Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

[josie_L]

I find it’s generally better to know things than not to know them. I know what I believed when I was a Catholic. I no longer hold those beliefs to be true, for various reasons. But perhaps I’m wrong about that. Perhaps I completely misunderstood what my Catholic upbringing was trying to tell me. I doubt it, but you never know.

But why is it necessary to know these things through dialoguing on forums rather than diligent study of the subject in question? This is not the most academic approach, you’ve taken.

But you seem to be saying that it’s either/or. Either I wholheartedly embrace Catholicism, or I shake the dust from my feet and never darken the door of a church again. That seems scarcely reasonable.

No, I’m saying that visiting this forum may not be the best approach for the reasons mentioned above.

(slightly tongue in cheek) Are you not under an injunction to go out and make disciples of the whole world? What is missionary work, if not going and telling people how and why they are wrong about god?

Missionary work does not entail criticizing other faiths (not in Catholicism it does), it’s more about living out your faith so others may see the truth of what you believe. Putting your faith into action is the most compelling argument we have as Christians.

Well, atheists are humans too; I can’t see that the behaviour of the average athiest on religious forums is any worse or any better than the average believer on atheist forums.

I have ventured (but never responded) onto an atheist forum and the things I heard being said were quite frankly appalling so I don’t think I’ll be visiting an atheist forum again. I’ll give you an example, there used to be a poster by the name of annabea (she was 12) she came here from an atheist website, I just happened to be on the same atheist forum that she was participating in. She was mentioning how she and her friends were taking drugs (she showed pictures) and how her 13 year old friend went missing for some hours with the dealer who was much older, do you know what the response of the other posters were? They laughed it off and said that their annabea was growing up, not even one of them said she was wrong or that she should stop using drugs.

We cannot know, no. We cannot anything with 100.0% certainty. But we do have ways of investigating religious claims about the world to see if they might be right. From where I stand, when religious claims are investigated, either scientifically or intellectually, they don’t stack up. You’re under no obligation to take any notice of what I think.

But we’re not solely talking about investigating religious claims we’re talking about the existence of a God of which if you are wrong puts me at least closer to the truth then you ever were.

If we’re discussing our views on religion, should I just keep quiet for fear of upsetting people?

But that’s my point we’re just discussing religion and how you believe it to be wrong when you should be trying to convince me that there is no God.

But Hindu’s and Protestants are still “wrong”, are they not?

Yes and no, but again I wouldn’t argue with them unless I have to.

Yeah, that’s the one I had in mind

But those comments were made generally speaking without actually condemning you per se. It is far different to state to individual atheists that they are going to hell as this is impossible to know, in fact, some atheists may be saved but it really depends on the motive and understanding of the person in question.

Well, I can’t be responsible for the souls of others, particularly as, as far as I can see, no such things exist.

Have you not heard of near death experiences (in the hundreds of thousands) and the intensive research and study that they are now committed to understanding this phenomena. Furthermore, from my understanding of experimental research “consciousness” can survive outside of the body.

Muslims would say that Christians proselytising in Islamic countries are putting souls in exactly the same kind of jeopardy. The only way to avoid that kind of jeopardy is never to examine one’s faith, and not allow it to face any challenge whatsoever. Do you think that’s a healthy attitude to have?

There are not challenging the faith by criticizing Islam but by living out their faith in Christ as a means of bringing them the truth. Missionary work does not just entail having a bible and speaking the words of God.

It;s not intended as such. It’s merely a statement of fact, as I see it. I regret if that causes offence. It’s a bit odd that you want to talk to atheists about their views, but complain that you don’t like what you hear. But surely, a faith that has survived 2000 years of persecution, civil war and social upheaval can stand up to being called myth and superstition?

I never said I want to talk to atheists about my views otherwise why wouldn’t I just go to an atheist forum where I could get a greater audience. No, I am simply protecting my view point from some who wish to deconstruct it. This thread was created because I felt I needed to get my point across about what I feel when speaking to some atheists.

 

[reen12]

The RCC states that faith is a gift of God’s grace.
Well…either it is, or it is not.
An atheist or an agnostic might be urged to
pray for this gift of faith. To remain open minded.

Yet if a given member of the RCC was asked to
remain open minded - in terms of the faith beliefs of other Christian churches
…so much for open mindedness?

Why is it, that ‘religious’ overtones are occassionally
noted - mixed in with ringing endorsements of atheism -
wherein the only way to fly is to remain an ‘objective’ observer in life?

So much for ‘objective observer’…?

to wit:

Scientists - as the high priests of society?
Holy days - [anniversary of the Galileo affair?]
Scriptures/Credal statements - [Humanist Manifestos, numbers I & II & III]
Heretic - [an individual who expresses, aloud, doubts as to global warming?]
Apostates - [former atheists, who declare belief in the existence of godhead?]
Saints - [fill in the blank]

The rigidity of doctrine/dogma equals that of RCC doctrine/dogma?..

…with the neon bulb held as sacred object,
‘carbon footprint’ [reminding one of Bigfoot,]
and the blessed word ‘divisive’ …all part of the ‘religion?’
Isn’t ‘devisive’ on a par with Catholicism railing on
about the divide within Christendom?

A commentator - writing about the upheavals during the 16th c. Reformation,
noted that some people looked about them…and ended up
chosing to paddle their *own *canoe -
when it came to matters of religious belief.

I find society somewhat similarly situated, in our own day.

Goodbye…statues of Jesus, high upon a hill.
Hello, giant Windmills…dotting the landscape.
Kind of a modern version of the wayside shrine
of the Middle Ages. [A whirling totem pole?]

Gimme that new time religion.

“T’was good enough for Darwin, 'tis good enough for me.”

[Where’s my canoe?] http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

reen12

 

[josie_L]

I’m not talking about god (or if there really is a power beyond our awareness, whatever form it might take). I’m talking about “religion” (including all forms of Christianity). When lawyers build a legal case, sometimes all they have to rely on is circumstantial evidence. However, when there’s enough circumstantial evidence saying something is true or untrue, it becomes unreasonable to believe anything to the contrary.

Circumstantial evidence isn’t just tangible items, it looks at patterns of conduct, motive, probability, state of mind, and I imagine thousands of other factors. When religion is exposed to this sort of examination, it’s clearly “unreasonable” to believe its claims.

When something can be shown false beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s accurate to say it’s objectively false.

What’s the point of using your circumstantial evidence when I haved lived the faith of my beliefs and seen the proof of God working in my life? In light of this do you think I really care for your circumstantial evidence? Furthermore, why should I take you seriously when you haven’t even provided me an argument against there being a God (are you saying that you’re agnostic/atheist because you don’t believe our claims about God)? What is this circumstantial evidence of which you speak of by the way?

 

[yankee_doodle]

What’s the point of using your circumstantial evidence when I haved lived the faith of my beliefs and seen the proof of God working in my life? In light of this do you think I really care for your circumstantial evidence? Furthermore, why should I take you seriously when you haven’t even provided me an argument against there being a God (are you saying that you’re agnostic/atheist because you don’t believe our claims about God)? What is this circumstantial evidence of which you speak of by the way?

I’ve made it a point to read into new research about the human conscience (and the biological and environmental sources of our consciences). I don’t know when I’ll have time, but hopefully in the near future. As for my case against religiosity. All mythology has universal commonality (at least since the bronze age). For instance, all have hero’s and tragedy. All make supernatural claims that defy the laws of nature. All have an element of dualism (devil and god like characters). In fact, beginning with Persian and then Greek mythology, all are strikingly similar in their more intricate details. For example, the importance of virgin goddesses (or quasi-goddess) characters. The idea of an immortal spirit that will live on after death. Even the narrative of the immaculate conception finds harmony with various mythological predecessors. For instance, Perseus, the son of Danae, was impregnated when Zeus came to her in the form of a shower of gold. The Roman mythological savior Quirrnus was allegedly born to a virgin. Attis was born of the virgin Nama. Mithra was born to a virgin. Adonis was born to the virgin Myrrah, and the Egyptian god Horus was born to a virgin (and was visited by three kings).

Additionally, other narratives like the flood and creation account have commonality with earlier pagan myth. For instance (and perhaps the most relevant) are Sumerian accounts of “the flood.” Indeed the Sumerian story is almost exactly the same as the biblical narrative (which came much later). The god Enlil warned the priest-king Ziusudra of the coming flood, and instructed him to build a ship and carry beasts and birds in it. It should be noted that Enlil was also worshiped by the Assyrians and other peoples in that region (this mythology is broadly categorized as Mesopotamian mythology).

I view this evidence as sufficiently decisive. There’s much more developing research into near eastern mythology, the above are just a few of many examples.

 

[estesbob]

I’ve made it a point to read into new research about the human conscience (and the biological and environmental sources of our consciences). I don’t know when I’ll have time, but hopefully in the near future. As for my case against religiosity. All mythology has universal commonality (at least since the bronze age). For instance, all have hero’s and tragedy. All make supernatural claims that defy the laws of nature. All have an element of dualism (devil and god like characters). In fact, beginning with Persian and then Greek mythology, all are strikingly similar in their more intricate details. For example, the importance of virgin goddesses (or quasi-goddess) characters. The idea of an immortal spirit that will live on after death. Even the narrative of the immaculate conception finds harmony with various mythological predecessors. For instance, Perseus, the son of Danae, was impregnated when Zeus came to her in the form of a shower of gold. The Roman mythological savior Quirrnus was allegedly born to a virgin. Attis was born of the virgin Nama. Mithra was born to a virgin. Adonis was born to the virgin Myrrah, and the Egyptian god Horus was born to a virgin (and was visited by three kings).

Additionally, other narratives like the flood and creation account have commonality with earlier pagan myth. For instance (and perhaps the most relevant) are Sumerian accounts of “the flood.” Indeed the Sumerian story is almost exactly the same as the biblical narrative (which came much later). The god Enlil warned the priest-king Ziusudra of the coming flood, and instructed him to build a ship and carry beasts and birds in it. It should be noted that Enlil was also worshiped by the Assyrians and other peoples in that region (this mythology is broadly categorized as Mesopotamian mythology).

I view this evidence as sufficiently decisive. There’s much more developing research into near eastern mythology, the above are just a few of many examples.

Well thats a nice history lesson but so what? You have nothing to sunstantiate you lack of belief other than you say so.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Scriptures/Credal statements - [Humanist Manifestos, numbers I & II & III]

I much prefer the writings of enlightenment thinkers, like Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine, Kant, Voltaire, Hume, Bacon, Locke, Adam Smith, etc. (all of whom, except Locke, were deist, agnostic, or atheist). Or perhaps modern hero’s of history like Winston Churchill (agnostic). Perhaps Freud or Einstein (atheist, agnostic respectively). Or for some real fun, Nietzsche.

Marx and his insane progeny, have been thoroughly discredited (if you want an example of what a secular society built on western ideals looks like, travel to Scandinavia, both the most irreligious and happiest place on earth).

Heretic - [an individual who expresses, aloud, doubts as to global warming?]

nope, that’s just an idiot.

noted that some people looked about them…and ended up
chosing to paddle their *own *canoe -
when it came to matters of religious belief.

and finally via the enlightenment that canoe found its way to the river of common sense.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Well thats a nice history lesson but so what? You have nothing to sunstantiate you lack of belief other than you say so.

umm, gee all those facts I provided that clearly show the pagan roots of Judaism and Christianity wouldn’t be substantiating proof would it? Nahhhh

 

[Don_Schneider]

“I much prefer the writings of enlightenment thinkers, like Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine, Kant, Voltaire, Hume, Bacon, Locke, Adam Smith, etc. (all of whom, except Locke, were deist, agnostic, or atheist). Or perhaps modern hero’s of history like Winston Churchill (agnostic). Perhaps Freud or Einstein (atheist, agnostic respectively). Or for some real fun, Nietzsche.”

–Dear Yankee,

What is your source, please, for calling Einstein an agnostic as opposed to an atheist? In my “Proof of a Creator…” I labeled him an atheist because I remember reading a quote by him that read: “Make no mistake about it. I am an atheist.” One cannot possibly get any clearer than that. Unfortunately, I cannot now find the quote so my memory might be faulty on this point.

In regard to this Scandinavian utopia you position, don’t these nations have high suicide rates relative to other Western nations?

 

[yankee_doodle]

“I much prefer the writings of enlightenment thinkers, like Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine, Kant, Voltaire, Hume, Bacon, Locke, Adam Smith, etc. (all of whom, except Locke, were deist, agnostic, or atheist). Or perhaps modern hero’s of history like Winston Churchill (agnostic). Perhaps Freud or Einstein (atheist, agnostic respectively). Or for some real fun, Nietzsche.”

–What is your source, please, for calling Einstein an agnostic as opposed to an atheist? In my “Proof of a Creator…” I labeled him an atheist because I remember reading a quote by him that read: “Make no mistake about it. I am an atheist.” One cannot possibly get any clearer than that. Unfortunately, I cannot now find the quote so my memory might be faulty on this point.

In regard to this Scandinavian utopia you position, don’t these nations have high suicide rates relative to other Western nations?

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?

 

[reen12]

Acutally, the strongest evidence, buttressing the edifice of atheism, is the
suffering of innocents, especially children.

And what of the suffering in the animal world? - as devour, or
be devoured, reigns? What kind of deity permits such things?

Is the pain, anxiety and confusion of a smaller animal - being
preyed upon by a larger beast, somehow glossed over, by
people of faith? Or is this wrenching reality tucked away, under
the aegis of ‘mystery?’

Then there is the hideous suffering of an infant, during
parital birth abortion. This is a modern barbarity,
as the screams of the infant are blocked, as his/her
lungs are not yet functional, exiting the birth canal.
A little creature being preyed upon by stronger creatures,
bent on ending his/her brief life, in an act of utter barbarity.

Where no deity acts a guarantor of any human right,
it’s a short excursion, I think, to a life which will be “nasty, brutish and short.”

[Speaking of shortened life, when the state seizes the medical kingdom,
in it’s ravenous clutches, we can then add ‘shorter,’ to “nasty, brutish and short.”]

So while some soi-disant people of faith distress me, quite frankly,
with their attitude and their manner of speech, I cast my lot with them.

But please, God, no theocracy.

For that might return us to days of yore, where life might also be
nasty, brutish and short - as the fires lit [for dissenters] illuminated the words of the creed.

reen12

 

[4elise]

I’ve made it a point to read into new research about the human conscience (and the biological and environmental sources of our consciences). I don’t know when I’ll have time, but hopefully in the near future. As for my case against religiosity. All mythology has universal commonality (at least since the bronze age). For instance, all have hero’s and tragedy. All make supernatural claims that defy the laws of nature. All have an element of dualism (devil and god like characters). In fact, beginning with Persian and then Greek mythology, all are strikingly similar in their more intricate details. For example, the importance of virgin goddesses (or quasi-goddess) characters. The idea of an immortal spirit that will live on after death. Even the narrative of the immaculate conception finds harmony with various mythological predecessors. For instance, Perseus, the son of Danae, was impregnated when Zeus came to her in the form of a shower of gold. The Roman mythological savior Quirrnus was allegedly born to a virgin. Attis was born of the virgin Nama. Mithra was born to a virgin. Adonis was born to the virgin Myrrah, and the Egyptian god Horus was born to a virgin (and was visited by three kings).

Additionally, other narratives like the flood and creation account have commonality with earlier pagan myth. For instance (and perhaps the most relevant) are Sumerian accounts of “the flood.” Indeed the Sumerian story is almost exactly the same as the biblical narrative (which came much later). The god Enlil warned the priest-king Ziusudra of the coming flood, and instructed him to build a ship and carry beasts and birds in it. It should be noted that Enlil was also worshiped by the Assyrians and other peoples in that region (this mythology is broadly categorized as Mesopotamian mythology).

I view this evidence as sufficiently decisive. There’s much more developing research into near eastern mythology, the above are just a few of many examples.

Have you considered that this commonality might also point to universal truth, a knowledge deep in the heart of man, that we created by God. Is it a possibility that the story of the flood retold by different people who had heard the story, retold, and retold - again points to the understanding that God cares for the survival of people and all creation? Please understand that I ask this respectfully - not to provoke.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Where no deity acts a guarantor of any human right,
it’s a short excursion, I think, to a life which will be “nasty, brutish and short.”

if you want to invent a fictitious deity to “guarantee your human rights” go right ahead? I’m a big fan of reality. You can say I lack imagination or whatever … but I think sufficient proof exists discrediting the claims of religion (broadly speaking).

[Speaking of shortened life, when the state seizes the medical kingdom,
in it’s ravenous clutches, we can then add ‘shorter,’ to “nasty, brutish and short.”]

OK so now you would like to create a fictitious nexus between Obamacare and theism (or lack thereof). I guess when logic and reason eludes you … just invent stuff? Oh yeah, that’s how religion got started

 

[yankee_doodle]

Have you considered that this commonality might also point to universal truth, a knowledge deep in the heart of man, that we created by God. Is it a possibility that the story of the flood retold by different people who had heard the story, retold, and retold - again points to the understanding that God cares for the survival of people and all creation? Please understand that I ask this respectfully - not to provoke.

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”).

 

[estesbob]

I much prefer the writings of enlightenment thinkers, like Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine, Kant, Voltaire, Hume, Bacon, Locke, Adam Smith, etc. (all of whom, except Locke, were deist, agnostic, or atheist). Or perhaps modern hero’s of history like Winston Churchill (agnostic). Perhaps Freud or Einstein (atheist, agnostic respectively). Or for some real fun, Nietzsche.

.

Dear Sir,- I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

Thomas Jefferson 1822

 

[estesbob]

if you want to invent a fictitious deity to “guarantee your human rights” go right ahead? I’m a big fan of reality. You can say I lack imagination or whatever … but I think sufficient proof exists discrediting the claims of religion (broadly speaking).

OK so now you would like to create a fictitious nexus between Obamacare and theism (or lack thereof). I guess when logic and reason eludes you … just invent stuff? Oh yeah, that’s how religion got started

Interesting-you told us to look to Jefferson yet he is was a primary proponent that rights are derived from God.

You have offered absolutely no proof of anything.

 

[josie_L]

I much prefer the writings of enlightenment thinkers, like Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine, Kant, Voltaire, Hume, Bacon, Locke, Adam Smith, etc. (all of whom, except Locke, were deist, agnostic, or atheist). Or perhaps modern hero’s of history like Winston Churchill (agnostic). Perhaps Freud or Einstein (atheist, agnostic respectively). Or for some real fun, Nietzsche.

Marx and his insane progeny, have been thoroughly discredited (if you want an example of what a secular society built on western ideals looks like, travel to Scandinavia, both the most irreligious and happiest place on earth).

nope, that’s just an idiot.

and finally via the enlightenment that canoe found its way to the river of common sense.

Then move to a Scandinavian country if it’s so idyllic?

 

[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?

Firstly, how is Switzerland a vehemently Catholic country? And how furthermore, are you defining “vehemently Catholic”? Secondly, I know from reading the Journal of American Psychiatry that theists or the religious are a lot less likely to kill themselves than non-believers. I will provide you the data.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Then move to a Scandinavian country if it’s so idyllic?

you’re not even American, and my family has been in this country since the 17th century.

 

[josie_L]

you’re not even American, and my family has been in this country since the 17th century.

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

 

[yankee_doodle]

Firstly, how is Switzerland a vehemently Catholic country? And how furthermore, are you defining “vehemently Catholic”? Secondly, I know from reading the Journal of American Psychiatry that theists or the religious are a lot less likely to kill themselves than non-believers. I will provide you the data.

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?