Who's freer athiest or Catholic?

[jochoa]

We are ALL Equal in Freedom.

We all have equal freedom that comes from personal desires, motivations, and will.

NOW…
when one chooses the desires of peace, happiness, and/or longevity, s/he is drawn closer to God because that is what God wants you to experience. Although one will most likely be bound to stress, strife, and fatigue because s/he will not fully use patience and kindness as the means.

When one chooses to be motivated righteously for either the self, others, authority,or material, s/he is drawn closer to God because he is inexhaustible and fully considerate of the self, others, authority, and material. Although one will most likely be bound to stress, strife, and fatigue because s/he will not always be motivated by God.

When one chooses to will patient and kind acts, s/he is doing some of God’s Will. Although one will most likely be bound to stress, strife, and fatigue from failure to Always be patient and kind.

When one chooses to Always be Patient, Kind, and Motivated by God, who is inexhaustible and fully considerate of the self, others, authority, and material, as Jesus Did, according to the Bible, s/he will Definitely be Free from stress, strife, and fatigue, & Instantaneously and Eternally peaceful and happy!

Excellent Thought-Provoking Question!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty

That is your opinion. Demonstrate to me why I should believe that I am “allied with the power of darkness” and that I am attempting to “destroy the greatest thing [earth] ever produced”, and then maybe I’ll take you seriously. As it stands, you sound fanatical. I can’t see how trying to help the world in a secular manner is reeking of hubris.

I’m afraid I did not make my point clear to you at all.

Aside from the fact that you deny the existence of a power of darkness, which is a fairly fanatical position in its own right (Hitler, Marquis de Sade, Stalin, Mao, etc.) I really meant to convey to you that on the whole it’s a curious position to be in, isn’t it? So very concerned about the future of the planet and apparently not at all concerned about the fate of your immortal soul.

 

[Planty_Business]

Planty

That is your opinion. Demonstrate to me why I should believe that I am “allied with the power of darkness” and that I am attempting to “destroy the greatest thing [earth] ever produced”, and then maybe I’ll take you seriously. As it stands, you sound fanatical. I can’t see how trying to help the world in a secular manner is reeking of hubris.

I’m afraid I did not make my point clear to you at all.

Aside from the fact that you deny the existence of a power of darkness, which is a fairly fanatical position in its own right (Hitler, Marquis de Sade, Stalin, Mao, etc.)

What you call the “power of darkness” I call the sickest aspects of human nature. If there is a power of darkness, the Catholic Church is aiding it in some ways.

I really meant to convey to you that on the whole it’s a curious position to be in, isn’t it? So very concerned about the future of the planet and apparently not at all concerned about the fate of your immortal soul.

If by “curious”, you mean “curiously selfless and altruistic”, sure. I am not concerned about the fate of my immortal soul because I don’t think I have an immortal soul. I only concern myself with things that I know exist, that I know are worth defending. I know that future generations of humans will exist barring some nuclear war or decision not to procreate at all. The soul, by contrast, is something that I have no way of detecting, let alone detecting its worth.

 

[babylonsfalling]

He obviously isn’t a good representative of atheism. <—It’s not his fault…I’ve yet to meet a good representative of atheism. I don’t go around pointing at buffoonish Christians like Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron, claiming that they prove atheism more than atheists do, <–I wouldn’t either if I were you, people know which side of this argument the buffoonish types are on. and I doubt most other atheists would do so.

If you honestly think that atheism is all about trying to “disbelieve God out of existence”, you don’t understand atheism any more than an atheist who thinks that all Christians are like Ray Comfort understands Christianity.<—Young kids do a better job of trying to not believe in Santa Claus than atheists to trying to not believe in God. When atheists catch up with older kids who REALLY DON’T believe in Santa Claus, then we can start taking them a bit more seriously.

I don’t know that there’s anything such thing as a good representative of atheism. It’s certainly someone who self identify’s as an agnostic atheist

Let me know when you catch up with kids not believing in Santa Claus.

 

[exnihilo]

This reminds me of the NonStampCollector YouTube video Titled: Free Will - “God Style” PART 2.

(for various reasons I didn’t want to post a direct link. a partial dialog is below. ).

It’s starts off with a citizen that didn’t pay his taxes getting a visit from some one from the tax collector informing him he has done wrong in not paying taxes and the punishment for not paying is time in prison. But the tax office has just implemented a new “free will” policy. So he has free will whether or not to pay. If he doesn’t pay he will still go to prison. The citizen had a hard time understanding how that was still considered free will…

That is a funny joke actually. It applies to the TSA and most other government endeavors. The government claims you are free to travel but if you want to fly commercially you have to submit to naked scans or molestation.

There are some things to consider with this. First we should consider the opposite. That is that there are rewards for doing the right thing, however a culture views that. Doing the right thing can lead you to be honored by society. It can help your career. It can also give you a sense of satisfaction.

What this tells us is that there are rewards for doing the right thing and punishment for doing the wrong thing. The absurdity is in the notion that this should not be so. What kind of world would it be where doing good was not rewarded and doing wrong punished? What kind of world would it be were doing wrong was just as likely to be rewarded as doing good? That would be a world without justice.

So yes we have freedom but in a world of justice our freely made choices have consequences. I’ve yet to meet any person who wants to do away with consequences for actions so if it is a good enough principle for man I’m not sure why God cannot hold to that same principle.

The mistake is to only consider one thing, freedom, and to ignore other principles. In this case justice.

 

[valentino]

the athiest is freer but who wants that kind of freedom?The freedom to do as you please only lasts a lifetime.

 

[Planty_Business]

I don’t know that there’s anything such thing as a good representative of atheism. It’s certainly someone who self identify’s as an agnostic atheist

“Agnostic atheism” means that I do not believe in gods, but that I do not think that the existence of gods can be disproven or proven in any rational manner given the evidence we currently have. I am as agnostic towards God as I am towards aliens. Please look up the definition of my religious views before insulting me out of ignorance.

Let me know when you catch up with kids not believing in Santa Claus.

Yep, I’m pretty sure this is a Poe. Your arguments are so bad that they are on par with shockofgod.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty

**The soul, by contrast, is something that I have no way of detecting, let alone detecting its worth. **

Is it that you can’t detect your soul or that you’d rather not detect it because then you’d have to be responsible for saving it?

What evidence do you have that the soul does not survive the death of the body? You must have some substantive evidence to be so sure of yourself that it is so. In the absence of proof certain, doesn’t the atheist risk throwing away his immortal future on a doubt rather than on certainty? As per Pascal, is that a wise gamble or a foolish one?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

A good Catholic is freer, because a bad/heterodox Catholic is bound by the Church while disagreeing (tough situation). A good Catholic is freer because the Holy Spirit sets us free. And atheists don’t have the Spirit of God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

valentino

**the athiest is freer but who wants that kind of freedom?The freedom to do as you please only lasts a lifetime. **

The atheist is chained to his ego and cannot stand the thought of an Ego bigger than his own.

Nietzsche could not abide Christ, and so made himself a Superman.

“They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.” (2 Peter 2:19).

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Is a catholic as free to become an atheist as an atheist is to become a catholic? If the answer is yes, then are they not equally free?

 

[valentino]

Is a catholic as free to become an atheist as an atheist is to become a catholic? If the answer is yes, then are they not equally free?

This is difficult for me to answer but i will have to say yes.A Catholic is free to become an athiest just as an athiest is free to become a Catholic.Now off the record:We could equate Judas with a Catholic who becomes an athiest.Its hard to understand in our minds i believe.An athiest is only an athiest until he can really be touched.St.Paul may be considered an athiest for this discussion(although in the strict sense he was not.he was just a Jew who didn’t bellieve in Christ)But God touched Him.God works through men.So its possible for an athiest to be touched by some Christian.He doesn’t have to be knocked to the ground.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Will check them out. I started to view all the videos by him. Here is a purely textual article, but also very true: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

I checked it out. Made for an interesting read and all very familiar.

 

[Planty_Business]

Planty

**The soul, by contrast, is something that I have no way of detecting, let alone detecting its worth. **

Is it that you can’t detect your soul or that you’d rather not detect it because then you’d have to be responsible for saving it?

The former. What do you take me for, someone who believes things based on wish-fulfillment? I believe the truth for the truth’s sake.

What evidence do you have that the soul does not survive the death of the body?

I have no evidence to suggest that I even have any soul. If by “soul” you mean consciousness, then my reasoning for not believing in an immortal consciousness is the the same reason I don’t think an ant has an immortal consciousness. My brain may be much larger and more powerful than that of an ant, but it is still a mortal brain. When my brain dies, my consciousness dies. The only thing that seems to separate my human nature from the nature of a lesser animal is the size and type of gray matter inside my skull.

Even the deacon at the parish I attended as a Catholic, when he taught religion class in middle school for my class, acknowledged the sensibility of the idea that humans do not have immortal consciousnesses. He said, “Look at the leaves on the trees. They fall, wither, and die, and you know they don’t have souls. Who’s to say this couldn’t be the case for humans?” (paraphrased, of course, as my memory is not godlike, pardon the irony).

You must have some substantive evidence to be so sure of yourself that it is so. In the absence of proof certain, doesn’t the atheist risk throwing away his immortal future on a doubt rather than on certainty?

Isn’t that like saying that people who do not build bomb shelters for their families in case of a nuclear war are being “risky”, gambling their lives on the certainty that they will not need bomb shelters to survive? I only concern myself with threats that are actually verifiable, or at least very likely. As per the null hypothesis, I have no soul until it can be sufficiently proven that I do. It hasn’t, so I don’t worry about it. Contrast that with environmental disaster, which is actually very likely if we humans don’t get our acts together and start being more conscientious for the sake of our species - and the lesser species. I concern myself with that threat because there is evidence for it.

As per Pascal, is that a wise gamble or a foolish one?

Charlemagne, let me tell you a story. Long ago, a serial killing was committed on the very same ground on which your house is built. To this day, the victims of that killing are angry that their memories were defiled by the building of a house on their graves. Now they have conspired to haunt your house tonight and scare the daylights out of you and any other residents that may be in your house. However, there is a way to stop them. Simply wear a powdered wig, and the spirits will not harm you. Given this information, would not it be wise for you to wear the powdered wig, just to be on the safe side? If you don’t, you’ll be sorry!

This should sound familiar. It should explain what I think of Pascal’s wager, moreover.

 

[pataburd]

Why are two opposite-sex parents necessary for children to have a healthy upbringing? I’d love evidence that is more than “anecdotal”. Besides, it’s better for children to have same-sex parents than no parents at all. Parents are not supposed to be gender-specific role models; they are supposed to be role models, period. As a young man, I have learned as much (if not more) from my mother as I have from my father, though that isn’t saying much since I resent their conservative Christian ideals.

Dear P_B,
There are scientific studies out there that provide evidence in favor of heterosexual child-rearing (just as there is a mounting body of scientific evidence for the decidedly negative health impact of abortion). Don’t expect CNN, MSNBC or the sinister likes of popular media to mention them (or give them credibility if they were to mention them), though.

Some food for thought: many scientific studies are stratified by sex precisely because males and females “measure differently” in many noteworthy respects. In areas as critical as child-begetting and child-rearing, do you seriously think that these differences should be treated as negligible?

Next, where is the scientific basis for your own statement: “Besides, it’s better for children to have same-sex parents than no parents at all”? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. : )

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse offers well-reasoned and scientifically grounded arguments in favor of Traditional marriage (and what follows in the wake). I have found her podcasts from a San Diego radio station, and her website, www.ruthinstitute.org, both informative and useful. You might want to give her arguments a listen, in the interests of balanced reporting.

Cordially,
PAB

 

[Planty_Business]

Dear P_B,
There are scientific studies out there that provide evidence in favor of heterosexual child-rearing (just as there is a mounting body of scientific evidence for the decidedly negative health impact of abortion). Don’t expect CNN, MSNBC or the sinister likes of popular media to mention them (or give them credibility if they were to mention them), though.

Some food for thought: many scientific studies are stratified by sex precisely because males and females “measure differently” in many noteworthy respects. In areas as critical as child-begetting and child-rearing, do you seriously think that these differences should be treated as negligible?

Next, where is the scientific basis for your own statement: “Besides, it’s better for children to have same-sex parents than no parents at all”? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. : )

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse offers well-reasoned and scientifically grounded arguments in favor of Traditional marriage (and what follows in the wake). I have found her podcasts from a San Diego radio station, and her website, www.ruthinstitute.org, both informative and useful. You might want to give her arguments a listen, in the interests of balanced reporting.

Cordially,
PAB

Fair enough, I will examine the arguments presented by anti-same-sex marriage organizations. I will also read the transcript of the Proposition 8 trial as well, which I recommend you do. From what I’ve heard, the arguments in favor of Prop. 8 were easily refuted, but I’ll have to see for myself.

Here it is:

scribd.com/documents/35374462

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty

What do you take me for, someone who believes things based on wish-fulfillment? I believe the truth for the truth’s sake.

How do you know it is true that you have no soul? Because you cannot see it? There is a distinct difference between an ant and a human being. The mind that can legitimately imagine the vastness of the universe (though it cannot see it all) is certainly a mind that can imagine the vastness of God even though He is not immediately visible.

We all believe in the possibility of important things based on wish fulfillment. How do you suppose we landed on the moon? We wished for the reality. Wishing for the reality of God is what gets us pointed toward God and focused on God, so that we can experience Him to the degree that we make the effort to experience Him. Denying He exists because you can’t see Him up close and personal is a childish way to think about God, wouldn’t you say? It denies hope, and is prelude to the fact that so many more atheists commit suicide than Catholics. Truth should be on the side of life, not against it. And eternal truth should be on the side of eternal life.

When we deserve to see God up close and personal, we will experience Him. Until then,
we needn’t think of Him as something to be proven in a lab experiment in order to pay Him the attention He is due.

You are in His court. He is not in yours.

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn. 20:29).

Quite frankly, I believe the atheist wishes that there were no God. There are too many atheists fighting for atheism without an ounce of proof that there is no God to believe otherwise.

 

[Planty_Business]

How do you know it is true that you have no soul? Because you cannot see it? There is a distinct difference between an ant and a human being. The mind that can legitimately imagine the vastness of the universe (though it cannot see it all) is certainly a mind that can imagine the vastness of God even though He is not immediately visible.

I do not claim to know that I have no soul because the proposition that human beings have souls is unfalsifiable. That is the key problem I see with supernatural beliefs in general. The claim that the universe is immense in size on a scale compared to the size of earth is falsifiable, but it has not been falsified so far. It has been confirmed. Astronomers have scientific evidence that the universe is millions of lightyears across in size. Considering that those astronomers’ findings have survived rigorous scientific inquiry, I take them to be true.

Contrast that with God. God is, by definition, a supernatural being. If he does exist, he exists in a realm beyond any scientific study. Thus, the claim that God exists is not a scientifically testable or falsifiable one, though it may be philosophically or logically falsifiable (I do not think that the Christian God exists for the latter reasons; it seems to me that the Christian God is an inherently contradictory concept, thus it is not a valid one).

We all believe in the possibility of important things based on wish fulfillment. How do you suppose we landed on the moon? We wished for the reality. Wishing for the reality of God is what gets us pointed toward God and focused on God, so that we can experience Him to the degree that we make the effort to experience Him.

That was not exactly the point I was addressing. When I say that I do not believe in things based on wish-fulfillment, I mean that I do not consider the fact that I want something to be true a decent reason to think that it is true. That is different from your example of desiring the ability to land on the moon, and, in accordance with that desire, working towards a practical method by which we can land on the moon.

Denying He exists because you can’t see Him up close and personal is a childish way to think about God, wouldn’t you say?

I never said that I deny God’s existence on the grounds that I cannot see him. I deny God’s existence on the grounds that I have no logical reason to think that he does exist, even presupposing the possibility of the supernatural.

It denies hope, and is prelude to the fact that so many more atheists commit suicide than Catholics.

Well, I’m sorry if you are uncomfortable with the possibility that the truth may not mesh with what you expect from reality given your own personal preferences and emotions. But that is irrelevant to whether or not something is actually true.

Truth should be on the side of life, not against it.

Reality does not conform to what you want, even if what you want is eternal life or a decent reason to stay alive.

When we deserve to see God up close and personal, we will experience Him. Until then, we needn’t think of Him as something to be proven in a lab experiment in order to pay Him the attention He is due.

How am I supposed to know that God is due any attention whatsoever if he is as good as imaginary? I don’t expect scientific proof of God, but I do expect God to at least be a coherent concept, logically and philosophically. God fails both tests.

You are in His court. He is not in yours.

Until he can be demonstrated to exist, yes, he is in my court - and the court of all other human beings. As a member of the jury of humanity, I find God to be not guilty of existing until proven guilty.

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn. 20:29).

That would be justified if God could be proven logically without any sight of him required, but he hasn’t, so far. Until then, “faith” isn’t a decent reason for me to believe in something.

Quite frankly, I believe the atheist wishes that there were no God. There are too many atheists fighting for atheism without an ounce of proof that there is no God to believe otherwise.

First of all, atheists don’t need any proof that God doesn’t exist. We aren’t the ones making a truth claim here - religious people are, by saying there is a God. It doesn’t matter how pervasive belief in God is in society, it is still the job of theists to prove their position, not atheists. Even so, I have reason to think that the absence of evidence for God is evidence of absence.

Second, yes, to be honest, I would rather God didn’t exist than exist. If God did exist, I would be at the mercy of a being who would throw people into hell merely for not comforming to his arbitrary standard of heterosupremacy. It’s a good thing he doesn’t.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty
**
Second, yes, to be honest, I would rather God didn’t exist than exist. If God did exist, I would be at the mercy of a being who would throw people into hell merely for not comforming to his arbitrary standard of heterosupremacy. It’s a good thing he doesn’t. **

Well, there it is in a nutshell. You fear judgment? But you would have nothing to fear if your life was well spent. For you God only throws people into hell? He does not offer them something better? This is your concept of God for which there is simply no proof. You have created a straw God fallacy.

Even so, I have reason to think that the absence of evidence for God is evidence of absence.

This canard is a fallacy. The absence of proof for anything is never proof of absence.

Some of the ancient atomists theorized the existence of atoms, but were told by their critics exactly what you have just said, that atoms could not exist because there could never be any proof that atoms are so small they can never be seen. We know better today. We still can’t see them but we know they exist by other means. Even when there was no proof they existed, they certainly existed, right?

We can know God exists by other means as well, but not by a closed mind and a closed heart.

** I don’t expect scientific proof of God, but I do expect God to at least be a coherent concept, logically and philosophically. God fails both tests.**

This also is false. If it were true, nobody would believe in God any more than they would believe in a round triangle. But billions of human beings have been drawn to the idea of God, not as nonsensical, but as an eminently reasonable concept, even if very much beyond our ability to grasp completely with the mere power of human reason.

**Thus, the claim that God exists is not a scientifically testable or falsifiable one, though it may be philosophically or logically falsifiable (I do not think that the Christian God exists for the latter reasons; it seems to me that the Christian God is an inherently contradictory concept, thus it is not a valid one). **

Again, contradictory concepts are not necessarily invalid if our intelligence is not up to the job of grasping the apparent contradictions, as in the case of light’s wave-particle duality.

One would expect that if there is a God, we would have difficulty understanding His nature using the mere powers of intellect, since it is likely that He wants to be known as Person rather than Thing. As Pascal put it, “the heart has reasons reason cannot understand.”

Why would you see the Christian God as an “inherently contradictory concept”?

And why would you expect that if there is a God, He should be perfectly and easily knowable by the unaided use of natural reason or else He cannot exist. We would certainly not see light as non-existent just because it is an “inherently contradictory concept.”

That was not exactly the point I was addressing. When I say that I do not believe in things based on wish-fulfillment, I mean that I do not consider the fact that I want something to be true a decent reason to think that it is true. That is different from your example of desiring the ability to land on the moon, and, in accordance with that desire, working towards a practical method by which we can land on the moon.

I no doubt failed to make myself clear. Because we desired to connect with the moon, the desire became father to the deed. So it would be with God. If you desire to connect with Him, you would find a way. Desire has been the parent of much knowledge. Lack of desire has been the parent of much ignorance.

 

[babylonsfalling]

“Agnostic atheism” means that I do not believe in gods, but that I do not think that the existence of gods can be disproven or proven in any rational manner given the evidence we currently have. I am as agnostic towards God as I am towards aliens. Please look up the definition of my religious views before insulting me out of ignorance.

Yep, I’m pretty sure this is a Poe. Your arguments are so bad that they are on par with shockofgod.

Agnostic atheist means wanna-be-atheist, which is certainly better than being a genuine atheist, assuming there even is such a person.