Will we survive religion?

[Sixtus]

In the next life will there still be religion?

I do not see why not! Our God will ALWAYS BE OUR GOD.

No doubt the Angels worship Him according to their respective tradtion and custom. So why not we also?

What do you think?

 

[Mirdath]

In the next life will there still be religion?

I do not see why not! Our God will ALWAYS BE OUR GOD.

No doubt the Angels worship Him according to their respective tradtion and custom. So why not we also?

What do you think?

You presume there’s a next life (and God, and angels, etc…)

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

I’m not atheist, but their track record is squeaky clean when compared to that of religion. So why should they keep their heads down?? the religious certainly don’t!

---

It’s evident to anyone observing that you have neither evidence nor common sense to make the above remarks.

The prisons are filled with people who have never been to church or who gave up on religion long ago.

Combine that fact with the careers of the atheists Hitler, Stalin, and Mao in the 20th century alone, and also with the fact that atheists neither individually nor collectively have any reputation for protesting the murder of 40 million American babes in the womb since Roe v Wade, and you have a truly pathetic record for the immoral conduct of atheists in modern times.

Give it a rest, why don’t you? That sneering moral superiority of atheists is surely one of the most pathetic things about them.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

Exactly which deity do agnostics and atheists worship?

---

The deity’s name is **Me **… alternately known as Nogod.

 

[water]

Will we survive religion?
Yes! without religion, this world will not survive.

 

[R_McGeddon]

It’s evident to anyone observing that you have neither evidence nor common sense to make the above remarks.

What is evident, is that you don’t like the fact that I’m right in what I say.

The prisons are filled with people who have never been to church or who gave up on religion long ago.

So what? there are even more people outside of prison that have never been to church and have never had religion. Your statement is irrelevant.

Combine that fact with the careers of the atheists Hitler, Stalin, and Mao in the 20th century alone,

Their religious beliefs or lack thereof, had no bearing on what they did out of megalomania.

Why can you not see this blatant fact?

and also with the fact that atheists neither individually nor collectively have any reputation for protesting the murder of 40 million American babes in the womb since Roe v Wade, and you have a truly pathetic record for the immoral conduct of atheists in modern times.

I’m not getting into an abortion debate, that is something that the woman concerned has to live with.

Give it a rest, why don’t you? That sneering moral superiority of atheists is surely one of the most pathetic things about them.

Why should I give it a rest?? the religious certainly don’t!

 

[R_McGeddon]

R McGeddon

Exactly which deity do agnostics and atheists worship?

---

The deity’s name is **Me **… alternately known as Nogod.

They worship themselves???

Where are you getting all this bogus information from?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

Where are you getting all this bogus information from?

Common sense. Try it, you’ll like it!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Mirdath]

R McGeddon

Exactly which deity do agnostics and atheists worship?

---

The deity’s name is **Me **… alternately known as Nogod.

An autolater is neither atheist nor agnostic as he or she believes in a God, no?

There’s a difference.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

An autolater is neither atheist nor agnostic as he or she believes in a God, no?

“If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.” G.K. Chesterton

In other words, it is not possible to be an atheist without substituting for the old god one has knocked down a new god one has set up … Me or Nogod.

Then one can still be an atheist by denying that one has begun self-worship. Atheism is built on a lie … not only the lie others may have told us, but even more so the lie we are willing to tell ourselves.

Eve did the same. By substituting her will for the will of God, she wanted to become, as the Serpent tempted her, like a god. In a certain bizarre sense, Eve was the first atheist … since she was willing to substitute for the supreme will of God her *own *supreme will (Me).

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath

An autolater is neither atheist nor agnostic as he or she believes in a God, no?

“If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.” G.K. Chesterton

In other words, it is not possible to be an atheist without substituting for the old god one has knocked down a new god one has set up … Me or Nogod.

Then one can still be an atheist by denying that one has begun self-worship. Atheism is built on a lie … not only the lie others may have told us, but even more so the lie we are willing to tell ourselves.

Eve did the same. By substituting her will for the will of God, she wanted to become, as the Serpent tempted her, like a god. In a certain bizarre sense, Eve was the first atheist … since she was willing to substitute for the supreme will of God her *own *supreme will (Me).

Sure, denial is as old as humanity – even denial of autolatreia, which, for the record, I’ve noticed seems to be at least as much a problem for professed theists as it is for the non-theists you’re targeting.

Non-theism does not indicate self-worship; in fact, there’s no connection at all between the two. To put it simply, just because I don’t think there’s an invisible man in the sky does not force me to believe that I am that floating invisible man.

Or, let’s approach Anselm’s ontological argument. We have ‘that which is greater than all else’ as an imaginable quantity. That, according to Anselm, is God – but where in the description ‘greater than all else’ is divinity conferred? Is the Guinness World Record holder for largest burrito ever the God of burritos? No! It’s an improper and invalid extension of the idea of magnitude. And to believe that ‘that which is greater than all else’ is not necessarily divine is not the same as putting oneself even in the position of ‘greatest’, let alone deity.

I want a burrito now…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

We are talking on two different levels.

You talk of God only as mere ontological illusion. I talk of God as a psychological reality … both for the theist and the atheist. The theist seeks a relationship with a God he cannot prove exists. The atheist seeks to escape a relationship with God he cannot prove does not exist. In either case a relationship with the psychological God exists … one of welcome or one of flight. In the case of flight, this “delusional” ontological God never really dies. The atheist absorbs God into himself by becoming his own supreme arbiter of right and wrong. He now bows not to another’s will, but only to his own. This explains the usual anger and arrogance of atheists. They want to dominate the world as psychological gods, and when they are opposed they answer by demonstrating their omnipotence … as in the case of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao … all three atheists of whom it will be remembered, by those old enough to remember … that they plastered gigantic pictures of themselves everywhere in the vain effort to convince themselves and others that their will was supreme and their rule would be everlasting …

Even if they could not become Big Gods, they could and did become Big Brothers.

Some of the Roman emperors were more in-your-face … declaring themselves gods and demanding tribute.

Even the father of modern atheism, Nietzsche, after he went mad, signed himself in a letter to a friend … “The Crucified One.”

 

[Mirdath]

You talk of God only as mere ontological illusion. I talk of God as a psychological reality … both for the theist and the atheist. The theist seeks a relationship with a God he cannot prove exists. The atheist seeks to escape a relationship with God he cannot prove does not exist.

I’m afraid there’s really no other way to put this: you’re wrong. In trying to explain a point of view you have no personal concept of, you’ve stumbled and come up with an ‘explanation’ that suits your religious pride better than the thought that people who are not actively looking for God aren’t trying to ‘escape’ anything either, but simply living in this world. Heaven forfend any actual non-theists come in and burst your bubble!

In either case a relationship with the psychological God exists … one of welcome or one of flight. In the case of flight, this “delusional” ontological God never really dies.

The ontological God does not exist as a material thing, and is unknowable on any level except through faith. Dead or not – I can’t make that call. Irrelevant – that one I can. To an atheist, God is nothing more than a character in a storybook, on the same plane as Zeus or Koshchei or Lugh or any other mythical figure. Why flee from a fable?

The atheist absorbs God into himself by becoming his own supreme arbiter of right and wrong. He now bows not to another’s will, but only to his own.

How many times have I said that everyone, theist and non-theist alike, must bow to the will of society in order to live within it? There are more crazed religious hermits than there are crazed atheist hermits, as far as I know.

Rules of behavior aren’t a religious invention: they’re societal. ‘Right’ is what keeps society there, ‘wrong’ is what acts counter to the continued existence and functioning of the society. One can deny the existence of God, but one can’t deny the existence of society – and if one wishes to continue living in that society, one does what is Right in that society’s eyes. There you have it – ethics, sans religion.

This explains the usual anger and arrogance of atheists.

Perhaps it satisfies your pride, but it’s not at all satisfying to me. I still have no idea why Richard Dawkins is such a jerk. And jerkdom, much like anger and arrogance, doesn’t play any favorites with belief – explain the anger and arrogance of theists, and let’s see

They want to dominate the world as psychological gods, and when they are opposed they answer by demonstrating their omnipotence … as in the case of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao … all three atheists of whom it will be remembered, by those old enough to remember … that they plastered gigantic pictures of themselves everywhere in the vain effort to convince themselves and others that their will was supreme and their rule would be everlasting …

That’s megalomania, not atheism. Further, I’ll give you the latter two, but Hitler at the very least cloaked his motives in religion quite thoroughly. Not an atheist – at least, not for purposes of state.

Even if they could not become Big Gods, they could and did become Big Brothers.

So, why are all your examples 50 years old? There are many more atheists now; why haven’t we seen any new atheist world leaders trying to take over and enslaving their entire population? Well, there’s Kim Jong-Il, but he’s pretty small potatoes. And why have we seen theists becoming their own Big Brothers here in America? Megalomania and a thirst for power are common human failings, not limited to those of us who don’t subscribe to a religion.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

MIrdath

To an atheist, God is nothing more than a character in a storybook, on the same plane as Zeus or Koshchei or Lugh or any other mythical figure. Why flee from a fable?

Why indeed? Yet you will not find an atheist who is not fleeing. The reason varies from one atheist to another … pride, arrogance, contempt for any Ego bigger than his own, the desire to live a completely immoral life without accountability (the reason frankly given by the atheist Marquis de Sade)?

How many times have I said that everyone, theist and non-theist alike, must bow to the will of society in order to live within it?

No atheist really believes that! How do you define society? Ask any atheist if he will submit his moral sense to the will of a Christian majority. You are grasping at straws here. One of the greatest dilemmas of atheism is that it creates a vaccum for moral authority that is immediately filled by each atheist’s personal whims for defining right and wrong. Many atheists will gravitate toward simplifying their lives by tolerating or adopting Christian morality … but that is not ethics *sans *religion. I’ve known quite a few atheist/agnostic types who send their children to Catholic schools. Where do you suppose **that **instinct comes from?

and if one wishes to continue living in that society, one does what is Right in that society’s eyes. There you have it – ethics, sans religion.

More grasping at straws. You cannot seriously expect us to believe that atheists did not inherit their morality from a dominantly Judeo-Christian religion. Do you know any history?

So, why are all your examples 50 years old? There are many more atheists now; why haven’t we seen any new atheist world leaders trying to take over and enslaving their entire population?

In relatively democractic systems atheism is rightly very suspect. That is why until the elections were over, Hitler pretended to be a Christian. He made no such pretense immediately afterward and began his long persecution of Jews and Christians. Wherever elections are held in the world, it would make no sense for anyone today seeking election to declare himself an atheist. The vast majority would repudiate him … and, just as Thomas Jefferson said the vast majority are more often right than wrong … they would rightly do so.

Megalomania and a thirst for power are common human failings, not limited to those of us who don’t subscribe to a religion.

At last we agree. The difference is that megalomaniacs in a theist world can climb only so high, and the people have recourse to a higher power to hold them accountable for their megalomania. Even the pope is accountable to God and knows that he will be found out if he disgraces himself. In an atheist world, what higher authority could make Big Brother accountable?

 

[Mirdath]

Why indeed? Yet you will not find an atheist who is not fleeing. The reason varies from one atheist to another … pride, arrogance, contempt for any Ego bigger than his own, the desire to live a completely immoral life without accountability (the reason frankly given by the atheist Marquis de Sade)?

But I am not fleeing anything Nor are the many other non-theists I know. How, then, do you account for me and every atheist to whom I have ever spoken on the subject?

No atheist really believes that! How do you define society? Ask any atheist if he will submit his moral sense to the will of a Christian majority. You are grasping at straws here.

Would you submit your moral sense to an atheist majority? Doesn’t seem like it. Either way, false reasoning – the majority may be most of society but it isn’t the whole thing. And the majority do not define how the society is run, the wealthy do.

One of the greatest dilemmas of atheism is that it creates a vaccum for moral authority that is immediately filled by each atheist’s personal whims for defining right and wrong. Many atheists will gravitate toward simplifying their lives by tolerating or adopting Christian morality … but that is not ethics *sans *religion.

Why isn’t it? Many parts of the ethical and moral teachings of Christianity have a lot to recommend them. Nor are they limited to the Church, either; there’s a good deal in them that’s shared with older, secular codes such as those of Hammurabi, Confucius, and Solon.

‘Thou shalt not kill’ is not merely a religious tenet: it’s a directive for the good of society.

I’ve known quite a few atheist/agnostic types who send their children to Catholic schools. Where do you suppose **that **instinct comes from?

It comes from the knowledge that Catholicism has, or at least once had, a great and noble scholastic tradition. I wish it were more evident now.

More grasping at straws. You cannot seriously expect us to believe that atheists did not inherit their morality from a dominantly Judeo-Christian religion. Do you know any history?

Do you? Look up ancient codes of secular law. You’ll find there’s a lot in there common to both secular and religious instructions for living. The idea that ‘some things are bad for society’ is much, much older than Christianity or even Judaism. Even other social animals have standards of behavior, and if one member of the pack or group does not follow them, they’re killed or thrown out.

In relatively democractic systems atheism is rightly very suspect. That is why until the elections were over, Hitler pretended to be a Christian. He made no such pretense immediately afterward and began his long persecution of Jews and Christians. Wherever elections are held in the world, it would make no sense for anyone today seeking election to declare himself an atheist. The vast majority would repudiate him … and, just as Thomas Jefferson said the vast majority are more often right than wrong … they would rightly do so.

Appeal to majority is yet another fallacy.

At last we agree. The difference is that megalomaniacs in a theist world can climb only so high, and the people have recourse to a higher power to hold them accountable for their megalomania. Even the pope is accountable to God and knows that he will be found out if he disgraces himself. In an atheist world, what higher authority could make Big Brother accountable?

Two words for you: Renaissance popes. Megalomaniacs in a theist world, standing proudly at its very top, lording it not only over the lives of their subjects but over their very souls. No atheist can aspire to such power. Yet God did not step in and strike them down, did he? They reigned for centuries. So much for accountability.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

But I am not fleeing anything Nor are the many other non-theists I know.

Please keep in mind that the God you think does not exist truly does exist (even though you deny it). How can an atheist/agnostic be doing anything but fleeing from that very God?

Would you submit your moral sense to an atheist majority? Doesn’t seem like it. Either way, false reasoning – the majority may be most of society but it isn’t the whole thing. And the majority do not define how the society is run, the wealthy do.

First you say atheists will get their morality from society, then you say there is no society but the rich. Do the rich constitute society? I don’t think so. The churches are the bearers of collective morality, from which even the atheists derive their sense of right and wrong. In a previous post you said this: Rules of behavior aren’t a religious invention: they’re societal. No, they are religious*.* All western societies have their moral systems rooted in the Ten Commandments … their legal systems as well. To the extent that legal systems become corrupted, as in the case of defending abortion on demand, they go against the religious system (“Thou shalt not kill.”)

‘Thou shalt not kill’ is not merely a religious tenet: it’s a directive for the good of society.

But it is also a religious tenet.

Look up ancient codes of secular law. You’ll find there’s a lot in there common to both secular and religious instructions for living. The idea that ‘some things are bad for society’ is much, much older than Christianity or even Judaism.

This is true. But it is also consistent with another Catholic teaching … the natural law. The law was written on the hearts of **all **men everywhere at the creation of the race. That many men and societies talked themselves out of the law is obvious when we look at the conduct of atheists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Religions serve to remind men of their obligation to obey the laws of God which they may have erased from their hearts because they have learned to lie to themselves about what the law truly is.

Appeal to majority is yet another fallacy.

But didn’t you say, Rules of behavior aren’t a religious invention: they’re societal.

Are you saying you committed appeal to majority as a fallacy? I doubt it. The appeal to majority, by the way, is not always a fallacy. Sometimes the majority are right! That, on occasion, is even true for the Supreme Court … and when there is only a majority of one vote.

Two words for you: Renaissance popes. Megalomaniacs in a theist world, standing proudly at its very top, lording it not only over the lives of their subjects but over their very souls. No atheist can aspire to such power. Yet God did not step in and strike them down, did he? They reigned for centuries. So much for accountability.

Equating any renaissance pope with atheists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao only shows how little history you know. Go back to school, and try not to learn all your history from atheist teachers.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

Your first history assignment:

Other than the atheists Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, name atheists who have ascended to supreme power since the time of Nietzsche (the **godfather **… pardon the pun) of modern atheism.

 

[R_McGeddon]

R McGeddon

Where are you getting all this bogus information from?

Common sense. Try it, you’ll like it!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Somehow, I very much doubt it.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Try reversing this:

Please keep in mind that the God you think does not exist truly does exist

You’ll see that it becomes:

“Please keep in mind that the God you think exists, truly does not exist.”

Nobody knows which of these statements are true, that includes both you and I.

The churches are the bearers of collective morality, from which even the atheists derive their sense of right and wrong. In a previous post you said this: Rules of behavior aren’t a religious invention: they’re societal. No, they are religious*.* All western societies have their moral systems rooted in the Ten Commandments

Yet again you are wrong, mankind existed in co-operative societal communities long, long before the church existed.

‘Thou shalt not kill’ is not merely a religious tenet: it’s a directive for the good of society.

But it is also a religious tenet.

But it hasn’t stopped the religious from killing in the name of religion, has it?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

*Yet again you are wrong, mankind existed in co-operative societal communities long, long before the church existed.
*
Not so. The church began with Adam and Eve.

But it hasn’t stopped the religious from killing in the name of religion, has it?

We cannot be sure that those who kill in the name of religion are religious. Dante put certain popes in hell because he did not think they were very religious. That doesn’t mean that all popes deserve to be in hell and that no pope has ever done good things as pope.

The same is true of radical Muslims … are they true Muslims or have they hi-jacked religion and done murder to advance themselves through it … just as Hitler pretended to be doing the Lord’s work and immediately began to persecute Christians when he came to power?

Still waiting to hear from you and Mirdath about all those do-gooding atheist titans other than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Please, can I have just one name to get us started?