What intelligent Atheists & Christians have in common about God

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
For brevity’s sake, the thread’s title is what it is. But really, I mean atheists and agnostics on the one hand and Christians and certain other theists on the other.

What I mean by “intelligent” are those atheists/agnostics and those Christians/believers who think the subject of God through reasonably and logically, and so have their convictions based on careful reflection.

Here’s where I see the common ground: Both thoughtful agnostics/atheists and Christians object to the “god” idea of God. Here’s what I mean: The idea that God is just another physical being out there, waiting to be discovered (like a fairy, a unicorn, or a “flying spaghetti” monster — even the traditional depiction of an old man with a long white beard).

It would be unreasonable for a thoughtful person to accept such definitions of God. There is no inherent reason why any of these things should be the ultimate reality. At best, they are mere “God of the Gaps” — mere projections and speculations in order to fill in the gaps of our current (often scientific) knowledge.

Atheists rightfully reject such mythology. But Christians do, too.
 
Last edited:
Oil and water. Commonality tends to imply some level of equality.

Can’t see it.

The radical, foaming-at-the-mouth atheism we see today denies anything other than that we are all accidents.

Well they certainly are - accidents waiting to happen!
 
po18guy said:
foaming-at-the-mouth atheism
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about those kinds of atheists.

Like it or not, there are real people out there who are agnostic even after carefully considering the evidence. Perhaps it’s because they are only familiar with the “spaghetti monster” and “God of the Gaps” ideas of God. But that rejection, I think, is one step closer to the traditional understanding of God as Pure Act/simplicity – the ultimate ground of reality.
 
Well then specify. Very clearly for us dull-witted, please.

As I see it (and I am frequently wrong) your run-of the mill atheist tends not to believe in the transcendent. Thus, how can there be common ground?

I admire your motives.
 
As you say in your profile:
If I seem to lose charity or derail a thread, kindly PM me so that I can correct or reconsider.
Click to expand...
So please don’t be uncharitable towards me or fellow humans who happen to be convinced there is no God, at least how they understand God.
 
Last edited:
What do you view as charitable: Obeisance? Concurrence? Blanket agreement? Should I therefore simply agree with all views presented, so as not to step on toes? I am deliberately provocative. I want others, and myself to think and think critically.

The world is full of ideas - most of which are simply nonsense. Charity points this out, just as our mothers did. Eternity is arriving - for some of us it will be today. To lead toward what a far greater power has revealed to be eternal life is the greatest charity, is it not?

If your beliefs are defensible, defend them! This is not a “Safe space”, as beliefs - especially Catholic - are constantly challenged, and boldly.

Sorry if I sometimes represent the Church Militant.
 
lisaandlena said:
The fact that Christians aren’t reasonable and logical is demonstrated by the OP itself, which asserts that Christians don’t believe in mythology, but Catholicism is pretty much a definitive example of mythology.
Click to expand...
Define ‘mythology’, as you’re using the term here, and perhaps we can discuss your objection.
 
It’s hard to herd large groups of people into a standardized profile. There is a broad spectrum of people who tend to be atheistic and a corresponding range of people who tend to be theistic. Where I think we can make comparisons is between card core committed atheists and hard core committed theists. Here is what I offer to be commonalities from the ranks of the hard core committed on both sides:

-Both are absolutely sure in what they believe.

-Neither knows anything for certain, regardless of how certain they believe themselves to be, and neither can prove the other wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

-Both have strongly held beliefs systems, replete with dogmas.

-Both attempt to shoehorn their ideas into solutions that don’t necessarily answer every question.

As for agnostics, I think they can’t be said to align well with the hard core committed atheists or the hard core committed theists. In my experience they are more like the average person who belongs to a religion and the average person who doesn’t. These I think are the majority, who sort of follow a flow in accordance with either their upbringing or the people they associate with, without giving anything existential much thought. They are not inclined to talk about religion or anything that gets too deep, and act like you showed up for a formal affair barefoot if you bring the topic up.

I like the idea that a thread could be a place where some of them could come together and have a polite discussion, so I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Well then specify.
Click to expand...
Jordan Peterson would tell you that almost everyone who claims to be an atheist is lying; they just don’t know what their god is. And when they really are atheists, they’re likely murderous, and the argument that without God murder is permissible is entirely correct. See the atheist in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov for an picture of a true atheist. But for those closely approximating atheism while still remaining upright people, see speakers like Sam Harris, maybe Dave Rubin. Not examples of upright Catholic living; both are pretty deeply living in sin. But I’d say they’re “smart atheists.”
po18guy said:
As I see it (and I am frequently wrong) your run-of the mill atheist tends not to believe in the transcendent. Thus, how can there be common ground?
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on what the desired outcome of a conversation with a smart atheist would be. If it’s the atheist’s conversion to the faith, then you’re probably right, not much common ground there. But if it’s the pursuit of truth (strange as that sounds to us Catholics, atheists pursuing truth) and/or, at the very least, open civil dialogue, there may be common ground there. I’ll refer again to Dave Rubin & Sam Harris. You should see their conversations with Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.

Side note: All of the aforementioned men have views not in accordance with the Catholic Church. They are not perfectly upright individuals, but they’re honestly pursuing some truth, and doing so peacefully and logically.
Side note #2: They’re also all members of the informal “Intellectual Dark Web.” You could say that’s their common ground as well.
 
Last edited:
Demonstrating the chasm between intellect and truth. Between conceit/arrogance and humility. Between darkness and light. A stark contrast. Not saying they do not have good intentions, but we know which road is paved with those.
 
Gorgias said:
Define ‘mythology’, as you’re using the term here, and perhaps we can discuss your objection.
Click to expand...
I won’t claim to speak for them, but I have a good one.
Stories with morals to extract, however vague, subtle, or obvious; stories with staying power; stories on which you can build a culture and society. The stories don’t have to be science reports. Whether the story of the Tower of Babel is fact or fiction is less important than whether there is a lesson or telos to be extracted. Or like in Eden. Did the serpent really literally speak to Eve? Or does it matter, because the story was trying to illustrate the tempting nature of sin and the enemy?
So I think, at least by this definition, the more fantastical elements of the Bible can maybe be called mythology, though they are still just as true. Is King Lear great because it is real history? (It’s not, btw) Or because it is rich with true lessons, in which case fiction may be more powerful?
I do, however, think this is only applicable to the Old Testament. The miracles Jesus performed were real; those weren’t fiction.
 
Last edited:
lisaandlena said:
Unfortunately, one of the basic premises of this thread, is that Christians are reasonable and logical,
Click to expand...
Faulty premise! We are supposed to be those things, but fail, as you can see.

As well, the thread does not seem to me to have a reasonable premise. What do diametrically opposed views have in common other than endless disputation?
 
catholic1seeks said:
For brevity’s sake, the thread’s title is what it is. But really, I mean atheists and agnostics on the one hand and Christians and certain other theists on the other.

What I mean by “intelligent” are those atheists/agnostics and those Christians/believers who think the subject of God through reasonably and logically, and so have their convictions based on careful reflection.

Here’s where I see the common ground: Both thoughtful agnostics/atheists and Christians object to the “god” idea of God. Here’s what I mean: The idea that God is just another physical being out there, waiting to be discovered (like a fairy, a unicorn, or a “flying spaghetti” monster — even the traditional depiction of an old man with a long white beard).

It would be unreasonable for a thoughtful person to accept such definitions of God. There is no inherent reason why any of these things should be the ultimate reality. At best, they are mere “God of the Gaps” — mere projections and speculations in order to fill in the gaps of our current (often scientific) knowledge.

Atheists rightfully reject such mythology. But Christians do, too.
Click to expand...
Some atheists would accept the idea of a merely creator-god easier than the Christian God. And Christians have long accepted that reason, alone, dictates that there be a superior eternal Mind of some sort, at least, behind the existence of anything, let alone behind the complex systems we observe and live amidst in our universe.
 
Last edited:
Not that hard, folks. I don’t really understand the uncharitable attitudes toward your fellow human beings. If God exists, we are all his children.

Anyway, the point of the OP is to say that, often what atheists RIGHTLY reject as “god” is not what Christians traditionally mean by “God.” I say “intellectual” atheists and Christians because many atheists may identify as atheists out of other motives (a teenager rejecting the faith of one’s parents in order to seem “cool,” for example). On the other hand, especially today when many Christians have lost touch with Tradition and the Church, some Christians still tend to think of God in the “old man with a beard” kind of way.

SO I suppose my initial point is that, really, Atheists often rightly reject God, for they are not considering what the traditional definition of God (as first principle, basis of reality, etc.) is. This is not always the case. But it’s what my thread was focused on.

👍🤔
 
Last edited:
Hmmm as an atheist I’d say not much.
We can’t agree on the same definition of terms like faith, moral, good, etc. for example.
Theists have yet to come up with a concise definition of supernatural terms like soul, spirit, deity, angels, god, etc.
The actual reading of the texts where the deity is acting like Trump with too much power is poetic metaphor, taken out of context, etc. It’s like the atheists are the exasperated news reporters trying to get an honest answer out of the apologetic spin room of the religious Huckabee’s take on the obvious documented abuses and failures of their deity.
They believe god is mysterious, we believe it’s man made up.
They believe in authoritative rule for morality, we believe in secular discourse reasoned debate.
They believe in channeling magical powers from other realms, we can document how medicine actually works.
They believe the worship and groveling is a good thing, we believe standing up with respect in our self worth regardless of the leader in attendance.
We take ownership of our moral failings, they write it off as biblically mandated and then come to a “new interpretation” when their religion starts becoming socially irrelevant.
Religious believe that logical conclusions are just as equal as reality based documented testings since our logical conclusions are never wrong once tested right?
 
I agree with all except the part about agnostics. I don’t think this group should be generalized either. That is, there are some agnostics who probably fit your description; on the other hand, there are those who probably think very deeply about religion and are quite conflicted, continually tossing between the poles of belief and non-belief.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top