Why are you an Atheist? - Catholic Answers Live - 12Nov2018

[Aquinas11]

philosophers are not all wholehearted supporters

Philosophers by definition know that if everyone agrees with you, you’re definetly wrong. By definition, Philosophers are aware that they will be attacked and even put to death for speaking truth so the fact that “not all” agree with Aquinas is further evidence he speaks truth

 

[PickyPicky]

Philosophers by definition know that if everyone agrees with you, you’re definetly wrong. By definition, Philosophers are aware that they will be attacked and even put to death for speaking truth so the fact that “not all” agree with Aquinas is further evidence he speaks truth

Sure it is.

 

[Aquinas11]

Jesus was definetly not speaking truth if we use that test. “Not all” agreeing with you is false criteria for truth. It’s a groupthink litmus test.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I don’t see how having faith is not a virtue.

You must have faith in something, medical professionals? the law, your weapon, your relationships, your dog, money, (just throwing a few ideas out there)

what do you have faith in and why

I have a guard dog I have faith in. i know she won’t put up with any shenanigans from anyone. for example.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Oh it’s an empty room? Well you didn’t have the desire to meet or see Jenny then right. That’s your fault for experiencing an empty room. It’s not the fault of Jenny for not revealing herself to you in the empty room right?

Wrong, it just means Jenny is not in that room right now, but she will undoubtedly be back. however I would probably go look for Jenny, go meet her. We don’t play the fault game. Nor should you.

Any claim about reality is a scientific claim because that’s what science is. Its the application of our logic to explore justified conclusions made in reference to reality.

I am a scientist. You say you ran experiments. And you got a null response. You did not get a yes response, you did not get a negative response, you just got silence.
How many times did you run your experiment, what was your methodology.

We don’t just run one experiment. Sometimes it takes years to get a result with experimentation. WE have to change our methodology.

There is a saying, if you keep doing the same thing and getting the same result, but expecting a different result or hoping for one, its time to change your methodology.

You prayed once, only once. How many times did you have to get in a car and learn to drive the thing before you actually could? How many times did you try to get up as a baby, when learning to walk, before you could actually walk.
What man on the road to Damascus and what deity are you referring to. Were you on the road to Damascus?
I challenge you to keep praying to God. You won’t be publicly performing my social religious customs because you don’t know them.
You will be doing something for yourself, no doubt at this point, thinking you will be proving yourself right and those with faith, wrong. But thats a great start.

You don’t know my cultural traditions, I don’t know yours. I am not recruiting you, what are you afraid of? being recruited by a cult?

God is recruiting you …And God always gets His man, or woman.

 

[PickyPicky]

Jesus was definetly not speaking truth if we use that test. “Not all” agreeing with you is false criteria for truth. It’s a groupthink litmus test

But I am not arguing that Aquinas was wrong. I have no problem with you thinking him right. But given a statement that appears to imply not just that he was right but that he was, as it were, unchallengeable …

RIght because you refuse to address the Aquinas argument (above) that proves God exists. Why? Because you can’t refute those arguments, as no Atheist can.

… it is necessary to point out that he has very definitely been challenged, and challenged by some very distinguished philosophers.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Happy cake day @Arwing

 

[Aquinas11]

unchallengeable

Strawman. If I thought he was unchallengeable I wouldn’t be inviting people to…challenge him. Post after post I asked OP to provide response to Aquinas argument.

Dictators like North Korean Kim Jong-Un are “unchallengeable” since nobody can criticize them and live to tell about it.

 

[PickyPicky]

Strawman. If I thought he was unchallengeable I wouldn’t be inviting people to…challenge him.

This is a silly business. I leave you to it.

 

[Aquinas11]

… it is necessary to point out that he has very definitely been challenged

I shall not argue against Aquinas’ Five Ways here,

Nobody disputed he’s never been “challenged”, the point was I haven’t read anyone refute him. Big difference. Maybe someone will who knows , but I just haven’t seen it. And you declined to do so, which is fine. Which merely reinforces the point.

 

[PickyPicky]

Nobody disputed he’s never been “ challenged ”, the point was I haven’t read anyone refute him. Big difference. Maybe someone will who knows , but I just haven’t seen it. And you declined to do so, which is fine. Which merely reinforces the point

.
Personally I favour David Hume, but I don’t choose to argue with St Thomas here: on the whole it’s not the right place, and people have a tendency to get upset about it. And it tends to morph into an argument about the validity of Christianity, which I am even more loth to get into.

 

[Damian]

You must have faith in something, medical professionals? the law, your weapon, your relationships, your dog, money, (just throwing a few ideas out there)

You are using faith in the way that everyone else uses “hope”. Hope is justified based on what reality has demonstrated to be a possible result of an experience, regardless of how rare all the possible outcomes are. Such as winning the lottery. It’s a known fact that people actually win the lottery, regardless of how rare the odds are for them to win it. We have documented results of medical professionals existing, that they can actually cure disease and fix bones. The law is documented to be upheld by people. My weapons still adhere to the natural laws of physics every time. My relationships are justified to be predictable based on their historical actions with me. My pets all still adhere to the laws of nature and physics. We can document that currency systems still allow people to trade for goods and services. None of this evidence is what is documented about the idea of the supernatural at all.

So I’ll repeat:
“Belief” is the list of all known possible outcomes of an event, regardless of how rare one specific result may be.
Ex: I believe that a 1 to 6 number will be the result of a 1d6 dice roll. This is backed up by actual evidence of running the experiment.
“Hope” is the desire for a specific KNOWN possible outcome, regardless of how rare the event is.
Ex: I hope that a 5 will appear out of the 1d6 dice roll since I bet $10 that a 5 will be the result.
“Faith” is the hope for a result that is not justified to believe is even possible.
Ex: I have faith that a 7 will result on a 1d6 dice roll.

So faith is the excuse you use for hoping something will happen when you have no justified reason to believe it is even possible. Based on that, it is not possible to use “faith” to have a justified model of reality to match what reality has actually demonstrated to be possible. You can literally use the excuse of “faith” to hold any idea, imagined or real, about reality. Even if they contradict each other. Really, what belief position about reality could you not hold based on the excuse of “faith”? Name one. Just one. And that will break this current conclusion I have about the use of “faith”.

 

[Damian]

We don’t just run one experiment.

Correct, for naturally occurring phenomenon you are investigating. But we are talking about how to meet a sentient being that we’ve anthropomorphized; that literally can do anything and literally knows everything. Someone with the power to do anything and knows everything, is aware of the first time you run the experiment to try to introduce yourself. Since they can literally do anything, they are not bound by a busy day. They are always available to answer the phone when you call, knock on the door, etc. It’s not like they are never available for anything other than their emotional reasons for choosing to not pick up the phone when I called. So your deity is either choosing to not answer the phone, can’t answer the phone, or is not there at all. Either way not my problem since there is nothing I can do about it anyways.
Also, what’s stopping this deity from calling me? Why is the failure of this experiment always the people reaching out to it and not the capricious nature of this entity?

You don’t know my cultural traditions,

Prayer comes off as nothing more than cultural traditions for your group because the only documented result of prayer is no different than meditation. You’re the one that believes that prayer works for contacting this realm and this deity, so we can test that right? Demonstrate it to anyone that it actually does anything and then we’ll try it. Otherwise, I’m fine watching your group perform its rituals the same way I’m fine participating in a yoga class or jogging around the park.
Rituals are important to people. That’s why we kiss photos, kick chairs out of frustration, etc. We are in a heightened emotional state and need a physical release of the emotions so we can calm down and work through what we are experiencing. But I know that punching the ground or screaming to the sky in frustration doesn’t actually solve my problem other than calming me down. So I’m perfectly fine with rituals, just not fine when people actually believe they are casting spells and telepathically communicating with the divine.

 

[atjar]

Eyewitness accounts? Only if the earliest gospel writer 70 some years after Christs death interviewed them. Otherwise its oral tradition that is weak on evidence and that’s why the bible is riddled with exagerrations over the course of time.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Hope is doubt

I hope this car does not break down in the middle of the outback.

I have faith in this car and am utterly confident it will get me across the Nullarbor.

One journey is frought with anxiety because if you do breakdown, most likely you will die.
One journey is fun and exciting, you can enjoy everything along the way.

Big difference between faith and hope.

You have faith your weapon will work. You don’t hope it doesn’t misfire.

So you are saying you have an excuse , in your faith, that your weapon will work?

We haven’t turned God human. You are attempting to, in your argument, by calling God a deity.

Your argument on that front is going poorly. We are Catholic and know God is not a deity or a human.

That was thrashed out in the first few centuries AD.

But tell me, it’s almost Christmas, do you ignore it? Do you use the BCE and the CE calendar?
Do you swear and put an OH My … in there.
Do you take Easter holidays or give out or receive chocolate?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

You have absolutely no idea why someone prays. You are making huge assumptions there.
Again, you have no respect for Christians or God. You use words like

Your group

Deity

Kicking chairs is not a ritual, it’s an anger management issue. Please don’t conflate anger with ritual. That argument doesn’t work.

 

[Damian]

Yes hope is doubt, no disagreement there.
So you are using faith to talk about the which possible outcome, known outcome, you choose to hope for over the other. No one chooses to hope for losing their bet, but they acknowledge that they probably will lose the bet since the odds of getting what they want is against them. Or if it the odds are unknown either way, then they choose to focus on the good out come while preparing for the bad. But all this is still an acknowledgement of all the possible known outcomes.

You have faith your weapon will work

I believe my weapons will work based on the fact that the physics of reality does not change.

So you are saying you have an excuse , in your faith, that your weapon will work?

I have a documented history of physics of reality never changing.

But what is it to have faith in an idea that you wish to be the case of reality but reality has not demonstrated that idea is even possible. IE: I have faith in the supernatural. I have faith that a 7 will be the result of a 1d6 dice roll. I have faith that prayer can heal, that people can walk on water, that bread literally turns into flesh, etc. None of this is documented to be part of reality at this time. Its all an unjustified belief to hold, ie: faith

As to cultural holidays and language. Yes I still say GD it, I still take time off for christmas, but no religious symbols in the decorations, I like singing in the local church choir for vocal practice, I can recite biblical verses, etc. You can be an atheist and culturally religious. Example: Jewish community.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Exactly, you have faith your weapon will work. You believe it is properly built and well maintained.

You have documented history the physics of reality never changes?

Let’s discuss this point, in another thread , so we don’t get flagged for going off topic, ( and we would).

I can think of a few who would join that thread and it become quite lively.

 

[Damian]

Again, you have no respect for Christians or God. You use words like

I respect people’s ability to discuss these issues civilly. Respecting people’s positions on the topic is not required. I can have a discussion with a gun nut and not respect the fact that they think they have a right to own an arsenal.

Kicking chairs is not a ritual, it’s an anger management issue.

It’s a good example of being in a heightened emotional state where you need some form of ritualistic release that is socially acceptable. Exercising to relieve stress, kissing photos when we miss someone, talking to headstones of our loved ones, etc. It’s all psychological release.

 

[Damian]

Sounds fine.