Last week I gave a talk about atheism, and in the Q&A afterward there were a lot of questions about how to share our faith with atheists. I emphasized that the most important thing is simply to pray and work on becoming a saint yourself, so that you can show people Christ rather than just talking about him, but people with atheist friends, family members and coworkers wanted to know more. In the case where you’re chatting with a nonbeliever who is open to hearing your perspective and specifically asks for information about what you believe, how should you proceed?
Obviously there’s no one right answer, but I thought I’d list out some Catholic beliefs that might be good places to start. Though atheists typically see all belief in the supernatural as unreasonable, some doctrines, like the ones below, strike them as less crazy than others. (As I was not able to conduct a worldwide survey of every person who self-identifies as a nonbeliever, I am basing this on personal experience as well as conversations with atheists I know.)
1. Purgatory
Growing up as both an atheist and a nerd in a particularly status-conscious section of the Bible Belt, I was occasionally on the receiving end of unkindness from Christians. When these same people also announced that they were going directly to heaven when they died because they’d accepted Jesus, it didn’t make any sense to me. I knew enough to know that heaven was supposed to be a place of perfect love and peace, so it seemed illogical to say that people could act like jerks until their dying breaths and then walk right on through the pearly gates. On the other hand, being a jerk sometimes isn’t the worst thing in the world, and it also didn’t make sense to say that a loving God would have people spend an eternity in hell for a few slip-ups. When I heard about the concept of Purgatory when I was exploring religion years later, it made sense to me because it explained how heaven can be a place of perfect love, and God can still be merciful to people who had some work to do in that department when they died.
2. The Communion of Saints
The idea of deceased friends and family members being aware of what goes on here on earth is nearly universal. When I studied anthropology in college, I found it fascinating that so many cultures that were separated by time and geography had this same idea about the afterlife—it seemed like we’re wired to believe this. So when I was in the process of converting to Catholicism, I didn’t struggle with this doctrine at all—it struck me as an articulation of a spiritual truth known to the human heart from time immemorial.
3. Veneration of Mary
This may not be the case for atheists who had a Protestant upbringing, but most of the atheist-to-Catholic converts I know who had no religious background didn’t struggle with the Church’s emphasis on Mary—and many say that it always kind of made sense to them. To me, overlooking Mary was an example of intellectual inconsistency within Christianity: If you believe that there is a great Creator who, in his unfathomable power, brought forth the universe out of nothing ... and you believe that he chose his own mom ... why on earth would you not freak out about this woman? How unbelievably special would she have to be to be fit for God himself to call her “Mommy”? So when I heard that Catholics place a huge emphasis on the Mother of God, my reaction was basically to shrug and say, “Yeah. Of course.”
4. Salvation for Non-Catholics and Non-Christians
Another thing that always struck me as intellectually inconsistent about Christianity was the idea that people who hadn’t heard about Jesus through no fault of their own would spend eternity in hell, or that God would bar people from heaven who sincerely sought him but worshiped the “wrong” way. It didn’t see how people could believe this and also believe that their God was good and loving, since the punishment of innocents is inherently unloving. It struck me as fair and consistent when I came across this in the Catholic Catechism:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.
5. Apostolic Authority
One of the biggest atheist pet peeves I encounter—and one that I shared when I was an atheist—is the way much of modern Christianity interprets the Bible. It was baffling to see Christians go back and forth about how to interpret some section of the Bible, each person convinced that his own interpretation was the correct one, despite the fact that there were as many other different interpretations as there were people in the group. It fed into the stereotype that religion is a tool that people use to manipulate others when I’d see Christians come up with their own personal spin on what the Bible said, then tell everyone else that they had to conform that that view. Years later, when I was beginning to explore Christianity, I almost gave up on the religion altogether because I couldn’t even figure out what its doctrines were. I couldn’t fathom which church I should go to when there were thousands of different denominations, each claiming to be based on the Bible. Then someone told me that Jesus founded a Church that he guides to this day, and that this one God-guided Church has final authority on matters of doctrine. Finally, I saw a system that made sense.
—-
I hope this list offers some good conversation starters, though don’t expect that talking about these teachings will convert anyone on the spot. Conversion is a long process that must involve an openness of heart in addition to intellectual understanding—and much more than our nonbelieving friends and family members need our explanations, they need our prayers.
Comments
Post a Comment
Is there evidence for any of these? No? Then they’re about a stupid as anything else religion has.
In fact, this entire article confuses me. Makes sense to atheists? You seem to have been a very, very confused atheist, then. Evidence. Verifiable, proper, evidence. That’s what I want. That’s what everybody I know wants. None of the things listed even attempt to do that.
So, I plugged ‘atheist’ into Google, and the first hit was the Wikipedia article. The beginning of the third paragraph, that is, the first paragraph to talk about why atheists are atheists, says: “Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.”
So. Next time you pretend to know what atheists seem to think, I suggest you just Google it first!
I have to agree with Jerome Haltom. I think this article missed a few major points like proving god exists in the 1st place.
Speaking as a lifelong Catholic turned atheist, atheists won’t convert to your religion as soon as you convince them that Popes have authority granted to them by apostles or that Mary is A-OK. Atheists will convert to your religion when you convince them that the god described by your religion actually exists.
Would you be convinced of the existence of Santa Claus if I told you that elves actually aren’t required to wear green outfits but are allowed to wear any color clothes they choose? Of course not. But you seem to think that atheists will be moved to your religion by the fact that some Pope a thousand years ago decided that infinite punishments for finite transgressions was infinitely unjust, so he spackled over it by inventing a place where you only receive a finite punishment.
Zero of these claims will resonate with an atheist. They all hinge on belief in a supernatural god and an afterlife. Work those out, and then you can get on the subject of whether or not popes have a divine mandate to extend Catholic dogma.
I’m a current atheist. When considering Catholicism, I’m less concerned with individual’s beliefs than I am various issues the Catholic hierarchy is engaged in: protecting alleged felons, stating it is above the law, arguing against marriage equality, etc. How would you suggest a Catholic to respond to those issues. Thanks.
Jenifer said:
“I couldn’t fathom which church I should go to when there were thousands of different denominations, each claiming to be based on the Bible”.
This could easily be attributed to the fact that the Catholic Church did not allow any other than clergy to read or possess a Bible, or any of it’s books for over a thousand years. The reason there are so many denominations is based on the Biblical illiteracy of the pew warmers.
Matthew 23 in Jesus’s own words disputes apostolic authority, and commands His followers not to be called, or call any man “father”, or set up any hierarchy as a church, in fact He said we are all brothers and sisters, equal in authority with each other, and who ever makes himself greatest(church leaders), is the least in His kingdom.
The traditions of men that have been passed down as “Christian doctrine”, prove the error in apostolic authority:
# Not one Church holiday is Biblical, starting with Sunday, the day of the sun god Baal. The Sabbath, blessed, sanctified, and made holy, by God has not been changed for Christians. Can something blessed, sanctified, and made holy by God be changed by the vote of a council of men out of hatred of God’s chosen people? (council of Laodicea)
# The date of Christs birth is purposely not mentioned in scripture, but sheep are not in the fields in winter, nor did census/tax occur then.
# The date of Christs death on the cross is mentioned several times in fact it is the most mentioned date in scripture, Passover. Yet the “church” ignores passover, a month day, and keeps a week day, the wrong week day, instead.
# Easter was the pagan holiday Herod celebrated while planning to kill Peter.
I don’t know about the Atheists You have met, but the one’s I’ve talked with have read the Bible, and won’t be convinced by someone who knows less about it then they do. If You have only read the Bible with the churches doctrines leaning over your shoulder telling You what it means, You have to turn off Your brain to keep the peace.
When Jennifer Fulwiler titled her article “5 Catholic teachings that make sense to atheists” I believe she was trying to point out some things she felt a secular mind could see the rationale in. Yes, obviously atheists don’t believe in purgatory, but it does “make sense” in that if there were a heaven and a hell, seeing as how opposite they are (perfect bliss/the worst possible torture), adding in some middle ground would make sense.
Now I don’t think that all 5 of the above items “make sense”, 2 or 3 do. It doesn’t make the impossible to swallow, possible, though.
Wow… After reading this article, I sincerely doubt Jennifer (the author) has any education that would qualify her to speak on Atheism. She clearly has no idea what an atheist is if she thinks any of those arguments are persuasive in the least.
Wow, this really lured out the hate ... dudes, take a deep breath and get a drink of water, Mrs. Fulwiler is describing a few concepts that she felt made some decent sense to her as a (former) atheist. That’s explained in the second paragraph. She is not describing her conversion experience, nor is she trying to persuade or convert you. Remember that the primary audience here at NCRegister is not atheists, but Catholics. May God bless you all and Mrs. Fulwiler.
Lethargic, I don’t see any “hate.” I dislike it when atheists disagree with religious teachings are are called “hateful” for insisting on evidence. That’s pretty hypocritical, don’t you think? I mean, the church doesn’t have the entire monopoly on hate, but it definitely owns Boardwalk and Park Place, to say the least. As far as the article, I have to agree with the other commenters. I don’t find any of the above tenets reasonable because there is still no evidence. Plus, Catholicism has a lot of other ridiculousness as strikes against it (as Chas posted above)that it needs to address first. (I was raised Catholic, including 8 years of Catholic school and an aunt so steeped in the church that she attended Mass every single day, so I know a bit about it—and it hasn’t changed much.) I respect that Fulwiler is attempting to converse with those not like her, but this won’t convince any real atheists. And truly, I have never met a “former atheist.” If you went from nonbelief to belief, you were never an atheist, because an atheist would never go from demanding evidence to saying, “oh, it’s not necessary for everything.” I hope that didn’t sound hateful.
When analyzing (and commenting upon) an article, please keep audience in mind. This article is not directed towards atheists. To those atheists who have posted that the author must first demonstrate that God exists, that’s clearly not the point of the article. Here is a key sentence: “Though atheists typically see all belief in the supernatural as unreasonable, some doctrines, like the ones below, strike them as less crazy than others.” It is much more modest in scope than you atheists desire. There are other articles and forums for discussing the bigger question—“Does God exist?” This article is not it, so please direct your comments accordingly.
Okay, atheists, take a deep breath. It’s hot outside and we don’t want anyone to have a stroke.
Are we calm? Okay, good. Now, let me explain the premise of this article. The way I read it, and the way I’m sure 99% of people who don’t fly off the handle upon reading the words “Christian” and “atheist” in the same headline will read it, Jennifer is not saying that the 5 items listed above will automatically convert atheists to Christianity. She’s saying that the 5 items above are the most likely to MAKE LOGICAL SENSE in the framework of Catholic teaching from an atheist perspective. This does not require a belief in God. It requires a belief in logic and an ability to posit hypotheses. For example, “IF, hypothetically, God did indeed exist, then would this teaching make sense?”
I am able to see the logic in certain Buddhist teachings even though I do not believe in Buddhism, for example. Same concept.
I was raised as a catholic and went to catholic schools. I am now an atheist. None of her points resonate with me. I doubt she was actually ever an atheist. It is common on religious sites such as this for authors to claim they are converted atheists. Seems like a ploy to get clicks while satisfying the editors.
I agree with Troglodyke. There is nothing ‘hateful’ in any of the responses. Far from it.
Mike,
At this point, there’s a lot more evidence of Jennifer’s atheism than of your existence. (She’s written books, made TV appearance, and chronicled her entire conversion experience on various blogs. You are some guy named Mike in a combox.)
Can you provide any sort of proof or evidence that she was not atheist at one time?
None of those five things make the least bit of sense to this atheist. Or to most other atheists, I’m betting. Try again.
For those of you who missed it in the article, Jen was a lifelong atheist. She speaks from her own experience. Take all of this for what it may be worth to you. Perhaps we Christians have it wrong as you see it. Whatever. But lets just see the article for what it is as one atheist-to-Catholic person’s experience. OK? Peace to all!
To all those saying that the teachings make sense in a Catholic Belief framework, you are missing the point.
One only needs to worry about what makes sense with such a framework when it has been shown such a framework makes sense.
Well, actually, that is not strictly true I suppose. It is possible to have a discussion about the logic and consistency within the worlds of Star Trek, Harry Potter or other fictional creation. The key point with those is that they are fictional.
So either these Catholic teachings are being put forward as rational within the real world, in which case they can be ignored since the initial premise has not been proven, or they are about a fictional world.
“Though atheists typically see all belief in the supernatural as unreasonable, some doctrines, like the ones below, strike them as less crazy than others.”
No they’re not. Not only are the doctrines based on an assumption which is crazy, and are therefor just as crazy as the assumption, but the doctrines themselves are poorly explained and rationalized even within that framework.
I’ll just sample #5.
“It fed into the stereotype that religion is a tool that people use to manipulate others when I’d see Christians come up with their own personal spin on what the Bible said, then tell everyone else that they had to conform that that view. Years later, when I was beginning to explore Christianity, I almost gave up on the religion altogether because I couldn’t even figure out what its doctrines were. I couldn’t fathom which church I should go to when there were thousands of different denominations, each claiming to be based on the Bible. Then someone told me that Jesus founded a Church that he guides to this day, and that this one God-guided Church has final authority on matters of doctrine. Finally, I saw a system that made sense.”
Her argument seems to be “Wow, there’s lots of different ideas out here. How do I choose one? Oh! I see! I just randomly pick one because they say they’re correct!”
What? Seriously? That’s it? That convinces ME of nothing more than that the author is an idiot. The fact that she actually thought it was good enough to write out as something an atheist might think would be reasonable, confirms that.
None of this makes any sense to people who investigate these issues rationally, as atheists do. I was raised catholic and I can tell you that it didn’t make any sense in sunday school / confirmation class, and it doesn’t make any sense now.
It’s all arguments from authority and ‘our book written on the oral histories of desert nomads is correct because an old white guy in Rome says so’. Not compelling, or even really very interesting.
But, if you want to strike out really badly, go ahead and use those arguments! They all presuppose that you believe in not just any god, but the catholic/christian one, which is a bad place to start with an atheist.
Discussing whether or not any of these five claims makes sense to an atheist is equivalent to arguing whether or not it makes sense that Captain Kirk would beat up Captain Picard in a fist fight on the bridge of the Enterprise. It’s all fictional turtles all the way down. Since Jennifer hasn’t established that God even exists, let alone that the Catholic representation is accurate, everything she discusses is handwaving at best.
Have you actually met an atheist? Looked the word up in the dictionary? Failing that, do you, as a Catholic, hold dear certain dogmas of Islam or Hinduism because they make sense to you?
Here’s a tip: none of these things make sense to an atheist because they are nonsense.
It does seem, to me, that with atheists it is OK to call into question all that a Christian stands for, but it’s not OK to do it the other way around.
There is an atheist blog - Pharyngula - who seems to enjoy linking to Jennifer’s writings and then, thru his own private personal analysis, encourage his echo-chamber of commenters to tear her and her beliefs apart. I won’t link it here out of respect for Jennifer. I suspect if you Google the name Pharyngula - you’ll find it.
Christians believe as they wish; Atheists believe as they wish. All that Jennifer was doing in this space is suggesting that if an atheist asks a Catholic Christian about his or her faith - they these 5 items might be good ice-breakers to start a conversation. All coming from her own personal experiences.
Nowhere does she say these are the magic 5 bullets to convert an atheist.
It would never occur to me, who was born into a fundamentalist faith, became agnostic for a very dark period of my life and have now converted to Catholicism, to excoriate an atheist for not believing in God.
So why is it that atheists do seem to be take a superior tone with Christians just because we choose to follow a specific faith.
Mark S,
Need I point out the title of the article is “5 Catholic Teachings that Make Sense to Atheists”. It is not, as you seem to think “5 Catholic Teachings That Made Sense To Me As An Atheist”.
The premise of the article is that these teaching should made sense to any atheist, and it is quite dishonest for you to claim otherwise. And there was me thinking Catholicism had teachings against being dishonest.
I’m sincerely interested in what doctrines the author thinks make *least* sense to atheists. It seems that something that “makes sense” in this context is simply something that is more easily rationalized in the absence of evidence. That’s not a very useful definition of “making sense” for an atheist. As others point out, these arguments can make sense in the same way that Harry Potter or the North Pole can make sense. They may be logically consistent within their make-believe frameworks, but so what?
Personally,the Communion of Saints is one of the least sensical ideas I’ve ever heard about the Catholic church. Especially with phrases like “spiritual truth known to the human heart”. I cannot think of a way to phrase that for it to make any less sense to atheists. My heart must be defective, because the only “truth” it possesses is the ability to expand and contract to facilitate the flow of blood.
So why is it that atheists do seem to be take a superior tone with Christians just because we choose to follow a specific faith.
Because all faiths are equally ridiculous to a nonbeliever.
“So why is it that atheists do seem to be take a superior tone with Christians just because we choose to follow a specific faith.”
You already know why. Evidence.
Disagreement is fine. Being dishonest, as you were, is not.
None of the things you mention make sense to me, and I’m a former Catholic turned atheist for the better part of thirty years now.
Did you actually talk to any atheists or did you pull this article from a rubbish heap?
Kris,
It’s perfectly okay to call into question everything we believe in. And we’ll even agree with you, when you offer evidence.
I have no idea why you would think we’d be afraid of you calling us into question. What we are ANNOYED by however is dumb arguments, which were disposed of 200 years ago. At some point having people repeat those over, and over again, does become a bit obnoxious.
There are at least two major problems with asking “IF, hypothetically, God did indeed exist, then would this teaching make sense?”. The first (which is also one of the reasons that Pascal’s Wager fails) is that it operates under the unwarranted assumption that you’ve chosen the right deity to hypothesize about out of the thousands postulated over history, a vanishingly small possibility, given the number of possible choices. Second, existence precedes essence. Until the existence of a deity can be established, there is as little point in trying to determine its attributes as there is in listing the qualities of unicorns or dragons.
Berny:
You see the little blurb on the upper right hand side that says “About Jennifer Fulweiler”? It says, “In 2007 she became Catholic after a life of atheism.”
Go, go Gadget reading comprehension!
Nope, sorry, but your version of these delusions make no sense to me either.
And a correction to some comments, Jen CLAIMS to have been an atheist but I have no verifiable information about her prior beliefs, inculcation (cultural or otherwise), or indoctrination. Going by what she is actually saying I suspect that she merely didn’t have a specific belief.
The Roman’s called the early Christians ‘atheists’ because the Christians denied the Gods that OBVIOUSLY existed - their puffed up, newly made-up god hardly counted so they were considered atheists. In this sense, atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god. This is not very modern usage however and using ‘atheist’ in some very lack-luster sense is going to be confusing at best and derided as such.
But her claims to have ‘Grow[n] up as both an atheist ...’ are irrelevant as this doesn’t qualify her to speak on behalf of all atheists in any case.
Let’s try the shoe on the other proverbial foot and see how it fits.
I am a former Christian. Christians have no problem believing that Jesus, as described in the Bible, never actually existed because of the strong textual, historical, and scholarly support for this position. Cf: Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965, Nobel Prize 1952), Ph.D, Christian theologian and Dean of Theological College of Saint Thomas at the University of Strasburg; The Quest of the Historical Jesus: First Complete Edition, trans. W. Montgomery, et al., ed. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), page 478—“There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth and died to give His work its final consecration never had any existence.”
In fact, Christians subscribe to the belief that Christianity was built on a syncratic blending of Judaism and Fertility cults of the era using coded language to hide the fact that Jesus represented hallucinogenic mushrooms which were known to be used in such rites. With the mushroom representing the phallus and the womb. Cf: John Marco Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. et al. (e.g.,) Both the Hebrew & Greek forms of Joshusa/Jesus derive from a concept of saving through fulfillment, restoration, and life. Jesus being Iesous. Indeed, we find that Dionysos, Joshua, and Jesus are the same name in ancient Hebrew and in Sumerian is IA-U-ShU-A, where IA-U is the “juice of fertility”, ShU-A is the Sumerian for restoration & fulfillment, Dionysos in Sumerian was IA-U-NU-ShUSH with NU meaning ‘seed’.
Christians easily accept that Jesus was not God but merely a prophet.
Christians believe that the Jews are to blame for Jesus’ death because #1 it says so very strongly in the Bible and you can see this in the writings of Martin Luther (e.g., On the Jews and their Lies) or the many Bulls that speak out against Jewish people. This accurately represents all of modern Christianity.
Do you agree with that portrayal of all Christians? If not, why not? I’m a former Christian - aren’t I qualified to speak on the behalf of all Christians? I can regale you with anecdotal stories supporting each of those cases, so they must all be true - Right?
She certainly does not qualify as a modern skeptical atheist because she provides no evidence for her claims. And they are, in fact, fairly ridiculous to be honest.
Judging by the comments here it would appear that the author has not really explained her points clearly. The idea itself is interesting, i.e that catholicism with it emphasis on theological reasoning and historical continuity is a lot more rational than purely biblical christianity,but with a largely ignorant target audience(atheists), the point needs to made at a more fundamental level.
Joe: “operates under the unwarranted assumption that you’ve chosen the right deity to hypothesize about out of the thousands postulated over history, a vanishingly small possibility, given the number of possible choices.”
Not really, once you look at the number of religions that have endured since the beginning of recorded civilization. (Hint: Judaism and its fulfillment—Christianity—are among these.)
Dark Star:
By your logic, there is even less evidence that YOU exist, as Jennifer has maintained several blogs, written scores of articles, and made numerous TV and radio appearances to discuss her conversion story. Surely if her story was so easy to disprove, it would have been done by now.
What proof do you have that she was not raised atheist? Can you provide any?
This is as stupid an article as this atheist can imagine. The five listed doctrines are as insane as any others you might have pulled out of the Vatican storehouse of unfounded beliefs. It is preposterous to think these ideas will generate anything but ridicule and contempt from any thinking atheist you pose them to.
Not hateful? Ahem. “Wow… After reading this article, I sincerely doubt Jennifer (the author) has any education that would qualify her to speak on Atheism. She clearly has no idea what an atheist is if she thinks any of those arguments are persuasive in the least.” “Because all faiths are equally ridiculous to a nonbeliever.” “Did you actually talk to any atheists or did you pull this article from a rubbish heap?” Etc.
__
Look. This was not a “why atheists are wrong” article. If you’d read the thing you’d know that. Believe it or not, not all Christians spend all their time proving that atheists are wrong. These are a few beliefs that, if there were some sort of supernatural, would be fitting. Things that should be true if anything of the sort is.
__
The crap you people are posting is analogous to barging into a conversation about what kind of toppings would be good on a bagel, if there were such thing as a good bagel, and complaining at the top of your lungs that bagels are terribly and probably don’t exist anyway. Chill
Some Guy,
She called us out specifically by addressing us.
The bagle does exist. God does not.
SomeGuy,
Pointing out that someone has no idea what they are talking about is not hateful. In this case it is a factual statement. None of those teachings make any sense to an atheist, not least because they assume that which atheists point out needs to be proven.
You claim that these are things that should be true if anything of the sort it. Well there is the problem. She has not done the basics. She needs to prove a god exists first, then move on to this kind of stuff.
You know what I find hateful ? Well OK not hateful so much as dishonest. It is comments like yours, and the original post.
I have noticed a number people who would seem to be Catholic being less than honest here. Tell me, do you get somekind of special dispensation to lie for Jesus ?
Your lying - you have never been an atheist. And as a christian don’t forget the comadments!
JoAnna - you seem to have missed the salient points:
#1 her former status is completely irrelevant unless you accept my authority to speak on behalf of all Christianity based on my status as a former Christian.
#2 my status of knowledge about her former status as an ‘atheist’ is limited so I cannot speak as to what she was back then - but only as to what she is saying now - which is complete balderdash.
Finally, I don’t have to prove what she was or wasn’t - she is the one trying to make an Argument from Authority based on her former status, she has to prove it if she wishes it to have any countenance with anyone but those who have already decided to believe things without evidence.
DarkStar - one way of looking at the life of Jesus is as you say, i.e. that he is a mish-mash” of other pre-existing cultural elements. Another way is to understand the old medieval concept of “prefigurement”. All things in history point towards the life of Jesus Christ.
The New Testament is foreshadowed in Lao Tzus famnous work the Tao te Ching, (Christ the Eternal Tao) or maybe you can delude yourself that St.Paul cogged it all on trip to China
You’ve never met an atheist, have you? The idea that your magic boogedy-boogedy beliefs “make sense” to atheists is simply delusional. It is not true. This nonsense does not “make sense” to atheists. Where do you get these ridiculous notions?
As an Atheist who was raised in a Catholic family and educated in a Catholic school, I have to absolutely disagree with this article. NONE of those 5 points makes any more sense to me than any of the other irrational unproven and unsupported nonsense in the catholic doctrine, which I am extremely familiar with. I would post a much more detailed answer, but that would go against the comment policy. Suffice to say that the premises and conclusion of this article show a deep lack of understanding about the way Atheists think.
“Pointing out that someone has no idea what they are talking about is not hateful. In this case it is a factual statement.”
__
One of these things is just not like the others. Lets see if you can spot the difference: “I see you believe X but I think Y might be better.” “I think you may be incorrect, lets talk about it.” “You’re a @#$#^!$ing moron. Loser.”
__
You’re involved, yes. But you’re involved in a conversation, and this was not about whether or not God exists. You can tell because that question was not raised. This was an article about what sort of things could be true if there was a true religion. If you won’t even consider this without flying off the handle about how all faiths are stupid, then you have no place in civilized discussion.
Properly educated people who don’t have to worry about losing a job or outraging their family recognize that all the tenets of all religions are factually false, but most of us don’t get upset about what people chose to believe because it is certainly their right to believe what they like, i.e. I’m not a catholic. One exception, which is an exception because of its obvious secular consequences, is the doctrine of papal supremacy. Your church is organized as an absolute elective monarchy, and its insistence on secretive power has led to abuses right up to the present—I don’t know if a celibate clergymen are more or less likely to abuse children than anybody else, but it’s very clear that a closed, irresponsible church is very likely to cover up for them as the church continues and will continue to do as it has always provided cover for the amazing collection of evil priests, prelates, and popes that infest its history. Of course the claim that the church has the right to decide how to interpret scripture is not the most abusive feature of its claimed authority, but it is of a piece with the rest of it.
Now if you wanted to claim that simple-minded versions of the old Protestant notion of scriptura sola were an inadequate basis for interpreting texts, you’d have a better argument. The mere fact that understanding a text requires a tradition of reading along with a transmitted text doesn’t get you where you want to go, however, since there is no reason short of irrational faith to claim that the Catholic reading tradition, which, after all, is merely one among many, has any priority over Protestant or non-religious traditions of reading. An authoritative, univocal reading of a text would indeed require something like a holy ghost from which I conclude in view of the historical evidence that there has never been a single reading that there has ever been a holy ghost. (Compare the situation with those who read what Gallileo called the other book. The scientists really do have a reliable guide to interpreting the physical world, namely the nature of things, a vastly more reliable and constant guide than the politically determined dictates of a corrupt church, which have endlessly changed according to suit the convenience of the times.)
Dark Star -
I don’t believe Jennifer is proclaiming that she is speaking on behalf of ALL Christianity or on behalf of ALL atheists. You’re making that (incorrect) inference. Do you know what an “opinion” is? Or the nature of an “opinion column”?
What she is now is a Catholic Christian. What she was, was an atheist. It’s pretty simple.
And yes, Dark Star, if you’re going to claim that she was never an atheist and thus cannot base her opinions on her former beliefs, you need to prove that she was never an atheist in the first place. Can you do so?
ben -
once again, go go Gadget reading comprehension! See the “About Jennifer Fulweiler” blurb on the upper right: In 2007 she became Catholic after a life of atheism.
Fixed the above analogy by Some Guy:
“The crap you people are posting is analogous to barging into a conversation about what kind of horns would look good on a unicorn, if there were such thing as a good-looking unicorn, and complaining at the top of your lungs that unicorns are terrible and probably don’t exist anyway. Chill”
See, when you replace “bagel” with something for which there actually is no physical evidence, then we stop looking quite so unreasonable.
P.S. If the point of the piece is ministering to atheists, then the Christians in the comments don’t seem to be embracing the message. Calling your opponent hateful for disagreeing with you doesn’t seem to be a way to build bridges.
Duke - please go ahead and expalin why each of the 5 items are irrational if you assume a possibility for God to exist. Cheers
“For those of you who missed it in the article, Jen was a lifelong atheist.”
that sentence seems to imply that Jen has died.
and i’m another atheist who doesn’t see the least bit of sense in any of her points. i’m not going to be so arrogant as to claim she was never an atheist—- but if she was, yet saw any sort of sense in points this outright silly, then i submit she likely never thought very hard about atheism or the supernatural. it doesn’t take much critical analysis to lay bare the ridiculousness of most of these ideas, namely.
SomeGuy,
Wow. You really cannot be honest can you ?
As I and others have pointed out to you there is not point arguing about what might or might not be true about God until you have shown a god exists. Anything else is sophistry, and intellectually dishonest.
Oh, and amongst decent people it is normal to apologise for being dishonest pretty quickly once you become aware you have. I will assume you do not count yourself as being a decent person. Fair enough, I don’t think you are either.
First, was she really an atheist?
Although atheist technically and simply means some version of no gods or no belief in gods, I think there is a difference between “I don’t think there is a god but I never thought about it that much” and “I have thought about it a lot and considered the evidence and I don’t think the evidence is sufficient to prove a god.”
As a former person of faith, I can’t imagine now saying, “I didn’t see any sufficient evidence for god but now I do”, but I can see someone from the first camp who didn’t really think about it might have a personal experience, finding a sense or purpose, or be convinced from an argument from design, etc. which I would not finding convincing because I have considered and rejected those arguments.
I’m not going to do a reverse No True Scotsman and say Jennifer wasn’t an atheist - if she says she was, good enough for me. However, I think it was from not really thinking about it or from accepting what she was told, not from considering and evaluating the evidence for herself. The communion of saints is comforting and nice, but what exactly would commune? What is the soul? Thoughts, feelings, personality, everything is a function of the physical structure of the brain, the chemistry and electrical impulses. What is there to live on after brain function stops? “It struck her as spiritual truth” is based on feelings and comfort, not on looking at the evidence.
Second, the audience:
I understand I am not her audience; she is talking to Catholics who want to share the good news with atheists. I think, though, her lack of understanding of what she speaks is doing her audience a huge disservice. If a Catholic came to me or any skeptic with this and thought this was a good place to start - um, no. Sharing with her readers an understanding of the rules of evidence or an evidence-based world view would be a bigger help in starting a conversation with non-believers.
Speaking as a born atheist who has stayed that way I have to you seem to be speaking more for what seem to have believed at one time rather than an averave view. As to me very little of what you claim resonates much at all. I find the ideaof purgatory to be a manufactured(emphasis on man) construct to get out of the ethically problematic issue of original sin. In fact the Vatican would seem to aggree as they retracted their claims of limbo. There us no doctrinal support for an escape clausher than through Jesus (dependent of course on you r view of interpretation and accuracy of the text).
Regarding saints you meerly seem to be expressing your own lack of imagination (no insult implied). To me th common thread of means of worship around the world speaks more to the commonality of ancestor worship and the nature of how we percieve and experience identity.
Mary has no more impact on my thinking than the mother of Hercules, Percius, or Achilles. Charming ladies I am sure. But I have no more veneration for them (if they even existed) than is due a person that has given birth to another.
Your third assertion seems to just be another attempt to get around original sin and as such is essntially intellectually dishonesty. You need to keep up with your own liturgy as the Vatican did away with its claims of limbo. And furthermore if you follow the logical flow of this idea you should stop teaching people about Jesus and instead just focus on teaching people to be loving, caring, and compassionate. Otherwise you place their soul in Jeopardy via the chance they might not buy he whole Jesus story for a multitudeof reasonable reasons.
And of course the last bit makes no sense to me what so ever. Even given the idea that a god did set down some founding church mere human nature and the problems of transmitting ideas down the ages you are left with it being a matter of personal interpretation. Saying the pope is infallible ex cathedra does not make it actually true. The papal system has been host to every imaginable human failing. And let us not even bring up the recent moral failings of the lower clergy. I find nothing positive about a dictortorial method of determining the truth. No matter how fancy a hat the person doing the dictating is wearing.
8
“Duke - please go ahead and explain why each of the 5 items are irrational if you assume a possibility for God to exist. Cheers”
Even supposing a god exists does not mean that god will anything like the Christian god. Assuming the existence of a god does mean assuming the existence of heaven, or anykind of afterlife.
Therefore to make arguments based on the fact that not only does god exist, but do so does heaven makes no sense.
QED.
Is there any reason this logic escaped you ? It is not exactly hard.
I think most atheists here are just being what they think religious people are: biggots.
Jennifer never implied atheists believe in God or that they believe in the Communion of Saints. No, what Jennifer wrote is that some concepts, can make sense even for atheists even if they do not believe in God and refute religion.
I think Jerome and most other did not even carefully read what Jennifer wrote and just went out on a limb.
Lucky that they are the logical and rational ones uh? Yeah, right.
@ Jerome:
“
“Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.”
So. Next time you pretend to know what atheists seem to think, I suggest you just Google it first! “
Too bad this has NOTHING to do with what Jennifer is trying to say.
I think this shows quite a strong short-sightness on your part.
I think t
Nomen - you and I had the same point, probably typing at the same time.
“Though atheists typically see all belief in the supernatural as unreasonable, some doctrines, like the ones below, strike them as less crazy than others”
While “completely detached from reality” may not be quite as crazy as “bat-!@#$% crazy”, these five wacko talking points that you cherry picked for our entertainment are still firmly entrenched in the “and you believe this trash?” category for any thinking atheist.
Matt Penfold et al - While I appreciate you proving my point about you being unfit for civilized discussion, there was no need to do so so thoroughly.
__
I particularly like how you accuse me of being dishonest because I do not accept your view, and then how after decrying dishonesty you imply that any semi-intelligent person would necessarily agree with you, thus implying that Mendel, Lemaitre, Augustine, Aquinas, and many more people who were much more intelligent than you or I can imagine were retards. I’m sure this will come as a surprise to the geneticists who based their science of Mendel’s ideas, the physicists who study cosmology based of Fr. Lemaitre’s big bang theory, and the plethora of people who use the various theories of Pascal. I am sure you will spare no time in explaining to all the world how all these people and more were really actually stupider than you, as opposed to just disagreeing, or retract your attacks.
Her 5 examples of teachings that make sense to atheists all assume the existence of a god.
Since it is lack of belief in the existence of a god that defines an atheist it is hard to see how anyone make that argument in good faith.
Look, this is not hard to understand, and to be honest I am having trouble accepting that those you who do not understand are not being wilfully ignorant.
@Jerome
<<<
So, I plugged ‘atheist’ into Google, and the first hit was the Wikipedia article. The beginning of the third paragraph, that is, the first paragraph to talk about why atheists are atheists, says: “Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.”
So. Next time you pretend to know what atheists seem to think, I suggest you just Google it first! >>>
I wonder how many atheists actually DO check what *they* believe empirically…. How many of them actually seriously study science and check that what they read in pop-science magazines is true (as a physicist myself I can say often it’s quite not so true), if their moral and cultural beliefs (freedom of speech, various human rights, etc…) have any empirical grounds and WHAT exactly these empirical grounds are.
To be skeptical on what others believe and not on what oneself believes is highly irrational… and most atheists I have met (and they are many) fall exactly in that irrational category.
=======
Yes now you can start whining on how Daniel Dennet told you are ‘a bright’ ;)
A simple apology would suffice for your intellectual dishonesty.
Do you intend to offer one or not ? If not, I would ask you be banned for trolling.
Even if some of these “make sense” in the sense that there is internal logic to them, all of them rest ultimately on a supernatural assumption for which there is no evidence (and probably could be no evidence.) You won’t win many converts by having the best fan-fiction.
Your point is easy. Of course these things depend on the existence of God, but that is simply not what we’re discussing. This is perfectly reasonable, in much the same way that it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the possible consequences of String Theory or the Many Worlds interpretation of QM. What we are doing here is saying that these points are consistent with what appears to be “natural justice” and the like. The key word is CONSISTENT. You will find that the Catholic position explains things pretty well - as far as predicting outcomes goes, it’s a great model. This is of course, not a proof that it is true, but that’s not what we’re discussing.
If only we Christians had as much evangelical spirit as these atheists! They can’t stop preaching for the life of them. Great job, atheist apologists, I love your missionary zeal, taking your atheism into all the godly places! Look, just because you live in an online militant atheist microcosm doesn’t mean that the things Ms. Fulwiler wrote here cannot be helpful to atheists who are exploring the Catholic faith. Although to you it may be inconceivable, such atheists do exist and posts like this are indeed helpful to someone who wants to understand the faith. I found this all really amusing, atheist hissy-fits are among my joys in life (“Let me share with my readers some of my life experiences” “What about EVIDENCE?!!!?!?111 uhhhmmm clerical abuse!”) hahahahhahahahaha
Matt - infinite possibilities notwithstandstaning, the question pertains to the Christian religion and the fact that revelation is about as good as evidence as you will get and can expect.
Related question - if God wanted hundred of generations to develop towards faith and rationality and slosfree will, how would you think he would go about making his message known?
Matt - “does not incline to point of view” is not equal to dishonest. Stating that it is is dishonest. Tag, you’re it.
The title is wrong and it just gets worse from there. F minus minus. See me after class!
On the other hand: What atheists think of Catholics - you are deranged, foolish, pompous, willfully ignorant, childish, boring, laughable, dishonest, and by any respected definition of the word, insane. One would be better served to worship a a ball of lint; at least it exists.
Ewan MacDonald +1 good post!
Yet more dishonesty. Do you have no shame.
Even if we allow that god does exist, that does not mean heaven must exist. Therefore even by your own logic the argument fails.
Are you this dishonest in real life, where people know you name ? Or does the anonymity offered here mean you think you can lie without any come back ?
Can a moderator please do something about this fool ?
@cd - Re: Tao Te Ching. Try again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching#Interpretations_in_relation_to_religious_traditions.
Cultural Catholic-turned-atheist here. In a quick, one paragraph summary as to why these five concepts make no sense to me: A loving, forgiving God who sends people to an infinite punishment for finite crimes makes no sense, so merely inventing a holding cell in between makes no more sense. Universal wish fulfillment re: communion of saints actually makes me *more* suspicious of this doctrine. I always thought the immaculate conception of Mary should lead to an infinite regress of sinless parents, or else an illogical and arbitrary veneration of one parent over the other. PZ Myers at Pharyngula debunks the fourth point succinctly: “Of course, if you have heard of the gospel because some caterwauling missionary or proselytizer bellows at you, and you reject it because the whole shebang makes no sense at all, you will go to hell. This does not strike me as fair, or even sensible.” As for the last bit, merely calling yourself infallible is one of the least likely ways to convince me that you are.
If the author of this article was truely an atheist, then as an atheist she wouldn’t have converted unless she was given solid proof of the existence of the god she now worships. Why is she bothering with this article. If she has actual evidence that would convert an atheist she should be writing about that!!
Or maybe she wasn’t actually an atheist.
1) Why would that make sense? It presumes the whole heaven/hell dichotomy and the invented intermediary step. There’s nothing to suggest the first 2 are real except for faith, so why would the third follow to those who reject the concepts of the first 2?
2) Why? The Catholic saints are officially venerated for miracles. But the authority on that is the Church itself. See if these stand up to any scientific rigor.
3) Why? I like the narrator of Cat’s Cradle, but I don’t venerate him. I love and venerate my mom, but that’s because she’s my own mother. Surely you don’t suggest that Mary should be venerated because she’s made holy by the church.
4) If people want to find god, that’s their own perogative. Why an atheist should think of savlation in a biblical sense as something that makes sense is unclear.
5) If I wanted to know if there any overarching themes to Harry Potter, I’d write J.K. Rowling. It’s a bit harder to ask about the bible, but I would not rely on the holy see being inerrant. It’s kind of like asking the “King Potter Nerd” what he thinks. But this assumes that I actually care deeply about Harry Potter, or the bible, which I don’t. Anyhow, the whole Apostolic Authority concept is antithetical to a healthy dose of skepticism.
Matt - once, again “does not incline to point of view” is not equal to dishonest. Stating that it is is dishonest. You’re still it.
__
You really don’t understand this do you? We’re talking about CONSISTENCY. Read that word. Look it up. Check it out. Understand it. Got it? Ok. Now. Take a deep breath and try again. Also, you’re wrong. It takes an amazingly few number of assumptions to get from God exists to heaven exists. Benevolence is nearly enough by itself. But even if it didn’t, it wouldn’t matter, because we’re talking about CONSISTENCY. Lemme give you a link: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&q=define+consistency
FX - You are saying the atheists didn’t read the article carefully. I suggest that you are not reading the atheists’ replies carefully. I did read the article - I went back and read it over three times as I was composing my reply to make sure I understood and was addressing her point.
“Jennifer never implied atheists believe in God or that they believe in the Communion of Saints.” Right. No one said she did.
___
You said her point was “No, what Jennifer wrote is that some concepts, can make sense even for atheists even if they do not believe in God and refute religion.” Again right. I agree, that was her point. And if you read the comments, the consensus is “No, these concepts do not make sense to atheists or someone that does not believe in God and does not accept religion.”
If that is the best you can offer, it is pretty pathetic.
Now how about addressing what I said. Or admitting you cannot. You are not there with SomeGuy in the intellectual dishonesty stakes yet.
I will concede for the point of argument (and only for the point of argument) that god exists.
There five teachings still lack any support, since you also need to show heaven must exist. I have done you the favour of granting the existence of god, the rest is up to you. I expect you to either show heaven must exist, or for you to acknowledge you cannot and your initial claim was wrong.
If you want to know some explanations or proofs of God, what do you want us to say? They don’t exist; any Catholic can acknowledge that basic fact. It is called faith, and admittedly we have it and you reject the notion. Why are you all on this blog, and what do you have to say to us that we haven’t already heard? I understand that you do not believe, I understand that you refuse the notion of faith, that you require explanations and proofs. If you are interested in that kind of thing, why are you reading an ncregister blog rather than the Summa Theologica? It is not helpful for you, move on- it wasn’t written for you. Maybe it doesn’t match up to your particular worldview; deal with it, because not everybody sees the world with your eyes. I am sorry this article is not catered to you, but it was never meant to be. If you want a proof of God, look elsewhere (perhaps in your own life). If you want to know 5 Catholic teachings that can make sense to atheists, look at this article. I know a lot of atheists who have a problem with Biblical interpretation and salvation. To say that an explanation of these things is not helpful to atheists is, well, untrue. I have proof of that, solid evidence. It is the atheists here who are generating a false sense of reality and a self-deception, in which every atheist is a member of their vocal blogging community. Thank God that isn’t true, evangelical atheists can be pretty annoying.
@ JoAnna: “Not really, once you look at the number of religions that have endured since the beginning of recorded civilization. (Hint: Judaism and its fulfillment—Christianity—are among these.)”
This is irrelevant. The longevity of a religion has no bearing on whether any of it is true or not.
Adam K: Luckily, Catholics don’t believe any of what you stated they do! If they did, I wouldn’t be Catholic either. :) Might I suggest that, as a “cultural Catholic,” you really didn’t know what your faith actually taught before you left it? An easy way to find out is to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or the Compendium of the CCC. (The latter is in a Q&A format, and a bit easier to get through.)
There are so many atheists that are reasonable and logical…yet reading these comments one would wonder if that was the case at all. It is quite clear that this article is addressing the _internal_ continuity of Catholicism. An atheist might think of it as debating the internal continuity of Star Trek, or some other fictional universe, but it could be done.
If you are debating whether phasers make people disappear or electrocute them and your opponent says “Star Trek is fake” you know they don’t care. However, some people, quite convinced that Star Trek is fake, will still debate things just cause. If _you_ don’t want to explore the internal continuity of a fictional universe, no one is stopping you from leaving; however, to accuse the writer of not doing what she didn’t set out to do is illogical.
As a Protestant atheist I’ll have a constructive crack at the points:
#1 - Purgatory. To be frank this seems like a bit of a retcon to explain how people could get out of being sent to hell because they didn’t believe in an entity that hadn’t been born (eg lived in OT times) or they’ve never heard of. It implies, in my view, that this is a local religion gone global with no forward planning.
#2 - The Communion of Saints. No idea what this is, however hints of pagan ancestor worship if dead ancestors somehow know what’s hapepning today.
#3 - Veneration of Mary. Again, pagan mother goddess worship? There are examples in most ancient cultures.
#4 - Salvation for all. Is that *really* possible? I’d really like to know if there was more details on this one.
#5 - Apostolic Authority. Sorry, lost me here. You’re still talking about interpretation onlky you’re second guessing either historical figures or a few scholars in the Vatican.
I can’t say that any make “sense” in any real fashion to me. I can see where the ideas come from but it’s still completely irrational. You have to make so many assumptions before they become relevant (supernatural, possibility of gods, only one god, said god did as described in Bible, etc, etc, etc).
Has the author tries running these ideas past any members of other religions (even Protestants)? I’m sure that the responses wouldn’t be too positive in most of the cases…
“uhhhmmm clerical abuse!”) hahahahhahahahaha”
Wait, really? When atheists talk about clerical abuse you lol?
I do not understand your sense of humor.
In order for Jennifer’s article to start making sense, she needs to get through four levels of difficulty: (1) Does God even exist? (2) If He exists, does He have the attributes Christianity says He has? (3) If yes, does the Bible provide correct information regarding His desires and intentions? (4) And if yes to (3), do the Catholic understanding of the Bible correctly state the intent of the Bible? Without that, Jennifer’s writing is just a waste of energy. Claiming that these 5 positions are something atheists can relate to is nothing more than a joke, since she skipped right over questions 1 through 3 and started talking about issues relating question 4.
“You really don’t understand this do you? We’re talking about CONSISTENCY. Read that word. Look it up. Check it out. Understand it. Got it? Ok. Now. Take a deep breath and try again. Also, you’re wrong. It takes an amazingly few number of assumptions to get from God exists to heaven exists. Benevolence is nearly enough by itself. But even if it didn’t, it wouldn’t matter, because we’re talking about CONSISTENCY. Lemme give you a link: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&q=define+consistency”
The existence of god does not mean heaven must exist. So not only do you have the burden of proof in showing god exists (and you cannot do that) you must also show heaven exists. And you must do so without any assumptions. Evidence only I am afraid, just like you would if you were all grown up.
I will even allow you a headstart, and allow you to assume god exists. The rest is down to you. Have a go, or admit you cannot. If you cannot, or will not I all ask is you say you cannot or will not, and you refrain from further comment here.
I would point out that given the nature of the venue I will be taking your behaviour as being that which would be condoned by the Catholic Church (so if you want to introduce cover up of sexual abuse of minors by clerics go ahead).
Kephas,
If only it were that simple. You are entitled to your faith. However, to the extent that I view your faith as a driving force behind other things I consider action worthy, I will act.
In addition to being an atheist, I am also pro-choice and pro-contraception. My research has led me to conclude that Catholics tend to then vote against me in these areas, and do so based on their belief.
Additionally, people holding faith is a bad thing. It’s hard to say that your faith is okay, and the Westboro Baptist Church’s isn’t, on another ground beyond “just because.” I am therefor generally against irrational beliefs, including faith.
It is to my advantage therefor to reduce the number of Catholics.
And so we argue.
Ok Matt, one more try. First I will do things your way, sorta. Not feeling like feeding the troll a really long argument, but here’s the skeletal version. Suppose there is a supreme creator being and that there is creation. Now, that being is most likely, given the evidence, benevolent towards creation because if he was malevolent he could easily wipe it out and if he didn’t care he wouldn’t have needed to bother in the first place. So if the creator is benevolent - this means he values at least some portion of creation - that is he desires good for it. Now, nothing can have good if it does not exist, so that means it is very likely if not certain that the creator would arrange for the valued part of creation to persist indefinitely. Since the creator would, being of the omni-nearly-everything form, be the highest possible good possible, the best good for creation would be to be united with him. Thus, heaven. There ya go, more or less.
__
Now, you’re still wrong. I can say that religious ideas of what is proper fit extremely well with what appears from natural experience to be proper without positing that the religion is correct.
@Joe: “This is irrelevant. The longevity of a religion has no bearing on whether any of it is true or not.” I disagree. If a religion is such a clear sham, it logically follows that it would not endure thousands of years on end if it did not at least have some basis in truth. Longevity, if nothing else, is a way to “narrow the field.”
An example - you don’t find a lot of people (if any) with a devotion to Zeus or Odin as real, actual gods these days, so obviously we can eliminate the Greek and Norse pantheons from consideration.
However, a reading of works such as Against Heresies by Iraneus, Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, and the like show that Christianity has been analyzed to death by learned individuals and found worthy of belief based on reason alone, so that should at least give one pause.
“Wait, really? When atheists talk about clerical abuse you lol?
I do not understand your sense of humor.”
I imagine the Cloyne report is one long joke to him.
I would not try understanding his sense of humour. It can only take you to some pretty sick places.
Some Guy:
Jennifer makes it plain that it is indeed not what she’s discussing. This is a strategy also known in atheist circles - it’s called “framing”, and it’s a study in bad-faith pseudo-debating. I feel this is quite a mendacious approach and I don’t want to humour it. Remember, this five-point list is supposed to be a response to the question, “I’m interested in hearing your perspective, and about what you believe.” Missing the whole Yahweh/Jesus thing out of that is simply dishonest.
As such I’m not humouring it from you, either. The fan-fiction may well be the most coherent, consistent thing ever devised: I personally don’t think that it is but seemingly there’s an argument to be made there. However, I’m not going to listen to that argument until a reason is presented to me for doing so. Right now she’s trying to sell me the warranty when I haven’t bought the car yet. And she’s doing it for pretty self-interested reasons.
There are two ways you can appeal to me (I am an atheist).
1) Convince me you’re right. Give me proof that your concepts are factual and I must agree with the conclusions they point to. But this is impossible because you admit that you know these things purely by faith, without evidence.
Catholicism scores poorly here. Your theologists have cooked up some really outlandish speculations, e.g. the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation. Even if I took the Bible as indisputable evidence you would be hard pressed to argue convincingly for these ideas.
2) Convince me you’re harmless. I deeply respect peoples’ right to disagree with me, and I always admit I could be wrong. I’m extremely tolerant of others who share that philosophy. But I fear and oppose anyone who thinks they have the right to impose their beliefs on others. People like that obviously don’t respect the US Constitution, so they are mortal enemies of mine.
Catholics score better here than, say, evangelicals or fundamentalist Muslims. But not much. I like the idea that unlike evangelicals, you believe someone who isn’t Catholic can still achieve God’s grace. But then, why do you oppose sending condoms to Africa where they’re needed to slow the spread of AIDS, and why do you fight to prevent gay marriage in the USA? If I can be saved without being Catholic why do you think you need to prohibit my non-Catholic same-sex marriage?
Bottom line, nothing in Catholicism is likely to appeal to a principled atheist (that is, someone who is atheist because logic forces them to be). But if Catholics work to stop their church’s political meddling, and if they get their missionaries to spread help instead of dogma, atheists could see you as allies in creating a better world.
Not read Iraneus, but I have read the others.
To be honest they are not very good are they ? In fact they are so bad I must assume you recommending them is some kind of joke. Please tell me you are joking and have something better hidden up your sleeve.
You see, amongst those of us who have studied some philosophy such a recommendation is a bit of an insult, and I for one am not really happy to be so insulted. So why do it ? You know those are not good people to cite, so why do it ?
I will trade all of those for one Russell.
Praise God, my brothers and sisters!! Look how many atheists Jen engaged today. Good work, Jen! Just think, if there are this many self-described-atheist comments, how many lurkers must there be? And if this resonates with just one…
Someone tell me KarenDenver is taking the piss, and is not being serious.
If she is, is that kind of thing tolerated around her ? If so, you have very low standards.
Matt - the point of my related question was to get over precisely all the detail (heaven) you request. Now if you cannot prove to me that this is all not a dream, then I suggest we call it quits.
All we have at the end of the day is the various methods for thinking things through rationally, the scientific method, being but one of them and it is of course not useful for non-repeatable (unique) events or events/things which might occur outside the material universe. Theology makes rational sense of what has been revealed and in the sense that the Catholic Church use it to understand what they believe to be a sacred revelation it would then seem perfectly rational. The methods of theology are rational and we know that science and the modern scientific method actually evolved from the scholastic theological tradition(occams razor etc).
“However, I’m not going to listen to that argument until a reason is presented to me for doing so.”
__
See, this is the problem. Cuz it’s recursive, see? What reason would you have for listening to the argument that you should listen to the argument? For instance, I could say you should listen to the argument because the issue is important - it is a question about what happens after death. If you then say that because no living person has had experiences after death so you don’t care, then you’re ignoring the issue because it’s hard. If you say that because there is no evidence - that you accept - for something that it must be false, you are committing a fallacy. Granted you have to decide what to spend time on and what not to, but a good way to do that is to .. see what is reasonable. What is as it should be if things were other than you think. After that, should you choose, you could investigate further. You might be surprised.
KarenDenver,
These conversations, in my experience, based on having them, on comment threads, tend to result in Christians deconverting, quite a bit more often than atheists converting. So I agree with you, yay. :)
@KarenDenver:
Clearly the initial piece was written to engage. But the reaction from those who have commented has been uniformly negative. As for the lurkers, if “one” is convinced, it’s “one” who is convinced by bad argumentation. I don’t think that’s either an achievement or a victory. Because if they buy this list of five things, they’ll buy anything, and the next person who rattles their keys and ruffles their hair will have some magic beans to sell them that are beanier than yours.
“Christianity has been analyzed to death by learned individuals and found worthy of belief based on reason alone, so that should at least give one pause.”
pause in which we atheists ask, “what exactly is this reason to believe?”
none has yet been forthcoming, not even after thousands of years.
longevity is not an indicator of truth; people can be wrong, always and whenever, because it truly is human to err. people can even be wrong generation after generation for dozens of centuries.
(and, C.S. Lewis? seriously? you’re really not aware that contemplative atheists have considered him just about the weakest, most trite of xian apologists pretty much ever since he first wrote? it doesn’t take much googling at all to find rebuttals of Lewis, writing one up is a common high school project of moderately ambitious teenage atheists—- please do more scholarship than they.)
Jennifer, as a newish Catholic surrounded by atheists, I think I catch your drift and appreciate this article. The atheists I know are people I love and debate with and if nothing else this will make for interesting conversation (real conversation, too, not angry combox banter!, so thanks.
I know, and I was not having it.
However I note your inability to offer evidence to support your conclusions. Your argument is therefore dismissed.
If you cannot offer evidence that heaven exists, let alone god, why claim it does ? It is not an honest position to take. Conclusions are only as valid as any assumptions, and if the assumptions cannot be shown to be true then the conclusions will not be right (or of they are they will be so only by chance).
It is this whole refusal to offer evidence that annoys me and leads me to conclude there are no gods.
@Some Guy aka Jacob:
Substantive evidence for the proposition being advanced. In the case of the five items in this list, this would be first a definition of and then evidence for:
Purgatory
Jesus
God (and a loving God)
Saints
Communion
Mary
I grew up in a Christian country around Christians - people struggle with defining, much less proving any of these things. I’m not willing to waste more time delving into the minutae of these characters/settings until their existence is somehow shown and their properties explained.
That’s not because it’s hard. It’s because you’re putting forward a bad argument. The answer to that question will not be solved by appeals to emotion or tradition. It will be solved by judicious examination of the available evidence.
I haven’t committed any fallacy. Look up “null hypothesis” and “falsifiability” for how evidence-based thinking works. It isn’t simply about categorising things as “true” or “false”.
Speaking as an atheist, there are many things that make sense about religion, provided you think on them accepting the underlying premises of that particular religion. Therein lies the problem - it is these underlying premises that are not just wrong, but insanely wrong. The same problem is true of these five:
1) The general idea of purgatory makes sense - as long as you ignore the fact that this is based on the idea that there is some magical Sky Kingdom, where everything is perfect, that you go to after you die, as long as you’re ‘pure’.
2) The Communion of Saints makes sense - as long as you accept that some vague something that constitutes the essence of a person lives on after their body ceases to function.
3) The veneration of Mary makes sense - as long as you accept the underlying premise that she was divinely impregnated by a god, then gave birth to the self-same god that had impregnated her.
4) The limited salvation of non-Catholics and non-Christians kind of makes sense - as long as you accept, without question, that Catholicism is the One True Religion™. Note that I actually added ‘limited’ to accurately depict that not all non-Catholics and non-Christians are ‘saved’, even by the passage you quoted. However, this sense is marred somewhat by the fact some Catholics hold that children who die before they’re baptised also don’t go to Heaven, nor do they even go to Purgatory. They go to Limbo, and are denied Heaven for all of eternity, through no fault of their own, due to Original Sin.
5) Apostolic authority makes sense - as long as you accept the underlying premises of Catholicism.
When anyone says, “I was an atheist until I met someone who told me they have the truth because they say they have the magically bestowed authority to dictate the truth,” I hear someone who had no particular religious upbringing but who never thought about the nature of evidence or reality, or who threw away any requirement for reality of what they choose believe in for emotional reasons. I guess this is a No True Atheist argument.
All of the “what’s least crazy about Christianity” means nothing to atheists since the first axiom is still crazy. You’re right: this article is meant to stroke the egos of believers and nothing more. To an atheist, it’s “fanfic,” as meaningful as arguing about whether Santa Claus dresses on the left or the right.
As a former cradle Catholic, now unaffiliated theist, I do not find any of these five any more compelling than any other Catholic doctrines. The author’s POV sounds to me like ‘well, I can understand how an invisible PINK unicorn may sound quite unlikely, but what about an invisible WHITE unicorn? Doesn’t that sound more likely?’ Well, no. Not really. I freely admmit that my belief in (a) God is ultimately and fundamentally irrational. I could just as easily believe in Ameratasu, Krishna or Odin as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as there is just as much empirical, objective evidence for Them as for Him.
That’s one of the reasons I became a Mason. Freemasonry (at least the Anglo-American variety) requires a belief in a supreme being, but does not require any doctrinal test beyond that. I can sit at fellowship with my brother Masons, knowing them to hold beliefs different from mine; where we have unity, we can dispense with uniformity.
Reading the comments here is a fascinating mental exercise. I cannot posit anything especially useful to the decidedly static positions everyone is writing from, but as a general commentary, I must say that it is strange to read posts insisting on logic; and many of these from self-claimed atheists. Unless all of my professors were wrong, is it not impossible to prove the non-existence of something? Since the fundamental requirement of empirical knowledge is proof? And if a thing does not exist, then there is no proof to begin with? My sense has always been that this insistence upon denying the possibility of a spiritual/non-empirical reality is grounded upon denying human experience as a legitimate form of evidence. At any rate, if one abides by logic, isn’t he left with a strong insistence upon the non-reality of God, but without any verifiable way to substantiate his own point? I’m no professional philosopher, but it seems to me that the only logical position to take is one of agnosticism: Ultimate causation and/or a non-empirical reality is probably unknowable in the same way that a unicorn is probably unknowable. Agnosticism at least, owns to the finite ability of the human mind to contain knowledge, and to apprehend reality within his consciousness. But then again, I could be entirely mistaken, as I am able to make mistakes.
I am completely befuddled by #5: Apostolic Authority. You essentially wrote that there are many competing interpretations of the Bible, each claiming to be the correct one (so far, I agree). But, one of these interpretations claims to REALLY be the correct one, so therefore it is!
If you ever go used-car shopping, I recommend that you bring a friend who is a little less gullible.
I would add that for those of us who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster there is no heaven. His Noodly Appendage is quite clear about that.
Now of course you can argue that god is not the FSM but then we just end up disagreeing with no way of telling which of us is right. Which is of course the point I am trying to make.
Wow! I don’t think I know any atheists, and these comments certainly make me glad for that! What a surly bunch atheist are! Is mockery and derision part of your “belief system”? Don’t think you’ll be getting many converts with that kind of attitiude. Give me meekness and humility any day! Certainly not every Christian exemplifies these virtues, but they’re what we aspire to. Perhaps it’s the reason why a majority of Americans say they wouldn’t elect an atheist as President…
Ewan - it is, in the end, about categorizing things as true and false. It is true, or it is false. You think it is true, you think it is false, or you are uncertain, possibly leaning one way or the other. You cannot invoke the null hypothesis or scientific method unless you have a repeatable experiment. You have absolutely no information, that you accept, at all. This is different from having information that fails to support the hypothesis. And much different from having evidence which supports the hypothesis’ negation.
Lukewarm:
Your professors were right: you can’t prove a negative. This is frequently used as a life-raft by theists/so-called agonistics*. This argument has been done to death: look up Russell’s Teapot for a very simple and charming but still robust illustration of this point.
A single human experience is actually a very poor way to find “evidence” of external phenomena. We have over the course of human history developed no end of ways to make sure our experiences are what we think they are, culminating in the development of the scientific method. We see patterns where none exist, we look for things that confirm our biases, we see agency everywhere - we put safeguards in place to make sure that these things are all taken into account when we try to figure out what’s actually going on in this universe of ours.
*The reason I put so-called there isn’t so much to be snarky as it is to make a point. I think true agnosticism is extremely rare. I think so-called agnosticism is a lot more common, and by that I mean a concentrated effort to take a middle ground in a difficult controversy. It’s less not knowing than it is knowing that one of two propositions may be correct, and hedging one’s bets.
@JoAnna Just on a lark (since I haven’t had a good laugh today), I decided to check out the Compendium of the CCC, and you know what? You’re right. Besides all of the unfounded assertions and bureaucracy-speak, I learned some things. Like how those in Purgatory can still be helped by the selling of indulgences! Awesome!
Lukewarm,
Did you miss out the null hypothesis and the concept of the burden of proof ? It is for the person making the affirmative claim (in this case god exists) to show the evidence (not logic) that show it does. The default position absent such evidence is to conclude non-existence.
See Bertrand Russell for a more detailed explanation.
Please understand that things that make sense are not necessarily true. Things that are true, however, should make sense. This blog post is not a proof; this is an explanation of things that can make sense, even to atheists. It doesn’t make sense that a book can be infallible, it doesn’t make sense that imperfect people can enter heaven, and as some people have pointed it out, it doesn’t make sense that God can punish people infinitely for finite crimes, nor does it make sense that a God who is “all-benevolent” should cast people into hell. It does make sense, however, that the Bible is not meant to be an authoritative teacher on Christ, but rather the Church that knew Him, the Church that wrote/compiled the Bible. It makes sense, however, that imperfect people can be made perfect. It makes sense that hell is not a place for finite crimes, but infinite ones. It makes sense that God’s benevolence and love is so great that He respects the will of His creation even over His own power (which could force us to be good, force us to accept heaven). That doesn’t mean all this is true, but it certainly makes sense. Atheism makes a whole lot of sense to me. That doesn’t mean I believe it is true. Yet understanding how someone can believe something is important across religions and across cultures; it is part of being a human being. Hopefully someday all you atheists can understand this.
@Some Guy aka Jacob:
Your true/false contention here works, very much so, in the case of a particular empirical proposition. The reason that I’m saying we can’t categorise everything that way is for the reason I entered this conversation in the first place: it is abundantly clear that we don’t actually know what we’re talking about. By that I mean, no definition for - much less evidence for - any proposition named in the original post has yet been described. Thus I don’t want to make a true/false judgement for “Salvation” as I don’t actually know what Jennifer means by this.
I am asking an honest question here to the atheists: Can you prove God *doesn’t* exist? I’m completely serious here…
I would also add, that contra some claims, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Of course it is not as strong as positive evidence, but if after many attempts to find evidence for something no evidence has been forthcoming then it is reasonable and rationale to conclude non-existence, always contingent on that position changing should evidence be found.
This is why it is quite reasonable and rational to conclude that aliens are not abducting people on Earth, and that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist.
Kephas:
It has been explained now by several atheists here that just because something is consistent, doesn’t mean that it’s persuasive, true, or even interesting. Rather than telling atheists what and how they should think, you could maybe address this problem: why should anyone believe a single word you’re typing in the absence of any evidence for it?
RMMT:
You can’t prove any negative, so obviously, no, nobody could show such proof.
I think Jennifer was just stating the 5 teachings would make rational sense vs theological sense to atheists, I think she’s intelligent enough to know that making theological arguments would be futile, so I don’t think she was trying to convert any atheists on the blog.
Since you atheists on this blog are so intellectual, would you consider reading a book by Robert Spitzer “New Proofs for the Existence of God - Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy”, put down your Nietzsche books for a minute and be a little open minded, since you guys claim to be so liberal and open minded, there is a rational theism argument out there.
And just for the record..the great St. Thomas Aquinas did state that the existence of God is NOT self evident otherwise there would be no atheists, so reason and logic can be applied to a existence of a transcendental being.
OverlappingMagisteria:
Jenn didn’t make the implication you state, she stated there was one church that Christ founded and that it make sense to her that this would be the authority on scripture, which is true since this chruch canonized the bible as we know it starting in the 2nd century but was not finalized until the late 4th century, it wasn’t until the 16th century that Martin Luther compiled his own bible, which was full of errors, even modern day protestant bible scholars affirm that the Kings James bible is full of errors.
no, we can’t prove god doesn’t exist. by the same token, we can’t prove Russell’s Teapot doesn’t exist, either. or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn…
unfalsifiable entities are not remarkable; any reasonably creative person can think such up as fast as they can be written down. not being disproven is no reason to give them credence.
Serious maybe, honest ? No way.
Unless you really are unaware of how science works, the concept of the burden proof and the null hypothesis.
Briefly put, god exists is a hypothesis. There is no evidence to support that hypothesis so therefore the hypothesis fails and the intellectually honest person concludes (if only for the time being) that god does not exist.
That is how science works. It is amazing how many here do not understand this.
@elcid:
Jennifer explicitly says that the five points are written for the consumption of noneblievers who ask a Christian about their perspective and information on what they believe.
I’ve explained why this is unlikely to satisfy a curious nonbeliever - that it doesn’t actually address the second question. Just as well, then, that you feel it’s not designed to convince.
Let’s assume that Jesus was and is gay. What 5 things could the catholic church say that would make sense to homophobic members?
So, if you’re going for longevity = truth, I guess all you Catholics are immediately converting to Jainism, which has been around for at least 3,000 years, right? Right?
* crickets *
I’m trying to figure out how these are supposed to make sense “to atheists.”
How is “purgatory” supposed to make sense to atheists when Heaven and Hell do not? “Purgatory” might make sense to theists who want to make sense of the absolutism of Christian teaching, but it still lacks any evidentiary basis, and remains basically fantasy material. It makes no sense to atheists.
How is “The Communion of Saints” supposed to make sense to atheists? Okay, so the human brain is (mostly) universal in its tendency to attribute agency to non-human agents. This helps us survive predator attacks by assuming that sound was a tiger, and not just the wind. But it’s still a tendency that, with sound investigation, reveals itself to be flawed, and is absolutely universal in its failure to ascribe agency to the dead. It makes no sense to atheists.
How is “The Veneration of Mary” supposed to make sense to atheists? The paragraph is Catholic psychobabble. It makes no sense to anyone who is not committed to the Catholic cause. It certainly makes no sense to atheists.
How does “Salvation for non-Christians and non-Catholics” supposed to make sense to atheists? For it to make sense, atheists must presuppose they need salvation, which presupposes a god. Again, there’s no evidence for a god or gods’ intervention in our lives. This makes no sense to atheists.
How does “Apostolic Authority” make sense to atheists? It’s merely word-taking based on hearsay that points to a figure that may well be mythical itself. Authority without rationale is nonsense. It makes no sense to atheists.
I don’t know what Jennifer Fulwiler thought she was, once upon a time. She sounds like someone who believed in a god and was angry with it. The term “atheists” may have appealed to her for its seeming rebelliousness. But she betrays, in paragraph after paragraph, a lifelong, ongoing commitment to the belief in a supernatural with interest in and power over her life. That is the antithesis of atheism. She was never an atheist. She is not an authority on atheism.
Posted by dog on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 12:15 PM (EDT):So why is it that atheists do seem to be take a superior tone with Christians just because we choose to follow a specific faith.
Because all faiths are equally ridiculous to a nonbeliever.
Interesting. So you are saying that because you find faiths ridiculous that the people who do find comfort and solace in them are also, ridiculous.
So how is it then that you characterize yourself as a non-believer? Non-believer in what exactly? Since atheists don’t believe in god, how do you do define yourself by something that you don’t believe actually exists.
Again - your comment is received by this Christian as an ad-hominem and shows you taking that superior tone.
And BTW, no Christian is obligated whatsoever to prove the existence of God to anyone. It is what we choose to believe. You don’t see us Christians demanding that you prove he doesn’t exist.
Wow. I see the Evangelical Atheists are out in force. If there’s one thing they’re good at it’s winning friends and influencing people. I know that whenever someone insists that I’m a crazy idiot I just rush out to get some of what they’ve got. /s
“I am asking an honest question here to the atheists: Can you prove God *doesn’t* exist? I’m completely serious here… “
Yes, and you are clueless as well.
Follow-up question: Can you prove the existence of love?
“Wow. I see the Evangelical Atheists are out in force. If there’s one thing they’re good at it’s winning friends and influencing people. I know that whenever someone insists that I’m a crazy idiot I just rush out to get some of what they’ve got.”
Pot calling the kettle black, Mandy P. The Christians in the comments have accused atheists of being surly, bigoted, and inclined to throw hissy fits, among other things. If you think being called crazy is a turn-off, try being on the receiving end of “bigot”.
The high horse you’re on appears to have a bum leg. You might want to look into that.
@Kris, in New England
Sure, there are some atheists who think that way. Certainly I don’t pull any punches if someone reveals to me that they believe some complete nonsense about homosexuality being inherently sinful or anything like that. But beliefs for “comfort and solace”, I think you’ll find a lot of atheists who either don’t care about them, or adopt an attitude similar to ‘love the sin, hate the sinner’. Or, phrased better, ‘accept that a person thinking a certain way isn’t necessarily stupid or evil for doing so, but also be ready to discourage anyone from sloppy argumentation or wish-thinking and instead encourage them to think rationally and with care.’
What you’re interpreting as being forced to provide evidence is simply how rational argumentation works. Interpret it not as an attack but simply a request. (And there actually has been a (presumed) Christian on this thread “demanding” a negative proof… :))
@RMMT
If we define love as a massively powerful pull of affection manifesting itself in compassion and goodness, then we can point to specific instances in which love seems to be present. I suppose if we could further distil these compulsions and actions down to a physical level - the way they coalesce in the brain - then we could offer a more prosaic level of “proof.” So the short answer is… yes, we can put forward a proposition for something that manifests itself in our world and then conceivably prove it, assuming infinite resources and sufficiently advanced technology.
I’ve heard this “oh, you can’t prove love, therefore God” thing before, but it misses the point quite severely. Love as an abstract can’t be proven anymore than justice or sarcasm can be proven. If we put a label on something or someone and call it “love”, we could, conceivably, prove it. It isn’t the least analogous to a science-proof supernatural intelligence, which is generally where this argument goes.
Jen writing AUGUST 10, 2005, QUOTE: But I want to believe. My logical mind tells me some sort of creator exists. Some deep gut feeling tells me God exists.
But she still considers herself ‘functionally’ an atheist at that point (whatever that is supposed to mean, I would not describe this position as atheistic).
QUOTE: After educating myself more about physics and biology I now believe intellectually in some sort of intelligent design
I would put forth that this is not educating oneself very well - the intelligent design proposition has been pretty thoroughly discredited by science.
I also observe that she over generalizes, for example:
QUOTE: You don’t generally see that sort of deep understanding and respect for laws on the left
That’s some pretty blatant (and honestly repulsive) prejudice there - care to support this with science?
And then there are things like:
QUOTE (AUGUST 12, 2005): One of the things that’s most psychologically dangerous about this atheistic mindset is that it means that humans are the highest power in the known universe
Again, doesn’t sound like much of an ‘atheist’ to me. She can call herself anything she wants but her actions speak of a different conclusion.
Nor is this the ‘atheistic mindset’, even if some atheists adopt it - some theists believe this as well. Many atheists don’t accept the common idea of Free Will, in which case we’re bound by the laws of Nature - not the laws of man.
There’s an advertisement here for wooden caskets blessed by monks.
Am I to take that as a hint? :D
Ignoring the assertion that I am both “dishonest” and “clueless” for posting the first question (and it was just a simple question - nothing insinuated), there is a reason I asked: because I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m not “demanding” that someone attempt a negative proof. I’m trying to put the comments in context. And btw, I am extremely well-versed in scientific method, having obtained a couple science degrees (chemistry and medicine, in case you’re curious).
@Kris:
“And BTW, no Christian is obligated whatsoever to prove the existence of God to anyone. It is what we choose to believe. You don’t see us Christians demanding that you prove he doesn’t exist.”
[Actually, I see that all the time. “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so atheists are irrational *not* to believe in him,” is the typical argument.]
But no, you’re not obliged to prove the existence of God, or justify any of your beliefs. And I’m not obliged to respect you. If I think your beliefs are ridiculous, I get to ridicule you. My respect is a privilege earned by people who make logical arguments and use evidence to support their views.
@RMMT
If you scroll up you’ll notice that I answered your question in good faith. However, since you say you have scientific training I now also join the other guy in thinking you “dishonest”, as I don’t think anyone with sufficient scientific training would ask that question in good faith. Up to you whether or not you ignore this assertion - I’ll certainly be ignoring yours from now on.
“If we define love as a massively powerful pull of affection manifesting itself in compassion and goodness, then we can point to specific instances in which love seems to be present. I suppose if we could further distil these compulsions and actions down to a physical level - the way they coalesce in the brain - then we could offer a more prosaic level of “proof.” So the short answer is… yes, we can put forward a proposition for something that manifests itself in our world and then conceivably prove it, assuming infinite resources and sufficiently advanced technology.”
I will assume you’re aware of this, but for a great many believers, “God” and “love” are the same thing. And perhaps you know this, too, but brain scans performed on people while they are praying light up in a completely novel manner from all other forms of thought pattern. (I believe this has been performed with PET scans specifically.)
@MandyP who said, “I know that whenever someone insists that I’m a crazy idiot I just rush out to get some of what they’ve got.”
I believe what you are looking for is what is known as reality. If you prefer being a crazy idiot, that’s fine, but for the love of whatever imaginary being you believe in please don’t be like the author and try to tell us what portions of your myths make sense.
It seems that most people commenting here saw the title of the article, looked at the 5 points without reading the commentary, and proceeded to blow up the combox. Take a break, atheists, and chill out. Then, come back and re-read the first paragraph of the article for the context of what follows. @Adam K.: Thanks to you for giving me a good laugh. Go back and re-read the Compendium and then tell us where there is anything about buying/selling indulgences.
Not all atheists are well-versed in scientific method. Again, trying to put the discussion in context.
Atheists also can understand things that flow from natural law, although it’s harder because often this is an emotional block. It’s quite clear that these teachings are logical and stem from a clear understanding of the human person and what is best for our flourishing as individuals and as a society. Further they are backed up with a lot of scientific and sociological evidence.
So, for example, the teachings about abstaining from sex outside of a committed life long relationship make sense given our physical, psychological and social needs. However, in our current society, this is a difficult topic to broach since many will scoff at these teachings without any evidence to back up their opinions.
Well it depends on what you mean by obligation.
Certainly there is no legal obligation, but if a Christian makes their beliefs public and wants to be treated as a grown-up, then there is certainly a moral obligation.
As for demanding atheists prove god does not exist, shall we pretend you did not say that ? Only it is not a comment that can be made by someone being intellectually honest. After all you will be aware of the burden of proof and the null hypothesis and how that means that the default position in the absence of evidence is that god does not exist. So, since I am being nice to you, I will pretend you know all that and simply made a mistake. Of course apologising for that mistake would nice, but if you are a Catholic I will understand why apologising for your mistakes is not something you can do.
My next question to non-believers: how do you explain miracles (i.e., events which have no scientific explanation)? Do you assume they are all “made up” or some kind of hoax? Do you assert that they don’t exist? Do you believe we simply haven’t advanced enough with technology to properly explain them?
All of these examples are predicated on IF ... THEN kinds of situations. Atheists cannot get through the IF part of the equation.
1. IF there is an afterlife where justice will prevail, THEN there is a need for a purgatory where one can do penance for whatever sins have been committed or omitted.
2. IF there is an afterlife, THEN there will be some spiritual connection between this life and the afterlife.
3. IF there is a God, THEN there should be some genesis of that God and that would be a mother.
4. IF there is a judgement, THEN it would only be fair that those who have not been exposed to “The Truth” should not be condemned for all eternity.
5. IF there is an “Ultimate Truth”, THEN there should be some kind of ultimate authority and its best candidate is the entity that has held power and claimed that authority for the longest.
The atheist simply cannot get beyond the IF statements:
IF there is no afterlife, THEN there is no final judgement.
IF there is no God, THEN there is no sense in having something that God comes from.
IF we cannot see any kind of ultimate truth, THEN there cannot be an ultimate authority, especially one that has, in the past, been so error-filled.
IF there is an afterlife, THEN our egos demand that there is some connection to this life.
Yes.
Do you not follow scientific developments ? There are some recent neuroscience breakthroughs on the very subject.
Can you not Google ?
I don’t. There is no evidence they happen. When you offer such evidence then we can revisit the subject.
Two silly questions. Are you going to carry on ? Only I am willing to concede you are stupid, so if you have been trying to prove that to us, count me as convinced.
<blockquote>Atheists also can understand things that flow from natural law…../blockquote>
I know what you mean by natural law, but do not assume I accept the concept as valid since I don’t.
You are another example of someone being intellectually dishonest. There is no evidence for natural law, and you offered none, so why bring it up ? Unless you can support your beliefs with evidence they are not relevant.
Look, it maybe hard, but at least try being honest. Ask yourself before commenting, can I support this with empirical evidence. If you cannot, leave it out. It is not much to ask, that you follow the rules most reasonable people adopt for debate.
“Atheists also can understand things that flow from natural law…”
Except that the Catholic description of “natural law” is, sadly, not terribly evidentiary. Take the teachings about sex and sexuality; they’re completely based on a binary view of sex and gender. But we know that neither the brain nor the body is completely binary; genetic variation in the human species shows a wide variety of possibilities, and neurological studies show an even more vast capability to identify. Locking people into the binary either/or is cruel, but Catholics will deny to their dying breath that sex and gender are anything but binary, and that any perception of gradation is the result of sin.
That last part is the convenient “release valve” of all religions—the capability to point to something unquantifiable, unknowable, and just plain made up, as the ground on which the argument is based. Since those of us who live in the reality-based community have never been presented with evidence of the existence of “sin” (a wholly different notion from law, culture, community standards, etc), we have no reason to accept any line of reasoning that descends from the Catholic notion of “natural law.”
Read more: http://www.nc
Yet the Catholic Church opposes allowing same-sex marriages, so this it not something you truly believe is it ? Unless you think gays should remain celibate and I doubt you are that inhuman.
Sorry dear, but much of your stuff has always been rejected by Protestants, starting with apostolic authority and the Marian cult.
Do you really think atheists would buy into it? After all, at least Protestants are still supposed to believe in God and Jesus. Atheists, by defintion, don’t.
Oh, and if by natural law you mean nature, then the evidence is very much against humans being monogamous or indeed totally heterosexual.
Perhaps I’ve used the term wrongly; however, when I said “natural law” I simply meant that which can be known by our human understanding and scientific inquiry. That which is evident in the way our bodies work, our societies work, our minds work. True, some of Catholic Natural Law is based on a philosophical understanding of human nature (which necessitates an understanding of Aristotelian logic); however, I don’t see it as something far removed from the scientific method (which is also based on philosophical premises). And asking me to “prove natural law” is like asking me to “prove the scientific method”.
“how do you explain miracles (i.e., events which have no scientific explanation)?”
i’ve yet to see credible evidence of any such occurrences actually, well, occurring.
although, let’s say for the sake of argument that inexplicable events do occur. what do they prove, exactly? Hinduism, since quite a few of them are claimed to occur in India and are touted as evidence for the Hindu pantheon by believers therein? any of the African animist religions, by the same argument? proclaimed-by-believers “miracles” are hardly restricted to any one religion, after all. Apollonius of Tyana was quite handy with them, back in the day.
@cd
What evidence do you have for the claim of prefigurement? How do you know that the made-up stories about Jesus printed in the bible are not merely prefigurement for some future being? This prefigurement nonsense is really just a ridiculous claim made as a post hoc justification. It also ignores the huge differences in the claims. Nothing I would expect from prefigurement stacks up against actual History. Copying and adaptation of previous stores DOES fit, extremely well.
Why would I “assume a possibility for God to exist” until you can provide evidence for it? And even IF I allowed for a such a possibility I can tell you the kinds of things I would expect to find, an Apostolic Authority who:
1605-1621 Pope Paul V, issued a decree in 1616 condemning pro-heliocentricity work of Galileo Galilei.
1623-1644 Pope Urban VIII, issued a 2nd decree in 1633 condemning Copernicanism.
1655-1657 Pope Alexander VII, issued a Bull in 1664 reinforcing that Copernicanism was heretical
‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio alcuno) contrary to Scripture.’
12 April 1615 Bellarmine wrote “I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.”
If your Apostolic Authority cannot do better than that on such a SIMPLE fact then it is an absolutely absurd claim. It was not obvious to the people of the time that the Earth went around the sun but it is a fact now, we have satellites in distant space that directly observe this fact. That the Bible gets something so basic completely wrong is telling.
You can try to blather your way around it now and argue it’s a matter of interpretation, if not for your claim of Apostolic Authority. Whoops.
Once you realize the guys don’t have a clue what they are talking about then all you are left with is a bunch of misogynistic old goat-herders who wrote a bunch of stuff 1900 years ago out of ignorance.
It was an early try at philosophy and science, it failed at both. What it succeeds at, however, is exploiting human biases and tribalistic tendencies. Religion has adapted and re-adapted itself over centuries to have a resilient set of properties.
The successful religions have encouraged, if not demanded, procreation. It demands early inculcation of children by threatening their eternal well being. It plays on our fear of death. It plays on our need for explanations and exploits the fact that most people do not care if they are true. It by-passes reason by inculcating a false value of faith. It exploits our desire for justice (sure, he did bad things and got away with them now - but God will get him for it later). It absolves one of personal responsibility for misdeeds (Jesus died for your sins).
What you miss when you look at Catholicism is that you worship a Human sacrifice who is used as a scapegoat for your sins. You then celebrate this Human sacrifice by the eating of flesh and drinking of blood. But your religious inculcation is such that you don’t even notice what you are asked to accept here, you just do it and don’t really even think about it.
I don’t WANT someone to have died for my sins, IF there is a God I reject this absolutely abhorrent idea and wish to stand for my own sins - thank you very much.
“My next question to non-believers: how do you explain miracles? Do you assume they are all “made up” or some kind of hoax?”
Yes.
The human brain is not well-equipped to understand the universe. This is why the best tool—actually, the only tool—we have is the scientific method, which requires evidence, regimentation leading to reproducibility, and consensus with repeatability. No “miracle” has ever stood up to the demands for evidence that have led to cures for some cancers, successfully feeding a planet of six billion people, or interconnecting us all with this marvelous tool known as The Internet.
As a friend of mine likes to say, “Religion says if you get throat cancer, they’ll pray for you. If you die, it is God’s will. Science grows you a new throat.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14047670
Wow. I see the Evangelical Atheists are out in force.
So, it’s OK to make up stuff about atheists when they’re not around and then write about it as if it had some basis in reality, but when they turn up to point out the (vast quantities of) mistaken assumptions, they’re ““Evangelical Atheists”. Check.
There`s something wrong here: Atheists think these arcticle is for them, and author did not explained what’s the audience she´s writtin’ for.
(sorry, i´m NOT good in english)
@Ismael
The article will ultimately be communicated to atheists. The introduction makes that very clear. Here we are simply cutting out the middleman and telling the author directly why she’s hopelessly wrong.
“And perhaps you know this, too, but brain scans performed on people while they are praying light up in a completely novel manner from all other forms of thought pattern. (I believe this has been performed with PET scans specifically.)”
This is empirically false. A Christian praying and an Apple fanboy thinking about the next iPod are indistinguishable in brain scans. Google it.
Are you kidding? I am an atheist, and these make NO SENSE at all.
Here is the fact: Atheists think that they are the audience for the arcticle. Otherwise, author did not explained who is she writing for… and she is exaggerating bout the topic…
(sorry, i’m not good in english)
“And asking me to “prove natural law” is like asking me to “prove the scientific method”.”
Um, no. You see, the scientific method actually works. It produces new technologies and leads to an improvement in the lives of the people who use those technologies. By applying it, we have created modern medicine, agriculture, telecommunications, engineering, human flight, space satellites, vaccines. We have relieved or prevented an ocean of suffering. There is much left to do, but you can’t do it without tools.
Natural law has no such limitations or requirements. What it cannot do—what it must not do—is contradict the Church. Natural law must argue that when we see neurophysiological bases for human behavior, science is somehow wrong or misled. We must trust the arbitrary authority Church and not the evidence we see with our own eyes.
In the real world, contra the Natural Law teachings of the Church (most epitomized in modern times by the writings of Catholic professor of jurisprudence Robert George), human reproduction results in the deaths of thousands of fertilized eggs naturally; it’s actually hard to define “conception”; traditional definitions of death are being challenged by modern surgery; non-procreative and homosexual activity is widespread throughout nature; the list goes on. Natural Law denies all of this.
Here’s the important thing to remember about Natural Law vs the scientific method: the limitations of humanity are just that, limitations. They have been overcome by men and women who, with microscopes and telescopes, took a tiny sliver of the universe apart and figured out how it worked. We have overcome some diseases, and some famines. We will overcome more. When Natural Law contributes in even the smallest way to those efforts, then it will be afforded some respect.
Posted by Bill Thacker on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 2:29 PM (EDT):@Kris:
If I think your beliefs are ridiculous, I get to ridicule you.
And Bill proves my original point - that atheists believe they are superior to Christians and believe that they have the right to ridicule someone who doesn’t think the way they do.
And BTW, since you atheists do like your questions answered, I’d like to go back and be sure that commenter dog addresses the question I posed above and have re-posed below:
So how is it then that you characterize yourself as a non-believer? Non-believer in what exactly? Since atheists don’t believe in god, how do you do define yourself by something that you don’t believe actually exists.
Jen, despite the influx of commenters from Pharyngula, I’d like to express my appreciation for your writing and your willingness to share your intellectual and spiritual journey. As a fellow convert to Catholicism, I love hearing what you have to say as well as the insights drawn from your personal background. Keep fighting the good fight!
@Mandy P on “Evangelical Atheists”
Dear Mandy P:
For your comment, you are going to burn in eternal hell and suffer endless torment while your loved ones watch on from Heaven on High without a care on their mind for your suffering.
OR… you are a crazy idiot
I’ll let you pick which comment applies - but note that I’m not usually given that choice.
Actually, I don’t think you are a crazy idiot at all—I think that you are very human and suffer from all the same biases and fallacies that most humans suffer from. I am well aware (and spoke of it briefly in my previous post) how well adapted religion is to the human condition.
It’s tough to go against the grain and demand solid evidence for your beliefs and be in a position to thoroughly and fairly judge evidence when it is presented.
I DO think that most believers are very ill informed on the facts and methodology of science and reasoning. We are ALL ignorant on a great (vast) many things, it is an unfortunate limitation we all face. But you hold beliefs that are frankly absurd and unsupportable. And those beliefs alone might be harmless but in great numbers and with false conclusions drawn from your initial beliefs they become quite harmful (on issues like safe sex, education, equal rights, etc).
Some religious people want to murder gay people - that might not be you but they base their actions on the same fallacious assumptions you do and they reach equally absurd conclusions.
Hope to see you over on the rational side at some point :)
Here is the fact: Atheists think that they are the audience for the arcticle. Otherwise, author did not explained who is she writing for… and she is exaggerating bout the topic…
So, Ismael: even if we accept your excuse-making on Jennifer’s behalf, how does that make the article any better?
RMT asks - My next question to non-believers: how do you explain miracles (i.e., events which have no scientific explanation)? Do you assume they are all “made up” or some kind of hoax? Do you assert that they don’t exist? Do you believe we simply haven’t advanced enough with technology to properly explain them?
One cannot simply say, “I do not understand, therefore god” and expect to be respected. If you *want* to believe, anything can be miraculous. If there must be real, hard proof, the process is a lot more rigorous.
What *specific* miracles “which have no scientific explanation” are you talking about? Remember that even if something was called a “miracle” in the days before there was a scientific understanding of the event, that does not make it actually and inevitably “miraculous” by scientific standards.
Most of the blood, milk and tears ones are thoroughly debunked. (google shows a million sources for explanations).
Healing? Saying “All the cures at Lourdes” will not impress me. Not specific, could easily be due to placebo effect. Not tested. Even the biblical Jesus *never* grew back limbs for amputees, much less since then by faith and prayer alone. The placebo effect is real. Diseases often go away, especially if modern medicine is being utilized simultaneously with prayer. Prayer has been shown to be not helpful to the outcome in heart disease patients in double-blind scientific studies.
Shroud of Turin? When it was scientifically tested it was absolutely shown to not be miraculous.
Fatima? Guadalupe? Self delusion is still a delusion. Mary never appears to fundamentalists or people who are not Christian.
James Randi is stil offering more than a million dollars to anyone who can prove extra-normal events to scientific standards. If you have proof of a real miracle, you should go claim the cash. If you just “believe” that miraculous things happen, or have happened, or could happen, or should happen - sorry, that belief will never convince an atheist.
For those who seem to think that atheism is some kind of belief system: you’re mistaken. Atheism is an ABSENCE of belief in gods. It is not a belief that gods, any gods, do NOT exist, but the lack of belief in the existence of gods. There is nothing to prove, simply an assertion of disbelief. In my case, as in the case of many, if not most, atheists, this disbelief is based upon the LACK of evidence for the existence of gods. ANY gods, even yours.
As for the 5 statements by Jennifer Fulwiler, you have make the assumption that certain things have to be accepted before you can claim that these things are logically consistent. I haven’t seen anywhere in the post which postulates we have to accept on faith to believe these statements are logically consistent. Technically, such postulates should be minimal in number, and mutually consistent, or at least not contradictory. Sadly, any postulates I can come up with based upon my Catholic upbringing all tend to be inconsistent and contradictory. So if you would, please specify which postulates need to be accepted for these five points to be true. As an atheist I find them all to be sadly lacking.
One more atheist chiming in here to say that in my book you’re 0 for 5 in that list, so your list is not going to help religionists talk to atheists. Atheist = no gods, no purgatory, no heaven, no hell, nothing divine, nothing special about Mary or Jesus, “saints” are exceptionally deluded people, and so on. Here’s how to approach an atheist: you know how you as a Catholic don’t believe in buddhism, pantheism, animism, and so on? Well, we don’t believe in those religions just the way that you don’t either, plus we think yours is silly unsupported bunkum in exactly the same way.
Nothing in religion makes sense (that’s why religion is appreciated through ‘faith’, not reason and evidence) but if you wanted to choose 5 of the things that make least sense in any religion…
Um, I’m an atheist and all those teachings sound like utter hogwash to me. They are all equally as absurd as the other hokey stuff that gets bandied about with religion. Believing that what happens to you in the assumed afterlife depends upon making a saving throw on a d20* makes as much sense as any of those points.
*(geeky role playing reference)
Posted by Matt Penfold on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 2:38 PM (EDT): So, since I am being nice to you, I will pretend you know all that and simply made a mistake. Of course apologising for that mistake would nice, but if you are a Catholic I will understand why apologising for your mistakes is not something you can do.
Matt - you are under some kind of delusion that I owe you an apology just because you are being nice to me (I’d hate to be around people like you when you aren’t being nice) and because you are somehow intellectually superior to me because you use science to explain everything. And I do respect your position on this subject.
I just disagree with it. And you see, I can do that without ridiculing you.
And your over-generalization about Catholics (yes I am one, new to the faith this year) is, as you are fond of saying, intellectually dishonest. Yes, the Catholic Church has made grievous mistakes over the centuries; yes the pedophilia in the church is an abomination. And I will also say categorically that not all priests are pedophiles and the entire church body isn’t corrupt. There are amazingly good people working hard in their faith to make a difference in the world - a positive difference. To paint all Catholics with the same brush would be like me saying all atheists are unreasonable, pretentious and overbearing.
Now - that can’t be true, right?
Entirely off the mark—none of those ideas makes any sense whatsoever. You may as well be talking about Athena springing from the head of Zeus or houdou spirits possessing the righteous to give them power. It’s all nonsense.
RMMT -
If Christians actually think that Love and God are the same thing, then they should stop attributing them differently.
Love and God are different, as long as one claims that God is a being. And from that point, they should use different words.
I recommend the other atheists in this thread look at Jennifer Fulwiler’s website (www.conversiondiary.com). Her “conversion” was based on the fact that she felt emotions when she held her newborn baby, and assisted by Lee Strobel’s book “The Case for Christ”.
I was underwhelmed, to say the least, but this article makes significantly more sense in light of the paucity of reason that lead to her abandoning atheism.
i was a christian until an argument with atheists over the comment thread of another web site a few months ago
Where did all the atheists come from? Not having read all the comments (20 or so were more than plenty), maybe the question was answered. But it seems strange to me that so many atheists are reading the National Catholic Register.
Yeah. I read her blog. All the history.
Not once did she… do anything. Didn’t bring up a single thing. Never asked for evidence. Did not seriously think about any of the stuff. Didn’t talk about the arguments she read by atheists, and why she thought they were wrong. Nothing.
Seems at the outset she was just somebody who was never brought up in any particular religion, and so considered herself “atheist.” Or maybe only considers that she used to be that now.
Just blog post after blog post of her “telling her story”. Nothing of any substance.
Almost as if it was fictional.
@Sherry
I clicked here from an atheist blog that linked to this post. I imagine it’s the same for most atheists on here. The post does make it clear that these five points are ultimately to be shared with us, albeit in one-on-one social situations, so I hardly feel this is an intrusion.
Clearly when it comes to the issue of burden of proof, evidence and the like I am intellectually superior. And you still made an argument based on ignorance, which is not something polite people do.
Still, I note your refusal to apologise.
You have my condolences in becoming a Catholic.
I note that being a Catholic has done nothing for your manners. And if I see intellectual dishonesty, I will call people on it. Tough if you do not like that.
I was trying to be polite, and allow you to save face. Still, if you prefer to be called an outright liar,so be it. I am happy to oblige, liar.
Dear W who wrote “Give me meekness and humility any day”
May I present two fine examples of Christian meekness and humility (caution: contains strong language)
https://twitter.com/daboybanks/status/56802091011813376
https://twitter.com/young_salad/status/56809169629609984
I do apologize for the strong language but those are THEIR OWN words. I have even received death threats from “Good Christians” who wish to make sure that their visions of meekness and humility are not challenged by mere facts.
I don’t mean this to excuse the poor behavior of any individual - but there are very nasty people in the world. But their actions are not justifiable by ‘atheism’. Atheism is ONLY a position of disbelief on the question of God—it doesn’t mandate or command or presume or justify ANY other position.
On the other hand, I cannot speak out honestly where I live because I live in FEAR of the many “Good Christians” around here with guns and intent to do harm. Those “Good Christians” believe they have God on their side and that they are following his commandments when they threaten me personally.
So that’s a big difference between the two.
If miracles happen, including miracle healing, can anyone offer an evidence of a human growing back a leg following above knee amputation ?
And if not why not ? If god can cure cancer what does he have against amputees ?
And if you accept miracle cures happen, why did this problem not occur to you ?
Matt Penfold: According to you I am a liar because I disagree with your position on the existence of God. You know what, I can live with that.
Oh, and Kris, as the Cloyne report makes clear (as do other reports) it was not simply a case of clerical child abuse. It was the Roman Catholic Church covering up such abuse that has caused such disgust.
The Vatican is complicit in that cover-up. It has, in effect, committed criminal offence. Unless and until the decent people in the Vatican hand over those involved in the cover-up (up to and including the Pope if that is where the evidence goes) then the RCC has zero moral standing in my eyes. I can understand those who have been Catholic since childhood being unwilling to let go, but for an adult to embrace the Church after all that happens indicates a serious moral failing.
Why for example, is Cardinal Law still in the Vatican and has not been back to the US to face criminal charges ? If decent people were in charge he surely would have been. He has not, so I invite people to draw their own conclusions as to how serious the Vatican is about this.
As an agnostic and atheist, I can assure you that none of these beliefs make sense to me.
Well you have admitted to lacking in morals.
But you lie when you say that is why I call you a liar. I call you a liar because you wilfully ignore concepts such as the null hypothesis and the burden of proof. You could have just said, yes you were ignorant of those and apologised. But you could not do that, which means you knew about them and ignored them. That is what means you lied. You knew you were wrong, but you refused to acknowledge the fact. You lost any right to the defence of ignorance, and therefore are caught saying things you know to be untrue.
Now do me a favour and piss off. Your lack of morality is stinking the place out.
A ridiculous title and article…every “teaching” is flawed from the start as they rely upon belief in magic from the start.
Purgatory makes no sense to anyone who realizes that all living things return to the same state at which they existed before they lived - nothingness.
Communion of Saints? Death will truly equalize all people, that’s true. However, simply because many humans realize that life can be brutish and short, they hope for relief from this burden after they die. Also, the idea of a beautiful, magical place for your dead loved ones serves as panacea for grieving relatives. The fact that it offers relief does not give any reason to believe that its true.
Veneration of Mary as mother of “god” makes no sense for anyone who realizes that there is no magic man in the sky.
Salvation for all? See above for reasons that this is a nonstarter and a non-issue.
Apostolic Authority? Ah, the heart of many skeptic’s and atheist’s issues (in my opinion). The fact that one group of people believe (without any proof/evidence/reason) that they have the authority and right to tell everyone else how to live their lives. Always interesting that these people (the catholic church in this instance) claim that “god” wants everyone to live in a way that is beneficial to the organization claiming authority (the catholic church). That the church wants to tell people what they believe is one thing, but to actively discourage independent thought is just despicable.
As has been said in numerous comments already, you must have been an atheist who had invested little thought in your purported “atheism”. You seem to have been a believer in just about every principle of religion prior to your “conversion”. It is important to note that simply because you don’t attend a church, this does not make you an atheist. It might benefit your future writings to invest some time in research of the information of which you purport to know.
This was posted a while ago by JoAnna, but it was…silly.
“At this point, there’s a lot more evidence of Jennifer’s atheism than of [Mike’s] existence. (She’s written books, made TV appearance, and chronicled her entire conversion experience on various blogs. You are some guy named Mike in a combox.)”
J. K. Rowling has written books, made TV appearances, etc, etc. None of that makes Harry Potter real. The point is loads of testimonial evidence does not impress me. The amount of “evidence” does not matter; the form of the evidence is much more important. Personal testimonial evidence is a low (not very convincing) form of evidence as it can be difficult to distinguish from works of fiction (I’m not saying Harry Potter isn’t obviously fiction). Having lots of such evidence does not change that. Now, one thing people like Mike and myself can do is compare her testimonial evidence against those people we are quite certain are atheists, including our own testamonies. When hers fails to even come close to resembling that of any other known atheist, we can reasonably suspect that her testamony is a lie.
Wow. Drivel. Responsing to you would be akin to trying to explain nuclear fusion to someone with a very low IQ. The hardware just isn’t there inside your heads. Pass.
20% of the American Population, non-believers.
On the article itself and especially to all those saying basically to consider the context or the audience, I think we atheists are to some extent. And the message we are trying to send is “Don’t bother!”
As far as that context, I realize that the post did start by saying this is for a situation where a non-believer specifically asks about Catholicism. HOWEVER, the end then talks about the conversion process. This appears to be directing the reader to use the opportunity to proslytize, to which we atheists are saying (again), “Don’t bother!” Stick to praying if you want to convert us.
Lethargic, there’s not an ounce of hate in me toward you or Ms. Fulwiler, only moderate annoyance that she’d speak for me out of her own ignorance.
And Tim, you wrote “Here is a key sentence: “Though atheists typically see all belief in the supernatural as unreasonable, some doctrines, like the ones below, strike them as less crazy than others.””
All I have to say is that these doctrines strike me as just as crazy as original sin, the scapegoat sacrifice of Jesus, transubstantiation, and every other doctrine behind your church. That’s not particularly directed at Catholicism, by the way—Catholicism is just one among hundreds of flavors of religion that I find wholly and utterly ludicrous and devoid of substance. Wicca? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Judaism? The Aesir? All without merit as systems of belief because they all make claims to universal truths absent supporting evidence.
And Jerome Haltom has finally given us the clear sign that he does not grasp the Catholic understanding of God when he says, “Love and God are different, as long as one claims that God is a being.”
God is not “a” being. If you really want to play with the adults, it might do you well to take a few years and study as much of the Summa Theologiae, the writings of St. Augustine, the Writings of the Cappadocian fathers, etc, as possible. If you can’t even grasp the basic concept that God is not “a” being, then you are probably stuck in a fundamentalist’s error when it comes to expressing the faith. Once you get past that, then you may actually make inroads into convincing Catholics of the error of their ways. Then again, if you can make it past your infantile understanding of the faith into something more reasoned, sensible, and mature, you might actually recognize the error of YOUR ways.
Laudetur Iesus Christus in aeternum!
I don’t believe Jennifer Fulwiler was ever really an atheist. She hasn’t got a clue about our interests.
Matt Penfold: it is you who should - now how did you put that so eloquently? Oh yes ... piss off. This is a Catholic website and while I am completely aware that the Internet is for everyone and anyone can comment on any website they want to, you are the one spewing your own particular vitriol in a place that isn’t really meant for you to begin with. To each his own I suppose.
As for my morality, intellect and manners: you know absolutely nothing about me and for that I am grateful.
I don’t believe Jennifer Fulwiler was ever really an atheist. She hasn’t got a clue about what makes sense to us.
“And Bill proves my original point - that atheists believe they are superior to Christians and believe that they have the right to ridicule someone who doesn’t think the way they do.”
no, we don’t. honestly, we really don’t.
we atheists think were closer to correct than christians, on at least one point of fact. any atheist who thinks that makes them “superior” is being very silly and childish. i would recommend you scoff at them; they deserve it.
we atheists think we have the right to ridicule ridiculous things. we don’t laugh at you because you don’t think the way we do. we laugh at you because you believe in laughable things.
yes, i for one laugh at catholic doctrines. that is not because they are catholic, nor even because they are christian, but rather because they are very, very silly.
Wbb
You could do well to actually read the words being spoken, and take them in context. Firstly, I did not base my example of God being a being on some high and mighty Catholicism. I based it on what I might get if I were to stand up, walk out of my office, ask a Christian, and get a response. The attributes given to me would align with those of a “being.” It is unimportant to the point of the conversation that you jumped into whether or not some lofty theologian someplace has mussed with that definition.
Second, my point wasn’t to state that God was a being. It was to state that as long as the definition of God contained attributes outside those contained by the definition of the word Love, you should use different words.
1. Purgatory ~ I agree.
2. The Communion of Saints ~ Disagree. Psychology 101.
3. Veneration of Mary ~ Disagree. Admittedly, I grew up protestant.
4. Salvation for Non-Catholics and Non-Christians ~ I agree.
5. Apostolic Authority ~ Disagree. Not only do Catholics not agree, but forcing orthodoxy doesn’t equal legitimacy.
Wbb
You’d also be wise to read the post I was referring to in my response, as you did actually simply restate that I was criticizing.
Dear Dark Star,
I didn’t look at your links - I know there are plenty of bad examples of Christianity out there, and I’m sure I’m one of them! Jesus Himself said that he was meek and humble of heart, and He’s my main example, with the saints too, of course. So trot out all the nuts you want, they make no difference to me. I said that there are things that I aspire to, as per the teachings of Jesus - though I’m definitely still a work in progress and a sinner! I wonder what it is that you aspire to? Not trying to provoke you, just curious, since as I mention, I really don’t think I know any atheists…
Jennifer, I enjoyed the article. Thanks.
A.M.D.G.
Atheists who are looking for books pertaining to this subject should check out: “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism” by Dr. Edward Feser, “Theology and Sanity” by Frank Sheed, “Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers To Questions of Faith” by Dr. Peter Kreeft and Father Ronald Tacelli, “The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge To Modern Atheism” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley and “New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy” by Father Robert J. Spitzer.
God does exist and He loves you more than you can possibly imagine.
Jennifer states at the beginning that these points could be discussed with a “nonbeliever who is open to hearing your perspective and specifically asks for information about what you believe”. I agree with the point that many of the atheists have made here, that someone who is asking questions is more of an agnostic than an atheist and that Jennifer could be more correctly classified as an agnostic based on her comments from 2005 provided by Dark Star. It is also very clear that the atheists responding here are not the intended audience for Jennifer’s topics of discussion. They are firm in their atheism and no argument will persuade them. Although they say that evidence would persuade them, I cannot imagine what that evidence would look like and I have yet to see their operational definition. There is no point to demanding evidence without stating what that evidence should look like.
Back to the point of the article, (i.e., sharing the faith) if asked by a nonbeliever what I believe, I would respond with the Profession of Faith. If asked why, I would say that in over 35 years of searching, I have yet to find a better philosophy than Christianity or church more true to the teachings of Jesus Christ than the Roman Catholic Church. I would explain that the Church as a human institution is full of flaws and sinners but I am happily one of them because I see a continual and progressive search for truth about why we exist and how we should live.
Foolrushingin,
You completely misread everything stated by atheists here. Bravo!
Also, you got your definition of atheism and agnosticism wrong. Bravo again!
Very interesting article. I am in the same way as Sarah M, though a Catholic Christian much longer. My atheist friends and I have regular discussions on these and other such topics, for they make a great conversations over a pint.
It reminds me of how Einstein did not believe in the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation, yet did enjoy reading about the concept. He found it to be truly fascinating and pondered its possibility, even going so far as to borrow books from a friend who was a Catholic priest just so he could read further on the topic. It did not make a believer of Einstein, but he had the open-mind to think on it.
Jen,
I don’t know if you’re reading any more of these comments because they seem to have gotten off track, but I wanted to thank you for your post. A lot of people here aren’t picking up on the fact that these things make sense and are consistent within a certain internal logic (someone did actually bring up the point of naming one’s premises). I just hope that all of the angry atheists here realize they, too, have foundational premises and that their own view point only makes sense within that framework.
God bless you and give you strength in your writing!
Christians, Christians, here’s us atheists doing you a big favour, and what thanks are we getting?
Look, Jennifer Fulwiler, the “former atheist” (who, at the time she says she was an atheist, apparently said:
“But I want to believe. My logical mind tells me some sort of creator exists. Some deep gut feeling tells me God exists.” - she was that kind of atheist), propounds the hypothesis that the five pieces of ludicrous hogwash she listed “make sense to atheists”. Now, courtesy of the visiting atheists, you’re getting a free trial of that hypothesis. And are you grateful?
Answering people who have asked me to explain why I believe the 5 points to be irrational… sure. I will explain in detail. It will have to be in more than one paragraph to address all the points, so I hope that can be excused.
——
First, the mere act of assuming anything exists without evidence to support it IS irrational to begin with. Be it a god or anything else. The more extraordinary a claim is, the stronger the evidence must be for it to be rationally accepted. A being which is infinite, omniscient, benevolent omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal is a most extraordinary claim, and would need the strongest clearest evidence to support it. Such clear strong evidence is absent from the world. If such evidence had been presented, it would have been examined and accepted. Now that this standard for rationally accepting a claim is clear, let’s move on to the five points themselves…
——
1. Purgatory: No evidence of an afterlife of any kind has ever been found. The origin of the doctrine of purgatory, however, is well documented. Briefly put, it was simply an excuse the Church used to sell indulgences in the middle ages. Not only it is nonsense. It is immoral nonsense.
——
2. Communion of Saints: Again, no evidence for an afterlife means no possible contact with any deceased ones, which would in itself require further evidence to prove even if an afterlife was ever proven. It does not matter what a deceased person’s moral status is for the hierarchy of any church. Dead means dead. That communion is nonsense, and thus irrational to believe on, until evidence for it is shown.
——
3. Veneration of Mary: Any veneration of any person, based on their supposed supernatural achievements is meaningless unless those achievements and their supernatural nature are proven. To begin with, there is no proof of a god. If such proof was ever found, you’d then have to prove it had a son. If that was ever proven, then you’d have to show a very solid reason to venerate the woman the deed was done through. I don’t think the Greeks ever venerated any of the women who got seduced by a god, and consequently gave birth to a demigod. It is not just nonsense… it is borrowed nonsense, taken further into servile irrationality.
——
4. Salvation for Non-Catholics and Non-Christians: Salvation from what? The idea of salvation itself is nonsense unless consistent evidence of an afterlife is provided first, and then evidence for the risk of some kind of afterlife doom we have to be saved from. This is three times irrational for any atheist. First for the claim of afterlife, then again for the claim of damnation and to make it worse, the attempt to sign other people up into the same unsupported idea, whether they believe what you do or not. Twice irrational plus once disrespectful, at best.
——
5. Apostolic authority: That implies that the Bible DOES have a meaning. It is a book of myths with the same status of any other culture’s mythology, unless solid evidence backs it up as more than a mythical tale with mixed and often wrong historical references. Anyone can try to derive a moral teaching from any story, be it the Bible of the last Harry Potter book. Claiming authority on interpreting the Bible presumes such an interpretation exists and is unique. It does not, and it is not. It is a mere matter of opinion, and people who presume the story is true are actually less qualified to derive a rational moral teaching out of it. It is not even irrational to an atheist. It is also morally wrong on several levels and extremely arrogant.
——
As requested, I have stated my reasons to claim those five points as irrational. With this I don’t mean to call Catholic beliefs irrational any more than I would Muslim ones, Norse Mythology, the Greek Gods or any of the thousands of deities and myths humanity has made up in its history. I treat them all as equally mythical and equally false. Believing any of them without evidence is in itself irrational. It may be argued by some that religious belief could lead people to do good… but it is still irrational, no matter its shape.
——
Atheists really don’t usually play favorites. It’s ALL made up until evidence is shown for ANY of it.
@ Jerome Haltorn
I disagree that I “completely” misread everything although I concede that I am by no means as well versed on philosophy as others. I stand corrected on the definition of agnostic. Is there a specific term for someone who doubts?
I am nonbeliever now, but I come from catholic background and I have been studying catholicism a lot during years I still considered myself a believer. What made me nonbeliever (if I ever were true believer…) is closely connected with issue number 4 of this article. It is true that modern catechism says so, but whether that was church’s position in the past is another question altogether. It is definitely the dogma of catholic church that people who die in original sin go to hell. Also, there was a very strong accent on necessity of baptism (of water) for removing that original sin, and only two substitutes for baptism were being mentioned throughout whole tradition - baptism of blood and baptism of desire. This latter does not apply to children. Therefore, if we restrict our attention on unbaptized children who die of natural causes, it was constant position of church throughout history that there is no salvation for them. That position of church was reflected in denying christian burial to such children (the order of denying christian burial to them was removed from Cannon law only in 1983 as can be read in article on baptism in catholic encyclopedia). The possibility of their salvation is so tightly closed by dogmatic teaching and tradition that the modern catechism does not openly say that there is salvation for them, but only that ‘we can hope there is’. That is (in my opinion) a fine example of intellectual dishonesty.
I stumbled across all these issues by just asking simple question - what is really faith and how do I become a believer. Because it started to seem to me that I am not really a believer. The definition from catechism mentions ‘grace’, and when I started to investigate that word more thoroughly I opened Pandora’s box. It turned out that for faith you need grace, and that you can do nothing to earn it. How is that compatible with free will is one of the greatest (if not the very greatest) controversy (contradiction?) in that teaching. Shortly - you can do nothing to believe, but if you don’t believe it’s your fault. How can that be is something which Joseph Ratzinger (in his book Introduction to Christianity) calls paradox for which we will possibly never find an answer/solution.
To conclude, asking a very simple question and trying to find a church answer to it led me to theories on grace, free will and original sin (primarily in writings of saint Augustine) that made me so sick that I am still recovering from it. And I am not believer any more. That being in a sense that even if God from catholic teaching exists, I don’t like him in a least bit.
It’s obvious from reading this that the author has absolutely no idea what does and does not make sense to an atheists and, therefore, is not qualified to speak on our behalf.
I would also take any claims of once being an atheist with a large dose of scepticism. I’ve read far too many people who have claimed to be ex atheists who have absolutely no understanding of the atheist mindset to take them seriously.
Terence M. Stanton - I assume that you have actually read these books and are prepared to provide us with a quick summary of a compelling line of evidence that establishes your god hypotheses as a viable and verified scientific Theory? At least enough so that we can tell if you are just recommending the book because of it’s title on merely assumed content.
If not, how they are anything but the usual rash of apologetic which does everything but address the actual lack of evidence for claims?
Foolrushingin
Doubts what?
I’ll help you on teh two words you used.
Atheist: a-theist. Latin prefix. Negates the meaning of the word. Theist is one who believes in at least one God. An atheist therefor is not a theist. That is it.
An atheist might be sure that God does not exist, or not. Since he is not a theist, he is an atheist.
An gnostic/agnostic has to do with the question of knowledge. That is, whether knowledge on the subject is possible.
Most atheists I know are agnostic.
Evidence required!
@Foolrushingin
This is actually a very good point. I’m not sure what evidence could convince me of a supernatural being. Someone mentioned ‘miracles’ earlier. There is of course the problem of deciding what is a miracle. How would we actually be able to identify or comprehend something supernatural; or, if it was merely an abberation of the natural order, how could we precisely determine supernatural agency?
This is why I always want a precise definition of which god we’re talking about, and what he/she/it can do/has done, before discussing the evidence question. Testing for vagueness doesn’t really do anything. Testing a hypothesis does.
It is a good question. To be honest I find the idea of the supernatural impossible to evidence for. The problem is as soon as it is demonstrated to exist, it is natural.
Seems like a crappy concept to me.
You could redefine God as not supernatural, but instead an actual thing that does exist. We might be able to argue whether or not evidence is possible for that, or not.
Is this some kind of joke?
@Terence M. Stanton
And here is a lucid and negative review of the first book on your list: “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism” by Dr. Edward Feser
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/140088850
These are supposed to make sense to Atheists? I don’t even think most of this makes sense to some practicing catholics, but they follow along anyway because they were raised to.
I was under the impression that purgatory no longer existed, first of all. Oh, and you studied anthropology too? I’m so disappointed in you. Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense looking at this anthropologically. Everything you’ve written is just awful. I mean, where do you get that people know what goes on here on Earth after they die (evidence)? And why does the catholic religion make this any more believable? Why wouldn’t a god “wire us” to believe in one religion specifically? Why allow so many (THOUSANDS!!) to exist. I mean, this stuff coming from a former atheist… For shame. Stop trying to make the rest of us look like idiots! Please.
Do you know what you have to believe for Mary to mean anything?! Sure, understanding WHY they honor god’s mom is easy, but believing what the bible says about her? No way does any of that fly. I’m dumbfounded that you have gone from not believing in god, to a catholic, of all faiths. Talk about gullible.
Point number four is quite laughable. If that is true, why tell anyone about god at all? If no one mentions god ever, we all get eternal salvation! Not to mention, no more religious activity on Earth! What could be better? Give your god more credit.
Last on the list doesn’t make sense at all. Even though you have apostolic authority, people not only continue to make their own (wrong) interpretations, but even the authority you are supposed to follow is wrong! The catholic authority is the pope. How many times have the popes apologized for getting something completely wrong? Even once is too much if this is someone speaking on behalf of god.
This list, fortunately for you, is making Atheists look like idiots because people are going to think you have some kind of authority speaking as a former Atheist. I hope you’re getting plenty of comments like mine and will be persuaded to both: reevaluate your essay and your life.
Justine stated: “It is definitely the dogma of catholic church that people who die in original sin go to hell.”
This is not true, nor is it a dogma. Paragraph #1260 of the Catechism reads as follows:
“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”
Justine needs to study more.
Why all the atheists?
No, it’s not that we’re lurking on this Catholic website hoping to find God.
I’m here because I have Google News set up to show me news articles about atheism, and one of today’s hits had the intriguing title, “5 Catholic Teachings that Make Sense to Atheists”. So I came here to see what Catholics were saying about me in a public forum.
@Christina,
If you’re taking answers from non-angry atheists… yes, atheists, just like every other thinking being on the planet, have preconceptions, biases, and a certain way of approaching the world. However, I think that where Christians (and other monotheists) and atheists differ is that atheism is generally not the jumping-off point. Let me expand on that:
I was a skeptic before I was an atheist. It was a pretty easy and natural progression from one to the other. “Is there good evidence for this hypothesis? Is this even a hypothesis? Why should I believe this?” The theistic question is approached by a skeptic in these ways, and in my view if the inquiry is honest and rigourous then there can never be a belief in a specific god as a result. (Deism could be an outcome reached in good faith, but in my view that would be a leap of logic not permissable by rigourous enquiry.)
To be a monotheist, it’s generally accepted that one must have faith. (I suppose one could be a strict evidentialist but it seems to me extremely uncommon.) Faith, though, isn’t a default position or way of thinking in the sense that skepticism is. People simply don’t live their lives taking leaps of faith. Even people who are not trained in logic, or are ‘rational’ in general, are not truly irrational. If you are standing on a railway track and a train’s 30 seconds from hitting you, you don’t stand there waiting 30 seconds, praying, or tying your shoelaces. You step off the track and wait for the train to go by. A poor analogy, yes, but the point I’m making is that people do not act as they normally do when approaching theistic questions. It’s a little bit extra to their lives.
The closest analogue I can think of with atheism is - to bring us full circle - Jennifer Fulwiler. I don’t think, contrary to some of my fellow atheists, that she was necessarily lying about being an atheist for the vast bulk of her life. I do think, though, that from reading her testimony and having now read some of her blog posts, she didn’t know then, and doesn’t know now, how to think critically, and how to approach difficult questions. It stuns me to think that she readily identified as a materialist when her writing suggests absolutely no understanding of what this means.
Long story short: I think the framework is far more about recognising that the way we think is important, than it is thinking “oh, I’m an atheist, let me fit reality around that.”
Terence M. Stanton
I have read two of those. The Godless Delusion, and the New Proofs for God one. None of them address any atheist argument. They simply restate what the authors already believe.
The requirement is going to be one of two things. Either a scientifically demonstration case, or an argument that an science isn’t the best way to evaluate the world, that stands up to reason.
Neither of those books, at least, contain that.
Wails for “viable and verified scientific Theory” and “Evidence required!” are met with peals laughter! You “thoughtful” folks are hilarious. Thank you Jennifer Fulwiler for the article and giving the opportunity for so many juveniles to embarrass themselves.
Nice try.
Unfortunately for you, this 5 things didn’t make sense to me even when I was a Catholic.
I feel relieved to know that you are no longer an atheist. You’d be a huge embarrassment for me and all of my fellow non-believer.
Oh, I can think of many things that would convince me such beings existed. If the dead started rising from their graves, or the digits of pi from the septrillionth onward turned out to spell out the Bible under a simple substitution code, for example. That wouldn’t convince me of the truth of Christianity, of course, since the doctrine of the hypostatic union is necessarily false.
If “less crazy” is the best you can do, you might as well pack it in. Stick with indoctrinating children, it’s really the only avenue for growth that you have.
the question of what evidence would be good enough is, indeed, a very good one; it’s given me a few sleepless nights too.
i could cop out and claim that an omniscient deity would have a better idea of that than i, but that’s not an answer. that’s just me being a smart-aleck.
in the end, it’s not a question that can be answered until we have a good, solid definition of what the evidence should be for. what, precisely, is a “god”, and what qualities and properties set it apart from entities that aren’t “gods”? once we know that, we can start reasoning about what would constitute evidence for such a thing’s existence.
@Ewan Macdonald - thank you for letting me know about the link. Please do not feel that I thought the comments from atheists were an intrusion - on the contrary - I find it an interesting discussion, and as you say, a logical extension of the intent of Jennifer.
For many years, I was a “practical atheist” in that, although I “thought” I believed in God, my behavior was otherwise. I was very angry at “the Church” and what I perceived to be its teachings. But that nagging and eternal “why” would not go away. Now, however, like this past Sunday’s Gospel, I know I have found the “Pearl of Great Price”.
For those commenters who are serious about Truth, there is a fascinating book by a fellow who contributes to the the New York Times Magazine section, who has a degree in Space Science and Applied Physics, and who “happens” to be a Catholic Priest. Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete wrote the book called “God at the Ritz”. Several of my atheist friends have thought it thought-provoking and worthwhile reading. And, then again, there is (Blaise) Pascal’s Wager…
Well since I am an atheist this article was clearly intended for me. So when you say it was not, you are not exactly being honest are you ? Still, I know by know honesty is something you do, since I except no better.
Since there is no membership requirement to comment here, your claims it is not “for me” are simply wrong. You are not only a liar, you are such a bad one.
Again, that is not true is it ? I may not know a great deal about you, but I certainly know somethings.
I know you are liar. I know you refuse to admit you lied. I know you became a Catholic out of choice at a time when the Catholic Church is known to have been involved in covering up crimes of child sexual abuse, and I know that you see nothing wrong with the cover up (since you did not mention it), although you do get some credit (not a a lot) for condeming the actual sexual abuse.
So whilst I do not know everything about, I know you lie, and I know you lack any sense of moral decency. Seems enough to know I do not think you are nice person deserving of respect.
Quite honestly, I find you a contemptible piece of !@#$%. If you wanted to bring Catholocism into disrepute I doubt you could have done a better job (being taken lessons from co-religionist kiddy-fiddlers have you ?)
JoAnna—
If you were to run across a writer who professed to have been a Catholic for much of their life, then became an atheist, and was using their supposed former Catholicism to make hay for their writing…..would you be inclined to believe they are what they’ve represented themselves to be if they got fundamental Catholic doctrines wrong? If they were ignorant of the idea of transubstantiation, or were claiming there were eighteen apostles or that a Cardinal outranks the Pope?
Jennifer is ignorant of some of the most common ideas in atheism. While we do not have a uniting doctrine, the majority of atheists are evidence-driven thinkers who are familiar with such basic arguments as “The Argument from Evil”, the many flaws of Pascal’s Wager, and they usually possess some reasonable scientific literacy.
Jennifer’s claims on this page? They are so far divorced from the majority of atheist thought as to cast her claim into serious doubt.
From where I sit, she appears to have been raised a Christian and at most suffered a lapse of faith without a lot of examination of those beliefs (and therefore no real deconversion), followed by a later renewal of faith. She likely underwent a rejection of Christianity and that on emotional rather than rational grounds, and for a time may have called herself an atheist because of her separation from the church. Never having covered the philosophical ground that underpins much of modern unbelief, though, this lapse in her faith left her no more qualified to speak about atheism than the average life-long believer.
All you need do is look at how universal our condemnation of her essay here is to see why many of us doubt she ever truly deconverted from her childhood faith.
To the atheists “ashamed” of the ex-atheist here…
1) Atheism as a movement is growing. Growing movements attract kooks. Growing movements attract good people. Growing movements attract bad people. There is no necessary purity about the atheist movement. As for “default” atheists like Jennifer, well, all bets are off. We’d be better off continuing to try to educate people in how to think critically. A lot of people who are impressed by religion’s shinies could quite probably be turned away from them fairly easily.
2) Atheism as a ‘default’ position is - if we take Jennifer’s example for what it seems to indicate - also growing. I find it very hard to believe that Jennifer had ever actively thought her way into being a materialist atheist; I find it extremely likely, though, that she was an atheist simply because she lacked a belief in a deity. (That’s “dictionary atheism.”) It is dictionary atheists whom we must stuck with and work with, because if there’s going to be any significant demographic and political shift it means needing large numbers on-side. In any movement, the people who are active and vocal massively outnumber those who aren’t, so let’s be quick to educate and work with, and slower to alienate, those atheists with less of an understanding of rationality, evidence-based thinking and skepticism.
As a Catholic, I don’t know if using logic or science for that matter is a good route to take when trying to persuade a Christian. Both logic and science presuppose unprovable starting points. Many of the atheists/agnostics call believing in God insanity. It may well be. But using science or logic is just as insane for it also requires a pre-judgement that is unprovable. Why accept the scientific method? Where do we find proof that logic should be used at all? Why not illogic? Or unreasonableness? Or chaos? It seems you are trying to prove to a Catholic that God does not exist by using something close to faith to do so.
To all the atheists on this blog, what is your point here? So, you don’t think the communion of saints or purgatory is rational. So Jennifer got it wrong. Why the hell does it matter so much? If you are all so obsessed, why aren’t you out there looking for evidence to make sure she’s not right? You’d be much better off looking for the truth than abusing this blogger, and repeating the same points over and over again ad nauseum. You won’t prove or convince anyone of anything by doing it. This all just doesn’t seem rational to me.
Alexander,
One does not look for evidence to disconfirm somebody else’s unsubstantiated claim. The mere lack of evidence itself is enough to do that.
What I don’t get is why all of you athiests would even view a Catholic website, I am a Catholic and as a rule I don’t visit the websites of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchins.
@Sherry
Don’t take this the wrong way, but if you’re the least bit convinced by Pascal’s Wager I’m not liable to take your book recommendation seriously.
By that I mean Pascal’s Wager has been beaten to a bloody pulp a million times before by a million different people - many of whom were theists. It is a simply dreadful argument. I would have thought for a theist it was doubly bad because it’s so consequentialist of arguments. For people who believe in a telos, or “end”, to the universe, I would have thought the argument would be abhorrent even on an emotional level. As I don’t believe in a teleology I just think the argument is plain bad, as opposed to malevolent. It’s a bit nihilistic at its core, sure, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. And to hear people who are clearly active in discussions with atheists taking it seriously is quite amazing.
Sherry writes: “And, then again, there is (Blaise) Pascal’s Wager… “
In the future, don’t bother bringing this up. It instantly destroys any credibility that your comments might otherwise have.
Of course, if you insist, knock yourself out. Literally.
@stephen:
No, it is not that Justine needs to study more, it is that you (a) do not understand what Justine said and (b) do not know in greater detail the teaching of catholic church. The article of catechism you are quoting only says that God has other means of washing original sin from those who didn’t have possibility to wash it with baptism. It does not in any way say or imply that people who die in original sin do not go to hell. It can’t, since that would be in open contradiction to teaching of Council of Florence for example, which concluded (and is not the only one that has done so) the following:
But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
@Jared
Why trust the scientific method? Because it works. Let me expand on a post I made earlier (do a Find on this page for ‘If you’re taking answers from non-angry atheists’ to see it).
The scientific method and logic are not really starting points here: an a priori commitment to the faculty of season is the starting point. Scientific method and codified logic are two tools used to that end. Extremely useful and powerful tools they are - which is why even “untrained” thinkers use them thousands of times a day. We do not rely on faith - or, worse, that all-purpose dodge of the “other ways of knowing” - when deciding how to remove a hot casserole from the oven. When planning a journey we try to anticipate how long it will take so we can plan overnight stops. We take two aspirin instead of two hundred because it is generally a good idea to do so. These are all little, tiny decisions we make via a judicious study of empirical reality. And they work. They work consistently and they work well.
Meanwhile unreason has been shown on thousands of occasions throughout human history simply not to work. That really should be proof enough - any more “proof” than that is simply your desire for a telos, or end, to the universe that it doesn’t really possess.
======
@Jack Hughes
It was linked here from an atheist website, it has atheist in the headline, and it’s a series of points with which some poor atheists will be bored and stupified one day by their well-meaning friend. Quite simply, this article is for us as much as it’s for you.
The Christian’s Jehovah, an Almighty God,
is a capricious and cantankerous sod;
he’s a jealous, vain, and incompetent fraud,
with the morals of a Mesopotamian lord.
For homophobia, misogyny, and genocide too,
that old Bible Bogey is the god for you.
He’s his father, his son, and a friggin’ ghost too,
but there’s even more ridiculous woo.
Christians claim their god, in his Empyrean lair,
is omniscient, omnipotent, beneficent and fair;
but, with the problem of theodicy,
that dogma is Christian idiocy.
The Jew’s Yahweh, a wrathful old jerk,
set Jews strict rules on when to work,
how to dress, and what to sup or sip,
and giving baby boys the snip.
Myths of Bronze Age, goat-herding nomads,
metaphorically have them, by the gonads.
The Moslem’s Allah, a fierce great djinn,
demands under ‘Islam’, literally, ‘Submission’.
Apostasy is treated just like a crime;
they’ll threaten to kill you, to keep you in line,
and if you dare draw Mohammad in a comic cartoon,
there’ll be riots and killings from here to Khartoum.
Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist,
Zoroastrian, Baha’i, Mormon, and Scientologist,
Confucianist, Shintoist, and Taoist too,
Spiritualist, Wiccan, and the New Ager into woo.
Yea, verily, those of each and every religion,
are mired in the miasma of superstition.
So, why should yours be the one true faith,
in the magic of a phantasmagorical wraith?
Belief, without evidence, is just plain crazy,
ignorant, stupid, or thoughtlessly lazy.
Life derives no purpose, at a theistic god’s direction;
evolution really happens, due to Natural Selection.
If I can’t prove for you that God exists, can you prove for me that He doesn’t exist? And, do you believe that murder is against the law? And perjury? And adultery? And thievery? Do you believe in Gravity? Above all this, I believe in you even though I can’t see you or hear your voice or reach out and touch you.
Mildly amused at the number of atheist commenters who think that Jennifer’s fourth item doesn’t make sense.
@Jack Hughes
Considering the horrendously poor nature of this post by Mrs. Fulwiler, you should be thanking us rather than having your little hissy fit.
Jack wrote: “What I don’t get is why all of you athiests would even view a Catholic website…”
Perhaps we’re interested in what theists say about us. After all, if you were in a minority, wouldn’t you want to know what the largest organization in the world operating in this particular sphere (religion, in this case) is saying about you?
Atheism fails. The AMOUNT of atheists on this article in the comments section is quite astonishing. They ARE passionate about God, just in the wrong sense lol. :P You guys are a contradiction to what atheism claims to be. No God, yet you lot are infatuated by Him. Like us.
These might be Catholic teachings that make sense to very intellectually lazy atheists. Or they might be things that the author simply can’t emotionally divorce herself from, and is therefore convincing herself are universal beliefs. Either way, WRONG. All of these teachings depend on the idea of a god - the veneration of a woman for being the mother of a god; an ESP connection with all humans, dead or alive, because of our relationship with a god; a destination for dead people who didn’t accept a god as their savior but weren’t “bad people”; and the supremacy of an institution that promotes a god - none of these are things that atheists would believe in or even tolerate intellectually.
Jack Hughes—
We’re here because Ms. Fulwiler wrote an article supposedly about us that proved to strike really wide of the mark. Ther is already so much misinformation about atheists out there, so many myths, lies, and slanders, that many of us feel it is important to confront them where and when we can; educating the faithful majority about their unbelieving brothers and sisters is the only way to win a little respect for us and ours in a society drenched in religious faith.
So far we have had people suggest reading Aquinas, G.K Chesterton and C.S Lewis (amongst others), and bringing up Pascal’s wager.
That is not good. It does not say much for Catholicism, if people are seriously suggesting those. I say seriously, as I (as an atheist) have suggested people look that them as examples of how NOT to argue for the existence of god.
Please, most of us atheist are familiar with the likes of Aquinas, G.K Chesterton and C.S Lewis. We know Pascal’s Wager, and we know its failings. We are aware of the Cosmological argument, and its special pleading.
So please, it is insulting to suggest we look at these. We have. They do not stand up to scrutiny. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest them, given how thoroughly they have been shredded by philosophers. Think of how a physicist might react if you suggest she study Aristotle’s elements to understand the universe, or suggesting to a biologist that Paley’s WatchMaker has anything worthwhile to say about the evolution of life. You should not expect to be treated with respect if you made those arguments, so why expect respect when mentioning Aquinas et al ?
@Karen LH:
It is not that fourth article doesn’t make sense. Quite contrary - it would make a lot of sense… if there were no problems with it. But there are - namely, that is not quite what church was teaching throughout history.
@ChillyGuess
Infatuated with the Christian god? Not so much. Concerned about the negative effects of superstition and irrational nonsense in the world? Most definitely.
@Jean,
This kind of post isn’t really argumentation. It’s a laundry list of false equivalences. However, as there are people on here who seem to think that personal testimony is a reliable source of evidence and that Pascal’s Wager is worth repeating, I’m going to assume that you genuinely think these are arguments. My aim is to explain to you in turn why they’re not. Please understand that I do this in good faith and not as an attack.
1. “Can you prove for me that He doesn’t exist?”—- No, because proving a negative like that is an impossibility. Google “Russel’s Teapot” for a robust but simple takedown of this argument. Furthermore, remember that the “burden of proof” rests on the person making the positive claim.
2. “Do you believe that murder, perjury, adultery, and thievery are against the law?”—- In virtually all jurisdictions, three out of these four are against the law. In some jurisdictions, adultery isn’t against the law. I’m having to guess at your point here but I suspect it’s something to do with the Ten Commandments and a divine command theory of morality. Several things wrong with this: a lot of the stuff prohibited in the Bible is perfectly legal (including some of the things in the Commandments); these things were generally illegal before the passages in question were written (were they not, society could not have progressed to such a point that detailed writings of this nature were even possible); the existence of morality in the absence of evidence of a deity is, at this point, sufficient evidence to believe in a natural source of morality.
3. “Do you believe in Gravity?”—- Yes, of course. Again, I’m having to guess at where this is going, but I assume it’s one of two things. One is something to do with a supposed fine-tuning of the universe. This is answered by a specialised version of what’s called the “anthropic principle”. You can Google it for more details but the ultra-quick version is, well, we’re here to observe it, so the almost-impossible chain of events that brought us here plainly did happen, and no further explanation is required. The second possible argument is that we believe in the theory of gravity without “proof” or “evidence.” You can see why an argument like the anthropic principle - heavily modified, of course - would be relevant here too: well, gravity is happening, therefore it exists. But more plainly, gravity wasn’t something we simply decided sounded nice. Modern gravitational theories emerged after millenia of trial and error and judicious observation of empirical reality. We now have a very solid understanding of force and mass. That the force is not something we can pick up and carry does not alter our observations of it.
4. “I believe in you even though I can’t touch you”—- We have 99.999% certainty that the person at the other end of the screen is a real person like us. We think this because we understand how computers work, how the internet works, how people type, how people communicate, what comment threads are, why people spend time on them, etc. That 0.001% of doubt can be dispelled in large part by standing over my shoulder and watching me type “Hello” to you. That doubt, though, will be replaced by a 0.000000000000001% doubt of its own that I am in fact an apparition of some point; or an even tinier level of doubt in our being here at all - we could all be brains in a jar. What I’m getting at here is that you don’t “believe” in me in the same way that you “believe” in a deity - what you think about other people posting on this comments thread is wholly a product of your experience and your application of this to empirical reality, tempered with appeals to probability.
@ Jean:
possibly i can prove to you that god does not exist. step number one: first define god for me, in sufficient detail that we might agree on what would constitute a disproof, and then we’ll see.
“the law” is a term with a purely secular meaning; in that secular sense we humans create the law, and whatsoever acts we feel like prohibiting is against it. this has nothing to do with god.
gravity, like evolution, needs no belief; they are demonstrable facts. i need not believe in them anymore than i “believe” in sunrise.
i’m slightly flattered that you believe in my existence, but that’s honestly not required. i should hope my points and my arguments would still stand for themselves, even if i were a mere ghost in the machine.
@ Karen LH:
Jennifer’s fourth point makes no sense because the concept of “salvation” makes no sense. there’s nothing to be “saved” from.
The debate for God is something like this (from what I’m reading in my journey towards baptism. Catholicism FTW! from my previous life as Nietzsche, Kant, Hume, I used to worship them).
Universe - is a beautifully complex system, from the largest to the minuit detail, is a ‘beautiful’ system of ecosystems. So complex not one computer can emulate what a human brain can do (after how long we’ve been here?)
I ask this question. WHO the heck designed them? If humans can be so amazingly creative in our technological advances, YET we still can’t fathom the human brain’s ‘system’, surely, we are also designed by Him in the IMAGE of Him.
Even evolution could be (no evidence for this yet) DESIGNED by Him. There has to be a CAUSE for an effect. A beginning, a REASON (for we are reason-made humans) for everything to exist no? Religion seeks to answer this question. I mean, heck, God send His Son to show us yet we still don’t want to believe Him. Is that not a sad indictment of atheism that they spend so much time disproving God, yet they are fascinated by Him. It’s their reason for existence if they claim to be an atheist.
My 2 cents. :)
ChillyGuess writes: “The AMOUNT of atheists on this article in the comments section is quite astonishing. They ARE passionate about God, just in the wrong sense lol. :P You guys are a contradiction to what atheism claims to be. No God, yet you lot are infatuated by Him. Like us.”
Um….no.
We are a minority that lives among a religious majority. What we are concerned with is what _you_ are up to, and the role of religion in society in general. Gods, we don’t believe in. Christians? There are tons of you guys out there, and you and your beliefs have direct bearing on everyone else in our shared society….and an awful lot of folks on your side of the fence want to exercise power over the rest of us. This ranges from all kinds of attempts to sneak creationism into science classrooms and create the impression our secular government endorses one flavor of religion by slapping up the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls, all the way to the push for Christian Theocracy and the genocide of unbelievers.
So, you know, what you guys are doing kind of affects us, and it’s pretty important to a lot of us that, in your position of societal power, you understand we are here and at least some of what we are about, you accord us a little respect, and you understand why encroachment into the public sector is dangerous to _everyone_, including you.
It has nothing to do with gods and everything to do with social institutions.
And for those of us living in the West, many of the biggest negative effects come from Catholic Church. I can only think of one moral political position that the Catholic Church takes that I agree with, and that is its opposition to capital punishment. I find its stance on medical research, abortion, women’s rights and contraception (to name a few) to be morally repugnant to the extent I find it hard to consider anyone holding them a decent human being. This is without taking into consideration its criminal involvement in covering up crimes of sexual abuse.
@ChillyGuess:
This is the argument from design. There are too many things wrong with it for me to go into right now, but here are just two to start with:
1) Your appeal to a designer does not mean that the designer is any specific god with a special son.
2) A designer powerful enough to design something so awe-inspiring as the universe couldn’t have just come from nowhere, could he? Such a beautifully complex being surely necessitates an even more beautiful and complex designer of his own. And so it goes all the way down. (This is called a “vicious infinite regress.” Generally theists try to evade this one by imbuing gods with various meaningless properties like ‘perfection’, none of which actually address the problem.)
Some of the more reasonable Catholics here might want to take ChillyGuess’ keyboard away from him. He is doing himself nor Catholicism any favours.
Oh, and if an atheist came to Pharyngula making claims that evolution lacks evidence, you can be assured he or she would be corrected quickly and quite viciously. Now I understand you might not want to be as viscious as the Pharyngulites, but I would expect ChillyGuess to be taken to task for his scientific illiteracy.
My question is, why would be a good valid and logic reason for so many good committed atheists like the ones commenting here to be reading an article targeted for Catholics? don’t waste your precious time with us, go and read and do whatever good atheists do, go and nurture your atheistic believes and let us do the same with ours. If you happen to engage a discussion with somebody who wants to convert you, well… give them your reasons right there, here would be just idle time for you.
Jared wrote: But using science or logic is just as insane for it also requires a pre-judgement that is unprovable. Why accept the scientific method? Where do we find proof that logic should be used at all? Why not illogic? Or unreasonableness? Or chaos? It seems you are trying to prove to a Catholic that God does not exist by using something close to faith to do so.
Science is the process of identifying and removing sources of error and bias.
The rules of logic that underlie science are a result of the clear failure of other rules to provide correct results and their absolutely demonstrated utility in determining correct conclusions by their exacting correlation to the real world. The rules of logic have been heavily tested and debated and checked for many hundreds of years now. The ones that are well accepted have amply proven themselves to be correct.
So your proposal is equivalent to saying that if we make SURE we leave in known sources of error and bias we’ll do better. That is an absurdly ridiculous proposition.
And to the contrary, while science has demonstrated utility millions of times every crackpot who has ever made a testable supernatural claim and actually submitted it to the purview of science has been shown to be a fraud.
And science has never claimed that some Theory is an absolute truth, it always accounts for some margin of error or enumerates areas of unknowns and it submits itself to constant and OPEN review which aids in the scientific uncovering of hoaxes whereas religious hoaxes just exploit people for money and go mostly undetected and unpunished like this lying fraud: http://youtu.be/Xi2ifupo56I Peter Poppoff who has risen back into the spotlight bilking the elderly out of their money AGAIN. Disgraceful nonsense.
There are tens of thousands of out and out frauds operating in the religious space even TODAY - whereas science is constantly vigilant for these types of abuses BECAUSE it is an open and repeatable process. And when someone is caught being fraudulent in science they are utterly disgraced. In Religion you get promoted to Pope.
Science assumes there is more to learn and looks for evidence while Religion assumes it has already given you the answers and only accepts evidence which support your presuppositions.
NOBODY guessed that the universe was Quantum Mechanical - it was EVIDENCE that relevance this knowledge. Utterly astonishing how different reality actually is from how we supposed it is based on our extremely limited human senses.
It’s so entertaining to watch all the totally-convinced-that-there-is-no-rational-belief types get so bent out of shape over one person’s personal experiences. Christian Theocracy? Genocide of unbelievers? Project much? Victimocracy sounds more like it. Relax, people! Or ... if you really do want to combat a threat, take it over to the militant islamic websites. It ain’t the Christians who want you dead ...
Matt Penfold: it would probably be a good idea for you to read the first paragraph of Jennifer’s post: In the case where you’re chatting with a nonbeliever who is open to hearing your perspective and specifically asks for information about what you believe, how should you proceed?
Unless you came here open to hearing the perspectives of Christians, then in fact this blog post was clearly not meant for you.
@lethargic
Among most vocal atheists you will find no shortage of criticism of Islam, be it militant or otherwise.
This doesn’t mean that Christianity is exempt from criticism, nor that a blog with “atheists” in the title, specifically referencing what one should tell atheists, is going to slip under the radar.
Well just think, if us atheists had not turned up here you would have possibly believed Fulwiler’s contention that those are indeed five teaching atheists can accept.
Well, you now know better. You are more informed. Time spent education is never wasted. Maybe you disagree, the tone of your question suggests you do, but I prefer knowledge to ignorance, even if that knowledge is not what I want to hear.
Coincidently, she also wrote an article about atheist misapprehensions about Catholicism. That was all wrong as well. Does the National Catholic Register not have any editorial standards ? Once I can see as a mistake. Fulwiler was tired, the editor distracted and somehow a pile of rubbish gets published. Twice ? Well that does make one wonder.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/5-catholic-teachings-that-make-sense-to-atheists/#ixzz1T9oeGuSQ
I reject the concept that we are born with original sin. God should meet my standards, not the other way around.
So I think the comments in this thread is a pretty strong indication that the author missed her mark. Her points could be used to diferentiate Catholism doctrinally from other Christain denominations, but it’s hard to see the case that they would seen “less crazy” to an interested atheist.
@Dark Star Google Scientism.
Catholics always believe that Science and Religion works hand in hand. Don’t associate Atheists with Science as if it’s against Einstein who also believed in God. Religion seeks to answer the quite different questions to what Science does. But they both need each other like men needs women.
Not sure if we are allowed links.. but here is Catholic’s tradition (Catechism we call it to you atheists) on Science.
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/cat-sci.html
Posted by Kris:
> Bill Thacker on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 2:29 PM (EDT):
>> If I think your beliefs are ridiculous, I get to ridicule you.
>And Bill proves my original point - that atheists believe they are superior to Christians and believe that they have the right to ridicule someone who doesn’t think the way they do.
I didn’t say atheists are “superior”; in fact, I feel you’re really twisting my words. I simply said that if you say something ridiculous, you get ridiculed for it. If you can show I’m grossly incorrect about something that I write about in public, you get to ridicule me, too. Ridicule is punishment for violating the logical rules that let us all agree on what is true. That deserves punishment because it undermines the very concept of reasoning.
Anyway, why are your panties in a bunch over this? Catholics have ridiculed atheists (and non-Catholics, especially Jews) for two thousand years. Sometimes Catholic ridicule involved bonfires, torture, and wholesale slaughter of entire villages. Even today Catholics remain absolutely sure, thanks to their faith, that they must outlaw abortion and gay marriage. You pass laws that would put me in jail for violating your unprovable beliefs, and you have the gall to accuse ME of acting superior?
“So how is it then that you characterize yourself as a non-believer? Non-believer in what exactly? Since atheists don’t believe in god, how do you do define yourself by something that you don’t believe actually exists.”
I call myself an atheist or non-believer because in the English language, those are the terms people recognize as meaning “someone who doesn’t believe in gods.” I’d prefer to call myself “sane” or “reasonable” or even “bright”, but if I did you wouldn’t know what I meant.
Our language has these words because you believers, being in the majority, *chose* them. You have a host of such terms to describe “people who don’t accept Christianity”; infidel, unbeliever, non-believer, non-Christian, pagan, heathen, apostate… It’s ironic that you accuse me of some kind of intellectual fault because I use the term Christians created to describe me.
I mean, that’s right up there with asking, “Why do we call blacks, Hispanics, and Asians collectively ‘non-whites’? Why do they define themselves by something they aren’t?” It would be equally proper to say that Asians, Hispanics and whites are all “non-black”, but the white people got to make the rules.
@Rocio:
You say: “My question is, why would be a good valid and logic reason for so many good committed atheists like the ones commenting here to be reading an article targeted for Catholics? don’t waste your precious time with us, go and read and do whatever good atheists do, go and nurture your atheistic believes and let us do the same with ours.”
As for me, I said I come from catholic background, and my life was quite influenced by what was preached to me by catholics. Not in a good way, I would say, and in several aspects, not least of which being that theories which I read when I studied it deeper made me quite sick. I think it is quite displaced to say after all that ‘oh, what are you doing here, if you don’t like/believe it just go your way’.
@ChillyGuess
“Though faith is above reason ...”
And that’s where I stopped reading your propaganda.
@Justine
I’m reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church now. What exactly about it that made you think that it is not preached in a good way? Did you read it for yourself and reason it out? Or did you get spoon-fed by some bad ministry and then claim that is Catholic teaching because some dude told you so?
Lethargic—
You might want to research the Christian Identity movement, especially since these guys want to do away with you almost as badly as they want to do away with us unbelievers. ;)
Also, you’re evading the point I was trying to make: what the faithful do affects us, ergo we have a vested interest in what you do. Cases currently in point: abortion law, undermining of science curricula, and gay rights. Not long ago it was slavery (black people being the “sons of Ham” and thus cursed with inferiority), antisemitism (Hebrews 6, for instance, and the cry that “Jews killed Jesus!” were used to help justify Christian antisemitism so severe that they aided in the Holocaust) and even in comparatively minor things like Sunday “blue laws”, still in effect in some places, regulating local commerce to religious ends.
How am I playing the victim by pointing this stuff out? You (the religious) have the power to shape society in ways that affect me and mine. It’s a fact.
Einstein did not believe in any kind of personal god. God for Einstein were the rules that govern how the universe works. His god was nothing like the Christian god, for he did not accept his god took any interest in human affairs.
He was quite clear about, taking those to task who claimed he believed in a personal god.
Now tell me, why is not a fellow Catholic taking ChillyGuess to task over this ? IS he speaking for you ? Do you all think Einstein believed in a personal god ?
@Matt Penfold. Well thank you for your educational contribution then. The point is most of the Catholics reading NCRegister are not naive people, and Mrs. Fulwiler article was not intended to be use to perform “miracle conversions” she empathized that very clearly… those are Ice Breakers topics. I agree though that she missed a foremost topic, the one trying to engage the rationalization of the existence of God. However wouldn’t you or any of these fine atheists commenting here love a good rational and polite discussion, let’s say about purgatory in a nice coffee shop? You seem to know what you are talking about when you say those topics doesn’t make sense to you…. believe me, we know what we are talking about when we say (or she says) that they could do.
@ Ewan and Fred - please forgive my use of “Pascal’s Wager”. I am in way over my head. I know very little about philosophy, atheism, theology or “Pascal’s Wager” - it came up in a discussion I had with someone and it sounded reasonable to me at the time - but it certainly is nothing I have ever studied.
As I indicated earlier, several of my very good friends are atheists. They are very good and kind people who just do not believe in God. We appreciate and respect each other. When we are together, we talk about cooking, recipes, gardening, novels, family, etc. They know I started going to daily Mass a couple of years ago and though they do not understand it, they appreciate the fact that I am a more joyful person for doing so.
When I saw the comments about Pascal’s Wager, I googled it a little while ago and came across a write-up on it by Peter Kreeft who is one of the people I have come to know and love. But believe me, I learned my lesson - in the future I will be much more careful about my comments lest I leave people with the wrong impression.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm
@lethargic
>> Or ... if you really do want to combat a threat, take it over to the militant islamic websites. It ain’t the Christians who want you dead
Please kindly explain the many death threats FROM CHRISTIANS that many atheist bloggers receive with alarming frequency. Please explain the increase prevalence of many paramilitary “Christian Identity” movements such as:
America’s Promise Ministries
By Yahweh’s Design
Church of Jesus Christ Christian
Church of True Israel
Ecclesiastical Council for the Restoration of Covenant Israel (ECRCI)
Fellowship of God’s Covenant People
Gospel Ministries
House of Yahweh
Kingdom Identity Ministries
Present Truth Ministries
Scriptures for America Ministries
Tabernacle of the Phineas Priesthood
United Identity Church of Christ
United Church of YHWH
Yahweh’s Truth
Please explain the constant attacks from the Religious Right on civil rights and freedom in the United States including gay rights, women’s rights, science education, etc.
You people ARE a danger - that many of you don’t see it AT ALL is a clear indication there is a problem. You demonize Islam but you are EVERY BIT as bad. You look the other way from the Timothy James McVeigh’s but every Muslim is a security threat to you. Disgusting.
And you know the difference? I know that there are non-theists who are also a danger. I reject their Nationalistic hate speech on equally strong terms as I reject Christianity and Islamism and for the same reason - it’s based on fallacious logic and ignorance.
Christianity is in my face 24/7 AND as a former Christian I know it very well, so it is where I choose to focus my efforts but I also speak out on Islamism and I support others efforts in that area. I have not thoroughly studied the Koran (or the Torah & Talmudic law) so I cannot give in-depth rebuttals on obscure points. I leave it to atheists who know it better than I do.
I absolutely LOVE people - individual people. I don’t care if you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, whatever. I don’t even hate people who do horrible things - I think that if you look at WHY they do those horrible things you find even MORE horrible things underlie them. It’s a vicious cycle of abuse that destroys a persons humanity with reliable negative consequences.
The difference is that I don’t expect some nebulous ‘God’ to magically fix it all - I think that we humans MUST take responsibility for it if we want to work towards a better world.
And to that end I speak out when I see false beliefs being bandied about carelessly.
Apostolic authority never made sense to me as an atheist. It seems entirely out of proportion. Like making a monkey president of the world and giving him a button to launch all the nuclear bombs. Why give so much power to such a stupid, flawed animal? The Catholic Church made sense to me because of its history. But problems like this, things that never made sense, caused me to ultimately abandon the idea. The Catholic Church seems like such a wonderful idea. It’s like a puzzle that fits so well together, except a few pieces. A sad long-term religious experiment that had so much promise, but one that will eventually die away.
ChillyGuess wrote: “You guys are a contradiction to what atheism claims to be. No God, yet you lot are infatuated by Him.”
Few atheists have any interest at all in God, however you define one. We’re interested in you, ChillyGuess. We’re concerned that our fellow humans have for centuries past and are still to this day in the thrall of foolish myths of people coming back from the dead, hearing the voices of snakes, donkeys, and ants, and slaughtering whole cities with a bugle.
We’re tired of a world filled with such foolishness. A mad rabbi and an illicitly exhumed grave is no basis for a personal philosophy, a way of life, or an Earth-spanning institution.
For all the atheists. I think you missed one key statement. If you had used your God given intellect, you would have known the following applies ONLY if:
In the case where you’re chatting with a nonbeliever who is **open to hearing your perspective and specifically asks for information about what you believe**, how should you proceed?
::emphasis mine::
I think if you’re here promoting someone else’s agenda, please understand you are misguided in your attempt. But know that we pray for the reversion and conversion of *all* souls. Intelligence isn’t just reserved for atheists. That’s a very pride-filled statement or mentality to follow. I would suggest some small doses of humility, regardless of your non-belief.
And realize, your anger is misguided. Life is too short to waste on fruitless endeavors. You won’t convince any intelligent Catholic that there is no God. The evidence is everywhere.
@ChillyGuess:
I started with modern catechism. But for me - it was a mess, since I am used to more precise texts, and modern catechism is written ‘poetically’ as I call it. Some of those sentences could be interpreted in many ways. So, I looked up the references for a more clear and precise definitions. Most of those references are to st. Augustine. His writing was precise, sure enough, but it made me sick. The problem is that the preaching often implies there is something you can do which will make you believe (for example - open your heart which is my most ‘favorite’ expression), while the teaching, when you dig deep enough, actually says there is nothing you can do (which is then connected to original sin, salvation of infidels, etc.). If you don’t believe me, read it in the article on faith on catholic encyclopedia which says:
“And just as the light of faith is a gift supernaturally bestowed upon the understanding, so also this Divine grace moving the will is, as its name implies, an equally supernatural and an absolutely gratuitous gift. Neither gift is due to previous study neither of them can be acquired by human efforts”
Btw, no *true* atheist would desecrate the Host. He would have no need to bother with neither satan nor God. The fact that he desecrates almost proves his belief in God.
Just sayin’...
Sheri—
Regarding Pascal’s Wager….it’s hugely flawed. So flawed in so many ways that it’s impossible to go into fully here. Here are two quick problems with it:
1) It assumes a false dichotomy, that the choice is between belief in your god and belief in no gods at all. The reality is, there are tens of thousands of religions out there to choose from, and it could very easily be that choosing the _wrong_ god would be worse than choosing no god at all. (“I believed in Jesus, and boy was Thor _mad_….!”) Absent evidence to recommend one choice over another, the odds of you choosing wrong far outweigh the odds of you getting it right.
2) It treats belief as a choice. You cannot _choose_ to believe in something. Something either meets your criteria for belief or it doesn’t. Can you, right this instant, choose to believe there’s a leprechaun rummaging through your sock drawer?
After reading all of these comments, I still haven’t seen anyone one of the “Atheists” give me undeniable evidence that God doesn’t exist.
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God and truths of Catholicism for atheists. It’s called nature, the miracles at Lourdes, Eucharistic miracles, and the Incorruptibles. Or the miracles of saints such as Fr. Damien of Molokai, which were reported in the Hawaiian Medical Journal.
Atheists are some of the most intellectually dishonest people on the planet. I know, I used to be one. They will accept as Gospel everything they find in a history or science book (or newspaper) as true, without examining a shred of evidence that it happened or is real themselves. They demand no actual proof for 99% of what they have chosen to believe about the way the world works and what happens in it (as well as who inhabits it), but they put a burden of proof on Christianity that Jesus himself could not meet.
They accept that the atom has a nucleus despite never having personally seen one. They accept the existence of love, despite not being able to define or measure or actually see it. They will take a doctor’s word that they have a cancerous tumor eating their brain (without ever seeing the tumor) and even put their lives in the hands of that doctor without physical proof—but they will not accept the testimony of hundreds of witnesses who saw Jesus walking around after they saw him tortured to death, when the only thing at stake is a belief. They will accept everything historians tell them about Abraham Lincoln or Ghengis Khan or Alexander the Great, but Jesus himself could stand before them and raise the dead and they would refuse to believe He is God. We had atheists back in biblical times, too, you see. They were called “Pharisees.”
@Rocio:
Huh, you have a weird definition of “nurturing” a belief. You don’t nurture a belief in the quiet, airy spaces of the mind where it is isolated from the outside world. Doing that will lead to a belief that is so baroque and so encrusted with falsehoods and assumptions that it is worthless; then you go and write about that belief, and something like this article comes out. Why do you think so many people here have accused the author of not really being an atheist? The reason why we’re all commenting on this article is because it is so very divorced from reality, we just can’t let this violence to the notion go unanswered.
The real way to “nurture” a belief is by shoving it up against the grindstone of reality, chipping off the false encrustations until only something real remains. Since it’s difficult to find real, true reality without using lab equipment, what you end up doing most of the time is comparing your beliefs to someone else’s reality. In this context, we’re trying to grind down atheism with your Catholic idea of reality: one in which God exists and Catholic dogma is true. That’s how you refine and polish an idea, by exposing it to the best criticism your opponents have to offer - not by keeping it trapped in the confines of your mind, where it doesn’t need to interact with reality.
It’s not really our fault that the dogma comes out worse for the wear when confronted with atheism.
Jennifer started quite a lively discussion today. She posted her personal coversion story at her other blog- conversiondiary.com. It would probably interest most of you who commented here today.
I believe some athiests will find her illogical because one of the sparks to her conversion was her emotinonal response the first time she looked at her baby boy. On the other hand, I believe some will find persuasive her deciding that she should look at religion more closely when she met and got to know very intelligent people who believe in God.
In any case, I believe the video will generate even more emotional responses than her post of today did.
Posted by Martina on Monday, Jul 25, 2011 7:01 PM (EDT):
Btw, no *true* atheist would desecrate the Host. He would have no need to bother with neither satan nor God. The fact that he desecrates almost proves his belief in God.
Just sayin’...
Well, just sayin…that the host of Pharyngula did just that some time ago. Had someone take the Host out of a Catholic Church, desecrated it and then put a photo of his handiwork on his blog.
Go - search for it, you’ll find it. I’d love to see what he thinks of your conclusion about his actions. Or his faithful echo chamber. Would be some good fun I’m sure.
Pascal’s wager is extremely selfish!
Believe, follow religious rules, oppress people and possibly get into heaven. Better to ignore religion and do your best to be kind to everyone with hope of a very unlikely afterlife with one of thousands of gods.
Who cares if Mrs Fulwiler’s post sucks (sorry M’arm but its not exactly Thomas Aquinas),it does not excuse the vicious comments by athiests on this post. Quentin Smith a well known Athiest philosopher at least respects thiests and is courteous when engaging in debate, whether that be in person or in accademic journals. You should take a leaf out of his book.
@ Martina: no “true” atheist? is that anything like a true Scotsman?
for myself, i have no need to trash a cracker. it’s just a cracker, to me, and trashing one is no different from trashing a graham cracker. but if doing so can somehow serve to make some useful point, then i’ll gladly do it—- it’s not as if trashing crackers does any harm, after all.
@Justine. I’m sorry I just can’t see the logic of your comment, nor the point. If you say the catholic doctrines or theories as you call them, that apparently you studied more in deep made you sick, I’m concluding… that you like to feel sick, right? Otherwise I don’t see the point hanging out here?
Thank you, Martina.
If it’s really a cracker, how did a woman who had become because her optic nerve had withered suddenly regain her sight after the Eucharist was passed by her—and medical tests showed that her optic nerves were still withered?
You seriously need to review the medical records of the ATHEISTIC doctors at Lourdes. Many of whom went to Lourdes specifically to disprove the miracles but are now Catholic.
@ChillyGuess
I think that you misrepresent Einstein’s position on religion and God - fortunately, I had researched this subject previously and wrote a blog post on it:
http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2011/03/einstein-spinoza-and-god.html
What is clear are two facts, Einstein was inculcated as a child which makes it much more difficult to reject religious claims later in life and that his position on the question changed a good deal over his life time.
1954: Einstein in a letter to Eric Gutkind on January 3, 1954 wrote:
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
Nor am I confusing atheism (disbelief in a god) with the value of science.
I think you missed this ugly little phrase in your Catechism:
>>> provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws
In other words - science is ok as long as it doesn’t challenge what WE SAY.
>>> It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications
Translation, we will suppress any research that we don’t happen to like. The historical record very clearly speaks volumes on the Catholic Churches record with science that it doesn’t happen to like.
The maltreatment of Galileo Galilei in the hands of the Church is well known (despite their far-too-little-too-late and backhanded apology) but what may be less well known is that Galileo got off easy compared to Giordano Bruno who was murdered by the Church.
Copernicus suppressed his research due to the church, Campanella was tortured by the church repeatedly for supporting Galileo, Rene Descartes suppressed his research due to Galileo’s treatment, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Edmond Halley, Isaac Newton, Georges Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon, William Buckland, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, Adam Sedgewick, Robert Chambers, Charles Darwin… all scientists whose work was negatively affected by the actions of the Roman Catholic Church against the progress of science.
More recently they are opposed to life-saving stem cell research and even blindingly simple things like barrier birth control - a position that they are so desperate to promulgate that they have even LIED about it, claiming that Condoms CAUSE AIDS. This has resulted in MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths in Africa. They are exploiting the poor state of education and level of superstition in that country. And IMHO they are directly responsible for every single resulting death that could have been prevented. It is an absolutely deplorable and disgusting state of affairs.
Shall we review the Catholic history of encountering new cultures? Conquistadors and the Requerimiento?
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requerimiento was “used to justify the assertion that God, through historical Saint Peter and appointed Papal successors, held authority as ruler over the entire Earth; and that the Inter Caetera Papal Bull, of 4 May 1493 by Pope Alexander VI, conferred title over all the Americas to the Spanish monarchs”
That was some piece of work for a tradition that claims to be directly from God.
Dr. Michael McDonnel wrote in The ‘Conquest’ of the Americas:
conquistadors regarded plunder, slaves, and tribute as the just desserts for their efforts in forcing pagans to accept Christianity and Spanish rule. After all, the conquistadors did scrupulously adhere to the Spanish law of conquest by reading the requerimiento, which ordered defiant Indians to immediately accept Spanish rule and Christian conversion, or face punishment in a “just war”. The requerimiento announced that “The resultant deaths and damages shall be your fault, and not the monarch’s or mine or the soldiers”. Attending witnesses and a notary usually certified in writing that the requerimiento had been read and ignored by the usually uncomprehending Indians, thus justifying the death and destruction that so often followed.
And since what ALWAYS follows is a counter-attack that invariably includes Stalin and Hitler: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2011/04/all-atheists-are-evil-or-maybe-not.html
In Summary, I reject those institutions which have proven themselves harmful and I try to learn from them - while you continue to embrace yours INCLUDING those policies which have repeatedly proven themselves absolutely destructive and have resulted in millions of deaths.
I will say this, Catholicism has ABSOLUTELY changed For the Better in the past 400 years. You still have a long way to go like, allow female priests and Pope’s, support stem cell research and get out of the business of harming science, and stop murdering people through lies (about things like birth control). But at least you aren’t running Crusades and Inquisitions that torture people to death any more.
But I don’t think we can thank GOD for that can we?
“how did a woman who had become because her optic nerve had withered suddenly regain her sight after the Eucharist was passed by her—and medical tests showed that her optic nerves were still withered?”
even if this were true (hearsay anecdotes are not evidence), that still leaves you needing to explain the purported miracles of entirely different religions.
Martina—
Re: Professor Myers and the host: A student in Florida attended a Catholic mass and walked out with a wafer, only pocketing it and walking off with it after being accosted for not eating it right away. This created a huge kerfuffle, with Bill Donahue and the Catholic league seeking his suspension from school, his being kicked out of student government, and a hail of death threats (that’s right, DEATH THREATS) from all over the country from Catholics much like yourself. The event made national news.
Prof. Myers, of course, thought the whole affair was ridiculous—trying to ruin a kid’s life over what to us is just a plain, bland cracker? Come on! A little perspective, people! What’s more valuable, a human life or a wafer of baked wheat someone said a few words over? Long story short, the Prof. obtained a wafer and, to protest the stupidity of holding _things_ more sacred than people, impaled it with a rusty nail along with a quran and several pages from Darwin’s “On the Origins of Species” and tossed them all in the trash.
The host is just a cracker, the quran just a book, and not even Darwin is to be held sacred. And to threaten to kill and to actively seek to destroy a young man’s life for failing to respect what you hold sacred? Criminal. People matter, things don’t, and expecting people who don’t share your beliefs to treat the _things_ you hold sacred as sacrosanct to them as well is…..hubristic folly.
That is why an atheist might desecrate a host. To try to put an insane situation into perspective.
> 5 Catholic Teachings that Make Sense to Atheists
Maybe to the magical atheists you just made up in your head. To most actual live atheists, that list is ludicrous. How can purgatory make sense to someone that doesn’t believe in any gods? It’s the same right down the list.
If you don’t even have enough respect for atheists to begin to comprehend them, they’re not really going to take you seriously either.
@ Horse-Pheathers - if there is a Leprechaun rummaging through my sock drawer, I sure hope he is making it neat and organized!
Regarding Pascal and the dichotomy: one God or none (vs how ‘bout Thor?)—- Once again, I may be getting in over my head (in fact I know I am but can’t not comment): in terms of all the various gods that “may be”, Jesus was an historical figure. He “claimed” to be the Son of God. He did miracles. He died and rose from the dead. Millions and millions of people all over the world have believed in Him (despite those of us who have not always represented the Love He taught us).
But most of all, those who truly believe in God as Love, Transcendence, Infinity, etc. KNOW without having to have evidence. It is called a gift of faith. You may laugh at me and my beliefs - or deride me - or worse. I cannot not love the God I know who is the source of my great joy.
It is God who allows me to see Him in every person I meet. He is a bit harder to find in some than others, but if pursued, is in there somewhere, maybe just buried down way deep based on his or her life experiences. It is the creativity, the beauty, the truth, the goodness - the humor, the intelligence, the talents and abilities, and, yes, the sorrow, that makes us human - made in the image and likeness of God.
There is no way I can give you a logical and analytical reason for my deep belief in God. Until you are touched with a love so beautiful as to totally know with every fiber of your being that there is nothing else that can ever begin to compare, it will sound hollow and phony to your ears. But when you do, nothing will ever be the same. I wish I could describe it better, but I can’t as it is truly indescribable - and precious.
And I want to thank you and everyone else for your comments. I have learned from them and hope I now have a better appreciation for you and your beliefs. And, I hope you have a wee bit better understanding of my faith. At least, maybe, we can agree to disagree - but still appreciate each other as persons.
Check out the documentation from the ATHEISTIC doctors and scientists at Lourdes, who went there expressly to disprove the miracles. Many of whom later became Catholic.
There is more to heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Unfortunately, as a catholic, you really have an uphill battle convincing atheists to be a part of your church.
Atheists, many of whom gave up on catholicism to be an atheist, are particularly skeptical of catholicism for two reasons that set your church apart.
1) Your rules change - over time, catholic law changes dramatically. In fact, #4 is a recent development in catholic doctrine. The fact that popes directly contradict one another proves that they cannot be delivering the word of God. Remember how you can’t eat meat on fridays because god says so? remember how the fish loophole only happened because the italian fishing industry was hurting a few centuries ago?
2) Your church is particularly wrapped up in mysticism and weird dogma. There are all of these outrageous, nitpicky rules that everyone has to avoid. And I’m not even going to mention the fact that you are essentially polytheists with all those saints.
An atheist would only desecrate a host to be intentionally insulting and stir up trouble. How would an atheist feel if someone came into his house as an invited guest and proceeded to steal and destroy the item which the atheist most valued?
ASDF-
You obviously don’t understand Catholicism at all. First of all, there have been changes in practice—the form of the Mass, for instance—but the teachings on faith and morals have never changed. (Some faith and moral teachings have been expanded because for instance in vitro fertilization would not have even been dreamed of even 200 years ago.)
Secondly, the saints are not gods. They are just people who died and went to heaven. Some of them we know their names and some of them we don’t. And we ask saints to pray for us just like we ask our fellow Christians on earth to pray for us. The saints are our family that are just physically positioned a little closer to God.
Dawn, you’re really not thinking through your argument there. so badly are you failing, i should indeed put scare quotes around “argument”, i think. were i to take you seriously, i should have to wonder which religion to take up—- yours is nowhere near the only one to produce very similar claims.
even a simple wikipedia search reveals medical “miracles” claimed as evidence for islam, chassidic judaism, and hinduism. and that’s just the simplest, most obvious criticism—- by no means the most damaging.
Sherry—
I know that many people have subjective experiences that lead them to belief, and I know that many people draw comfort from their beliefs. I really wouldn’t want to take that comfort away from you, nor would I expect any amount of argument to sway you from your beliefs.
What I will do, though, is argue that your beliefs are _yours_. That they lack supporting objective evidence and so you have no real rational way to convince others that your beliefs are true, and so no reasonable expectation that I should embrace your beliefs. That, no matter how important your beliefs are to you, that you can’t expect everyone to share them, that trying to change the law of the land to spread your belief is dangerous at best (because if you can do it, so can others who might not look as kindly on an individual’s right to conscience as you or I might) and that a secular government allows us all the freedom to believe and practice as we see fit. If we can agree on these points, we can coexist and even….*gasp!*....get along with each other!
What do you think?
“An atheist would only desecrate a host to be intentionally insulting and stir up trouble.”
i’ve been an atheist all my life, and i’d not presume to speak for all atheists everywhere. what gives you the authority to expound thus?
besides which, P.Z. Myers’ motivations for nailing and throwing away a cracker have been very clearly elucidated—- by the man himself, no less—- and they had NOTHING WHATEVER to do with any desire to stir up trouble. please read the very blog post where he detailed what he had done and why.
@ Tracoy. Thankyou! Actually that was a very good answer, so far you were the only one who really give me a logic reasonable one. I like your explanation on “nurture”, I see the logic and agree on polishing ideas against the grindstone. About your last comment
-It’s not really our fault that the dogma comes out worse for the wear when confronted with atheism-
it depends of what kind of catholic are you being confronted to, for there is not question that haven’t been asked before for the last 2000 years and that many have not thought of, rationalize and meditate already, so for somebody that takes the time to study Christian wisdom is very difficult to feel the dogma worse for the wear when confronted with atheism, I would say all the opposite happens. And since the lack of knowledge of a lot of elements in Jenny’s conversion story and what Catholic Church along with its philosophers/theologians teach, most of the criticism on this article and the one you are talking about lack of substantiation.
So in order to make your answer even more valid, don’t just read here, go and look for the doctors of the church like St. Thomas Aquinas, who relay all his explanation about God on reason, and maybe then you can understand the why on Jenny’s and many other perspective.
Very good answer though I really loved it.
I wonder how would am atheist prove that Aristotle existed?
Apostolic authority never made sense to me as an atheist. It seems entirely out of proportion. Like making a monkey president of the world and giving him a button to launch all the nuclear bombs. Why give so much power to such a stupid, flawed animal? The Catholic Church made sense to me because of its history. But problems like this, things that never made sense, caused me to ultimately abandon the idea. The Catholic Church seems like such a wonderful idea. It’s like a puzzle that fits so well together, except a few pieces. Roman Catholicism: A sad long-term religious experiment that had so much promise, but one that will eventually die away.
@Dawn who wrote: If it’s really a cracker, how did a woman who had become because her optic nerve had withered suddenly regain her sight after the Eucharist was passed by her—and medical tests showed that her optic nerves were still withered? You seriously need to review the medical records of the ATHEISTIC doctors at Lourdes. Many of whom went to Lourdes specifically to disprove the miracles but are now Catholic.
And followers of the only recently deceased Sathya Sai Baba of India claim he raised the dead. They will produce reams of claims about his thousands of miracles in front of millions of people. And Peter Popoff is a PROVEN FRAUD and he is on the circuit again perform fake “faith healing”. We KNOW FOR A FACT that these people are liars and frauds and people still believe their nonsense and claim to “be cured”.
So no, easily falsifiable or just plain erroneous medical records for Madame Biré alone will not suffice. You are making an exceptional claim and you need to produce EXCEPTIONAL evidence, not anecdotal claims. You don’t think doctors from 1908 could be fooled or make a mistake? You don’t there could be OTHER natural explanations for a misdiagnosis? Are you somehow unfamiliar with the state of medical diagnosis in 1908? I looked into this case and I’m unimpressed. Show me convincing evidence of the claims.
What you have at Lourdes are MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF self-selected sick people seeking a ‘cure’ and a microscopic handful of modern claims that we don’t know the answer for but in EVERY one of these cases the cures are always plausibly Naturalistic even if extremely rare. In some cases, some of the “confirmed” miracles at Lourdes have been demonstrated to be false as Naturalistic cases and causes of remission were found for those diseases.
And what is undeniable is that the RATE of ‘miracles’ has gone down by a factor of MANY THOUSANDS as medical diagnosis and treatment have improved and medical review systems were put into place at Lourdes.
How many confirmed medical miracles at Lourdes have there been in the past 30 years? I couldn’t find any since 1987 and even that case was not unanimous and is really inconclusive. Why does ‘God’ stop working somewhere EVERY SINGLE TIME science makes progress?
So you have millions upon millions of FAILURES at Lourdes weighted against some 11 claims (I don’t know the exact number but it is very low) of “miracles” since 1957. We know the Human Body is capable of all kinds of amazing self-healing and RATHER THAN attribute these fairly normal (if rare) cases of healing to causes we already know while not a SINGLE person at Lourdes has been healed of things we KNOW are impossible (regrowing a lost limb).
This is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
It is a well-known bias and yet, you are guilty of it here.
“I wonder how would am atheist prove that Aristotle existed?”
actually, i don’t know that i could. would it matter if he didn’t? it’s not as if any societally relevant religious sects are dedicated to him.
Hi, my journey, like others, went the other way, from Catholicism to atheism. While the underlying ‘morality’ and message of the gospel may have good points (even though many religious systems share a similar morality and humanity), the Catholic Church then effectively manufactured itself to the point where it’s the church that is canonised and not the god from whom it is meant to have sprung (please forgive the tortured syntax). Given that there is not a shred of real - rather than intuitive - evidence for god, atheism was the rational place for me. But no, none of the 5 arguments listed above can be relevant to me on first principles: if no god, then no purgatory, or salvation, or need to venerate a biblical (historical? who knows?),and certainly no artificial so-called apostolic authority. Sorry.
Hi Horse-Pheathers,
Thank you for your response, H-P. You are right. My beliefs are mine and I have no “reasonable” expectation that you should embrace them - nor can I expect everyone to share them. As you say, I lack supporting objective evidence and so have no real rational way to convince others that my beliefs are true.
However, when you then talk about me “trying to change the law of the land to spread” my “belief”, that gives me pause. I never inferred that.
We are a country of diversity. My understanding was that we each are entitled to our beliefs. We all have different backgrounds, experiences, education, etc. and thus, will think differently about different things.
We also have a system of law. You and I both vote based on our beliefs. We may believe similarly about some things and differently about others. Hopefully, we each vote with a sense of integrity. It does not seem to me that either of us would be trying to force a change on the other - just voting what we believed in.
So I think, bottom line, that we are in agreement. And that, yes, we just might be able to coexist and even…*GASP!* get along with each other - who knows - over a cappuccino or glass of wine, we just might find that we have more in common than might have first been recognized. That is, of course, if you think that a 65 year old might have anything at all useful to impart these days…
LOL, who knew that atheists, who do not believe in a “god” have such strict dogma? There are so many going on here about the fallacy of religion yet acting as religious zealots for atheism. Personally, I’ve always felt that it took more faith to believe that the entire universe arose for no reason at all out of nothing than to believe that God created it all. The more I learn about science and the order of the universe, the firmer this conviction becomes. Particularly when studying genetics while pregnant with my first. The fact that reproduction is possible at all is a miracle in itself. But, I am not sure why I’m bothering to state it here, if anyone even reads this comment I’ll simply be written off. Wait, I do know why I’m writing this - to encourage Ms. Fulweiler in her writing. If so many atheists see fit to attack her writing, there must be something in it that makes them think that they might be wrong and that the notion of a real and present God isn’t as far fetched as they once thought. Good for you Jennifer! Keep up the good work!
“I wonder how would am atheist prove that Aristotle existed?”
Your first error is asking an atheist and not a historian.
Your second error is not simply using Google to find the answer because this has been addressed over and over and over and over. It’s been discussed to death in the context of Caesar, Socrates, George Washington, etc.
I can list HUNDREDS of facts that differ but let me give you just two that I think are critical.
If the ONLY thing written ABOUT Aristotle couldn’t be verified to have been written about him until 30 or more years after he supposedly existed then I would have a very big problem accepting that he existed in reality. Are you willing to say the same about Jesus?
With George Washington we have THOUSANDS of sources that confirm his existence and many details of his life absolutely confirmed. There is not a shred of physical evidence that Jesus existed. There was no census at the time claimed that would have required Joseph and Mary to travel to a town that very likely didn’t even exist at that time (let’s even ASSUME it existed for the sake of argument).
In the case of Jesus you have NOTHING written until 30-90 years AFTER he supposedly lived. You have evidence of corruption and collusion among those who claimed he existed. You have AT MOST two reports that MIGHT be eye-witness reports. You have evidence of tampering, the murder of dissenting opinion on Jesus and the burning of documents that contradict the official story. And you have evidence that many of the stories actually are attributed to other persons (e.g., Judas of Galilee).
And the second critical fact is that we don’t accept the words of Aristotle or Socrates on the basis of their existence - there is good reason to believe that Socrates did NOT exist but was a literary device. We evaluate the words of the author based on their OWN merits. They are either true or false and we can judge that today.
But in the case of the Bible we have learned that the Books were NOT in fact written by who the Church claimed. At least HALF the books of the NT are written by anonymous authors with very scholarly judgement that the authors the Church CLAIMED wrote them, did not in fact write them. And their words are NOT judged on their own merits - they are assumed to be true by ‘believers’ in absolute absence of evidence and they make claims that go against common sense, scientific knowledge, and even basic human decency.
The bible doesn’t condemn slavery - it embraces it in many cases. It contains laws for how to sell your daughter into sexual slavery. It pretends that a ‘god’ commands the genocide of seven nations. And it pretends that this ‘god’ murdered all the first-born of Egypt, and slaughter nearly every human in the flood, and it pretends that this ‘god’ commanded a man to MURDER his own child. Just simply unacceptable stuff unless you have been brain-washed to excuse it.
Let’s send Harry Potter into the future 2000 years - how would you prove that Harry Potter was a literary device?
You discount the accounts of hundreds other ‘Gods’ but not your own.
There we go, Sherry. Just to clarify, the “you” in my last post was meant in the larger “believers” sense than meaning you in particular. And if the opportunity arose, I’d certainly be willing to sit and chat over a beverage (cappuccino good, a decent beer better ;) ).
As harsh as the rhetoric can sometimes get, we’re all just human beings doing our best to get by and make sense of the world.
“The evidence is everywhere.”
Right, exactly. The evidence is everywhere that if there was a supreme being, it either doesn’t care about, or has no power to stop the intense daily suffering that takes place all over this planet (especially the innocent children who have no power over their sad predicaments). Or, the other alternative is that ‘it’ is utterly cruel and actively causes the suffering. The ‘evidence’ that is ‘everywhere’ points to a reality that we are alone in this world to fend for ourselves. Hopefully if we’re lucky, we have good family and friends as support to help us get through life (and are born in the right place and time with the right parents). For so many, that is unfortunately not true and they are left to die alone in anguish. (If you want just one of countless examples consider extremely poor african children who die of malaria or other deadly diseases that could be taken care of but aren’t because their parents are poor and can’t afford the medicine - does ‘it’ not care about those kids? Or is it punishing them for things they cannot control?)
Clearly it’s up to us to make this world a better place, not through faith, but through accepting reality and acting upon it. And please, the unsatisfactory phrase that “God works in mysterious way” is an amazing cop-out - it means nothing to the millions of people (and their family members) who die in vain for these ‘mysterious’ reasons - it’s not good enough.
@Susan makes me laugh with “Personally, I’ve always felt that it took more faith to believe that the entire universe arose for no reason at all out of nothing than to believe that God created it all”
and yet, is it not Catholic DOGMA that God created the universe from nothing (Ex Nihilo)? I always find this bit of double-speak very interesting.
Also, this frankly duplicitous double-speak on faith makes me nauseated. You claim YOUR faith is a virtue AND then try to make it out that us non-believers have more faith than you do? You think we don’t see that? I see it and I note of the lack of intellectual honesty in the discussion.
If not creation Ex Nihilo, then what did God create the universe FROM?
How did God create the Universe from this something or the nothingness?
And most importantly, How do you know your theory is correct?
And while we’re at it. Where did GOD come from? Did God always exist? Why is it not possible that SOMETHING not-god always existed in which universes form Naturally?
Perhaps?
The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
Dark Star writes: “Science assumes there is more to learn and looks for evidence while Religion assumes it has already given you the answers and only accepts evidence which support your presuppositions.” Then a bit later: “You people ARE a danger - that many of you don’t see it AT ALL is a clear indication there is a problem . . . And to that end I speak out when I see false beliefs being bandied about carelessly.” What a trip! Most amusing! Atheists are funny and I thank you for the comic relief. Good work Jennifer Fulwiler.
Susan—just who is acting like a zealot here, and how so?
Can atheists argue passionately? Of course we can. The stuff we argue about matters, boiling down to issues of morality and social equity and the means of discerning truth. Please don’t mistake that for religious zeal; for one thing few of us are so hide-bound that a sufficiently decent argument won’t sway our opinions, even those we hold most dear, and we have no real uniform doctrines. You might say we’re philosophically more a herd of cats running in sort of the same direction than a monolithic philosophy.
Dark Star writes: “There is not a shred of physical evidence that Jesus existed.” Likewise there is probably no physical evidence that your great-great-great grandfather existed. But don’t let that stop you . . . demand “evidence” again! Laughing out loud!
Susan, many of us are not ‘attacking’ Jennifer’s writings. We’re simply pointing out that these teachings ‘that make sense to atheists’ do no such thing. How does that become an attack? If I wrote ‘5 Atheist doctrines that make sense to Catholics’ and started my first point with the assertion that there is no god, don’t you think that you, and many other Catholics, would feel justified in pointing out to me that this is not something that in fact makes sense to Catholics?
Neil writes: “We’re simply pointing out that these teachings ‘that make sense to atheists’ do no such thing. “ Let’s see, Jennifer Fulwiler establishes a hypothetical – “In the case where you’re chatting with a nonbeliever who is open to hearing your perspective and specifically asks for information about what you believe, how should you proceed?” Then she offers some parameters for the hypothetical – “. . . I thought I’d list out some Catholic beliefs that might be good places to start.” She even relays her methodology: “As I was not able to conduct a worldwide survey of every person who self-identifies as a nonbeliever, I am basing this on personal experience as well as conversations with atheists I know.” The response, for the folks who claim to be driven by reason, does not seem to engage the hypothetical but rants that as each of the five points cannot be universally applicable as they do not agree with that point. Duh! That’s precisely what Jennifer Fulwiler wrote . . .
SteveP - I’m perfectly willing to demand evidence proving any claim. From genetics we can clearly demonstrate that I had a great-great-great grandfather (or possibly 8) AND we could have a good chance of establishing the veracity of any claims about a specific individual being one of those persons. Your analogy fails.
There are also certainly events about which we simply do not have access to sufficient information to make definite claims.
If you were willing to remain silent on the question that would be fine, but Catholics almost universally demand that Jesus exists and that I should believe it and you are willing condemn millions of people to die because of that belief (e.g., in Africa over the issue of condoms). That demands better evidence than:
“There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth and died to give His work its final consecration never had any existence.” — Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965, Nobel Prize 1952), Ph.D, Christian theologian and Dean of Theological College of Saint Thomas at the University of Strasburg; The Quest of the Historical Jesus: First Complete Edition, trans. W. Montgomery, et al., ed. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001)
Great article. Sorry you are receiving criticism on this.
Don’t know whether the atheists we’re hearing from realize that the Catholic audience they’re reaching here (at the Nat’l Cath Reg) is as committed and hard core about their beliefs as they are. You’re not talking to the usual “I left the Church years ago without understanding a thing about it, but I’m still an expert on the topic” type of Catholic. So really, this whole discussion is quite pointless. Don’t think anybody’s going to “convert” either way here. Best to all, and by the way, I’m sure this will infuriate the atheists, but I prayed for you tonight at adoration! :-)
It’s all good “Friend”, I put in a good word with Satan for you in return.
Dark Star writes: “From genetics we can clearly demonstrate that I had a great-great-great grandfather . . .” No, actually, you cannot. You can only observe that you have genes. You cannot determine their origin. You can compare genomes and observe similarities and equalities but not have any evidence of an actual person. Scientific my foot!
SteveP—
....and we keep pointing out to you that under no circumstances, even a hypothetical atheist inquiring about your faith, do these five ideas make any kind of sense to someone that doesn’t share your faith. These teachings are nonsensical to unbelievers and remain so twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, even on alternate Thursdays under a full moon with the wind blowing from the west. Got it?
THERE ARE NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THESE TEACHINGS “MAKE SENSE” TO SOMEONE THAT DOESN’T ALREADY SHARE YOUR FAITH.
Oy.
“Though atheists typically see all belief in the supernatural as unreasonable, some doctrines, like the ones below, strike them as less crazy than others ...” This, SteveP, is what Jennifer wrote. And yes, she qualifies it, as she claims, on personal experiences and conversations with atheists. What I, and a lot of others are pointing out, reasonably, is that whatever the belief structure of her conversationalists, the basic premise for a whole swag of atheists is that these doctrines are not, and can not be reasonable. Dressing it up as ‘hypothetical’ as you’re doing does tend to undermine her assertion of the reasonableness of these ‘5 Catholic Teachings that Make Sense to Atheists’ (hardly ambiguous or hypothetical).
“I’m sure this will infuriate the atheists, but I prayed for you tonight at adoration!”
why on earth would anyone be infuriated by that?
pray all you want. in fact, please spend more time praying. that way at least we know you’re not actively making anything any worse in our society. i would much rather have a hardcore, dedicated believer spend their time praying than, for example, lobbying their representatives—- which latter could really mess things up for people who want nothing to do with your religion.
Horse-Pheathers: Jennifer Fulwiler has evidence to the contrary. Are you suggesting that she falsified her data?
for myself, i have no need to trash a cracker. it’s just a cracker,
to me, and trashing one is no different from trashing a graham cracker. but
if doing so can somehow serve to make some useful point, then i’ll gladly
do it—- it’s not as if trashing crackers does any harm, after all.
Um, how about you go destroy some Keebler crackers and see what kind of reaction you get all actin’ a fool with that. You missed my point. And so would Myers - he is a believer, deep down. Again, I say, no real atheist would desecrate the Host.
They would have no need. If this is the only life atheists think they get, then it seems like a complete and utter waste of time to tear others down. If I were atheist, I wouldn’t even waste time concerned with others.
Waiting for Myers conversion of heart…and there WILL be one.
Actually, there are Atheist ethics that I think would make sense to a lot of Catholics, at least as I understand the POV.
1. That one should treat all people fairly, not because of the threat of some perceived eternal punishment but because it is the right thing to do. Yes, I can agree with that.
2. That one should question things and arrive at their own answer. Yep, I can agree with that as well.
3. That while there is (may) not be an eternal heaven (or hell), the legacy one leaves is important. One should strive to be remembered for their achievements and their contributions to humanity (society). I could agree with this idea.
I can accept things that atheists have told me they believed without accepting their premise that there is no God. That said, the atheists I know don’t think it is that important to argue about the non-existence (in their view) of God.
“All that matters is being a good person” <<—this is a common phrase on PZ Myer’s website. Now, I ask you, *what* would be good about any of the vitriol that is spewed here and on his website by his followers?
Seems there is too much anger {which, is an emotion and contrary to atheistic intelligence}, finger pointing, not being a good person and intellectual dishonesty. Not to mention pride-filled people.
That kind of life can only take you so far. At some point, the weight of the hypocrisy has got to be CRUSHING.
Neil: Jennifer Fulwiler stated the hypothetical; do you have an alternative meaning for the phrase “in the case”? Another question: Horse-Pheathers wrote “. . . [atheists] have no real uniform doctrines . . .” How does that align with your contention “. . . the basic premise for a whole swag of atheists is that these doctrines are not, and can not [sic] be reasonable?”
“Again, I say, no real atheist would desecrate the Host.”
again, i ask, where do you get off thinking you get to define what a “real” atheist would or would not do?
if trashing a keebler cracker would help me bring across a useful, valid point or argument to someone, i’d do it in a heartbeat. Myers’ trashing a catholic cracker helped make the points that nothing should be sacred</i> and that <b>you lot seriously need to get a sense of perspective. it was a valuable exercise.
“Waiting for Myers conversion of heart…and there WILL be one.”
hold your breath, i’m sure that’ll make it happen sooner. oh, and post a video of yourself while you’re at it. ;-)
If not, then i guess that means Dark Star was born of a virgin mother and therefore doesn’t have a father or great-great-great grandfather to prove existence of, right? I mean, there’s no other possible explanation is there? Delivered by a stork, or dropped out of the clouds, maybe?
To SteveP: What? ‘In the case ... here’s 5 things they find less crazy’ (paraphrased) is hypothetical only in the first bit ‘Maybe you’ll be talking to a nonbeliever/atheist’ (we won’t get into whether or not these are actually synonyms), and Jennifer then makes an assertion: these things atheists find reasonable. It’s not that hard to work out! Atheist = don’t believe in god/s (i.e., reject belief in the existence of deities). That’s also easy-peasy to work out. I don’t mind that you’re hell-bent on defending Jennifer, so to speak, but given that many of us have done little more than point out that nope, for us (and I speak now only for myself), it’s not reasonable for me as an atheist to believe these things (impossible, in fact, if you do not accept the supernatural). A question for you: I do not believe in god or the supernatural (in any form). How then do I believe in purgatory?
“Again, I say, no real atheist would desecrate the Host.”
again, i ask, where do you get off thinking you get to define what a “real” atheist would or would not do?
if trashing a keebler cracker would help me bring across a useful, valid point or argument to someone, i’d do it in a heartbeat. Myers’ trashing a catholic cracker helped make the points that nothing should be sacred</i> and that <b>you lot seriously need to get a sense of perspective. it was a valuable exercise.
I’m sorry. I can’t have this conversation with someone who lacks the ability to understand both faith and reason. So, I won’t go round and round with it. I stand by my point. And to those of us who understand both faith and reason, know my point well.
And how do you know what my prior beliefs were? I don’t recall giving my backstory for you to pass judgment.
Martina—
Way to cling to your preconceptions despite the facts being against you.
Some of you and yours were trashing a kid’s life for not respecting your idea of what is sacred. Some of your Catholic brethren were literally howling for blood over a cracker. PZ’s host desecration was a direct response to that, an attempt to make a statement that _nothing_ should be held sacred enough to ruin someone’s life over. Read for yourself at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php
This is absolutely no different than the establishment of “Draw Mohammed Day” in the aftermath of the riots over the Danish cartoons. By your logic, those of us that take part are closet Muslims, because otherwise why would we bother if we weren’t? *snort*
You spout horse feathers and pig wing nonsense, ma’am, and apparently can’t accept anything relating to this matter that doesn’t agree with what already resides in your narrow, narrow mind.
Neil: If I understand you correctly you take umbrage that Jennifer Fulwiler made a group of all atheists. As you consider yourself part of that group but want to be addressed individually. Hence if she had written “Though [Neil] typically see all belief in the supernatural as unreasonable, some doctrines, like the ones below, strike [him] as less crazy than others . . .” to give you the opportunity to respond “Nope, I don’t find that less crazy!” Is that true?
This article is so ridiculous and the writer is just a total nincompoop.
I was raised Catholic, in Ireland, and none of this stuff seemed plausible in the least even when I was open to there being a god.
Now that I’m atheist I find it laughable.
I don’t think she was ever an atheist, just totally bewildered.
**Way to cling to your preconceptions despite the facts being against you.**
I have absolutely no idea of any facts you have presented. This ceased to be a fruitful conversation when you came to a Catholic website with the intention of tearing down Catholic belief. I’m sure you have *much* to be proud of.
Hi, Jennifer. Enjoyed the article, though, as an atheist, I don’t think the 5 reasons are true. Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading the introduction and summary, you seem very level headed and open minded (for example, referring to atheists as “nonbelievers” rather than something more inflammatory, or stipulating that the atheist has inquired about the religion rather than is being proselytized to).
Next to the recent shooting in Norway, your perspective creates a contrast that I honestly find refreshing and encouraging. It implies to me that we can all get along and be friendly and constructive, even if we don’t agree.
Horse-Pheathers: You mention “. . . trashing a kid’s life . . .” How is that measured?
SteveP—your reading comprehension failure knows no bounds.
There is no contradiction between “. . . [atheists] have no real uniform doctrines . . .: and “. . . the basic premise for a whole swag of atheists is that these doctrines [meaning the five teachings in the article] are not, and can not [sic] be reasonable?”
See that bit I bolded up there? That’s called “qualifying language”. It places limits on the text it is associated with, in this case “atheists”.
Try it this way: “A great many atheists hold the premise that these doctrines are not and can not be reasonable.” See how that does not in any way contradict my assertion that atheists have no real uniting doctrines? Overlapping ideas, sure, similar modes of thought, fine. But doctrines? No. The most that can be said for us in that regard is we debate amongst ourselves and some ideas gain more traction in the community than others. None of them is above question and debate and so none of them is “doctrine”.
I positively love the fact that, in response to an article containing “teachings that make sense to atheist” in the very title, an overwhelming number of atheists say, “no, that doesn’t make sense to me.”
And the response from the magical thinkers is, “this isn’t for you”.
The stupidity is staggering. An intellectually honest crowd would be thankful for a deluge of people correcting an incorrect assumption about how *they would respond* to teachings that were *explicitly for them*.
Religious thinking is always a thing to behold. One part hilarious, one part adorable, one part disheartening, and two parts frightening.
SteveP: if the discussion is going to collapse into a game of semantics then there is no point to it. I’m not taking ‘umbrage’ at Jennifer, merely making an observation about her stated assertion. If you answer my question it will help you finally understand just what is going on here, as you don’t seem to have grasped the underlying dilemma: If I don’t believe in the existence of deities/god/the supernatural, then how do I believe in purgatory (the second can’t exist without the first, and I’m hardly schizophrenic)?
**An intellectually honest crowd would be thankful for a deluge of people correcting an incorrect assumption about how *they would respond* to teachings that were *explicitly for them*. **
This is hilarious to me. Does it hurt when hypocrisy bites you?? I love the “intellectual honest” comments. This coming from folks who are so EMOTION filled that they have to flock from Myers website b/c there is quite literally nothing else for them to do that spew vitriol.
Keep it coming. You’re proving yourself to be who you really are. ::grabbing popcorn:: :)
BTW, I have a particular affection for atheists and agnostics. I LOVE it when they convert b/c it exemplifies the good that is already in their hearts.
Martina, what do your prior beliefs (prior to what, anyway?) have to do with anything? noone’s brought those into the discussion except yourself, just now. honestly, they’re not in the least relevant.
standing by your point is all well and good, but it’d be better if you tried to support your point. merely reiterating it does not make it any more credible, or true. nor do slurs against me; claiming (without support) that i don’t understand faith or reason neither makes that so, nor disproves my argument.
SteveP writes “Horse-Pheathers: You mention “. . . trashing a kid’s life . . .” How is that measured?”
Oh, I don’t know Steve. A write-in campaign to get him expelled from college? Myriad death threats to him and his family? Successfully getting him kicked out of student government? Turning what should have been a non-issue into a national circus? Excoriating him in the press for “hate crimes” and comparing what he did to, I kid you not, the Shoah?
Oh, wait….you’re being willfully obtuse and not debating in good faith, and so you’re a waste of my time. I’m done with you.
Martina,
So here’s a comment (a screaming one) from a ‘true christian’ about an article/slideshow (http://news.yahoo.com/photos/same-sex-couples-marry-in-new-york-1311528034-slideshow/) on the recent gay marriages in New york:
There are many more like that as well. So please don’t lecture us about anger and hypocrisy. You are painting all atheists with a broad stroke because it’s easier to demonize us that way, when you have plenty of deranged and violent people who use one or two bible verses to justify their hatred and prejudice on ‘your’ side that don’t speak for you (i hope they don’t at least). I do not automatically put you in the same category with these fools (and clearly there are compassionate christians who oppose such idiocy), so I would ask that you try and do the same with atheists.
Horse-Pheathers: How much is a whole swag? Does that group exclude or include those with whom Jennifer Fulwiler conversed?
noone’s brought those into the discussion except yourself, just now.
Um, you did. Go back and read. Good grief. How intellectually inconsistent of you. ;-)
An intellectually honest crowd would be thankful for a deluge of people correcting an incorrect assumption about how *they would respond* to teachings that were *explicitly for them*.
Aaaand an intellectually honest crowd would have read “(As I was not able to conduct a worldwide survey of every person who self-identifies as a nonbeliever, I am basing this on personal experience as well as conversations with atheists I know.)” and known that Jennifer was in no way asserting how atheists would respond 100% of the time. Unless you’re an atheist that Jennifer personally knows and she is misrepresenting your conversation, then I see nothing intellectually honest about her post or Catholic responses to it.
Neil: I do understand your dilemma and, if you note, the first point was from Fulwiler’s experience. She does provide a few snippets of context for her thoughts. You might ask her about the dilemma and how she resolved it.
Ah, bugger. Intellectually dishonest*. Need more coffee, I suppose. ;)
IVR, if it doesn’t apply to you, then I obviously wasn’t intending it towards you. The tone of the atheists comments here fit the bill and I was calling a spade a spade.
Again, if you don’t feel that describes who you are, then understand that it wasn’t directed at you. But, let me state that the majority of the posts here have NOT been as you describe.
I think it’s fair to make an observation based on a posting style of many.
BTW, I love atheists. There are those who spew vitriol, who I was addressing and there are those who don’t really care and wouldn’t bother posting here in the first place. I guess I’m not sure why atheists would bother posting on a Catholic site to begin with.
Horse-Pheathers: you may want to finish your homework and get some sleep – the school bus comes early in the morning.
“Um, you did. Go back and read.”
alright, i just did that. i could find no place where i ever brought your personal beliefs into this discussion. please feel free to point out where you have interpreted me as doing that.
SteveP, but that’s been the underlying question to the zillions of comments so far! (okay, slight exaggeration). If Jennifer, or you, or anyone here can tell me, please do: if I do not believe in the existence of god or deities or the supernatural, how do I believe (in any reasonable way) in purgatory?
That’s the problem with atheistic worldview, Ally. They can’t all agree on how to employ their disbelief. They’re actually a religion unto themselves, but without all the perks of bingo and community. :)
G’night all!
Seriously???? OK, here it is for you to SEE what you wrote.
“Again, I say, no real atheist would desecrate the Host.” <—what I wrote
again, i ask, where do you get off thinking you get to define what a “real” atheist would or would not do?
^^This. This implies you know my backstory. Seriously the end now. I’m OUT! It’s been real.
Martina writes: “I have absolutely no idea of any facts you have presented. This ceased to be a fruitful conversation when you came to a Catholic website with the intention of tearing down Catholic belief. I’m sure you have *much* to be proud of.”
*snort*
In other words “Go away and let me wallow in my echo chamber, and leave my bigotry comfortably unchallenged”. Gotcha.
How about you go back and read the thread, where I specifically stated why I came here, and the bit where I pointed you to PZ’s statement about the whole cracker business and explained where your assumptions about it were wrong. Maybe the bit where Sherry and I established some common ground and had a lovely, civil discussion. Throughout, I have been civil and respectful to those who were the same. Only toward the end of this whole kerfuffle have I even approached incivility, and then only with you and SteveP for continued close-mindedness and hostility.
Be proud of yourself. You had a chance to help build a bridge here, and instead you sneered and turned away. Jesus would be proud.
Good night.
Excellent article. As a reformed atheist, I can testify to the accuracy of your advice. All those things will make sense to *thoughtful* atheists. You can safely ignore the cultists and fools. They make their bread by distorting the word of God.
I have already used most of these arguments with my neighbors, and now they understand better the logic behind the Faith. It really is nice to see them in a concise list, and I’ll employ them that way from now on.
Thanks!
Martina: “I guess I’m not sure why atheists would bother posting on a Catholic site to begin with.” The blog entry is about proseltysing to atheists and you can’t work out why atheists would be interested in it? It would be like an atheist blog posting ‘Five Things to Say to Catholics to Convert Them’ and then being stunned that interested Catholics turned up to have a peek and a say. The atheist couldn’t really complain; conversely, neither should you (and it’s just possible that even an atheist might have something interesting to comment, perish the thought).
Neil: You will note, again, Fulwiler’s connection of Purgatory with judgment—a God who judges people to hell versus a God who loves with the utmost compassion. For her, the two aspects blended as she learned the Church’s understanding if Purgatory. You have said that is not a good place to for you to start. Perhaps your parenthetical statement – in any reasonable way – is the place to start. What is the reasonable way for you?
SteveP: please start again. Just to be very clear: I do not believe in a deity, or god, or the supernatural. Ipso Facto, how can I believe in a place, purgatory, that is entirely supernatural? Jennifer’s own paragraph is laced with the connection between the two and assumption of the existence of God. Steve, your very answer assumes God as the starting point. Now, without God/god/gods/any deity, please let me know how I am to believe in purgatory.
Interesting how so many of the Catholics whine “you atheists are being rude, coming here and showing how Jennifer’s 5 Catholic Teachings that Make Sense to Atheists™ don’t actually make sense to atheists.”
Most of us atheists don’t care what you believe. Your beliefs are as ludicrous as any other bunch of goddists’ beliefs are. What we do care about is how many of you try to impose your beliefs on the rest of us, even though we don’t share them. If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t marry a gay. But don’t insist that no gay should be allowed to marry the person they love.
So believe what you want. Just don’t insist the rest of us have to obey your beliefs.
Horse-Pheathers: Good night! I got a chuckle from your accusation that I’m not debating in good faith.
Jerome, you will have your turn as Jennifer had hers; However, don’t wait for it; God will touch your heart but it will be on His time that you will become a Catholic.
Neil: I understood that and after relaying my understanding of the article’s paragraph asked you for your parameters – without God is a parameter I understand that. I was asking about “any reasonable way,” what your definition of that would be remembering you laid an accusation of semantic game-playing upon me minutes ago.
SteveP: since you’re bidding goodnight I’ll assume that you can’t answer my question, which is at the heart of it all. I’ll take that as ‘Well, I can’t’. Enough said. Although, if Jennifer or anyone else here would like to tell me how I can, reasonably, believe in purgatory (a supernatural place) when I don’t believe in the supernatural, please do so. This, by the way, is not a snarky rejoinder. I am truly curious as to how the question can be answered without recourse to any deity, and which would then give some credibility to Jennifer’s assertions.
Sorry Steve, we crossed. Assuming “God” as the starting point for an atheist is folly, therefore you need to be able to tell me how to believe in purgatory without recourse to “God”. That’s not semantics, that’s the necessary correlation when the blog post is about things an atheist finds reasonable, and no one yet has mentioned how it’s possible!
Neil: Horse-Pheathers bid a good night and I responded. This is the third time I’ve asked: what does “in a reasonable way” mean to you?
Neil: What are your thoughts on “near death experience?” That is people describe beings, places, sounds, smells, even tastes which observers do not sense. What do you make of those?
Neil: I really do need to hit the hay. Thank you for a pleasant little interchange. Good night!
Steve, I haven’t had a near death experience so I’m not qualified to comment; it’s a diversion. And you should have been able to extrapolate what I am considering reasonable: no fall back on any god or deity or supernatural as the starting point of the belief in purgatory (and, after all, Jennifer is talking about atheists, so that’s entirely ‘reasonable’): the onus is on you to tell me how it is that I can find purgatory reasonable (or believe in it in any way at all, if that’s easier to unpack) when I do not believe in the supernatural.
I find the response of believers here telling. Looking over the comments you have atheists (the subject of the article) coming out in droves to say it is untrue, and not merely untrue but ridiculously so.
Then you have Christians lecturing them on how rude they are to dare to dispute the article, and how they just aren’t interpreting it in the proper context. The one thing they seem not the least bit concerned about it the fact that the overwhelming consensus among those who would actually know what atheists think is that the article is factually wrong. Apparently truth simply doesn’t matter to them.
Neil: not a diversion at all; NDE reports indicate sense data that is unique to that person but have some attributes in common with other NDE folks. There’s the set of data; what are the possible explanations?
Steve, I really don’t care about NDEs; they’re not the topic of Jennifer’s blog (and I suspect the same sub-set commonality would apply among those who report being abducted by UFOs!). Now, to the question please! Anyone?
I am 100% certain that I find all of the things you listed to be completely crazy as there is absolutely no evidence for them. To be honest, of all of the Christian practices out there, Catholicism ranks up there with the LDS fanfic, speaking in tongues and faith healing. All equally as ridiculous.
It would probably help if you did actual research rather than going off of anecdata.
The predominate hypothesis for NDE’s is that they are neural phenomena, like everything else we know about the brain, memory, thoughts, etc. It’s very difficult to get reliable NDE information because there are many sources of very bad data. In an effort to get something more solid some hospital rooms now have hidden codes that an NDEer could report on - that hasn’t happened of course. Once again, magic hides from science.
Do you have any real evidence for some non-neural phenomena occurring?
That humans have common experiences based on common brain structures, chemistry, etc is nothing unique, new, or terribly interesting. It’s really the expected result. For example, we have similar experiences when we take psychoactive drugs, this doesn’t indicate there is a non-physical “drug” world where such experiences have ontological existence that emerge when we take the drugs.
A much more interesting question is, how does consciousness arise. We don’t know yet but nothing we’ve found requires a non-physical “soul” realm where our “real self” exists and impinges on the brain. Very much the opposite, everything we’ve learned about the brain is that it is a vast array of complex processes where the complex tasks of thinking are broken down into very simple components where neurons react to thinks like vertical lines or horizontal lines, etc. fMRI has enabled a lot of advancement in this area - in another 50-100 years we will know a tremendous amount more.
Hi Jennifer,
As a former atheist myself, I have to agree that these particular Catholic teachings posed very little difficulty for me. I spent about three years in Protestant communities before becoming Catholic and it seems to me that all the resistance to these teachings that I could have faced was coming from a 500-year-old oral tradition.
1) I find it really interesting that so many atheists care enough about a Catholic blogger to go on a Catholic website and comment on an article of which they are not the intended audience.
2)I additionally find it interesting, and indeed amusing, that individuals here feel the need to bring up gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, etc into the conversation, as if it proves the Church wrong. Last I checked, the Church’s stance on these issues are more clearly and logically laid out than most Protestant denoms.
RE: Abortion—instead of using stupid relativistic measures for when a life is a life, the Church makes it cut and dry- Conception equals life. And just as you would not take a five year old, dismember them, stick a rod in the back of their neck to sever their spine, and suck out their brain, it’s logical to say that you ought not do that to a child in the womb.
RE: Stem cell research- SHOW me the evidence that embryonic stem cells are being used to cure disease. Adult stem cells are, and so are cord blood cells. But no success has been met with ESCs. It stands to reason that, when faced with a controversial option that has proven less successful than more benign options, that the use of the benign option is the most practical.
RE: Gay marriage. Purpose of marriage= capacity and/or intention to reproduce and perpetuate a species within the context of a stable, committed relationship. Or at least the purpose outside a religious context. It’s NOT about love, though that can be part of it. Gay couples cannot reproduce on their own (as a couple), even hypothetically. Hence, they should not marry.
I just figured I would point those things out. Wonder how many fires that will light up. I assume tolerant intellectual arguments will ensue that entail calling me a bigot and anti-woman (more funny, as I’m a woman)
All I can say after reading the above article and comments is this: “For those who have faith, no explanation is necessary. For those without, no explanation is possible.” ~St Thomas Aquinas
KarenM: as pointed out before, given that the blog was about ways to talk to atheists, you can’t seriously be surprised that atheists are interested. As James remarked, the question is about the factual accuracy of Jennifer’s assertions, since that was questioned by lots of atheists, without anyone so far being able to tell us how to believe in the supernatural (purgatory, salvation) without believing in the supernatural (existence of a deity / god/s / God). There wasn’t much more to it than that, and all your other truth claims about gay marriage, stem cells and whatnot don’t change that one little bit. Perhaps, in all tolerance and desire to understand, YOU might possibly tell me, an atheist, how to believe in something like purgatory when I don’t believe in the supernatural (and this, after all, is what the post was all about).
KarenM wrote: RE: Stem cell research- SHOW me the evidence that embryonic stem cells are being used to cure disease
So, let me get this straight - you want to outlaw all human ES research and THEN you have the audacity to ask for evidence it could be useful to cure disease?
Absolutely brilliant approach to science.
http://tj-tutoring.co.uk/Documents/Embryonic stem cells.pdf
The potential use of human ES cells to create cell
populations, tissues or organs for implantation stands
to revolutionize medicine by providing unlimited
material to order that is, through the use of therapeutic
nuclear transfer or other methods, totally compatible
with the patient’s own tissues. In addition, the cells
may be used as an in vitro system for not only study of
the differentiation of speci?c cell types, but also evaluation of the effects of new drugs and the identi?cation
of genes as potential therapeutic targets. However, it is
early days and many hurdles have to be cleared before
the research reaches a point where clinical trials can
begin.
Transplanted embryonic stem cells survive, differentiate and
promote recovery in injured rat spinal cord
http://ntp.neuroscience.wisc.edu/neuro670/reqreading/transplanted.pdf
etc, there are HUNDREDS of studies. There is no doubt amoung scientists in the field that we would be YEARS ahead if this research had not suffered the Copernicus Curse.
KarenM also wrote: Gay couples cannot reproduce on their own (as a couple), even hypothetically. Hence, they should not marry.
I love ad hoc justifications…
Don’t you already believe in parthenogenesis, where a woman had a child with NO father. So I guess you don’t object to lesbians getting married right? Because they COULD IN THEORY have a child—and such children are magically special right? Son of God and all that.
Are you opposed to marriage if a woman has had a full hysterectomy? Or if the couple cannot have children for a myriad other reasons?
If not, then you are a hypocrite.
And you are wrong, gay couples CAN HYPOTHETICALLY have genetic offspring in the future - it has already been done with Mice. Oh wait, I bet you will oppose that also won’t you?
Mice Are Created From Two Males
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704447604576008031376020012.html
Whoops!
Abortion -
Exodus 21:17 “He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
SO: cursing father or mother = punishable by death
Exodus 21:22
If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.
SO: Causing a women to lose a fetus = pay a fine
So I don’t find much biblical support for your assertions. So I’m wondering where you get them from. Oh right, you make them up as you go along.
It might actually surprise you to find that I’m AGAINST abortion - but I’m adult enough and well-educated enough in History and human behavior to know that making abortions illegal is about the stupidest thing you can do if you actually want to minimize them. These ignorant, religious-based laws and strictures make the situation worse. You want to reduce abortions? EMPOWER women. EDUCATE women. Give them rights over their own body. Otherwise you’ll have MORE abortions than you do now AND you will cause massive additional suffering.
“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion” Sir Francis Bacon
@Rocio:
You say: “I’m sorry I just can’t see the logic of your comment, nor the point. If you say the catholic doctrines or theories as you call them, that apparently you studied more in deep made you sick, I’m concluding… that you like to feel sick, right? Otherwise I don’t see the point hanging out here?”
There is no more point to my hanging here then there is in someone cheated to keep ruminating the fact that he was cheated. But even if there is no point to it, it is in human nature to do so, and it takes time to stop it. That is also one of those ways catholicism negatively influenced my life. Jennifer’s blog (the private one) was suggested to me to read while I was still reading/thinking it out. And while she really writes nicely, and has a fine talent to convey the message in simple and understandable words, it makes one angry/frustrated to reed all over again the same old stories that he now knows have problems to them which one discovered the hard way. This is not the first time she mentions this to which I reacted. Also, another fine example is a post about ‘grace point’ (if I remember correctly how she called it) on her private blog which is outright heresy. She states that first you do something yourself, and than you reach ‘grace point’, which would be the moment when God steps in with his grace and helps you. That is a heresy called ‘pelagianism’ (in the best case ‘semi-pelagianism’) which was condemned by many church councils (see for example conclusions of second council of Orange). And it would be the least problem if it was only her, but the similar stories can be read in many places. Though, it is true that there is not much point in reacting, that is how it always was and that is how it will always be. It is just that sometimes one feels compelled to react again and to point to some not so known and preached teachings of the church.
This article made me laugh. and im catholic. or was.
A well known Catholic apologist commented that they would rather engage in debate with a convicted atheist as opposed to an apathetic agnostic. That preference appears to be well borne out here. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many comments on a National Catholic Register piece before, especially one as light-hearted and well intentioned as Jennifer’s.
That being said, my baseline comment is this: From Jennifer’s perspective, I can understand why she would write a piece that might possibly resonate with some non-believers (notwithstanding the fact that it was clearly addressed to a Catholic audience). As Catholics, and moreover as Christians, we are called to be faithful witnesses and to try and lead others to the faith. That part I get. But what I don’t understand is why a convicted atheist would even take the time to read this article in the first place, let alone spend the time to comment on it. It seems to fly in the face of their firmly held belief that God doesn’t exist. Or is that only a temporary belief, to be suspended if they are presented with satisfactory evidence to the contrary? And what would that evidence be? Would it have to be a 100% scientific proof? Would it have to come from someone they know personally and hold in high regard? Would they have to see it with their own eyes? To quote a very good priest in Washington, DC, “Seeing isn’t believing, seeing is only seeing ... Cumulative evidence can bring us to accept God’s existence as a reasonable proposition, but only FAITH can really lead us to believe all that God has said.” Let us pray that our faith be strengthened so that we can better see God in our lives and indeed make him visible to those who “... have eyes to see but do not see, and ears to hear but do not hear.”
An atheist scientist and his wife were driving in the country-side one afternoon, when they came upon some sheep grazing on a nearby hill-side. The wife said, “Oh, look, honey, those sheep have just been shorn!”
The atheist scientist looked over and replied, “On this side.”
Why are so many people, who are confident in their belief of non-belief, on a Catholic website, criticizing an article written for Catholics to relate to their atheist friends/family/ect.? Who are they trying to convince? Why all the interest in religion from the Atheists? There are plenty of Atheist websites to read.
A very belated welcome to the Church Jennifer. I have helped convert many people in my years as an apologist, some of them atheists. It is nice to have your input. God Bless you.
“Why are so many people, who are confident in their belief of non-belief, on a Catholic website, criticizing an article written for Catholics to relate to their atheist friends/family/ect.? Who are they trying to convince? Why all the interest in religion from the Atheists? There are plenty of Atheist websites to read.”
Jenna,
I can assure you that any Catholic trying out those teachings on an atheist is going to be laughed at. So think of atheists being here as a public service. We care, so we are trying to stop you making fools of yourself.
Given how rude, and downright dishonest, some of you have been, I am not sure why though.
Not very grateful are you Jenna ? Not really a good advert for your faith either. Still, I am beginning to suspect Fulwiler is actually trying to discredit the Catholic Church from the inside in a rather devious manner. If she, I can tell you, it is working.
“Why all the interest in religion from the Atheists?”
Uh, why all the interest in atheists from the god-botherers?
@KarenM
“1) I find it really interesting that so many atheists care enough about a Catholic blogger to go on a Catholic website and comment on an article of which they are not the intended audience.”
If a known evangelical blogger, who says she used to be Catholic, wrote a post about how to talk to them with topics that they would not find compelling and a little insulting, would you be surprised if some Catholics would comment?
“2)I additionally find it interesting, and indeed amusing, that individuals here feel the need to bring up gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, etc into the conversation, as if it proves the Church wrong. Last I checked, the Church’s stance on these issues are more clearly and logically laid out than most Protestant denoms.”
I can’t speak for everyone, but I gave a list of subjects that I would be interested to engage a Catholic in. I’m not interested in your personal beliefs, but I am interested where religions try to enforce their doctrinal beliefs on others.
@ Jenna
The number of atheists commenting here is easy to explain. This article talks about atheists, and how to communicate with them. That led to this article being mentioned in atheist blogs. Those same blogs you think we should be reading instead. I don’t think I should limit myself to reading only from the people I agree with. There is much to learn from those who disagree with me.
—
Now, please don’t misunderstand our intentions (or at least mine). I surely welcome any article that helps believers and non believers communicate in a positive way. Precisely because I like free and positive communication, I think it is worth pointing out how those five points would fail to reach me or any other atheist I know. My point in my previous post was that none of the supernatural elements of Catholic doctrine carry any weight to any atheist I know of, including myself. Any supernatural statement such as purgatory or salvation, will crash against a demand for evidence, and will not reach further.
—
If we want to communicate in a positive way, my experience tells me it is much better to leave the surface aside and get to the source of our feelings on the matter, and make sure we don’t attack or dismiss a person’s feelings. Who cares whether someone believes Mary should be venerated or not, or if Non-Christians are considered by Christians to be redeemable? It matters the same as discussing if you should pray facing Mecca… It is not the core of the issue. It is not the reason why people embrace faith. People believe for emotional reasons, and it is those emotions that deserve respect, not the shape of the belief itself.
—
In my experience as an atheist surrounded by believers, the first thing one has to do is listen, and make sure the other person (in my case, the believer) feels you are listening. We can communicate once we get past the false assumption that the other person is hostile. I am not hostile to believers, like I would not be hostile to anyone else I disagree with on any other matter.
—
When I talk to believers I try to make it clear I understand how their beliefs make them feel better and help them be a better person. I oppose few Christian moral principles or ideals. I may not believe the story behind them is real, but that does not devalue the teachings people may derive from it, nor does it devalue the people who follow those teachings. All people are valuable for who they are, not for what they believe or don’t believe.
—
Thus, I think I have a valid contribution to make, when commenting on this article. Essentially, that those five points don’t actually have much weight for any rational atheist, while there are other concepts that can be much more helpful to establish a positive communication. By making those points I think I can help believers and non believers communicate better, which is the purpose of this article.
—
My intention is not to attack, offend or demean believers of any faith. My intention is to clarify some misconceptions for communication to work both ways.
—
Why all the interest in religion? Because religion is immensely influential and shapes many people’s behavior. Since religion tends to be hostile towards atheists, that reflects on many people’s open hostility towards us. Such hostility should not exist, yet it does and we have no choice but to take a deeper interest in its cause.
—
You may as well ask why the American black population has always had so much interest in racism (another topic I am forced to be familiar with). The answer would be the same.
—
As a final point, to the author of this article. Thank you for the effort and thank you for trying to reach out to those who disagree with you. I hope you keep trying to bridge the gap of hostility and fear that still exists between different beliefs. I also hope we can all contribute to build those bridges until communication is no longer an attempt to impose our opinion, and becomes instead an attempt to understand each other.
The puzzling thing is, I can see that Jennifer’s list if talking points might make sense as a list of gambits to convert a Protestant to Catholicism, or perhaps ensure that a non-Christian hesitating on the edge of declaring themselves Christian plumps for the RCC over rival businesses: they all either attack weaknesses of Protestantism - such as the thousands of competing sects with rival interpretations of the Bible - or defend points on which Protestants have attacked Catholics, such as the adoration of Mary. To atheists - by which I mean people who don’t believe in God or even (like “I was a “practical atheist” in that, although I “thought” I believed in God, my behavior was otherwise.” Sherry) think they believe in God (how utterly bizarre to call someone who would say if asked that they believe in God an atheist, BTW) - they are simply daft.
Kind of a fun discussion. One thing stood out for me (from Sherry, 5:11pm yesterday):
“For many years, I was a “practical atheist” in that, although I “thought” I believed in God, my behavior was otherwise. I was very angry at “the Church” and what I perceived to be its teachings. But that nagging and eternal “why” would not go away. Now, however, like this past Sunday’s Gospel, I know I have found the “Pearl of Great Price”.”
Ah, the Catholic Encyclopedia’s (if I remember correctly) “practical atheism”. In other words you do believe in God but act as if you don’t. And believers wonder why us atheists get annoyed about misrepresentation sometimes? Shove other believers who don’t act well into the “atheist” camp because they are obviously not a true believer. Hint: Google “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I’m not angry about the original article either. Vaguely amused is as far as it goes.
Another thing to clarify is that like many atheists, I don’t believe in deities but I’m not claiming absolute knowledge. I can only make statements of near certainty when presented with a definition as such. In that respect I call myself Ignostic - god claims are meaningless until defined.
However, practically (ahem), this is all by-the-by. Whether a god or gods exists isn’t the issue, believers *do* exist and they affect the world that I (and we) live in. That’s why we engage believers. This is why we cannot separate the actions of the RCC with the beliefs. It’s an all-in-1 package, a strictly heirarchical *human* organisation on top of any of the supernatural stuff. Even assuming we can be convinced of the Christian God, can you convince us that we should join this organisation? Really? Putting my not-angry-atheist hat aside I am most definitely angry at a lot of the nonsense that the RCC corporate gets up to. As someone who went on the London protest against the pope last year, there was a lot of good humour even amongst those who had been directly wronged by the RCC as an entity. But there was anger too. Justifiable anger.
Final note, to those people who wonder why we’re here: Hey, the post mentions 5 arguments that are purported to make sense to atheists. They don’t. Well, not unless you do a lot of “for argument’s sake” thinking and the problem with this is that the arguments that you have to accept are far more fundamental then these 5 relatively minor points. We’re providing an argument vetting service free of charge. Don’t try it, folks! ;-)
Jennifer, you really know how to kick a hornet’s nest. I think it is wonderful that you have brought so many non-believers to this catholic forum. It’s great to have this discussion. And, of course, your points all made sense to me, a believer. But, the stumbling block that I have found in my discussions with non-believers seems to be pride and a notion that humility is not a virtue. Also, many atheists do not understand that we have to make an intellectual choice to believe in the supernatural. We choose to believe in the unseen. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Some atheists practice faith in science and they don’t see how much they are willing to suspend disbelief to accept some of the proposed scientific theories. The practice of science without humility can be very dangerous. That is all, just the ramblings of a would be atheist, if not for the grace of God.
Ok Atheists…here’s on for you. Prove to me that God DOESN’T exist!
Don’t use the “well, if God existed then there would be no evil in the world” argument. Newton’s 3rd law states “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.So, for every evil action in the world, there must be a good (re)action somewhere. That’s where God comes in.
If you say that there is evil in the world, then you acknowledge Satan, who is a supernatural being (albeit an evil one). And if you believe in evil, then you must believe in good. And since God is Satan’s natural opposite, and you’ve said that Satan exists, therefore God must also exist.
My surprise at the atheist presence here is that they traversed a Catholic website. Simply stating that the atheists are deciding to show up and post BECAUSE the article mentions/refers to atheists is not a reason to explain why atheists care to go on a Catholic website to begin with. So, if asking if I would be surprised that Catholics would comment on an Evangelical blogger commenting on Catholicism on an Evangelical site, the answer is YES. I would still find it strange to go on a website dedicated to a faith you don’t believe in and traverse the site’s blogs, clearly meant for social speech and not for learning about that group.
As far as the hot-button issues I brought up that folks responded to:
There are more detailed points to the issues that I simply do not have time to dive into, especially for an internet blog comment box responding to atheists. I will say that the concept that there is no biblical support for something and therefore it isn’t reasonable is backward logic for an atheist to use who doesn’t believe in the bible’s authenticity or sacredness. My attempt at explaining these issues was taken at a pure logic standpoint and not biblical. There are biblical backings as well to that, but I didn’t see a point in quoting scripture to those who would simply not care about, what is to them, a mere book’s opinion.
I will touch on the abortion comment mentioned before where the individual was against abortion themselves but felt legalization was the only way to reduce them:
If you look at statistical data on abortions since Roe v Wade, and compare it to the increased access to birth control, social welfare programs and resources, you won’t find the abortion rate decreasing. You’ll see that it has, in fact, increased tremendously. And no small wonder. If you are feeling “liberated” by sex with individuals you have no interest in reproducing with, and are not in a personal situation to feel able to handle a pregnancy resulting from your sexual choices, you’re going to be more inclined to abort than if you simply never.had.sex. All that aside—last I checked outlawing murder, theft, rape, etc did not lead to increases in those crimes; they always lead to decreases. So the argument that legalization is necessary to reduce the abortion rate is not sensible.
Not again!
Please go back and read the previous comments. Then maybe you might not be so rude. It is not on to ask questions that have already been answered.
However, I refer to you the concepts in philosophy such as the burden of proof and the null hypothesis. Essentially the burden is on the person making an affirmative claim (in this case that god exists) to provide evidence to that effect. This is how logic works, and it is how if you want to be treated like an intelligent adult you are expected to use it. This is not advanced stuff. This is stuff you should know, and not to do so is a failing on your part.
Now can you explain just why you decided to be quite so rude ? Simple ignorance of behavioural norms ? A belief that your god allows you to be ?
From reading a good part of this thread (and sorry for the language in advance), atheists seem like a bunch of self-absorbed, hyper-logical assholes. I know it’s not true in all cases, because I count some reasonable ones among my friends, but Jen’s points are quite clear.
As with most things, Chesterton quotes are usually the best answer:
“Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason… I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.”
“The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do.”
“The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist’s world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane.”
“Materialists and madmen never have doubts.”
============
Since logic and science cannot even explain or prove the existence of such elementary human concepts as love, honor, etc. which we know do exist, why should one even consider for a minute the premise that everything should be able to be proved in a scientific sense?
Exactly how do you wish God (who is outside the universe and time itself) to submit Himself to scientific experimentation? Your very existence, your mind-blowing complexity, the fact that all physical parameters of the universe seem fine-tuned to support life are not enough?
The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the incorrupt bodies of saints, the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc. is not enough? (I do have to admit it is high entertainment to watch/listen to atheists try to explain these and other similar miracles away.)
Stuart Chase wes right, at least in the second half of his statement, “for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.” For me, at least, I’ve never had enough faith to be an atheist.
On the other hand, there may be some intellectually honest atheists out there, so for them, I offer the following book - “New Proofs for the Existence of God” by Robert Spitzer.
Peace to all.
@ Daughter of Mary
Before anyone else answers you, I think I should warn you… We have encountered that argument a thousand times already. I am sorry to say it is a very poor one.
I could point out that proving a negative is impossible by any system of logic, or talk about the concept of Burden of Proof… but I think it would miss the point. The mere fact that you believe that to be a valid argument tells me you are not familiar with those concepts.
Thus, my answer is simple. I will be glad to disprove God to you (I assume you mean the Christian God), but first we must narrow the task down. So I will do that once you have disproved the existence of Zeus, Horus, Allah, Ahura Mazda, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Xenu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the other thousands of Gods in human belief except for yours. If you can disprove those, and none of the arguments you use can be used to disprove the Christian God as well, I will accept your point and give serious consideration to believing.
—
As you can imagine, I don’t really mean to ask you to truly disprove all that. I just want to point out that disproving any god is a pointless task. You did not feel the need to disprove all those other gods to believe in yours, and neither do I need to disprove that last god to believe in none.
—
There simply is no reason for me to believe in any of them until there is evidence of one. With this, I am simply stating how I think, not how you should think. Whatever reason you have to believe, I assume it is perfectly good and valid for you. I simply have no such reason to believe in any of the thousands of gods we have heard about.
“However, I refer to you the concepts in philosophy such as the burden of proof and the null hypothesis. Essentially the burden is on the person making an affirmative claim (in this case that god exists) to provide evidence to that effect.”
While your at it, will you please tell the global warming industry to apply the same standard that you require of us believers who have no interest in proving the existence of God? Let us know when they develop the proper instruments to measure the earth’s temperature eleventy billion years ago. I am not willing to suspend my disbelief and completely alter my life based on a theory of global warming.
Please remember that you are reading internet text and the only “tone of voice” is the one in your head.
Rude: definiton- lacking refinement or delicacy.
I’d gather it’s more unrefined and indelicate to hop onto a Catholic site to challenge Catholic beliefs than it is to defend them on the same site. Sort of like coming over someone’s house and telling them their home is ugly.
Just sayin’.
So why did you ask the question ? You knew it had already been asked and already been answered. In fact asked and answered more than once.
You are also presumably an adult, and thus can reasonably be expected to have learnt about basic concepts such as the burden of proof and the null hypothesis.
Given these facts, that the question has already been asked and answered, and that you already know the answer anyway, just how are we expected to take the fact you went and asked it anyway ? It clearly cannot have been a genuine enquiry, so why ? I really would like to know. What makes someone act so rudely ? And now, what makes you feel you do not even have to apologise ? This is basic manners.
Another example of a believer being insufferably rude.
I suggest you read the scientific evidence. Oh, and as for how we know historic temperatures there are a number of methods. Two key ones are ice cores and coral growth rings. But then you know this.
I can state for a fact right now, that NONE of these makes sense to any atheist I know, including myself. I showed this to my wife, a catholic, who doesn’t understand why anyone would claim these would make sense to an atheist, becuase they don’t even make sense to *her*.
1.) Purgatory - What? Catholicism is based on belief, not works. Sure, a few people can be jerks and end up in heaven eventually, but not atheist could, no matter how good of a person he/she was. That’s not fair or merciful.
2.) Communion of Saints - We’re not wired to believe that. We’re wired to want an answer above no answer. You have to kick yourself and realize that “I don’t know” is an okay answer even to the question “Is there an afterlife?” Accepting this should make no sense to any rational, skeptical person.
3.) Veneration of Mary - This makes no sense to atheists because to understand it you have to have the a priori assumption that a deity exists who chose his own mother and was born. My reaction is “Prove God exists first.”
4.) Salvation for non-Catholics and non-Christians - So because I happen to be born into a Catholic family and then through critical thinking and rationality became an atheist, I’m doomed to hell, while people that have never heard get to go to heaven based on works? Why the hell are you spreading the word of God then? Just let the religion die out so no one knows about Christianity, and then all good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell, and there’s no injustice because you happen to be born into the wrong family or because you don’t see the rationality in doctrines like this one.
5.) Apastolic Authority - Sorry, it’s just one book. Anyone has equal claims and authority to interpret it as they wish. Claiming one group has the authority above another based on a claim you can’t substantiate with evidence is about as useful as saying that I hold the authority to interpret it and everyone should believe what I say about it.
Why you would think these make sense to any atheist is beyond my capability of understand. I guess I simple can’t be that irrational.
Most egregious misuse of physics principles award goes to Daughter of Mary with this:
Newton’s 3rd law states “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.So, for every evil action in the world, there must be a good (re)action somewhere.
First, it assumes that morality is a conserved quantity. There’s a lot of work to be done to try and verify this; and I bet your results wouldn’t match your hypothesis. Second, “action” has a defined meaning, which is force on an object. It is not applicable to good or bad actions of an individual. Third, it’s a weird premise that god would have to oversee all this. If god has set up this proposed scheme, that would lead to a weird decision making process on the deity’s part:
“Ok, so a True Believer just won the lottery and decided to donate the winnings to charity. That raises the global good above global evil. Ok, so that means that this True Beliver will be taking a bullet for no good reason. Job done.”
These things happen randomly, of course. But if this is how god operates, pity the poor sap whose death warrant was signed by the lottery winner.
Matt—you can’t possibly expect reasonable people coming later into the conversation to read the eleventy billion comments that have appeared on this blog. Perhaps you have that kind of time to kill, but most people do not. To be offended someone repeated an argument that might have been previously stated is pretty ridiculous.
@ Shiela
—
Leaving theological debate aside, you have mentioned a quite interesting point.
—
I am no global warming preacher, and in fact I think there is still much to be researched on that topic, but you have asked how the temperature of the Earth can be determined millions of years later. The method is actually not very difficult.
—
Certain chemical reactions reach a different equilibrium depending on the temperature at which they take place. By analyzing minerals and specially air bubbles that formed millions of years ago (digging on either rock or a deep glacier), you can determine the temperature at which those chemical reactions took place, millions of years ago. The method is not as accurate as a thermometer, but it gives a good estimate of the range of temperatures for the Earth at that time. That is the “instrument” with which that information is gathered.
—
There is still much to be said about whether global warming is human caused or even if it is happening or will happen, but your question was nevertheless interesting, and easy to answer.
—
I love geology, among other branches of science. It is simply fascinating.
I suggest you read the scientific evidence. Oh, and as for how we know historic temperatures there are a number of methods. Two key ones are ice cores and coral growth rings. But then you know this.
Thanks for the suggestion, Matt. I have done just that. I just wanted to make sure we were playing on a level field when requiring evidence before making the leap to believe.
I went ahead and linked you up to the original presentation that got the whole global warming ball rolling, rather than read the reader’s digest version that makes it to mainstream that leaves out all of the qualifying language that the scientist uses (that basically says no we cannot refute the null hypothesis.) I remain a skeptic and I am not ready to support global economic policy changes. But I respect your right to believe in the absence of evidence.
Some quotes I pulled from my research that give me pause:
“moderately high confidence”
“so far we can’t find anything else that is (sufficient to explain what happened)”
“We don’t have sort of pound on the table this is it were done. But the best explanation is that this ‘CO2 thermostat’ is what has kept us with life and liquid water for 4 billion years.”
“Data is pretty good” (Would rather hear that data is rock solid)
“We don’t have really good paleo CO2 barometers this old but it sure looks like what is going on.” (That’s a big but!)
“There’s a huge complexity but the knee jerk response which may be accurate is that they (oceanic soils) lose their CO2 because they are getting more like other soils that have less CO2.” (Another big but)
“So there is a lot of reasons why you have a suspicion as you go from decade to centuries to a small number of millenia the sensitivity to CO2 that we put up actually goes up so that rather than 3 degrees warming, from us doubling CO2, it might be more than that.” Changing global economic policy based on a suspicion of what MIGHT be happening?
Watch the whole thing here. It really is very informative but being used by policy makers to drive global economic policies: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
@Duke, we cross posted. Thanks for the info, I am a bit of science geek, myself.
Well true, they do not have to read all the comments, but then they should refrain from commenting. Still, there are not that many comments here so your point is moot.
Also, even if we allow Daughter did not need to read all the comments, she still knew the answer to her question anyway. It is simply basic stuff any reasonably well educated person knows.
Now tell me, why has no Catholic commentator taken Daughter or Sheila to task for their profound scientific ignorance ? Daughter trying to use Newton’s Third Law and Shelia thinking that because she does not know how scientists can measure historic temperatures then they cannot ? Pretty bad, would you not agree ? Not honest, and not acceptable if you want to be taken seriously.
Why have you not taken people to task for not understanding the burden of proof or the null hypothesis ? You do that Daughter et al are making Catholics and Catholicism look foolish and dishonest I hope ? So why let them do it unchallenged ?
@Matt. Please, do not take my word for it. No, no, no, lol. I am just a behavioral scientist. Take the word from the real scientist that I posted above. He is the one that said they don’t have the proper paleo CO2 barometers to do the job.
KarenM wrote: My surprise at the atheist presence here is that they traversed a Catholic website
New to the internet are ya? We monitor blogs and websites via RSS feeds, google searches, and we also blog and share information with others. That’s just how the online community works. When you post something on the PUBLIC internet, people are going to see it. This is not your isolated world of self-congratulatory believers - it’s the grown-up world where ideas have to prove their metal.
And believe it or not we actually care DEEPLY about what is true - that’s WHY we are skeptics / non-believers / atheists and that’s WHY we are bothering to post here.
@Sheila
“While your at it, will you please tell the global warming industry to apply the same standard that you require of us believers who have no interest in proving the existence of God?”
There’s no need. They already do. It’s called the scientific method and it is evidence-based. You gave examples, even. I think you meant to say, “will you please tell the scientific community to change their consensus to more closely align with my biases?” And the answer, of course, is no.
So you want me to believe you, someone I do not know, when you claim to be truthfully telling us what some unnamed person, whom you claim to be scientist, has said ?
Me, I prefer to go with the peer-reviewed literature. But then I am funny like that, needing evidence and stuff.
“It’s called the scientific method and it is evidence-based.”
I apologize. I seem to have struck a nerve.
“I think you meant to say, “will you please tell the scientific community to change their consensus to more closely align with my biases?””
No, you misunderstand me, @Val. I just don’t want to see policies changed that affect my life when the scientists themselves admit that they cannot refute the null hypothesis. Are you all pleased that politicians are taking research that is not complete and using it to control people? And, really, I don’t want there to be a “consensus” in the scientific community, as you mention. All scientists should unanimously agree based on facts, observable and repeatable instances, not theories.
Did my link not work? His name is Richard Alley and he was presenting his research to a room crammed with his peers. The talk was “The biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
Shiela,
The fact is there is scientific consensus over the validity of AGW. The science has been done, and it tells us humans are affecting the climate.
Now it is quite clear you do not like that consensus, but it also clear that your rejection is not on scientific grounds but on the fact that you might be inconvenienced by measures put in place to combat the climate change.
Essentially you are being selfish.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Try this link.
Sheila,
That looks like a video, not a link to scientific paper. Can you correct that please.
@Matt, I respect your right to believe in the absence of evidence. You do not have to defend it or call me foolish because I need more evidence. We simply disagree.
Matt, it is his presentation of research. I do not have the original paper. I could only find reader’s digest commentaries who try to make more out of it than it is. I prefer to get it right from the source and this is as close as I could get.
No Sheila, we do not simply disagree.
The evidence for AGW is overwhelming. The evidence all points to human activity having a significant impact on climate.
Rejecting that scientific consensus is not simply disagreement, and it is dishonest of you to pretend it is.
I have every right to call you foolish since you are being foolish.
To pretend this is a simple disagreement would be to accept you have a valid argument that cannot be easily dismissed. That is not the case.
Now it would be nice if you just admitted as much and apologised, but I get the feeling you ain’t good at integrity.
“I just don’t want to see policies changed that affect my life when the scientists themselves admit that they cannot refute the null hypothesis.”
Like I said, you are biased. You start from a framework of “this theory negatively impacts me” and then you work from there. There are billions of things we do because we accept the imperfection of science. Ever been to a doctor?
“Are you all pleased that politicians are taking research that is not complete and using it to control people?”
I wouldn’t phrase it that way because my biases are different, but yes, I am pleased when politicians use science as the basis for policy, which means I obviously don’t have the occasion to be pleased very often.
“And, really, I don’t want there to be a “consensus” in the scientific community, as you mention.”
Yes you do. If there were no consensus, then going to the doctor would be a crapshoot… you’d never know if the doctor was going to give you Tylenol or leeches. Scientific consensus is unarguably good for your health.
“All scientists should unanimously agree based on facts, observable and repeatable instances, not theories.”
Theories ARE based on facts as well as observable and repeatable instances. Based on your logic, we should just ignore the potential for climate change altogether because we can’t recreate a multi-millenia field study.
It’s strange to me that a behavioral scientist would be so theory-adverse, btw. Given your extreme attraction to physical proof, I’m surprised you settled on a field that is 100% theories.
Matt-I don’t challenge people who have valid points. Global warming IS theoretical. Years ago, they thought all the measurements taken indicated global cooling. Minds have changed. Additionally, there IS a certain basis of rationale that has to be assumed when relying on geological evidence to support temperature readings. It is flawed.
Additionally, proving God’s existence is more easily done that proving God’s nonexistence, though admittedly the former is not easy if you’re looking for only sheer scientific evidence. True, there will never be some temperature gauge, electrical readings, etc to prove that there is a God present among us. However, it is less logical to assume that roughly four billion people worldwide who believe there IS a God are wrong (and it’s very possible I am underestimating the number) than it is to at least admit that there is likely some sort of higher power. Typically the entire world doesn’t fall for a fallacy.
Dark Star- My point is not to wonder HOW you got here, but why. why care? why do you care what a Catholic thinks on a Catholic blog on a Catholic website? I’m not stating you’re not allowed or that there’s some supersecret stuff going on, simply that I do not understand why you’d care to read this.
All good points, @Val. I do find my field very frustrating. Oy, the leaps that have been made based on Freud alone. Much of it is hooey. The research is laughable at times. I see myself as a kind of watchdog.
“Based on your logic, we should just ignore the potential for climate change altogether because we can’t recreate a multi-millenia field study.”
No, I say onwards. Let’s keep looking! And while we’re at it, let’s all be good stewards as God has asked. I just think we all disagree on how to do that and I don’t trust politicians.
However, it is less logical to assume that roughly four billion people worldwide who believe there IS a God are wrong (and it’s very possible I am underestimating the number) than it is to at least admit that there is likely some sort of higher power. Typically the entire world doesn’t fall for a fallacy.”
If popular consensus is an indicator of truth, would you change your stance if atheism overtakes theism in popularity?
“Matt-I don’t challenge people who have valid points.”
Good to hear.
“Global warming IS theoretical”
No, it is a fact. Global average temperatures are rising. This is simply an observation.
“Years ago, they thought all the measurements taken indicated global cooling.”
No, they did not. This is a myth.
“Additionally, proving God’s existence is more easily done that proving God’s nonexistence, though admittedly the former is not easy if you’re looking for only sheer scientific evidence”
Scientific evidence is all that counts.
Oh dear. I had hoped you might be a bit more rational, but clearly I was wrong.
You started with a simple untruth and went downhill from there.
Clearly the people who run this site are happy to allow people such as yourself portray Catholicism in such a bad light.
If the Val who took Shelia to task is the same Val who commented earlier, then she (or he) is the only Catholic who has taken a stance against the lies and dishonesty you and many others have spewed. That is not good.
I can only conclude you think your god is happy for you to lie. Personally, I just think you are liars.
Still well done on making your religion look so bad. I could not have done a better job.
I’m curious (really), what do global scientists ask you to do that you feel is in conflict with the message of being a good steward of the earth? I don’t even see why belief in global warming is necessary to care about pollution. After spending a week in Beijing where you could practically taste the industrial emissions in the air and breathing became uncomfortable after a couple of days, the obvious measurable negative impacts of pollutants are sufficient enough for me to be an environmentalist.
Matt- Wait…so I point something out and all of a sudden I, and all Catholics, are liars? Perhaps you need to check your emotions. Additionally, I was not even referencing to specific Catholic beliefs when discussing global warming. The Catholic faith calls us to be, as Shiela said, good stewards of our environment. That has not, and will not, change, regardless of any scientific evidence that comes forth. But she has a very valid point that the evidence is not conclusive or reliable enough to make a definitive statement. As for Val being a Catholic. I doubt it. If you read his more recent comments, they don’t indicate he is actually religious.
Val- I will agree you have me there. If the world consensus changed, I would not change my beliefs. However, I doubt that hypothetical will arise as the rate of atheism is not increasing. And definitely no where near close to eclipsing religious beliefs.
“After spending a week in Beijing where you could practically taste the industrial emissions in the air and breathing became uncomfortable after a couple of days, the obvious measurable negative impacts of pollutants are sufficient enough for me to be an environmentalist.”
See, when I witness overcrowding and poor air quality, I think, Malthusian nightmare come true and you think “environmentalist.” We just disagree on how to make the world a better place.
“However, I doubt that hypothetical will arise as the rate of atheism is not increasing. And definitely no where near close to eclipsing religious beliefs.”
The rate of atheism is absolutely increasing, particularly in western societies. Europe in particular has seen a dramatic increase in atheism. France is 33% atheist, for example, versus 21% in 1993. I couldn’t speak to when or if atheism will eclipse theism in popularity, but that’s certainly the direction the graphs are heading.
And no, I am not Catholic.
This writer was never an atheist, any more than Josh McDowell was. She may have been agnostic, and perhaps apatheticist; but atheism takes consciousness and intellectual courage, and she has neither.
“See, when I witness overcrowding and poor air quality, I think, Malthusian nightmare come true and you think “environmentalist.” We just disagree on how to make the world a better place.”
I can’t agree or disagree because you haven’t indicated what you think should be done to make the world a better place nor did you answer my question as to what environmentalist ideas you find so controlling and objectionable. And on the issue of overpopulation, I couldn’t even begin to guess how a Catholic would propose to solve the problem of overpopulation.
The people who claim Jen was never an atheist, remind me of the Protestant once-saved/always-saved people. Whenever someone leaves the tribe, they claim that they were never really part of the tribe in the first place.
How the hell would the combox chatterers know whether Jen was an atheist or not? If she says she was, she very likely was. Just because she doesn’t have tunnel vision any more and has seen the errors of scientism doesn’t mean that she was never an atheist in the first place.
“I couldn’t even begin to guess how a Catholic would propose to solve the problem of overpopulation.”
We’d begin by informing you that it is not a problem, lol. ::ducks and runs from a he said/she said debate on the myth of overpopulation::
Then, from there, we would certainly not engineer cities that create poverty, famine, disease as a means of controlling the population.
Quoting “Dave on Tuesday, Jul 26, 2011 12:12”:
“Whenever someone leaves the tribe, they claim that they were never really part of the tribe in the first place.”
Right, just like Christians who commit horrible acts aren’t “real Christians.” She didn’t “leave the tribe” - she was never part of it; and your post shows how little you know about what it means to BE an atheist.
A beautiful article, Jennifer! You are so right.
I converted to Catholicism from Islam. My first and longest exposure to Christianity was from Protestant perspective which was profoundly unsatisfactory. I had no idea about the Catholic teachings, but when I finally was introduced to them, it was dynamite. I just wish more Catholics would evangelize. Hooray for the internet!
“many atheists do not understand that we have to make an intellectual choice to believe in the supernatural.”
what i really can’t understand is how you CAN make such a conscious choice. to me, that would be similar to consciously choosing to believe i can grow wings and fly. not only does the world not work that way, but my mind doesn’t work that way either; i am physically unable to choose to believe in such patently unreal things.
Well, Christians who commit horrible acts prove themselves not to be real Christians, by their complete disregard of the moral laws revealed by God.
That is not to say that they don’t conceive of themselves as Christians (though if you are referring to the madman in Norway, a close look at his “manifesto” does not support that he was a follower of Christ in any meaningful sense; he had a hodgepodge of beliefs taken from various sources) and partly the Protestant Reformation is to blame for this, as now there are no “standards” by which to judge whether someone is a Christian or not, since everyone is considered to be able to interpret the contents of revelation themselves.
So what exactly are you saying? That she couldn’t have been an atheist because she is no longer an atheist, and true atheists never change their mind?
Her post above does not in any way attempt to engage the question of God’s existence.
OF COURSE, if God does not exist, then Purgatory does not exist either. What she is saying is, for example, that Purgatory (in the Christian worldview) makes more sense than immediate Heaven or Hell, for the reasons she mentioned.
I can’t believe how many athiests read NC Register. Maybe Father Barron is right about everyone needing to fill that “void” (article about why so many athiests respond to religious articles in CNN). In all the articles I read, the comments by athiests are always the nastiest. (Kephas, I agree with your comments.)I will be logging off and not reading this article again so you athiests can hold off on any nasty response.
Quoting “Dave on Tuesday, Jul 26, 2011 12:55 PM”:
“Well, Christians who commit horrible acts prove themselves not to be real Christians, by their complete disregard of the moral laws revealed by God.”
Some news for you, friend. GOD is the one who advocates slavery, rape - as long as you pay 50 shekels to the victims father and marry the victim, smashing infants heads in with stones (read Psalms), killing people for doing yardwork on Sunday, etc. It seems to me that if Christians (Catholics and Protestants alike) are NOT doing these things, then they aren’t “true Christians.”
“....a hodgepodge of beliefs taken from various sources…...”
Do YOU even know where your Bible comes from?
And if you’re referring to the Book of Revelation, that entire book is clearly a joke.
“.....That she couldn’t have been an atheist because she is no longer an atheist, and true atheists never change their mind?”
You misunderstand: There are atheists, and there are non-atheists. There are no such things as a “true” or “false” atheists. When a non-atheist says that they were once an atheist, what he’s really saying is “I lied about who I was.”
“Her post above does not in any way attempt to engage the question of God’s existence.”
What rock are you living under? Without an implicit argument for God’s existence, none of her article is even relevant! (To be fair, you sorta addressed this in your next statement.)
“What she is saying is, for example, that Purgatory (in the Christian worldview) makes more sense than immediate Heaven or Hell, for the reasons she mentioned.”
NONE of them make any sense, and in fact, to read the Bible, one finds no mention whatsoever of Purgatory: It’s a complete fabrication. Judgement is immediate.
Chas,
Yes, there have been horrible things done by the hierarchy. I have no argument with you there. However, I think you misunderstand the fact that there is a difference between a natural law and a positive one. It’s not that we oppose marriage equality. It’s more like we disagree with your definition of marriage equality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
Dave,
You are quoting scripture out of context and falling into the trap of Sola Scriptura. The Bible did not fall from the sky. The question you should be asking is who decides how to interpret the Bible?
Protestants would say the Holy Spirit, but it can get confusing because the Holy Spirit gives different people opposite messages.
So, who decides how to interpret the Bible.
Was there a way set to interpret it by the early Christians?
The atheists are hear because they do not want you to talk about them. They want you to shut up, to go away, to stop proclaiming your faith, to stop practicing your faith and to stop living your faith in the world. They want you out of the public square, they want you to stop voting and they want you to stop reproducing. That is what they want and that is why they are here.
I find it interesting that a conversation / blog that began as a personal history lesson and a way to help Atheists understand the reasoning behind Catholicism and Christianity, has failed to consider the basics of faith and religion.
As has been scientifically proven through decades of studies as well as legally, Atheism is a religion based on the faith that God / Gods do not exist.
In 2005 the 7TH Court of Appeals ruled that Atheism is a religion. In the 1961 the Supreme Court case (Torcaso v. Watkins) ruled that “secular humanism” was a religion and, like Atheism, is a protected belief system under our Constitution.
So, while the personal history lesson is very interesting with appealing reasoning, the real argument is not about Catholicism or Christianity, rather it is between different faiths and their religious beliefs.
“many atheists do not understand that we have to make an intellectual choice to believe in the supernatural.” -me
what i really can’t understand is how you CAN make such a conscious choice. to me, that would be similar to consciously choosing to believe i can grow wings and fly. not only does the world not work that way, but my mind doesn’t work that way either; i am physically unable to choose to believe in such patently unreal things. -Nomen
My response:
Nomen, that is a great question. My answer, not to debate, but to help you understand why I choose to believe, is that when I believe in God, good things happen. Not only to me, but to my loved ones and my community. For me, life with faith is like living in a supernatural light. This light is so bright that it brings into sight things that were not there before and, in it’s supernatural brightness, it obliterates things that were once there, things only visible by natural light. And when I say things come into sight, I mean grace, joy, charity, hope, love, glory, wisdom, understanding, counsel, knowledge, piety, all become visible to my minds eye. So, to answer your question, as honestly as I can, choosing to believe has a big payoff and no downsides. I join a community of believers who are all working towards the same goal I gain the communion of saints, and take them on as teachers and guides. I don’t have to worry, rather I rely on God and he provides. I can testify to that and I am sure many others could provide testimony to that. For me, if I give in to doubt, it is like choosing to live in darkness. Whereas choosing to say yes to the mystery of life expands my horizons and lays out a path before me.
Again, my answer is not trying to stimulate a debate on belief versus non-belief but to help to answer the “why we choose to believe” in the absence of evidence question.
Hope that helps and thanks for asking.
Posted by that’s why on Tuesday, Jul 26, 2011 2:54 PM (EDT):The atheists are hear because they do not want you to talk about them. They want you to shut up, to go away, to stop proclaiming your faith, to stop practicing your faith and to stop living your faith in the world. They want you out of the public square, they want you to stop voting and they want you to stop reproducing. That is what they want and that is why they are here.
Wow. And some here call the Christians the rude ones.
First Amendment: ...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
Faith and reason don’t have to be at loggerheads. I’m trained as a scientist, I have a doctorate (MD). And I’m a Christian. I’ve heard all the arguements from atheists, and have engaged in more than a few debates with atheistic comrades. I’ve not won them all, but I’ve not lost them all either. I can’t prove God exists, because you won’t accept any evidence I bring. Not the preserved scriptures, not logical arguements in support of the Resurection, not personal experiences, or reports of miracles. Atheists deny the very possibility of the miraculous, all the while demanding proof. Its almost trying to prove your innocence of a crime to your accuser who is also your judge and jury. Like Jesus said (paraphrasing): a wicked and faithless generation demands a sign.
I am not nearly powerful enough to put God in a test tube, or mass spectrometer, or MRI.
But what of you? Why don’t you prove to me that God DOESN’T exist, for a change? Where are Jesus’ bones? How about the signed confession from any of the Apostles that they made it up? Show me undirected evolution in an empiric manner; cause life from nothing in your lab (Miller-Uray isn’t it). Call together your best physicists and biologists, from Hawking to Dawkins to (RIP) Gould, and call forth life from goo; I’ll even spot you amino acids, lipids, and nucleic acids. Do it with lightning or radiation, or whatever; then show me the appropriate organisation of those blocks into functioning and reproducing organisms. Can you do it? You guys have been at this for over a century, where is the payoff?
You can theorize about abiogenesis all you like; but until you furnish actual PROOF, it is just a matter of faith, isn’t it?
You think this is unfair? isn’t this the same standard you hold me to?
I did appreciate Justine’s concern expressed yesterday that she found it difficult to accept that the unbaptized infants would go to hell, even if their punishment was less severe. So yes, her objection at glance would be of concern. But there is more to it, and since Justine implies she is a good researcher on these matters (and I will take her word for it), I hope the following helps. Here is an article I came across, followed by the pertaining section. It’s always good to read commentary on older church documents and pronouncements:
__________________________
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/INFANT.TXT
Objection: The Council of Florence in 1439 taught (DS 1306): “The souls of
those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the
realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal
punishments.”
Reply: 1) The word “poena” in Latin need not always be the same as English
“pain” - it can mean merely deprivation of something. As we saw above, Pius
IX taught that God does not allow anyone to be punished with eternal
punishments without the guilt of personal fault.
Vatican II, “On ecumenism” #6, taught that if any language in older
teachings is in need of improvement, it should be improved. Such is the
case here, at least if we do not think of the difference of Latin “poena”
and English pain. Paul VI in “Mysterium fidei” did not contradict the
Council, but said that the older texts are not untrue in themselves, if
properly understood.
2) The word “infernum” in Latin means merely the realm of the dead, not
hell in the English sense. Cf. the Creed in which we read that after His
death, Jesus “descended into hell”- the archaic English use of the word.
3) Our reasoning above tends to show that the aborted babies, and probably
other unbaptized babies also, are given grace by God outside the Sacrament
of Baptism, and so do not depart this world in original sin, which is
merely the lack of grace that should be there.
_____________
For Justine to claim she was once Catholic (and I do accept her word on it), I find her approach to be quite—- what is the word—fundamentalist. God bless her.
Jennifer this was a wonderful posts! Although I’m not an Atheist as many others who’ve posted, I found this passage relevant:
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation”.
Thank you so much for printing this. Now maybe Catholics won’t be so critical of those who do not feel convicted to be Catholic, but still seek God and his will.
@ Matt-I never asked a question. I simply made a request. You, however, implied that I was unintelligent, uneducated and called me a liar. And I’m the one who’s rude??
@ Duke- Allah is the God of Abraham, who happens to be the SAME God that Christians and Jews believe in. Personally, I believe that there is 1 true God and He has revealed Himself to different people in different ways. Look at most world religions and you will see common threads, specifically those of “Love thy neighbor” and “Do unto others”. Even the stories of creation from a variety of religions/cultures share similar themes. Is that a coincidence or is that God revealing himself in a way that each group would understand?
@DerpBridage- I agree that my use of Newton’s 3rd law wasn’t the best example of natural opposites. However, I would like to address your idea of global good vs evil. If you look at our Global society in the last 100 years, you will see an obvious moral decline. Things that were taboo during the 1950s are commonplace today. When God was taken out of our daily life, our schools, our workplaces, our government, that is when the very fabric of society began to spiral out of control. If we as a society and culture adhered to the Judeo-Christain principles this nation was founded on, the “good” would certainly outweigh the “bad”. If everyone on earth follow the principles of love, honor, respect, community, selflessness, and human dignity, we wouldn’t be where we are today. God gave us the gift of freewill. We can choose to turn to Him or away from Him. It’s unfortunate that Satan has used this gift to turn people away from God. Satan is the one who created chaos, God is the one who creates order.
Dave,
As far as the seemingly violent God found in places in the Old Testament, see here for a comprehensive series of thoughts on the matter:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html
Yes, I know the Bible is composed of many books written by various authors at different times in history. I’m not sure what this has to do with anything we were discussing, but whatever.
“You misunderstand: There are atheists, and there are non-atheists. There are no such things as a “true” or “false” atheists. When a non-atheist says that they were once an atheist, what he’s really saying is “I lied about who I was.”
Still not following…
“NONE of them make any sense, and in fact, to read the Bible, one finds no mention whatsoever of Purgatory: It’s a complete fabrication. Judgement is immediate. “
Ahhh, so you are a Protestant atheist, lol. Try I Corinthians 3:10-15 (verse 15 is the main verse describing the concept of Purgatory.) and also Luke 12:47-48, and Luke 12:58-59. Another one is 2 Macc. 12:43-45. There are many more which tend to support the concept of Purgatory.
“I never asked a question. I simply made a request. You, however, implied that I was unintelligent, uneducated and called me a liar. And I’m the one who’s rude??”
You did in indeed ask a question. “Ok Atheists…here’s on for you. Prove to me that God DOESN’T exist!”
You are uneducated and you seem to be unintelligent. We know this by your use fatuous use of Newton’s Third Law. That is not a mistake that can be made someone who knows even basic physics. Since an understanding of basic physics is a requirement to be considered educated, then it follows you are uneducated, at least in respect of physics.
So you did ask a question, you are unintelligent and you are uneducated.
In what way is it rude to point this out ?
I note you lack to civility to apologise for asking a question that has been asked and answered many times. You also seem unable to apologise for a totally dishonest use of Newton’s Third Law. So you are also not a very nice person, since nice people acknowledge their errors and apologise.
Now please stop accusing me making up things about you. My understanding is that as Christian, and even more as a Catholic, you are not allowed to lie. From what I recall, the Catechism is quite clear about that. I’m not a Catholic, yet somehow I have a better idea of how you should behave than you do.
Consider this a test. Will you be a decent human being and admit you were not being honest, or will you bring disrepute on your faith. After all, a religion can only be judged by what people do in the name of that religion. And so far you and your fellow Catholics are showing your religion to be one that is dishonest, rude and lacking in ethics. Well the ethics part is a given, seeing as how this is Catholicism. The child abuse scandels loom large, and mean anyone professing to be Catholic cannot be taken to a moral person unless and until they have shown they support the removal of the RCC leadership.
So Catholics, let’s see a show of hands. How many here support an investigation into the activities of the Vatican’s role in covering up the actions of those convicted, and those suspected of, child sexual abuse.
And how many of you are going to keep your hands up even if that means the arrest, trial and imprisonment of leading Cardinals ?
And now the biggy ? If the Pope is complicit is these criminal acts, how many of you support imprisoning him ?
Are you all as moral as you claim ? After all, we atheists are always being told morals come from god, and as atheists we cannot be moral. So that surely means you must be more moral than us. Prove it.
Oh, and where were all you “decent” Catholics when Daughter was spouting her crap ?
You must have known she was lying. So why not tell her so ? Why leave it to the atheists ?
Shameful, letting others clean up after you have allowed some one to crap all over the place.
Dave writes: “How the hell would the combox chatterers know whether Jen was an atheist or not? If she says she was, she very likely was.”
If I were to claim I was once a Catholic, yet got fundamental church doctrines wrong—not just minor mistakes, but ridiculously, ludicrously, way out in left field wrong—would you not conclude I was never truly a Catholic?
And if I were using that claim to help win arguments or, even better, to establish a sense that I know what I’m talking about on the subject of Catholicism, wouldn’t you be doubly suspicious?
Jennifer claims she was once an atheist, but the ideas presented in the article are ludicrously wrong—they are ways that a Catholic might reach a Protestant, perhaps, or someone who has lapsed from faith but is still a believer, but the are entirely left field to atheist eyes.
Moreover, she uses the claim of her former atheism to bolster her credibility on the subject, giving her a motive to exaggerate or even fabricate from whole cloth her “atheism”.
If you want Christian doctrines that will help establish some sort of connection with atheists, I’d suggest starting with excerpts from the Sermon on the Mount, and the whole “do unto others” thing. Look for commonalities between our moral codes. Maybe even talk about the bible as literature and some of the lovely poetic passages it contains.
But don’t even think about using Ms. Fulwiler’s list—before you’ve finished point one, we’ll have dismissed you as “just another religious nut”.
We can all agree that we want justice for the scandalous behavior of the molesters and those who acted out of fear, rather than love and covered up their behavior. We can all agree the protection of children is paramount. Sadly, it is continuing all across the world today and such behavior does not discriminate on religious or cultural lines. We can all agree that we must do what we can to stop such abuse wherever it is found.
The sexual abuse scandal committed by members of the catholic church is a separate issue from faith and the catholic church. The catholic church is the mystical body of Christ made up of many, many, members going back centuries. She, the catholic church, also referred to as the bride of Christ, remains spotless and the very fact that she can survive such brutal attacks of sinfulness from within and without is evidence of the hand of God in her survival.
Know, now, though, that the safest place for a child is in a catholic school or church related activity. Here are some websites that describe the training that each and every adult who comes in contact with a child must attend. Here, they are taught how to spot warning signs and they are encouraged to report and suspicion to the proper local authorities.
http://www.virtus.org/virtus/
http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/websafe.shtml
“Oh, and where were all you “decent” Catholics when Daughter was spouting her crap ?
You must have known she was lying. So why not tell her so ? Why leave it to the atheists ?
Shameful, letting others clean up after you have allowed some one to crap all over the place.”
@ Matt. I have only skimmed some comments. I may have missed something. What lie did she tell?
FWIW… I understand that atheists, in general, seem to be fairly consistent in asking believers to *prove* that God exists. The thing is that, for believers, the very existence of the universe and everything in it *is* such proof. It’s just a different way of looking at it. To me, the fact that the human race not only *exists,* but is capable of both intensely compassionate love and intensely heinous evil is another “proof” of the existence of God. Perhaps for many atheists, this is not a substantial enough proof of God’s existence. Fine; I’m pretty sure that anything else someone might bring up won’t be adequate, either. But perhaps you’re asking the wrong question: namely, not “does God exist?” but rather “why are we here?” If you don’t intend to look more deeply at the purpose of existence, that’s your prerogative. But you won’t convince me of the *absence* of God because you simply can’t answer what the fundamental purpose of human existence is in the first place. If you don’t need an answer to such a question, good for you. But *most* people do need such a question answered, and for most of them (that is, for most people on the planet), the beginning is a belief in God. IMHO, the purpose of science is to establish the physical laws of the universe as we know it (and since God is not exactly physical, science can’t prove God exists). It’s purpose is not a philosophical one; it does not answer questions pertaining to morality, or theology, or anything else outside the scientific realm. Just like a prior post asserted that a particular question on Apostolic succession would be better answered by an historian, not a scientist.
Sheila, so do you think those in the Vatican who covered up crimes, as we know they did as is clear from Cloyne and other reports, should be handed over to appropriate authorities to put on trial ?
And why is Law still hiding out in the Vatican, despite being wanted by the US authoritoes to answer charges of criminal conspiracy ? Why has he not been sent back to Boston to face trial ? Why was he ever allowed to hide in the first place ?
At the moment, the Catholic Church is complicit in crime. So why do you still belong ?
I will ask a simple question. Do you support the handing over of Catholic priests to face trial, even if that leads all the way to the current Pope ? If, for example, Ireland, wants to put the Pope of trial becuase they have evidence he was involved in the cover up of crimes, do you think that should happen ?
@Daughter of Mary - If God has revealed himself to each group in the way they understand, why was it only in one particular area of world? And then once technological and scientific understanding has increased in these cultures, why has God not revealed himself even further and more unambiguously? On the contrary, the three monotheisms have only splintered further since their inceptions. And why has God not increased our understanding of fundamental conceptions of nature through unambiguous signs? Great scientists have been religious, sure, but none of their progressive methods have been. Also, “love they neighbor” and “Do unto others” are common concepts across cultures regardless of religion and can be derived through secular means.
As for global good versus evil, I don’t see unambiguous moral decline. I see secularization, which in a Christian’s mind may amount to the same thing. But since around the world, national societal health is mostly negatively correlated to religiosity, I don’t accept your sky-is-falling premise. Nor do I blame Satan for the evil in the world; instead, people themselves are responsible for all that is good and bad, as they’ve always been.
Horse-pheathers,
What’s so strange is that most atheists don’t seem to understand her point, which I thought was quite clear. Jen did not say that “these 5 points will help you convince atheists that God exists.”
She made the more modest claim that they will find that these 5 aspects make more sense to atheists than the typical “Christian” view they are expecting to hear. More internally coherent, in other words…
She also seems to be describing atheists, who are open, who are seeking. I don’t think that describes most atheists, at least in this combox. They are only interested, seemingly, in “coming into our house, and trampling it down.”
@ Matt, I want those responsible held accountable. Period. I don’t know how that will take place. I don’t know how the international legality works. My point is that the catholic church is a separate entity. She, that is how we refer to her, is not a building, or a person, or an elite group of people. She is a mystical body that continues on despite the attacks. She contains the truths and those truths totally contradict the scandalous behavior, so how can they be even remotely related to her? I know it must be difficult to understand. But, yes, whoever is accountable should pay the consequences. And whatever happens, I will continue to identify myself as catholic. Where else can I go?
“The sexual abuse scandal committed by members of the catholic church is a separate issue from faith and the catholic church.”
this is true but irrelevant. the sexual abuses committed by individual members of the church is their fault, not the church’s; but the long-standing and still ongoing cover-up of their crimes and prevention of investigations into those crimes—THOSE, now, can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the church as an organizational entity.
individual, separate, catholics raped children. noone but they are to blame for that.
the entire church, as an institution, prevented and still prevents justice from being done to those criminals. that is the fault and the undying shame of the roman catholic church. when will individual catholics speak up and tell the church to quit impeding justice?
Sheila, I am not sure you understand the extent to which the entire Catholic Church has been complicit in the cover up.
It extends all the way from the Parish up to the very highest reaches of the Vatican. The entire edifice is corrupt.
I am not sure if you have read Cloyne. If not, please do so. Please also read Ryan, and the reports of Catholic Clerical abuse in Ireland.
I can understand how you might find it difficult to accept what your Church has done, but when when what you hold dear is so complicit in crime, you have to.
Plenty of Catholics have spoken up and demanded that things change and that justice be served. And changes have been broad and deep. Consequently, we are facing a critical priest shortage. Lay people are stepping up and assuming many administration and other non-priestly duties so that the few remaining can focus solely on their sacramental duties. We are seeing an increase in ordained deacons. The church is changing and it may only be visible to practicing Catholics. Sadly, we saw a wave of Catholics leave the church over the scandal. I think they were poorly catechized to leave, but, those who are responsible will face a very harsh judgement for causing them to leave. But, I stand by my point that the church teaches justice, so if justice is being impeded, it is not by the church, but by some of her sinful members. And, again, I stand proudly by her and support all of her teachings.
I will read the report. But, Matt, please consider that your perspective may be skewed. The catholic church has a long,long history and over a billion members today. It has had very corrupt periods and it has also produced many saints and saintly people who dedicate their entire life to helping others. I have had the privilege to know many of these people. When tragedy strikes, let me tell you Catholic Charities are the first to have boots on the ground making sure the survivors have all that they need to make it. So, to say that the “entire edifice is corrupt” is over the top. I don’t in any way want to minimize the scandal, but do you know what percentage of the catholic population it represents? Any percentage is too much, but what you are doing is like telling a person with a cancerous tumor that their whole body is corrupt and must be put out of it’s misery. The scandal is a tumor and it is being aggressively treated. The treatment has been painful and we have lost members, but she is alive and well.
It is not “sinful members”, it goes from from the bottom all the way to the top.
It is the those who run the Church who are guilty. The whole edifice is rotten. There is nothing left that is wholesome and good.
Please, go read Cloyne, read Ryan and then weep. I wept, not for what it meant for the Catholic Church, but for what the church had done, knowingly, on purpose and with intent, to people. Cloyne makes it clear, not only was the Church in Ireland complicit in covering up sexual abuse, it was doing so with the knowledge and at the behest of the Vatican. It lead all the way to the current Pope, although in his previous role.
It is not a few bad apples. It is case of a few good apples in a rotting morass of corruption.
There will be no one left if there was a proper clear out of those involved. The RCC would be left to be run by a nun and a donkey.
“I can understand how you might find it difficult to accept what your Church has done, but when when what you hold dear is so complicit in crime, you have to.”
Again, sorry if I am repeating myself, but you don’t seem to get it. What I hold dear are the truths of the catholic church and they are in complete contradiction to the crimes you describe, so she is in no way complicit. Individual members are to blame.
“The RCC would be left to be run by a nun and a donkey.”
You clearly underestimate the resoursefulness of a nun and a donkey.
@Matt “Oh, and where were all you “decent” Catholics when Daughter was spouting her crap? You must have known she was lying. So why not tell her so ? Why leave it to the atheists? Shameful, letting others clean up after you have allowed some one to crap all over the place.”
Well Matt, the answer to your questions should be apparent even to an intelligent Atheist. If it were not for the true Atheist in the world, it would be difficult; neigh impossible, for the faithful believers in God/Gods to proved proof that evil does indeed exist in man. :)
Personally I don’t believe you can relate psychics to faith. The use of Newton’s 3rd Law, (To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions) simply does not apply when describing human beliefs and faith.
Obviously Matt you are a faithful Atheist and take your religion very seriously.
No, it is not just individual members.
There were instructions direct from the Vatican that allegations of sexual abuse were not to be passed to the civil authorities, and that the priests concerned should simply be moved to another parish.
This is institutional criminality, not just individual. For example, if a Government tells its security services to commit a crime, the responsibility for that crime will not lie only with those who carry it out. That Government will also be to blame.
Well the Vatican is a Government, and it is to blame.
The instructions were not from one individual. It was a collective action by the Vatican. You really do need to understand this, if only for the sake of your conscience.
Ender Kenny is the PM of Ireland. He is as a devout Catholic as you will find in that country, and none one comes more devout than Irish Catholics. Yet this week he was forced into denouncing the Church for its role in the cover up. He made it clear, the Vatican was complicit in crimes. Not just any individual, but the whole organisation. I heard his speech, I am aware of his background and I know how much it pained him to say that. But he had to say it because he was confronted with evidence that left him no alternative. I will remind you that this is evidence of cover up that has taken place after the Catholic Church has said it will change.
Kenny is a decent man. I disagree with him in a lot, but he is a decent honest man who knows his duty. For your Church to have put that man in such a position is unforgivable. How can anyone stay loyal to such a Church ?
“How can anyone stay loyal to such a Church?”
Read above. Repeat if necessary.
Matt, not everyone is going to agree with you and that is okay. But, I support your efforts to stamp out evil wherever you find it.
Cheers
I agree. Yet when a fellow Catholic did just that, and committed a sin (lying is a sin right ?) none of you said a thing ?
It is simply a lie to invoke Newton’s 3rd law. So why did she do it ? She knew it was a lie. The rest of you knew it was a lie, yet the only people who pointed that out were atheists. We knew what she was untrue, and given she is not either mentally ill or compromised, so did she. So why did she lie, knowing what she was saying was untrue ?
Dave, thanks for the reply.
-
I’m going to address some of your points out of order, based on what struck me first.
-
“They [atheists] are only interested, seemingly, in “coming into our house, and trampling it down.””
-
I don’t see much of that actually happening here. What I do see are a lot of atheists who have read the article chiming in that, no, the author is wrong and these points do _not_ make sense to us, coupled with a lot of side discussions that have been, by and large, respectful of your brethren if not so much of the ideas they hold. Compared to some of the knock-down drag-out debates we often get embroiled in, this one has been largely “scones and tea”.
-
“What’s so strange is that most atheists don’t seem to understand her point, which I thought was quite clear. Jen did not say that “these 5 points will help you convince atheists that God exists.”
-
She made the more modest claim that they will find that these 5 aspects make more sense to atheists than the typical “Christian” view they are expecting to hear. More internally coherent, in other words…”
-
I also haven’t seen many addressing these points as arguments for or against the existence gods, but more as an attempt to build a beach-head. Sort of “if you’re talking to an atheist, here are some church doctrines they might be able to relate to” with the unstated purpose of establishing common ground as the basis for further discussion. As such, this list fails _utterly_, embarrassingly so.
-
“She also seems to be describing atheists, who are open, who are seeking. I don’t think that describes most atheists, at least in this combox.”
-
This actually amuses me a bit, especially coupled with the recurring “why are you here” cries from you and others. Why are we here? There are many reasons, some of them I’ve already given above—there are a lot of you and what you do affects us, for one. But one of the other reasons is that we are, by and large, quite welcoming of challenges to our own worldview, provided they aren’t based on arguments we’ve heard and addressed a thousand times before. We _are_ open to challenges, because challenges and rigorous debate help us hone closer to truth, and most of us are really big on truth. That’s why we’ve adopted such stringent criteria for evidence and an awareness of internal biases, logical fallacies, and the limits of our own knowledge and reason.
-
Finally, you seem to have passed by my suggestions for topics that you can use to establish that common ground between us. I’ll start things down that road, maybe, by mentioning that one of the most lovely turns of phrase in the bible, and one that resonates with me personally, is 1 Corinthians 13:11-12—“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.” Even absent belief in gods, the underlying sentiment here of our own perceptual limitations, growth, and desire for a future marked by greater understanding is beautiful in its own right.
Well I will admit my experience of nuns, at least of the Catholic variety is limited, although sufficient to get out of the way if they are driving towards me.
But donkeys I know a bit about. Enough to know the nun will be doing all the work.
Matt,
The Cloyne report confirms what we have been saying all this time. The report in fact showed that the Bishops gave two different accounts, one to the Vatican and to the local diocese. And that the church in Ireland refused to implement it’s own national guidelines, along with the Vatican’s universal guidelines.
Please see.
Irish priest theologian: All Irish bishops appointed before 2003 should resign
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-govt-using-abuse-reports-to-establish-national-church-separate-from-r
Matt,
The nun and the donkey, won’t be the only people left, because the communion of saints consists of those in heaven, on earth, and in purgatory. The church is not limited to people who live on earth at any given time.
We stand by her eternal teachings, that clearly oppose what the ones chosen to shepherd her have done, and they will have a lot to answer to.
Savvy,
Well if what you have been saying is that the Vatican was complicit in the cover-up I am with you.
Is that what you have been saying ? Only it it is not, then I think you might not have been reading the same report as I did, or as Kenny did, or as the rest of the Irish Government did.
There is a simple solution for the Catholic Church. Come clean, plead guilty, pay the fine, hand those in the Vatican who were complicit over to be tried, remove from office anyone who had oversight of those who did wrong. Start tomorrow, put Law on the first plane to Boston.
Savvy,
You are not sane. Seek help, I mean it. I have a policy of not engaging with people are are clearly mentally ill.
I will email the admins of this website, in the hope they might have information that can identify you and can pass that on to the appropriate authorities so you can get help.
I would ask others here not to engage with Savvy, unless they have a relationship with him and can encourage him to get help.
Horse-Pheathers,
Well, I guess I have never been an atheist, but I have been a seeker who, while I never completely repudiated Christianity, at least set it aside due to internal contradictions and dissension. As such, and as someone who eventually embraced Catholicism, at least SOME of the five points Jen mentioned were pivotal to me in my evaluation process.
Therefore, it wouldn’t surprise me if the same would be true of a seeking atheist. However, again, I think this is more likely to be the case once one has already begun to be open to the existence of God. I agree that these points will be a futile exercise if that bridge hasn’t been crossed, or is at least in the process of being crossed.
I am glad that you can see that there is at least some truth and beauty in the Bible, and (hopefully) in the teachings of Jesus. In as much as science (and even the position of atheism itself) is an attempt to more deeply penetrate and follow the truth, I respect and admire it.
My contribution to the discussion is a recommendation to read the book “New Proofs for the Existence of God” by Robert Spitzer. It is a challenging, but rewarding read, even if you ultimately disagree with his conclusions.
@ Matt-If you actually READ my entire previous post, I stated that my example of using Newton’s 3rd law wasn’t not the best. And no, I didn’t do well in Physics in college. However, I did graduate from a large university with a Bachelors degree. So, I’m not unintelligent, nor am I uneducated. I’m not a theologian or a philosopher. I’m your average wife/mother who takes pride in the fact that I choose to be Catholic. I will not apologize for not reading 300+ posts before I commented. Didn’t have time. So, I didn’t know that the point I was making had already been addressed.
As for rudeness, I’ve not once questioned YOUR intelligence or made any personal attacks against you. As far as I am concerned, I’m walking the higher road that I am called to do.
You must have at some stage. No one is born religious are they ?
Matt,
Why exactly is savvy mentally ill? Because she is not ready to leave the Church based on the fact that a bunch of the leaders messed up royally? Even Jesus had Judas. Catholics (at least engaged, active ones) follow the Church because Jesus founded it, not because the leaders are so great. In fact, Jesus seemed to pick the most unstable and tempestuous of the Apostles to be the Church’s leader, perhaps in order to show that the Church is protected and solidified by Christ Himself, and NOT by the leaders.
In fact, as the joke goes, “The greatest proof of the divine origin of the Church is the fact that she still survives after 2000 years, despite the best efforts of the bishops and priests.” There is actually a lot of truth behind this tongue-in-cheek statement.
I did read it. “Not the best” is an unusual synonym for profoundly dishonest.
Ignorance is not a defence.
Good for you.
Start showing that then.
This is obvious, but not that relevant. No one expects you to be an expert. But if you want to offer an opinion you do need some idea of what you are talking about. At the very least, given your education, you should know basic concepts of philosophy, and concepts such as the null hypothesis and the burden of proof are basic.
Yes well, shall we just pretend you never said that ? Might be best, avoids embarrassment etc.
So you were just lazy. Thought as much. Also, rather arrogant it seems, since you refuse to admit you made a mistake. But again, ignorance is no defence. You should have known.
But you are not very intelligent are you ?
You asked a question that has been asked and answered many times. Not only here. Anyone claiming you level of education will come across the question you asked, and they will be aware of how it has been dealt with within philosophy. No excuses, if you want to claim to be intelligent and educated this is stuff you know.
You knew the answer to your question when you asked it. You cannot therefore have asked it to be enlightened as to the answer, so why did you ask it ? Not for any honest reason, that is for sure.
You really have no concept of how to be intellectually honest do you ?
d more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/5-catholic-teachings-that-make-sense-to-atheists/#ixzz1TFt64acR
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/5-catholic-teachings-that-make-sense-to-atheists/#ixzz1TFsk0K9d
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/5-catholic-teachings-that-make-sense-to-atheists/#ixzz1TFrxkQpS
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/5-catholic-teachings-that-make-sense-to-atheists/#ixzz1TFrpDOOU
Read what he has said please.
You might not care about mental illness, or want him to get help. I do.
Stop making things worse, and show some compassion. He is ill, he needs help. Either help get that help or shut the !@#$% up. What he does not need is people telling him he is OK. That will be harmful to another human. Do not go there. If you just do not care, stay out of it. If you are here to do harm, you and I will fight.
Again, show compassion or !@#$% off.
I really cannot beleve that Dave idiot.
How can anyone be so obtuse as to the mental suffering of a fellow human ?
Dave, are you some kind of monster ?
Matt,
The Cloyne report found, that two-thirds of abuse allegations made between 1996 and 2009 were not passed on to police, as required by the Irish Church’s guidelines and Cardinal Ratzinger’s clear norms.
In 2001, Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Joseph Ratzinger, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued norms for the Church worldwide making clear that “civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.”
the four reports published by the Murphy Commission have specifically named four Irish bishops as the culprits behind the lack of reporting of abuse. The investigation into the Cloyne diocese found that “the primary responsibility for the failure to implement the agreed procedures lies with Bishop Magee.”
“The commission recognises that the church guidelines were far more stringent than those adopted by the State in that they required that all allegations against priests operating in a diocese be reported to the health authorities as well as to the gardaí,” the Cloyne report said.
So why is Edna only focusing on the Vatican.?
Please give me quotes from the report that prove your point that the Vatican was complicit in this.
I actually hope they proceed with a criminal trial on the Vatican, because they are going to look like idiots for not being able to read a legal document.
Savvy,
Get help. I mean it.
Go away, sleep. See your doctor in the morning.
I am NOT bullshitting. That communion of saints stuff is evidence you are functioning cognitively. You are suffering delusions, and that is NOT good.
GET HELP!
@Matt “I agree. Yet when a fellow Catholic did just that, and committed a sin (lying is a sin right ?) none of you said a thing ?
It is simply a lie to invoke Newton’s 3rd law. So why did she do it ? She knew it was a lie. The rest of you knew it was a lie, yet the only people who pointed that out were atheists. We knew what she was untrue, and given she is not either mentally ill or compromised, so did she. So why did she lie, knowing what she was saying was untrue ?
I believe it’s called an opinion. As you are well aware, we all have one. And Daughter of Mary did qualify it, so your overtly personal attack about “lying” while accusing others of “allowing it” is, IMHO, a disgraceful way of communication.
I understand, and fully agree with, your fervor about criminal activities in the Catholic Church, but it is disingenuous to convict others simply by association. You are also obviously aware that humans are not perfect.
“There is a simple solution for the Catholic Church. Come clean, plead guilty, pay the fine, hand those in the Vatican who were complicit over to be tried, remove from office anyone who had oversight of those who did wrong. Start tomorrow, put Law on the first plane to Boston.”
I do support these things, but , not without lack of evidence.
@Matt
Just so we understand each other, I am not now nor have I ever been a Catholic. Although I have studied many religious texts.
Dave seems to be another who gives privilege to the magisterium of the church over basic humanity. A personal case in point, that brought home to me just how cruel it could be: a good friend discovered her husband had sexually assaulted their 2 daughters - he was also Catholic, by the way, and before you start saying that he wasn’t a ‘true’ Catholic, he identified as Catholic, attended mass regularly, went to confession ... Anyway, as soon as she found this out she took the children and left, reported him to the police, and criminal action began against him. And her local Catholic priest, instead of supporting her actions, decided to deny her communion on the grounds that she had deliberately split up the family. The upshot of course is that she has now also left the church. The priest, even after an official complaint, is still happily dishing out good Catholic advice to the faithful. I’m happily atheist, so had distance to be disgusted. Yet so many priests like him (Cardinal Law, anyone?) are still given positions of prominence in the church, and from an outsider’s point of view, you Catholics aren’t doing a whole lot about it (lip service aside). Oh, and as has been pointed out numerous times already, the reason that us atheists decided to comment on Jennifer’s post in the first place is solely because of questions of veracity (as is, nope, none of this is reasonable to us, how could it be?)
Matt,
So instead of refuting my comments on the report, you latched on to what I said about the communion of saints. If you are so interested in facts. Then why bother with my views on the supernatural that you claim does not exist.
Refute your allegations with the report instead.
Neil: Why should anyone give any credence to any of your writing? You did not protect those children. You ignored the evidence.
Neil,
The priest you mentioned is a scumbag, and she should have left the parish and found another one, which supported her.
The priest in question needs to be disciplined, but did not do something criminal or that was against the law.
The church does not punish crimes, unless you want them to burn him at the stake, I don’t see your point.
Cardinal Law is not wanted for crime in the US or anywhere else.
Cardinal Laws activities as Archbishop were fully investigated for 16 months by the Massachusetts State Attorney General and he appeared before 2 Grand Juries. Following this the Attorney General issued a report stating that Cardinal law had not broken any state laws.
SteveP: What on earth are you talking about? As soon as his abuse was discovered it was acted upon. Way to deflect again! You do realise that you’re making all Catholic parishioners who attended churches run by abusing priests complicit in his actions, since they ‘did not protect those children. [They] ignored the evidence’! Or are we all somehow all-knowledgeable about other people’s lives? At least in the case of my friend there was no delay, no hiding of what happened, and no white-wash. Ca you say the same of so much abuse by priests? No, of course not, on your own evidence. Until this post I had respect for you, thinking you were actually interested in other opinions, but this is absurd, and, basically, dishonest.
Matt - I bet you are a blast at parties. How long does it take for you to clear a room?
Neil: The evidence against you, as it were, can be summed up in a word: charlatan. You did nothing; your words have no meaning.
SteveP. You’re an idiot and what you wrote is beneath contempt. I’m hoping you’re just clueless, which might go in some way to justify just how disgusting your last 2 posts have been, but I doubt that you’re bright enough to be able to work it out, so I have nothing left to contribute. Fortunately there are a few Catholics here who have been worth listening to, and worth respect for their dialogue and the way they hold their views, so it hasn’t been wasted time.
Dave writes: “My contribution to the discussion is a recommendation to read the book “New Proofs for the Existence of God” by Robert Spitzer.”
-
Any chance you’d be willing to sum up a) what you believe to be the best argument Mr. Spitzer makes and/or b) the most _novel_ argument he makes?
-
As for “truth and beauty” in the bible, I will fully admit that the bible contains some great literature. I am of the opinion, though, that it unfortunately contains a considerable amount of dreck as well. On the whole, for truth, beauty, and literary merit, I’d say it was roughly comparable to Homer’s Iliad. Well, at least the _good_ bits in the bible are, anyway. ;)
Neil: And yet, for an idiot, I’ve not gone to an atheist blog and used the abuse of my good friend’s children in an attempt to score points against an atheist organization while absolving myself of any possible culpability. Had I done that, that would have been disgusting and deserving of contempt.
Wow is there some contemptible stuff coming from SteveP right now.
And I’m glad Dave could apply a joke to the child rape perpetrated by representatives of the Catholic Church, and attempt to somehow make terrible leadership on earth a positive reflection of heaven’s good favor.
Neal, ignore him. He prefers to play semantic games than actually discuss anything, and he’s oblivious to how his behavior discredits both him and to a lesser degree, his faith.
To all the Atheists,
This atheist publication has been fair in it’s analysis of the abuse crisis and about the Catholic Church and for that I am grateful.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/issues/C55/
@Savvy,
Your natural law link wasn’t addressing gay marriage (which I think we are both talking about), so I looked at this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#NatLaw Hope it’s an acceptable substitution.
I’m sure there are better commentary, but it seems to me Aquinas and later writers make some arbitrary premises about sex and marriage which leads directly to their conclusions. It also occurs to me that they have been also interpreting nature without a lot of biological or human physiological knowledge.
Anyways, how does your acceptance of natural law have anything to do with anyone else’s right to marriage?
Adam K and Horse-Pheathers: Contemptible? Semantic games? Why you brave ones have put forward the argument: Jennifer Fulwiler’s article is false on all points because priests raped. Grow up! And use a single id.
Chas—it’s helpful to point out that “marriage” in the context of the gay marriage debate is functionally a legal contract; what we are arguing is that gay couples have the right to enter the same contract with each other that hetero couples can.
-
This has nothing to do with the religious rite of marriage that they seem to believe is codified into law; as far as the government is concerned, it’s a wholly secular, contractual joining, and allowing it has nothing to do with god(s).
@savvy wrote: Please give me quotes from the report that prove your point that the Vatican was complicit in this
For example, sections 1.18, 1.75, 1.76, 4.22, et al.
Or you know, you could just google it.
Cloyne Report in Ireland Implicates Vatican in Abuse Cover Up
http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com/2011/07/cloyne-report-in-ireland-implicates.html
Cloyne Report in Ireland Implicates Vatican in Abuse Cover Up
http://www.zimbio.com/The+Roman+Catholic+Church/articles/EdDaOYRLlte/Cloyne+Report+Ireland+Implicates+Vatican+Abuse
Irish PM Scathing Denunciation of Vatican
http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/antheabutler/4914/irish_pm_scathing_denunciation_of_vatican_/
The report also charged that the Vatican was “entirely unhelpful” to any bishop who wanted to implement procedures for dealing with child sex abuse allegations. It further described the Vatican’s response as “unsupportive especially in relation to the civil authorities.”
Ireland slams Vatican over rape cover-up - Vatican Insider
SteveP— “Thou shalt not bear false witness” mean anything to you? Grow up.
Horse-Pheathers,
It seems like atheist’s are always looking for confirmation of perfection from Christians, because if they somehow mess up, their religion is a fraud and it makes you feel better about yourself. I think you don’t understand Christianity very well. It’s the Everlasting man . Sin and redemption and sometimes even the passion, death and rising from the dead of the church.
Our story is His-Story. If the church is the body and the Bride of Christ, then she has to reflect the paschal mystery.
@Horse-Pheathers - Sure. However, I believe that Natural Law has been used in the past to provide a non-religious explanation to discriminate, and since I haven’t read much on it, I took it as a learning opportunity.
Savvy—I’d not expect perfection from anyone. I _would_ expect them to at least make an effort to live according to their professed moral code—I know I certainly do with mine and I do a fair sight better at it than Steve-o here seems to be doing. As for ”...because if they somehow mess up, their religion is a fraud and it makes you feel better about yourself.” I’d thank you to refrain from ascribing motives to me and mine when you haven’t the first clue about us or how we think, especially when those imaginary motivations are redolent of anti-atheist bigotry. What next? You going to try to tell me I’m an atheist because I’m “mad at god”?
-
You don’t hear me spouting offensive, stereotypical nonsense about you, like “believers only believe because they’re afraid of death”, do you? Then please do refrain from doing it about me.
It’s terrible that leaders looked the other way when sexual (and other) abuse was taking place. I loathe it even more than you do, because you loathe it only for the obvious reasons. I loathe it both for those reasons, and because it reflects badly on the Church, and makes it more difficult for others to consider the Church’s truth claims.
It is a lie and a slander to say that I support that in any way. I hope all those PROVEN to be complicit rot in jail, or at least are removed from any position of influence in the Church.
All I was saying is that it doesn’t affect the Church’s claims, any more than Judas proved the Church to be false when he committed the worst sin possible. Jesus told us ahead of time there would be scandal.
Chas and Horse Pheathers,
The Natural law is distinct from the divine law. For example, even atheists know it’s wrong to steal, kill, cheat, even if there is no law there to tell them that. You could call this the first principle. The same can hold true for marriage and human relationships or sexual ethics.
A positive law is a social construct that can be either good or bad. Sometimes it’s bad because it goes against the natural law, not at other times.
“The Catholic lay apologist Frank Sheed had this to say about marriage.
“One hears the phrase that the modern man is no longer to be bound by the two-thousand-year-old law of marriage. It is as though one were to say that it was beneath the dignity of modern man to be bound by the even older law of gravity. For the question is not whether the law is old, but whether it is a law. A man might very well say that he would not be bound by the law of gravity, yet he would be well advised to keep his affirmation within the sphere of words. Let him push it to act, and he will no longer be a modern man but a corpse, part of that history that, in his newness, he so heartily despises.”
Sheed raised the question we face today about the nature of marriage: “The question is not whether the law is old, but whether it is a law.”
While we recognize through natural law that all people are created equal, not all are created with the same access to life’s varied treasures. For example, a man is not allowed by nature to fulfill perhaps the most incredible role a human being can perform-conceiving, nurturing and giving birth to a new human life. A man may claim the “right” to have a baby, but nature will simply not allow him to do so. This is not because nature has rendered men inferior to women; it simply has others roles for men to play.
The same can be said of two people of the same sex who desire to be married. They may claim the right to do so, but nature simply does not allow it. This fact does not make homosexual persons inferior; it gives them a different role to play—in committed friendship—which can help them pursue their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
http://www.catholic.org/hf/family/story.php?id=38356&page=2
Really must turn off the notifications this time. Thanks Adam and Horse-Pheathers. SteveP doesn’t realise that he’s again playing the game of moving the focus away from those who are culpable - in this case the father and the priest (and for that, SteveP, if there is a hell I hope you burn in it). His assumption that I’m omniscient and that I know what goes on behind the closed doors of other families, is, of course, flattering, but does rather go against good Catholic teaching. Also, none of us made any link between priests raping and Jennifer’s basic premise, or maybe he doesn’t have the intelligence to see this, so I’ll have to agree that he’s just playing troll games. I’m surprised that no Catholic has so far pulled him up on it, but there you go. To SteveP, I’m exiting, so I won’t see anything more you write. You’re a despicable person: you seem to be more poisonous than clueless, but fortunately your sheer stupidity and callousness isn’t reflected by some of the Catholics here who have been engaged, interesting and honest in what they say.
Horse-Pheathers,
I am sorry, if you felt if this was a personal stab at you, but there are people who do use this as an excuse.
“I _would_ expect them to at least make an effort to live according to their professed moral code.”
That is a reasonable expectation. But there is increasing confusion about what this moral code is to begin.
This has to do with the massive changes that took place after V2, esp. with the liturgy.
A lot of people were under the impression that they could each create their own Catholicism, in their parishes.
It made “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi”. “As we worship, so shall we live” hard, because if everybody creates their own form of worship, they end up creating their own moral code as well. Also know as relativism.
It may seem strange, but in Catholicism, worship is very much tied to ethics.
SteveP,
Neil’s premise was that how could the church of God, be so corrupt. If these people profess what they do, then they should be better than the rest of us who do not, is the point.
One of the reasons, I mentioned that there is a lot of confusion these days over what Catholics profess, thanks to the modernist nonsense taught in seminaries.
Savvy writes: “I am sorry, if you felt if this was a personal stab at you, but there are people who do use this as an excuse.”
-
1) I’ve never seen it, and I have talked to hundreds if not thousands of other atheists over the years.
-
2) If there are individual atheists that think that way and have _said_ they think that way, they’re silly at best and I’d give them a verbal swat-down for their inanity.
-
3) One of the most pervasive forms of bigotry out there is taking an example of an unflattering behavior and generalizing it across the entire populace you wish to defame. It’s rude, dishonest, and dehumanizing.
savvy: You are quite kind to elevate that commenter’s juvenile drivel to a salient question. I agree there is a great deal of confusion despite the availability of information both contemporary and historical. You have a great deal of patience. Keep up the good work. Peace be with you.
As a former “card carrying” atheist who also converted to Catholicism, I wanted to make a few brief comments to the atheists who commented negatively on this article. I am an engineer (with a graduate degree from MIT) who also wanted firm evidence that God existed before believing - “faith” was not a word in my vocabulary. Witnessing the miraculous birth of my first child caused me to re-consider my atheistic worldview. After much study and reflection I finally had to accept that my worldview had many elements of “faith” that left me unsatisfied. Where did the matter & energy in the universe come from? Who/What caused the Big Bang to happen when it did? How did the laws of physics come into existence and why did they seemed rigged for life - the so called anthropic principal whereby the universal constants in the laws of physics are precisely “tuned” relative to each other so that atoms, molecules (carbon, water), etc..exist? After coming to the realization that I’ll never get satisfactory answers to those questions I started being open to intellectual arguments about the existence of God (Thomas Aquinas five proofs, etc.). I also realized that if the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, then there is no such thing as objective truth when it comes to morality which I could not accept (it wasn’t just MY opinion that the Holocaust, slavery and abortion were wrong), esp. when I considered teaching my kids about what’s right and wrong. Based on these realizations, I starting reading a lot solid Christian books with an open-mind. After several years of study, like Jenifer, I also was convinced that the Catholic faith was true (I concur with several of the topics in her article).
The bottom line is since making a “leap of faith” and becoming Catholic 10 years ago, I have become a much better husband, father, son, neighbor and citizen and I am much more humble. Most of the people I know that are atheists (which is many!) seem to be searching for peace and happiness down unproductive paths by the “wisdom” of the secular culture. Like me, many of them seem to reject the idea of God out of pride. On the other hand, most of the devout Catholics I now know (which is many!) are some of the most kind, loving, generous and joyful people I have ever met. I also see the good fruit in my six children who are being raised with a Catholic worldview. When we go out in public with our family we almost always get several comments about how happy and well-behaved our childen are - all 6 of them! All of this “evidence” is enough proof for me! God Bless!
Oh, and that “apology” is a great example of “passive-aggressive” behavior. When you say “I am sorry _you_ felt…” you are not apologizing for your own behavior, you’re actually suggesting that the other person is over-reacting, thus it’s an attack masquerading as an admission of fault.
Horse-Pheathers,
Point taken.
Savvy—thank you.
-
Now, regarding “natural law”...you write The Natural law is distinct from the divine law.” I say “Ain’t so.” “Natural law” bears roughly the same relationship to “divine law” that “intelligent design” does to “creationism”; it’s effectively an attempt to sanitize a religious doctrine of its religious trappings in order to make it more palatable to those not of that faith by establishing the idea of a truly objective morality that happens to coincide exactly with what you believe your god has dictated.
-
It’s also a bad attempt to explain altruistic behavior and why we are instinctively, on average, repelled by certain acts (like murder), which are far better explained by applying game theory to evolution—altruism and teamwork are actually a pretty effective survival strategy.
-
Regardless of the validity of Natural Law, how in the world do you manage to get from “men can’t bear children” to “gays can’t marry”? Marriage in the legal sense is no more than a matter of contract law….are you saying that the universe inherently dictates who and under what conditions we can enter into a contract with? Remember, when we’re talking about the gay marriage debate, we are _not_ talking about the religious rite of marriage, we are talking about affording a long term couple access to the same _legal_ rights other long term couples enjoy, like easy co-ownership, the right to make medical decisions for their partner if they are incapable of making those decisions for themselves, visitation rights, some matters of tax law, things of that nature. How in the world could “Natural Law” have _any_ bearing on these things? Legal marriage is a secular institution, not a religious one, and the gay marriage debate is about _legal marriage_, not the religious one. No one is trying to make your church accept doctrinally that a gay couple share the same relationship as a hetero couple, just that they be afforded the same legal rights. Where’s the problem in that?
Savvy,
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you rephrase that more clearly and concisely to our discussion? Thanks.
Wow, Jen! Congrats on getting the most comments I have ever seen on a post on the register’s website! You have struck a chord with people! You are all in my prayers tonight. I am so grateful to God that He has used Jen to bring people of different faiths together (the Catholics being the ones who have faith and the atheists being the ones with equally strong faith that God does not exist). It’s a beautiful thing. May God continually bless you all.
Horse-Pheathers,
“it’s effectively an attempt to sanitize a religious doctrine of its religious trappings in order to make it more palatable to those not of that faith by establishing the idea of a truly objective morality that happens to coincide exactly with what you believe your god has dictated.”
You have a point, but if it turns out that what my God has dictated is not in accordance with what’s truly objective, (taking the position that it does exist), I would renounce my views. Since, I know what is at stake here.
However, the question is would you do the same? What is your criteria for determining objective morality?
After Europe was Christianized it was the church that dealt with matters concerning marriage and family, not the state. Legal marriage as we know it did not exist until the french revolution.
So I would say that Western Civilization got it’s definition of marriage from the church, to begin with. For example, where does the concept of having witnesses at a marriage come from and why? There is much more.
The answers might just surprise you.
It’s wrong to assume that civil marriage grew out of nothing. But, it did go downhill, after it went completely secular, with the high divorce rates, no fault divorce laws, pre-nutptial agreements etc.
We would not have come to this stage without the already damaged state of heterosexual marriage to begin with.
It’s also interesting to note that there are countries that will not accept a religious marriage without a civil one , making things complicated.
There are also many countries without a conscience objection clause, making it hard for public officials who disagree with gay marriage, not to be sacked.
It might not force a church to marry someone, but will trample on the consciences of those who think otherwise. Like Catholic adoption agencies being forced to shut down in the UK, because they only place children with a married man and a woman. There’s a similar battle going on in Illinois.
Private businesses that refuse to marry gays for various reasons would be sued.
In Canada, we have already seen a lot of legal battles.
We can’t create different laws for different people for too long. We might just end up like Europe, where multi-cultarism is now being seen as a major failure.
However, I would say that Europe’s issue is not multi-culturalism, but relativism.
Pope Benedict XVI calls this the “dictatorship of relativism”. It’s interesting that he co-wrote a book with an atheist on the subject, who agrees with what he says.
http://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666
Chas,
Men and women are sexually complementary. Marriage has been the founding stone for creating families and sustaining them. One could argue that not everybody has kids and many adopt, but,
If women got pregnant without men and the human young raised themselves there would be no marriage to begin with.
Not everybody is called to marriage. It does not make them unequal, just called to do different things.
For Example, Oscar Wilde finally converted to Catholicism, because it accepted that he did not have to desperately try to fit into the world like everybody else.
I personally think the church should boycott civil marriage, since it went down a long time ago. But, there are those who would disagree.
@savvy
What? Catholicism only finally accepted Wilde on his deathbed, in the final stage of cerebral meningitis, doped up on morphine. Superior to torturing conversions out of people, but hardly something I would brag about.
The best account is possibly found here: http://www.poetrymagazines.org.uk/magazine/record.asp?id=9404
Call me when you have a Lesbian Pope, then I will be impressed.
Wilde’s case was different as he probably would have joined much earlier if the Church were more open and accepting. His conversion was a bit questionable / suspicious (why did Ross wait until he couldn’t speak)? But I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
But, in general, I find the way some religious people seem to salivate over deathbed conversions to be rather tacky. Far too many of these cases are found to be fraudulent.
Your comment section was not enough. Here is my response: http://wizardoftodd.blogspot.com/2011/07/no-jennifer-fulwiler-i-do-not-agree.html?spref=twmay
Savvy,
So you have a definition of marriage that not everyone shares. Why does prevent other people that don’t adhere to that definition to get legally married?
Quoting “Yhatahei on Tuesday, Jul 26, 2011 2:57 PM”:
“I find it interesting that a conversation / blog that began as a personal history lesson and a way to help Atheists understand the reasoning behind Catholicism and Christianity, has failed to consider the basics of faith and religion.”
You misunderstand. Fulwiler insists that she understands atheism, and her writing since 2007 has included screeds on what atheists should think. In fact, it sounds to me as though she’s trying to force herself to believe, but is still agnostic. And as far as “a way to help atheists understand the reasoning behind [theism],” there is no reasoning. Being able to pretend to get life messages from a bunch of ancient fairy tales is the antithesis of reasoning. Memorizing and quoting Biblical passages doesn’t make you a scholar: It makes you a parrot.
“As has been scientifically proven through decades of studies as well as legally, Atheism is a religion based on the faith that God / Gods do not exist. In 2005 the 7TH Court of Appeals ruled that Atheism is a religion. In the 1961 the Supreme Court case (Torcaso v. Watkins) ruled that ‘secular humanism’ was a religion and, like Atheism, is a protected belief system under our Constitution.”
Wrong. If you read the actual decision, it said that atheism is on equivalent standing with religion, not that atheism IS a religion. To use an adage that we atheists know well, “Atheism is no more a religion that not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
“So, while the personal history lesson is very interesting with appealing reasoning, the real argument is not about Catholicism or Christianity, rather it is between different faiths and their religious beliefs.”
I’m not sure what you were trying to state here, but the column was about this author’s desire to try to find acceptable elements of religion that atheists can accept. She’s delusional. And furthermore, until your Sky Fairy can defeat one basic natural law (which he hasn’t done yet) - the act that the supernatural is out of the bounds of the natural, and therefore cannot interact with it at all - God’s own insistence, buttressed by the theists’ desires, hold no water whatsoever.
And to Dave again, exactly what about Psalms 139:7 am I taking out of context? Christians, and indeed all theists, cherry-pick what they want to support their fantasies, abandon the rest, and then get defensive when we anti-theists point out their fallacies.
Dave:
Thank you for your response.
Quoting Dave:
“You misunderstand. Fulwiler insists that she understands atheism, and her writing since 2007 has included screeds on what atheists should think. In fact, it sounds to me as though she’s trying to force herself to believe, but is still agnostic. And as far as “a way to help atheists understand the reasoning behind [theism],” there is no reasoning. Being able to pretend to get life messages from a bunch of ancient fairy tales is the antithesis of reasoning. Memorizing and quoting Biblical passages doesn’t make you a scholar: It makes you a parrot.”
Since I have not read all of Jenifer Fulwiler’s writings I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You must follow her writing very closely. But I must ask why you feel the need to denigrate another human regarding what they believe? In doing so, it would appear that you are also attempting to force your belief on others by way of criticizing their faith. Is it a superiority complex that somehow gives you the impression that the only truth is the one in your mind?
Quoting Dave:
“Wrong. If you read the actual decision, it said that atheism is on equivalent standing with religion, not that atheism IS a religion. To use an adage that we atheists know well, “Atheism is no more a religion that not collecting stamps is a hobby.””
Webster’s Dictionary, yeah not the be-all or end-all for definitions, defines a religion as - “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. Given that definition I consider Atheism a religion based on belief and faith. I know it is forbidden and offensive for anyone of the Atheist persuasion to admit to such a fact, so I understand your blight. What you apparently fail to understand, or are willingly ignoring, is it is just as offensive for anyone to attack the belief of Christians, Islam, Buddhist, Judaism, Jainism, Confucianism, Wicca, or any other religious sect.
Quoting Dave:
“I’m not sure what you were trying to state here, but the column was about this author’s desire to try to find acceptable elements of religion that atheists can accept. She’s delusional. And furthermore, until your Sky Fairy can defeat one basic natural law (which he hasn’t done yet) - the act that the supernatural is out of the bounds of the natural, and therefore cannot interact with it at all - God’s own insistence, buttressed by the theists’ desires, hold no water whatsoever.”
True. For a faithful Atheist there are no aspects of other religions that are acceptable. Gee, that sounds like all other religions doesn’t it?
Maybe you have not read all the posts so I’ll remind you that your statement above - “until your Sky Fairy” - is false. I have no “fairy” in this disagreement.
It is natural for humans to disagree and discuss their beliefs. This normally is done in a respectful manor. It is not natural, well for the extremists I suppose it is, for one human to attack, demean, and insult others for their religious beliefs. That type of fanatic behaviour does little to convince others of your position. In fact it drives them away and they usually just stop the conversation. Maybe that is the outcome you wished for.
Dark Star,
Oscar Wilde, took his own time for various reasons. It was not because the church accepted him on his deathbed, but because he finally made up his mind to convert, something he had been thinking about for a long time.
Please see:
The Long Conversion of Oscar Wilde
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0010.html
Dark Star, it’s always best to understand a religion on it’s own terms, not on yours. I am sure many atheists and others want the to be understood on their own terms too.
Chas,
Please see my response to Horse-Pheathers on this issue.
Seriously? You think that’s an argument? Are any of the other believers here stupid enough to agree?
Newton’s law concerns physics, not morality: it simply has no relevance whatsoever, of any kind, to the problem of evil. And no, the fact that I can see that evil things happen does not commit me to belief in a supernatural being responsible for them. That’s just childish, like believing it’s Santa who brings your presents at Christmas. Moreover, God is supposed to be omnipotent: so why can he not defeat Satan - or remove whatever else are the causes of evil? Honest Christians tend to admit that the problem of evil is indeed a profound one for any believer in a being that is both good and omnipotent.
Yahtahei,
Thanks for your comments. Yes fanatical atheists do not help win over anybody to their cause, anymore than fanatic Christians do.
Daughter of Mary,
God is not Satan’s opposite. God has no equals. That’s dualism and not Catholicism. In Catholicism, evil is not a thing in itself, but the lack of something. Evil is the absence of good.
KG,
Dr. Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher answers the question to the problem of evil here.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/evil.htm
Quoting savvy:
“Thanks for your comments. Yes fanatical atheists do not help win over anybody to their cause, anymore than fanatic Christians do.”
A valid point. Fanatics/extremists of any strip are easily recognizable and a detriment to their cause. That said, I don’t consider Jennifer Fulwiler’s original comments/article to be fanatical. Nor do I believe her opinions to be an attack on Atheism, as some have implied. In our society she has every right to voice an opinion. Her venue of choice was to an audience of like minded Catholics and will not, in the grand scheme of things, convert any Atheist to Catholicism. To believe otherwise is not being realistic.
“I personally think the church should boycott civil marriage”
i am uncertain of what you mean by this. i may or may not think it would be a good thing, depending on your intention.
if the church stopped lobbying for civil marriage to exclude same-gender couples, well, that sort of boycott i would enthusiastically applaud. the church—every church—would, as always, remain free to marry (or not marry) whichever couples it chose in its own ceremonies, so long as civil marriage were open to all consenting, unmarried adults. this sort of “boycott” of civil marriage by the church i would be delighted to see. but was that your intention?
some countries have civil marriage as the ONLY legally valid marriage; what churches do are entirely up to the churches and carries no legal weight whatsoever—couples are legally married when the civil marriage is registered, whether they had a church wedding before or after or not at all. this, too, i would be delighted to support. would you?
what we actually see in the present-day USA, however, is very much more dismal; churches applying tremendous political pressure—directly and indirectly—in order to define what civil marriage should mean, so as to exclude those they would not wish to marry in their church ceremonies. this, to me, is disgusting.
It’s the usual stupid, dishonest rubbish you get from Catholic “philosophers”.
Kreeft quickly reveals himself not to be arguing in good faith: he does not take his opponent’s argument in itself and at its strongest, as an honest philosopher would do, but starts by belittling atheists who raise the problem, claiming they are simply “angry at God”, and that their problem is one of hardness of heart.(laughably, he quotes C.S. Lewis as being an atheist who was “angry at God” for not existing. This simply makes no sense - Lewis was clearly another of those pseudo-atheists like Jennifer. Kreeft then proceeds to make the obviously false claim that all evil results from human sin. Quite aside from the natural evil of earthquakes, droughts, pestilence etc. that afflict human beings, non-human animals have been suffering agonies for hundreds of millions of years - although Kreeft’s reference to Genesis suggest he may be a creationist, peabrained enough to believe that Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian subsisting on coconuts before the “Fall”. Setting this aside he attempts to pass off the total responsibility for all events which an omnipotent being must necessarily have, on the spurious grounds of alleged human “free will”. No attempt is made, of course, to elucidate this concept, but supposing this to be possible, it still would not diminish God’s responsibility for evil and suffering by one iota: being omniscient, he must have known it would follow, and being omnipotent, he could transform the universe into a realm of perpetual bliss for all beings at any moment. The comparison of God with human parents is another piece of rank dishonesty: human parents are not omnipotent nor omniscient. Kreeft belittles human agony by asking if all suffering is bad: one does not have to decide on this, to acknowledge that much suffering is very bad indeed. Finally, Kreeft’s claim that hell is freely chosen is simply ludicrous - you can’t say something is the worst state conceivable, claim people choose it freely, and expect to be taken seriously.
Is Kreeft really the best you can come up with? Pathetic, truly pathetic.
I think the problem is that very often people try to pin down who they believe God is, instead if just knowing and accepting that He is. It’s kind of simple without being simplistic. I try to explain to my 6th graders that people need explanations, time and space to sort things out. All of these things are essential for people, but none of these things is necessary for God because he created it and is outside of it.
There were plenty of gods in ancient times. Ancient peoples needed explanations for how things happened. But all of those gods were created by man and seen in human terms (i. e a sun-god, a fire-god, a mountain god), which is why as time wore on and science progressed these “gods” then faded away. But the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who is also the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims) cannot be categorized into human terms. He is who is (YHWH). It takes faith to believe that. And faith is a gift from God, to be accepted or rejected. He gives us that choice out of love. Of course, He wants us to choose Him.
Sometimes it’s hard to believe without seeing, hearing or feeling, because as humans our senses help us figure things out. But, God gave us those senses for that very purpose. And that’s what faith is. Believing without seeing, hearing or feeling. Not easy, and there are many times and reasons to question and discern. Especially in light of the way people use God to further their agenda.
But remember, God doesn’t change. He doesn’t need to. And when you think about it that way it may make it a little easier to digest. Sometimes faith can be a process. God gives you how much He thinks you can handle at one time, then gives you a little more as what you have already been given grows a little stronger.
This is the problem with ignorant religitards. They’re too stupid and ignorant to realize that what they’re saying is completely ignorant and stupid. If you had the slightest idea what you were actually talking about, you’d see that this article is nothing more than more ammunition for atheists, and educated people to use against you. Please, keep up the “good” work.
Savvy—
Regarding marriage, your own post alludes to the fact that the idea of marriage _does_ change with time and place. Examples from your own bible—pre-Roman marriage among Jews was polygynous, and only later became monogamous. At various stages along the way, marriage has been conceived of as the man more or less owning the woman all the way to a partnership of equals. Some historical conceptions of marriage allow for the keeping of concubines, and the paying of dowry has been an integral part of the marriage contract in a variety of times and places. There are even cultures to this day that have practiced polyandrous marriage, a wife keeping several husbands. In short, there is no single ideal of marriage; there are as many different kinds of marriage as there are married people.
-
Which brings us back to LEGAL marriage, what kind of marriage contracts we allow in our society. These contracts say little about all the historical baggage the word “marriage” drags with it—all they are is an enumeration of rights and privileges that each member of the contract grant the other. What possible reason is there not to allow _any_ dedicated couple from entering such a contract? How is it not discriminatory to say “You, there—we don’t like who you’re in love with so no, you don’t get hospital visitation rights, you don’t get to make medical decisions for your partner when they can’t despite you being the closest person to them, you don’t get easy co-ownership of property and shared power of attorney. All because a bunch of us think your relationship is kinda gross and flaunts a religious viewpoint you don’t happen to share.”
-
No one is trying to change the church’s view of marriage, and “divine/natural law” has _no_ bearing here—this is all about _secular_ law.
-
Te other issues you bring up, like the church discontinuing adoption services in Great Britain because they wanted to be discriminatory in their adoption criteria? That’s a whole other issue and the debate is much less clear cut. But allowing gay couples to marry is really a no-brainer, from where I sit. I really don’t understand the objections against it.
KG—exactly. An omnipotent/omniscient deity would have to be evil in order to create the universe as it is, because (assuming such a being existed and created everything) he opted to include suffering and random destruction into the fabric of the universe when he had the ability and foresight (being able to do anything and knowing _everything_) to create a universe that met his own ends _without_ it.
-
The only way you can get a creator god that means well given the presence of suffering in the world is if he were less-than-all-knowing-and-all-powerful, a god with limits.
@savvy wrote: Dr. Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher answers the question to the problem of evil here. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/evil.htm
A more correct description is that he makes up a bunch of things and pretends to have answered it.
There is no evidence that we have Free Will, so that’s an assumption.
He assumes “The cause of suffering is sin”, not demonstrated, and is circular
“God’s solution to the problem of evil is his Son Jesus Christ”—translation: we scapegoat our sin through a Human Sacrifice which we celebrate with the consumption of flesh and blood.
“The Cross is God’s part of the practical solution to evil”—translation: we’re not idol worshipers, really
“We freely choose hell for ourselves”—no I don’t, I tell you right now I reject it with my presumed ‘Free Will’. There, now either I cannot go to hell or else this ‘proof’ is wrong. I also reject anyone “dying for my sins” as a sick and immoral proposition. I claim full responsibility for myself, thank you very much.
This ‘answer’ to the question of evil is just laughably bad and brings to mind this quote:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” — Thomas Jefferson, Letter in Publications of the Buffalo Historical Society, Volume 7 By Buffalo Historical Society, page 18
@savvy also wrote “Evil is the absence of good”.
How can there be absence of good if God is everywhere and God is good? This is a rhetorical question, intended to point out the ad hoc nature of your philosophy.
On the ‘fanatical’ discussion I’ve not seen anything here I would describe as fanatical; irrational, passionate, emotional perhaps.
If you want fanatical look up David Markuze who, when messaging ‘atheists’, says lovely things like (these are direct quotes):
we’re going to torture and execute you f******
we are going to execute all of you little lying s****.... u are not safe
the police will not save you, f******
we are going to torture you, f*****
You can see his handy work here: http://skippytheskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/05/who-hell-is-david-mabus.html and THOUSANDS of other places. He is a very busy little beaver.
So, when someone calls you an idiot for holding an irrational position please think of what we endure from the likes of your Christian pal Markuze and his ilk. I can show you threats of rape, torture, murder, you name it.
On a slightly related note…
I talk to Christians fairly often and one thing repeatedly horrifies me is that most of them concede (usually only after intense questioning) that if they TRULY believed that God was commanding them to do so, they would murder their own child, as Abraham was prepared to do. So let me put one thought in your head because it might help save someone’s child - if you even remotely THINK that you hear the voice of God in your head PLEASE seek medical help immediately.
Really, stop saying you understand Atheists. I think the response among Atheist has been near universal that you really do not have a clue and are consistently wrong in your assessments.
Also, stop saying your were an Atheist. You weren’t. I suspect that you were confused a lot and frightened a bit over faith. Just because you lost your faith when you were younger does not mean you were automatically an Atheist.
-J
What utter nonsense - and self-congratulatory, smug nonsense at that. You clearly know little about atheism, and, being a long-term atheist, nothing of that post made any sense to me at all. Your presumption is as nonsensical as your hideous, child-abuse-condoning religion.
Dear Militant Atheists,
Your behaviour and constant insults are not convincing anybody either. You are as relevant as the sky fairy.
A content-free sneer like this just demonstrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your position. Kreeft’s so-called answer to the problem of evil has been shredded. It’s really just as stupid as, and considerably more dishonest than, Daughter of Mary’s inane burblings on the subject. This whole thread shows conclusively that the Catholics commenting here, at least, have no idea what atheism is, and are determined not to sully their pristine ignorance by listening to what actual atheists say.
Dark Star wrote:I talk to Christians fairly often and one thing repeatedly horrifies me is that most of them concede (usually only after intense questioning) that if they TRULY believed that God was commanding them to do so, they would murder their own child, as Abraham was prepared to do. So let me put one thought in your head because it might help save someone’s child - if you even remotely THINK that you hear the voice of God in your head PLEASE seek medical help immediately. A woman has the right to choose, remember? She usually hears the voice of her boyfriend or husband or father calling her worthless for conceiving after copulation! Tell me again how atheists are rational . . .
KG,
Dark-Star has not refuted anything. Simply translated Kreeft’s words into ignorant comments about what he “thinks” Catholics believe. This is intellectual dishonesty.
Quoting Dark Star:
“please think of what we endure”
Poor put-upon Atheist… :)
Why do you subject yourself to those “thousands” of web sites that insult your personal beliefs?
Why emulate them and ridicule the personal beliefs of others?
Why come to a religious web site and post replies if you believe the posters are ignorant, anti-Atheist pretenders.
What satisfaction do you receive from subjecting yourself to scorn and mockery from those you believe to be irrational nincompoops?
Dark Star,
“translation: we scapegoat our sin through a Human Sacrifice which we celebrate with the consumption of flesh and blood.”
No, we understanding the meaning and purpose of the cross.
“We freely choose hell for ourselves”—no I don’t, I tell you right now I reject it with my presumed ‘Free Will’.
It’s true if there is no free-will, you cannot go to hell. But, you can if there is. Heaven is selfless love. If someone wants to find love on their own selfish terms, God cannot give it to them, because it does not exist.
” I also reject anyone “dying for my sins” as a sick and immoral proposition. I claim full responsibility for myself, thank you very much.”
You cannot claim responsibility for your own actions, if you do not believe in free-will, because you are obviously a machine, who cannot be held responsible or cannot give accounting for random incidents that just take place.
“How can there be absence of good if God is everywhere and God is good? “
I am not taking about the universe, but the human heart. The human heart that can block out God.
“I also reject anyone “dying for my sins” as a sick and immoral proposition.”
You would not, if you understood how this has been part of human cultures and expectations for centuries.
The cross is the most fundamental symbol found in creation.
Please see this.
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/03/reality-is-cross-shaped.html
I agree about the david, guy he is nuts.
“In the case where you’re chatting with a nonbeliever who is open to hearing your perspective and specifically asks for information about what you believe, how should you proceed?”
Wow, Jennifer, there are so many comments. I just skimmed, but it seems like many of the atheists who posted here missed this opening line.^^ Specifically the part about being “open to hearing your perspective.” It seems there are different types of atheists. I wonder, how does one know when they are a true atheist? Is there a right of passage? Is there a point of no return, kind of like final vows?
Setting aside the whole “by default I don’t agree with anything having to do with gods or the supernatural (such as heaven, hell, angels…) this is really not very impressive.
Purgatory is better than the binary reward or punishment option you see elsewhere but it isn’t good enough. It really just looks like the ancient Greek afterlife to me: depressingly cruel. Sure it’s less severe and an eternity of burning agony but if we’re going to have three stages why not have five or a dozen? Mormons have a set of three or four different heavens so anybody remotely decent gets into at least the ok one.
Ghosts, err, “saints” don’t make any sense to me at all. Besides what I know of the myriad of physical restraints upon us defining who we are and how none of that should apply to some eternal soul freed from the body (and so why would we be judged by something we now differ so greatly from? And on those criteria of all things?) I don’t see any reason to think they’re still around channeling their intentions into the world of the living.
Mary worship doesn’t make any sense to me. We’re all the children of god anyway so this seems about as interesting as the mother of Moses or Abraham. Why not worship Eve?
You don’t go to hell if you haven’t been exposed to the word of god? Well again, better than nothing but overall it doesn’t make much sense either. I’m sure most of us have heard that joke with the “then why did you tell me!?” punchline but this is even worse when you realize that the alimighty god had been letting people into heaven for ages but a scant two millenia ago he decided it was time to up the ante and really get the word out so that hell could really start filling up.
“But we’re better off with this message!” That kind of thing could fly a few decades back but now that it’s clear that even priests and bishops aren’t held to a higher standard? (I’m sure you’re sick to death of hearing about the molestations but the implications of how it has been handled are here to stay.) The message doesn’t make us better people. You’re only as good as you’ll make yourself be.
Apostles telling us which one is right? Surely you can understand why I wouldn’t see any difference between that and the legions of other denominations claiming their interpretations are correct. Sure if you go and assume that one particular group has a direct line to gee oh dee then of course you can cut through all the mess of those other groups. The Pope is a little more overt about it but every group that ever split off from another must have thought they had a better connection to God. Anyone in some faith is going to feel like it’s the right one if they want to just let other people tell them what it all means.
This is really a huge failing. There’s near zero comprehension of how atheists think in all of this and I feel sorry for any believers that have thought this was legitimate.
The observation to make in threads like this is - for many Atheists who grew up in religious environments, few point back. Most simply point to the doctrine, call bullshit and are done with it. There is no sense that such an experience was at all helpful.
For people who formally claim Atheism as their background, there is almost a faux pride in claiming former non-belief as if it raises their street creds.
This tells me that while Atheists are almost ashamed of their former association, people such as Ms. Fulwiler are almost proud of their non-beleif as if association make them seem more relevant.
Interesting. I wonder why that is.
-J
There is a pertinent article at:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0132.html
Two people you may want to google are:
J. Budziszewski
Paul Vitz
I was a dyslectic Christian—Dog is Love made sense to me. I became Atheist when I learned about god.
Horse Pleaters,
“Regarding marriage, your own post alludes to the fact that the idea of marriage _does_ change with time and place. Examples from your own bible—pre-Roman marriage among Jews was polygynous, and only later became monogamous. At various stages along the way, marriage has been conceived of as the man more or less owning the woman all the way to a partnership of equals. Some historical conceptions of marriage allow for the keeping of concubines, and the paying of dowry has been an integral part of the marriage contract in a variety of times and places. There are even cultures to this day that have practiced polyandrous marriage, a wife keeping several husbands. In short, there is no single ideal of marriage; there are as many different kinds of marriage as there are married people.”
Polygyny was only practised among Abraham’s people who were ruler-priests, not among the rest. There are reasons for this.
Please see this.
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/09/was-polygyny-among-abrahams-people.html
Christianity did outlaw the following practises.
With the implementation of the Justinian Code the following practices quickly disappeared:
* Infanticide
* Polygyny (multiple wives)
* Incest
* Cultic prostitution
* The 3-tiered caste system that limited women’s marriage options
* The practice of fathers selling their daughters into slavery.
The Code also made it legal for:
* Slave owners to grant liberty to as many slaves as they wanted.
* Families to retain the estate in cases where the father died intestate.
* Noble women to exercise political power.
So, what we would be doing is going back the old system and way of doing things, and would end up with the same things.
“The other issues you bring up, like the church discontinuing adoption services in Great Britain because they wanted to be discriminatory in their adoption criteria? That’s a whole other issue and the debate is much less clear cut. “
It’s more like they were told they did not have a choice.
“But allowing gay couples to marry is really a no-brainer, from where I sit. I really don’t understand the objections against it.
Male and women are sexually complimentary. Marriage is the founding stone for creating families and sustaining them. We can argue that this is not true, but if the human young raised themselves and women got pregnant without men, there would be no marriage to begin with.
Even in Biblical times, the polygyny practices by ruler priests was to keep blood-lines pure in their offspring. They only married daughters of other ruler priests, in the expectation that the Messiah would come from the priestly line.
So, the people making the arguments for all the marriages of the past, are not doing so in context.
You might say there is a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, but the people making their case for changing the definition of marriage, are not doing a good job, because there was a religious aspect to all these practices.
Modern democracy is very new.
Horse Pheathers,
Polygyny was only practised among Abraham’s people who were ruler-priests, not among the rest. There are reasons for this.
Please see this.
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/09/was-polygyny-among-abrahams-people.html
Christianity did outlaw the following practises.
With the implementation of the Justinian Code the following practices quickly disappeared:
* Infanticide
* Polygyny (multiple wives)
* Incest
* Cultic prostitution
* The 3-tiered caste system that limited women’s marriage options
* The practice of fathers selling their daughters into slavery.
The Code also made it legal for:
* Slave owners to grant liberty to as many slaves as they wanted.
* Families to retain the estate in cases where the father died intestate.
* Noble women to exercise political power.
So, what we would be doing is going back the old system and way of doing things, and would end up with the same things.
“The other issues you bring up, like the church discontinuing adoption services in Great Britain because they wanted to be discriminatory in their adoption criteria? That’s a whole other issue and the debate is much less clear cut. “
It’s more like they were told they did not have a choice.
“But allowing gay couples to marry is really a no-brainer, from where I sit. I really don’t understand the objections against it.
Male and women are sexually complimentary. Marriage is the founding stone for creating families and sustaining them. We can argue that this is not true, but if the human young raised themselves and women got pregnant without men, there would be no marriage to begin with.
Even in Biblical times, the polygyny practices by ruler priests was to keep blood-lines pure in their offspring. They only married daughters of other ruler priests, in the expectation that the Messiah would come from the priestly line.
So, the people making the arguments for all the marriages of the past, are not doing so in context.
You might say there is a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, but the people making their case for changing the definition of marriage, are not doing a good job, because there was a religious aspect to all these practices.
Modern democracy is very new.
I’m late to the commenting, but to the atheists using the No True Scotsman argument, please quit claiming that Fulwiler was never an atheist. If she says she was, she very well could have been. It doesn’t mean she was rational or a skeptic, just an atheist. A dictionary atheist, if you will. However, it is pretty obvious that her reasons won’t convince the rational atheists.
Nomen,
A church is not a building. It has people. There needs to be a conscience objection clause, not just for churches , but for individuals and private enterprise.
Savvy—you missed my points entirely, first that “marriage” as a concept has been constantly changing and evolving over time and across cultures, even within the context of your church and second that all the baggage you attach to the word “marriage” has absolutely no bearing on the legal aspects of it, and since the legal aspects of marriage are the only ones under contention, everything you have based your objections on so far is irrelevant to the debate. Anything above and beyond the legal rights under law is just distracting noise.
-
My idea of what a marriage relationship entails goes well beyond the legalities of marriage, but I don’t try to limit peoples’ right to legal marriage just because they disagree with me on what makes a good marriage over all. Quite frankly, it’s none of my business what someone elses’ relationship is, or what they get out of it, or whether their relationship is based on religious doctrine or not, so long as everyone involved is willing and able to give informed consent. That’s another thing that puzzles me about this whole gay marriage debate—what makes _anyone’s_ relationship your business to begin with? What gives you the right to tell someone else who they can or cannot marry under the law? So long as everyone involved is willing and able to give informed consent, shouldn’t everyone else just butt out?
Zorku,
Catholics don’t worship Mary. We honour her. There is a difference between worship and honour/respect. Saints are not just ghosts, but regular people who struggled with the same things as others. The difference is that they overcame their demons so to speak. They inspire me to continue, when I feel like giving up. They inspire me to carry my cross, even when it gets too heavy.
Jennifer, was in search of historic Christianity, and struggled with the same interpretations that you bring up.
If I was not Catholic. I would be Eastern Orthodox. But, I could not be Protestant, based on my knowledge of historic Christianity and it’s foundations.
Purgatory:
To the best of my knowledge this is an idea that was tacked onto catholisism sometime in the middle ages, as a way of solving the problem of what happens to the soul of an infant that dies before they can understand scripture. And later generalised as a second chance for everybody. It is all in all an Absurd Idea.
Communion of Saint:
I take no comfort in the propsition that my ancestors are whatching my every action. Really your argument seems to be that if you can find enough people to believe in X then X must be true nomatter how absurd it is. So you’ll get no tracktion there.
Veneration of Mary:
Dosn’t shock bother or upset me. Heck THe lack of a female deity in the other related faiths is what strikes me as odd and devisive.
Salvation of Non Christians:
As I recall this is an idea that has only won any acceptence quite recently. And certainly was not entertained when the church held more temporal power,
Apostolic Authority
would this be the same authority that lead the church to decide that protecting the image of the church was more important than children who where being systemetically abused by clergy? And the same institution that called for crusades, purges and the execution of heretics. And in the present day requires exceptions from anti discrimination laws inorder to carry on its existence.
WOuld this be the same institution that supported the divine right of kings and condemned democracy for centures. All the while it failed to condemn practices such as serfdom and slavery?
Horse-Pheathers,
Marriage is not private. It’s a public institution.
Why does the state have a bureaucratic apparatus for certifying (and decertifying) sexual partnerships involving two and only two non-related adult partners? Why should the state have such a bureaucracy? Why is it any of the state’s business?
Could it be an attempt to regulate marriage and family?
The family comes before the state, because the family makes the state. The only regimes that have placed the state before the family, have been totalitarian ones.
Konrad: Your assertion that “Purgatory was tacked onto Catholicism sometime in the middle ages” is incorrect. The notion has been around since the time of the Apostles due to the understanding that penance for past sins was a debt ought, and thus there was the question of what happens to someone who, having followed Christ, but sinned since Baptism, had not completed his penance for such sins prior to death.
Some people thought they were doomed—which lead to an abuse where people would save baptism to be performed as close to death as possible. They were wrong.
Others believed that in the mercy of God, there had to be a way to repay after death. This concept was the prayer for the dead, or the trisagion in the eastern rites. This practice has been around since the first century.
The arguments between orthodox and the Roman rite occurring at the great schism had the concept of purgatory as a valid fight before the emperor. That fight occurred in at the turn of the first millennium, which by anyone’s account was at least 500 years before the middle ages.
Thus, it was not “Tacked on” in the middle ages. The concept and the mechanics of the how the soul is purified past death has been a rich debate since the day after Jesus ascended All patriarchs have agreed that it can happen, but they differ in how it is described. In the language of Roman rite discussions, however, the Roman view of expiation for temporal punishment due at death occurs in purgatory.
The grander fight isn’t this concept, but whether purgatory is a physical place… however, this comment thread isn’t quite up to the task of that.
Konard,
Please see this.
http://www.staycatholic.com/early_church_fathers.htm
Apostolic Authority is limited to the official teachings on faith and morals only. Nothing else.
“And the same institution that called for crusades, purges and the execution of heretics.”
The Crusades were a reaction to 400 years of Muslim aggression and occupation of Christian lands. I will agree however, that I did not like how things ended. The Christian casualties were not less than the Muslims ones.
It was state law too that heretics could be executed. Please look this up.
“And in the present day requires exceptions from anti discrimination laws inorder to carry on its existence.”
You mean what passes for “faux” humanism?
“WOuld this be the same institution that supported the divine right of kings and condemned democracy for centures. All the while it failed to condemn practices such as serfdom and slavery?”
Please give me this evidence from the writings of the church councils, and the 12 ecumenical councils and the Apostolic constitutions.
Like, I said unless it’s official it’s not a part of Apostolic Authority.
you could please show me when the church sanctioned the things you mention
The first atheist who can prove to me that he or she created themself wins the prize. Meanwhile, atheism is nothing more than the search for the power to create one’s self or find the creator.
The problem with atheists today is that they get lazy on the fundamental questions and accept a priori error as the foundation for their house.
I think most are unable to reconcile the suffering they experience themselves with the Candy-coated image of God erroneously advanced by some. Others seem to be erecting a logical excuse for moral license. Yet fewer still think Nietzsche wasn’t crazy and actually get what its about and proceed despite.
Konard,
Please this document on Christian democracy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04708a.htm
Please see this document on slavery.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
Do your realize that modern democracy is actually less than 500 years old, and did not exist in most cultures across the world?
John B. Manos, Esq
Nobody is winning because the atheists are as ignorant of Christianity (in this case Catholicism) as Catholics are of atheism.
Horse-Pheathers: your premise that marriage is about legal rights is patently false. Marriage pre-dates the State; the State recognizes marriage as an establishment of paternity and, hence, the establishment of responsibility. Your “rational” model assumes consent is the key and there is no consequence of copulation. However, as has been observed for thousands of years, copulation results in a pregnancy which has increased nutritional requirements for the female and, in time, results in another human which cannot (yet) satisfy its own nutritional needs. Your model is completely false and is quite telling of the rest of your conscience.
“A church is not a building. It has people. There needs to be a conscience objection clause, not just for churches , but for individuals and private enterprise.”
conscientious objection to what?
to entering into same-gender marriage? of course. noone should be forced to marry against their wishes—although this one can only possibly apply to individuals, not to private enterprises, which (not being natural persons) cannot marry anyway.
to recognizing a couple’s marriage as religiously sanctified? of course. freedom of religion should guarantee that by itself, noone—including organizations—should be forced to call anything “holy” if their religious convictions disagree with that.
to recognizing a couple’s marriage as a valid legal union? of course not. you don’t get to just plain ignore a law you disagree with. you don’t have to like that somebody has gone and married someone of their own gender—or of a different color of skin, either—but you do have to accept that they have done just that, and that their union is legally just as valid as any other civil marriage.
for the same reason i do not think there should be “conscientious objection” clauses for pharmacists or doctors—or cab drivers who don’t want to transport guide dogs or alcohol, either. the conscience clauses for those professionals should include finding another job if their conscience will not allow them to do those jobs with equanimity regardless of what customers they get.
The title ‘10 Catholic Teachings that Make Sense to Atheists’ shows the author is on to something, that there is some common ground that could serve as a starting point for discussing what atheist thinking and religious thinking actually share. Perhaps the more worldly ideas such as Catholic social teaching, or the command to simultaneously love God and love one’s neighbor, or the dignity of every human and the brotherhood of man, or the modern day acceptance of evolution as a observed and scientific process as an integral part of creation, might be initially better received than some of the more pious beliefs and professions.
“The first atheist who can prove to me that he or she created themself wins the prize.”
I’m an atheist, Mr. Manos, and I would never make such a silly claim. My PARENTS created me.
Norman,
Here’s the point. You cannot force someone to recognize and call something a marriage, even if it is legal.
It’s like saying you have to accept my god because it’s legal to worship him/her. Now, you certainly have a right to your god, but I don’t have to worship him/her.
I say this because for many religious Christians marriage reflects the covenant between Christ and the Church.
This is why churches are in an uproar. It affects religion.
The comparisons with interracial marriage are comparing apples to oranges.
It was still between a man and a woman. This is why a legal contract will simply be a legal contract and not a marriage.
I never mentioned a conscience objection clause, as not being allowed to sit in the same room with a same sex couple.
I meant it concerning the acceptance of gay marriages. Suppose a private organization or a business run by a Christian does not want to host a same-sex marriage. They should be allowed not to.
1. Purgatory
This doesn’t make sense for two reasons. 1. The bible does not say in no uncertian terms that there is a hell or a heaven. Even the famous verse John 3:16 has the terms heaven and hell in brackets. 2. This is just something that a Pope made up to seal a logical hole in the whole idea of heaven and hell.
2. The Communion of Saints
Enjoy the following reductio ad absurdum…
When I studied anthropology in college, I found it fascinating that so many cultures that were separated by time and geography had this same idea about dragons. The best explaination is that they must have all seen dragons. And by dragons they meant dinosaurs. Therefore creationism must be true since evolution doesn’t account for dinosaurs being reported by all types of people across the world.
3. Veneration of Mary
Veneration of Mary is consistant but making statues of her breaks the ten commandments, and so does praying to her.
4. Salvation for Non-Catholics and Non-Christians
Except Jesus sort of says the opposite. Something about how none are saved but through the son.
5. Apostolic Authority
*Every* church claims apostolic authority. What does make sense though is that false beliefs tend to splinter, and Christianity sure has splintered in the last 2000 years. On the other hand true beliefs tend to stay uniform and strong.
Tom Riddering: Funny how you don’t see the slippery slope you just invited. If you go down the trapped path you went on, you end up at the ultimate question of who created this world. Surely you are more intelligent than to think it happened out of nothing. If you are saying it happened from nothing, then you might as well claim you created yourself. That argument he advanced is a variant of Euthyphro’s conundrum. Sad that the learned atheists of the day ignore old Greek philosophy to their own peril. To say that your parents created you does not answer the question. Rather, you must either accept that someone created it all or that you created yourself. Nietzsche understood the conundrum and it drove him insane as he admits in his owns writings under the guise of the madman dropping his lantern and running off in the darkness.
SteveP—still having reading comprehension problems, I see.
-
Here it is again, in simpler words this time:
-
1) Marriage means any things to many people.
-
2) Marriage implies a lot more to me, even, than just the legalistic side of things.
-
3) But in the “gay marriage” debate, _only_ the legalistic portion has any bearing, because that is the _only_ thing being debated, whether or not gay couples have the right to the same legal benefits heterosexual couples do.
-
4) This is because the law does not and cannot address all the various other interpretations of marriage that the populace holds, especially in pluralistic societies such as those that make up the western world.
-
5) Speaking of which, no member of society really has the right to impose their view of marriage on anyone else—my view that a marriage should be a partnership between equals, for instance, does not get along well with the fundamentalist notion that a woman in a relationship should be subservient to a man. If I were to try to argue that anyone who held views different than mine on marriage should not be able to gain access to the legal benefits of the marriage contract, you would very likely be quick to condemn my views.
-
6) But by denying gay couples access to the legal benefits of the marriage contract, you are doing the exact same thing, trying to impose _your_ view of marriage on those who do not share it.
-
7) Those who do this seem to, at least in part, be unable to separate their view of marriage as a whole from the much lesser “legal marriage” or “marital contract” that is actually the subject of the debate. Allowing gay couple access to the marital contract has _no_ conceivable affect on your or my overarching views of what a marriage as a whole should be.
-
8) This is demonstrated by the fact that you are able to retain and practice your own ideas of marriage and the rites that surround them in a society that contains drive through chapels, no fault divorce, varying ideas of how a relationship should work (Man in charge? Woman in charge? Equal partners? Wholly monogamous marriage? Open marriage? Marriage for procreation only? Marriage for companionship? Arranged marriage? Marriage by choice out of love? Dowry paid? And so on…) There’s a whole landscape of marriage out there that has not given you a whole lot of trouble maintaining your own ideals of marriage, and adding one more isn’t going to change that.
-
9) Moreover…how I run my relationships is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, just as surely as how you run yours is none of mine. Why should it bother you if my marriage holds to different ideals than you think it should, so long as everyone involved in it is consenting and capable of making informed decisions about it? Your marriage is your and your partner’s business, you would not like it should I meddle in it, so you should not meddle in mine—or the relayionship of that nice gay couple down the street, either.
-
What is so hard about any of this to understand? No one is seeking to change the doctrines of your church, nor mandate that the priests perform gay weddings. If they were, I’d be opposing them for impinging on your rights. All the debate is about is the _legal_ portion of the whole affair, the bit you can get just by a visit to the justice of the peace for a small filing fee. I know of no rational grounds to oppose it.
Well, a nice long expansion of my arguments on the gay marriage front just got flagged as “possible spam” and awaits moderation. Whee. Let’s see if it makes it as far as the blog….
Slippery Slope: “If you go down the trapped path you went on, you end up at the ultimate question of who created this world.”
Not at all. Your statement assumes, without evidence, that someONE created the world. I make no such assumption.
“If you are saying it happened from nothing, then you might as well claim you created yourself.”
That’s a ridiculous statement, but modern cosmology DOES claim that the entire universe erupted into the big bang from a quantum mechanical fluctuation in a zero space-time warp. That’s about as close to “nothing” as you can get. The Greeks were advanced for their time, but they knew nothing about cosmology or quantum mechanics.
Jennifer Fulwiler, if you actually want to talk with an atheist please do so.
Till then, please do not put words into our mouths. It is rude. It is unethical. Thank you for your future consideration.
@Fatboy ... Sigh ...
It’s not a “No True Scotsman” fallacy to actually question if someone belongs to a given category or not and exactly to what extent, it is a legitimate question. I’m glad you picked up a logic book once but please try to re-read it.
Nobody on this thread said that No True Atheist would convert to Christianity, or be irrational, or anything else.
Sounds more like she just grew up without any specific belief and that is what is in question. Exactly what does SHE mean by “atheist”.
@savvy said “The Christian casualties were not less than the Muslims ones”
I wouldn’t worry too much, you made up for it with the wholesale slaughter, rape, and enslavement of an uncountable number of indigenous people around the globe.
Little did those hearing the Requerimiento being read in a foreign tongue know just how violently a cheek could be turned.
Jennifer, speaking as an atheist, either you have misused language or you have completely misunderstand atheists. You seem to recognize that atheists consider belief in extraordinary, unfalsifiable claims to be unreasonable, yet you turn around and claim that several such beliefs make sense to atheists.
It is true that atheists consider some religious beliefs relatively more reasonable than others. The key word here, however, is “relatively” - just because a belief is more reasonable than some others doesn’t make it reasonable in our eyes. For example, numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5 are examples of doctrine that render Catholicism relatively more reasonable than many other sects of Christianity, in the sense that they make Catholicism more logically consistent (I have no idea how number 2 is supposed to make sense to atheists). However, we don’t consider any of these to be reasonable beliefs on their own. For example, to me an afterlife system with purgatory is more morally consistent and more just than one dependent on accepting Jesus alone. However, to me the idea that any afterlife exists whatsoever makes no sense (there is no evidence of a soul/personality essence that could survive destruction of the body). Similarly, your explanation of number 3 could help atheists understand why Catholics place so much weight on Mary, but the concept of an immaterial being becoming his own father makes no sense to us either (both in the “existence of a totally unobservable being” and “being becoming its own father” areas).
In conclusion, either you understand atheism but should have titled this piece “Five Catholic Teachings that Atheists Agree Make Catholicism More Morally Consistent Relative to Contrasting Beliefs in Other Christian Sects”, or else you have no idea how atheists think.
Just a reply to all the atheists who are demanding evidence:
First of all, the article was called “Catholic Teachings That Make Sense to Atheists”, not “Catholic Teachings That Will Convert Atheists”. One can understand and accept a specific doctrine as rational without deciding (as yet) to accept the religion that doctrine belongs to. As a Christian, I can understand and see rational ideas in other religions, though I don’t believe they’re actually true.
Secondly, the demand for evidence of God overlooks something hugely important. And that is the fact that the lack of evidence of God is the only thing giving us any measure of meaningful free will. I believe that God exists, but I also believe that God hides himself purposefully. And the reason is this: that if there were actual, indisputable proof that God exists, beyond all reasonable doubt, then our acceptance of him would be virtually meaningless and our rejection of him would be quite absurd. One who accepted God under that scenario would have no more faith and belief than one who believes in elephants or monorails. And one who decided to reject God would be as foolish as a child playing on railroad tracks who sees a train coming, but decides not to get out of the way after all. The Christian God has set up the universe as the stage for a divine romance. All throughout history, Christianity says, he has pursued the hearts and souls of humanity. What he wants, Christianity says, is not just our acceptance but our passion, our faith, our love. None of those things would be possible if submitting to God were on the same level as submitting to the necessity of getting out of the middle of the road when a car is coming.
Writes C.S. Lewis, “I do not think there is a *demonstrative* proof (like Euclid) of Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will & honesty of my best & oldest friends. I think all three are (except the second) far more probable than the alternatives….As to why God doesn’t make it demonstratively clear: are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which wd. be a compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are we interested in it in personal matters? I demand from my friend a trust in my good faith which is certain without demonstrative proof. It wouldn’t be confidence at all if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona’s innocence when it was proved: but that was too late. Lear believed in Cordelia’s love when it was proved: but that was too late. ‘His praise is lost who stays till all commend.’ The magnanimity, the generosity wh. will trust on a reasonable probability, is required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why, then you wd. have paid the universe a compliment it doesn’t deserve. Your error wd. even be so more interesting & important than the reality. And yet how cd. that be? How cd. an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?”
(letter to Sheldon Vanauken (23 Dec. 1950)
“You cannot force someone to recognize and call something a marriage, even if it is legal.”
if you merely want to play silly semantic games and not use the word “marriage” in everyday conversation, that’s your prerogative. you’ll make yourself sound petty-minded and childish, but no skin off anyone else’s back.
nut if you want to take any real actions that might have direct effect on other people’s actual lives—then yes, you do have to accept that legal (civil) marriages are legally binding, even if they’re marriages you don’t like, and act in accordance with that.
this is exactly analogous to how things worked when interracial marriages were made legal. nobody was forced to like them; nobody was forced to pretend to like them; certainly no churches or clergy were ever forced to perform them. but you WERE forced to accept them as real and act in accordance with that, once they were in existence. same thing with same-gender marriage.
“The comparisons with interracial marriage are comparing apples to oranges.”
no, it’s an exactly valid comparison. then as now, people were saying exactly what you’re saying now; that it affected religion, that it was divinely forbidden, that their god had separated the races and us mortals shouldn’t marry across racial lines because godsaidso. it doesn’t even take much historical research to find the quotes of people using just exactly these same lines of argument opposing “miscegenation” back then.
(i will grant you that i don’t know if catholics in particular were much opposed to mixed race marriages as late as the 1960s. perhaps the catholic church saw which way the wind was blowing a little sooner than that; i can’t be sure, not being that old myself. still, to an atheist like me—catholic, baptist, po-tay-to, po-tah-to… you religious folks are much more alike than you think you are different.)
these days such attitudes are rightly seen as antiquated, bigoted rubbish. and thirty, forty years from now, your children and grandchildren are going to be hearing you denying you ever opposed same-gender marriage, because you’ll be too ashamed to admit you were ever such a prejudiced bigot.
“Suppose a private organization or a business run by a Christian does not want to host a same-sex marriage. They should be allowed not to.”
of course they should be allowed not to. why, even to this day, no church or religious organization would be forced to host or perform a mixed-race marriage either if they didn’t want to. people would point and laugh at them, but they’d be allowed to make such fools of themselves if that was their wish.
Nomen Nescio wrote “if you merely want to play silly semantic games . . .” Unfortunately for you, the semantic value of words in a sentence convene meaning in a symbolic form. For example the word “miscegenation” implies a mixture not of a relationship but of genes. That is, in brief, the anti-miscegenation laws were eugenics based making it illegal for a non-white person to breed with a white person. What Loving v. Virginia established was the right to breed, breed in the context of a single male-single female relationship. Despite your protestations of “loving,” “long-term,” or “committed,” a male cannot inseminate another male nor can a female be inseminated by another female. Surely you’ve encountered these facts in your search for knowledge.
“That is, in brief, the anti-miscegenation laws were eugenics based making it illegal for a non-white person to breed with a white person.”
you know, when i don’t have to go further than wikipedia—wikipedia!—to prove you wrong, you should probably just pipe down and listen in the hopes of learning something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
and if breeding is the standard on which marriage is to be based, then (1) why are post-menopausal women still allowed to marry, and (2) are you planning on trying to get my own childless-by-choice marriage overturned? because that latter would make things personal, and get me rather very riled up with you.
Nomen Nescio wrote “. . . my own childless-by-choice marriage . . .” which explains a great deal. I’m sorry your spouse rebuffs your conjugal requests.
> First of all, the article was called “Catholic Teachings That Make Sense to Atheists”, not “Catholic Teachings That Will Convert Atheists”. One can understand and accept a specific doctrine as rational without deciding (as yet) to accept the religion that doctrine belongs to. As a Christian, I can understand and see rational ideas in other religions, though I don’t believe they’re actually true.
The list, though, strains credulity. Jennifer Fulwiler comes off as a Catholic version of “S. E.” Cupp. There is no authenticity in what she says, and she does not speak knowledgeably about atheists.
Michael Lucero, the irony of you quoting Lewis on a Catholic blog to support your arguments does not escape me. To further that irony;
* “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it.”—C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity p.123
Nope… I am an atheist and none of the 5 teachings of the Catholic Church make any sense to me. Using them as ice breakers would only make me think you’re insane…
You want to talk to atheists about your god and religion? Then you need to bring evidence to the table. Nothing less will do.
Steve, free hint: personal insults do not constitute supporting argumentation, nor do they make either you or your religion look better.
they are, however, pretty much the best “arguments” i would expect to see out of a catholic. thanks for confirming my prejudices, now i can feel a little less guilty over retaining those.
Nomen Nescio, free hint: a threat does not constitute a rebuttal.
Tom Riddering, Too bad. I had hopes for your effort, but you fell apart in the “modern science” mistakes.
First, the big bang still is unable to account for the Enthalpy. The best theory is that there was a matter of enthalpy inherent in the substance of the bang itself. To believe in that explanation requires one to believe that enthalpy is in decay thereby marking an end to the world at some point. It still leaves the matter unsettled as to from whence the enthalpy came.
Therein is the trap, as someone else noted, but you don’t seem to understand. Even with modern science, the laws of thermodynamics contradict the notion of the mistaken creation, or accidental spark. There is order (enthalpy) that came from somewhere that cannot be accounted for any other way.
Of course, this leads to your other misunderstanding—Aristotle and Pythagorus each understood modern cosmology and the theory it advances far better than you demonstrate. For one thing, they were better informed on the historical record and understood that they had to account for events that would not otherwise be possible with the notion of a static universe (which you advance). Second, they understood that thermodynamics argued against a static universe without some outside intervention accounted for.
Maybe you should be better informed on the matter before advancing such dogmatic statements.
“Nomen Nescio, free hint: a threat does not constitute a rebuttal.”
i’ve produced no threats, and you’ve produced neither threats nor rebuttals. red herrings don’t impress me either.
(for the record: i’ve stated i’m prejudiced against catholics. i am, in that i think they’re particularly deluded and confused people—one would have to be, to believe in dogma as ridiculous as the catholic church’s. the more intellectual ones, i think, tend to devolve into scholastic hairsplitting and theological handwaving in an effort to confuse people away from the utter baselessness of their religion. the less academic ones… well, Steve here seems to rely on insulting people’s sex lives instead of supporting his claims logically.)
Nomen Nescio wrote “are you planning on trying to get my own childless-by-choice marriage overturned? because [sic] that latter would make things personal, and get me rather very riled up with you.“ This is in response to the assertion that anti-miscegenation laws were eugenics based. It is my mistake to assume “Nomen Nescio” was both adult and of sound mind. A rational person knows that copulation is for reproduction and does not copulate more than one wants to reproduce.
John Manos, if I were to identify an error in your comments on enthalpy/decay/thermodynamics/..., would you see it as part of your ethical duty not to intentionally make the same error in the future?
“A rational person knows that copulation is for reproduction and does not copulate more than one wants to reproduce.”
oh my, your mind must be twistier than a pretzel.
“copulate”? who even uses that word? why would someone choose to use that word? adult humans HAVE SEX. say it; the words won’t hurt you. having a sex life is not harmful, or disgusting, or solely for purposes of reproduction. out here in the not-religiously-twisted world, consenting adults have sex for fun. with responsible precautions against pregnancy, disease, and heartbreak, naturally. it’s a great pastime, and can be a really great way to do nice, pleasurable things for someone you love with no side effects. you should try it, if you can ever get over the silly guilt you seem to have about it.
(and that’s another prejudice i have against catholics; their pointless, silly, and generally harmful hangups about sexuality. another prejudice confirmed…)
and, noting for the record: my response to your assertion that anti-miscegenation laws were eugenics based was to post references showing that they were not. those references were trivially easy to find, so easy that i invite our readers to go find some more for themselves, don’t take my words for it. Steve seems to be ignoring this; he probably has reasons for doing so—and i bet i can guess what they are. but i’m prejudiced, so i won’t voice my speculations… until Steve goes and confirms them, anyway.
Theophile said: “This could easily be attributed to the fact that the Catholic Church did not allow any other than clergy to read or possess a Bible, or any of it’s books for over a thousand years. The reason there are so many denominations is based on the Biblical illiteracy of the pew warmers.”
It is hard to understand how one could utter such a blithe statement based on completely erroneous assumptions. The idea that books were readily available or that most people could read them is silly. Until Gutenberg, all books were hand created, there simply weren’t very many copies of Scripture around. Why do you think the Jewish religion protected its Torahs so fiercely? (Because they were replaced at great effort and cost, if at all)Look at the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. If there were so many copies of Scripture around pre-1000 for everyone to be denied access to by the Catholic Church then we certainly would have found more. And literacy was something that only a minute fraction of the population possessed.
This false belief is at the root of one of the weakest arguments Protestants have that God intended for everyone to have and read their own Bible. Why would salvation require this when the Bible in its present form didn’t exist until the 4th century, nor were Bibles available in any significant number until the 12th century (Gutenberg) nor could the average person read one even if they got their hands on one? If anything it is a stronger argument for the oral tradition and theology and central authority of Catholicism. Assuming God behaves in logical ways of course.
Nomen Nescio: A dictionary may help. As you seem to be enamored of Wikipedia, try the article under eugenics. It may cross-reference to miscegenation so you’ll probably want to remove the link hence asserting your world view. Finally: we understand you have not reached maturity. That being true, we offer compassion and understanding. Your parish priest can point out the local ministries which will help in your transition from youth to adulthood.
“nor were Bibles available in any significant number until the 12th century (Gutenberg)”
this is a nitpicky correction that doesn’t impact your actual point, but i’m a nitpicky person: Gutenberg wasn’t born until 1398, and didn’t invent the printing press until the late 1430s, so that would be the 15th century—not the 12th.
Copulation is for procreation? Nonsense. In humans, we’ve co-opted copulation into primarily a mechanism for social bonding. That’ the reason we are, unlike, say, dogs, always sexually receptive even when mating cannot possibly produce offspring; we as a species do not have a mating season or lose our desire to copulate even during the stages of the menstrual cycle where there are no eggs present to fertilize, and compared to most other critters on the planet, we copulate a _lot_ and despite this our fertility rates remain pretty low.
-
Orgasm triggers oxytocin release in the brain which reenforces feelings of love and good will. We use this to establish first and foremost to establish closer, more trusting relationships, just based on the frequency and the context of our copulation habits.
“In humans, we’ve co-opted copulation into primarily a mechanism for social bonding” is a fine example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Congratulations!
Steve’s off in some fantasyland of his own devising. i could quibble with him about the content of wikipedia and the results of googling “anti-miscegenation laws”, but there’s really no point; this research is so easy to do, and the results so firmly support my position as opposed to his, that i shall simply encourage our readers to spend fifteen minutes doing the research for themselves. by all means, don’t take my word for this—OR his—but find out and judge for yourselves.
Nomen Nescio: Have you made an appointment with the priest in your parish?
Steve—the links between oxytocin, vasopressin, and the strengthening of social bonds are well established in the literature. The fact that orgasm releases them is also well established. Our physical biology (allowing for an “always on” sexual state) and our nature as social species lend direct support to the idea that our _primary_ use for sex is to establish and maintain close social bonds, our low fecundity supports the notion that procreation (while still important for the species!) has taken a back seat to this social bonding, and game theory supports that this is a viable evolutionary strategy.
-
Post hoc reasoning my nethers. *snort*
Horse-Pheathers: You know the suppositions in your statements are not worth addressing: you awkwardly jump from data to interpretation. Rational my foot!
Once you leave the Bible as the foundation of your beliefs, you can believe about anything you want. Just one example of all those I could mention in response to your article, in the Bible Jesus went out of his way to indicate that Mary was not anything special—just another member of his family along with everyone else that heard and followed his message. If you’re going to be a Christian, shouldn’t that mean Christ is your example?
“Have you made an appointment with the priest in your parish?”
this is how you respond to reasoned arguments from a person you damn well know to be an atheist? it’s not even an insult, to me; it’s pointless. there is literally nothing you could hope to achieve by stating it, no useful communication could ever result from it, and the only thing you might think you could achieve by it is to annoy me—and even that only if you think me to be as immature and easily annoyed as you. it’s kindergarten-level invective, and not even good as such.
gentle readers, this sort of thing is why some atheists—myself included—sneer at christians in general, catholics not excluded. i occasionally visit religious websites, for a number of different reasons—wanting to set some record straight, wanting to hear a religious perspective on some specific question, lots of other reasons—but i usually end up running into arrogant, petty-minded boors like Steve. if there truly were a deity, he, she, or it ought to give their more… special followers a few hints about how not to behave. that that never seems to happen is further evidence that the universe is godless and uncaring, just as it empirically seems to be.
Horse-Pheathers’ writing is an excellent example of the arrogance of scientism. His assertion of copulation as primarily social function ignores the bald fact that humans have copulated – and observed the effects of copulation – for thousands of years; why has no one reached Horse-Pheather’s theory before? The only evidence for the copulation as a social function is a group of adolescent human males whining “but I’ll feel better if we do it.”
Nomen Nescio: Please call the parish secretary. They’ll be more than happy to help.
@SteveP wrote: Dark Star writes: “From genetics we can clearly demonstrate that I had a great-great-great grandfather . . .” No, actually, you cannot. You can only observe that you have genes. You cannot determine their origin. You can compare genomes and observe similarities and equalities but not have any evidence of an actual person. Scientific my foot!
LOL, This is probably the most profoundly specious malinterpretation of science I’ve ever seen. Is this REALLY what you believe or are you just being dishonest to try to deceive and confuse the reader? I wonder.
Not only can I know (with the absolutely highest level of certainty possible in this world) that I have a great-great-great grandfather I can tell you where he originally came from with an extremely high probability, just by looking at my genetics. And the further up the line I have genetic samples the more accurate I can be. That IS science.
National Geographic: Genographic
<br>
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
Not only can I tell where the moon will be in 35654344.342342 seconds to within +/1 1cm, I can fly you there and back through the violently harsh conditions of space. That IS science.
And I can look into even deeper time and estimate a recent-common ancestor with just about any known species based on genetic clocks and other factors. For example, Homo spaiens and Cetacea (whales) split approximately 98.2 million years ago (see link). http://bit.ly/mRpVO2 That IS science.
We have an IMMENSE amount of genetic data and extremely detailed studies on these processes, how they work, and exactly what changes there have been over time.
The things I mentioned are just the most TRIVIAL cases, which rely only on the very most extremely well-established scientific theories with repeated confirmation of predictions and observations established over TENS of THOUSANDS of scientific studies.
I think your list has a one fatal fault. It’s an axiomatic argument. Ladder missing it’s first step, Mathematical Induction without base case… ie. false.
Reminds me of the old argument about the end of the universe.
- What’s beyond the edge of the universe?
- Nothing, you cannot go to the edge.
- Yeah, but what if somebody could?
- One cannot.
- Yeah, I *know*, but what if one still could?
- Well, if you are going to break the laws of physics, you might as well see Unicorns and Mermaids…
I think your list has a one fatal fault. It’s an axiomatic argument. Ladder missing it’s first step, Mathematical Induction without a base case… ie. false.
Reminds me of the old argument about the end of the universe.
- What’s beyond the edge of the universe?
- Nothing, you cannot go to the edge.
- Yeah, but what if somebody could?
- One cannot.
- Yeah, I *know*, but what if one still could?
- Well, if you are going to break the laws of physics, you might as well see Unicorns and Mermaids…
Steve—you accuse me of arrogance when you handwave away evidence that directly supports a conclusion you don’t like? Nice.
-
Humans are not the only species who have subverted the sexual reward mechanism to reenforce social bonding, nor are we the most extreme case of it—look at the bonobo. The resolve conflict, ease the stress of meeting with strangers, and otherwise ease social friction through rampant copulation an other sex acts.
-
Would be be so surprising that we, one of the bonobo’s closest genetic cousin, also have subverted the sexual reward system to act as a social bonding mechanism?
-
Just because the idea is new to you does not mean it is new in general, or that I originated it. Get thee to the literature and do a little reading! Or maybe you can address some of the evidence I’ve summarized that backs the idea instead of your sneering dismissal?
-
Oh, that’s right—you have no interest in discussing ideas, in expanding your horizons, or in pursuing greater insight into the world around you and how it works. Your only goal (at least as evidenced by your posts over the last few days) a[[ears to have been to _discourage_ actual discussion, trying to derail it at every opportunity, discredit the sources of ideas you don’t like, play semantic games, and avoid at all costs actually answering the arguments presented.
-
Oh well.
John Manos said: “First, the big bang still is unable to account for the Enthalpy.”
This is the first I’ve heard of this argument! Thermodynamic laws cannot be applied to the big bang because we know nothing about the preceding or boundary conditions, or even if these terms have any meaning at a singularity when even time itself is rolled up in a ball smaller than a proton. In any case, the evidence of the big bang is overwhelming, so saying it couldn’t happen is equivalent to claiming that gravity can’t exist.
“Even with modern science, the laws of thermodynamics contradict the notion of the mistaken creation, or accidental spark.”
What do you mean by “mistaken creation”? And as I pointed out above, thermodynamics cannot be applied to the singularity so it cannot be used to either confirm or disprove the big bang.
“There is order (enthalpy) that came from somewhere that cannot be accounted for any other way.”
Oh, now I see! You’re confusing “enthalpy” with “entropy.” Well, Mr. “Esq.”, you’re out of your element and don’t really understand what you’re talking about. Cosmologists have no reservations about the thermodynamics of the big bang, so give it a rest.
“Aristotle and Pythagorus each understood modern cosmology and the theory it advances far better than you demonstrate.”
What utter rubbish! They were abysmally ignorant of all scientific knowledge and virtually all of what they thought they knew was wrong! They both thought the earth was the center of the universe! Is that what you think too?
“Maybe you should be better informed on the matter before advancing such dogmatic statements.”
Mr. Manos, “Esq.”, you are far more clueless than I initially gave you credit for, but If you need my advice as to which bodily orifice to stick your ludicrous misconceptions, just ask. I aim to please.
Dark Star complains that hand waving is in progress yet wants to use a migration study to prove the existence of a singular ancestor. This is called a non sequitur.
Dark Star complains that hand waving is in progress yet posits this vague concept called “social bonding” and then subverts a few studies to “prove” the concept. This is called confirmation bias.
Hey Steve—even the church recognizes there is more to sex than reproduction. Why else are there so many articles on this site talking about “the beauty of natural family planning”? If sex is only for making kids, why is NFP fine with the church? Maybe, just maybe, they recognize (as millions have before them) that the sex act itself reenforces bonding and makes for a closer couple?
Horse-Pheathers writes “. . . even the church recognizes there is more to sex than reproduction.” Can you cite a passage, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states the unity resulting from sexual intercourse independent of reproduction?
Steve—can you explain why an organization that believes sex exists for the sole purpose of creating babies would be continually lauding the rhythm method of birth control? Can you explain why an organization that does not recognize that sex reenforces pair bonding would make arguments like “you should save yourself for marriage because it will make you a closer couple if you only ever have sex with each other”? “By their fruits shall you know them”, some wise fellow once said—and by its fruits, the church recognizes the pair bonding effect I’m talking about.
-
You still haven’t addressed any of the other arguments I presented. Why do humans continue to have a sex drive and to have sex post menopause? Could it be…._bonding_?
-
Of course, you won’t accept that or even address any part of it because you know that the best argument you can muster to oppose gay marriage is “It’s unnatural—sex and marriage are only for having kids!” It’s a lousy argument, of course, but it’s the best one you’ve got and the moment you acknowledge that reproduction isn’t the half of what sex is for humans is the moment you have to admit you don’t have a leg to stand on.
-
My prediction at this point is you will continue to stonewall, ignore the arguments presented, engage in further ad hominem and attempts to poison the well, and try to drag the discussion (if that’s what we could call it at this point) away from the subject and out around Robin Hood’s barn somewhere.
Horse-Pheathers: If you recall, I wrote: “A rational person knows that copulation is for reproduction and does not copulate more than one wants to reproduce.“ You wrote “Copulation is for procreation? Nonsense.” While I agree that you spout nonsense, I humored your abject ignorance: you might think that your child will sprout from the side of your head but I assure you that your child will be begotten through the joining of ovum and sperm be it in a Petri dish or the old-fashioned way. Cite a passage, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states the unity resulting from sexual intercourse is independent of reproduction.
“Cite a passage, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states the unity resulting from sexual intercourse is independent of reproduction.”
a short while ago you seemed quite fond of citing the names of logical fallacies at us. here’s one for you: petitio principii. (we have no reason to care what the catholic church, or its cathechism, says or thinks about sex. certainly, no such reason has yet been provided in this discussion.)
The evidence of atheist intellectual capacity: “Copulation is for procreation? Nonsense.” I do not think I can seriously entertain anymore atheist questions. Soon we’ll be talking about a-biogenesis in cabbage patches and the statistical patterns of stork flights.
Nomen Nescio: it is an answer to Horse-Pheather’s ill formed question. You have provided another answer. When is your appointment with the priest?
Tom Riddering… in addition to being an attorney, I happen to be a chemical engineer, and wrote in Stat Thermo. I wish I was having a discussion with someone who actually understood stat thermo because it’s an interesting discussion. You’ve got a bone to grind, so be it, have at it.
That you think Aristotle was a heliocentrist is rather comical. Yes, he had the concentric spheres as a model to describe other things. He didn’t endeavor to describe planetary motion itself. He also knew what he didn’t know, and that the planetary motions required observation to be described. Frankly, it’s irrelevant to thermodynamics. Ptolemy took what Aristotle had and improved it for bodies of gravity. So be it. Yes, planetary motions really have a lot to do with thermodynamics. Let’s get to the notion I described—you have a universe with laws of energy that relate to a closed system. That system balance should be static. Likewise, planetary motion should be static. The historical record shows they aren’t.
Likewise, reactions aren’t efficient, resulting in a constantly loss of enthlpy. Is there a fixed life to the universe? It’s going to run out of it unless something adds it. Where did it get the first reserve of enthalpy?
If it’s not being added to from outside, then the entire system is doomed. If it’s not a closed system, then from whence does it come?
I’m sure you’ll find some semantics to pick apart. Or others will. My original point is that the atheist point made Nietzsche go insane, because Nietzsche still observed the world and you can’t reconcile the two ideas of the real world and no god. That’s the prize: you go insane. Not my opinion, but historical observation.
Maybe it would be more your speed if we discussed Nietzsche’s life versus the modern atheist. Nietzsche didn’t have as many technological trappings to hide behind, so it should be interesting.
“My original point is that the atheist point made Nietzsche go insane”
no, syphilis is not in fact “the atheist point”.
And again Steve plays games, taking a snippet out of context and spinning it to his own ends. You do realize, don’t you Steve, that using a few words out of context to misrepresent what someone is arguing is dishonest, don’t you?
-
Yet again I’m forced to remind you of the ninth commandment: THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
-
But then….all’s fair when battlin’ the heathen hordes….
“the most important thing is simply to pray and work on becoming a saint yourself, so that you can show people Christ”
Wonderful :) Reminds me of Saint Francis’ instructions to his brothers: “Go and preach the Gospel. Speak if necessary.” :)
God bless you :)
Why are so many atheists so intent on forcing us to see their position?!?! If there is no God, it doesn’t matter, does it? Why do you care? Who are you trying to convince?
It baffles me why atheists are so threatened by believers. I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus (or any pagan stuff - crystals, etc….) yet I wouldn’t dream of forcing my atheist brethren to stop using this stuff or making money off of it by not allowing them to sell it in their stores, etc…...
I am not offended by it because it has no meaning for me. It would seem to me that my atheist neighbors do not have much confidence in their atheist religion - which it is by the way. They accept a lot on faith - another discussion, perhaps.
Therese—believers in the Easter bunny aren’t trying to meddle in the political landscape, aren’t trying to get the lyrics to “Peter Cottontail” engraved on courthouse walls, force teachings of “chicken-rabbit hybrid genetics and the origins of the Easter egg” taught in our public schools, and they’re not trying to deny rights to the minority of people in this country who prefer white chocolate over milk chocolate in their Easter bunnies…..
-
There are a lot of you, not many of us, and what you do affects us. When faced with the giant of religious believers flailing around the political landscape, why do you wonder that us, the little atheist hobbit, spend a bit of time shouting at you to watch where you stomp your feet?
All of these atheists want proof that there is a God. I have yet to see proof that there is not a God. I am not about to take any chances when my eternal soul is at stake. Jesus and his Holy Catholic Church is the only answer.
Horse Pheathers said ; “There are a lot of you, not many of us, and what you do affects us. When faced with the giant of religious believers flailing around the political landscape, why do you wonder that us, the little atheist hobbit, spend a bit of time shouting at you to watch where you stomp your feet?”
The society you seem to desire without any reference or influence from religious faith simply does not exist. Western Society is essentially resting on the bedrock of the Judeo Christian ethic, you literally cannot have a thought that doesnt in some way owe its genesis and continuing justification in that ethic. To use another metaphor, western civilzation and “Judeo Christianism” are like two massive trees standing next to each others whose roots are completely intertwined. You cannot remove one without doing tremendous harm to the other. The modern Atheists answer is essentially to live in and breathe the air of Judeo Christianism and then claim they dont need air to live. The fact is from strictly an existential viewpoint, removing religion makes ones life pointless. If there is no God and we are simply the result of trillions of collisions of atoms happening every second in accordance with physical laws, then to have ANY ethic much less Christianity is silly. Nature doesnt require goodness or cooperation and it doesnt recognize anything except cause and effect. Atheists have imported the entire moral structure of the Deist but for some reason think that the moral structure can exist without its underlying justification. What that Atheist has done is simply substitute some other concept which like God is independent of their own existence. In point of fact there are very few true Atheists out there. Most are simply confused agnostics. The Atheist can see that there is such a thing as morality and good and evil and love and hate, but since the lawgiver or source of this morality has not made themselves known to them personally, decide He must not exist. It is like saying because I cannot understand the physical forces which keep a bridge up over a river, they must not exist.
Jennifer:
How can you give a talk about atheists/atheism?
It is very clear that you don’t know the slightest thing about us/it.
And Bernie: What if the Muslims are right? Do you think Allah will be pleased by your belief in the wrong God? Or if it is the Norse gods that exists, do you think Odin will be pleased? You’d be safer off with us nonbelievers!
I also think that even if you happen to “believe” in the correct God, he will know that you are just in it “to make sure”; off to hell you go…
@THERESE60640 have you not bothered to read what has already been written on this question?
Are you somehow unaware that many ‘Christians’ fight to deny others equal rights under the law? Are you somehow unaware that many ‘Christians’ are fearful of Science and try to suppress it? These are important social issues to us, why do you propose that we should just shut up and let ignorance and fear continue to run rampant?
Are you threatened that we’re speaking out? Christians espouse their ‘faith’ at great length and have been granted great privileged in our society, a privileged which they have grossly abused throughout their history - a trait that is all too human unfortunately.
@Bernie I have yet to see proof that there are no magical unicorns who create Gods from their gaseous expellations. I have yet to see proof that the universe was not sneezed from the nose of the Great Green Arkle Seizure. I have yet to see proof that there is no Santa Clause working elves at the North Pole. I have yet to see proof of a GREAT multitude of absolutely absurd claims.
And I reject every single one of them for the same reason - the person(s) making the positive ontological claim have the burden of proof. It is unacceptable to me to ACCEPT a proposition until it has been established.
If there had been ONE unified vision of God for all of recorded History that would be one thing - but instead, humans have created for themselves every variety of possible ‘God’ that fit their own predilections of the moment.
They created Gods to ferry the wanderers in the sky against the great fixed dome of the firmament. They created Gods to deliver retribution on evil humans in the forms of Earthquakes, Volcanoes and mysteries hammers from heaven that would sometimes fall from the skies. The gods showed themselves when the moon or Sun would be occluded, an omen. They created Gods to inhabit the dark places, the caves, the deep forests. The gods lived in the trees. The gods were spirit animals. The gods were our ancestors who were watching over us. The gods were angry and demanded blood to appease them - or so confirmation bias informed our less educated brethren of the past. Every God has been the zeitgeist of the time, place and culture of its creation, the ghost in the machine, supreme deity of the gaps. That which was understood and common place became Natural and that which was mysterious was granted to God.
So after rejecting millions of “false” gods, I found rejecting YOUR God to be a trivial exercise.
And if you are “not about to take any chances” then I take that you have studied the millions of others Gods in EQUAL depth to the God that I *suspect* you just happened to have been raised in a culture that accepted. Isn’t that lucky - imagine that if you had been born in China or India you almost certainly would be going to Hell.
I really feel sorry for all those Christian parents who will have to spend forever in Heaven knowing that their unsaved children are burning in eternal torture, while not being allowed to feel any sadness for them (a doctrine I call the Stepford Heaven).
M Colins, what is your response to the Euthyphro dilemma? Note that the dilemma applies to the deities/deity even without any other actors being brought into consideration.
As for breathing the supposed Christian provided air, I’ll ask another question; how many parts of the air you breath in theistic conversations are extra-Biblical? Admittedly, if you are a Catholic, the Roman Catholic Church takes care of all those little details for you. They say it is OK and the contents of the Bible don’t matter. The Catholic institution seems like a crew of William Lane Craigs—self-authenticating their own personal views; intuiting gods out of the ether and agreeing that they know what some set of deities think because they know what some set of deities think.
“All of these atheists want proof that there is a God. I have yet to see proof that there is not a God.”
to summarize Dark Star’s winding reply: you’ve almost certainly not seen any proof that there is no Zeus, no Ganesh, no Ahura Mazda, no Papa Legba, and no Odin, yet you’ve managed to reject them all regardless. you too are an atheist, just as i am; i merely disbelieve one more god than you do.
M. Collins—there’s way too much going on in your post for me to address it all in detail, but….wow. Your biases are really showing.
-
You make the claim that Western society is wholly inseparable from Judeo-Christian ideals, implying quite strongly that the two are essentially one and the same. This is wrong. Every society carries with it influences from the societies that came before, and it would be quite foolish to say that the western world has not been heavily influenced by Christianity. However, it’s also been influenced by a lot of other cultures spanning millennia.
-
The language we are discussing this in right now, for instance, drips of Nordic influence. The days of our weeks are named after Aesir gods, it being Freya’s day as I write this, Friday, which comes after Thor’s day which comes after Woden’s day…
-
Even your religion carries influences from other cultures—your notion of the soul and spirit as distinct entities was likely Egyptian in origin. Your communion feast bears startling resemblances to a Roman Mithraic ritual that predates Christ by around two generations (Roman Mithraism being wildly popular in Rome by the time Christianity started to take root there, also had a deity born on December 25 that was triune in nature and who washes your sins clean in the blood of a sacrifice).
-
The Babylonian influences on the Old Testament are numerous, such as the Noachian flood story’s apparent origins in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
-
There are also areas where we have made major breaks from “Judeo-Christian” thinking, one of the most prominent being the abolition of slavery. The Bible is full of passages talking about how to treat slaves, what prices should be paid for them based on their age when being sold into the services of the temple, what circumstances one must free them, what’s allowable for beatings, and so on, without a single word of condemnation toward the actual practice of slavery. Thankfully we have outgrown that particular influence….
-
It goes on and on—yes, Christianity has influenced western society. No, western society is not Christian in nature and owes less to Christian thinking than you seem to think. Some of the best ideas in western society have nothing to do with Christianity and many actually fly in the face of Christian tradition, like equal rights for women, the abolishment of slavery, the separation of government from the religious body, scientific inquiry (thank you ancient Greeks for starting that ball rolling!), our numeric system including zero(you do realize 0123456789 are called Arabic Numerals for a reason, right?) and algebra laying the groundwork for more advanced mathematics(thanks, ancient Islamic folks before you largely stalled in something close to 12th century barbarism!), the idea of a Republic (thanks, pre-Christian Romans!) and the vote (thanks Greeks again!).
-
Western society is a hugely pluralistic society whether you like it or not, and while Christian thinking has contributed to it (in ways both good and bad), it’s just one influence of thousands that got us where we are today. Please quit painting it as the end-all of what we are.
@Hermes, since creation and everything is the work of God, the Euthypro Dilemma can essentially be restated as a tautology. It makes no difference since we only perceive something as moral because we are created. Without God there is nothing, so it matters not what we view as moral because morality itself does not exist without God.
As for your question regarding how much of Catholic teaching is “extra Biblical”, you mischaracterize Catholic teaching by using that description because all Catholic Theology is justified in Scripture. I would suggest you are taking a Protestant view of the Bible as the be-all end-all of Christianity. This fails immediately since the New Testament didnt exist until the 4th century. Nor is there any instruction in Scripture anywhere telling us that the Bible is the complete revealed word of God. What the Apostles were engaging in after the death and resurrection of Christ was theology. They created the apostolic oral theology tradition which defines the Catholic Church. The truth of God resides in the Bible and in the teachings of Christianity. Truth continues to be revealed, but notice that it never contradicts Holy Writ. Further, why would a logical God make Bible ownership and study an integral part of salvation when very few people were ever going to be able to get their hands on a Bible, much less be able to read it until after Johannes Gutenberg created the technology that allowed it in the 1430’s?
“the Euthypro Dilemma can essentially be restated as a tautology. It makes no difference since we only perceive something as moral because we are created. Without God there is nothing, so it matters not what we view as moral because morality itself does not exist without God.”
i’m trying to parse this into something like everyday language, and the best i can come up with is that you appear to be an adherent of divine command theory. which is one way to resolve the dilemma, i just hope you’re aware of its weaknesses.
Well, looks like another post is waiting in queue for moderation as “possible spam”. Guess I tend to write longer posts than the software is prepared to accept. ;)
M Colins, as I stated,the Euthypro dilemma does not require the injection of humans into the mix. It can be examined with any claimed deity in isolation. Do you understand what I am asking you now?
> all Catholic Theology is justified in Scripture.
Great.
> I would suggest you are taking a Protestant view of the Bible as the be-all end-all of Christianity.
No. I’m asking you your position. There seems at times as many Christianities as there are Christians, regardless of the label people put on themselves. I frequently have Catholics tell me things as if it is dogma while the RCC decrees the opposite.
I take it that you—in your theology—do not take any claims outside of the Bible plus that oral tradition as valid, correct? I’m patient, and can wait for your clarifications.
John B Manos wrote: “That you think Aristotle was a heliocentrist is rather comical.”
Not nearly as funny as your reverence for ancient ignorance, both biblical and otherwise.
“Let’s get to the notion I described—you have a universe with laws of energy that relate to a closed system. That system balance should be static. Likewise, planetary motion should be static.”
Whenever I hear people talk about how things “should” be, I have to question their assumptions. By what supernatural knowledge do they know how things “should” be? Things are what they are and they don’t care what you think about it.
“reactions aren’t efficient, resulting in a constantly loss of enthlpy. Is there a fixed life to the universe? It’s going to run out of it unless something adds it. Where did it get the first reserve of enthalpy?”
Fair questions, but then don’t make a leap of faith to the unwarranted conclusion that the big bang couldn’t have happened. That’s a faith-based, theological conclusion, not a scientific one.
“My original point is that the atheist point made Nietzsche go insane, because Nietzsche still observed the world and you can’t reconcile the two ideas of the real world and no god.
Oh? You’re Nietzsche psychologist too now?
Actually, what I can’t reconcile is the absurd idea of invisible, supernatural, anthropomorphic humanoids (god(s)) with my scientific knowledge.
Now be honest, which is more modest assumption: that the fundamental nature of the universe is supernatural intelligence with no creative or evolutionary history, or simply energy and matter? If you claim intelligence, where did all that entropy come from?
Maybe it would be more your speed if we discussed Nietzsche’s life versus the modern atheist. Nietzsche didn’t have as many technological trappings to hide behind, so it should be interesting.
If you want to argue with Nietzsche you’re going to have to dig him up. I’ve never read Nietzsche and I don’t care what he wrote. My conclusions are my own.
I thought the following article was interesting because: a) I used to be an atheist and b) I used to be married to a narcissist who happened to be an atheist.
Oxford historian Alister McGrath, author of Twilight of Atheism and formerly an atheist himself, reflects on his debates with Richard Dawkins, who seems to have retired from his science career to bash religion.
“I am disappointed. I would have expected an Oxford professor to use a much more careful, scholarly approach, always trying to see an opponent at his best, and not using simplistic generalizations. I can entirely understand why Michael Ruse and many other atheists are embarrassed by The God Delusion. What concerns me most, however, is what this book shows us about today’s atheism. I think this book is being read primarily by atheists who want to bolster their faith, when all around them God is being taken more seriously than he has for many years. It is almost as if atheists want cheap, slick answers, and don’t want to face up to the big questions. Dawkins gives them a simple way of looking at life: people who believe in God are mad, bad and sad; atheists are bold, brilliant, and brave. You don’t need to think about things; you don’t need to read books by Christians. You can write them off in advance as the predictable rantings of deluded idiots. It’s very worrying, and shows how dogmatic and simplistic atheism has now become”.
Narcissism? Interviewer Dinesh d’Souza offers,
“Even more telling, during your opening statement you referenced Dr. Dawkins or his work ten times, yet he never made reference to you. At the end of the debate, after your final comment, he simply laughed. Given Freud’s characterization of narcissism, that all libido is invested in the self and no other objects exist, perhaps Dawkins’s fundamentalism is really narcissism. Since Dawkins is an atheist then only atheism is relevant. Neither the lives of billions of believers, nor the collective works of Augustine, nor Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, nor the countless acts of Christian charity over the last two thousand years seem to matter to Dawkins”.
Anyway, this blog brought back memories. Anyone who’s ever had the pleasure of arguing with a narcissist, understands the phenomenon of “blender brain”. It happens when one’s reality is discounted (because to a narcissist, no one has a seperate reality)and every word one utters is taken out of context and twisted. Example:
“I had a sandwich for lunch.”
“No, you didn’t. You had bread and meat and you ate at 3, that is not lunch.”
“Why are you being so hateful?”
“I am not being hateful! You have some kind of mental problem for calling me hateful. In fact, YOU are the hateful one for accusing me of hate!”
(In my fantasies I had a court reporter in my employ and would at such times have her read back the transcripts…said narcissist stated, ‘Miss H, you ignorant slut, you don’t know the first thing about lunch…’
“Why is that hateful?”
“Whaaaa?”
I’m wondering if blender brain prevention was the reason Jesus told every demon he cast out to just shut up.
I am amazed at the number of atheists who read National Catholic Register. What are they seeking? Community? Answers? Interesting.
Carrie—
Ms. Fulwiler’s article here caught the notice of noted atheist blogger PZ Myers, who in turn wrote about it. Several of us who read Prof. Myers’ blog came over to check things out and inject our take on it, maybe start up a little interesting discussion. Few of us are regular readers of the Register, and I doubt many of us will stick around for long.
-
On a side note, it’s been nearly 48 hours since I posted a lengthy response to M. Collins above and their assertion that western culture and Christianity are pretty much interchangeable concepts, and unfortunately it still hasn’t cleared moderation as “possible spam”. Maybe the mods are off for the weekend?
I have not read all the posts here but one did strike me as indicative of what Atheists want. They want scientific proof of the existence of God. I find this rather interesting. God is the author of science. I find trying to prove His existence using what He created, i.e. science, like reducing Michelangelo to his paints and paintbrushes. His fingerprints are all over His creations but He won’t be put into a neat little box and labeled with what we want Him to be. He is completely and totally Other. He cannot be reduced to a set of mathematical formula.
Carrie Wehmeyer: “I am amazed at the number of atheists who read National Catholic Register. What are they seeking? Community? Answers? Interesting.”
The article was posted to a popular atheist site and it reeked of so much wrongness and bias that it deserved some response. Can’t have all the Catholics think they understand atheists based on this strange reality distortion field.
If you want to have a real conversation with a real atheist, just let me know. I’ll be calm and polite but I won’t be falsely equivocal to any claims you might have. I will tell you what I think and why, and I will not demand that you accept anything just on my assertion. I expect the same from you.
So, are you open to a discussion or are you just dropping in a less than genial comment from self-important and gentrified circles? Can we talk mensch to mensch?
I think this article is very interesting and thought provoking and I enjoyed reading some of her reasoning for choosing Catholicism-although I’m sure the process was much more in depth than these few points.
What I am confused about is why there are so very many professed atheists expressing problems with the article. If you are so comfortable with your atheism why keep lurking in Catholic discussion sites? We got it. You don’t believe in it…although it seems you want to believe in something really bad.
LAJ, exactly! Atheists seem to label believers as non thinkers. But I really think the obtuse, concrete mind can’t seem to see God in science.
LAJ, do you capitalize the word theist? If not, why capitalize the word atheist?
LAJ: “I have not read all the posts here but one did strike me as indicative of what Atheists want. They want scientific proof of the existence of God.”
No. Any atheist who brings that up hasn’t thought it through enough. They are reaching for a blunt instrument, because only solipsists and knuckle draggers don’t see the sciences as important to our understanding of the world. The issue isn’t proof or even the sciences, it’s not logic, or reason, it’s basic credibility. That may involve any of those topics and many more, but it does not pivot on any them.
Paula J, read up ... read down. If you have any questions, specify your confusion.
I’m sorry but this is appallingly ill-informed. Even by the most modest of standards this is a clear misrepresentation of atheists. And no, I’m not an atheist myself. For the people beaming about going back and forth between lukewarm belief and non-belief—do you ever wonder if that kind of wavering says more about you then it does about these particular views?
Your journal entry began with “Last week I gave a talk about atheism” and mentioned a “Q&A afterward.” Ask yourself—are you really being abiding by the ninth commandment in making that statement?
I will monitor this thread for the rest of today.
If anyone wants to take me up on my offers or have me respond to any comment, please let me know ASAP so that I do not miss your comments. Thank you.
Hermes,thank you for your kind and generous offer. I appreciate being able to ask an honest question and receive an honest answer. I would be interested to hear what you think. I am always interested to learn new things.
@LAG “They want scientific proof of the existence of God”
No, we want evidence that supports your claims and you must also demonstrate that the evidence AGAINST your position is accounted for otherwise - and there is a vast array of evidence against you, far too much to detail here.
And believers seem to always try to yank God back into the Shadow of abstraction when challenged - but you don’t believe in some abstract, unknowable, unfathomable god. You believe in the god of the bible. You CLAIM to believe specific things but you refuse to stand by them when they are utterly disproved (e.g., the immobility of the Earth: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2011/05/chilling-effects-of-religious-bigotry.html ). And before you go off on how wonderful the RCC is towards science let me remind you that you don’t get to go around burning people to death for heresy for hundreds of years and subjecting CHILDREN to inculcation and indoctrination and then preen proudly at how many scientists used to be Catholics - that is just perverse. I know you are programmed to excuse all the past atrocities of the Church but the rest of us are not.
This is the god that smites the enemies of his people, who answers prayers, who burns the flesh of the Bull condemning 100’s of followers of Ba’al to be slaughtered, who tears down the walls of Jericho, who’s devotes heal the sick and cure the lame and blind, who floods the lands, who slaughters the first-borne of an entire nation, who speaks with the pure and tells them to sacrifice their own child, who commands his loyal to victory in the genocide of the seven nations. A god of ACTION, A god who came down to walk among us and promised his return before the generation should pass.
But when the light of science shines on Prayer, suddenly this God is unable to answer? http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2010/12/intercessory-prayer.html
When we look for his cause we find tribalism, hatred, prejudice, and cognitive bias are the fuel of the believers. We find in the History of religion the history of man struggling to understand his world and really nothing much more.
What once was angels moving the unknown planets in the heavens and spirits in the forest and retribution in the fires of the Earth and disapproval of God in the shaking of its foundations and the very hand of god in the special creation of life - we now find course in physical behaviors of the material world. One-by-one the angels and spirits and demons of the world have slipped away like shadows in the brighter light.
The ancient scapegoat found its ultimate expression in the idea of Jesus - an excuse invented to avoid the useless sacrifice of animals which had replaced the abhorrent sacrifice of human children (in some cases). So we pretend there was one last ‘ultimate’ sacrifice. Sadly, all based on nothing but superstition.
It’s no great feat to talk to a burning bush as did Moses, any number of psychedelic plants found in the ancient world can facilitate such a meeting. Just be sure you are appropriately skeptical of what it says.
God is completely other and cannot be fully defined. He has however, left us with clues s to His existence. Far too many to detail here. ? I am certainly not trying to yank Him back into the “Shadow of abstraction.”
Yes, I believe in the God of the Bible. Yet many people, including you, seem intent on misreading the Bible. You have to remember two things when reading the Bible. First, who was it written to (i.e. the context in which it was written) and second, who wrote it. The sections you reference were written hundreds of years after the events mentioned. They were written by Theologians and Priests who were trying to understand their own history in light of God. The point they were making was that God was with them and helping them. At that time in human history, a God that did not help in war was no God at all. Are there factual events in the Bible? Yes. Are there Theological Truths in the Bible? Yes. You have to know the difference between fact and truth. Sometimes they are the same and sometimes not.
Disclaimer here… I do not condone some of the actions taken by members of the Church in history. I am not programmed to excuse what was done. However, speaking of burning people, torture ect…. Let me remind you that Atheist regimes have done far worse. Communism, a formal atheist state by the way, killed millions of its own citizens. The French Revolution, another formal atheist state, killed tens of thousands of its own citizens. Nazism, another formal atheist state, did likewise. Are you programmed to excuse these? Human history, down to this very day, is full of human atrocities. Let me make a suggestion here. Why don’t you read what the Church has to say for Herself? Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In my own experience, the Catholic Church is the only religion that upholds the dignity of every single human being no matter who or what they are.
Miracles do happen. Prayer does work. I’ve seen and experienced both. But as someone once said, “For the unbeliever, no evidence is sufficient while for the believer no evidence is required.” That’s why I do not normally get into conversations with Atheists about God. I find it pointless. As I stated before, God will not be put into a box for your personal edification. Faith is required. Why? God loves us and will not force us to believe. He has indeed given us free will. You do not love those you force. You cannot truly love that which is compelled. Free Will.
@LAJ Thank you for your reply, this is more interesting discussion than most :)
“intent on misreading the Bible” a very nice general dismissal, but lacking substance. Where did I misrepresent what’s in the Bible? Pick one and we will discuss it because I assure you I have read the whole thing at least once and done extensive research on many passages. I’m not some random atheist - I’m a former Christian and I was prepared to thoroughly dedicate my life to God at one point in my life.
I note with sadness that you didn’t address the link about the immobility of the Earth. Something that disproved the bible 400 years ago. How do you rectify that in your mind? Most Protestants merely excuse it as Catholic nonsense, but as a Catholic you are kind of stuck with it since you believe in apostolic succession it is irrational to believe that something that was so fiercely held could be so wrong. This since fact alone does in the entire biblical structure for me.
“The sections you reference were written hundreds of years after the events mentioned” - The NT books were certainly written far too late to be of any authority. Do you have any solid evidence this was the case for the OT books as well? Best I can tell most of them are completely mythological anyway so I don’t recall care so much when it was written.
“The point they were making was that God was with them and helping them” - to me this means they lied in order to support their presupposed beliefs.
“Are there factual events in the Bible, Yes” - absolutely, there are factual events in Harry Potter and archaeological evidence supports the existence of London. Some parts of the Bible are even useful Historical records, but many others are not.
“Are there Theological Truths in the Bible? Yes” - how do YOU know? Hindu’s believe in their versions of these truths, Jewish people actively deny your versions, Buddhist think you are all crazy and making stuff up. You can’t ALL be right. So how do you decide which version of the made-up truth is really true? This is a critically important problem that far too many believers just gloss over. You can’t both claim there is absolutely no way to have any evidence and simultaneously expect me to believe you can know which random, made-up nonsense just happens to be true.
“Let me remind you that Atheist regimes have done far worse” - A common misconception used by Christians in their defense but unfortunately not accurate either. I will detail out a number of reasons why.
(1) “you did bad things too” is not an acceptable defense and does not excuse the actions of Church.
(2) There is unfortunately no record of the hundreds of millions of natives that suffered and died as a result of the policies and actions of early Christians throughout the entire world. They directly murdered millions and spread disease and ruined entire civilizations in many cases.
Columbus, Ponce de Leon, Panfilo de Narvaez, Hernan Cortés, Francisco Pizarro… all Christians, all well-known murders and enslavers of uncountable numbers of indigenous people.
Dr. Michael McDonnel wrote in The ‘Conquest’ of the Americas:
conquistadors regarded plunder, slaves, and tribute as the just desserts for their efforts in forcing pagans to accept Christianity and Spanish rule. After all, the conquistadors did scrupulously adhere to the Spanish law of conquest by reading the requerimiento, which ordered defiant Indians to immediately accept Spanish rule and Christian conversion, or face punishment in a “just war”. The requerimiento announced that “The resultant deaths and damages shall be your fault, and not the monarch’s or mine or the soldiers”. Attending witnesses and a notary usually certified in writing that the requerimiento had been read and ignored by the usually uncomprehending Indians, thus justifying the death and destruction that so often followed.
And if you aren’t familiar with the requerimiento: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requerimiento It was “used to justify the assertion that God, through historical Saint Peter and appointed Papal successors, held authority as ruler over the entire Earth; and that the Inter Caetera Papal Bull, of 4 May 1493 by Pope Alexander VI, conferred title over all the Americas to the Spanish monarchs”
And Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent - a divine sanction for the near genocide of an entire continent of people.
And looking to the south, Bernal Diaz wrote of the sack of the Aztecs, that “When the Christians were exhausted from war, God saw fit to send the Indians smallpox, and there was great pestilence in the city.”
Now the problem here is that many of these people felt they were doing everyone a favor - they merely expedited their trip to Heaven and spared them much suffering, what’s not to love right? This is a horrible way to think, hopefully I don’t need to explain why this is unacceptable?
(3) there are ties to the Jesuits in almost every single fascist dictator of the 19th century INCLUDING Hitler, Mussolini, Petain, Franco, Seyss-Inquart, Hans Frank, Tiso, Pavelitch, Degrelle. Hitler EXPLICITLY and repeatedly claimed he was doing God’s work and the Vatican was complicit in this tragedy both because of their relative silence on the atrocities they were aware of at a MUCH earlier date than they openly admit to and because of their centuries of direct persecution and hatred of the Jewish people. Hitler was raised a Catholic and claimed to be a Catholic and was never excommunicated - And it was a Jesuit who edited Mein Kampf for Hilter. I’ve seen some people claim the Chruch didn’t need to excommunicate him but the problem with that is the Church DID bother to excommunicate one Nazi Joseph Goebbels, not for murdering millions of Jewish people but for marrying a protestant. You HAVE to know how that looks.
(4) There is simply NOTHING in ‘atheism’ (which is ONLY a disbelief in a god) that commands someone to murder their fellow man. Your Holy Book contains unquestionable commandments to murder (not just murder, genocide of every man, woman AND Child) - any atheist committing murder does so of their own choice. Now I will grant you that most Christians don’t run around killing people today, but we know this wasn’t the case in the past from the above notes.
(5) You will please NOTE WELL that ***I*** do not support murderous regimes of ANY flavor, neither secular nor religious. I condemn Stalin’s actions equally as I do those of the Holy See where those actions are harmful and hateful to mankind. The DIFFERENCE here is that you still support the Vatican. I find this to be a rather profound difference.
(6) the unquestionable fact is that there are a lot of really bad people out there in the world who do bad things which have NOTHING to do with any belief that either you or I support. I condemn the portion of Christianity which contains commandments to hate, stone to death, genocide, murder and otherwise demonize others in a tribalistic or nationalistic manner. If there was an atheistic regime that said “murder all Christians wherever you find them” wouldn’t you find that pretty abhorrent? But when you read this in the Bible you nod approvingly at the Wisdom of god.
You also are forced to believe that it’s ok for God to command someone to murder their own child and indeed, that it is the most wonderful action in the world that god would give his ‘only begotten son’ to be so sacrificed.
(7) many of the deaths attributed to ‘atheist regimes’ were due to wars and famines. Even your example of the French Revolution commits this fallacy. I do not, I try very hard to separate out the actions of individual bad-faith actors from those committed BY ORDER of the Church itself or are actions justified by the Holy Texts.
As an example, the priest-rapists are bad-faith actors - but the COVER UP by the Church is the fault of the Church. They enabled what happened and I have very little doubt that it goes all the way up to the current Rat at the top. The Catholic church isn’t the only ones guilty of this either, there are many other organizations that need to be torn down.
On the other hand, I do not so-much-as even suggest that Christianity should be made ‘illegal’ or banned. Prohibitions like that are always more harmful than the problem you are trying to solve. I encourage only open, honest debate and education on the FACTS.
“the Catholic Church is the only religion that upholds the dignity of every single human being no matter who or what they are” - oh REALLY? Can you then please explain and justify some of these abhorrent Papal Bulls? http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/Papal_Bulls_Jews.htm Does their “dignity” extend to female priests, bishops, and Popes? Why should it be that only a MAN can be the bridge to God? And do you really expect me to buy some ad hoc justification for this?
How many things has the Catholic Church had to apologize for in the past 200 years? And there are a nearly endless list of atrocities as yet unaccounted for. But I will grant you that humanity has managed to shut the Catholic Church down for the most part so they are less of a threat - but their secretive actions with the Jesuits in the 19th century will never be fully accounted for. They are an EVIL organization that needs to be ended for the good of humanity OR they need to come absolutely clean and become an open organization.
“Miracles do happen” - no they don’t - not where the light of science shines. There used to be THOUSANDS of miracles claimed at Lourdes. Then a commission was setup to try to validate them and instantly the ‘miracle’ rate dropped to a trickle. Now this was still in the early 1900’s. As medical science has advanced the miracle rate at Lourdes dropped further, and further, and now it’s pretty much at zero. Are there ANY even claimed since about 1987? Where did all the miracles go? What you had was millions of visitors who were primed to believe in a miracle and you had massive levels of fraud and confirmation bias. But not a single real miracle, sorry.
“Prayer does work” - no, it really doesn’t. Science gave it more than a fair shake and it failed. Again, you have a lot of fraud and confirmation bias and false memory effects.
“I find it pointless” - well, maybe you should consider that we actually have something valid to say? :) I listened to God for many years, I gave it more than a fair shake considering I was indoctrinated into it without my informed consent. It took YEARS from my life to recover and remove the layer upon layer of lies and clouded thinking and half-truths and cognitive bias that had been ingrained into me. And if that seems bitter, you are wrong. I’ve loved the process of learning, it’s just taken a long time :) And what I learned is that Religion is no accident, it has evolved exactly like a virus. At every objection raised it mutates and adapts to new cultural norms. I actually observe it happening sometimes with ‘believers’, they will invent out of whole cloth new dogma in order to defend their belief. No set of ideas has been more malleable or well adapted to the Human host. It’s absolutely brilliant to see how it infects the mind and uses that mind to defend itself.
“Free Will” - there is no evidence of Free Will either except in the compatibalist/computational sense. fMRI studies are rapidly destroying any hope that our consciousness is anything but a by-product of unconscious processes.
Those don’t make sense to me and I identify as atheist.
The French Revolution, another formal atheist state, killed tens of thousands of its own citizens. Nazism, another formal atheist state, did likewise. - LAj
No, neither the French First Republic nor the Third Reich was “a formal atheist state”. The First Republic was, briefly, officially deist (Robespierre’s “Cult of the Supreme Being”) - the “Cult of Reason” was never officially adopted, and Robespierre had many priminent atheists executed. As for the Third Reich, its soldiers went into battle with the the slogan “Gott mit uns” inscribed on their belt buckles. The Vatican, of course, signed concordats with both Mussolini and Hitler, and never even threatened to excommunicate Catholics who took part in their atrocities, as well as actively supporting fascism against the democratically elected government in Spain.
Interesting how comprehensively Catholics have to rewrite history.
@DarkStar the overall inference I draw from your litany of bad things about the Catholic Church is that somehow there is an alternate parallel atheist universe where everything is seashells and balloons, harmony and understanding abound, people living in the Age of Aquarius and so forth.
Atheist societies in the last hundred years alone are responsible for 50-60 million deaths. On death toll alone you lose. When presented with this information, the typical atheist becomes a lawyer and tries to hang it on religious faith even though its obvious to all but the most obtuse that people like Stalin and Hitler were acting in a way that was in direct opposition to the Christian faith. This is a trick of the folks who hate Christianity, to judge it by its worst adherents.
This is also the meat of anti religionists like Christopher Hitchens argument which tries to claim that man misusing religion is the fault of religion. One of the many that Hitchens debated was Rev Al Sharpton and even he made this obvious connection to Hitchens. He summed it up with “all the Hitchens has proved is that Man is not great” (Hitchens book is titled “God is not Great”
If one accepts the notion that God is perfect then clearly no one will ever rise to His standard. But for the average Christian imperfection is the norm, atheists you dont get any points for stating the obvious. Somehow the average atheist holds themselves morally superior despite the fact they have no standards but their own to live up to and despite the fact that morality doesn’t exist in the atheist universe. Morality is simply an arbitrary and usually expedient set of responses.
M Collins
Specifically, of course, Leninist-ruled societies. If you want to saddle atheism with the blame for this, Catholicism have to accept the blame for everything every theist government has ever done - not just the vile atrocities carried out by or on behalf of the Catholic Church itself, which I would have thought more than enough to be going on with.
...then one is an idiot. How could a perfect being create what is, very obviously, an imperfect world?
Garbage. “Arbitrary” means it doesn’t matter what choice or judgement you make; but moral choices and judgements have consequences for the welfare of others. Hence, they are not arbitrary. Atheists have to take responsibility for their own moral judgements like adults, rather than pretending they come from a big sky fairy.
”@DarkStar the overall inference I draw from your litany of bad things about the Catholic Church is that somehow there is an alternate parallel atheist universe where everything is seashells and balloons, harmony and understanding abound, people living in the Age of Aquarius and so forth.”
that’s the hoariest non-defense of any flawed position ever. “what, you don’t have anything better to propose that we can do right now? then you have no business pointing out any flaws there might be in my proposal!”
wrong. on both counts, as it happens. anyone is perfectly free to point out flaws in anybody else’s position, in the hopes that the somebody else might be interested in bettering themselves and fixing their flaws; and, atheists do tend to have a counterproposal or several which we usually think would be well to adopt. how about taxing the churches, to begin with, and then arresting whichever clergymembers commit any crimes under secular law whatsoever?
(i read reports, like the Cloyne report, where bishops and whatnot are shown to have advocated making sure criminal clergymembers will only ever face canon law repercussions and should have their misdeeds concealed from civil authorities. my mind boggles, for two reasons: one, are these people deluded enough to think they live in the middle ages, that they might not realize secular law is supreme in any democratic nation? and two, how are these… monsters not under arrest for conspiracy to prevent justice? we already know what happens when churches are allowed their own private law—atrocities happen. the separation of church and state, and the total secularization of civil society outside of the church buildings, is for the good of all.)
KG wrote: If one accepts the notion that God is perfect
...then one is an idiot. How could a perfect being create what is, very obviously, an imperfect world?
Your criteria for what a God would or would not do is in dispute so it is not a rebuttal.
That question however is addressed in fundamental theology. It is accepted in Judeo Christianism and other faiths that for God to create perfect human beings would be to create nothing. It is free will that makes our creation noteworthy. It is the opportunity to perceive right from wrong and make our choices accordingly.
This circles back around to the reality of a godless world not requiring morality. It simply doesnt exist in the cause and effect universe.
Which is obvious drivel: perfect human beings would not be nothing, they would be perfect human beings.
More drivel. Morality is simply taking into account the interests and wishes of others, particularly when these conflict with your own. The fact that people can do this is in no way logically dependent on the existence of a god, or of contra-causal free will.
Carrie Wehmeyer: “Hermes,thank you for your kind and generous offer. I appreciate being able to ask an honest question and receive an honest answer. I would be interested to hear what you think. I am always interested to learn new things.”
Good. I have some places on forums where we can talk, though I’m open to some other forum that is public. Do you have a recommendation of a place that you prefer?
KG wrote: “More drivel. Morality is simply taking into account the interests and wishes of others, particularly when these conflict with your own. The fact that people can do this is in no way logically dependent on the existence of a god, or of contra-causal free will.” This despite the fact nature or the physical universe requires no such accommodation. Any consideration of others is part and parcel of a survival mechanism and ultimately arbitrary. I would further appreciate it if you would disagree in a more civil way. It’s difficult to accept an opinion from one who communicates this way.
Hermes, I don’t really have a place I prefer. I rarely ever comment publicly and am not terribly familiar with most places. Anywhere is fine with me.
Dark Star, as usual, another excellent write up in your 7 point list (Jul 31, 2011 11:03 PM). I would write a shorter reply myself, though I appreciate the informed details and thoughtfulness of what you did write.
Summary: Nobody blames theism as a whole for atrocities or any bad deeds. That is because theism covers such a variety of practices and beliefs. This is no less true for atheism, and it could be argued that it is more so.
* So, beyond theism or atheism, what do people promote as reasons for the atrocities and other bad deeds they perform?
In the case of Christians, they bring to their base theism quite a few additions that can and have lead to atrocities and other bad deeds. The Bible is rife with them, and the history of people who followed those teachings also include those atrocities and other bad deeds done in the name of Christianity. Yet, I would not blame Hindus for the problems of Christians, nor the Christians for the problems of Muslims. I would not even blame one subset of Christians for the bad actions of some other subset of Christians.
In the case of various communist groups that committed atrocities and other bad deeds, they were frequently atheists and often dogmatically so. Yet, unless you are addressing a specific narrow group of communists blaming atheism in general for any of those atrocities and other bad deeds would be as nonsensical as blaming a Catholic for the fatwas by Imams that have lead to the deaths of various individuals.
So, I take it as a moral and ethical responsibility for people who are in the groups that commit bad actions to act themselves. If they do not, and if they are not effective in halting and making amends not just apologies, then they are complicit in the bad deeds because they are a member of that group. Soviet Communists, for example, were responsible even if they did not run the prison camps, but a Buddhist would not be even though many Soviet Communists were atheists (where they have responsibility) and many Buddhists are also atheists (where they do not have responsibility).
I think the the rational western theology cannot stand alone without the mystical oriental approach of the Orthodox. The Orthodox are lost in the west and need the direction and initiative of the Western Christian religion. Without dialogue, the message of the Church is incomplete. Existential definitions of the East are readily accepted by Atheists, but when the rational question of what do i do about it arises, the Orthodox have no answer. They are still in full retreat as if they are still under Ottoman rule. Meanwhile, the West is at its best when it returns to Patristic literature including Tertullian, Jerome, Aquinas, Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Nanzianzus, Basil etc.
@M Colins “Atheist societies in the last hundred years alone are responsible for 50-60 million deaths”
There are so many fallacies in such a small space I really don’t know where to begin. Unless you bother to go and read several thousands pages of detailed histories I don’t think you can really tease much information out of raw figures and you ignore the deaths that fall on the heads of Christians alone that are UNCOUNTABLY large, not to mention all the theocracies through recorded history.
I challenge you to give me an accurate accounting of the murders committed by Christians in JUST the Americas and Africa. You cannot do it because there were so many they were unrecorded, but by many estimates it runs into the 100’s of millions of direct and indirect deaths (war back then often caused massive famine and disease). Unless you can do so then you cannot claim “On death toll alone you lose” (nevermind the horrifying idea of justifying your crimes because someone else murdered more).
Furthermore, many of those deaths you cite were from war and famine - they are not murders committed by atheists. If anyone takes control of a state and there is a revolt there will be a war and resulting deaths. Do YOU take responsibility for EVERY death caused in war and famine from EVERY theocratic caused war? What about G.W. Bush in Iraq with the murder of some 100,000 innocent Iraqi’s who said ‘God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq’? And add up all the religiously fueled sectarian wars. Do you claim responsibility for all those? If not, then please justify why you apply different criteria to Catholics and non-Catholics.
And, as a previous poster pointed out, shall we paint EVERY theist with the same broad brush as you are trying to do with non-believers? Is the Catholic Church held responsible for every crime committed by Islam and Judaism and every other Christian sect as well? If you excuse Catholics from the actions of Islamic jihadists then you are a hypocrite for trying to conflate MY beliefs with those of the likes of Stalin or Hitler.
Hitler probably drank milk at some point in his life, have you ever had milk? If so, let’s blame it all on milk even though we KNOW peaceful people who drank milk (this IS exactly the fallacy you are committing - it’s called the Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy).
The other problem you have is that there are many examples of relatively peaceful secular states (and by that I mean secular states that are FAR MORE peaceful than theocracies have proven to be, no state or people have been free from war and strife over the ages). We do not know of a peaceful Catholic Church as there is only one instance of it and we can READ the Papal Bulls that are responsible for crimes against humanity.
Would YOU accept a Nazi regime today that merely apologized for their atrocities of the past but still had all the same basic beliefs? That’s basically my view of the Catholic Church AND we have confirmation that they a corrupt bunch at the present. And once again, I separate the individuals from the actions of the stewards and from the policies of the institution itself. Most individual Catholics are just normal, hard working people.
On the other hand, within Christianity as a whole there are instances of peaceful sects such as the Quakers. Interestingly, many other sects of Christianity have repeatedly committed crimes against the Quakers. And we have plentiful examples of Catholic verses Protestant hatred and violence going both ways. So I freely admit that you CAN be a Christian (of any denomination) and not commit atrocities against humanity.
With Stalin (and Lenin) you have to dig deeper but even there we find deeply rooted connections to Catholicism. We know for a fact that Stalin was educated by Jesuits at the Seminary of Tiflis for several years - there are conflicting claims that he was “kicked out” or he “performed excellently” - IMHO there is not sufficient evidence to claim to know one way or the other. But we also know that Jesuits later aid Stalin’s escape from exile on several occasions, after which he even returned to Seminary of Tiflis. We also know that after one such visit Stalin wrote Credo pushing a distinctly Jesuit promulgated Fascism (Stalin was NOT a Marxist at this point). This is also why the Russian Orthodox Church was attacked so viciously initially. Read also about the Jesuit Superior General Wlodimir Ledochowski and his involvement.
Stalin does appear to break with the authority of the RCC at some point but there are many of lines of evidence that indicate that they help put Stalin into power and Stalin unquestionably exploited the Heavily Christian base who viewed the Czar as the mouthpiece of god.
However, I don’t pin Stalin on the Catholic church - I think Stalin was a psychopath and exploited a very vulnerable time and place of people to their detriment. Were they not so predisposed to treat the Czar as a god perhaps things might have gone differently.
But What I don’t accept is your implication that Stalin’s actions had ANYTHING even remotely to do with atheism itself. You fail to separate the individuals, from the institutions, and the beliefs and policies of those institutions.
M Colins
I’ve no idea what the first sentence here is supposed to mean. Of course the fact that we are able to consider others is an evolved capacity; that does not make it any less real or important. I’ve already explained that consideration for others is clearly not arbitrary, because it makes a difference (to those others) whether I consider them or not. Adding “ultimately” doesn’t make your claim any stronger.
Those who are losing the argument, whine about tone.
Dark Star,
Er, Stalin had no connection with the RCC, at any time. He was educated for a time at a Georgian Orthodox seminary, nothing to do with Jesuits.
The only material that I can find linking Ledochowski to Stalin appears to be written by a (religious) lunatic.
As much as I would like (well, not really) to continue this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that we are getting mired into details that don’t really matter. I’m sick (literally with infection in both ears, nose and throat) and tired of the acrimonious nature these discussions tend to produce. That is the reason I do not normally get into such discussions. We are not going to suddenly convert the other to our own way of thinking and believing.
I would recommend reading Fr. Benedict Groeschel and Fr. Thomas Dubay. Both certainly speak and write better arguments than I do. I can read and comprehend but explaining it is not my stong suit.
As a committed faithful Roman Catholic my purpose is to love as Christ loves. That is a better witness, in my opinion, than any learned treatise. That being said, I love each and every one of you and want for you only the best! HEAVEN!!!!
With that I am leaving this discussion and wish you all the best….
LAJ, I am sure that I speak for others when I say: Your retraction/concession is accepted. You love us, but not enough to be worth your time in the face of a purported eternity, correct? That is some strange love you have there.
This may help some in understanding aethist perspectives: http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/WGN-Videos/Fr—Barron-comments-on-The-New-Atheists.aspx
Also, the following may help aethists understand the question of “evil”: http://www.youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo#p/u/30/vx8ZMkWL8hw
3in1,
Well it’s kind of you to offer links which might help understanding by and of aethists, but AFAIK, there haven’t been any on the thread. Quite a few atheists, though.
BTW, you’re calling yourself “3in1”; am I correct in guessing that it is the actual triune creator deity I am addressing, at least in your own estimation?
oops, I meant “atheist”.
@KG
The seminary in question WAS the “Seminary of Tiflis” as I already said. This IS an Orthodox Byzantine Rite seminary but there were Jesuit instructors.
You can see this in his interview with the Jewish journalist, Emil Ludwig:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/dec/13.htm
And, who remembers this bit of history?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,797050,00.html
Now, I agree that Time worded it incorrectly here (I did not), but the involvement of the Jesuits at Tiflis was known at that time.
In 1904…
January 5 J. V. Stalin escapes from his place of exile.
February J. V. Stalin arrives in Tiflis and directs the work of the Caucasian Union Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.
J. V. Stalin drafts the program document entitled “Credo,” dealing with the disagreements within the Party and with the organizational tasks of the Party.
It is in Credo that marks his turn away from Marxism, as I mentioned previously.
As an aside: What Marxism actually says that religion is a RESPONSE to deplorable conditions and that the way to eliminate religion is to remove the conditions from which it is born (that of suffering). Most people misremember this quote as “Religion is the opium of the masses” or some variation but the actual quote is actually much deeper:
To outlaw and murder your own citizens is simply NOT Marxism, however much someone (like Stalin) might hold to other ideals of Marxism. What Marx is rather CLEARLY saying here is that if you give workers a good life, a safe society, a loving community, good education and respect then religion will fall away as an illusion. This has held true in pretty much every society EXCEPT the United States where a desperate clinging to religion and turning away from education is currently working to destroy the nation.
It’s like someone claiming to be Catholic but not believing in god or Jesus. Okay, you might be culturally Catholic in some respects but you aren’t A Catholic. Similarly, Stalin was no Marxist - at least not after Credo.
If you think you know about this time period based on your primary or secondary school education you are wrong. You really must go read more detailed histories. I cannot reproduce tens of thousands of pages here. I can only point in the right direction and then you have to go do the research for yourself.
But as I argued above, I don’t see how this even matters other than it’s a very important time in Human history. You cannot simply paint all those who disbelieve in god with the same brush any more than we can lump all religions together.
I hope this helps to clarify.
Posted by Hermes on Monday, Aug 1, 2011 3:06 PM (EDT):
LAJ, I am sure that I speak for others when I say: Your retraction/concession is accepted. You love us, but not enough to be worth your time in the face of a purported eternity, correct? That is some strange love you have there.
Hermes, do you mean to be offensive on purpose? I am leaving this conversation because I am ILL. 101 fever, infection in both ears and I am in PAIN and I simply am not up to making any more arguments. If you wish to find that a retraction/withdrawal that’s your problem. It is not. If you find that I extend the love of Christ strange that is also your problem. I am done and yes I am irritated. You are not a nice person.
Dark Star,
Your quote does not say that there Jesuits at Tiflis Seminary; it says Jesuitical methods were used there. Others besides Jesuits can use Jesuitical methods, as indeed I’m not saying there weren’t Jesuit instructors, but you haven’t produced evidence that there were. Nor do I see that there presence would explain the totalitarian and murderous course taken by Soviet history, which grew out of the desperate circumstances of the Russian Revolution and Civil War, and the conspiratorial and dictatorial nature of the whole Bolshevik Party leadership - not just Stalin.
Tsk. The words “as indeed” should have been removed from my last comment, and “there presence” should be “their presence”.
LAJ, I wish you a speedy recovery.
I also wish LAJ well.
@KG Actually, the interview mentions both Jesuitical methods AND asks directly about the Jesuits which is answered with some acrimony towards them based on personal experience at the seminary (which I clipped from my excerpt as it was ancillary and I expect the reader to read the original source if they were interested, I didn’t link because it’s trivial to find in Google).
Time also clearly makes the association to the Jesuits, and his portrayal as virtually a Catholic Saint.
And since I’m already posting volumes each time that was all I posted, but there is more.
It is well known that (for example) Grégoire-Pierre Agagianian was educated at Tiflis [aka Tbilisi], who served as Armenian Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia from 1937 to 1962.
‘Remembering Stalin’ by Comrade Nihar Mukherjee
http://quotes-of-wisdom.eu/en/author/josef-stalin/biography
@KG “Nor do I see that there presence would explain the totalitarian and murderous course taken by Soviet history”
The Orthodox Church was an enemy of the Catholic Church, and they were among the first to get destroyed by Stalin while the Jesuits were initially allowed to continue to operate and have influence (Lenin having restored their access). We see evidence in Stalin’s shift away from Marxism after 1904, towards the more typically violent Jesuit fascism found in Franco and Tiso. Later events appear to be an attempt to maintain power once gained.
@KG “Stalin and Hitler were acting in a way that was in direct opposition to the Christian faith”
The unaddressed question here is, if we cannot pin Stalin’s action on Catholicism why do you think it’s ok to pin Stalin’s action on ‘atheism’, and then proceed to paint all atheists with the same broad brush? Stalin’s actions were the consequence of his BELIEFS, not his NON-BELIEFS.
And to address your question, I must rephrase it slightly: Were they in opposition to the Catholic faith? And then we must ask, By whose interpretation of faith? What about these Catholics?
Leo XIII, quoted by Dr. Marianus de Luca, S.J., Institution of Public Ecclesiastial Law (Rome, Italy: Georgian University, 1901)
There is a lot of evidence that hard-line Catholics didn’t have too many problems with killing Jewish people during those times. Go look up the Papal Bulls related to the treatment of the Jews and Heretics (and keep in mind that the Russian Orthodox was considered Heretical). Don’t forget that Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies” wasn’t part of the protest over Free Will. The Catholics of the time hated the Jews as well.
I agree with you that by TODAY’S interpretation of Christianity by MOST (not all) Christians these actions would be condemned. But they were NOT condemned by Catholics of the time until they eventually became too abhorrent for the average person to bear.
And I must once against direct your attention to the “Christian Identity” movements I posed on Jul 25, 2011 6:40 PM. So these violent influences in Christianity survive even today. These are just a few I happen to know of.
So again I ask, by whose interpretation do we make these judgments of what is, or isn’t “Christian” or Catholic? There seems to be no certainty within the body of Christ itself. You don’t even agree with the Catholic Church from only 100 years ago. How can the interpretations be THAT wrong? They can’t even agree on Slavery, how could the Bible not condemn slavery in the strongest possible manner and yet have time to worry about inanities like eating Shrimp?
You cannot just divorce all Catholic ties to Stalin when he’s on the cover of Time as the Jesuit-trained near-Saint. And then you have the Jesuit ties to other fascist dictators of the time: Hitler, Mussolini, Petain, Franco, Seyss-Inquart, Hans Frank, Tiso, Pavelitch, Degrelle.
I think that Nothing I can write on this will matter because you have prejudged all conclusions. If you want to be honest then you MUST go do the research yourself and Honor the Truth that you find, don’t make excuses for it. I think the best I can hope for is to make it clear that these questions do not have trivial or easy answers and hope that the reader will care enough to question their assumptions and do some research.
I had intended this to be short, sorry. This is too long for me to edit properly so I apologize for what is sure to be a lack of focus. There are too many threads running in parallel to make it an easy discussion.
Hey, Jennifer Fulwiler! Assuming you have been reading the comments, do you still think those 5 Catholic teachings “make sense” to atheists?
LAJ: Hermes, do you mean to be offensive on purpose? I am leaving this conversation because I am ILL. 101 fever, infection in both ears and I am in PAIN and I simply am not up to making any more arguments.
If true, that’s fine—but only because I don’t believe what you believe and I see no need for you to suffer. If not, my comments stand.
True or not, though, what’s a little pain for saving someone for eternity? Someone who could do the same for others, causing a potential rippling effect. That is, if you believe such things such as eternity based on belief and/or religious actions. (Note that it’s not my book or teachings. It’s yours. If you don’t like the implications, that’s not something that I can correct for you. They remain regardless of how much you or I would argue otherwise.)
KG wrote: I would further appreciate it if you would disagree in a more civil way. It’s difficult to accept an opinion from one who communicates this way. - M Colins
Those who are losing the argument, whine about tone.
It is self evident that each of us think the other is losing the argument. I hold your views in about the same degree of estimation you do mine. But calling your views drivel, tripe, or idiocy, wouldnt really engender any debate, only lead to more of the inflammatory and emotional rhetoric of the spoiled person who when they can’t get all to agree with them starts becoming abusive. You are the worst kind of smart ass, the kind who views all difference of opinion from theirs as signifying a mental defect.
In this little tit for tat of victims of religion vs victims of atheism, someone (I cant find the comment) just ruled out victims of the purges and gulags in the USSR because this was “starvation” and apparently not active inflictment of death. Then turn around and cite Native Americans who died of disease as directly the victims of religious intolerance! Never mind the implausible and silly number of “100’s of millions” who died. Most archaeologists will set the maximum indigenous populations of the New World at a fraction of that number. A little consistency is in order here.
This is a GREAT article! As a convert, I can relate to a lot of what you said in this article. I also did not have any problem with purgatory when coming into the Church. I remember thinking about (as example), Mother Teresa who did all these great charities on earth and then consider a Nazi soldier who murdered innocent families but regrets his evil deeds and says confession before dying. I thought about how it would be unfair for someone who did such great evils to go straight to heaven and be comparable to someone like Mother Teresa. So purgatory made perfect sense to me. The Nazi did repent but would have to ATONE for all his sins in purgatory.
I also remember reading about the Church teaching on the salvation of those outside the Church. St. Augustine covered this topic as well. It makes perfect sense that a Merciful God would judge souls based on what they know. If they never know the Truth, then they can not be judged on the whole Truth. I think God judges those outside the Faith on the natural law. And deep down, people of no Faith usually know what is right and wrong but some people choose to ignore it.
@M Colins
You are repeatedly ignoring issues raised in favor of subterfuge - What you need to address is why Catholicism and greater Christianity is responsible for the deaths and horrible treatment of so very many people over the centuries. Until you do that we’re done. Just a few: multiple Crusades, all the Inquisitions, Diego de Landa Calderón’s destruction of the Mayan, the Incas, colonialism, Wars in India/China/etc, conquistadors, Native Americans, Manifest Destiny, christian sectarian violence, etc.
I don’t care if atheists kill a trillion people a day, you need to justify YOUR belief system.
And just to note:
David Stannard, professor in the Department of American Studies at the University of Hawai’i (and since joined by Kirkpatrick Sale, Ben Kiernan, Lenore A. Stiffarm, Phil Lane, Jr., and Ward Churchill) estimates that almost 100 million died in “American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World”. Let’s assume he’s off by 50% and it was only 50 Million? You still have to account for Africa, China, India, etc.
American colonies By Alan Taylor puts the native population estimate of the Americas at ~50 Million in 1492. Add to that the populations in Africa and remember that some 10 million Africans were taken as slaves and transported to the Americas as laborers and were “treated as chattel” and many millions of others were slaughtered or left to die from disease and famine. And this is just looking at one narrow time window. Cortés destroyed Aztec civilization. In 1518 there were an estimated 25 million natives, fifty years later there were only 3 million left.
Alfred W. Cosby wrote in 1993 that the indigenous population collapse through the Americas was “surely the greatest tragedy in the history of the human species” / Islamic & European expansion: the forging of a global order By Michael Adas, (et al.) American Historical Association
See also: http://www.anti-politics.net/distro/text/500years.html
So I think a death toll of Christianity at well over 100 million is extremely conservative.
Now, if you want to talk which kinds of War are defensible and other causes of death we can do that.
Not if the contrary opinion gives some evidence of being based on actual thought about the issues, rather than simply repeating stupid and offensive stereotypes, in your case about atheists: “morality doesn’t exist in the atheist universe”.
There is a fascinating premise in some of these comments, that once you’re an atheist then you’re always an atheist. (It’s almost as scary as “once saved always saved!”)
First of all, the logic is pretty basic:
p: Atheist
q: Always Atheist
If p then q
p
therefore q
not q
therefore not p
This is valid logic, but that does not mean this is a sound argument.
For a sound argument not only must you have valid logic, you must also have true premises. And the premise that “once one is an atheist, then they are always and atheist,” cannot be assumed generally true until it is proven true in all cases. It may be particularly true for a given individual, but that is not enough to make it true for everyone.
For instance, a very prominent atheist of the 20th century was an Oxford Professor by the name of Antony Flew. And I use the past tense, because not only did he die, but in 2004 he became a Deist. I could get into the details, but if you google his name and then click on the first link to Wikipedia, you’ll read all you need to know.
Now, Deism is a far cry from Christianity, but let us not obfuscate the point: there was a prominent atheist who changed his position and believed in an “Aristotelian God.” Antony even took a step further a criticized his Oxford colleague Richard Dawkins for being misleading on the origin of life. However you want to dice his definition of God, he went from belief in no God to belief in a God.
Starting with this as evidence, we can arrive at a true statement: an atheist went from having no belief in God to having a belief in God. With this one specific case we can conclude that the premise that “once an atheist always an atheist” is generally false.
Those who claimed that Jennifer could never have been an atheist seem to suffer from a logical fallacy called “Hasty Generalization.” It may be true for the individual making the claim, but that alone doesn’t mean that is must be true for Jennifer or everyone else.
@John R - nobody is making that assumption. You have argued a strawman position.
The comments that were made were based on how poorly argued the article was and further backed by looking at Jennifer’s earliest postings. It’s perfectly legitimate to question if claims are true or not. If I claimed to be a former Christian (I am) and I started by saying that all Christian’s reject the Trinity—would you question my claim of being a former Christian?
Her status as a former atheist, or not, is irrelevant to her arguments/points or our rebuttals - it only goes to credibility and expertise. And what we’re telling you is that her posts do not accurately reflect atheistic thought in general.
@Dark Star - If I’ve erred, then please forgive my assumption, or at least my wrong impression of the comments.
Also, it is perfectly legitimate to question, but it would sound less offensive if the question were formed as a question and not as an accusatory statement such as: “And a correction to some comments, Jen CLAIMS to have been an atheist but I have no verifiable information about her prior beliefs, inculcation (cultural or otherwise), or indoctrination.” Nice nuance with the caps there, but if that’s your idea of a perfectly legitimate question, then you’re rallying a fight and not a conversation.
I think your sentence: “Her posts do not accurately reflect atheistic thought in general,” should have been comment number one from the atheist camp. That would have prompted a “why” from the Catholic camp, and then there could have been a civilized and perhaps even an enlightening conversation. Sadly, the first comment was, “Is there evidence for any of these? No? Then they’re about a stupid as anything else religion has.” Whether you agree or not with this comment, calling anything else religion has as stupid in a religious blog automatically leads to poor conversation. Granted you may not have been the one to give this line, but when you start with, “Nope, sorry, but your version of these delusions make no sense to me either.” Using the word “delusion” just added fuel to the fire.
Sorry, for any misunderstanding, and never did I intend to build a straw man argument. Perhaps, things would have been clearer if they would have been presented a bit more tactfully.
KG wrote: “Not if the contrary opinion gives some evidence of being based on actual thought about the issues, rather than simply repeating stupid and offensive stereotypes, in your case about atheists: “morality doesn’t exist in the atheist universe”.”
Exercise your brain a little and think. If you have removed all from your universe except for physical laws and cause and effect, then ANY moral system doesn’t exist. Nor does evil doesn’t exist in the atheists universe if that makes you any happier. It doesn’t mean you’re not what we could consider nice or good people, its just that you are living with hijacked beliefs about good and evil because in this universe you believe you inhabit, one system of morality (or immorality) is as good as the next. No concept such as good or evil for you survives the individual holding those view. It is simply an arbitrary set of behaviors that amount to a societal accommodation for cooperation’s sake. There are no universal moral absolutes because morality doesnt exist. The moment an atheist realizes that a so called immoral behavior carries no negative consequence to themself is the moment they feel free to engage in it with impunity and free from guilt. You need to go a little further than sophomore in high school level analysis with this. For all I know you are a sophomore in high school. In which case I assure you you’ll get it sooner or later.
“Nor does evil doesnt exist” should read “Nor does evil exist”..
@John R - a fair enough criticism. It was more of an incredulous reaction. mea culpa. And yes, my comments are intended to fuel the fires :) I do view your religious beliefs as delusional as they go against everything we KNOW about reality and yet you have this Really Vast mythology in which you operate, often very detached from reality. And these beliefs cause harms to individuals and societies. If I felt it was a harmless bit of fiction I really wouldn’t care what you believed. I don’t generally have much bad to say about the Jains, or even the Religious Society of Friends for that matter. And I think that asceticism even has some value.
@M Colins “If you have removed all from your universe except for physical laws and cause and effect, then ANY moral system doesn’t exist”
Not entirely true, for one it presumes your definition of morality is correct, it’s an unresolved premise. Secondly, Look up ‘Compatibilism’ and watch some of Daniel Dennett’s presentations on it on youtube.com / And worst case, even if we’re in a deterministic universe, we still ACT as if people are responsible for their actions. Net-net it’s all the same.
The problem with your idea of morality is that it doesn’t actually explain anything either, you just pretend it does out of convention. If God is the quintessence of moral goodness, and yet God CAN do anything then there are no moral absolutes. But if there are absolutely RIGHT and WRONG actions then they are inherently RIGHT or WRONG and do not need an external law giver to establish them - we observe the universe and infer the laws that exist.
And if the meta-verse cannot ‘just exist’ uncaused then proposing an uncaused God does nothing to resolve the problem. And why does this Cause have to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, tightwad with a voyeuristic fetish? And aren’t you amazingly fortunate to have been lucky enough to be born into a culture that JUST HAPPENED to inculcate you with a belief in the RIGHT God and not some Hindu false god? Whew, huh?
And once you admit the Bible into evidence (as most Catholics) then you have lost. This God commands a man to murder his own child, he murders humans left and right, he commands humans, not just to murder but to genocide, he obsesses over shellfish but is ok with Slavery, and he condemns his OWN son to death to atone to himself for rules he made in the first place. You are forced into mental contortions to wrap your brain around all those gaping holes but I would prefer to have nothing to do with that God. I do not WANT someone to have “died for my sins”, I’ll take responsibility for myself.
Cheers, looking forward to chatting.
@Dark Star: “I do view your religious beliefs as delusional as they go against everything we KNOW about reality and yet you have this Really Vast mythology in which you operate, often very detached from reality.”
My first question to you is, if our religious beliefs go against everything we know, then what do you mean by “often very detached from reality?” You’re not very clear here. “Really Vast mythology?” Please expound.
By stating “everything we KNOW (again with the caps) about reality” you must be referring to science. There are at least three key assumptions every scientist makes:
1) There are laws at work in the physical world that can be figured out through systematic observation and experimentation.
2) Much of the physical world is still unknown.
3) Through science, the quality of life on earth can be enhanced.
Clearly, you are drawing on assumptions one and three, but much of the physical world is still unknown. Going against what we know does not indicate error, there is still much that we do not know. Just because you view my belief in God as delusional and detached from reality does not mean I’m wrong, nor does it mean the once atheistic Dr. Antony Flew suddenly became delusional. All you really achieve by this statement is expressing an experience I do not share.
“And these beliefs cause harms to individuals and societies. If I felt it was a harmless bit of fiction I really wouldn’t care what you believed.”
Your writing can be rather brash and absolutist. You don’t say that these beliefs “can” cause harm, nor do you state that they have a “tendency” to cause harm. No. You state that these beliefs cause harm. I am Catholic, and for the past ten years my belief has sent to some of the hardest hit areas in this world where I work to bring food, money and shelter to people in need. I’ve done such actions under the institution of the Church and as a Church we’ve done much good. For you to state “these beliefs cause harm” in such an absolutist fashion does not do you well for the point you’re trying to make.
I’m curious, as an atheist, what good has atheism impelled you to do for individuals and society? Does it pain you knowing there are people starving? Does it not move you that there are poor without shelter? And if it does pain you and it does move you, then I would love for you to share that experience and how you act upon it. As one who is not an atheist, I don’t understand how you can be moved. Enlighten me.
“Jen has no clue about us atheists.”
“Jen was never a true atheist.”
And of course the never ending barrage of ad-hominems toward Jen, semantic games and other forms of pedantry, the near universal, self-congratulatory (and sadly arrogant) self-perception (delusion?) of higher intellect, moral high ground, the high-jacking of science and reason for your own ideological ends, annnnnd the never-ending smug self-righteousness in most posts by most atheists here?
Many here are treating Jen like a shunned pariah or disfellowshipped member of some church.
And Christians are always getting accused by many of you for being bigoted or intolerant—and here you are, many of you, dishing it out just as good. I see very little tolerance or respect being applied here.
If religion is an unhealthy preoccupation, what do you all spend your time doing?
As much as you guys will fight tooth and nail to the contrary—many of you guys really REALLY sound like a religion to us. Really think about it (since many of you also collectively and universally claim to be better critical thinkers than non-atheists).
Peace to you, and may the Lord touch your hearts as He has touched Jen’s.
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”—St. Thomas Aquinas
As a protestant that is moving toward the Catholic church I think this article is excellent. I believe this profitable for not only unbelievers but for me to share with protestants. My wife is not with me on my hourney to the Catholic church but these five questions are excellent to share with her and other protestant friends to make them think about the Church. I have followed your conversion story for a long time and it is very similar to mine. Thank you and keep up the writings as they are an inspriing and increases my faith and gives me things to share with non Catholics.
@Jen, sorry I didn’t address you first, as this is your blog!
Thank you for your article. I think open and cordial dialogue is essential in this world, and the more we promote peaceful conversation on our end, then the better we all become.
Without stepping on you toes, I would like to add 4 more catholic teachings that I know for a fact make some sense to most atheist’s I’ve encountered:
1) The Catholic church’s open stance on evolution.
2) The Catholic position of not taking all of scripture (especially the Old Testament) literally.
3) Catholic social teaching.
4) Love. Unless the atheist is a hard core “post-theist” who quotes “Human, All Too Human” while sleeping, then love/charity makes for great topic to chat about.
Oh, and for any atheist who thinks these conversation topics are meant to be conversion tools, then please think again, no sincere Catholic is going to try to convert any of you. We will defend our faith to best of our abilities (apologetics), and history has shown that when words fail then we will die for our faith. However, the majority of Catholics prefer dialogue. Sadly there are many Catholics jaded by aggressive conversation tactics, and have developed a zero tolerance for dialogue. One only has to read the above atheist posts to understand this phenomena.
For those who want to claim that dialogue is new for the Catholic Church, then I suggest you learn more history (Here are three clues to get you started: Bell towers, Summa Contra Gentiles and Origen). It’s only through dialogue that we all learn and grow, and this is predominately why many Catholics here saw these closed and accusatory atheist posts as hateful.
Only God and yourself can do the converting, and if you’ve already chosen not to believe in God, then there is very little God can do—let alone us.
However, that doesn’t mean we can’t have a frank and friendly conversation.
John R: “Oh, and for any atheist who thinks these conversation topics are meant to be conversion tools, then please think again, no sincere Catholic is going to try to convert any of you.”
What I see in this instance is someone going out of her way to put words in my mouth. Is that acceptable behavior for any of the sincere Catholics you mentioned? For all of them?
@Hermes: Please illustrate how she was putting words in your mouth.
What I see Jen stating:
“Though atheists typically see all belief in the supernatural as unreasonable, some doctrines, like the ones below, strike them as less crazy than others. (As I was not able to conduct a worldwide survey of every person who self-identifies as a nonbeliever, I am basing this on personal experience as well as conversations with atheists I know.)”
How you part of her personal experience?
Are you an atheist that she knows and converses with?
Or were you part of the worldwide survey that she was unable to conduct?
I going to bet your on the latter, which automatically excludes your mouth from her words.
Many times when we feel that someone is putting words in our mouths, what we are really doing is putting ourselves in their words.
@hermes: two grammar corrections. The first line of the second paragraph should read, “How are you part of her personal experience?” And the last line of the paragraph should read, “I’m going to bet you’re on the latter…”
I am at work and typing between documents. Also, my keyboard is horrible.
John R, the title she gave was;
> 5 Catholic Teachings That Make Sense to Atheists
The first one is;
> 1. Purgatory
Where she says;
> When I heard about the concept of Purgatory when I was exploring religion years later, it made sense to me because it explained how heaven can be a place of perfect love, and God can still be merciful to people who had some work to do in that department when they died.
No, that doesn’t make sense to me. Shall I continue, or did you notice the other atheists who objected to her putting words in their mouths as well?
John R: “Or were you part of the worldwide survey that she was unable to conduct?”
So, if I refrain from doing research ... I can make things up about Catholics too?
Please, don’t give credit to someone just because they are rooting for the same team as you. It makes you both look bad.
@John R - re your suggestion that these five points are “less crazy than others”. Perhaps true, but the problem is that once you’ve passed the “crazy” threshold, there’s not much point in prioritizing.
As for your your assertion that Catholics aren’t out to convert us, what then, is the purpose of your dialogue? To what end will this dialogue help you, your religion, or us? And wouldn’t that dialogue be more successful if it started with a clearer understanding of what we think, and how we decide what to believe, rather than suggesting starting with Catholic doctrines that might be “less crazy”?
@John R: My first question to you is, if our religious beliefs go against everything we know, then what do you mean by “often very detached from reality?”
The phrase as they go against everything we KNOW about reality is just clarification of which sense of delusional I was using:
As opposed to mental disorder.
The phrase often very detached from reality modifies the “mythology in which you operate”. Such as your belief in prayer, the supernatural, demons, exorcisms, Purgatory, Communion of Saints, Apostolic Authority, etc. Many of those beliefs are opposed to known laws of physics sun standing still, Saints rising from the graves, Earth center of universe, Sun goes around the Earth, Bull meat bursting into flames due to prayer, special creation, etc. It’s basically a massive array of beliefs that are just all completely made up.
@John R By stating “everything we KNOW (again with the caps) about reality” you must be referring to science.
Science is nothing more than the processes and methods humans have developed, in various areas of study, to reduce or eliminate known sources of error and bias from our conclusions. Are you proposing that if we make sure that we leave in errors and bias that we will draw better conclusions? Because that seems absurd to me. In the case of KNOW I mean it is in things that we know in a empirically verifiable way (not just things we suspect or would like to be true). Can you propose and defend some OTHER method for coming to sound conclusions?
I think I’m making vastly fewer assumptions than someone who proposes a Christian God which I outlined in my previous post. I take it as a premise that we live in a concrete reality and not a simulation or brain-in-a-vat. If I am wrong about that then it’s all irrelevant so I think those are reasonable assumptions that we hopefully share. I also take it as a premise that the universe is knowable by an application of our facilities, and I know that the Catholic Church shares this premise so hopefully we agree on this. I can list many others, and discuss them at great length. I constantly question my assumptions and look for better ways to test them - but Science has well established itself so it has the presumption of being better than just making things up and pretending they are true. So if you want to object to some premise do so specifically and with supporting arguments.
On the three “assumptions” listed:
(1) Is true but it’s not a mere assumption, it has been repeatedly demonstrated - it is a sound scientific principle as there is much evidence supporting it. Do you have any evidence to support a contrary hypothesis?
(2) how much of the universe is known or unknown is irrelevant, that there are unknowns is a fact
(3) patently wrong, all knowledge and technology applied to offensive military purposes is a counter example. The fact that we also hope for knowledge that aids us is irrelevant. The quest is for Truth, not fluffy bunny world.
Going against what we know does not indicate error, there is still much that we do not know It sounds to me like you are trying to make an Argument from Ignorance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance ) here. There are things we don’t know: Therefore God. I could PUT any concept in place of God. There are things we don’t know: therefore there are magical unicorns whose poop turns into Gods. Gods can’t just come from nothing, so of course there are magical unicorns who create them.
What we do know is that in so many cases where you used to invoke spirits, demons, angels and Gods they have vanished when the light of science shines. Demons don’t cause disease, bacteria and viruses do. Angels don’t move the mysterious planets through the Heavens, the planets are just rocky and gaseous bodies affected by the gravity of the Sun exactly like the Earth is. Spirits don’t possess people, they have mental illnesses that need treatment and care. Gods don’t get angry and wipe out cities with earthquakes and volcanoes, natural processes within the Earth cause those phenomena. And prayer didn’t help your Grandma get over her cold, Confirmation Bias made you believe it was prayer (see: But I Had A Personal Experience: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2011/02/but-i-had-personal-experience.html )
I’ve done such actions under the institution of the Church and as a Church Are you familiar with the humanitarian efforts of Hamas? Does their humanitarian aid efforts somehow negate the fact that they also get young men to blow themselves up in areas crowed with civilians? BBC lauds Hamas humanitarian work: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2006/05/bbc-lauds-hamas-humanitarian-work.html It’s wonderful that good people do good things of all denominations and backgrounds. But that, in no way what-so-ever, justifies their other beliefs.
And one of the greatest ways to lift the burden of poverty from a people is to empower women to have control over their reproductive and civil rights, to become equals in a society and to emancipate them from the male-dominated near-slavery that they endure. Does your Church treat women as fully equal? Can a women be Pope? Does your Church promulgate responsible reproduction with birth control? No, you promote a policy based on superstition which has resulted in the deaths of millions of women and children in Africa. Christian churches don’t have a great track record on Women’s rights in general, and that’s only changing now because individual people feel that it is wrong - while the Bible works against their efforts. Same with Slavery, the bible belt of the US is the Slave belt and the racist belt - why is that? How is it that the Bible could be used to both argue for and against Slavery at the same time (although it never actually condemns Slavery). It’s curious to me how every person makes the Bible fit their vision of what it should say rather than the Bible clearly leading the position.
I’m curious, as an atheist, what good has atheism impelled you to do for individuals and society?
First of all, a technical note here, you are making a Category Error. Atheism is a rejection of your claims about a God, nothing more. This doesn’t mean that atheists are devoid of all other philosophy, most are some flavor of Humanist. So you could ask, ‘As a Humanist’ (although I don’t consider myself a Humanist exactly). Does this make sense? Imagine if you were asked Do you believe in Harry Potter? If not, what good has your aHarryPotterism impelled in you? It’s kind of ridiculous really.
Now, I know what you meant by asking this question but it’s important to understand why it’s a bad question. I have several blog posts that address this from a number of different perspectives, some with more upper-case words than others. This one I think is the most relevant: Living Without God: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2011/02/living-without-god.html
As I said above, I don’t consider myself a Humanist although I would say that I share many of their positions. I reject most ISMs because they tend to introduce bias, I try to judge each situation on it’s own merits, not by how well it fits into some prejudicial ISM. When considering ‘morality’ I reason about the consequences of actions. And rather than talk about beliefs I prefer to talk about values. I value sentience (not just human), compassion, honesty, reason, empirically justifiable knowledge, and personal freedom among informed and consenting adults. I find the initiation of physical, emotional, or economic force against others to be in violation of my values.
Does it pain you knowing there are people starving? Does it not move you that there are poor without shelter? And if it does pain you and it does move you, then I would love for you to share that experience and how you act upon it. As one who is not an atheist, I don’t understand how you can be moved. Enlighten me.
Do you really think that you must believe in God to care about other people? If so, I find that kind of sad for you. Did you stop giving presents when you stopped believing in Santa? I feel that I became a better person when I stopped believing in a God. It freed me to take responsibility - there is no Heaven where everything will be alright, we must be responsible and take action or else we will continue to suffer.
@Veritas If religion is an unhealthy preoccupation, what do you all spend your time doing?
I’m a programmer with 30 years of experience, so I do a lot of that. In my spare time I spend as much time with my son as I can, I read extensively on a wide array of subjects (physics, philosophy, mathematics, biology, cosmology, evolution, abiogenesis, computer science, psychology, etc), write for my blog when I can, love, and laugh, listen to music, podcasts, and audio books. I like to climb (but haven’t in a while due to a major accident, not related to climbing), camp, hike, geocache, explore caves on-rope (I’ve edited for the National Speleological Society), and camp in funny clothes at renaissance faires. I worked on the World Wide-Web project for many years and donated everything I created to the public domain, including working on many features you enjoy in your browser today. I would like to try skydiving once my son is grown and I can justify the risk factor. And I absolutely love to travel.
many of you guys really REALLY sound like a religion to us
Then I recommend a better dictionary :) I’ve been forced into the political arena by the actions of those would deny rights to my fellow humans on the basis on some fairy-tale book. If you can restrain your coreligionists who fly planes into buildings, fight against women’s and gay rights, fight against civil rights, and vote to destroy my country then we would have little care what you believed. It’s your right to push your religion into politics if you want to but don’t do it and then complain when people call you on it.
Peace to you, and may the Lord touch your hearts as He has touched Jen’s.
Peace to you also, may you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
To one with empirical evidence and reasoned conclusions, faith that perhaps seemed reasonable in the 13th century is exposed as a prejudice.
@CFB: “re your suggestion that these five point are “less crazy than others.”” Can you please show me where I suggest that anything is “less crazy than others.”
“What then is the purpose of your dialogue? To what end will this dialogue help you, your religion, or us?” The answer to these questions lie in your next sentence. Dialogue brings us to a, “clearer understanding of what you think.” And a clearer understanding is helpful for all humanity.
“And wouldn’t that dialogue be more successful if it started with a clearer understanding of what we think, and how we decide what to believe, rather than suggesting starting with Catholic doctrines that might “less crazy?” Absolutely. Though as I mentioned to Hermes, Jen was drawing from her personal experiences and admits that she does not know what every atheist thinks. So the clarity of her understanding is based on her experience as an atheist and her atheist friends, since you are neither, then the most we can hope for is clarification through dialogue.
@hermes: Prove that she is making up things about Atheism. She is drawing from her own experiences as a former atheist and from atheist friends. If you did not do the research, but talked about your experiences with Catholics then there would be nothing wrong with that.
@Dark Star: Thank you for unpacking your first sentence.
“Are you proposing that if we make sure that we leave in errors and bias that we will draw better conclusions?” Your question rests on your definition of Science, what is the source of your definition? If I take your definition at face value, you state: “to reduce or eliminate known sources of error.” You then procedure to ask, if we should, “leave in errors and bias.” Yet you have not successfully presented the belief in God as a known error. And finally you ask me if I can propose and defend some other method for coming to sound conclusions? Okay, we’ll start here: Can you please explain to me your experience of love.
“I take it as a premise that we live in a concrete reality and not a simulation or brain-in-a-vat. “ –Ah, someone has read Hilary Putnam too, perhaps Baudrillard as well?
“I also take it as a premise that the universe is knowable by an application of our facilities, and I know that the Catholic Church shares this premise so hopefully we agree on this.” —We do.
“I can list many others, and discuss them at great length. I constantly question my assumptions and look for better ways to test them - but Science has well established itself so it has the presumption of being better than just making things up and pretending they are try”—Yes.
“On the three “assumptions” listed…” I’m sorry if there was any error, I was merely quoting Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder. There website is Criticalthinking.org, you may find it interesting.
“Going against what we know does not indicate error, there is still much that we do not know. It sounds to me like you are trying to make an Argument from Ignorance here.” Fascinating, because my point was that there is still much we don’t know. If memory serves, “Argument from Ignorance” is based off a false dichotomy. My indicating that there is still much that we do not know breaks a false dichotomy in presenting a third option.
“There are things we don’t know: Therefore God. I could PUT any concept in place of God. There are things we don’t know: therefore there are magical unicorns whose poop turns into Gods. Gods can’t just come from nothing, so of course there are magical unicorns who create them.” Dark Star, this sounds like straw man argument. Can you please show me where I propose: “There are things we don’t know: therefore God.” And here I was starting to suspect you had a degree in Philosophy.
“What we do know is that in so many cases …” I find it fascinating that you say so many cases. Why are you not absolutist on this point?
“I’ve done such actions under the institution of the Church and as a Church Are you familiar with the humanitarian efforts of Hamas? …. It’s wonderful that good people do good things of all denominations and backgrounds. But that, in no way what-so-ever, justifies their other beliefs.” It seems to me that you are making assumptions and not getting my point. My point wasn’t a balancing act between good and bad action. My point was that you state with absoluteness that “these beliefs cause harm”. Cancer causes harm. If there were ever a case that cancer did good, then we would have to amend the statement: “in most cases cancer causes harm,” or “cancer can cause harm”. I was simply pointing out that your absolutism was off.
“And one of the greatest ways to lift the burden of poverty from a people is to empower women to have control over their reproductive and civil rights, to become equals in a society and to emancipate them from the male-dominated near-slavery that they endure.” Wow I see that you not only read Dawkins but you also read Hitchens. Can you give me some statistical data?
“Does your Church treat women as fully equal?” Yes.
“Can a women be Pope?” No.
“Does your Church promulgate responsible reproduction with birth control?” We promote responsible reproduction with the Symptothermal method, it’s scientifically based and I can assure you it works. Google it!
“No, (actually, I just said yes) you promote a policy based on superstition which has resulted in the deaths of millions of women and children in Africa. Christian churches don’t have a great track record on Women’s rights in general, and that’s only changing now because individual people feel that it is wrong - while the Bible works against their efforts.” Do we really? The Bible works against this? Really? You ask me for supporting arguments, but you dish this out as a response? You criticize me for straw man arguments when you happily stuff your own? Wow.
“Same with Slavery, the bible belt of the US is the Slave belt and the racist belt - why is that? How is it that the Bible could be used to both argue for and against Slavery at the same time (although it never actually condemns Slavery). It’s curious to me how every person makes the Bible fit their vision of what it should say rather than the Bible clearly leading the position.” You should probably ask a protestant this bible belt question. We’ve had a black Pope long before the discovery of the Americas.
“First of all, a technical note here, you are making a Category Error. Atheism is a rejection of your claims about a God, nothing more. “ Thank you for this rational comment. Now that was enlightening.
“This doesn’t mean that atheists are devoid of all other philosophy, most are some flavor of Humanist. So you could ask, ‘As a Humanist’ (although I don’t consider myself a Humanist exactly). Does this make sense?” Yes, I can see that.
“Now, I know what you meant by asking this question but it’s important to understand why it’s a bad question. “ Thank you.
“It means that I value human compassion. There will be no redemption in the distant future.” Human compassion does not require redemption it requires love.
“Each and every person needs to be responsible for improving our collective well-being TODAY.” Absolutely AGREED!
“People are abused and murdered every day and we have to work to improve this situation. Those who survive the abuses heaped on them do NOT generally end up being better or stronger people for it, far too often they end up continuing the cycle of abuse and they need our help and compassion; first and foremost in prevention.” YES! However, you still haven’t answered my question. What are you doing about it?
“It means that I cannot rely on the non-existent supernatural to make everything right at some nebulous point in the future. Therefore I must take my share of responsibility for how things are now and how things will be in the future.” As Catholics we call that building “the kingdom of God.” I would suggest you read “Catholic Social Teaching: The Church’s Best Kept Secret.”
“As I said above, I don’t consider myself a Humanist although I would say that I share many of their positions. I reject most ISMs because they tend to introduce bias, I try to judge each situation on it’s own merits, not by how well it fits into some prejudicial ISM.” Like atheism?
“When considering ‘morality’ I reason about the consequences of actions. And rather than talk about beliefs I prefer to talk about values. I find the initiation of physical, emotional, or economic force against others to be in violation of my values.” Why is it violation of your values?
“Do you really think that you must believe in God to care about other people? If so, I find that kind of sad for you.” No I never said that! I asked you because I live my life echoing the words of St. Paul: “The love of Christ impels me.” I serve because I believe that we are all made in the image of God (men and women), and if I love God then how can I not love my neighbor. And if my neighbor is in distress, then who am I to remain still.
“Did you stop giving presents when you stopped believing in Santa?” Careful with the assumptions! I started giving presents after I stopped believing in Santa. ;-D
“I feel that I became a better person when I stopped believing in a God. It freed me to take responsibility - there is no Heaven where everything will be alright, we must be responsible and take action or else we will continue to suffer.” That’s an intriguing premise and I’ll respect your point of view. For me, my belief in God challenges me to take responsibility. Yes, I have hope for a heaven, but more importantly, I have a love for those around me. Without love, then everything I do is empty. For me God is love, and my faith constantly challenges me on how can I better love in this world.
John R.
Of course you will have to take my word for this. About 4% of my net income goes to charity, mostly as monthly donations to The World Development Movement, Medicins sans Frontiers, and SightSavers. About another 2% goes to political campaigns. I have at various times volunteered as an adult literacy tutor and reader for the blind, and taken an active role in a number of peace and environmental groups and organisations. I work for a non-profit research organisation, on environmentally and socially important issues of land use and energy demand. Of course, none of this was impelled by atheism, any more than by aleprechaunism. It is and was impelled by empathy, and a commitment to social justice.
Now this is truly bizarre. Are you actually saying you think that if you stopped believing in God, you’d stop caring about human suffering? Why? Do you really only care about others because you believe God tells you to? Empathy and a preference for equity are evolved human characteristics - and they are not even unique to human beings, but at least the first, probably both, are found in many intelligent social species. A few people, of course, appear to wholly lack these characteristics - psychopaths, but why should you suppose that atheists in general would do so?
You are being disingenuous: what you actually said earlier was:
This is quite clearly intended as an attack on atheists as immoral or amoral, not merely a philosophical point.
Setting that aside, your argument here is pitifully hackneyed. Of course I haven’t, and atheists in general haven’t, “removed all from your universe except for physical laws and cause and effect” - that’s merely your ignorant prejudice speaking. (If we had, of course, there could be no such thing as “expedient” responses either; expedience is still a value-system, although not a moral one.) Both the universe, and the way we need to think about it, are rather more complicated than you allow for. Consider a cell - a single-celled organism, for example. Now, at one level of description, this organism is just a collection of subatomic particles, acting under the influence of fundamental forces - there’s nothing there that is not made of these particles under the influence of these forces. But if we want to understand or influence it, this description is inadequate: we need to describe it in the more molar terminologies of chemistry, biochemistry and physiology to do that. There is nothing in the least inconsistent with physicalism in describing the cell at these levels, nor in describing larger parts of the living world in the terms of ecology and evolutionary theory. (If you contest this statement, you need to show exactly where the inconsistency lies.) Similarly, to describe the interactions of members of our own species at all adequately, we must talk about codes of behaviour - legal, moral, prudential. We may, also, commit ourselves to (try to) follow a particular moral rule, while believing that the process of making this commitment is instantiated in a particular set of subatomic particles and their interactions, without any logical inconsistency. (Again, if you dispute this, you need to show exactly where the inconsistency lies.) As to why I as an atheist should do so, at a proximate psychological level, it’s quite simple: because I care about other sentient beings.
Dark Star,
Despite what you say, your link doesn’t show clearly that there were Jesuits at Tiflis Seminary: I see that it could be interpreted that way, but Stalin could well have been talking about Orthodox instructors using Jesuitical methods.
Earlier, you quoted Nihar Mukherjee as follows:
Jesuits are not monks, so this writer must be wrong either that they were Jesuits, or that they were monks. Isaac Deutscher’s biography of Stalin and many other sources identify the teachers as Orthodox monks, and Deutscher recounts some of his disciplinary history there, which indicates he was reading books that would no more have been approved by Jesuits than by orthodox monks. I remain unconvinced that Jesuits, or the Catholic Church, had any significant influence on Stalin: you haven’t given any sources for your claim that they helped him escape exile and gain power. All the online sources for these claims seem to be similarly free-floating. The Catholic Church has quite enough to answer for without tying Stalin to it!
@kg: “Now this is truly bizarre. Are you actually saying you think that if you stopped believing in God, you’d stop caring about human suffering? Why? Do you really only care about others because you believe God tells you to?”
Can you point to where I actually assert your initial assumption?
Can you point to where I said that God told me to care for others?
These are loaded questions.
Why are you are asking loaded questions?
John R: “Prove that she is making up things about Atheism. She is drawing from her own experiences as a former atheist and from atheist friends.”
That’s not the issue. As I said before (and it seems you have ignored);
***John R, the title she gave was;
> 5 Catholic Teachings That Make Sense to Atheists
The first one is;
> 1. Purgatory
Where she says;
> When I heard about the concept of Purgatory when I was exploring religion years later, it made sense to me because it explained how heaven can be a place of perfect love, and God can still be merciful to people who had some work to do in that department when they died.
No, that doesn’t make sense to me. Shall I continue, or did you notice the other atheists who objected to her putting words in their mouths as well?
***John R: “If you did not do the research, but talked about your experiences with Catholics then there would be nothing wrong with that.”
Actually, there is. It’s an ethical failing, weren’t you aware of that? As others have said;
“If you are sloppy about evaluating evidence, then you are ethically liable for the mistakes that you’ve made.”—Alan Sokal
As I have said many times before;
It is an ethical, a moral, failure to ignore the best available evidence or to treat it through the lens of inflexible preconceptions.
Now, you may immediately object that I don’t have any authority and you don’t care to look up who Alan Sokal is, so you’ll dismiss him. That would be exactly the same type of ethical failure that Alan Sokal identified, and it is the same kind of ethical failure that young Earth creationists make on a regular basis. When you have facts available to you, it is your responsibility to vet your comments based on those facts.
@John R
Can you please explain to me your experience of love
Here again it seems that you are attempting to set up another argument from ignorance. Just because we lack information about how ‘love’ works in detail doesn’t imply anything other than understanding the brain is difficult. Even if our brains are incapable of EVERY understanding the function of itself, that doesn’t enable us to draw any conclusion.
What I can say is that Love can be measured with fMRI and it can be UTTERLY destroyed with chemicals or physical damage to the right tiny little bits of the brain. Everything about who you are is a product of the detailed structure & operation of your brain. If you alter the brain you alter YOU. There are dozens of books and hundreds of studies about people who have had brain damage and the various (sometimes bizarre) effects such damage has. The evidence there is extensive.
Romantic love: an fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice
http://66.199.228.237/boundary/Sexual_Addiction/romantic_love_an_FRMRI_study_of_mechanism_for_Mate_choice.pdf
The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love
http://kyb.mpg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/publications/attachments/Bartels2004_maternalLove_[0].pdf
The neural basis of romantic love
http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/neural basis of love.htm
Science has not reached the point where we can explain the qualia of our conscious experience. But the more we find out about our consciousness with tools like fMRI, the more it seems that our consciousness is an illusion and decisions are made by the subconscious processes before they surface into ‘consciousness’. Brain scans can fairly reliably predict future motor actions before the subject claims to have consciously made a decision (e.g., about which button to press).
If memory serves, “Argument from Ignorance” is based off a false dichotomy Incorrect and Why would memory need to serve? I linked to the wiki page. Argument from Ignorance is to argue that something is true or false based on lack of evidence for or against it. Which you do when you said: Going against what we know does not indicate error, there is still much that we do not know. Just because you view my belief in God as delusional and detached from reality does not mean I’m wrong
You are correct in the first part, but then you propose to believe in God anyway and you use this argument to establish that you are not “wrong”. My point is that it does absolutely nothing to establish that you are right. So I am equally justified in believing in my magical unicorns as you are believing in your God.
And here I was starting to suspect you had a degree in Philosophy the joke is on you then, as I said, I’m a programmer. But I stand by my analysis as per the above explanation. If you didn’t intend to tie your belief in God to the statement immediately preceding it then I retract my conclusion but they certainly seem tied by the repetition of “does not indicate error” and “does not mean I’m wrong”.
“What we do know is that in so many cases …” I find it fascinating that you say so many cases. Why are you not absolutist on this point? I try to speak as precisely as I can. My reservation in this instance is because there are cases in which we lack sufficient access or information to come to a valid conclusion - that ignorance on our part does not imply that a miracle occurred. Before we can draw valid conclusions we need good data and methodology. As I mentioned in another post, research the data for Lourdes and how the ‘miracle’ rate has declined since people started really looking hard with a properly skeptical eye into the claims. You went from a flood, to a trickle, to a drip, to pretty much nothing.
It seems to me that you are making assumptions and not getting my point highly probable, that’s why we use peer-review :) these beliefs cause harm is not the same as “every Catholic belief causes harm 100% of the time” (nor even in every Christian). But Christian beliefs are causing massive harm every single day, that goes for Catholics as well. Every day a Christian preaches against using condoms in Africa you needlessly condemn more people to die. Every day Christians thump the Bible to argue against Women’s equal rights, reproductive rights, gay rights, the beliefs are doing harm.
Wow I see that you not only read Dawkins but you also read Hitchens never read either, sorry.
African poverty at the millennium: causes, complexities, and challenges By Howard White, Tony Killick, Steve Kayizzi-Mugerwa
Poverty in the Philippines: income, assets, and access By Karin Schelzig, Asian Development Bank
The end of poverty by J Sachs
Empowerment of women throughout the life cycle as a transformative strategy for poverty eradication http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/empower/documents/Bisnath-EP3.pdf
The Best Way to End Poverty: Empower Women http://news.change.org/stories/the-best-way-to-end-poverty-empower-women
Empowering women key to achieving UN Millennium Goals – Migiro http://www.endpoverty2015.org/gender-equity/news/empowering-women-key-achieving-un-millennium-goals-–-migiro/19/nov/07
Empowering Women and Fighting Poverty http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/media/cocoa.pdf
“Does your Church treat women as fully equal?” Yes.
“Can a women be Pope?” No.
I’m speechless that you fail to see the inequality in the above two statements.
Symptothermal method, it’s scientifically based and I can assure you it works. Google it!<i> Is it effective in preventing the transmission of disease? No. End. Of. Discussion. When you have established a 100% abstinence rate prior to marriage THEN we will talk again. Until then you are just a murderer by proxy. I will have to remember this “Google it” gambit in the future when I want to avoid the burden of proof (although I do my own research anyway).
<i>The Bible works against this? Really? Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.
As Catholics we call that building “the kingdom of God.” I call it Being A Decent Human Being.
Like atheism lexically yes, semantically no - atheism is not an ISM. Furthermore, I don’t consider myself “an atheist” except in the narrow sense of someone who disbelieves in a God. Philosophically I identify with the works of Thomas Huxley, Bertrand Russell and Robert Ingersoll. As Bertrand Russell said:
Which I covered in my blog that I think you skip over and don’t read :) http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-agnosticism.html
Why is it violation of your values If I say I value honesty and you lie (one form of using force against another) then you violate that value. If I value my personal freedom and you initiate force against me to take it away then you violate that value.
I serve because I believe that we are all made in the image of God Why do you need to believe that we’re made in the image of anything to value other people?
“Did you stop giving presents when you stopped believing in Santa?” Careful with the assumptions! I started giving presents after I stopped believing in Santa. ;-D and I started TRULY seeing, valuing and loving other people after I stopped believing in God.
I glad that we both agree that we want to see suffering eased here on Earth, whatever might come tomorrow.
Hi Hermes,
“That’s not the issue.” If your argument is that you see her putting words in your mouth, then yes it is the issue. Asserting a claim is not evidence of the writer’s intention.
“As I said before (and it seems you have ignored);” Sorry I missed your other post, but the evidence you provided does not refute my quote.
“No, that doesn’t make sense to me. Shall I continue, or did you notice the other atheists who objected to her putting words in their mouths as well?” That is fine that it doesn’t make sense to you, but subjective writing is not the same as objective writing. By stating that other atheists had similar objections, is still not proving that she put words in your mouth. All you have proven here is that several other atheists sympathize with your apparent misreading of the writer’s intention.
“Actually, there is. It’s an ethical failing, weren’t you aware of that?” Arguments and questions are not evidence of the writer’s intention.
“If you are sloppy about evaluating evidence, then you are ethically liable for the mistakes that you’ve made.”—Alan Sokal.” Nice quote. But since her premise in the post is about her experience, and then she proceeds to draw from her experience, then you’ve not proven her sloppy. Outside quotes, no matter how nice, are not evidence of the writer’s intention.
“As I have said many times before;
It is an ethical, a moral, failure to ignore the best available evidence or to treat it through the lens of inflexible preconceptions.” It’s wonderful that you said this many times. And you should probably keep saying it, especially in class—if you are a teacher or perhaps a professor. However, as a possible teacher or professor you do know that context is called for when reading any document. Jen is not writing a science paper or an objective analysis, she’s writing about her personal experience.
“Now, you may immediately object that I don’t have any authority and you don’t care to look up who Alan Sokal is, so you’ll dismiss him.” Wow, Hermes, thanks. Soon you’ll tell me I don’t know who Robert Bowley is and have me dismiss him too. Unless you’re Alan Sokal, then this part of your comment is somewhat non-sequitur as it has nothing to do with the writer’s intention.
“That would be exactly the same type of ethical failure that Alan Sokal identified, and it is the same kind of ethical failure that young Earth creationists make on a regular basis.” Yes it would be, and it could be in my case were I not look up who Alan Sokal is, unless of course, I’ve already heard of him and thus not bother looking him up. Any critic of postmodernity has my devout attention, and with that I think I finally see where you are going with this.
“When you have facts available to you, it is your responsibility to vet your comments based on those facts.” Yes that is absolutely true. I agree 100%. Actually, this would make for a nice adage.
Okay, Hermes, this is what I’ve gathered:
1) You are taking Jen’s article to be an objective demonstration of what atheist’s believe. (You assert this based on the title of the post and her first example.)
2) Because she is not referring to the facts available to her in this objective analysis, Jen’s comment reeks of postmodernity to you. (You seem to assert this by referring to Sokal and the responsibility to be based on facts.)
3) Postmodernity is the disregard of universal truth and objective procedure, in other words: post-critical (my loosely condensed definition.)
4) A disregard of objective procedure leads to poorly executed objective demonstrations. (Premise inferred by your Sokal comment and point 3)
5) Jen’s article is a poorly executed objective demonstration of Atheism. (points one, two, three and four)
6) You are an atheist. (Your own assertion)
Therefore, Jen’s article is a poorly executed objective demonstration of your non-belief in god(s). AKA, she putting words in your mouth (Points three and four.)
This seems to be your argument, but I think you are missing a key point. Jen is not presenting an objective demonstration, but a subjection reflection based on her life experiences. She states so in the second paragraph. There is nothing ethically wrong with a subjective reflection, so long as her position is not under the guise of general fact. And her mere acknowledgement of personal experience removes this from general fact. Not once did I read this and think this is what you, as an atheist, thinks.
With that in mind, it seems to me that you are obfuscating the evidence of the writer’s intention to prove your point. As evidence of this claim I present to you the fact that you provided me the title of this post and then proceed to ignore the fact that her second paragraph indicates her position is subjective. How can you ignore this fact? Clearly, you only have a case when you ignore it. Aside from Sokal, here is another really great that you should say many times: “When you have facts available to you, it is your responsibility to vet your comments based on those facts.”
After reviewing all the available facts that you have presented on Jen’s writing, the only case you can successfully make is that she should have titled this post differently.
Hermes, correction, my conclusion is based on (points 5 and 6).
Hello Dark Star,
I’m not trying to make an argument on the absence of evidence. I simply asked you to please explain your experience of love, as a starting to point to understand how you grasp what I consider a metaphysical reality. You didn’t explain your experience of love and I ultimately I don’t think you can.
An artificial true or false scenario is a false dichotomy. However, if I erred or invalidly preseted myself, then I apologize and I will do better next time.
You claim to have not read Hitchens or Dawkins, and as I think of it, that does make sense. You stand on their premises but you don’t give the statistical evidence. Perhaps you watched them on YouTube, or read about them on Wikipedia.
To your last line I can only say amen. And perhaps if you would have visited this site with that tone instead of “adding fuel to the fire” then we could’ve avoided giving NCR these 8 page rants!
See you at your blog.
Really…these are your best points on converting an Atheist? I hate to tell you but… none of these make sense… The problem is that all religion and doctrines of said religions is based on faith, and faith by definition does not need facts or evidence to function. This is the fundamental flaw in all religion. No evidence or fact to back up any of these claims. And really? One church guided by god? So you have seen him then? Or is it that this religion is still governed by humans who claim to speak with him…it is still only their interpretation of the word…it’s just more unified. Sorry but… Fail.
@John R You didn’t explain your experience of love and I ultimately I don’t think you can
Please offer up your explanation, I’m curiuos. I gave mine, physical brain processes that aren’t fully understood currently.
You stand on their premises but you don’t give the statistical evidence
I suspect they are standing on premises raised 100’s of years ago.
And, despite the fact that this is an informal discussion, I have referenced numerous sources and studies; so I don’t know what you mean by “don’t give the statistical evidence”. I haven’t seen anyone else even coming close to the level of citations I have given. And where I haven’t, I believe they are either obvious or easy enough to find.
if you would have visited this site with that tone instead of “adding fuel to the fire” then we could’ve avoided giving NCR these 8 page rants
What’s the fun of that? I have a ton of new material now for Blog posts.
Did you learn anything new out of any of the things I posted?
This is evidence of the typical arrogant neo-atheism that plagues the modern world. Atheists of this stripe are narrow-minded and fail to grasp the basic truth that one cannot rely exclusively on empirical data to arrive at a priori truth.
I see 5 non-sequiturs.
Carl—
It’s arrogant to be so aware of our limitations that we insist on using tools designed to compensate for them in order to determine truth? That’s all science is, a means to address our inherent sensory and mental limits.
-
Face it, most of the ideas we as a species have had about the universe throughout our history have been flat out _wrong_. Recently in our history we’ve come up with a tool set that gives us results that demonstrably work, at least for one very large chunk of the universe. We wouldn’t be having this conversation without the advances brought to us by science.
-
In short, which is more arrogant—claiming to have Truth without evidence to back it, or pointing back to our history of “being wrong” about non-evidence-backed claims and saying “Um….prove it?”
John R, the article speaks for itself without your interpretation or mine. That’s why most of my response was to simply quote it. Why did you see it necessary to write a lengthy response that did not take her actual words into account at all?
I will leave it to others to say if they think I have a point or not, though the multiple responses from atheists that are in rough agreement already should inform you that maybe—perhaps—the writer missed the mark or alternatively was shooting at a different target from the one she should have.
@Carl
I second what @Horse-Pheathers said. I fail to see the ‘arrogance’ in claiming to NOT know the origin of the universe/metaverse on the lack of evidence. And I don’t see any arrogance in empiricism. I’m open to learning some OTHER way of knowing if you can demonstrate that it is reliable and effective.
The arrogance seem to me to be in claiming that you know the origin of the universe (despite the fact that your claims contradict the bits of cosmological physics we have worked out) and you know that it was a God and that you know it was the Christian God and that you know what this God wants (which apparently is for you to call people who use their brain and natural skepticism arrogant). And interestingly this God just happens to be the God of the culture a person was inculcated with (Why not the Trimurti?) the vast majority of the time.
@Carl also adds fail to grasp the basic truth that one cannot rely exclusively on empirical data to arrive at a priori truth
First of all, you can read thousands of papers on this subject and no two will agree. So your assertion that this is a ‘basic truth’ is arrogant if not patently false.
a priori truths are only truths that are accepted by stipulation/convention. A multitude of <b>a priori truths<b> have been demonstrated to be false based on empirical findings so they are not reliable (e.g., Prior to relativity we had no conception that time itself was dilated based on acceleration - time was, a priori, accepted as an absolute reference frame). This has forced many modern philosophers to consider only a priori justification and all but abandon the idea of strict a priori truth.
There are also tautological or definitional truths that can be considered a priori. For example, “all bachelors are unmarried men” is a priori true, right?
Well, one definition of bachelor is “A person who holds an undergraduate degree from a university or college” - in that case the statement is clearly false. So this is only a definitional truth - if the definition of bachelor shifted over time this ‘truth’ could even become a priori false over all definitions. And in the true interpretation it is tautological (as an identity statement).
I believe that what passes for a priori justification is mostly subconscious processes that ultimately must rely on some combination of evolutionarily programmed knowledge and internalized experience. This would be the parsimonious view given the multitude of things we do know about physics, chemistry, neurophysiology, behavior, etc.
Another case I often see trotted out about a priori truths is arithmetic, 2 + 3 = 5. But this is empirically verifiable - that’s how we know that the results are applicable to reality - because we’ve tested them trillions of different ways. If we ever found a case where the rules of arithmetic failed to correlate to reality we would have to find a new set of rules.
Things are only Concretely True in-so-much-as they correlate with empirically verifiable reality OR they are Conventionally True in-so-much-as they correlate with arbitrary, axiomatic logic. And those arbitrary, axiomatic logics are only useful in deducing correlations with reality in-so-much-as we can correlate our axioms with Concrete Truths.
There is good reason that Empiricism reigns.
Atheists by virtue of only accepting belief suported by empirically verifiable data have to logically and can only believe that there is no God. Christians on the other hand accept that God exists (faith is the basis for this belief) or can choose to become atheists, as many postings have evidenced. Christians….2: Atheists…1. You lose!
This article wasn’t made to address atheists primary issues but specific truths of Catholicism to atheists who may question them that’s all
These comments from atheists underscore the truth of Jennifer’s last(but certainly not least) statement: “and much more than our nonbelieving friends and family members need our explanations, they need our prayers.” Amen, Jennifer!
@jim Your score sheet fails because it is based on a hasty generalization. While many Atheists are empiricists not all Atheists are. That is, Empiricism is not a necessary property of an atheist. Disbelief in a God is the only necessary property of an atheist (with the caveat that there are some differences in definition that different people use, this statement is based on the OED definition).
Furthermore, the God of the bible wasn’t shy about providing evidence of his existence, for example 1 Kings 18. So, unless you reject the events of the Bible, there is nothing preventing even the most staunch empiricist from believing in God based on empirical evidence. I would accept others like the sun & moon standing still (Joshua 10:13), or the saints rising from their grave (Matthew 27:52-53), or a talking donkey (Numbers 22:21). But while it is trivial to write such things in a book, it is much more difficult to establish that they happened - especially when no other history thought to record anything. There are THOUSANDS of eye-witnesses who claim they have been abducted by aliens from other worlds - do you accept their claims? They are still alive, dozens of books over a long time span attest to these claims.
If Testimony so powerful, what of the testimony given about Sai Baba where millions of Indians witnessed his miracles? They claimed he raised the dead, healed the sick, walked on water, summoned holy ash, gold necklaces and Golden lingam’s. He has millions of devotes in India who firmly believe Sai Baba was God on Earth. Do you accept their testimony and miracles?
Well, I’ve been “tempting” your Lord for 30 years, and no snake attacks yet: 1 Corinthians 10:9 Perhaps it is my ‘iron chariot’ (I call it a car) that thwarts him? Judges 1:19
@A Prayer - Thanks! I’ll be sure to put in a good word for you with the Flying Spaghetti Monster once I’m in the appropriate pirate Regalia. The Great Green Arkleseizure sends his wishes from the realm beyond the Big Sneeze. The Invisible Pink Unicorn, regretfully, hasn’t been seen lately.
I wonder what happened 2000 years ago that was so important that the men of the day started recounting time from then until now? They went from BC to AD. At the very beginning when nothing existed, no elements, no atoms, no nothing, how did a big bang happen? No one will know that answer until they end their life and maybe at the end of time. Faith in a supreme being is the only answer. Faith that God exist and he spoke to his people as told in the old testament. Faith in the bible that it is truth. Then God sent his Son to give us His Word, His thoughts so that we know how to live in harmony and that Jesus’ commandment to his followers were that they Love each other. That is how they will know you are his followers. It’s not easy. I’d rather believe in hell now than first find out it exists when I find myself there when I die! But I believe that Jesus really lived and rose from the dead and has dominion over heaven and earth.
@Dark Star:
If you want to know this God, the King of Kings, who asked us to die for Him by dying first for us, just ask Him.
Ask telling Him that you don’t believe in Him.
He already knows.
He wants you to admit the truth.
By admiting the truth you will admit Christ, who is the Truth.
As a food for a reason (which will not bring you to Christ but maybe encourage you to ask of Him) I will ask - who was the only one person that was ever preannounced? Because nobody knew that Buddah will be born. Nobody knew that an angel will meet Muhammad. But the world - not only Jews - knew that a Savior, a King, a Messiah are expected to come. Jews were describing how He will be born, what He will teach, and how will He die. And Jesus fulfilled these prophecies. Those Jews that had their hearts set on the world were expecting really “a king” who will defeat their enemies (Romans,) for they were seeing in other humans (nations) their enemies. But these Jews who had their hears set on God, recognized Jesus for they knew that it was their sins who were their enemies. And this is what Jesus saved us from. He forgave our sins, and gave us tools to become better if we will.
Now let me underline - God does not bless us because we are good. We are good because He is blessing us. So to be better we are asked to simply ask God to help us, and He will. God cannot force us to do things we do not want because forcing would take away our freedom. God is not a human who can take someone elses freedom in the name ‘of happiness.’ He will do what is needed to be done that will bring only benefits to people without hurting them. What is required for this free gift is our free acceptance.
So I repeat - ask, and you will receive.
I was atheist/agnostic. I asked, and I received.
From that moment I will repeat after Paul - I live no more but Christ in me.
Blessings,
Greg.
God is the reality; pride is the illusion.
There are no atheists in hell. All there KNOW God exists.
Hell is inclusive; heaven is exclusive.
Art Martin
One thing that it amusing aboout atheists is how they tend to claim that their beliefs are so based on logic, when the fact is that most of them “convert” for the same reasons that other people convert to Christianity. I especially ejoy those who claim to have had a Catholic education, when it is clear that they never understood what they were hearing, or never related it to their personal lives. For those who reject religion as a crutch and take the “Captain of my fate, the master of my soul” approach, that certainly is as much grounded in psychology as the experience of any born again Christian or a pious pesasant woman who does one novena after another. Then we have the many who go off to college and suddenly find themselves in a new universe, surrounded by persons with not just different Christian beliefs but altogether different beliefs. The shock can
destroy many certainties if one does not already have a deep faith/encounter other persons with a deep faith to help one keep from being swept out into the sea of unbelief. There they must buold their own raft of certainties or drown in dispair. Ironically, principled atheism is not more than a little island that one builds to save himself from despair.
My niece was sent to catechism, mostly because her parents were goaded by her grandmother (father’s side) who was Catholic and elderly. Anyway, the nuns were very uncomfortable when she compared communion to cannibalism—LOL!
Did I get that wrong—is the ritual of eating the host and drinking the wine got a different term?
It’s clear we are dealing with a sliding target when one talks to atheists. There is no consensus or any canon of beliefs. Many atheists here (actually confused agnostics) try to attack what they see as inconsistencies or factual errors in our characterizations as conclusive evidence we are wrong. All it illustrates is that beliefs about the world when you have no universal meaning or absolutes vary from person to person. They are arbitrary. A true atheist by discounting the possibility of a God or “overmind” or intelligibility cannot without discarding all logic view existence as anything but the result of trillions of collisions of atoms happening every second in accordance with the physical laws of the universe. Nothing exists but the certainty of effect following cause. Complicated concepts based on value judgements such as morality are laughably implausible in this existential box atheists have created for themselves. What atheists have done is unable to believe intuitively that nothing is good or evil, they have simply hijacked concepts that otherwise cannot exist without God or religion. In most cases they have substituted something for it but none of their substitutes survive any kind of examination. The atheists life ultimately life is devoid of meaning. Since we cannot live without meaning they have inserted something else into that vacuum. The true atheist is pretty hard to come by. What we gave here are actually grump and confused agnostics, people with some sort of axe to grind over Christian and traditional theism concepts but unable to come to grips with the reality of an actual existence without God or meaning.
@m Colin
The only kind of atheism that is not grounded in a rejection of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, or neo-platonism, is Buddhism. And it seems to me that we westerners have a hard time getting our hands around that religion, if only because Buddhism as it is presented to us has been greatly affected by contact with western theism. I guess the Buddhists—for the most part—make no effort to reconcile their faith with the materalism that informs western liberalism, but keep them in logic-tight compartments. There is a great tension, there. Like the offerings to Buddha made by Japanese women who abort their children.
Dear Bill, you wrote, “I wonder what happened 2000 years ago that was so important that the men of the day started recounting time from then until now?” It was not “the men of the day” 2000 years ago who started that practice. Rather, it was not until year 525 that the practice began. Thus, people might wonder what happened in year 525 that was so important that people started recounting then. In the year 525, Dionysius Exiguus, a sixth century monk, apparently had some personal issues with the memory of 3rd century Roman Emperor Diocletian, and created a new system to spite him. This caught on and became popular. Some might therefore say that the new system was based on rivalry, hatred, contempt, etc. Nevertheless, prior to 525, most Roman Christians, like the pagan Romans before them, including Dionysius Exiguus, the inventor of the “A.D.” system, had been designating their years by naming consuls who held office that year. For example, Dionysius Exiguus himself stated that the “present year” was “the consulship of Probus Junior”. Meanwhile, other (Eastern) Christians were using (and continued using) a system based on so-called Creation, called anno Mundi eras, not “A.D.”, which became the dominant method of numbering years in the East until modern times.
M.Collins: Christianity is hardly the first religion, or even an original one:
http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html
Apparently you have declared yourself as one of the thought police and have license to declare what atheists think. Do you have an atheist radar?
I’m here to grump about confused Christians who can’t believe that an atheist can live a happy, moral, fulfilling life without believing in a fictional being watching over us and dictating how we should behave.
And don’t give me that crap that god has granted you the knowledge between good and evil. The first story in the bible has God forbidding the first couple from eating the fruit of that tree.
Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.
Bill, allow me to mention that Dionysius Exiguus was, of course, not really the “inventor of the ‘A.D.’ system”, at least not the first A.D. calendar system, as his sixth century system was actually replacing the already existing “A.D.” system based on Emperor Diocletian, the Anno Diocletiani system. Dionysius marks the first 229 years as “Anno Diocletiani”. Then at 532 AD in his table, he changed the acronym to mean “Anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi”. His table then ends at 626 AD with no reference to the reign of Diocletian.
@Tim: The issues that Christians had with Diocletian were somewhat like the issues that Jews have with Hitler. ;-) Speaking of, the Romans war with the Jews came about because the Jews were one of the most important ethnic groups. In the East especially, since they had connections with the Parthians and the Neo-Persians. One reason why Constantine had to make a choice between adopting Judaism and adopting Christianity, which were bitter rivals, with the Christians somewhat more numerous, especially in the West.
@John Schuh: Yes, Diocletian was one of the “religious connservatives” of his day, but he was not Catholic like Hitler.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.