J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, this is something I believe as well.
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
I pray too (in fact that’s what I believe will truly bring them to God).That’s why I just pray for everyone to be brought to the light.
P
PJM
Guest
***Very good and valid question.
I’ll awnser just for myself.
Its because Gods works such wonders in my life daily, that I sometimes forget that Faith is a gift that can be refused, as well as accepted.***
Thanks for posting:thumbsup:
A
AJTheMan
Guest
I don’t think you should see it as a negative thing. I’ve always said that questioning things of religious nature are always good for this reason: When you question things, there are only two things that can happen. A) Your faith is reinforced after you have questioned and you become more ingrained and devout in that faith. or B) You realize that you’re in the wrong faith and you convert to a position that makes you happier.
Atheists and Agnostics always question things. So I think this is extremely beneficial.
Atheists and Agnostics always question things. So I think this is extremely beneficial.
P
PJM
Guest
***Indeed this is true?
We can’t BUT the Holy Spirit can with, in and through us.
Faith is a gift, that God in His Mystery and Magesty can dispense at Will.***Love and prayers,
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
IMO faith is something we convince ourselves of or not … nothing more or less. I believe there’s a sink in my bathroom, but I suppose if I heard a compelling argument that the sink is something else & liked that argument I could convince myself otherwise.
I know the ancients invented all sorts of bizarre religions. Some of them had characters who came back from death. I know people cannot come back from death, but I suppose a compelling argument could convince some people otherwise … it just doesn’t convince me. No mystical force compelling my thoughts either way, just the gray matter between my ears!
L
lumenorientale
Guest
I feel the need to add one more category: those who feed off of, and love, drama. Of course, that sickness could be found on both sides of the debate.
I used to be an atheist, so I can see where they are coming from (except for those who just love the drama and the “everyone else is stupid but me” mindset). They come here usually out of curiousity–why do we believe what we believe? And maybe we should take heed here. Be clear on what we believe, and put it into practice in our daily lives–our own “Calcuttas,” as Mother Theresa would say.
Just a thought…
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
can’t win a debate against em … attack their character and sanity. Hey, it works when you’re preaching to the choir right?
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
Personally, I come here to resolve conflicts in my worldview that I may not have realized on my own, to learn more about Catholicism, and because I like engaging others in debate.
L
lumenorientale
Guest
Did I say anything, objectively, that was anything near what you are insinuating? I said that there was another category, a group that feeds off of the drama–but both sides of the debate have characters such as that. Did I not say that? And, as I’m sure you know, you can tell those in the latter category from those who are interested in actual dialogue.
Also, read the second paragraph–I said that atheists/agnostics are usually here because they are curious. Honestly curious, and want to know why we believe what we believe. Nothing wrong with that.
Why so sensitive?
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I feel like I’ve been getting beat up a little bit on this board today … now I’m getting hyper-sensitive (apologies)Did I say anything, objectively, that was anything near what you are insinuating? I said that there was another category, a group that feeds off of the drama–but both sides of the debate have characters such as that. Did I not say that? And, as I’m sure you know, you can tell those in the latter category from those who are interested in actual dialogue.
Also, read the second paragraph–I said that atheists/agnostics are usually here because they are curious. Honestly curious, and want to know why we believe what we believe. Nothing wrong with that.
Why so sensitive?
L
lumenorientale
Guest
No probs…I’m sorry you are getting beat up here. That’s definitely not what should be happening. It’s a shame people are able to hide behind their computers screens and screen-names like the white hoods of a certain organization I can think of…and say whatever they want with no consideration to the human being on the other end.I feel like I’ve been getting beat up a little bit on this board today … now I’m getting hyper-sensitive (apologies)
(disclaimer: I am not directing the above statement to anyone posting on this thread)
Anyway, take care, yankee. Don’t be a stranger.
N
NoWings
Guest
Well, including what I said, one also finds a nice link to something like this every once in a while.
Beautimus.
P
PJM
Guest
So let me guess, you don’t belief if God right? Not that it takes faith to hold such a position. Logic can get most folks there.
Love and prayers,
G
geekborj
Guest
Difficulty of proof depends on the case:
“All A is B.” >> A positive statement. This is easy to disprove.
“Not (all A is B).” >> A negative statement. This is easy to prove.
In both cases above, one just need to show that at least one A is not B.
However, the above case is not as easy as the “All A is B” statement.
“A exists” >> A positive statement. This is easy to prove.
“No (A exists)” >> A negative statement. This is easy to disprove.
In both cases above, one just need to show proofs that A actually exists.
Note that when a statement is easy to disprove, it means it is difficult to prove. As an example, when one argues that “Pink elephants exist,” it is difficult to disprove because one cannot search enough and show that one cannot indeed find one pink elephant.
This is like the assumption that at least one magnetic monopole exists in this Universe. Such existence is used by P. Dirac to show how come we have discrete charges. That there is not such monopole in this Universe is very hard to prove, hence taken to be true because of the important consequences of such “principle”.
The same is true with Christians. Christians believe in the existence of a God because with this belief, there comes a lot of important consequences and hence the Universe becomes much beautiful and meaningful.
“All A is B.” >> A positive statement. This is easy to disprove.
“Not (all A is B).” >> A negative statement. This is easy to prove.
In both cases above, one just need to show that at least one A is not B.
However, the above case is not as easy as the “All A is B” statement.
“A exists” >> A positive statement. This is easy to prove.
“No (A exists)” >> A negative statement. This is easy to disprove.
In both cases above, one just need to show proofs that A actually exists.
Note that when a statement is easy to disprove, it means it is difficult to prove. As an example, when one argues that “Pink elephants exist,” it is difficult to disprove because one cannot search enough and show that one cannot indeed find one pink elephant.
This is like the assumption that at least one magnetic monopole exists in this Universe. Such existence is used by P. Dirac to show how come we have discrete charges. That there is not such monopole in this Universe is very hard to prove, hence taken to be true because of the important consequences of such “principle”.
The same is true with Christians. Christians believe in the existence of a God because with this belief, there comes a lot of important consequences and hence the Universe becomes much beautiful and meaningful.
G
gearhead
Guest
As I’ve pointed out in a number of threads, I’m mainly here to learn more about the faith that my wife belongs to and that will play a role in the upbringing of my children.
I think the only issue I’ve really gotten worked up about here is same-sex marriage, but (and I hope this doesn’t take the thread off-track), I really do see it as an issue of harm and fundamental rights.
IMO, deism is the refuge for people who once were theists, but have rejected the idea of a personal, active god, and for whatever reason, feel compelled to still believe in something in its place.
Example #1: there are no elephants in my pocket.
The characteristics of my pocket (specifically small size and limited stretchiness) are incompatible with the characteristics of elephant (specifically large size), implying that the one cannot exist within the other.
I don’t even need to look in my pocket to check. Even without confirming it through observation, I can know with certainty that there are no elephants in my pocket.
Example #2: there are no pebbles in my pocket.
Unlike elephants, the characteristics of pebbles (e.g. small size) are quite compatible with the idea of them being in my pocket, but I’ve looked through my entire pocket and I’ve confirmed that they’re not in it.
G
gearhead
Guest
However, hypothetically, one could analyze the genome of the elephant (including defining what makes an elephant an elephant), determine the mechanisms and physical processes that determine the elephant’s colour, and come to the conclusion that the genetic variation needed to make what would be an elephant pink would be so great that the resulting creature could no longer rightly be called an elephant.
Hypothetically. In reality, it might be that there’s some genetic control that would produce elephants in whatever colour you want. However, one way of disproving a thing is to demonstrate that there is no means that would allow that thing to exist.
S
Swan
Guest
When I first came to CAF I was Catholic, now I’m an agnostice investigating Buddhism.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I like what you’re pushing (peaceful coexistence); but you must also understand the inherent conflict between Christians and atheists/agnostics. Most atheists object to prohibitions on things like gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research. We think most religion (although I’m far from an expert on Buddhism) serves as an obstruction to science and individual freedoms. Therefore, we naturally challenge it in the interest of what we see as the greater good. Obviously Christianity is not tolerant toward challenge (and views it as a threat).
Inversely, Christianity believes it serves the greater good, because Christians generally (though not exclusively) believe trends such as increased tolerance toward homosexuals will lead to societal decline (not to mention invoking the wrath of their all powerful god). Herein lies the tension (that will probably never find complete resolution). However, the trend in the west is toward secularization (and religion across the board is declining in industrialized countries). Therefore, this tension may diminish as religion diminishes (although there’s still the impending issue of increased religiosity in the third world).
- Status