Where are the atheists coming from?

[wcknight]

The question I’d like to ask, is what makes an atheist change their mind, and decide to believe ???

 

[OriginalJS]

Wrong. The Church has the Fullness of the Truth; not “we.” You will recall the JPII apologized for actions of sons and daughters of the Church. If “we” had the fullness of the truth, there would be nothing to apologize for.

 

[dlea67]

wcknight:

The question I’d like to ask, is what makes an atheist change their mind, and decide to believe ???

I was not an atheist, more an agnostic that tended to lean towards atheism.

I will be baptized at Easter. Here is how I got there:

I have been very fortunate (blessed) throughout my life. I have seen “good” and “evil” at work, and marveled at the “randomness” of it all. I have been through near misses, spectacular successes, tragic defeats, and freak chance. I have seen nature and been amazed at the synchronicity that exists between, literally, all things.

Throughout it all, I have been mystified at my depth of love for my children and family, my ability to think, to reason, and to rationalize most of what is, in effect, an infinitely complicated mechanism of molecules, constantly changing and interacting in a way that leads some of us to actually consider how that mechanism really works.

Throughout it all, I have also been very aware of an emptiness somewhere in the pit of my consciousness. It seems that more often than not, this emptiness “dulled” the joy, the colors, the smells, the tastes. Not even perceptibly at times, I was not depressed, to the contrary, I have been a happy person. I was simply aware of something missing at a core level. … A reason perhaps.

Through a series of “random” events, I ended up in a Catholic Church at first for my family. As I have gone through the process, I have doubted, considered and rationalized all of the things that I have learned. At a very specific point, pretty much out of nowhere, the term “faith” stopped being an 800 pound gorilla and actually took on the same significance as any other fact. I have found that since this occurred, colors are brighter, anger is much less likely to come, love seems deeper and purpose is greater. I truly feel that I have found an indication of what “peace” is.

The world is filled with things that have evolved, no question. I cannot comprehend nothingness; therefore the baseball size super concentrated object from which the “big bang” and time itself supposedly sprung from, logically, must have a source. I’ve read the proofs of existence and the retorts as well as the posts of those on this board and others; but The terms “always” and “infinite” in and of themselves, to me, indicate the absolute certainty of god. The form and function of a god I cannot, by definition, understand is not my “problem”. I simply know that thru embracing Jesus, the teachings of the Church and the CERTAINTY that there is a god, the emptiness is gone. Call it “opiate for the masses” or whatever you choose. I am sure that others have come to this realization through other religions and churches or specific lack thereof. Their fate is not mine to decide, or even pass judgement on. I know that nobody else controlled the part of me that led me where I am, so I discuss my own story if someone wants to hear it - and many of the people I have known for years actually do. I think there is a desire for love in everyone. I think when that need transcends the love one can have for material things and relationships, it leads them to god; which seems to “improve” the love one already had. Just my opinion, but a truth for me.

If I’m wrong, the life I am living now is much more full than the one I had two months ago. I find this also the case with those around me. The way I figure I figure it, the world is better for it, and so am I.

 

[AndyF]

Hitetlen:

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.

I thought I made that clear, one who truly does not believe the existance of God. A person who lives that doctrine would find any purpose here as inevitably counter productive. Learning for what reason? Your going to die with it and never know you gained by it. If you say it serves this life, what is it about the information outside of what you can gain for yourself that will extend the finite life of anyone else?

But for one who’s life has no infinite purpose, why do you waste your time here, this we don’t understand? For your stated purpose, you would find it much more rewarding by entering scientific or philosophical discussions rather than a religious forum. This is your first lesson in reasoning and logic, and that is the finite time you spend here can be better spent elsewhere.

Your not going to get all your answers anyway, and neither does our religion provide it, because there is so much more about being Christian that carries over to the mystical, deals with beings that are not material, and makes use of real intellectual evidence. Causality, moral obligation and justice are but three of many reasons that tells us there is a God. So right there you have a limitation to your discussion when you approach it religiously.

Andy

 

[ThisOne]

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?

They are searching for God! What other reason would they have? They may not be conscious of their search yet, but it’s implanted in all human beings, and they are doing the best they can to answer God’s call. Have mercy on them!

 

[ThisOne]

Hitetlen:

Of course you know that the Purgatory is not mentioned in the Bible…

Oh, you are twisting out of it. People like that do exist and they still can be atheists. What then? Also Jesus did say that there is no path to the Father except through him. No exceptions mentioned.

But if God in his mercy saves them, it is through Christ!!!

See Par. 846-848 here:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm

 

[Neithan]

Hitetlen:

It has a meaning, but its meaning differs, depending on what are you talking about. The perfect weather for a cactus differs from the perfect weather for an impatient.

Define ‘perfect.’ Simply. What idea does this word signify for you?

Indeed I am a relativist, and I am sure you are, too. Consider two people in a remote area, where one is bitten by a poisonous snake. If the other has an antidote, but still insists on amputation as a “cure”, his act would be valued differently, than if he had no other method to save the life of his partner. The action must be considered not alone, but in its context.

Agreeing with this doesn’t make one a relativist. How about ‘it is always best to offer the the best known cure to a person’s best ability.’ That is an absolute statement, would you agree with it? I’m sure if you’re really clever you can deconstruct it, but you will eventually end up with an absolute.
To be a relativist is to say *“there are no absolutes.” *
Do you agree with that statement? If you disagree, then obviously you aren’t a relativist.
If you agree: what about the above statement itself? What about mathematics? Scientific laws?

I am sure you did not think this through. Based upon your definitoin you just denied the free will of all the very good people, the “saints” and of course the free will of God. (Not that I would disagree with the last one, but for a totally different reason.)

Huh how so?
First of all, we cannot compare our free will with God’s. God does *not *have ‘free will’ as it is specially defined when applied to His creatures (see reply below). God Has Will, it doesn’t need to be ‘free’ because He does not contradict Himself. God is free to act however He wills, but He is not free to do evil (the sense in which ‘free will’ is defined theologically) because this is impossible, He can’t will against His own Will. God is logical! He (the Son) is Logic itself.
(please read newadvent.org/summa/101910.htm for better clarification. Note the insistence on God’s freedom to act, but not against His own Will–i.e. not in the sense of a ‘free will’ to sin, to do evil)

Secondly, all of the saints, even the Immaculate Virgin Mary, even Christ Himself, were tempted by evil. They fully exercised their free will *against *evil (where it was totally possible to freely commit it) and *toward *good (i.e. God).

Free will means nothing else but two options to act, and the freedom to choose one or the other, without coersion.

Almost, but actually, ‘free will’ as defined by the theodicy in question, and Christian theology generally, is primarily the freedom to act against God’s will. ‘Evil’ is whatever is contrary to the absolute Will of God. God’s judgement is that all the evil in the world is negated by the good coming out of even one of His creatures freely following His will. Therefore, the greatest good is always maintained, and no evil is unnecessary in this context.

Since I am an atheist, I think that there is no “generic” cause. If I were a believer, I would say that God is the cause for all the good AND all the evil. As I said before, the sign on his desk desk says: “The buck stops here!”

Now you’re “twisting out of it” Please define ‘evil’ and all unclear terms used thereby (incl. ‘perfection’).

 

[Hitetlen]

Neithan:

Define ‘perfect.’ Simply. What idea does this word signify for you?

There is no “absolute perfection”. “Perfection” is relative to the frame of reference and the aim of the actions.

Neithan:

To be a relativist is to say "there are no absolutes."
Do you agree with that statement? If you disagree, then obviously you aren’t a relativist.
If you agree: what about the above statement itself? What about mathematics? Scientific laws?

Sure there are “absolutes”, lots of them. The zero Kelvin (-273.16 Celsius) is the absolute zero, nothing can be colder than that. But the existence of some “absolutes” does not mean that there is an “absolute” for everything. There is no absolute “warm”, there is no upper limit to “warmness”.

Neithan:

First of all, we cannot compare our free will with God’s. God does *not *have ‘free will’ as it is specially defined when applied to His creatures (see reply below). God Has Will, it doesn’t need to be ‘free’ because He does not contradict Himself. God is free to act however He wills, but He is not free to do evil (the sense in which ‘free will’ is defined theologically) because this is impossible, He can’t will against His own Will. God is logical! He (the Son) is Logic itself.

You apply double standard here - in other words you deviate from your concept of “absolutes”.

Neithan:

Almost, but actually, ‘free will’ as defined by the theodicy in question, and Christian theology generally, is primarily the freedom to act against God’s will. ‘Evil’ is whatever is contrary to the absolute Will of God.

The double standard again. According to the Bible, it is sinful to murder (Ten Commandments) but God himself ordered the fullscale genocide of some tribes he did not like. Was that an “evil” act? Not according to you, since it was God’s will, even if it countermanded his other explicit command: “Thou shall not murder”.

God gave two contradictory commands. Simple as that. So sometimes it is wrong to murder, other times it is not. Not really “absolute”, is it?

Neithan:

God’s judgement is that all the evil in the world is negated by the good coming out of even one of His creatures freely following His will. Therefore, the greatest good is always maintained, and no evil is unnecessary in this context.

That is simply nonsense. If a father beats the living daylight out of his son, and later regrets it, and gives his kid a lollipop, that does not invalidate the wrongful act of beating his kid in the first place. You cannot modify the past.

 

[OhioBob]

Hitetlen:

That is a good question. The word “evil” is used in its most generic meaning: "anything that causes harm, anything that deviates from perfection (as I understand this term!). So “evil” is an Earthquake that causes millions to die, or a sociopath who goes on a shooting rampage.

If you truly believe that humanity is no more unique than computers that can carry on conversations or bonobos frolicking about, why do you call something evil just because it causes millions to die? Maybe the earthquake is renewal? Millions of living things die all the time. What makes humans so special to you that you consider their killing to be evil?

Could it be that they have something within them that sets them apart from other creatures?

 

[OhioBob]

Hitetlen:

…Another problem (in my eyes): one cannot “undo” the prior evil acts by repentence. If a father beats his child to a bloody pulp for no reason at all (not that such an act could be justified), and later gives the kid a lollipop, that does not “undo” the previous acts. Even if he mends his ways later on, and becomes a perfect father, the past cannot be changed.

You are actually making an argument much like the Catholic perception of Purgatory - that sin has consequences and that God’s justice demands that those consequences be satisfied, even if repentence yas been made and forgiveness given. Purgatory is the manner that those consequences or sin are purged after death and our souls are prepared for heaven.

There are lots of good resources to learn about Purgatory on the Catholic Answers site, if only you liked to read…

 

[Neithan]

Hitetlen:

There is no “absolute perfection”. “Perfection” is relative to the frame of reference and the aim of the actions.

When you simply hear the word ‘perfect,’ doesn’t that call up an idea in your mind on its own without a necessary subsequent object?

There is no absolute “warm”, there is no upper limit to “warmness”.

True, ‘warm’ signifies a relation between ‘hot’ and ‘cold,’ which are both absolutes (but have relative degrees). The existence of relative terms is obvious, but if one accepts the existence of absolutes than relativist can not be used to describe them.
So, since you accept the existence of absolutes, why not the existence of absolute perfection?

You apply double standard here - in other words you deviate from your concept of “absolutes”.

How so?
I am not saying that God Has a ‘different kind of free will,’ but that the term does not apply to Him at all. Free will is realized absolutely in human beings: perfectly in ‘Adam,’ the first man who sinned by contradicting God (and in Jesus Christ, the first man who did not sin).

*The double standard again. According to the Bible, it is sinful to murder (Ten Commandments) but God himself ordered the fullscale genocide of some tribes he did not like. Was that an “evil” act? Not according to you, since it was God’s will, even if it countermanded his other explicit command: “Thou shall not murder”. *

God gave two contradictory commands. Simple as that. So sometimes it is wrong to murder, other times it is not. Not really “absolute”, is it?

A couple of points here: murder is a sin, and is against the will of God. God can not contradict Himself, and therefore He can not sin *a forteriori *God never commands murder.

We must distinguish between the words *murder *and kill. Killing is not necessarily a sin, as can obviously be seen by its rather frequent occurrence among animals. If a human being kills another human being, this is only a sin if it is unjust. Unjust killing is a sin, and this means if it is not warranted, if it is an innocent i.e. someone who does not deserve to die according to the laws (human or divine) governing them. Murder is defined as unjust killing.

According to Christianity, God is ultimate Justice, therefore, if He commands a human to kill another human, then the victim is guilty of a sin worthy of death as punishment (note: all sin, as a crime against God is worthy of death as punishment, but only God reserves the absolute right to deliver the verdict). It is just, and therefore not murder. God would never command humans to kill innocent humans.
Now, if God personally, miraculously causes the death of innocent humans, this is not a sin, because murder has as its perpetrator only a human being–not an animal or God (if an animal kills a human, it hasn’t sinned, likewise God). God caused the death of many innocent babies in the plague on the Egyptians, but this was not murder because He used no human agents to accomplish this.

As for genocide, there is another thread on that issue (and the Church’s condemnation of it) with respect to the Book of Joshua (which I assume you are referring to) here.

Anyway, the commandment against murder is absolute.

That is simply nonsense. If a father beats the living daylight out of his son, and later regrets it, and gives his kid a lollipop, that does not invalidate the wrongful act of beating his kid in the first place. You cannot modify the past.

I don’t see how this analogy corresponds…? God isn’t the direct cause of any evil, since evil is defined (in Christian thought) by its contradiction to Him.

I’m curious how and why you accept the existence of ‘evil’ at all, even as a relative, if you don’t accept the existence of the absolute (perfection) on which you base it!?

 

[BryPGuy89]

Hitetlen:

So here comes a problem:

Suppose, there are two people, one of them has been a horrible person all his life, wantonly killing, torturing children, adults, indiscriminately. At the end of his life, he truly repents and asks for forgiveness.

The other one has been a loving, caring person all his life, dedicating his time to help the needy, trying to make their life better, never asking anything for himself, but… he is an atheist.

What will happen to them when they die?

*From my understanding the first would face judgemant and weighed for his sins and if he truly repented and accepted the Lord into his life he will be cleansed by the Grace of the Lord, the other would find hell his only destination, because he has not accepted the lord into his life and not been able to receive the Grace into his life.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Hitetlen:

Of course you know that the Purgatory is not mentioned in the Bible…

In the Catholic Bible there is mentions I do beleive, in Macabees.

Oh, you are twisting out of it. People like that do exist and they still can be atheists. What then? Also Jesus did say that there is no path to the Father except through him. No exceptions mentioned.