What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Hee_Zen]

The kind of interference you call “friendly advice” may be applicable where the end good is in dispute or unclear, but NOT under conditions where that good is clear and determinable. Failure to interfere under those conditions is simply failure to love - both a failure of the loved one to love themselves and of the one failing to act on their behalf.

You again belabor the obvious. Of course if the danger is imminent and fatal, then the immediate intrusion is warranted. But I was referring to the busybodies, who know everything better and who want to save you from yourself. They cannot bring up even one rational argument against non-procreative sex, but they repeat their mantra about “squandering God’s wonderful gift” and “exploiting the partner”, and “degrading the sacramental act into something sordid”. Getting very tiring and boring.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I was referring to the busybodies, who know everything better and who want to save you from yourself. They cannot bring up even one rational argument against non-procreative sex, but they repeat their mantra about “squandering God’s wonderful gift” and “exploiting the partner”, and “degrading the sacramental act into something sordid”. Getting very tiring and boring.

Not to be confused with busybodies, I would make it clear that I respect your decision. You show full awareness of what would constitute God’s will and clearly you have chosen otherwise. It is not up to me to demonstrate that there is a precipice towards which you are accelerating. You will find it, or not. I would add that you cannot imagine, as I cannot describe what is possible with God.

There are people here who have learned painful truths, crashing and burning as they chased what you might consider exquisite pleasures. Some who have not, but came to the same conclusion, in the manner of Siddartha (Gautama Buddha) and Solomon. (Ref: Ecclesiastes.) There are others who have tasted Joy, the subsequent yearning of which cannot ever be satisfied with any earthly gratification.

That said, let’s see how much of an intrusive busybody I can be. I am trying to understand how someone can masochisticly enter into relationships seeking and giving disapproval. I imagine the sort of trauma incurred seeing the disgusted look of parents changing one’s diapers. How it might perpetually seek resolution in adult interactions, in spite of their being doomed to failure. The same music, the same dance.

I have encountered many different people in my life. Many years ago I had dealings with an individual who had been sexually abused as a boy, leaving him hypersexual and for many years drug addicted. He tried to seduce me, to corrupt me as he had been himself, I suppose. He went into quite detailed descriptions of his sexual exploits. They likely were an exhibitionist attempt to allude to his ability to satisfy me or to turn me on. Although rather horrified and grossed out, I maintained the interesting friendship. I can’t recall what happened to him, but my hope is that he realized he could enter into relationships with men which were based on love rather than a sexual using of each other. For my part, it left me able to see the person more clearly, less obscured by my personal feelings and not distracted by sin.

:twocents:

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Hey Hee Zen,

Just going to jump right into it…

Oh, no. Only the third requirement is clear, the “full consent”. The other ones are not. What is “grave matter” and what is “full knowledge” are not. You brought up the “Bible”, the “Sacred Tradition” and the “Catechism” as supporting arguments. You really should realize that these are rejected by atheists, you only wasted your time by bringing them up.
…
No, the bible does not count, the catechism does not count and the “sacred” tradition does not count.
…
Anyhow, I am afraid, our views are very far apart. I enjoy you (name removed by moderator)ut, but you should stick to reality and reason if you wish to argue.

Most of your arguments have one of these two purposes: either to show that some single Christian teaching is unreasonable, or to show a contradiction between two or more Christian teachings.
While it would be irrational of me to try to use Christian teaching as a source of authority to disprove the first, telling me I can’t use Christian teaching to refute a claim that a Christian teaching is unclear or contradictory to another is ridiculous.
It’s like saying I can’t use math to refute a claim that Green’s Theorem doesn’t work. It’s an unreasonable restriction that makes a logical counter-argument impossible.

Catholicism actually does lay out specifically what sins of grave matter are, and what full knowledge means with regard to mortal sin. This particular argument of yours is simply flat-out wrong.

Starting from this point, Lem argues against other assumptions of Christianity, the “revelation”, the “afterlife” and the “worship” of God. He shows that these assumptions are totally irrational. It is inconceivable that the “creator” of the universe would concern himself with being “worshipped” by the inhabitants of the world. “Revelation” would be the cruelest thing to do, to say: “nyah, nyah you will die and if you don’t do exactly what I want you to do, you will burn until the end of eternity”. And as such the concept of “afterlife” is preposterous, to reward “worship” and to “punish” non-worship is horrendous - especially since there is no “revelation” of the “do’s” and “don’t’s” we should follow.

Just a heads up: I’m going to rely on Christian teaching to refute this.
Lem’s scenario assumes a state of original sin. When God created humanity, we were already one with him in love and will. You could call this “worship” if you like, but it’s more like “perpetual communion.” In short, we were already created in a state where we knew God and worshipped him perfectly, so revelation would in fact have been unnecessary. As you had previously been indignant about, God did create us right into a state of eternal paradise. Lem’s scenario is much simpler than Christian belief, but it does not get to the root of Christian theism because, in order to be simple, it assumes things about the nature of God and creation (go ahead and think “these are concepts!” I refuse to write it. ) that is contrary to Christian teaching.
Lem’s scenario assumes that God’s creation can walk around, do good things, and be alive without God’s continual assistance. While you could say, perhaps ungratefully, that it seems self-centered for God to demand that we remain true to him just because he created us, this gets thrown out the window if being with God is all there is–to be with without God is to to be utter nothingness. God’s creation are nothing more than reflections of God; as this fades, the creation itself fades. God asks us to be with him because Godliness is all there is–evil is just the absence of this. In other words, evil is nothingness. The Church has always taught that hell is separation from God. Aka annihilation, aka eternal torture by fire. (‘But how can there be pain and torture if hell is nothingness?’ God made our souls immortal; we must always be because of this, even in nothingness. And because pain and torture are further from God than peaceful rest, this is necessarily the case for those in hell.)
Again, I’m not trying to assert the truth of all this–you can consider it unreal and hypothetical if you like. But I have shown, by Christian teaching, that Lem’s arguments on this cannot apply to Christianity; he’s arguing perhaps against something like Deism.

No, it is not. Catholicism is far from being a uniform set of beliefs. There is sizable (and growing!) percentage of Catholics, who are usually called “heretics”, or “Cafeteria Catholics” and who vehemently disagree with certain teachings of the Vatican. In the “good old times” these heretics were burned at the stakes, but today they are a force that must be reckoned with.

I actually was mistaken when I said this, but not in the way you’re suggesting. I had forgotten about Eastern Catholicism. Correction: Roman Catholicism is inherently a uniform set of beliefs. What you’re suggesting is, well, silly. If a group of people call themselves Catholic but profess things contrary to Catholicism, their beliefs aren’t Catholic. The size and zeal of the group are completely immaterial. This is like saying scientific fact isn’t a uniform set of facts because people have differing opinions about various scientific findings. Like Catholicism, while we don’t know everything there is to know about science, we know there is an absolute truth. Actually at their most comprehensive levels both science and Catholicism must include the other.

-Greg

 

[Hee_Zen]

You show full awareness of what would constitute God’s will and clearly you have chosen otherwise.

Sorry, I have absolutely NO “awareness” of what God’s will might be. He never deemed me worthy enough to tell me about it. What I AM aware of is the unfounded opinion of a small group of people who have the audacity to claim that they speak for God, or that they “know” what God’s will is.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Most of your arguments have one of these two purposes: either to show that some single Christian teaching is unreasonable, or to show a contradiction between two or more Christian teachings.

Yes, this is correct.

While it would be irrational of me to try to use Christian teaching as a source of authority to disprove the first, telling me I can’t use Christian teaching to refute a claim that a Christian teaching is unclear or contradictory to another is ridiculous.

The “ex falso quodlibet” is applicable here. If you have two contradictory teachings, then you can “prove” any proposition and its opposite.

Catholicism actually does lay out specifically what sins of grave matter are, and what full knowledge means with regard to mortal sin. This particular argument of yours is simply flat-out wrong.

Sorry, just saying that “masturbation” is a mortal sin will not make it acceptable. It belongs to the “unreasonable” label. Since the “full knowledge” would imply the acceptance of the teaching of the church, it is also inapplicable. Of course I have a very exhaustive knowledge of the church’s teachings, but I do not accept a sizeable portion of it.

Let me explain: you cannot use one of the church’s teachings to show that another teaching is reasonable. Or to be more to the point: always argue upon the “playing field” of your opponent. If you argue with someone who professes “sola scriptura”, you should never argue based upon the sacred tradition, because that is empty argument for your opposition. When talking to an atheist, don’t even think about bringing up the bible, or the catechism. Keep your argument on fully rational and secular level. On the other hand, an atheist is free to bring in anything and everything from the bible, the sacred tradition or the catechism. It is not “fair”, but there you are. What you profess, is a fair game to be used against you in an argument.

But I have shown, by Christian teaching, that Lem’s arguments on this cannot apply to Christianity; he’s arguing perhaps against something like Deism.

Oh they sure are. But people do not like the mirror, and will argue that it distorts their “real” beliefs. Just an example. I like to show the utter unreasonableness of the different arguments which try to “whitewash” God’s non-intervention in the case of some very evil acts. The tale of the twelve officers. The arguments are the precise equivalent of what different apologists try to bring up. Yet, no one believer ever looked into the mirror, and accepted it. It is always declared to be a “distortion” of their argument.

Correction: Roman Catholicism is inherently a uniform set of beliefs. What you’re suggesting is, well, silly. If a group of people call themselves Catholic but profess things contrary to Catholicism, their beliefs aren’t Catholic.

This is called the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. One branch of Roman Catholics disagrees with the other branch of Roman Catholics, and both of call the others “not real Catholics”.

This is like saying scientific fact isn’t a uniform set of facts because people have differing opinions about various scientific findings.

Except in science there is he objective method to decide which group is right and which one is wrong. You can conduct a test to find it out. But what kind of test can you propose to decide if “women’s ordination” is acceptable for God, or not? Or how can you prove that God “frowns upon” non-procreative or “gay” sex?

 

[Gregory_Olson]

I’m not a very good debater because I struggle to make myself clear.

Because I think I’m hurting my case more than helping, I’ll make this response brief.

All I was trying to say before is: You had said that two Christian teachings were contradictory. If your logic was sound, the only way you could be wrong is if your original idea of the teachings themselves were mistaken in some way.
What I profess is fair game to be used against me in an argument only if it’s actually what I profess. It wasn’t a distortion, you had actually got the Christian position wrong. Logically, I can use Christian teaching to show that you had honestly misunderstood a Christian teaching. This is all I tried to do.

This is called the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. One branch of Roman Catholics disagrees with the other branch of Roman Catholics, and both of call the others “not real Catholics”.

I do like the name of this fallacy. It would be the case here, except Roman Catholicism hasn’t changed its position since its formation, 2000 years ago. (No, there wasn’t strict dogma against birth control pills in the year 400, but the inspired writings to support that dogma were there.) If this set position is defined as “Catholicism,” any position contrary to it is inherently “not Catholicism.” What makes a true Scotsman is completely subjective, but we are talking about an objectively set group of teachings.

Except in science there is he objective method to decide which group is right and which one is wrong. You can conduct a test to find it out. But what kind of test can you propose to decide if “women’s ordination” is acceptable for God, or not? Or how can you prove that God “frowns upon” non-procreative or “gay” sex?

Christianity is simpler. The only things we know are right are what God has revealed to us, and things we can imply from them watertightly using reason.
Men’s-only ordination is something else entirely; it’s actually something we decided, comparable to the way scientists decided to use white coats while working in the lab. It’s a rule that could change according to popular vote. In contrast, we know sex for physical pleasure alone is wrong because God revealed this to us. In this case, our position isn’t made up of blind obedience only; it’s a plainly disordered act because it serves no purpose other than a hormone rush, it reduces a human being to a set of body parts, it’s utilitarian by nature, preoccupation with it is a huge time-suck, and especially in the case of masturbation (which is biologically beneficial in some ways but harmful in others), there is a possibility of addiction.

Well, this was supposed to be short… I’ve decided to tone it down because my posts are only distracting from the slow but steady collapse of your position at the hands of Peter Plato. I’m not saying this to deflate you–he really has made some killer points, and it’s annoying filler-posters like me that are allowing for them to slide under the radar.

-Greg

 

[Hee_Zen]

I’m not a very good debater because I struggle to make myself clear.

You are not alone. We all suffer from this problem. As I woke up today, I realized where the misunderstanding lies between us concerning Lem’s position. In the story he starts from the notion of the “philosophical God” - which is not the same as the “theological God”. I hope that this distinction is clear. The philosophers tried to show the existence of God on fully secular, rational grounds, without any reference to “revelation”. Lem simply takes them by their word, and examines the ramifications of this position.

After all, the experimenter IS God of his creation. He created it, he created the inhabitants, he has full control over the world - which is precisely what the “philosophical God” is all about - creation and full control. You said that this is a “distortion” because he does not consider the “true God”, the “theological God”. There is no “revelation” for the inhabitants, there is no “sin”, (original or otherwise), there is no “love”. The “experimenter God” merely observes his creation, and continues “eavesdropping” on the conversations and thoughts of the personoids.

But this is the whole point. From the acceptance of the “philosophical God” one cannot advance to the acceptance of the “theological God”. Lem shows the contradictions between the two types of “God-concepts”. There is no logical problem with the notion of the “philosophical God” or “deistic God” - as you expressed it. The problem is with the “theological God”.

The problem is with “revelation”. There is no “revelation”. There is a set of ancient writs that you consider “revelation” - without any ground whatsoever. The so-called “sacred tradition” is simply a propagation of those ancient beliefs.

The problem is with the idea of “heaven and hell”. No semi-decent beings would punish its creation with “eternal damnation” and suffering. Of course I am aware of the usual counter argument, that we “reject” God, and he simply “honors” our choice. What nonsense! I do NOT reject God, I reject what the believers SAY about God. A simple lack of belief is NOT rejection. Before I could even think about accepting or rejecting God, the number one necessity would be to “reveal” himself to ME, personally and without a shade of doubt - exactly as Lem pointed out. And this cannot be countered by: “but there is the church, which is Christ’s legacy, and you should trust what the church says”. Why should I? There is no actual evidence for any of it. It is all “hearsay” and “sacred tradition”. It is all self-authentication.

The funny thing is that based upon that so-called “revelation” (the bible) it is not even extraordinary to ask for direct revelation. Supposedly doubting Thomas asked and received it. Why not us? Yes, I am aware of the non-argument: “Blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believed”. I am not interested in being “blessed”, I need to know. Moreover, it is also stated in that “revelation”: “ask and you will be answered, knock on the door and it will be opened”. No matter how fervently you ask, there is no answer, you can bang your head on the door, and it will never be opened.

What is the counter-argument for this? Something along the line: “How dare you to make demands! God will reveal himself to you in his due time, not yours!” And sometimes there comes the addition, in the form of maniacal laugh: "But then it will be too late! You cannot change your mind at that point. Hahaha! You will burn forever! "

You can take this seriously and think about it - in depth. Of you can throw it aside as the meaningless rambling of an old geezer.

 

[davidv]

You are not alone. We all suffer from this problem. As I woke up today, I realized where the misunderstanding lies between us concerning Lem’s position. In the story he starts from the notion of the “philosophical God” - which is not the same as the “theological God”. I hope that this distinction is clear. The philosophers tried to show the existence of God on fully secular, rational grounds, without any reference to “revelation”. Lem simply takes them by their word, and examines the ramifications of this position.

After all, the experimenter IS God of his creation. He created it, he created the inhabitants, he has full control over the world - which is precisely what the “philosophical God” is all about - creation and full control. You said that this is a “distortion” because he does not consider the “true God”, the “theological God”. There is no “revelation” for the inhabitants, there is no “sin”, (original or otherwise), there is no “love”. The “experimenter God” merely observes his creation, and continues “eavesdropping” on the conversations and thoughts of the personoids.

But this is the whole point. From the acceptance of the “philosophical God” one cannot advance to the acceptance of the “theological God”. Lem shows the contradictions between the two types of “God-concepts”. There is no logical problem with the notion of the “philosophical God” or “deistic God” - as you expressed it. The problem is with the “theological God”.

The problem is with “revelation”. There is no “revelation”. There is a set of ancient writs that you consider “revelation” - without any ground whatsoever. The so-called “sacred tradition” is simply a propagation of those ancient beliefs.

The problem is with the idea of “heaven and hell”. No semi-decent beings would punish its creation with “eternal damnation” and suffering. Of course I am aware of the usual counter argument, that we “reject” God, and he simply “honors” our choice. What nonsense! I do NOT reject God, I reject what the believers SAY about God. A simple lack of belief is NOT rejection. Before I could even think about accepting or rejecting God, the number one necessity would be to “reveal” himself to ME, personally and without a shade of doubt - exactly as Lem pointed out. And this cannot be countered by: “but there is the church, which is Christ’s legacy, and you should trust what the church says”. Why should I? There is no actual evidence for any of it. It is all “hearsay” and “sacred tradition”. It is all self-authentication.

The funny thing is that based upon that so-called “revelation” (the bible) it is not even extraordinary to ask for direct revelation. Supposedly doubting Thomas asked and received it. Why not us? Yes, I am aware of the non-argument: “Blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believed”. I am not interested in being “blessed”, I need to know. Moreover, it is also stated in that “revelation”: “ask and you will be answered, knock on the door and it will be opened”. No matter how fervently you ask, there is no answer, you can bang your head on the door, and it will never be opened.

What is the counter-argument for this? Something along the line: “How dare you to make demands! God will reveal himself to you in his due time, not yours!” And sometimes there comes the addition, in the form of maniacal laugh: "But then it will be too late! You cannot change your mind at that point. Hahaha! You will burn forever! "

You can take this seriously and think about it - in depth. Of you can throw it aside as the meaningless rambling of an old geezer.

My counterargument?

Much of the above consists of logical fallacy. To name a few:

1. Strawman - "The problem is with the idea of “heaven and hell”. No semi-decent beings would punish its creation with “eternal damnation” and suffering. "
   2 Non sequiteur - "From the acceptance of the “philosophical God” one cannot advance to the acceptance of the “theological God”.
2. Unsupported assertion - "There is no “revelation”. "

It seems to me your whole position is an appeal to emotion.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You are not alone. We all suffer from this problem. As I woke up today, I realized where the misunderstanding lies between us concerning Lem’s position. In the story he starts from the notion of the “philosophical God” - which is not the same as the “theological God”. I hope that this distinction is clear. The philosophers tried to show the existence of God on fully secular, rational grounds, without any reference to “revelation”. Lem simply takes them by their word, and examines the ramifications of this position.

After all, the experimenter IS God of his creation. He created it, he created the inhabitants, he has full control over the world - which is precisely what the “philosophical God” is all about - creation and full control. You said that this is a “distortion” because he does not consider the “true God”, the “theological God”. There is no “revelation” for the inhabitants, there is no “sin”, (original or otherwise), there is no “love”. The “experimenter God” merely observes his creation, and continues “eavesdropping” on the conversations and thoughts of the personoids.

But this is the whole point. From the acceptance of the “philosophical God” one cannot advance to the acceptance of the “theological God”. Lem shows the contradictions between the two types of “God-concepts”. There is no logical problem with the notion of the “philosophical God” or “deistic God” - as you expressed it. The problem is with the “theological God”.

The problem is with “revelation”. There is no “revelation”. There is a set of ancient writs that you consider “revelation” - without any ground whatsoever. The so-called “sacred tradition” is simply a propagation of those ancient beliefs.

The problem is with the idea of “heaven and hell”. No semi-decent beings would punish its creation with “eternal damnation” and suffering. Of course I am aware of the usual counter argument, that we “reject” God, and he simply “honors” our choice. What nonsense! I do NOT reject God, I reject what the believers SAY about God. A simple lack of belief is NOT rejection. Before I could even think about accepting or rejecting God, the number one necessity would be to “reveal” himself to ME, personally and without a shade of doubt - exactly as Lem pointed out. And this cannot be countered by: “but there is the church, which is Christ’s legacy, and you should trust what the church says”. Why should I? There is no actual evidence for any of it. It is all “hearsay” and “sacred tradition”. It is all self-authentication.

The funny thing is that based upon that so-called “revelation” (the bible) it is not even extraordinary to ask for direct revelation. Supposedly doubting Thomas asked and received it. Why not us? Yes, I am aware of the non-argument: “Blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believed”. I am not interested in being “blessed”, I need to know. Moreover, it is also stated in that “revelation”: “ask and you will be answered, knock on the door and it will be opened”. No matter how fervently you ask, there is no answer, you can bang your head on the door, and it will never be opened.

What is the counter-argument for this? Something along the line: “How dare you to make demands! God will reveal himself to you in his due time, not yours!” And sometimes there comes the addition, in the form of maniacal laugh: "But then it will be too late! You cannot change your mind at that point. Hahaha! You will burn forever! "

You can take this seriously and think about it - in depth. Of you can throw it aside as the meaningless rambling of an old geezer.

Some say that Hell is simply the absence of God.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Some say that Hell is simply the absence of God.

Sure, and they have no evidence for it. The Rev John Furniss wrote a “cute” little treatise about the “niceties” of hell, specifically for children. You can read it right here. Quite “uplifting” for the young, impressionable mind. Today, in the politically correct environment it would be considered child abuse - and in this case - rightfully so.

A short excerpt from the book:

APPROBATION

“I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have
found nothing whatsoever in it contrary to the doctrine of Holy
Faith; but, on the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and
edify our youthful classes, for whose benefit it has been written.”

William Meagher, Vicar General, Dublin, December 14, 1855.

This work is published for the greater Glory of Jesus Christ through His most
Holy Mother Mary and for the sanctification of the militant Church and her members.

Now, I could not care less about the “technical details” of the eternal suffering. The problem is its alleged existence.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Sure, and they have no evidence for it. The Rev John Furniss wrote a “cute” little treatise about the “niceties” of hell, specifically for children. You can read it right here. Quite “uplifting” for the young, impressionable mind. Today, in the politically correct environment it would be considered child abuse - and in this case - rightfully so.

A short excerpt from the book:

APPROBATION

“I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have
found nothing whatsoever in it contrary to the doctrine of Holy
Faith; but, on the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and
edify our youthful classes, for whose benefit it has been written.”

William Meagher, Vicar General, Dublin, December 14, 1855.

This work is published for the greater Glory of Jesus Christ through His most
Holy Mother Mary and for the sanctification of the militant Church and her members.

Now, I could not care less about the “technical details” of the eternal suffering. The problem is its alleged existence.

Many are suffering right here on earth. Hell is very real.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Before I could even think about accepting or rejecting God, the number one necessity would be to “reveal” himself to ME, personally and without a shade of doubt - exactly as Lem pointed out.

Really? I haven’t had any personal revelation from God or any ‘religious experience’ whatsoever. At some crossroads a few years ago I have extensively studied and rationally weighed the arguments for and against naturalism, and decided that it was the most rational position to keep accepting God and remain a believer. If naturalism had been able to intellectually convince me, I would be an atheist by now. It couldn’t.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It seems to me your whole position is an appeal to emotion.

That sounds about right.

I am just reading through the thread Share your de-conversion story at ‘The Thinking Atheist’ and after multiple pages nothing – to my surprise, hardly any substantial and informed philosophical argument and not much that would justify the position of ‘Thinking Atheist’. Only “the bible is wrong”, “all religions are different thus none can be right”, some talk about hypocrisy of believers, and some vague references to ‘science’. Some refer to learning about evolution as a game changer, but if evolution or reading Dawkins’s The God Delusion can sway you towards disbelief then the intellectual foundations of your faith were far too weak to begin with.

All in all, an eyeopener. It is obvious to me now something that I had already suspected, namely that for most becoming an atheist is an emotional decision, and the rationalizations come later.

 

[Al_Moritz]

My counterargument?

Much of the above consists of logical fallacy. To name a few:

1. Strawman - "The problem is with the idea of “heaven and hell”. No semi-decent beings would punish its creation with “eternal damnation” and suffering. "
   2 Non sequiteur - "From the acceptance of the “philosophical God” one cannot advance to the acceptance of the “theological God”.
2. Unsupported assertion - "There is no “revelation”. "

Yeah, the idea that there is a contradiction between the philosophical God and the theological God is new to me (shrug).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

All in all, an eyeopener. It is obvious to me that for most becoming an atheist is an emotional decision, and the rationalizations come later.

Just as turning away from disbelief to belief is an emotional decision and the rationalization comes later, as when St. Augustine wrote his Confessions after his conversion.

Having investigated this matter by studying the biographies of some famous atheists, I’ve deduced that in many instances atheism is acquired in the teen years, when the hormones are raging and the ego is struggling with authority figures, of whom God is surely the epitome. But as you say, the will to disbelieve comes first, then the rationale follows.

 

[Hee_Zen]

It is obvious to me now something that I had already suspected, namely that for most becoming an atheist is an emotional decision, and the rationalizations come later.

For some it might have been. Of course I see nothing wrong with an emotionally driven moral outrage against the cruelty of God as believed and professed by some. Just like one can turn anti-Nazi after considering the Holocaust.

Yeah, the idea that there is a contradiction between the philosophical God and the theological God is new to me (shrug).

I probably should have used the word “discrepancy”. The contradiction I was referring to is not a “logical contradiction”. The deist type of God has no logical problems at all. A faceless, uncaring creator, who set the ball in motion and then does not care about his creation any more can be reconciled with the state of affairs as we observe them. And any kind of philosophical “proof” - be it prime mover, first cause etc… would only lead to a deistic creator - if there would be no problem with the “proofs” themselves.

If you would read the linked short story, you would realize how devastating it is to the concept of a “loving, caring deity”. I already provided the link, but here it is again: Non Serviam. Have fun with it.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Just as turning away from disbelief to belief is an emotional decision and the rationalization comes later, as when St. Augustine wrote his Confessions after his conversion.

Having investigated this matter by studying the biographies of some famous atheists, I’ve deduced that in many instances atheism is acquired in the teen years, when the hormones are raging and the ego is struggling with authority figures, of whom God is surely the epitome. But as you say, the will to disbelieve comes first, then the rationale follows.

Sometimes it happens after a particularily hard emotional time in life, such as the death or suicide of a loved one. I know my own Mom became very angry with God when my brother committed suicide, after a long bout with mental illness, and later she refused to believe in God at all. (Although to this day I do not know if she really didn’t believe in God, or was just so mad at him.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sometimes it happens after a particularily hard emotional time in life, such as the death or suicide of a loved one. I know my own Mom became very angry with God when my brother committed suicide, after a long bout with mental illness, and later she refused to believe in God at all. (Although to this day I do not know if she really didn’t believe in God, or was just so mad at him.)

Yes, anger and despair often seem to provoke loss of faith. I’ve seen this in my own family.
Reconciliation may be a long time coming, as it often is not only with God but sometimes with our best friends when we believe they have let us down.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The deist type of God has no logical problems at all. A faceless, uncaring creator, who set the ball in motion and then does not care about his creation any more can be reconciled with the state of affairs as we observe them. And any kind of philosophical “proof” - be it prime mover, first cause etc… would only lead to a deistic creator - if there would be no problem with the “proofs” themselves.

The Deist type of God has tremendous problems so far as my logic is concerned.

I cannot abide a God who lovingly creates a universe and then abandons his creation.

And if God did not lovingly create this universe, why bother to create it?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes, anger and despair often seem to provoke loss of faith. I’ve seen this in my own family.
Reconciliation may be a long time coming, as it often is not only with God but sometimes with our best friends when we believe they have let us down.

Very true. Still I always find it strange that people blame God for all the bad things that happen. Personally, I put the blame straight on Satan and his followers.