Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

[yankee_doodle]

That’s interesting, where did your family originally come from?

England, Wales, Scotland (mostly)

 

[josie_L]

isn’t that where those guys who wear the funny uniforms (the Swiss guard) come from? At any rate, according to Wiki Catholicism is the largest religion in Switzerland (41% of its population), only 9% are atheist, and 4% agnostic. 35% are protestant …

Sounds like a pretty theistic society to me?

But how is that “vehemently Catholic” Yankee?

 

[yankee_doodle]

But how is that “vehemently Catholic” Yankee?

vehement enough for me lady

 

[josie_L]

England, Wales, Scotland (but we also have a little bit of German, and supposedly a small sliver of French from the 18th century, but I think even the Frenchman was a protestant).

I knew of someone else who had this same pedigree, what a coincidence?

 

[yankee_doodle]

I knew of someone else who had this same pedigree, what a coincidence?

yeah, half of America, and two thirds of Canada, not to mention virtually all of England, Australia, and New Zealand.

 

[josie_L]

vehement enough for me lady

You’re not going to get away with this one Yankee as you are purposely trying to paint Catholicism in a bad light every chance you get. Stop it. Switzerland is not “vehemently Catholic.” Furthermore your premise is faulty, you should not be comparing countries so much as the individuals residing in those countries who are committing suicide to really make some kind of parallel between theism and suicide.

 

[Lethe]

I come because I am interested in Catholicism, and because I am an agnostic, so I don’t know what’s out there (or in here!) - I feel the lack of a spiritual side of my life, especially since I don’t study Ethics anymore, which gave me the chance to debate beliefs and values.

I think (I hope) that I have been respectful in my comments. Sometimes I think atheists can get angry because of some religious views that people want to ‘force’ on society - for example, teaching children that sex before marriage is wrong. Which is true for those with Catholic views, but not necessarily for those without Christian views, since marriage is largely religious - to an atheist, it is no different to living together faithfully with someone you love, for the rest of your life. And some atheists may see no reason to not have multiple sexual partners in a lifetime - there are risks, but some may deem it worth it.

This is the same for some other religious views - we find it wrong sometimes that one single religion can try to (or even want to) impose their views on all people, regardless of the fact they dont share the religion. I understand you believe some things to be intrinsically evil, and that people would be better off if laws and rules were changed for this, but whilst you may mean well, it can be hurtful for people who do not believe the same as you.

I am not a deist because I simply don’t know anything yet. I am spiritual, I am grateful for the world and in awe of it, but I find it hard to believe in a personal God or an afterlife, it seems too good to be true, really. I also have morals that conflict with most Abrahamic religions - for example, I do not disagree with homosexuality, or sex before/without marriage. My general moral is of empathy and treating others with respect and love.

 

[josie_L]

yeah, half of America, and two thirds of Canada, not to mention virtually all of England, Australia, and New Zealand.

By the way, was this your dad’s or your mom’s side of the family (or both) who first came to America in the 17th century?

 

[josie_L]

I come because I am interested in Catholicism, and because I am an agnostic, so I don’t know what’s out there (or in here!) - I feel the lack of a spiritual side of my life, especially since I don’t study Ethics anymore, which gave me the chance to debate beliefs and values.

I think (I hope) that I have been respectful in my comments. Sometimes I think atheists can get angry because of some religious views that people want to ‘force’ on society - for example, teaching children that sex before marriage is wrong. Which is true for those with Catholic views, but not necessarily for those without Christian views, since marriage is largely religious - to an atheist, it is no different to living together faithfully with someone you love, for the rest of your life. And some atheists may see no reason to not have multiple sexual partners in a lifetime - there are risks, but some may deem it worth it.

This is the same for some other religious views - we find it wrong sometimes that one single religion can try to (or even want to) impose their views on all people, regardless of the fact they dont share the religion. I understand you believe some things to be intrinsically evil, and that people would be better off if laws and rules were changed for this, but whilst you may mean well, it can be hurtful for people who do not believe the same as you.

I am not a deist because I simply don’t know anything yet. I am spiritual, I am grateful for the world and in awe of it, but I find it hard to believe in a personal God or an afterlife, it seems too good to be true, really. I also have morals that conflict with most Abrahamic religions - for example, I do not disagree with homosexuality, or sex before/without marriage. My general moral is of empathy and treating others with respect and love.

I hope that I did not offend you with my opening post, I was just letting off some steam (albeit I meant every word). Welcome to CAF.

 

[4elise]

sure … but that theory is also easily debunked. In fact there’s developing research into pre-Judaic Arabian mythology that delivers a much more fatal blow to Abrahamic faiths …

However, I also understand the religious (and their institutions, who I imagine would like to survive) will try and spin this commonality into the opposite of what it obviously means.

The only credible theory that’s left in academia is Aristotelian causation (but modern philosophy pretty effectively dispenses with the assumptions of metaphysics, although that’s the only thing that remains reasonably debatable); and that theory only supports something like deism (since we’re able to debunk Abrahamic faiths, and all other “religions”).

Again - asking in respect, and out of my own ignorance on this - to debunk Abrahamic faiths as a goal - wouldn’t that lead one naturally to that as a specific conclusion - as would efforts to validate Abrahamic faiths also lead to a conclusion. Assumptions are made, that which does or does not validate is then disregarded - isn’t that the nature of the study of history - the skewed view of he who looks back?

For myself, and I am guessing perhaps for others of faith it is how this is all linked, how we view it as part of our faith history that gives us this pov.

the religious (and their institutions, who I imagine would like to survive) will try and spin this commonality into the opposite of what it obviously means.

You are ascribing motive and you find the meaning obvious of commonality - I do neither - I do not believe all religious institutions act out of self preservation, but rather as a means to help people be the best they can be in this life - and the next, and so see the possibility of commonality as further evidence that God speaks to the heart. I believe those who do not believe give believers an opportunity to better articulate their beliefs, to look at them honestly, to see if their lives reflect what they profess, so I do believe that when someone who doesn’t yet believe, like you, comes to CAF you provide a wonderful service to the faithful, and I for one am very grateful.

 

[humble_maid]

Good Day to all,

This is my first posting on the forum. Please bear with me if I am not as eloquent as some of you. I read some of the replies of the atheists/agnostics and it suprises me greatly that you think we should not be insulted when it is clear that you are here to convert believers into non-believers. That is like trying to come into my home and tell my children that only you know the truth and persuade them to dishonor and even hate their proper mother and father.
I can discern truth from hate and dillusion. Those who speak ill of Christ Jesus without knowing Him is truly committing a tragedy and crime. Though I by no means hold any contempt for such people.
Futhermore you state that all the problems of the world were because of religion (more specifically christianity or the catholic faith) such as slavery, mistreatment of women, our views on homosexuality. Tell me then am I to believe that no good came out of pious religious people who sacrificed their lives to help others or will you deny this as well.
Another point I would like to make is like my catholic brothers and sisters I will pray for all people to come to the full knowledge of God and His Christ Jesus.
I do not feel the need to justify my beliefs; your intellect does not suffice to attest whether there is a god or not. You think like men and men cause evil regardless of their beliefs or lack of it. You fail to recognize that it is not God who wills men to such crimes but man himself; however when man can humble himself enough to allow the Spirit to exalt his mind(intellect) then he can attain greater knowledge than men of whose intellect comes solely from human reason.

God Be Praised, Glory to Him the Lamb of God

 

[yankee_doodle]

By the way, was this your dad’s or your mom’s side of the family (or both) who first came to America in the 17th century?

now you want to know my family tree? Basically, my whole family.

 

[4elise]

Good Day to all,

This is my first posting on the forum. Please bear with me if I am not as eloquent as some of you. I read some of the replies of the atheists/agnostics and it suprises me greatly that you think we should not be insulted when it is clear that you are here to convert believers into non-believers. That is like trying to come into my home and tell my children that only you know the truth and persuade them to dishonor and even hate their proper mother and father.
I can discern truth from hate and dillusion. Those who speak ill of Christ Jesus without knowing Him is truly committing a tragedy and crime. Though I by no means hold any contempt for such people.
Futhermore you state that all the problems of the world were because of religion (more specifically christianity or the catholic faith) such as slavery, mistreatment of women, our views on homosexuality. Tell me then am I to believe that no good came out of pious religious people who sacrificed their lives to help others or will you deny this as well.
Another point I would like to make is like my catholic brothers and sisters I will pray for all people to come to the full knowledge of God and His Christ Jesus.
I do not feel the need to justify my beliefs; your intellect does not suffice to attest whether there is a god or not. You think like men and men cause evil regardless of their beliefs or lack of it. You fail to recognize that it is not God who wills men to such crimes but man himself; however when man can humble himself enough to allow the Spirit to exalt his mind(intellect) then he can attain greater knowledge than men of whose intellect comes solely from human reason.

God Be Praised, Glory to Him the Lamb of God

I think when people who do not believe come to a Catholic Answer Forum it gives all of us, who are part of the Catholic Faith Community an opportunity to speak up for our beliefs in a manner that reflects our faith - so we can be appropriate in how we address all our brothers and sisters - and help refine our own ability to speak up for our beliefs. After all, we encounter people every day who are not Catholics and where better to be able to provide answers then on a Catholic Answer site! Welcome to CAF!

 

[josie_L]

actually vehemently Catholic countries like Austria and Switzerland have higher suicide rates as compared to Denmark or Norway (and roughly the same as Sweden). Norway has a much lower suicide rate than the United States (so I’m not sure where this perception comes from).

answers.com/topic/suicide-international-statistics

Here’s a broader list:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Interestingly Arab countries have the lowest suicide rates (although I’m not sure how reliable their reporting is). But this survey is consistent with others I’ve seen. Suicide rates in Scandinavia aren’t remarkably different than the west in general (and on average are probably slightly lower, you can do the math if you like).

Interestingly, the only “religious” country in Scandinavia (Finland) has the highest suicide rate?

Here is the data I said I would give you concerning atheism and suicide:

According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. “Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt” (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

Full article online: ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

 

[yankee_doodle]

You’re not going to get away with this one Yankee as you are purposely trying to paint Catholicism in a bad light every chance you get. Stop it. Switzerland is not “vehemently Catholic.” Furthermore your premise is faulty, you should not be comparing countries so much as the individuals residing in those countries who are committing suicide to really make some kind of parallel between theism and suicide.

frankly if every atheist suddenly began jumping off their nearest bridge it wouldn’t make the supernatural claims in your bible a drop more credible. There’s no logical nexus between these two things (so I’m willing to concede for arguendo sake, without researching the matter, that atheists do have a somewhat higher suicide rate).

I take it you’re saying, as Voltaire did (I’m paraphrasing, so excuse my lack of precision), even if there is no god we would have to invent one? Frankly even Kant didn’t mind (even defended) the virtue of religion (that being its highest virtue, not necessarily its practiced virtue). So the question remains, do humans need this fiction to sustain its virtue?

I understand I treat the falsity of religion as an underlying fact (and that probably annoys the heck out you); but I do think given all the evidence, it is an objective fact. I think it was Chesterton who stated open mindedness is a good thing, but our minds must close on something (or at some point). Obviously he had something very different in mind, but that statement relates no less to my view than it did to his own.

I hear all these arguments based on cause and effect, treating that metaphysical assumption (i.e. everything and every action has a preceding cause) as objective fact. The law of contradiction is typically treated by logicians as objective fact (i.e. something cannot be two things at once, for instance I cannot be physically both in New York and San Francisco at the same time). However, at the subatomic level quantum mechanics apply, and a thing can exist in two different states simultaneously, for instance a quantum bit. At this point we lack a unifying theory of physics, but imagine when we do formulate a theory of physics that unifies the macro and subatomic worlds? How can we be certain our fundamental laws of logic will continue to apply? We cannot. We cannot even be certain we won’t gain new insight into the macro world.

The only thing, therefore, I can base my views toward religion on are objective facts. For instance, we know both the Old and New Testament narratives have strikingly similar precedent in earlier mythology. Horis was born a virgin birth (from his mother Isis and father Osiris, god of the afterlife). The ancient Sumerians had a flood story that virtually matches the Noah story. An angry god warns his favored priest and instructs him to build a giant ship and fill it birds and creatures (to prevent their extinction). This mythology pre-existed Judaism by well over a millennium, and of course pre-existed Christianity by much longer.

Certainly the religious can say god spoke to all these peoples and told them roughly the same story, but that’s logically absurd and far fetched (or better put, grasping at straws). The virgin birth motif has existed for thousands of years. It was common for the Egyptian pharaohs to claim they were the product of a virgin birth, and this permeated into Greek mythology. The temple virgin was employed in Greek society, in service to its mythological religion. Indeed you will find the parent of virtually every single bible story in earlier near east mythology.

Perhaps this time around you might actually address my arguments (but I suspect you won’t; and you’ll spin an ad hominem out of this somehow, perhaps you can remind us that Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and pretend that’s an argument).

 

[yankee_doodle]

Here is the data I said I would give you concerning atheism and suicide:

According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. “Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt” (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

Full article online: ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

actually the study only looked at “depressed (name removed by moderator)atients.” Even the Zuckerman study was inconclusive (OK you pushed me to do cursory research). Zuckerman did note that the bottom ten nations (in terms of male suicide rates) were all religious countries, but those countries are all Islamic countries (as I noted when discussing this issue with someone else earlier).

It seems true that depressed atheists are more likely to commit suicide, but when you toss around words like "significant’ (i.e. the atheist suicide rate is “significantly” higher than we see with theists) that’s very misleading (an example of how pundits play with statistics).

In the US there’s a little more than 30,000 suicides per year on average (out of a country with over 300 million people and several millions atheists, agnostics, and roughly 45 million people who claim no religion at all). A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups (so I guess atheism is certainly not for the weak).

I suppose everyone would rather go on living assuming this mythology is real, because I suppose they’re afraid to face an unknown truth. They’re comfortable thinking beloved grandpa is up there hanging out with St. Peter at the pearly gates (probably boring poor St. Pete with his old war stories). Anyone that threatens this false psychological comfort is deemed a hostile. It’s the same old story (the way religion has always sustained itself, through ignorance, bigotry, and intimidation).

 

[josie_L]

frankly if every atheist suddenly began jumping off their nearest bridge it wouldn’t make the supernatural claims in your bible a drop more credible. There’s no logical nexus between these two things (so I’m willing to concede for arguendo sake, without researching the matter, that atheists do have a somewhat higher suicide rate).

I take it you’re saying, as Voltaire did (I’m paraphrasing, so excuse my lack of precision), even if there is no god we would have to invent one? Frankly even Kant didn’t mind (even defended) the virtue of religion (that being its highest virtue, not necessarily its practiced virtue). So the question remains, do humans need this fiction to sustain its virtue?

I understand I treat the falsity of religion as an underlying fact (and that probably annoys the heck out you); but I do think given all the evidence, it is an objective fact. I think it was Chesterton who stated open mindedness is a good thing, but our minds must close on something (or at some point). Obviously he had something very different in mind, but that statement relates no less to my view than it did to his own.

I hear all these arguments based on cause and effect, treating that metaphysical assumption (i.e. everything and every action has a preceding cause) as objective fact. The law of contradiction is typically treated by logicians as objective fact (i.e. something cannot be two things at once, for instance I cannot be physically both in New York and San Francisco at the same time). However, at the subatomic level quantum mechanics apply, and a thing can exist in two different states simultaneously, for instance a quantum bit. At this point we lack a unifying theory of physics, but imagine when we do formulate a theory of physics that unifies the macro and subatomic worlds? How can we be certain our fundamental laws of logic will continue to apply? We cannot. We cannot even be certain we won’t gain new insight into the macro world.

The only thing, therefore, I can base my views toward religion on are objective facts. For instance, we know both the Old and New Testament narratives have strikingly similar precedent in earlier mythology. Horis was born a virgin birth (from his mother Isis and father Osiris, god of the afterlife). The ancient Sumerians had a flood story that virtually matches the Noah story. An angry god warns his favored priest and instructs him to build a giant ship and fill it birds and creatures (to prevent their extinction). This mythology pre-existed Judaism by well over a millennium, and of course pre-existed Christianity by much longer.

Certainly the religious can say god spoke to all these peoples and told them roughly the same story, but that’s logically absurd and far fetched (or better put, grasping at straws). The virgin birth motif has existed for thousands of years. It was common for the Egyptian pharaohs to claim they were the product of a virgin birth, and this permeated into Greek mythology. The temple virgin was employed in Greek society, in service to its mythological religion. Indeed you will find the parent of virtually every single bible story in earlier near east mythology.

Perhaps this time around you might actually address my arguments (but I suspect you won’t; and you’ll spin an ad hominem out of this somehow, perhaps you can remind us that Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and pretend that’s an argument).

Alright, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.

 

[josie_L]

actually the study only looked at “depressed (name removed by moderator)atients.” Even the Zuckerman study was inconclusive (OK you pushed me to do cursory research). Zuckerman did note that the bottom ten nations (in terms of male suicide rates) were all religious countries, but those countries are all Islamic countries (as I noted when discussing this issue with someone else earlier).

It seems true that depressed atheists are more likely to commit suicide, but when you toss around words like "significant’ (i.e. the atheist suicide rate is “significantly” higher than we see with theists) that’s very misleading (an example of how pundits play with statistics).

In the US there’s a little more than 30,000 suicides per year on average (out of a country with over 300 million people and several millions atheists, agnostics, and roughly 45 million people who claim no religion at all). A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups (so I guess atheism is certainly not for the weak).

I suppose everyone would rather go on living assuming this mythology is real, because I suppose they’re afraid to face an unknown truth. They’re comfortable thinking beloved grandpa is up there hanging out with St. Peter at the pearly gates (probably boring poor St. Pete with his old war stories). Anyone that threatens this false psychological comfort is deemed a hostile. It’s the same old story (the way religion has always sustained itself, through ignorance, bigotry, and intimidation).

Did they give reasons as to why people distrusted Atheists? Would it have anything to do with militant atheism which is on the rise? And the culture wars that are being fought?

 

[josie_L]

frankly if every atheist suddenly began jumping off their nearest bridge it wouldn’t make the supernatural claims in your bible a drop more credible. There’s no logical nexus between these two things (so I’m willing to concede for arguendo sake, without researching the matter, that atheists do have a somewhat higher suicide rate).

I take it you’re saying, as Voltaire did (I’m paraphrasing, so excuse my lack of precision), even if there is no god we would have to invent one? Frankly even Kant didn’t mind (even defended) the virtue of religion (that being its highest virtue, not necessarily its practiced virtue). So the question remains, do humans need this fiction to sustain its virtue?

I understand I treat the falsity of religion as an underlying fact (and that probably annoys the heck out you); but I do think given all the evidence, it is an objective fact. I think it was Chesterton who stated open mindedness is a good thing, but our minds must close on something (or at some point). Obviously he had something very different in mind, but that statement relates no less to my view than it did to his own.

I hear all these arguments based on cause and effect, treating that metaphysical assumption (i.e. everything and every action has a preceding cause) as objective fact. The law of contradiction is typically treated by logicians as objective fact (i.e. something cannot be two things at once, for instance I cannot be physically both in New York and San Francisco at the same time). However, at the subatomic level quantum mechanics apply, and a thing can exist in two different states simultaneously, for instance a quantum bit. At this point we lack a unifying theory of physics, but imagine when we do formulate a theory of physics that unifies the macro and subatomic worlds? How can we be certain our fundamental laws of logic will continue to apply? We cannot. We cannot even be certain we won’t gain new insight into the macro world.

The only thing, therefore, I can base my views toward religion on are objective facts. For instance, we know both the Old and New Testament narratives have strikingly similar precedent in earlier mythology. Horis was born a virgin birth (from his mother Isis and father Osiris, god of the afterlife). The ancient Sumerians had a flood story that virtually matches the Noah story. An angry god warns his favored priest and instructs him to build a giant ship and fill it birds and creatures (to prevent their extinction). This mythology pre-existed Judaism by well over a millennium, and of course pre-existed Christianity by much longer.

Certainly the religious can say god spoke to all these peoples and told them roughly the same story, but that’s logically absurd and far fetched (or better put, grasping at straws). The virgin birth motif has existed for thousands of years. It was common for the Egyptian pharaohs to claim they were the product of a virgin birth, and this permeated into Greek mythology. The temple virgin was employed in Greek society, in service to its mythological religion. Indeed you will find the parent of virtually every single bible story in earlier near east mythology.

Perhaps this time around you might actually address my arguments (but I suspect you won’t; and you’ll spin an ad hominem out of this somehow, perhaps you can remind us that Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and pretend that’s an argument).

I can’t get into too much detail here (because it’s late and I’m too tired to do the search) but just because other religions professed a virgin birth how does that signify that it was the Jews (they’ve been around for more than 4000 years) who stole the idea from the Egyptians and not the other way around? As for the flood, well, it’s no surprise that it should be mentioned by others as this was a big event that took place, in fact, I believe this lends more credence of it having happened. I don’t believe that the similarities you’ve mentioned are close to indicting Judaism/Christianity of perjury when the differences far outweight any similarities (some of which are vague).

 

[yankee_doodle]

I can’t get into too much detail here (because it’s late and I’m too tired to do the search) but just because other religions professed a virgin birth how does that signify that it was the Jews (they’ve been around for more than 4000 years) who stole the idea from the Egyptians and not the other way around? As for the flood, well, it’s no surprise that it should be mentioned by others as this was a big event that took place, in fact, I believe this lends more credence of it having happened. I don’t believe that the similarities you’ve mentioned are close to indicting Judaism/Christianity of perjury when the differences far outweight any similarities (some of which are vague).

Abraham was allegedly born in the Mesopotamian world (and was the son of an idol maker). Therefore, even its own bible admits Mesopotamian mythology was already in full swing.

4,000 years only dates back to the third millennium BCE (which corresponds with the date of the oldest bronze age settlement found in Israel). However, the early dynastic period of Egypt is several centuries older, and Sumeria much older still (again, Sumeria was in today’s Iraq, the Mesopotamian world where Abraham was alleged to be born).

It’s all mythology!