I had a brief flirtation with Rand’s works many, many years ago. Her ideology did not measure up to our Lord’s teachings. After comparing the two I decided Rand had to go. It was a very easy choice for me.The description you wrote Tomster of the Atheist view of society and it’s anthropological effects reminds me of Ayn Rand’s works. She is an amazing thinker and I love her books from an intellectual perspective and from a personal reasoning perspective having lived under oppressive regimes myself. Unfortunately, her works and her philosophy is Objectivity, a field she created to explain a world where utopia can be achieved through the dignity of the man independent any supernatural effects. One where society can exists and coexists through this simple idea. It’s a great and noble goal of hers. Sadly it is flawed in its description of what societal ideals support this view.
My greatest difficulty with her reasoning is that it takes the anti Fascism, anti Communism, and Individualism view too far. At least for me. I cannot see a world that I would want to live in without social justice campaigns, regulations and guidelines. I know for some Catholics (who then become cafeteria Catholics), having an authoritative Magisterium is a difficult thing to accept on every issue taught by the Church. But that same Magisterium is what keeps the same Truths over the last 2000 years. It is a wisdom that define time and individualism when taken too far defies any authoritative and every present body. In a world where individuals are the ultimate pillar of society, senseless things can happen including unrecognized rape, widespread drug use, and the killing of the old and unborn.
And clarified it is. Thank you!
Thank you querying! Great posts indeed.
If there is no first cause, as you believe (“believe” this implies faith by the way), then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car’s motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.LOL you were correct right up to the point your started writing…
atheism: (Gr. - without THEISM)
In the broadest sense, it is the **absence of belief **in the existence of deities.[3]
Ignore or deny has NOTHING to do with it. How can i ignore that which does not exist?
Thanks!
In more abstract philosophical language, our proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contigent, or dependent, beings. The universe contains only contigent beings. God would be the only necessary being - if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof the it does. Dependent being cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.LOL you were correct right up to the point your started writing…
atheism: (Gr. - without THEISM)
In the broadest sense, it is the **absence of belief **in the existence of deities.[3]
Ignore or deny has NOTHING to do with it. How can i ignore that which does not exist?
I would be lying if I said I was knowledgeable about the Book of Genesis and how the world became populated as I’m, admittedly, what you would call “a poorly catechised Catholic”, whose little knowledge of the faith comes from side study and research."Oh- no words about legalised paedophilia and incest?"
I take it you don’t believe in adam and eve then?
No, it’s YOUR lack of thinking logically that makes arguing with you difficult. I have argued with many an atheist and I have never had them tell me as you have that I am ignorant. I think you are so narrow-minded in your views that you fail to see the obvious.
Did you not read the post wherein I stated that societies progress (because of their understanding of what was moral) not morals? Did you not also read my post that said that “progression” should be taken lightly because the last two centuries acts as evidence against the fact that morals progress with time? Did you not read that societies have more or less recognized good and bad but some more than others? Do you not see that freedom must be a moral absolute for the sake of the individual and a healthy society? Therefore anyone (not just southern Protestant Christians) who enslaved were practicing moral relativism. Furthermore, many societies had a basic moral groundwork and those who failed to live up to these basic morals died out.
Amen. I wish that I had “charity” like that Jesuit’s.
Atheism is actually proclaiming one’s own “self” to be one’s own “god.”
Why did such abhorrent ideologies like Nazism, Communism, Fascism, Nihilism come about in the post “enligthened” era?
Anyone who commits murder is a moral relativist.
True!
Atheism is about self. “I will not serve anyone except myself.” What they do not understand is this: A person either belongs to God or to Satan. These are the only two possible choices for eternity. Good vs. Evil.
What do you mean by evidence when it was explained to you that science can neither prove nor disprove God?
It is not “ignorance” to believe in God as you so ignorantly claim.
Who created gravity?
How many predominately atheist societies are still around? (Not counting the “new” atheist societies originating in the 20th century).Its not about why, its the fact that the ones that were not are gone!