Who's freer athiest or Catholic?

[Planty_Business]

James

So the key bit is thought. If it is difficult to achieve comprehension of the good/God, what would be the reason for this? To ensure that some people cannot see God and so end up in Hell?

People cannot see God unless they do not want to see Him. All nations have recognized the deity in one form or another. Even polytheism is an attempt to find God. But more than that, all want to believe in an afterlife of some sort or another except those who do not want to believe in God. The hope of mankind is in religion. The despair of mankind is in atheism. This is why the suicide rate among atheists is well documented to be universally higher than the suicide rate among theists.

The reason more atheists commit suicide probably has something to do more with the fact that most religions deem suicide immoral and hell-worthy, than the idea that atheism is inherently despair-inducing. I agree that suicide is immoral in most situations - since suicide usually inevitably results in negative consequences for other people who are either dependent on the person committing suicide or emotionally attached to him/her - but the prospect of ending up in hell after killing myself would probably deter me from doing so much more than the “It’s a Wonderful Life” reasoning. Any earthly suffering is better than eternal torture.

You may be right that the prospect of no afterlife is depressing to most people (though it isn’t to me; I would more regret the help left undone by me in the world than my own annihilation, not to mention that Mark Twain quote about not fearing death for the same reason one didn’t fear pre-birth), but so is the fact that tens of thousands of children die of easily preventable diseases in destitute countries. That doesn’t mean we should ignore those problems. We should confront them head-on, see if there are any solutions, and work towards those solutions if so. Death may be an inevitability today, but will it be millennia from now? I doubt it. At the meteoric rate of scientific progress our species is making, I wouldn’t be surprised if the human lifespan were increased tenfold by the end of the third millennium, if not outright immortality (barring murder or other causes besides “natural death”).

Even if we can’t overcome death, then we might as well make peace with it. Learn to accept the facts you can’t change (remember the Serenity Prayer?), and to change the ones you can. Life is only as depressing or meaningful as you make it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty

Any earthly suffering is better than eternal torture.

Well, obviously you have removed eternal reward from the choices we have.

Reward for a life well spent is certainly more than atheism offers, and if this thread is about who is more free, the atheist or the Catholic, I would have to say the Catholic. Shouldn’t freedom also include the freedom to hope for everlasting life with God rather than with the Devil or Nada?

What could be more liberating than to get the fear of the Devil and Nothingness off our backs?

not to mention that Mark Twain quote about not fearing death for the same reason one didn’t fear pre-birth

As to Mark Twain … he lives on in the minds and hearts of men … a sort of well-deserved immortality even if he didn’t believe in the real kind. I have no doubt that Twain feared death, just as atheist Christopher Hitchens fears it and is putting up the fight of his life to evade the Reaper.

 

[Spock]

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

Thanks for posting it. It would be hilarious, if it were not so incredibly sad. A long time ago I had a conversation with a Catholic poster here on the board. He seriously asserted that the “free will” of a woman about to be raped is not violated at all, since she was “free” to lay back and “enjoy” it. She had a “choice”. And I am not kidding.

 

[Planty_Business]

Well, obviously you have removed eternal reward from the choices we have.

The risk is simply too great and too permanent for the reward to be worth it, in my opinion. Sure, eternal paradise would be fantastic, but how great can it really be when your loved ones are being tortured, and there is literally nothing you can do about it?

Anyway, my point was that a person contemplating suicide in a world where Catholicism is true would certainly rather endure temporal suffering than commit the mortal sin of suicide, which is a guaranteed one-way ticket to hell, from what I’ve heard. There is no real possibility of heaven for a suicide victim, right? That is, assuming full knowledge and full consent.

Reward for a life well spent is certainly more than atheism offers, and if this thread is about who is more free, the atheist or the Catholic, I would have to say the Catholic. Shouldn’t freedom also include the freedom to hope for everlasting life with God rather than with the Devil or Nada?

The freedom to hope for everlasting life is, as far as I’m concerned, equal to the freedom to hope that when you die, you will be reincarnated as a musician with as much innate talent as John Lennon practiced for. True freedom exists within the context of reality, not empty “hope”. I have hope for the future, certainly, but I doubt I will be alive to experience the heaven on earth that I want to help establish.

What could be more liberating than to get the fear of the Devil and Nothingness off our backs?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Buddhist concept of Nirvana the hope of eternal annihilation? When you think of all life as a trial to make the lives of everyone else more peaceful as they aspire for the total peace of nonexistence, death isn’t nearly as frightening. As I said before, it isn’t nonexistence that disturbs me about death, it’s the fact that when I die, I won’t be able to help relieve other people’s suffering any more, except perhaps through writings or other immortalizing media. To make peace with death is to have done all that you could have done to destroy suffering in the world and sow joy, as far as I’m concerned.

As to Mark Twain … he lives on in the minds and hearts of men … a sort of well-deserved immortality even if he didn’t believe in the real kind. I have no doubt that Twain feared death, just as atheist Christopher Hitchens fears it and is putting up the fight of his life to evade the Reaper.

A desire to live as long as one possibly can does not equal fear of death. It equals an empowered attitude toward death, a desire to die when one wants (or needs) to die.

Actual fear of death, in my opinion, is denial of its reality and its lasting consequences. Fear of death is to see death in as depressing a light as you see it. I’m not trying to say the unnatural deaths of people are not sad or regrettable. They are, precisely because those deaths are premature and born out of either the malice of humans or the pitiless indifference of nature. In this sense, I agree with Catholics that the only necessary kind of death is natural death. It relieves us of our suffering and paves the way for future generations, and as long as humanity is confined to this petty planet that can only barely sustain a few billion people, that is a positive side effect of death.

 

[babylonsfalling]

there is no absolute truth. and IF there is <—Conflicted much?it is not yet known to the human race. oh and no jesus is not absolute truth he is simple a truth like it is true grass is green. if he was absolute truth everyone would recognize his as the absolute truth and since athiests do not recognize this therefore he is not absolut truth. <—what atheists recognize or don’t recognize is of zero importance. freedom is a state of mind and action.

When you make a proclamation (there is no absolute truth) and then immediately add a qualifier (IF there is) it shows you don’t REALLY believe in what you first said to begin with.

Nobody needs or even cares about atheist recognition of God or any other absolute truth. And it absolutely ridiculous to think that anyone can prevent anything from being any kind of truth merely by refusing to recognize that truth. Atheists can’t disbelieve God out of His own existence…they can’t even disbelieve God out of their own conflicted heads for that matter.

They try really hard at that kind of stuff and make something of a spectacle of themselves in the process, but all they ever really accomplish is to prove that regardless of how hard they try to dis-believe, God still remains stronger than ever. In the end, atheists (especially msg board atheists that are on these sites every day) do much more to prove God than most Christians do.

 

[Planty_Business]

When you make a proclamation (there is no absolute truth) and then immediately add a qualifier (IF there is) it shows you don’t REALLY believe in what you first said to begin with.

Nobody needs or even cares about atheist recognition of God or any other absolute truth. And it absolutely ridiculous to think that anyone can prevent anything from being any kind of truth merely by refusing to recognize that truth. Atheists can’t disbelieve God out of His own existence…they can’t even disbelieve God out of their own conflicted heads for that matter.

They try really hard at that kind of stuff and make something of a spectacle of themselves in the process, but all they ever really accomplish is to prove that regardless of how hard they try to dis-believe, God still remains stronger than ever. In the end, atheists (especially msg board atheists that are on these sites every day) do much more to prove God than most Christians do.

He obviously isn’t 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, 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.

 

[Nate13]

Personally something that always reaffirms my belief in God is just how empty seeking pleasure is here on Earth in and of itself. Also, reading the lives of the saints and seeing what true happiness looked like is another reminder of what is really achievable with God. It is also hard to disregard all the miracles that have happened and can still be witnessed today. Even an atheist has to sit in wonder about the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the millions of people that image has converted to the Catholic faith alone.

 

[pataburd]

there is no absolute truth.

But you’ve just made an absolute statement which, according to your own assertion, cannot possibly be true! : )

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Thanks for posting it. It would be hilarious, if it were not so incredibly sad.

I thought he does a good job of capturing the attributes of a lot of these common discussions while providing entertainment at the same time. Two others worth checking out were “The God Debate” and “Noah’s Ark”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty
**
When you think of all life as a trial to make the lives of everyone else more peaceful as they aspire for the total peace of nonexistence, death isn’t nearly as frightening. **

This desire for non-existence of which you speak is nothing more than a posture of absolute defeat and resignation to defeat. There cannot be any peace in non-existence for the simple reason that non-existence is incapable of offering anything, never mind peace.

**Sure, eternal paradise would be fantastic, but how great can it really be when your loved ones are being tortured, and there is literally nothing you can do about it? **

You are manufacturing in your head a pain that cannot possibly exist in reality. In Catholic theology those who are heaven-bound will fear nothing and feel no pain. If they are even aware of the suffering of loved ones who repudiated God while living, they will be aware that God’s mercy is as great as His justice, and that the loved ones of whom you speak were free to choose, and chose eternal pain rather than eternal bliss.

That will be your choice as well.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty

**If you honestly think that atheism is all about trying to “disbelieve God out of existence”, **

I honestly believe that atheism is mainly rooted in patricide … but it is also rooted in other syndromes too numerous to mention here.

Since the principle authority figure in most families is the father, and since many children rebel against their fathers for one reason or another, it is by extension likely that killing the Father is the patricide’s main business in life.

If the Father cannot be directly attacked, His surrogates will be. His surrogates are, for examples, Church, State, Family, Tradition, Morality, Truth, etc.

The assault on Truth itself has been observed in very recent posts in this thread.

 

[OraLabora]

Take it from someone who has seen it from both sides of the fence. As a previous poster says, “the truth sets you free”.

When I was an atheist, I was a prisoner to my passions and impulses. Nothing satisfied me. I needed more, more, more. New cars, new toys, and other unmentionable excesses. It seems like I was shoveling money into a big hole trying to find the maximum in pleasure, and eventually my conscience started to eat at me. I did not possess my possessions, they possessed me.

Am I perfect now since I have reverted to my faith? No, far from it. But when I have a “win” against my passions and impulses, it is then that I feel true freedom, because then, my conscience can rest easily. Eventually I started to feel a detachment from my possessions. That’s when I knew I was on the right path.

Bottom line: as an atheist, I was seeking pleasure. As a Christian, I am seeking Joy. Joy can only come from an intimate communion with God.

I honestly believe that atheism is mainly rooted in patricide … but it is also rooted in other syndromes too numerous to mention here.

Since the principle authority figure in most families is the father, and since many children rebel against their fathers for one reason or another, it is by extension likely that killing the Father is the patricide’s main business in life.

If the Father cannot be directly attacked, His surrogates will be. His surrogates are, for examples, Church, State, Family, Tradition, Morality, Truth, etc.

The assault on Truth itself has been observed in very recent posts in this thread.

I was very close to my father. In my case it was partly a rebellion against God because my father died when I was still young, 12 to be exact. I do think the lack of a father figure in life (especially at critical stages, such as entering adolescence) is a serious problem. In my case my father died of natural causes, but I cry for the many deprived of fathers through divorce, immoral relations, abuse, etc. It’s one thing to have lost one’s father naturally, quite another to have one deprived of a father deliberately.

 

[Planty_Business]

Planty

**If you honestly think that atheism is all about trying to “disbelieve God out of existence”, **

I honestly believe that atheism is mainly rooted in patricide … but it is also rooted in other syndromes too numerous to mention here.

Since the principle authority figure in most families is the father, and since many children rebel against their fathers for one reason or another, it is by extension likely that killing the Father is the patricide’s main business in life.

If the Father cannot be directly attacked, His surrogates will be. His surrogates are, for examples, Church, State, Family, Tradition, Morality, Truth, etc.

“Any god that can be killed, ought to be killed.” -Clifford Stanley

The assault on Truth itself has been observed in very recent posts in this thread.

By you, yes.

OraLabora,

When I was an atheist, I was a prisoner to my passions and impulses. Nothing satisfied me. I needed more, more, more. New cars, new toys, and other unmentionable excesses. It seems like I was shoveling money into a big hole trying to find the maximum in pleasure, and eventually my conscience started to eat at me. I did not possess my possessions, they possessed me.

It was the opposite for me. When I was a Catholic, I was much more concerned with material goods. That may have just been a coincidence, since I was younger and, hence, more hedonistic when I was a Catholic. Perhaps I would have come to the conclusion that I should stop pursuing empty pleasures like video games and television had I continued to be Catholic when I grew into adolescence.

Still, having the prospect of a limited lifespan was far more of a motivator to me to become less of a “sleepwalker” in life than Jesus’ anti-materialistic teachings. That’s probably why atheists and liberals tend to be more environmentally conscious; we have one planet, and there’s no Superman out there to save us from the self-destruction that results from defiling Earth.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ora

**I was very close to my father. In my case it was partly a rebellion against God because my father died when I was still young, 12 to be exact. I do think the lack of a father figure in life (especially at critical stages, such as entering adolescence) is a serious problem. In my case my father died of natural causes, but I cry for the many deprived of fathers through divorce, immoral relations, abuse, etc. It’s one thing to have lost one’s father naturally, quite another to have one deprived of a father deliberately. **

Perhaps you have read Dr. Paul Vitz’s Faith of the Fatherless? Your experience ties in with his analysis of a fatherless condition as often prelude to atheism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty

"Any god that can be killed, ought to be killed." -Clifford Stanley

That’s already happened with Christ. He just wouldn’t stay dead and still lives in the minds and hearts of billions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty

**Still, having the prospect of a limited lifespan was far more of a motivator to me to become less of a “sleepwalker” in life than Jesus’ anti-materialistic teachings. That’s probably why atheists and liberals tend to be more environmentally conscious; we have one planet, and there’s no Superman out there to save us from the self-destruction that results from defiling Earth. **

Yes, we have all noticed this tendency in atheists to think they are Supermen who will save the Earth. Starting with Nietzsche, for sure!

Hubris! How can you save the earth when you are allied with the power of darkness to destroy the greatest thing it ever produced … the Catholic Church?

 

[OraLabora]

Ora

**I was very close to my father. In my case it was partly a rebellion against God because my father died when I was still young, 12 to be exact. I do think the lack of a father figure in life (especially at critical stages, such as entering adolescence) is a serious problem. In my case my father died of natural causes, but I cry for the many deprived of fathers through divorce, immoral relations, abuse, etc. It’s one thing to have lost one’s father naturally, quite another to have one deprived of a father deliberately. **

Perhaps you have read Dr. Paul Vitz’s Faith of the Fatherless? Your experience ties in with his analysis of a fatherless condition as often prelude to atheism.

I haven’t, perhaps I should give it a read. My own experience, anecdotal as it is, makes me believe that one of the many reasons for the shiftlessness of young males these days has as much to do with the lack of good male role models in the form of a present and involved father, as it does with any other popular theory. ISTM the number of males being raised without fathers present is increasing, which is what one would expect with a high divorce rate.

It is one reason why I am so against same-sex marriage. Marriage = right to adopt. Why on Earth would we want to deliberately deprive kids of a father or a mother?

 

[Spock]

I thought he does a good job of capturing the attributes of a lot of these common discussions while providing entertainment at the same time. Two others worth checking out were “The God Debate” and “Noah’s Ark”

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

 

[Planty_Business]

Planty

**Still, having the prospect of a limited lifespan was far more of a motivator to me to become less of a “sleepwalker” in life than Jesus’ anti-materialistic teachings. That’s probably why atheists and liberals tend to be more environmentally conscious; we have one planet, and there’s no Superman out there to save us from the self-destruction that results from defiling Earth. **

Yes, we have all noticed this tendency in atheists to think they are Supermen who will save the Earth. Starting with Nietzsche, for sure!

Hubris! How can you save the earth when you are allied with the power of darkness to destroy the greatest thing it ever produced … the Catholic Church?

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.

OraLabora,

…which is what one would expect with a high divorce rate.

Incidentally, that high divorce rate is the same for Christians as non-Christians. So much for “the couple that prays together stays together”.

It is one reason why I am so against same-sex marriage. Marriage = right to adopt. Why on Earth would we want to deliberately deprive kids of a father or a mother?

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.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

I would hope that you learned from both your mother and your father, but both have different roles to play.

To answer your question though about same-sex parents, the fact that some opposite-sex parents are terrible parents does not by itself guarantee that all same-sex parents will be good parents. Nor does the fact that some children are missing one or both parents, indicate that the best solution for them is to be raised by a same-sex couple. I would instead argue that an orphan should, if at all possible, be adopted by a married couple. And when I say “married” couple, I mean a man and a woman in a natural (non-Catholic) or sacramental (Catholic) marriage. I do not mean a same-sex couple. To me, calling a same-sex couple “married” is like calling a dog, a cat. A marriage implies a form of physiological union, and the act of procreation is the only physiological process that requires both a man and a woman to accomplish (regardless of whether it is fertile or not, it is still a valid process). On the other hand there is no same-sex act that accomplishes a biological goal other than pleasure. That biological union of two people of the opposite sex is what has historically defined marriage. Not love. In many societies, Christian or otherwise, marriages were arranged, not for the purpose of seeking pleasure but for the purpose of carrying out God’s plan to be fruitful, by raising a family.

Even in civil law, non-consummation of a marriage has been grounds for annulment, and in a same-sex union, consummation is biologically impossible. There is no defining sex act for same-sex activity.

But I digress. We need to start the examination of what is good for a child from the point of view of an ideal, and that ideal can be called an “objective truth”. And it seems obvious in the Natural Law that this objective truth can be found in the statement “Man and woman He created them”, each with different biological and parenting roles to fill.

Our fallen natures ensure that we often fall very short of the ideal. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for it.