How Catholics view atheism
- Thread starter Grandtheftcow
- Start date
The Question
Eternal
AFAIK, they see it as a religion. Which is like saying hard vacuum is another kind of air...
Laker_Girl
Mrs. Big Dick McGee
Why did you ask Catholics?
Grandtheftcow
Grand Wizard of TK
Not only that but they also seem to think atheists really do believe in God. To them its just that atheists hate God or are mad it him for whatever reason.The Question said:
I was dating a Fundie Catholic at the time. Turns out she wasn't to open about godless heathens.Laker_Girl said:
Grandtheftcow
Grand Wizard of TK
Give me evidence of a God as described in the Bible.Friday said:
Thats see how you answer this one.
Blindgroping
U mad 'bro?
And, Friday, you are still thinking that they are denying that god exists.
Do you see the studly man standing behind you?
You don't? Well, you are just in denile about it.
See, Atheists believe that there is No God. It's not denile.
Although, some of them do think they are Atheist because they are in denile.
True Atheists are not denying anything, they are embracing the fact.
Do you see the studly man standing behind you?
You don't? Well, you are just in denile about it.
See, Atheists believe that there is No God. It's not denile.
Although, some of them do think they are Atheist because they are in denile.
True Atheists are not denying anything, they are embracing the fact.
You have to be able to discern the cultural/ritual stuff from the spiritual satisfaction for humans stuff. Homosexuality, for instance, impugns the concept of marriage, whereas not believing in God offends the 'I'm so sad I need a divine crutch' folk.
Maybe God exists, maybe he doesn't. Either way, he would exist because he exists, and not just to satisfy you.
Maybe God exists, maybe he doesn't. Either way, he would exist because he exists, and not just to satisfy you.
The Question
Eternal
Blindgroping said:
Actually, no, we don't -- that's the point. Belief doesn't enter into it at all. See, believing there's no God is what would make it a religion. It isn't one. It's like an auto mechanic being called a "non-practicing accountant", if that makes it make more sense.
Atheists have no belief about God one way or the other, because they place more value in understanding, which is information gained through testing and evaluation than in belief, which is acceptance of untested information.
Now, someone may point out, "Well, no one has tested and found that there is no god, so atheism is still belief, 'cause it's based on an untested conclusion!" Well, folks, that ain't how it works. Before you can understand that a thing exists, you have to have a test that comes up positive. Accepting a thing's existence requires a test that yields a positive result, preferably one that yields a positive result time and time and time again. A test that can't be conducted can't yield a positive result, and can't be used to prove a thing exists, which means that until that positive result comes back, and will come back every time the test is conducted, it's perfectly logical to dismiss the claim that the thing exists. That's not belief -- it's understanding.
The Question
Eternal
Put it this way, to simplify, 'cause I think the above was unnecessarily complicated:
Understanding is a positive assertion based on testing and result.
Belief is a positive without a basis in testing or result.
Atheists cannot accept the existence of God based on understanding, and refuse to accept based on belief.
Understanding is a positive assertion based on testing and result.
Belief is a positive without a basis in testing or result.
Atheists cannot accept the existence of God based on understanding, and refuse to accept based on belief.
The Question
Eternal
In my opinion, honest atheists are agnostic. The phrase, "I don't know if there's a God" is the true statement of atheism, rather than, "I know there isn't a God." because the logically sound atheist won't claim to have achieved a negative result based on testing where no testing is possible.
However. The concept of the middle eastern God does raise serious logical problems. For example, ask a Christian, "If God is omnipotent, can he create a stone too heavy for Him to lift?" and you'll get rolled eyes or worse. The fact is that the concept of omnipotence itself raises this paradox, and there's no way around that. Omniscience, too, raises a similar conundrum -- if God knows everything that has happened, is happening and ever will happen (to say nothing of all the different things that could possibly happen) -- why did He bother with Creation? Why would He need to test His creation in order to see which of us would follow Him and which wouldn't, if He is omniscient and, therefore, must already know the answer? And how could He give us free will, as the Bible says? If He already knows our futures, that must be dependent, in whole or in part, on predestination. If our futures truly aren't written, in some way at least, knowledge of them wouldn't be available even to God.
This means that in order for the middle eastern versions of God to be logically viable, some of His attributes must be limited.
However. The concept of the middle eastern God does raise serious logical problems. For example, ask a Christian, "If God is omnipotent, can he create a stone too heavy for Him to lift?" and you'll get rolled eyes or worse. The fact is that the concept of omnipotence itself raises this paradox, and there's no way around that. Omniscience, too, raises a similar conundrum -- if God knows everything that has happened, is happening and ever will happen (to say nothing of all the different things that could possibly happen) -- why did He bother with Creation? Why would He need to test His creation in order to see which of us would follow Him and which wouldn't, if He is omniscient and, therefore, must already know the answer? And how could He give us free will, as the Bible says? If He already knows our futures, that must be dependent, in whole or in part, on predestination. If our futures truly aren't written, in some way at least, knowledge of them wouldn't be available even to God.
This means that in order for the middle eastern versions of God to be logically viable, some of His attributes must be limited.
Sadistic Bastard
No Mercy
Maybe the purpose of creation is not a "Test"?
If we go with the Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept of a single God (or Trinity), the being is alien. An intellect that can grasp concepts such as "World without End", something our temporally based minds and experiences don't really allow us to handle.
What if God doesn't think like a human being? That there is a motive beyond understanding? I know you don't like biblical references, but think on Acts 17:29 ""Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.", and the subject of God's motivation is pretty much what the entire book of Ecclesiastes is about (written by Solomon, supposedly the wisest person who ever lived). Even Solomon acknowleged that God's motives are often unfathomable for "The son's of Men" and spends a good portion of the book in complaining about the fact and how "vain" it is to believe we can figure Him out.
Some would argue that the alien nature of God is what made Christ necessary, to give an earthly example that has a touch and feel familiarity to it that we, who are "Made in His Image" (spiritually) can relate to.
As to "proof" of God's existence, there is a hinge upon which the entire Christian faith hinges: the Resurrection.
As Paul states in (Corinthians 15 12-19)
12. Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13. But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14. and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17. and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (emphasis mine)
There's the question of belief. There is evidence from the Bible, as the recording document, that Christ was raised. If he was, then his preaching’s are true and validated. If he was not, then he was a well-intentioned mad-man, and the question of God is left ambiguous, and as Paul says, Christians are peopled who worship and vain and are to be pitied.
Just my two cents.
-SB
If we go with the Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept of a single God (or Trinity), the being is alien. An intellect that can grasp concepts such as "World without End", something our temporally based minds and experiences don't really allow us to handle.
What if God doesn't think like a human being? That there is a motive beyond understanding? I know you don't like biblical references, but think on Acts 17:29 ""Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.", and the subject of God's motivation is pretty much what the entire book of Ecclesiastes is about (written by Solomon, supposedly the wisest person who ever lived). Even Solomon acknowleged that God's motives are often unfathomable for "The son's of Men" and spends a good portion of the book in complaining about the fact and how "vain" it is to believe we can figure Him out.
Some would argue that the alien nature of God is what made Christ necessary, to give an earthly example that has a touch and feel familiarity to it that we, who are "Made in His Image" (spiritually) can relate to.
As to "proof" of God's existence, there is a hinge upon which the entire Christian faith hinges: the Resurrection.
As Paul states in (Corinthians 15 12-19)
12. Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13. But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14. and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17. and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (emphasis mine)
There's the question of belief. There is evidence from the Bible, as the recording document, that Christ was raised. If he was, then his preaching’s are true and validated. If he was not, then he was a well-intentioned mad-man, and the question of God is left ambiguous, and as Paul says, Christians are peopled who worship and vain and are to be pitied.
Just my two cents.
-SB
The Question
Eternal
The problem is that Biblical authority is derived from circular reasoning, and is therefore invalidated.
The Bible is the word of God.
The Bible is evidence of God's existence.
You can see the difficulty with that.
The Bible is the word of God.
The Bible is evidence of God's existence.
You can see the difficulty with that.
Sadistic Bastard
No Mercy
Actually, let's treat the Bible, for the sake of validating the event of the Resurection, as one of several historical sources.
Take all of the rest of the Bible and shelve it for the moment, and concentrate on one, happened on earth, event.
You have political/religious revolution fermenting in occupied Jerusalem. The Jewish authorities kill off the perceived leader (the events at the trial are trivial in comparison...but relevant) with Roman passive approval, the said leader's followers claim that the body's missing three days after said leader was put to death. Note: the tomb was guarded by Roman Professional solders, not Jews. It would have been in the authorities best interest to produce the body and squelch the movement right then and there. Again, per the bible, "thousands" of people were converting to Christianity at that point, and the Sanhedrin and other Jewish authorities were appealing directly to the Roman government for the authority to kill off other members of this new movement (ref:Acts 7 and 8, the death of Stephen). The city was dangerously close to a riot.
The authorities, Jewish and Roman, had every motivation to produce the body. They did not.
That fact alone is secularly and logically more powerful than the eyewitness accounts of Jesus being seen/heard after his "death".
The book "Who Moved the Stone" might prove interesting, as it was written by a journalist who set out to disprove the Resurrection (and came to faith as a result of his research).
-SB
2nd Timothy, 3:16-17
16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17. so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Take all of the rest of the Bible and shelve it for the moment, and concentrate on one, happened on earth, event.
You have political/religious revolution fermenting in occupied Jerusalem. The Jewish authorities kill off the perceived leader (the events at the trial are trivial in comparison...but relevant) with Roman passive approval, the said leader's followers claim that the body's missing three days after said leader was put to death. Note: the tomb was guarded by Roman Professional solders, not Jews. It would have been in the authorities best interest to produce the body and squelch the movement right then and there. Again, per the bible, "thousands" of people were converting to Christianity at that point, and the Sanhedrin and other Jewish authorities were appealing directly to the Roman government for the authority to kill off other members of this new movement (ref:Acts 7 and 8, the death of Stephen). The city was dangerously close to a riot.
The authorities, Jewish and Roman, had every motivation to produce the body. They did not.
That fact alone is secularly and logically more powerful than the eyewitness accounts of Jesus being seen/heard after his "death".
The book "Who Moved the Stone" might prove interesting, as it was written by a journalist who set out to disprove the Resurrection (and came to faith as a result of his research).
-SB
2nd Timothy, 3:16-17
16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17. so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
The Question
Eternal
Well, the problem is easily solved, thus:
Christ's divinity being accepted as fact is contingent upon his having returned from the dead. Returning from the dead, however, is contingent upon an act of divinity. Again, circular reasoning.
The only factor that doesn't feed into this circle is the failure of the Romans to produce the corpse after Jesus's death. But here I'll draw your attention to Induction:
We can't assume that Christ's body could not be produced based merely on the fact that it wasn't produced. Even if the authorities couldn't have produced it, that doesn't guarantee that no one at all could have. Moving beyond that to assume that no one could have produced the body, we cannot assume resurrection as the reason why no one could produce the body.
In order to establish, though induction, that Christ was resurrected, we have to be able to establish, with absolute certainty, all of the possible things that did not to the body, since we cannot establish concretely what did happen to it.
Christ's divinity being accepted as fact is contingent upon his having returned from the dead. Returning from the dead, however, is contingent upon an act of divinity. Again, circular reasoning.
The only factor that doesn't feed into this circle is the failure of the Romans to produce the corpse after Jesus's death. But here I'll draw your attention to Induction:
We can't assume that Christ's body could not be produced based merely on the fact that it wasn't produced. Even if the authorities couldn't have produced it, that doesn't guarantee that no one at all could have. Moving beyond that to assume that no one could have produced the body, we cannot assume resurrection as the reason why no one could produce the body.
In order to establish, though induction, that Christ was resurrected, we have to be able to establish, with absolute certainty, all of the possible things that did not to the body, since we cannot establish concretely what did happen to it.
Sadistic Bastard
No Mercy
(nodding)
True, there are theories that Joseph of Aramathea didn't lay the body in the tomb in the first place, that the body was stolen and burned, that the Romans, not caring about a Jewish religous matter, allowed the guards to be bribed and the body carried away and stone moved.
There are a lot of other possible explanations.
It all may be a matter of time, too. In the last 200 years we've developed tools that allow us to look at frequencies and phenomina we can't directly perceive with t he un-aided senses (X-rays, RF frequencies, etc). Maybe we'll detect God eventually...(grin).
Or not.
Going back to the original question on this thread...there are good arguements for both the existance and the non-existance of God. While I'm not Catholic (but was raised as one), I think the view of most people of faith is that athiests are to be pittied more than anything else. Without a "Greater" purpose, you must create your own reason for living and evolving. A few can. Most cannot. But won't it all be a little useless?
1. The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2. "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher,
"Vanity of vanities! All is vanity."
3. What advantage does man have in all his work
Which he does under the sun?
4. A generation goes and a generation comes,
But the earth remains forever.
True, there are theories that Joseph of Aramathea didn't lay the body in the tomb in the first place, that the body was stolen and burned, that the Romans, not caring about a Jewish religous matter, allowed the guards to be bribed and the body carried away and stone moved.
There are a lot of other possible explanations.
It all may be a matter of time, too. In the last 200 years we've developed tools that allow us to look at frequencies and phenomina we can't directly perceive with t he un-aided senses (X-rays, RF frequencies, etc). Maybe we'll detect God eventually...(grin).
Or not.
Going back to the original question on this thread...there are good arguements for both the existance and the non-existance of God. While I'm not Catholic (but was raised as one), I think the view of most people of faith is that athiests are to be pittied more than anything else. Without a "Greater" purpose, you must create your own reason for living and evolving. A few can. Most cannot. But won't it all be a little useless?
1. The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2. "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher,
"Vanity of vanities! All is vanity."
3. What advantage does man have in all his work
Which he does under the sun?
4. A generation goes and a generation comes,
But the earth remains forever.
TJHairball
I love this place
Except there are those who firmly believe in the lack of a God. Or that God is dead. Or - in some cases - the non-existence of the particular God of a certain religion (e.g., christianity.)The Question said:
Others simply do not consider the existence of a God - although they may or may not be religious. There are atheistic and nontheistic religions in this world.
And this is why I think there should be many more words for what are currently blankly described as "atheist" or "agnostic." Those are general categories, not specific descriptors.
The Question
Eternal
TJHairball said:
True enough -- there are folks out there who do make a belief system out of it, unfortunately, and they do have a propensity for unprovoked assholery, as well.
Actually, I believe those are referred to as pantheistic. You're referring to "nature religions", yes?
Well, there are, really, although I agree that some additions are needed. For example, that first group of folks you describe would more accurately be known as antitheists.