Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josie_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Certainly religion has been used throughout the centuries in western history as the basis for all sorts of injustices.
And Atheism’s been used in the East. Any twisting of religion for evil pales in comparison to the injustices of Comrades Mao and Stalin.
From the subjugation of blacks and women
Actually, a lot of the opposition to slavery was religious based. Did you know the “battle hymn republic” was a religious song? Southern Slavery clearly was against church teaching.
to the oppression of Jews;
From what I’ve read Pope Pious XXII actually hid jews from Nazi Germany.
and today the unequal treatment of homosexuals and others who don’t conform with the Christian norm.
Actually, the catholic belief is that they are bound by the same rules as straight people. Since they wouldn’t normally want to enter in to a nornal marriage they should stay celibate.

If this refers to gay marriage, that’ government licensing, doesn’t affect actual freedom.
 
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,
well, I’m not a Christian or any other type of theist (mainly because in my view it’s pretty clear that the supernatural claims made by the various world religions are untrue). However, it doesn’t mean I have a way to explain timeless questions like why are we here, did something beyond our cognition put the universe in motion, etc.

While I see no reason to look beyond the natural world for these explanations, I also don’t dispute the hypothetical possibility of a higher power of some sort (albeit I think the chances are probably very remote).
 
And Atheism’s been used in the East. Any twisting of religion for evil pales in comparison to the injustices of Comrades Mao and Stalin.
funny thing is Stalin wanted to be a priest at one point (go figure). Hitler wasn’t an avowed atheist (if anything there’s a better case he was a theist of some sort … although obviously an incredibly warped man).

If you want a great example of a sane western secular society look to the Scandinavians (who are rated the “happiest people in the world,” at least according to a Yahoo article I read months back).
Actually, a lot of the opposition to slavery was religious based. Did you know the “battle hymn republic” was a religious song? Southern Slavery clearly was against church teaching.
What I said was slave owners and advocates of slavery used religion to justify the practice. You’re right, some opposition to slavery was religious, but initially the Quakers were virtually alone in this opposition. The first voices against slavery were the secular rationalist thinkers of the enlightenment.
From what I’ve read Pope Pious XXII actually hid jews from Nazi Germany.
Yes he did. I didn’t say the church colluded with the Nazi’s (beyond by omission since they never publicly challenged Nazi atrocities).
Actually, the catholic belief is that they are bound by the same rules as straight people. Since they wouldn’t normally want to enter in to a nornal marriage they should stay celibate.
If this refers to gay marriage, that’ government licensing, doesn’t affect actual freedom.
Yes, not licensing gay marriage does affect actual freedom. This is little different from the rational of the segregationist.

Additionally, just to point out the obvious, none of this is relevant to the question of whether or not the supernatural events described in your bible actually happened.
 
And Atheism’s been used in the East. Any twisting of religion for evil pales in comparison to the injustices of Comrades Mao and Stalin.
Pales in comparison?

The “They were worse than we were” argument doesnt really cut it, especally when one side claims to be our moral compass.
Actually, a lot of the opposition to slavery was religious based. Did you know the “battle hymn republic” was a religious song? Southern Slavery clearly was against church teaching.
Did you know that many slavers belief in slavery was religious based?

They truely believed that it was their God given right.
From what I’ve read Pope Pious XXII actually hid jews from Nazi Germany.
It goes a little further back than the 1930s/40s. For example, take a look at the history of the Middle Ages.
Actually, the catholic belief is that they are bound by the same rules as straight people. Since they wouldn’t normally want to enter in to a nornal marriage they should stay celibate.
If this refers to gay marriage, that’ government licensing, doesn’t affect actual freedom.
That isnt completly true now is it?
 
Anyone know of any converts of any kind who started out as a non-believer prior to coming to CAF?

Anyone know?

Revert TSIEG
 
has it ever occurred to anyone that we’re speaking out against what we view as injustice by offering an alternative voice to challenge the status quo?

Certainly religion has been used throughout the centuries in western history as the basis for all sorts of injustices. From the subjugation of blacks and women to the oppression of Jews; and today the unequal treatment of homosexuals and others who don’t conform with the Christian norm.

It would be one thing if this bigotry were based on something real; but the fact that it’s not gives many of us the impetus and feeling of duty to challenge it. Frankly, although I seem to wind up inextricably discussing topics like the merits of theism … that’s really not why I visit this site. I’d much rather talk about why people believe their supposedly loving god advocates discrimination? Why they feel they have the license to deny others (who are good, productive people who do not harm anyone else) the right to something that apparently has deep meaning to them?

Why is it that religious folks are threatened by the mere presence of those who disagree with them, even when those persons number in the small minority? Are religious folks so insecure in their beliefs that they view intellectual opposition as a threat? Certainly there’s no impetus to create threads that directly target atheists (like this one). So I guess the question asked by the OP applies as much to the theists here as it does to me & the few peers I have on this board.

In fact you might take notice of the fact that I haven’t created any threads, which seek to challenge theism; but rather have merely responded and posted in threads that challenge atheism (or agnosticism).

If it weren’t for threads like this I’d be confined to commenting in threads that I view as productive, like threads that discuss gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, etc. I am under no delusion that I will convert theists over to my position; but apparently some of you folks are deluded into thinking you will convert us over to your side (and then act astonished when you’re unsuccessful).

I thought this was supposed to be the forum where non-Catholics can discuss things openly (notice I don’t typically participate in the exclusively Catholic forums). Obviously I’m a person who is accustomed to open intellectual discourse (and I don’t mind being in the minority). I guess not everyone shares that characteristic?
not: The Irrational Atheist
 
Anyone know of any converts of any kind who started out as a non-believer prior to coming to CAF?

Anyone know?

Revert TSIEG
Yes, I remember a poster by the username ag_not who apparently was very hostile when she came here but had a singular conversion involving the blessed Mother (she’s now Catholic). I remember her being in the apologetics forum. And then there’s strawberry jam (she’s still here) who was agnostic but is now converting to Catholicism. Then there’s guyinthestreet who was an atheist (I think he was brought up to be one) and is now taking RCIA classes, his story was quite amazing (although I think by the time he came to CAF he believed in a God).
 
Yes, I remember a poster by the username ag_not who apparently was very hostile when she came here but had a singular conversion involving the blessed Mother (she’s now Catholic). I remember her being in the apologetics forum. And then there’s strawberry jam (she’s still here) who was agnostic but is now converting to Catholicism. Then there’s guyinthestreet who was an atheist (I think he was brought up to be one) and is now taking RCIA classes, his story was quite amazing (although I think by the time he came to CAF he believed in a God).
My dad was born into a Catholic family, but he says that he is now agnostic. His faith was lost a long time ago after my grandfather died…before I was born. My mom is a Eucharistic minister and has asked my dad for years to come to Mass. After going to the morning Mass for months she asked him one morning a few months back and he actually went. I think he is too proud to admit that he needs help that only our Lord can offer. I pray for him often, because he is in an awful place right now and needs faith more than anything. I will continue to show him my faith through my actions and my kids. I hope he has something deep in him that allows him to see that his salvation is on the line. Oddly enough he says that the kids need to be baptized, and why would any one go to a bible church… they we just made 20 years ago! HAHA I dont know what to think about him sometimes!

Revert TSIEG
 
funny thing is Stalin wanted to be a priest at one point (go figure). Hitler wasn’t an avowed atheist (if anything there’s a better case he was a theist of some sort … although obviously an incredibly warped man).
Yes Stalin did want to be a (Orthodox) priest at one point, and Hitler was probably some kind of pagan deifying the old “gods” of Germany.
If you want a great example of a sane western secular society look to the Scandinavians (who are rated the “happiest people in the world,” at least according to a Yahoo article I read months back).
I don’t see how this has anything to do with an atheistic society since Scandinavia is secular.
What I said was slave owners and advocates of slavery used religion to justify the practice. You’re right, some opposition to slavery was religious, but initially the Quakers were virtually alone in this opposition. The first voices against slavery were the secular rationalist thinkers of the enlightenment.
Some opposition to slavery was religious, huhhh, how many atheists do you think were around in order to oppose such practices? And the first voices against slavery was the Catholic Church (we are not refering to slavery in America only). There were many bulls attesting to the fact that the Church was keen on ending (chattel) slavery, I will post them for you later.
 
What I think is interesting is that the term “agnostic” means “I don’t know”. Yet they most of them to be pretty comforatble in the knowledge-“gnosis”-that God does not exist.

So wouldn’t calling yourselves “Agnostic” be a contradiction because you are claiming to apparently “know” something that is beyond your limit or ability to know?

As far as the cosmological “evidence” that God does not exist, I ask you what evidence?
 
"During the 1430s, the Spanish colonized the Canary Islands and began to enslave the native population. This was not serfdom but true slavery of the sort that Christians and Moors had long practiced upon one another’s captives in Spain. When word of these actions reached Pope Eugene IV (1431 to 1447), he issued a bull, Sicut dudum. The pope did not mince words. Under threat of excommunication he gave everyone involved fifteen days from receipt of his bull “to restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands…These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money. Pope Pius II (1458 to 1464) and Pope Sixtus IV (1471 to 1484) followed with additional bulls condemning enslavement of the Canary Islanders, which, obviously, had continued. What this episode displays is the weakness of papal authority at this time, not the indifference of the Church to the sin of slavery.”

“With the successful Spanish and Portuguese invasions of the New World, enslavement of the native peoples and the importation of Africans ensued, and some slavers offered the rationale that this was not in violation of Christian morality, as these were not “rational creatures” entitled to liberty but were a species of animals and therefore legitimately subject to human exploitation. This theological subterfuge by slave-traders was artfully used by Norman F. Cantor to indict Catholicism: “The church accepted slavery…in sixteenth-century Spain, Christians were still arguing over whether black slaves had souls or were animal creations of the Lord.” Cantor gave no hint that Rome repeatedly denounced New World slavery as grounds for excommunication.”

“But that is precisely what Pope Paul III (1534 to 1549) had to say about the matter. Although a member of a Roman ecclesiastical family, and something of a libertine in his early years (he was made a cardinal at twenty-five but did not accept ordination until he was fifty), Paul turned out to be a very effective and pious pope who fully recognized the moral significance of Protestantism and initiated the Counter-Reformation. His magnificent bull against New World slavery (as well as similar bulls by other popes) was somehow “lost” from the historical record until very recently. I believe this was due to the extreme Protestant biases of historians, who may also have been scornful of the pope’s predicating his attack on the assumption that Satan was the cause of slavery:”

[Satan,] the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking in the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals.

“**Therefore, We…noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men…by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples—eventhough they are outside the faith…should not be deprived of their liberty or their other possessions…and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void. **(My italics)”

"In a second bull on slavery, Paul imposed the penalty of excommunication on anyone, regardless of their “dignity, state, condition, or grade…who in any way may presume to reduce said Indians to slavery or despoil them of their goods.”

christianitytoday.com/ct/…0.html?start=2
 
What I think is interesting is that the term “agnostic” means “I don’t know”. Yet they most of them to be pretty comforatble in the knowledge-“gnosis”-that God does not exist.

So wouldn’t calling yourselves “Agnostic” be a contradiction because you are claiming to apparently “know” something that is beyond your limit or ability to know?
:confused:

It isn’t that hard folks. Agnostic (a gnosis) means “I don’t know”. It means that I’m not sure if God exists or not…

Where do you get that agnostics are “pretty comfortable (sic) in the knowledge that God does not exist”? If that were the case, they’d be atheists.
 
:confused:

It isn’t that hard folks. Agnostic (a gnosis) means “I don’t know”. It means that I’m not sure if God exists or not…

Where do you get that agnostics are “pretty comfortable (sic) in the knowledge that God does not exist”? If that were the case, they’d be atheists.
That’s because you haven’t met the other agnostics here at CAF, but I’m telling you quite a few of them act like they’re atheists, and then as I mentioned earlier there are the agnostic atheists, don’t know what the heck that means?

p.s. But I do agree with and your understanding as “a gnosis” implies ignorance, i.e., “I don’t know.”
 
and then as I mentioned earlier there are the agnostic atheists, don’t know what the heck that means?
In one set of definitions, the term “agnostic” deals with knowledge and the term “atheist” deals with belief. An agnostic atheist would be someone who believes that God does not exist, but doesn’t know this with certainty. By the same set of definitions, many theists would be agnostic theists, though I’ve found that theists often take offense to the label “agnostic”.
 
My dad was born into a Catholic family, but he says that he is now agnostic. His faith was lost a long time ago after my grandfather died…before I was born. My mom is a Eucharistic minister and has asked my dad for years to come to Mass. After going to the morning Mass for months she asked him one morning a few months back and he actually went. I think he is too proud to admit that he needs help that only our Lord can offer. I pray for him often, because he is in an awful place right now and needs faith more than anything. I will continue to show him my faith through my actions and my kids. I hope he has something deep in him that allows him to see that his salvation is on the line. Oddly enough he says that the kids need to be baptized, and why would any one go to a bible church… they we just made 20 years ago! HAHA I dont know what to think about him sometimes!

Revert TSIEG
They fight it, the Holy Spirit calling them Home, that is.
 
In one set of definitions, the term “agnostic” deals with knowledge and the term “atheist” deals with belief. An agnostic atheist would be someone who believes that God does not exist, but doesn’t know this with certainty. By the same set of definitions, many theists would be agnostic theists, though I’ve found that theists often take offense to the label “agnostic”.
Don’t you think that’s just a play on words? I mean if you believe He doesn’t exist then you should be sure about it, no? As a theist I believe God exists, period, moreover I don’t need a back up system just in case I might be wrong by adding the word agnostic (this is what it sounds like to me anyways).
 
Don’t you think that’s just a play on words? I mean if you believe He doesn’t exist then you should be sure about it, no?
I don’t think it’s a play on words. We make this sort of distinction all the time. For instance, I believe it won’t rain this evening, but I don’t know that it won’t.
As a theist I believe God exists, period, moreover I don’t need a back up system just in case I might be wrong by adding the word agnostic (this is what it sounds like to me anyways).
I don’t think it’s usually intended that way. Some people I’ve encountered who call themselves “agnostic atheists” add the “agnostic” bit because they feel that no human knowledge is truly certain. It’s not so much intended to give them a “back up system” as much as it is an attempt to prevent putting forward their beliefs as something they’re not.
 
I don’t think it’s a play on words. We make this sort of distinction all the time. For instance, I believe it won’t rain this evening, but I don’t know that it won’t.
I still think you should call yourself agnostic if you don’t know.

I don’t think it’s usually intended that way. Some people I’ve encountered who call themselves “agnostic atheists” add the “agnostic” bit because they feel that no human knowledge is truly certain. It’s not so much intended to give them a “back up system” as much as it is an attempt to prevent putting forward their beliefs as something they’re not.

How uncertain/certain are they about their position if they have no true certainty?
 
I still think you should call yourself agnostic if you don’t know.
Yes, in a sense, I am agnostic about the rain this evening. But I still do believe it’s not going to rain. I believe this so deeply that I don’t even have an umbrella with me.
How uncertain/certain are they about their position if they have no true certainty?
Somewhere less than 100%. By some definitions, 99.99999% certainty is “agnostic” because of that leftover 0.00001%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top