_Prince_Caspian

 

[Neithan]

Do you know many atheists and agnostics? I know many, and most tend to be cheerful, positive people who are happy with the lives they live. They are deep thinkers and intelligent. They are open-minded and what I consider to be life-learners (always learning and seeking). They are far more content with the concept of death than any religious people I know. They are quite comfortable in their beliefs.

That is an awfully rosy picture. Are they on mood enhancers? Most people that I know are “nones” (most agnostic, but many take a stronger atheist position) and they definitely don’t seem happier than the religious people I know, and certainly not more comfortable with death. To be fair, we can not truly know how happy or content anyone else is, either, only ourselves.

Your problem here is that Judaism and Christianity don’t ‘work’ in the same way, different belief structures.

Could you expound? That sounds really interesting.

 

[Anrakyr]

Agnosticism is the Nihilistic indifference of meaninglessness and nothingness. Leaving the soul neutral to about anything, and everything.

You lost all validity right there. Clearly you never heard of Optimistic Nihilism.

 

[Anrakyr]

I doubt they feel this way if their house is on fire. Or if their child is missing. The idea of that a religion brings fear is baseless.

I fear if God is Good because if He is as advertised I’m going to hell and there’s nothing I can do about it. His path is so narrow and runs contrary to social and physical evolution I have no chance to follow it.

I suspect and believe, to do with their incapability to really cope with suffering and fear of death.

If God doesn’t exist I have more peace with that then an eternity of banishment or worse.

 

[Kaninchen]

The argument can go two ways:

No, it can’t, what I said is ‘Torah’, the Law.

Judaism isn’t a religion with Law, Judaism is Law (cutting a fairly long story short).

Judaism doesn’t ‘work’ the same way as Christianity.

Belief is not a simple thing to define.

 

[Kaninchen]

Could you expound? That sounds really interesting.

And thereby hangs a tale/tail . . . .

You have to start with what the two religions are about because while words may be common, the concepts aren’t - I’m going to risk it (because I once got suspended for saying it, perhaps I was a little blunt) but Christianity’s greatest ‘trick’ was to diagnose an ‘illness’ (“you’re all doomed”) and prescribe itself as the only ‘cure’ (“believe and you’ll be ‘saved’”) - the thing is that these concepts are foreign to Judaism.

Once you start from there, you get two different streams of thought, one that could be described as focusing on ‘ethics/behaviour’ (orthopraxy) with fairly nebulous ideas of ‘afterlife’, the other on ‘belief’ (orthodoxy) with rather vivid ideas about ‘afterlife’.

And so on, and so on . . . it’s a huge subject.

 

[niceatheist]

You seem to make no allowance for thoughtful atheists. We’re just blind men who wish we were theists.

 

[laylow]

An atheist does not bear the burden of proof. They are not the one making the claim. They simply do not see the evidence sufficient to the claim that there is a God. Any additional nuance is related to specific people and their situation. It cannot be assumed based on solely knowing someone is an atheist.

 

[Padres1969]

True, but to the OPs point. Nor can it be assumed most atheists want to believe. He bears the burden of proof for making that claim. Particularly in the face of pretty much all respondents to this thread telling him otherwise based on real world experience.