Where are the atheists coming from?

[vluvski]

Hitetlen:

There is no truth unless it is proven. Until that it is just a hope, or wishful thinking.

Can you provide proof to demonstrate that this is more than just a belief? According to your definitions, it is neither knowledge nor truth until proven.

Ah, BlindSheep, you beat me to it!

 

[Chris_in_Mich]

BlindSheep:

Maybe it’s my imagination, but there seem to be a lot of atheists who have joined the CAF within the last week or so. Is there any connection? Is our link posted on some atheist forum with an invitation to “come argue with the [stupid, ignorant, cowardly, brainwashed] Catholics” or is it just a coincidence?
Also, why are you wasting your finite time talking to us?

Most atheists I’ve met have been former Catholics.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

No you don’t. He could be a computer program designed by psychologists to systematically undermine your self esteem and drive you to suicide. (In which case, he would not exist as a person)

Not really. He withstood the Turing test. If someone (or something) can conduct a long enough conversation in which he cannot be distingushed from a person - he is a person. It does not matter if he is made of living tissue or anything else, or if he is just a computer program. In simpler fashion: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck - it is a duck. Or again, as Forrest Gump would say: “Person is as person does”.

BlindSheep:

But you do not know that he does not know that atheists will go somewhere when they die! You believe he doesn’t.

I am willing to listen to a proof. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible.

BlindSheep:

Prove there is no truth unless it is proven - until you do, your statement is “just a hope, or wishful thinking”.

If it is true, it can be proven. That is the definition of a true statement.

 

[Hitetlen]

vluvski:

Can you provide proof to demonstrate that this is more than just a belief? According to your definitions, it is neither knowledge nor truth until proven.

Ah, BlindSheep, you beat me to it!

There are axioms, which are self-evident. A formal, deductive proof requires axioms, which are self-evident. Since the existence of God is not self-evident, it is not an axiom.

 

[IanS]

Hitetlen:

Actually, I was raised moderately religious. My parents were lukewarm religious, but that can be understood by the fact that my mother was Catholic and my father Presbyterian, and my mother was excommunicated from the church - because she had the audacity to marry a Protestant. My grandparents (on my mother’s side) were very strongly Catholic, and they had some influence on me.

It may be interesting that I was expected to pray for my brother every night, even if we had some (minor) fight, which is nothing special between brothers. However, I was very uncomfortable with this, even though I did not know the word: “hypocrisy”, but I sure understood what it means. It was impossible for me to fathom (I was very young, around 6-7 years) why should I pray for him, when he pissed me off.

Still, in my teenage years we went to church every week, also to Bible studies. That was another strange thing. I observed the habitual “witnessing” (I don’t know if it exists in Catholicism), but it is close to open confession, when we were supposed to declare our unworthiness, and generally “degrade” ourselves. That I hated, it smelled very hypocritical to me. I always knew who and what I am, (pride is a mortal sin, I know) and it felt ridiculous to say all sorts of bad things about myself, when I did not feel that way.

Anyhow… that was then, this is now. A hard-core atheist with a lot of curiosity about why are people the way they are.

Actually, what you gave here is a bit of a witness. It’s just explaining your spiritual journey (good or bad). You don’t need to beat yourself up to give one. In fact, saying your an atheist is the worst thing you can say about yourself. Your declaring that you are just a living piece of meat, like an animal. Even I think more of you that that, and I don’t even know you.

I’m sorry about what happened with your mother. Are you sure she was actually excommunicated from the Church? Not to doubt you, but that’s a pretty big deal and a formal process usually imposed by the Bishop for someone who seriously threatens the Church. It’s also pretty rare. I’m just asking, because I know a lot of non-catholics like to throw that term around.

The reason your parents asked you to pray for your brother is because they were just following the teaching of Jesus, “love your enemies”. It’s hard to stay mad a someone you honestly pray for.

I’ve known many people who call themselves atheist and each of them has their own belief about how the universe came into existence, Including one I used to have. I’m curious, what’s yours?

 

[Ahimsa]

Could God design a chess-playing program He couldn’t beat?

 

[Hitetlen]

IanS:

Actually, what you gave here is a bit of a witness. It’s just explaining your spiritual journey (good or bad). You don’t need to beat yourself up to give one.

In a sense, maybe But that is not how I felt about it. To explain it a little longer, I was born and raised in Hungary, where the communists created this custom of “public self-criticism” (in the fifties it was mandatory to arrive about an hour early to your workplace and participate!), and this witnessing was very much like it. Not just a simple storytelling like these fre sentences.

IanS:

In fact, saying your an atheist is the worst thing you can say about yourself.

Not in my eyes! Being an atheist means that I take control of and assume responsibility for my life and actions. There is no get-out-of-jail card I can rely upon. If I make a mistake it will be there forever. It is not a depressing feeling at all, rather quite liberating. (I do not wish to offend, but it is just like growing up and losing the father-figure.)

IanS:

Your declaring that you are just a living piece of meat, like an animal. Even I think more of you that that, and I don’t even know you.

That is not what I meant. We are all living piece of meats, nerves, etc. But our brain is complicated enough to create a mind, which is capable of reasoning, conceptualizing, not just reacting. Did you know that genetically speaking we share 99% of our genes with the chimpanzees? And if you would ever observe the bonobos (another tribe of primates) you would see that their society is beautiful, they do not let their frustration result in physical fights - in other words they really “make love, not war” (yes, they engage in indiscriminate sex whenever they feel frustrated). Highly civilized in my eyes. War and killing are the ultimate obscenities as far as I am concerned.

IanS:

I’m sorry about what happened with your mother. Are you sure she was actually excommunicated from the Church? Not to doubt you, but that’s a pretty big deal and a formal process usually imposed by the Bishop for someone who seriously threatens the Church. It’s also pretty rare. I’m just asking, because I know a lot of non-catholics like to throw that term around.

It was over 60 years ago and in Hungary. I have no documents about it. All our papers were lost in the war. If I know incorrectly, I am sorry. Besides, it is irrelevant now.

IanS:

The reason your parents asked you to pray for your brother is because they were just following the teaching of Jesus, “love your enemies”. It’s hard to stay mad a someone you honestly pray for.

I know that, but as an 8 years olf kid, I could NOT honestly pray for him. I went through the motions, but that was all, and I felt bad about it. Of course our little “fights” were never serious, and usually did not last longer than a few hours.

IanS:

I’ve known many people who call themselves atheist and each of them has their own belief about how the universe came into existence, Including one I used to have. I’m curious, what’s yours?

It is debatable that the words “came into existence” are applicable here.

There are questions which cannot be answered, because they are incorrect questions. “What was before the Big Bang?” is one of them. “What is to the north from the North Pole?” is another. “Is light a wave or a particle?” is yet another. “When have you stopped beating your wife?” is a famous incorrect question. Not all questions are legitimate, even if they are syntactically well-formed.

The word “Universe” means everything that exists. Causality cannot be applied to this concept. “Time” has no meaning outside it. As far as I am concerned, the Universe exists, it needs no “cause”, no “explanation”.

You probably believe that God created the Universe (an unknowable being using unimaginable means made it somehow happen), but when asked how did God come into existence, you probably answer: “God always existed, God requires no explanation”.

So, our two positions are almost exactly alike, except that you postulated an unknowable, and that is strictly forbidden by Occam’s razor. Positing God explains nothing, rather it states that the question at hand cannot ever be answered in a natural way. (And to add insult to injury, this actually would require omniscience! )

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

Not really. He withstood the Turing test. If someone (or something) can conduct a long enough conversation in which he cannot be distingushed from a person - he is a person. It does not matter if he is made of living tissue or anything else, or if he is just a computer program. In simpler fashion: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck - it is a duck. Or again, as Forrest Gump would say: “Person is as person does”.

I take it you believe this Turing test is accurate? Why?

I am willing to listen to a proof. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible.

What would you consider adequate proof to move something from “belief” to “knowledge”?
Furthermore, how can you be sure that it has not been proven to him? Perhaps he has encountered evidence which you have not.

If it is true, it can be proven. That is the definition of a true statement.

And what is the definition of “proven”? What about a statement that can be proven, but hasn’t yet been proven? Is it still true? What about if it can only be proven to some people? For instance, the statement “Hitetlen and I saw **X **on Tuesday” cannot be proven to anyone else, but you and I both experienced it. Is it true?

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

I take it you believe this Turing test is accurate? Why?

It is a perfect example of something that is self-evident. You don’t know what or who I am, but you certainly know that there is someone or something who/that types these posts. You may doubt whether I am a human, an alien or a computer program, but you cannot doubt that something exists here. There is overwhelming evidence against my being a space-alien or a computer program. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. If you were offered a bet, you should bet money that I am a human. It would not be a 100% surefire bet, but it would be 99.999999% bet. And that is sufficient.

BlindSheep:

What would you consider adequate proof to move something from “belief” to “knowledge”?

That varies from problem to problem, there is no general method. There is a good measuring concept: an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary proof.

BlindSheep:

Furthermore, how can you be sure that it has not been proven to him? Perhaps he has encountered evidence which you have not.

That is possible, but unlikely. If he has a proof, he is free to share it. Until he does, I keep my skepiticism. But I am open to ideas. Always been.

BlindSheep:

And what is the definition of “proven”? What about a statement that can be proven, but hasn’t yet been proven? Is it still true?

If something is not proven yet, it is called a hypothesis. It may be true, or it may be false. One may act on a hypothesis and risk that it is incorrect. There is a very important concept in science: falsifiability. Science only deals with ideas which can be falsified.

BlindSheep:

What about if it can only be proven to some people? For instance, the statement “Hitetlen and I saw **X **on Tuesday” cannot be proven to anyone else, but you and I both experienced it. Is it true?

I cannot imagine anything of this kind. How could something be proven to a few people only, but not others? It reminds me of Uri Geller and his “magic”. It requires an a-priori belief that he does magic. That is why he never performs when conjurers are in the audience.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

It is a perfect example of something that is self-evident. You don’t know what or who I am, but you certainly know that there is someone or something who/that types these posts. You may doubt whether I am a human, an alien or a computer program, but you cannot doubt that something exists here. There is overwhelming evidence against my being a space-alien or a computer program. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. If you were offered a bet, you should bet money that I am a human. It would not be a 100% surefire bet, but it would be 99.999999% bet. And that is sufficient.

So if there is enough evidence availiable, you would say you “know” something? Or is it still only a “belief”?

That varies from problem to problem, there is no general method. There is a good measuring concept: an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary proof.

So if there is one eucharistic miracle, extraordinary proof is required, but if there are a certain number of such miracles, ordinary proof will suffice?

That is possible, but unlikely. If he has a proof, he is free to share it. Until he does, I keep my skepiticism. But I am open to ideas. Always been.

What if he has evidence?

If something is not proven yet, it is called a hypothesis. It may be true, or it may be false. One may act on a hypothesis and risk that it is incorrect. There is a very important concept in science: falsifiability. Science only deals with ideas which can be falsified.

So a hypothesis may be true before it is proven?
Or does it become true when it is proven?

I cannot imagine anything of this kind. How could something be proven to a few people only, but not others? It reminds me of Uri Geller and his “magic”. It requires an a-priori belief that he does magic. That is why he never performs when conjurers are in the audience.

So you cannot imagine that an event could occur once, and be witnessed by one person or by a group of people, but not by everyone on the face of the earth?
If I claim I dreamt about ice-skating last night, is it untrue because I can’t prove it to anyone else?

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

So if there is enough evidence availiable, you would say you “know” something? Or is it still only a “belief”?

There are degrees of certainty. Sometimes a lesser degree of confidence is sufficient.

BlindSheep:

So if there is one eucharistic miracle, extraordinary proof is required, but if there are a certain number of such miracles, ordinary proof will suffice?

Many “miracles” would be extraordinary proof. The trouble with miracles is that they can never be verified by independent observers under controlled circumstances.

BlindSheep:

What if he has evidence?

Then he can share it or decide that I ought to accept his testimony on faith. If he decides to share it, and I can examine it, then I can decide if the evidence is valid or not.

BlindSheep:

So a hypothesis may be true before it is proven? Or does it become true when it is proven?

It may be, but it cannot be known. The problem of knowing is a thorny one, not simple at all. Suppose I let you see a live TV in my house, observing my dog’s behavior in the next room. You can even hear the noises the dog makes. It seems like a perfect way to gather knowledge until you realize that I was feeding a video tape, and did not do a live broadcast.

BlindSheep:

So you cannot imagine that an event could occur once, and be witnessed by one person or by a group of people, but not by everyone on the face of the earth?

Yes, that would be possible. Events that do not repeat themselves (do you think of the resurrection as an example?) cannot be examined directly, therefore an a-priori skepticism is in order. Then one can examine the claim and see if the claim is probable or not - no one has ever observed a resurrection, and the laws of nature (which are incomplete) do not allow for it to happen. In such a case one is perfectly justified to discard such a claim. Not that the laws of nature directly prohibit it, but as far as we know, they do. The so-called laws of nature are always up to criticism.

Suppose you claim that you won the lottery on a specific day in a remote country. It may be impossible to ascertain your claim, directly (maybe there is a civil war in that country now). In such a case everyone is free to decide to accept the claim or discard it.

BlindSheep:

If I claim I dreamt about ice-skating last night, is it untrue because I can’t prove it to anyone else?

No, but it is irrelevant, is it not?

 

[siamesecat]

I dont remember exactly how I discovered this site, but it was around the time I was supposed to make my Confirmation despite being atheist (coming to this site made me decide not to.) That being said, I find the Church’s teachings very interesting and well-founded, and I do admire those of you who follow very strictly the guildlines, for I really believe that you have a firm belief in God and are trying to live your life the “right” way. Those I dont like are those who say they believe in God and yet only follow the teachings convenient for them - I mean, if you believe in God, why w ould you disobey him? So, I admire a lot of the people here, though I have found some to be mean and uncharitable, not very Christian. To be honest, I think my biggest problem with a lot of peoples’ attitudes here is that I find a lot of them only seem to care about America’s problems, not world issues, and seem to practically worship Bush, not admitting he could have a single flaw. I’m not very anti-Bush, but thats the biggest thing that bothers me about this site. I have stayed here because I find the discussions extremely interesting and I find theology very interesting; its a good place to keep up on current events and see the Conservative side of things. Actually, I wish I was Catholic in the literal sense. My parents are “atheist Catholics” lol. It would be nice to have such well thought out and I think intelligent rules on how to live your life, such as how to deal with how many children to have (as many as God allows), decisions on sexual matters as well as behavior, and also to believe there is a reason for life and a Heaven. I just dont believe though. I dont see truth in Catholic teachings, although they make sense to me. Its just too farfetched. Religion to me seems something man-made and abused by todays people, used only to make themselves feel better. I am intelligent and try to be a good person, and so I hope that if I die an atheist and it turns out there is a God, he can forgive me. I guess I’m more of an agnostic then?

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

There are degrees of certainty. Sometimes a lesser degree of confidence is sufficient.

Than you don’t actually believe that 100% proof is necessary for something to be considered “truth” or “knowledge”, correct?

Many “miracles” would be extraordinary proof. The trouble with miracles is that they can never be verified by independent observers under controlled circumstances.

I’m not sure what criteria you have before you would believe in a miracle. Independant observers? There were plently at Fatima. Controlled circumstances - are you referring to a scenario where the miracles were being created in a lab by scientists, in which case they wouldn’t be miracles at all?

Then he can share it or decide that I ought to accept his testimony on faith. If he decides to share it, and I can examine it, then I can decide if the evidence is valid or not.

What if he can’t? What if he knows because of something he personally has seen - you have no way of knowing whether what he says is true, but he would know. My only point is that you have know way of knowing whether someone else knows something or not.

It may be, but it cannot be known. The problem of knowing is a thorny one, not simple at all. Suppose I let you see a live TV in my house, observing my dog’s behavior in the next room. You can even hear the noises the dog makes. It seems like a perfect way to gather knowledge until you realize that I was feeding a video tape, and did not do a live broadcast.

Of course anyone can be wrong about what they think they know. I don’t imagine you go through life assuming you know nothing, though. I imagine you take the “leap of faith” many times every day, when the evidence is what you consider sufficient.

Yes, that would be possible. Events that do not repeat themselves (do you think of the resurrection as an example?) cannot be examined directly, therefore an a-priori skepticism is in order. Then one can examine the claim and see if the claim is probable or not - no one has ever observed a resurrection, and the laws of nature (which are incomplete) do not allow for it to happen. In such a case one is perfectly justified to discard such a claim. Not that the laws of nature directly prohibit it, but as far as we know, they do. The so-called laws of nature are always up to criticism.

Begging the question! A lot of people have observed resurrections, according to them. The laws of nature are based on observation of what usually happens; if you rule out a certain category of events as false every time they are reported, you exclude them from the “laws of nature” by doing so. That an event is unusual does not mean it is impossible; if you write off everyone who observes it as a liar or a nutcase because they observed it, your reasoning is circular.

Suppose you claim that you won the lottery on a specific day in a remote country. It may be impossible to ascertain your claim, directly (maybe there is a civil war in that country now). In such a case everyone is free to decide to accept the claim or discard it.

Suppose the lottery was for the equivalent of $5(I have little to gain)
Suppose you’ve known me for decades, and have never known me to lie
Suppose 10 people confirm my story.
Now do you believe it?

No, but it is irrelevant, is it not?

Nope…my point is that I know (not believe) what I dreamed about last night, but I cannot prove it to anyone else. You wouldn’t have to believe me, of course, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

Than you don’t actually believe that 100% proof is necessary for something to be considered “truth” or “knowledge”, correct?

Yes, that is correct. There are some things which can be known with 100% accuracy, and there are others, where the certainty is less. In those cases one may draw the line at an arbitrary level, and accept those where the certainty is higher, and discard those where it is lower. In both cases one may be wrong. It is possible to accept something which turns out to be false, and discard something which turns out to be true. These are called “type one” and “type two” errors.

BlindSheep:

I’m not sure what criteria you have before you would believe in a miracle. Independant observers? There were plently at Fatima. Controlled circumstances - are you referring to a scenario where the miracles were being created in a lab by scientists, in which case they wouldn’t be miracles at all?

A miracle is by definition something that cannot happen in nature, something that requires something supernatural. Now, since we have no omniscience, if something very improbable happens, we must assume, that it is the manifestation of some, hitherto unknown natural effect. That is the result of applying Occam’s razor, the law of parsimony.

I can give you an example which would be highly probable that it came from supernatural causes (but it would be still not certain). Suppose that someone makes a prediction about the results of the next 100 lottery drawings, in a controlled format. The probablility of this is so miniscule, and as far as we know there is no time travel into the future, than in such a case I would be seriously tempted to accept this phenomenon as something “supernatural”.

Alleged miracles reported by many people are always suspicious. I don’t think that they are liars, but the probability that they are mistaken is overwhemingly higher than the probability of a bona-fide “miracle”. They might be the victims of a mass-hysteria (and I don’t use that word in a pejorative manner), or just were exposed to some hallucinogen drug.

BlindSheep:

What if he can’t? What if he knows because of something he personally has seen - you have no way of knowing whether what he says is true, but he would know. My only point is that you have know way of knowing whether someone else knows something or not.

That is true.

BlindSheep:

Of course anyone can be wrong about what they think they know. I don’t imagine you go through life assuming you know nothing, though. I imagine you take the “leap of faith” many times every day, when the evidence is what you consider sufficient.

That is also true.

BlindSheep:

Begging the question! A lot of people have observed resurrections, according to them. The laws of nature are based on observation of what usually happens; if you rule out a certain category of events as false every time they are reported, you exclude them from the “laws of nature” by doing so. That an event is unusual does not mean it is impossible; if you write off everyone who observes it as a liar or a nutcase because they observed it, your reasoning is circular.

No, I just play the percentages.

BlindSheep:

Suppose the lottery was for the equivalent of $5(I have little to gain)
Suppose you’ve known me for decades, and have never known me to lie
Suppose 10 people confirm my story.
Now do you believe it?

Yes, I would.

BlindSheep:

Nope…my point is that I know (not believe) what I dreamed about last night, but I cannot prove it to anyone else. You wouldn’t have to believe me, of course, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know.

That is also true.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen, if what you say is true, I suggest you do some in depth research into alleged miracles instead of simply dismissing them. Your suggested natural explainations are, in many cases, extremely unlikely. You may find that applying Occam’s razor will actually lead to the conclusion that there is such a thing as “supernatural” phenomena (though of course, these would be natural. They would be phenomena not subject to what we now consider the “laws of nature”). If you can conclude that the existance of the supernatural is likely, an examination and comparison of these phenomena throughout history and around the world may give you some insight into the “nature” of the supernatural (as I said, actually another nature). I recommend you investigate prophecy, incorruptibility, the latest research on the shroud of Turin (including DNA analysis of the bloodstains), eucharistic miracles, Fatima and Lourdes. There are many other examples; just look into it with some depth. Don’t settle for secondhand sources or old research; be thorough, and you may find something surprising. I am not saying you will find proof; there is always room for doubt, we can even doubt our own senses and minds. I am suggesting you will find evidence.

 

[Hitetlen]

You may find that applying Occam’s razor will actually lead to the conclusion that there is such a thing as “supernatural” phenomena (though of course, these would be natural. They would be phenomena not subject to what we now consider the “laws of nature”).

How can something be both “natural” and supernatural"?

BlindSheep:

I recommend you investigate prophecy, incorruptibility, the latest research on the shroud of Turin (including DNA analysis of the bloodstains), eucharistic miracles, Fatima and Lourdes.

All the prophecies are so vague that almost anything can be construed as “fulfillment”. Is there a prophecy which says: “on this day this person (living at such address) will be exposed to such act by this person”? Vague utterances like “Israel will be reestablished” cannot be taken seriously. If the text would have said: “on this day, the following persons acted thus, and therefore Israel came into existence”, that would be something to consider. As the old saying goes: “God is in the detail”.

You know, there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can perform something “supernatural” in a controlled experiment. There are almost no takers, and certainly no winners yet. But the offer is open.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

How can something be both “natural” and supernatural"?

All the prophecies are so vague that almost anything can be construed as “fulfillment”. Is there a prophecy which says: “on this day this person (living at such address) will be exposed to such act by this person”? Vague utterances like “Israel will be reestablished” cannot be taken seriously. If the text would have said: “on this day, the following persons acted thus, and therefore Israel came into existence”, that would be something to consider. As the old saying goes: “God is in the detail”.

You know, there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can perform something “supernatural” in a controlled experiment. There are almost no takers, and certainly no winners yet. But the offer is open.

You clearly have not looked into it with any depth. There are prophecies far more detailed than these. If you are interested in truth, perhaps you will look into it beyond consulting atheist websites.
Perform something supernatural? Did it ever occur to you that supernatural phenomena (like many natural phenomena) may be beyond human control? Do you believe in the sun, though it cannot be recreated in a lab? Observation and investigation of these phenomena when they occur would be enough for anyone who didn’t have a vested interest in dismissing them.
Again, I suggest you go and find some miracles. I don’t need to find them for you; I am already satisfied. You, however, are clearly seeking something, since you are spending so much time talking to us. Go find it, and God bless!

 

[AndyF]

BlindSheep:

Maybe it’s my imagination, but there seem to be a lot of atheists who have joined the CAF within the last week or so. Is there any connection? Is our link posted on some atheist forum with an invitation to “come argue with the [stupid, ignorant, cowardly, brainwashed] Catholics” or is it just a coincidence?
Also, why are you wasting your finite time talking to us?

True atheists wouldn’t bother wasting their time here. They consider their time really temporal. What we see here are the fence sitters who God has chosen for exposure to His Church. Some come kicking and screaming(uncomfortable and hostile), some with bravado and boisturousness(pride), and some with an awareness a change is required, but the real reason is to find that something that will convince them to choose.

There is no guarantee we will get immediate converts, has that depends on how much grace they possess, and how much of their own efforts and sincerity each has. What we need to do is make them feel welcome and not to close the door. (within the terms of the forum of course).

Sententia is right, every one is a potential candidate to be welcomed back into the flock.

Andy

 

[Neithan]

Hitetlen:

the attributes of God: omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent cannot be reconciled with the existense of evil in the world.

Firstly, as an atheist: what is your definition of ‘evil’? Likewise ‘good’?

Obviously you reject the ‘Free Will’ Theodicy.
Why?

 

[Hitetlen]

AndyF:

True atheists wouldn’t bother wasting their time here. They consider their time really temporal.

And how do you define a “true atheist”?

My reason to be here is the desire to understand the thinking of the posters around here (and I don’t think that one can generalize and project the posters as a representative sample of all the Catholics). This process sometimes involves “provocative” questions, but I do not ask them with the desire to “win” an argument, rather simply learning how do people reason and think.