“intellectual consistency within Catholicism”

I would ask then if it is possible to get a blood born disease from the blood of christ when taking communion?

I read your original article, and as an atheist I did not agree with a single point (none of the teachings made “sense” to me”, and as PZ suggested, I am not convinced you had arrived at your previous atheism from an intellectual standpoint.  It sounds as if you were just a theist in denial or in “thenial” - it happens all the time.

DKeane,

Just for the sake of clarification: Catholics don’t believe in the “physical” presence of Christ in communion, but rather his “substantial” presence.  If we believed that both the substance and accidents of the communion elements changed at consecration, then yes, we would believe that we could get a physical blood-borne disease from a physical reception of Christ’s blood, if he had any blood-borne diseases to pass on.  But we don’t believe that.

Wow! Those five points are intellectually bankrupt. I don’t think I have to explain why - all it takes is reason the size of mustard seed to understand why an atheist wouldn’t see eye to eye with you on any of the five points you brought up. “Cluelessness personified,” is an apt discription indeed.

Swaim,

I loathe the word believe.  Anyone can believe anything.  How about we start these conversations with the term “Catholics have evidence for…”

Jen,
Great piece.

I love that some are saying that you were never REALLY an atheist. It’s like an atheist inquisition.

“Just for the sake of clarification: Catholics don’t believe in the “physical” presence of Christ in communion, but rather his “substantial” presence. “

Could you possibly be more silly?

Could you possibly be more silly?

Well, duh, yeah!  I could be an atheist.

Kidding, I’m kidding…. :)

That was a good one :)

Again, my hat is off to you. Great article. Keep up the fabulous work. And, totally agree with Mr. Archbold - The notion that you couldn’t have been a real atheist. I guess that means that all who called themselves former Christians/catholics but who are now atheists were never really christian/catholic in the first place then? Again, I love your writing, keep up the great work you are doing!

Catholics have evidence for the real presence, which can be found here (or rather from the links provided throughout and in the reference section):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

Of course, you could be like those who doubt the moon landing and doubt this as well.

Jennifer Fulwiler: Well written – “You look at the data to see if there’s good reason to believe that the other party loves you, but then, in order to go any further, it takes vulnerability and humility.”  Hope you get some sleep soon.  May God continue to bless you.

Why are atheists who comment on this site so insular and reactionary?  They keep claiming that religious people can’t see eye to eye with atheists and that discussion or conversation between atheists and the religious is impossible (see “Judas Iscariot’s” comment at 7:05 AM).

Isn’t it ironic (on the surface) that Catholics are the ones trying to open up a dialogue with atheists?  I was always taught that it was religion (especially Catholicism) that refused to listen.

Re: polyman71
“Could you possibly be more silly?”

I take it then that you have little or no regard for Aristotle’s natural philosophy?

From what I’ve encountered among the new Atheists, the vast majority use an anger with God, a misunderstanding of or anger with religion, or some misguided sense of rejecting societal norms.  All of this is wrapped up by declaring that they are merely using “reason” and that no one of any intellectual consequence could possibly believe in an “invisible sky daddy” or some such rot.

Methinks they protest too much.

Dkeane,

Don’t worry; I’m not asking you to believe, just to respect the inner continuity of the Catholic system of belief in the particular doctrine you singled out, even if you don’t buy the paradigm itself, the same way I respect the internally consistent logic of an atheist system that rejects anything that cannot be proved empirically and therefore rejects the supernatural, which is impossible to prove empirically.

Great article once again, Ms. Fulwiler, and good direction. For me my conversations with atheists have always been just that, conversations.  Never arguments or debates, for you go nowhere that way. The most important thing I have learned is just to listen, for many do need to rant. Try hard not to respond with anything resembling harshness, even if mild (and really I need to learn that, considering how I could have been a bit more tolerant of poor Justine in the previous article’s comments). Sometimes one even learns something insightful about the Catholic Faith, which actually ends up affirming the Faith even more!  And definitely avoid nastiness in all its forms. 

I have been following your testimony for some time now and am glad to have come across your blog and writings.  Thank you!

DKeane,

The thing is that we don’t believe the Bread and Wine become the “physical” Body and Blood.  It is more metaphysical than that.  We use the term body to mean different things.  The most common is the “Human Body” but the Human Body is only part of who we are.  It is the “physical” part.

But body can also mean “the whole of a thing”  like a “body of work” or “body of evidence”.  When we say “BODY” of Christ, we mean the “WHOLE” of Him.  God, we believe, is not limited in the ways that we are.  While He has a Human Body in the Person of Christ, He is not limited to that physical Body.  It is possible for Him to be totally “PRESENT” without His physical Body.  I certainly don’t expect you to agree, but I hope you understand what we mean now by truly present, BODILY.  He is also truly present in the “BODY” of the Church.  We, the members of the Catholic Church, are also His “BODY”...hope that helps.

‘‘prison of reason’‘?

Some might call that sanity

Good post. I had a similar reaction to the other article and commentary. If you take away all the “I don’t believe in God. How would this make sense?”, “You were never really an atheist.” “You’re silly.” comments, they would have been reduced by at least 50%. We already have some of those here. They don’t really advance the “conversation.”

Exactly right, one must open up to possibility in order to receive enlightenment. Many atheists are closed to possibility.

I have never understood the desire of Catholics to enter into an exchange with individuals who clearly hate them.

In better days, we would have just laughed at them rather than take their guff seriously. And, of course, there is the example of ecclesiastical orthopraxis and Biblical injunction to ignore atheists after a few attempts to explain the Gospel to them.

Of course, it is possible that there are atheists who exist who are not jerks, but, they are the ones who Catholics do not run into online. The atheists one runs into online are, invariably, complete jerks.

Jen,
  It’s interesting to me that while reading the comments that the atheists’ comments seem to exude hostility while your articles exude love.  Thanks for your Christ-led example!

This may be a good strategy for someone who displays a sincere, peaceful openness to the discussion, but for the average person whose identity is deeply wrapped up in his or her CHRISTIANITY, it’s not going to get you very far. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that reasoning with them is a waste of time.

‘Corrected’

And herein lies the truth of it all. Everyone has justifications for what they believe. Most won’t be interested in being converted by people with opposing views. It’s part of the whole being human thing..

@Chad Brunner: “And herein lies the truth of it all. Everyone has justifications for what they believe. Most won’t be interested in being converted by people with opposing views. It’s part of the whole being human thing.”

That doesn’t sound like a truth at all, just cynicism.

Oh, Jennifer, this made me laugh!  Thank God for your kindness and ability to let things roll of your back.  I have not been involved in any debates with atheists and guess I’ve missed most of the prior conversations leading up to this post.  But, boy, it sure seems like the reaction you’re getting from atheists is rather nasty, angry and rude.  It’s sad, really.  I’ll keep you and them in my prayers.

Well that quote you used is just plain wrong, fyi.  Poets and artists dont go mad? Seriously? Some of the best known artists and poets were good BECAUSE they were ‘mad’.  Im an artist, and a skeptic, and an atheist.. I’m still doing just fine.  If your brain gets that exhausted from critical thinking, well maybe you should see a doctor about that. 

God is not love.  Love is love.  Theists need to stop picking out words we already have definitions for and calling it god.  God is light, god is beer, god is carpet.  By doing that, ‘god’ loses its meaning, and you might as well be a deist if anything.

I also don’t think you were ever really athiest.. believing in a god again would be like believing in the easter bunny again.  Unless you have some major cognitive dissonance going on, I don’t know how it’s possible.

‘‘prison of reason’‘?

Some might call that sanity

Unless that reason is based on a false premise.  Reason is only good if it is founded on Truth/Reality.  A reasonable argument based on a false premise, untruth, is insanity.

This is why you can give reasoned arguments for atheism, and we can give reasoned arguments for the existence of God.  Because we are each starting with a different premise.  IF the premise is accepted then rational arguments can be made.  That was the point of the “5 points” post that Meyers ridiculed.  Obviously you had to accept the premise that God exists.  IF you could do that, THEN you would agree that what followed was consistent and reasonable.  Of course, if like Meyers, you refuse to suspend belief for the sake of the argument, then you are back to “You people are nuts!”

I can, and have, put myself in the “mind” of an atheist and looked at the subject through your eyes.  When I do that, then I see that your arguments are perfectly reasonable, given your premise.  I disagree with your premise, obviously, but I can “pretend” to agree in order to achieve a better understanding of where you are coming from. 

The real debate comes from reasoned arguments for or against the premises.  Does God exist or doesn’t He?  We have reasoned arguments for the reality that He does exist of course.  But so far the only argument you guys have ever put forth is “You can’t prove it empirically” which is no argument at all.  Not only that, but you have never come up with a single plausible alternate explanation of “where it ALL came from”.

Theists need to stop picking out words we already have definitions for and calling it god.

And how did we come by those definitions?  What was the first “definition” of “Love”?

This reads like a friggin Scientology recruiters handbook….

I wonder are all atheists trolls?

PZ Myers is the King of Trolls… I would like to see some of HIS logic for once… so far what he does is just dealing in logical fallacies (ad homine, straw man, red herring… you name it).

(Most) atheists here are the same.

They offend, when they do not understand the difference between physical and ‘substantial’ (in philosophical terms) their respons is to call ’ oh it’s so silly’... is that an argument? That is just shutting down one’s brain in my opinion.

———-

<<<<
Posted by DKeane on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 7:37 AM (EDT):Swaim,

I loathe the word believe.  Anyone can believe anything.  How about we start these conversations with the term “Catholics have evidence for…”
>>>>

Well then, present your evidence for naturalism and (reductive) materialism, which are of course things you BELIEVE in DKeane (otherwise you are not much of an atheist :P)....

get over yourself.

Mrs Fulwiler: Well met. You have a great sense of humor, and it comes out in responding to these PZ Meyerbarians. I should add that your previous post resonated with me a bit, because I had just had a conversation with a pair of relatively reasonable atheists concerning purgatory. They were genuinely intrigued, and were therefore willing to have the momentary suspension of belief necessary to have that discussion. I even threw in a discussion of indulgences for good measure, though this was a bit harder to explain!

Keep up the good work.

Thank you for all you write Jennifer you are making an impact and a difference.

““And so, with your atheist friends and family members, love them, pray for them, and show them the light of Christ at every moment possible. But don’t worry too much about winning arguments, because you can’t reason your way into love. “”

Well luckily the atheist friends I have are not the sort that troll this site.

Most of them abhor people like Myers, Dennett or Dawkins, preferring not to be associated with such individuals… and I think most intelligent atheists feel that way as well.

Unfortunately it’s trolls and idiots who have the loudest voice on the internet. Such is the way of the world (wide web).

Chad,

if, as you say, “Everyone has justifications for what they believe. Most won’t be interested in being converted by people with opposing views”, why on earth are you even bothering to comment on an article that clearly opposes your view.

What draws you to a commentary on the Catholic faith?

offensive content

That’s like those idiotic “explicit lyrics” stickers. Oh, there are “bad” words, they might corrupt you.

all the compelling arguments in favor of our beliefs

What compelling arguments? Are there any new ones I’m not aware of?

Chesterton:
Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom.

[citation needed], otherwise that’s just blank assertion and pure rhetoric.

In my experience, the formula for conversion comes down to intellectual assent + openness to love.

Yeah, I’m totally opposed to ‘love’, that’s why I’m an atheist. *rolleyes*

God is love

God is pudding. Makes equally no sense.

a boy is trying to convince a girl that he loves her, but she is simply closed to the concept.

The way you lay out your analogy it sounds like this guy may end up stalking the woman.

And so, with your atheist friends and family members, love them, pray for them, and show them the light of Christ at every moment possible.

Or, you might just accept them the way they are and stop trying to convert them.

I wonder, out of all the available religions, why did you choose the Catholic one? I’m curious what convinced you to convert to Catholicism?

> I would ask then if it is possible to get a blood born disease from the blood of christ when taking communion?

If the wine were contaminated in some way when it was Consecrated, it is possible.

Because Christ was never inflicted with any disease during His life, then it’s not possible that His Blood would could be a carrier of any contagion.

More specifically to the point of your question: as the consecrated chalice contains the Blood of Christ that retains all the external elements of wine—what theologians call the “accidents,” or secondary aspects that present themselves to the senses—then its effects are identical to that of normal wine. Thus, for example, one could still get drunk if he consumed too much.

@kk. I can offer an explanation for why atheist, like myself, often exude some hostility (I think it’s more frustration than anything else) on forums. Imagine if you lived in a world dominated by people who dead-set believed in the easter bunny. A world where billions of your taxpayer dollars went into the bunny worshipping organisations. Money that was then used to indoctrinate you’re children to become little bunny believers. A world where Bunny Lobby groups pressured governments into banning carrots because they are ‘sacred’ to bunny worshippers. And where every day you read about more and more wars breaking out between those in the bunny’s corner, and those in santa’s.
This is why atheists are so frustrated or even hostile.

Well written, Mrs. Fulwiler!  I especially like the point about accepting love through humility and vulnerability, which is a point relevant to all of us, and not just atheists.

If you weren’t an atheist, Chesterton wasn’t an atheist either. 

He didn’t see Catholicism as a walled prison, but as a walled playground.

The utilization of a quote from G.K. Chesterton to attempt to make a point, demonstrates the ineptitude of Fulwiler’s arguments.  If you want to claim that reason drives people to insanity more than imagination, then provide some numbers to demonstrate this.  The opinions of a writer who died in 1936, before mental illness was understood at even a basic level (look into the status of mental health treatment in the 1930’s), are not a valid argument.  If you want to have a reasonable discussion, then you need to start from a reasonable point.  Belief is accepting something as true for which you have no logical reason or basis in fact, so it is not the foundation for a reasonable discussion.  Jennifer has her agenda, to make people believe her cult’s mythology, and it has blinded her to the lack of reason and intelligence in her arguments.

Great post, Jen.  This was something I brought up yesterday in the vast combox sea… Not only do many non-believers not understand why God is synonomous with love, they also continue to assert that God must be defined in a physical capacity in order to be “real.”  As I mentioned yesterday, the purpose of science is to explain and understand our physical reality, and nothing more.  It cannot provide a moral compass; it cannot answer “Why?”—that is simply outside its purpose.  It can only clarify “What?” and “How?” though often imperfectly when done outside the lens of “Why?”

hey, if you want to waste your life praising fictitious “cloud fathers” and wasting your Sundays…that’s your business…I’ll be sleeping in. Now just stop trying to push your agenda on the masses, interfering in schools and government, worship at home and keep to yourselves.  Abortion is 1 woman’s business. love is love and anyone should marry whoever they want. Homosexuality is a fact and perfectly natural. Church is the biggest tax fraud scheme ever. Women are equal to men.Organized Religion is the greatest threat to humanity. Condoms and birth control should be free and available to everyone. as OVERPOPULATION is what is causing most of the worlds problems. ..... I DARE YOU TO POST THIS UNEDITED!!!

Jen, I have to say that as a former atheist, I appreciate what you’re saying, and I get it. Because most of the people around me were Catholic (or at least Christian), I desired to understand why they believed what they did, especially because it seemed so nutty to me. Unfortunately, I’m not sure any of them were well catechized enough to have a serious discussion like you attempt to have when you address atheists and/or atheism in your posts.

Keep your head up, and keep writing. Maybe a curious atheist, or one who is surrounded by Catholics will stumble upon what you’ve written and find it useful and instructive.

“Belief is accepting something as true for which you have no logical reason or basis in fact, so it is not the foundation for a reasonable discussion.”

Belief is also accepting something that is reasonable even if we cannot alwys fully understand it or prove it with empirical means.

The Catholic faith has many arguments to sustain it. Philosophical arguments.

Of course atheist will fall back on the ‘proof’... yes but they swindle and cheat by allowing ONLY empirical proofs. Of course one should first prove that only empiricism is allowable as a proof (and sadly for these atheists you cannot prove that empirically).

However this does not make the atheist more reasonable or intelligent… it makes him rather more pathetic, since he is truly blind on the very (metaphysical) foundations of science and empirical research.

“
Jennifer has her agenda, to make people believe her cult’s mythology, and it has blinded her to the lack of reason and intelligence in her arguments. “

And so are you.

You are trying to convince people to YOUR mythology… the mythology of materialism, which has no reasonable basis either.

Even several philosophers like the Atheist Rosenberg claimed naturalism and reductive materialism are incoherent.

Your post was just nonsense rethoric in the end, concluded with an ad hominen fallacy too.

“all of my examples were meant only to illustrate the intellectual consistency within Catholicism, and therefore assumed that you would be in a discussion with an atheist who would stipulate belief in God for the sake of argument”!! What absolute tosh you write.  If, as an atheist, I am engaged in a discussion then the last thing I’d do is stipulate belief in a god, or, were you once the sort of atheist who has no idea what the word actually means? Catholicism has had hundreds of years to attempt to cobble together an internal consistency and you may well feel very pleased with the results but from the outside, without believing in your central tenets, it all ,I fear, appears to be nonsense. The nonsense that you find when, for the sake of argument, you revisit your arguements but this time stipulate the non-existance of any gods - it may appear to have an internal consistancy but nonsense it is and declaring that within its own terms it ‘makes sense’ does not alter that.

Nice post, Jennifer.

I especially liked your reminder about

“vulnerability and humility”.

There is no love without humility and vulnerability: that we’re not too full of ourselves to let the other person in, and then in vulnerability, we build trust and slowly grow.

It reminds me of the proverb: nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care.

And this leads to show one danger of “evangelization”: when we want to show off what we know or appear great or knowledgable before others.

What confounds me though is how closed minded some people can be. If only they would explore and really search to understand what the Catholic Church teaches and what it’s about. I mean, more than just reading the New York Times take on what it means to be Catholic.

I laughed out loud at DKeane’s statement:
“I am not convinced you had arrived at your previous atheism from an intellectual standpoint.  It sounds as if you were just a theist in denial or in “thenial” - it happens all the time.”

It sounded exactly like my conversation with a Calvinist last week who said that if he ever did fall away, then that would be proof that he wasn’t one of the chosen in the first place.  Can’t argue with that “logic”.

Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist, as The Shea says.

Good stuff Jen!  You have stirred up a hornet’s nest on the atheist side that for whatever reason, they just can’t ignore.

It’s interesting to me that they start out (in the title no less) by name calling.  Now that’s an adult, reasoned, convincing argument.  It’s also interesting that they are excommunicating you from atheism (never having been a real atheist and all).

Reason alone did not get you out of the atheist prison and it will not give them their freedom either.

Nobody should check his rational mind at the door when it comes to exploring nonmaterial realities—to do so is a great way to end up in a cult.

You know, that explains a lot about P.Z. Myers’ little cult following. It’s almost Pavlovian how they’re trained to spew bile on command if a Christian so much as mentions the word “atheist” anywhere online…

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

We could look at reasoning with them in light of Christ’s discussion with the Pharisees on eternal life in Matthew 22. As Joe Heschmeyer points out on his blog post today (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-bible-did-sadducees-use.html), Christ doesn’t quote from a passage where his point would be much more clearly made, but from a passage in one of the few books of the Old Testament that they accepted, from Exodus. Likewise, why not try to start a dialogue with those (vitriolic?) atheists from their own point of view. (e.g. Where did the matter for the big bang come from?)

Here is a couple of Chesterton quote which appear to be suited to the occasion:

“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.”

“Materialists and madmen never have doubts.”

To hear that certain atheists are unwilling or unable to even imagine for the sake of argument that there could be a God is a sign of their madness.

Don’t listen to their cries of “Evidence, evidence!  All we need is evidence.”  The evidence is all around them, for open-minded people, but “for those who disbelieve, no proof is possible.”

For those who are intellectually honest, you can bring up the following, as evidence:
1) Our very existence and the existence of the universe.
2) Our astonishing mind-blowing complexity.
3) The fact that the physical constants of the universe are fine-tuned to support life.
4) The miracles of the Church (Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, etc.)

It can be very entertaining to listen to atheists try to reason their way out of them, and if they are stumped they can always resort to “there is no explanation yet, but we have faith that science will eventually explain it.”

People who dismiss the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Pascal, GK Chesterton (who routinely got the better of Bertrand Russell, with whom he was good friends, in debates) as intellectual lightweights are not worthy of even taking seriously.  They are worthy only of being pitied (and prayed for).

@Stephen:

For the record, the easter bunny is not part of Catholic teaching, also not sure what you mean by taxpayer dollars going to the easter bunny…the church gets money from its members to finance missions and poverty projects in this country and others.
And as far as the wars you mention…I assume your referring to the so called religious wars, most if not all of these past wars were not religious in nature, but were fought for power, land and self preservation in the case of the crusades, the fact is more people have been killed by atheists, communists, marxists…during the so called enlightenment when reason was king how many Christians/priests were killed.
I think you need to separate what some bad Christians do and what Christ teaches in the new testament, but I’m sure your not open minded enough to read the bible, you would rather attack and spread lies.
The fact is you atheists do believe in a transcendental being or else you wouldn’t spend the time and energy you do to disprove him, your just like satan you don’t want to serve, you don’t want to play by the rules, you want subjective morality not objective morality, you don’t believe in unity but disunity, I have to disagree with Jennifer on the intellectualism of atheists…the three operations of the intellect are (1)apprehension (2)judgement (3) reasoning, all of which atheists lack.
Did I offend you atheists? good it was my intent, your no treat to me, you don’t offend me, your irrelevant as far as I’m concern, the fact is after your dead and gone the Catholic Church will still be here…with the Pope at it’s head.

If there was a mathematical equation of God, then it would be possible that there is no purgatory layer of heaven.  And if there is a reason for love, we may never enter heaven besides the fact that we among all creatures live in a perfect world.  But it’s far from it isn’t it..!

The material belief is always linear, and I have claimed that the atheist mind may not have that portion of the brain to know and understand, let alone love God hence the claim; believers have developed a God DNA..

Atheists get so angry when a former atheist writes about conversion because they are scared. They are scared that their nihlism is wrong. They do not know Truth. All they know is fear. Pray that they may know Truth and Love and quit leading such hopeless and empty lives.

Isn’t PZ Myers the same guy who desecrated the Eucharist to illustrate his point on how “crazy” Eucharistic worship is?  That he manages to retain a university position in spite of such shocking anti-religious acts is particularly saddening.  Universities will gloss over many things, but they tend to draw the line on outright blasphemy.

Joel…err, they don’t “edit” comments here…

it must be nice, believing everything you were taught as a kid….still! open your eyes and look around….it’s the scientific method, baby…and it is constantly changing.

Dear Nat’l Catholic Register Publishers:
  I have no idea what you’re paying Jen & Simcha Fisher for their columns but my hunch is it is not enough! They are both the best additions to this paper in ages. Give them a raise!

Jennifer,

I think it’s time to take Christ’s own advice to shake the dust off of your feet and move on.

These “debates” between atheists and Christians quickly spiral into nastiness and verbal gymnastics over terms and definitions…exactly the types of things St. Paul warns against.

Plus, you seem to speak of atheists as a homogeneous block of people that can be reasoned into a relationship with God. The spark of faith is a gift from the Holy Spirit. It can’t be worked out in a syllogism or gleaned from the logical consistency in the teachings of the Church.

My advice would be to write more about what you started out with: yourself and your ongoing conversion and family. Those stories were interesting and inspiring. These treatises on converting atheists are neither.

Jennifer, I thank you for your articles despite the result that you continue to open yourself up to the invective of trolls.

joel shanning wrote “it must be nice, believing everything you were taught as a kid . . .”  When I was younger I was taught the Golden Ratio.  You mean it’s not true?  To what did it change?

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” Not a very surprising bit of name calling to find in an anthology of bloodthirsty creation myths, fables and fantasies is it? With equal validity I could reply that the fool is he (or she) who finds solace in fairy stories, superstition and mumbo-jumbo.

magine if you lived in a world dominated by people who dead-set believed in the easter bunny.

You mean like the way our taxpayer money goes to Planned Parenthood? Or Public Schools that we don’t use?  Yeah, I feel your pain.  However, the money that goes to the Catholic Church is used for charitable causes.  It’s not like we’re spending it to kill unborn children.  As for indocrinization…please, the sexual education of public school children is every bit as offensive to me as saying “God” in the pledge of allegiance.  Plus, no public taxpayer money is going to program your children to believe in God or the Easter Bunny.  If you think it is, then show me how. 

I agree tho, that much on the vitriol is frustration driven.  On that we can agree.  I don’t think most of us are mean or hateful in ordinary life.

“Where did the matter for the big bang come from?” asks Petrus.  Easy, as Christians we believe pudding made it. ;)  Petrus, you make an excellent point.  St. Paul did the same.  Find common ground and I have even found common experience to be good.  Also, common practice is a good starting point.  For example, if a materialist atheist argues “I believe only what has been proved,” then I would start with asking if he believes in things that I am pretty sure he believes but has not been proved.  Like does he have a heart?  Although we can open many cadavers and find a heart, it has not been proven he has one.  He must accept it that he has a heart.  If he is intellectually honest with himself, he will have to believe that he believes some things without material evidence. 

Jennifer also makes a good point though.  It is difficult to reason alone with atheists just as it is difficult to evangelize anybody without first having a relationship with the person.  As she mentions, personal holiness is very important.  Lord, send us saints.

Praise God! Nicely written article Jennifer, and I must say the Holy Spirit was with you when you wrote this. I’m sure after Monday’s article many emotions and thoughts were swimming in your head. I’m glad to see that love won out through them, and you didn’t give into the temptation to be nasty in return…. something I myself would have been greatly tempted to do. Keep up the good work! Keep up the love, gentleness, kindness, sound reason, and high faith. My prayers are with you!

“He missed the point, but that may have been my fault: I evidently did not make it clear enough that all of my examples were meant only to illustrate the intellectual consistency within Catholicism, and therefore assumed that you would be in a discussion with an atheist who would stipulate belief in God for the sake of argument.”

Oh, hogwash. We Catholics got your point just fine. This was reading comprehension 101.

I could not believe the inane, bullheaded, unintelligent comments coming from the “brights” who descended upon your combox. How you keep your charity and sense of humor in the face of that is beyond me. I would be throwing things.

@Jessie - you wrote “They are scared that their nihlism is wrong. They do not know Truth. All they know is fear”  Well very few atheists are nihilists, they generally know a lot about rational enquiry and the use of evidence and we don’t have to cower behind the promise of some pie in the sky heaven to ward off fear (of death or freedom).

Since the atheists I know personally are fairly reasonable and certainly kind I am shocked to learn how many narrow, vicious atheistic sorts there are (at least online, reading your blog posts). You are right Ms. Fulwiler, a living example is the best way to persuade a person, no matter what you believe—and the simple-minded people leaving nasty comments would do well to take heed!

This is the most pathetic response I think I’ve ever seen.  PZ himself has acknowledged that there is consistency in many church teachings, but he continually points out that those theological castles you build sit on clouds, not on a firm believable basis. 

That Chesterton quote is also quite lame.  For every Bobby Fisher, I can find you a Silvia Plath.

But, by all means, keep arguing that evidence, and reason are not relevant or important.

@stephen:

You say: “Try hard not to respond with anything resembling harshness, even if mild (and really I need to learn that, considering how I could have been a bit more tolerant of poor Justine in the previous article’s comments).”

Here is another tip for you - patronizing won’t get you far either. I did not consider myself poor, any more than I considered you harsh. It was only evident to me that you don’t know much about subjects I mentioned.

There’s a news article today’s “Washington Post” about a local summer camp in Virginia for children who come from atheist families.

I missed the discussion about converting atheists.  IMHO the best evidence is the way we love- not the arguments or discussions we have.  If we are given grace thru the sacraments then this exceptional grace should be enabling us to love profoundly.  There, no arguments/discussions about how to get to atheists needed. The world would be better off sometimes and more likely to see Christ if we lived deeply what we believe.  At times I think Catholics spend too much time telling everyone else how wrong they are and would be much more effective if they worked on their own souls.

Fludger,

I could reply that the fool is he (or she) who finds solace in fairy stories, superstition and mumbo-jumbo.

I wholeheartedly agree.  Which is why I am a Catholic.  People who believe in fairies, superstition and mumbo-jumbo are so out there.  I mean fairy stories are nice, but they are just that…stories.  God however, is reality.  Which is why I believe in God, but forgo the Mumbo-Jumbo Gumbo.

It always amazes me how much time atheists spend on articles and websites trying to tear down the faith. It appears to me that they are searching and constantly trying to defend the defenseless. There is no “live and let live” but an attack in order to bring the idiot believer into the fold of godlessness. The believer writes articles and seeks dialogue in order to bring eternal salvation and a message of hope to everyone. This is essential to our belief system and the message of Jesus Christ, (for the Christian, that is). If the believer is silenced, then the atheist has no cultural moral code to answer to and can go about his life of debauchery and evil uncontested. Yes, I know that atheists can be moral too, they just have no basis for their morality. They have no real reason to be moral, other than just to survive to the next meal. What a sad way to live.

“He missed the point, but that may have been my fault: I evidently did not make it clear enough that all of my examples were meant only to illustrate the intellectual consistency within Catholicism”

Methinks the author misses the point: intellectual consistency is meaningless if it doesn’t have any connection to reality. Consider the following syllogism:

All Fnords are purple
Rumpletweezer is a Fnord
Therefore, Rumpletweezer is purple

Intellectually consistent, but pointless until one can demonstrate the existence of Fnords, and unlikely to convince a skeptic of anything.

Atheists are pure entertainment! They tend to have a great understanding of one or two narrow subject sand use it to justify their bigotry. Quick to anger and use provocative coarse language most of their “intellectualism” springs from some imagined wrong done to them in their youth. Some nun yelled at them and they are damaged for life! Their mission in life becomes to play the martyr. PZ is the epitome of of the new humanism which is driven by this. I have many “secular humanists” friends and I use PZ as an example of what “humanism” really is, show them his anti-Catholic desecration of the Eucharist resulting in his award “Humanist of the Year” by the mouth piece for the movement;The Humanist. It tends to hit them like a brick and actually makes a notable impact!

A list of notable atheists is incredibly thin… not hardly a serious thinker in mankind’s history makes the list…For a groups that espouses intellectualism they are laughable lacking in all respects…  The best argument against atheism tends to be their very own arguments for it or at least the tone and personalities presenting it! Odd because their typical environs is the university system and 2nd semester english tends to cover all the ground to expose their blunt rhetoric…

What a load of sad, self-reinforcing atheism (not to mention complete misunderstanding of Christianity).  All the atheist students I’ve had have known tons of facts about Christianity, but completely lacked understanding.  Understanding requires the desire to understand, and no one desires to understand something he only wants to disprove.

I believe you’re right, Jennifer, that love, humility, etc. must be a part of finding faith, because love and humility, perhaps an atheist’s encounter with a Christian he loves (e.g. C.S. Lewis’ wife), will make him want to understand what he presently only knows a lot of facts about.

God bless!

Jennifer Fulwiler, your point about love is right on.  Just yesterday I was pointing out to friends how PZ Meyer’s blog is filled with post after post of making someone or something else look stupid, inferior, or simply showing disrespect in one manner or another.  Posts encouraging or supporting love or goodness in any fashion or magnitude were lacking.  Love, compassion, selflessness, qualities that make the world a better place were lacking.  That’s not to say that all atheists lack love, compassion, selflessness, or the such, but I can see how his particular breed of atheism DOES lack these qualities, and thus, as you said, makes for an impossible task of having a reasonable, worth while discussion.

“And that’s when you see that people simply cannot reason their way into faith.”

That’s certainly true. I can’t think of any line of reason one could follow that could lead to the conclusions the faithful hold dear.

As for the “internal consistency” you speak of, I’m reminded of the phrase “valid, but not sound”. Many logical arguments can be made whose conclusions follow from their premises, but if those premises are bogus, the argument is worthless. In much the same way, an internally consistent fiction is still fictitious. Until you can convince an atheist that there is good reason to believe your quasi-consistent beliefs are worth believing, you may as well be quoting bible verses.

Catholicism entails epistemic circularity, so it’s not epistemically consistent. Further, its teachings are at odds with each other. [e.g., it’s possible for a soul to die in original sin alone, but a la God’s universal salvific will, each person is given the opportunity to be saved]. Even if these problems could be solved (something I’ve never seen before, what a feat that would be!) Catholicism is like a 10th order belief from bare-theism. Riding on so much, the atheist is well within her epistemic rights to dismiss it.

“Until you can convince an atheist that there is good reason to believe your quasi-consistent beliefs are worth believing…”

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

Micah,

Your post is right on.  One can never understand or objectively evaluate something which one has hatred, derision, bigotry, etc. towards.

My post would not be complete with a couple more Chesterton quotes:
“It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it.”

“The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid but ends up making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious and everything else becomes clear.”

Even Jesus didn’t waste his time with unbelievers.  He would tell a story or make a point but he did not hang around wasting his time arguing with his opponents.  He did not spend time contending with Pharisees and scribes.  Instead, he went on to the other towns and villages to spread the good news.  The best we can do is pray for our friends and enemies.

Firstly, this article is written criticizing atheists and atheism, it was then put into the public sphere with an open comments section. Just because someone with an opposing view shares their opinion, doesn’t make it trolling.  Sorry if it offends you, but I think you can handle it. 

Second, don’t criticize someone for asking for the evidence to support your claim, and then three words later demand to see their evidence.  Either evidence is important or it’s not.  Let’s do an example so you understand the idea of burden of proof.  Today a homeless man walks up to you and tells you he is Jesus risen.  Do you believe him and blindly follow him? Do you distrust him and ask for evidence?  What must he do for you to believe him?  (if you answered yes to the first one, you make me nervous)

Some may think I’m being angry or argumentative, but this is just text, tone and inflection are in your head. (unless I scream in caps, I guess that’s obvious).  You say I’m close minded.  I am completely open to there being a god, but to this point in my life there has been nothing to even hint that one exists, so I leave the question open.  If it can’t be shown to exist, then I’ll assume it doesn’t until proven otherwise, just like bigfoot, alien abductions, and a functioning government.

Will the theists out there at least admit they dont actually know if a god exists, and are open to the possibly there isn’t one?

One of my closest friends is an atheist, and has been ever since he left Christianity in high school. We regularly have conversations (never arguments) about religion. I used to be an Evangelical Protestant before I converted to Catholicism, and he’s been there every step of the way. He once told me, a few months after I’d converted, that if he were ever to believe in God (which he’s almost certain won’t happen) he’d become Catholic, since it’s the most internally consistent, philosophically sound of all religions and it has centuries of positive (despite the many negative) contributions to Western civilization. This is what Jen was trying to say with her original post. Catholicism is not just a haphazard set of beliefs that contradicts itself around every turn. It is internally logical, constant and consistent.

Staggerizer,

It’s not a 10th order belief.  Maybe 3rd order…

1) God exists
2) He sent His son Jesus who proved He was who He said he was by many miracles, foremost of which was His Resurrection.  His Apostles were (excluding John) killed when they refused to recant on this point.
3) Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Your little dilemma is easy to solve.  The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that those who die in original sin automatically go to Hell.  No one without ACTUAL sin will be damned, and no one will be damned except through their own fault.

@mk
...God however, is reality.  Which is why I believe in God, but forgo the Mumbo-Jumbo Gumbo… We will just have to differ about the reality of God - not, as you might have gathered an hypothesis I find convincing - the Gumbo however sounds tasty.
@Fr. Andrew
... Unfortunately in a number of well publicised cases being a Catholic priest does not always appear to be any bar to leading a life of debauchery and evil especially when the hierarchy are keen to keep things covered up for the transgressing cleric - or is there a special get-out clause for child molestation and abuse that is not available to the non-religious? Since religion is a man-made construction then it differs from rational systems of ethical behavior in that it is based on superstition rather than a rational thought process. If asked to choose between cant and Kant I choose the lartter.

Fludger wins the prize!  The contest was to see how many comments it would take before child abuse was cited as in: nothing the Church teaches can be true because priests rape.  Congratulations Fludger!  A prize consisting of your likeness (a bag of hammers) is on the way!

Ryan,

No I cannot admit that I do not know whether God exists, because I do know, at least with 99.999% certainty, based on all the evidence, as well as experiences I have had, and others have had.  So I know that God exists with roughly the same certitude that I know that the planet (or sub-planet) Pluto exists, or that the can of beans I buy at the store actually contains beans.

I can admit that there is a non-zero chance that God does not exist, but again, I feel it is about a 0.001% chance.  However, at this point I am not “open” to that possibility (there was a time when I was open to it), as life is ultimately meaningless anyway if God does not exist, and I don’t want to go down that road.  To be honest, I admire atheists.  I am not sure I would have the courage to go on in the face of the meaningless of it all.

I close with a quote (not Chesterton) this time:

“The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.” ~ Dante Gabriel Rossetti

Excellent rebuttal, Jennifer, though I don’t you;ll get much credit from the drunk-on-self-righteousness trolls…

Don’t know much about PZ Myers, but if he’s anything like the posters on this board, he sounds like a real jerk whose company is best avoided.

Apparently freedom from religion brings happiness…so much so that Brights, Freethinkers and whatever else they’re calling themselves these days feel the need to proclaim to the world how happy they are, as loudly and angrily as possible, while condemning those fools who don’t think like we do as deluded and insane, who whos we happy until we tell them how unhappy they are, and if they don’t agree with us then we’re not going to be happy….

Wow…if Jerry Falwell was a scientist instead of a preacher, he would have fit right in with you lot. Just goes to show, in the end you always become what you hate….

Dave:

It’s certainly not a third order, but even if it was the same point applies, so I’m not sure why it matters.

For example, “2)” requires all kinds of assumptions about the texts from which you learn of Jesus’ alleged miracles, and the propriety of using certain historical tools of discernment for events far removed from our background knowledge.

“The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that those who die in original sin automatically go to Hell. No one without ACTUAL sin will be damned, and no one will be damned except through their own fault.”  - Dave

This is easy to refute lol:

“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in orginal sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Florence, Sess. VI).

@Warren A
Quick to anger and use provocative coarse language most of their “intellectualism” springs from some imagined wrong done to them in their youth

Please provide a reference to your peer-reviewed long term longitudinal study of the underlying reasons why people become atheists wherein we may discover the evidence for your assertion above.  There are very many people indifferent to religion but anybody who self-describes as an atheist is more likely than not to have done so on the basis of a rational consideration of the evidence (or lack thereof) followed by a careful consideration of what it entails.  Sadly many people, on both sides of the debate, resort to anger fuelled invective rather than polite discourse - which is unfortunate but in part encouraged by the anonymity afforded by the internet.

That’s exactly the problem. You say you a certain, how can you say we’re the ones not open then?  You have openly admitted your hypocrisy.  You have evidence then show it. 

And people, stop saying god is love, or god is reality.  This confuses and diminishes the meaning of ‘god’.  I experience and believe in love and realty, yet in no way consider them god.  If that’s the case you might as well be deist or athiest.  Do you pray to love?  Do you ask reality for forgiveness?  Do you worship the universe?

Yes, I’d love to see a “good” column on suffering.  (It seems we can never get enough of it.  lol)

Staggerizer, there is a way for the Council of Florence to be correct and for Dave to be correct, at least in the spirit of his comment.  While being in a state of original sin is damning, there is such a thing as Baptism of Desire, which, it is at least theoretically possible, could be applied to a great many non-baptized persons, and would mean that while they had original sin throughout life, they received a non-sacramental type of Baptism at the moment of death.

“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” (CCC 1260).

However, it is true that this does not give us the ability to assume that all those without actual sin go to heaven.

Furthermore, it is possible that the Council of Florence considered limbo to be a part of hell, and while limbo is technically only theory, it is a possible explanation, and limbo is not what we moderns would consider “hellish,” so it’s quite possible that what Florence said wasn’t meant to be interpreted the way you did.

“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in orginal sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Florence, Sess. VI).

Yes, but you can’t simply make one quote to settle the matter.  You have to look at each teaching in the context of the other teachings, and interpret them all so that a cohesive picture emerges.  In this case, the key is what is the meaning of “in original sin alone.”  Since we know from other Magisterial teachings that no one is damned except through their own fault, it cannot apply to unbaptized infants, or even those who had never heard or understood the Gospel properly.

Here is just one quote:

“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.”

Quote:  “@kk. I can offer an explanation for why atheist, like myself, often exude some hostility (I think it’s more frustration than anything else) on forums. Imagine if you lived in a world dominated by people who dead-set believed in the easter bunny. A world where billions of your taxpayer dollars went into the bunny worshipping organisations. Money that was then used to indoctrinate you’re children to become little bunny believers. A world where Bunny Lobby groups pressured governments into banning carrots because they are ‘sacred’ to bunny worshippers. And where every day you read about more and more wars breaking out between those in the bunny’s corner, and those in santa’s.
This is why atheists are so frustrated or even hostile.”
____
That doesn’t ring true at all to me.  For one thing, if you’re talking about the United States, I can’t think of a single example of tax dollars being spent to indoctrinate children into Christianity or any other religion.  And for another thing, your point implies that Christians who live in a country where the main religion is Hinduism (for example) would become hostile out of frustration at the prevailing Hinduism, which they would consider to be a false religion.  But I don’t see this happening in the real world, at least not on any large scale.

“Perseverance of The Atheists” - It looks like you were never REALLY an Atheist Jen. You just THOUGHT you were.

Remember, your subjective reality is no more true than mine.  We must use more than that to determine what is actually real, and yes, there are objective truths. 

I’d still like to know if you believe the homeless man.

Ryan,
Many atheists are not open to the possibility of God, and many Christians are not open to the possibility of no God.  I don’t see how that makes us hypocritical.

“You have evidence, then show it.”  Already have, in earlier posts.  I’m not really interested in your point by point denials, either.  Been there, dont that.  It’s there for honest seekers to evaluate.

Read “New Proofs for the Existence of God” by Robert Spitzer if you are interested in this sort of thing.

So let’s talk about this with poetry… http://www.sacrificialpoet.com/

Quote:  “Well luckily the atheist friends I have are not the sort that troll this site.

Most of them abhor people like Myers, Dennett or Dawkins, preferring not to be associated with such individuals… and I think most intelligent atheists feel that way as well.”
_______
I hope you’re right.  The avalanche of juvenile, insulting, rude, obnoxious, intolerant comments from atheists, on this post and on the previous one, is certainly making it more difficult for me to have a positive view of atheists. 
_______
And I think it’s funny how several commenters have accused Jen of never having been a real atheist.  This sounds so much like some of the “once-saved-always-saved” Protestants who say that a fallen-away Christian must never have been a true Christian (no matter how much evidence there may be to the contrary).

@SteveP
In response to the suggestion (from Fr.Andrew)that *all* atheists lead lives of debauchery and evil I merely mention that some (I did not say all) priests are not exactly perfect. The basis of my atheism is nothing whatsoever to do with the prospensity of priests to rape and indeed the “argument” (such as it is) “that nothing the Church teaches can be true because priests rape” is not one I was making nor would I make as it is not a particularly valid or useful assertion. So thanks for the prize nomination but as I don’t think I have really earned it I suggest you sell the hammers and donate the proceeds to charity.

i find it somewhat hilarious that atheists hold a level of judgment against you that almost supersedes *ANY* level of contempt I’ve seen between believers.

At the end of the day, *WHY* do they care about YOUR journey???

But if all this plants a seed or even just breaks the ground on one of these hardened hearts of atheists {said directed towards ONLY those who speak out of the emotion of anger}, then I would say it was well worth it.

God love ya, Jen. You anger these people for a reason. They are dissatisfied with their worldview. People totally satisfied with where they are, would not bother posting their anger here.

“atheists like him are trapped in a prison of reason”

So, not believing that humans can walk on water, wake from the dead, wake others from the dead, feed thousands of people with a handful of fish, live 600 years, be created out of another human’s rib or be spontaneously converted into pillars of salt is being trapped in a prison of reason.

Perhaps it’s actually freedom from the prison of ridiculous ignorance.

Ryan, saying that God is love isn’t the same as saying that love is God.  We don’t equate the two, although God certainly is present wherever love is.

To say that God is love is to say that before the creation of the universe, when God was alone, He alone existed and He alone loved, and His essence is existence itself and love itself, just like He is goodness itself.  He is uncreated existence, uncreated love, uncreated goodness, not contingent on anything, and all our existence and love and goodness is an image of His, contingent on His.

Much of the hatred of Christianity atheists have, and pride in their own sense of reason, is what leads them to assume that Christianity is altogether unreasonable.  Case in point: you actually think that if Christianity believes God is love, then it must believe love is God.  You think we’re fools because you haven’t bothered to figure out what Christians mean by God is love, and you haven’t bothered to do that because you assume that our meaning is all on the surface and not at all reasonable or philosophical, and you assume that because you think we’re fools.  Now that is circular logic.  Perhaps the best way is to admit that you might not understand Christianity like you thought you did.

Oh - and if you really want to convert us, burn some of us at the stake, scalp some of us, molest some of us when we’re children.

Go with what you know.

I don’t believe in “believers”.

Seriously. I don’t believe anyone “believes” in a magic person living in the sky with its finger in the human pie, however they may phrase it, twist it, or justify it.

You see, I’m a human being. And as I look around me I see a lot of other creatures who look similar to me, and I am compelled to accept that those creatures are human beings, just like me. And that further means that those other creatures, my fellow human beings, came into this universe in the same way as I, with the same amount of knowledge as myself. Which is to say, we all came into this world with no knowledge whatsoever about what this universe is, where it came from, why it exists, or why we exist in this universe.

At some point we all learn about death. And death terrifies us. We don’t know what death is, what it means, or why it will one day come to find us. And that lack of knowledge is terrifying. But when we reach that time when we understand that death is a reality, and we speak of it to those who brought us into this universe, they make up, or repeat stories told to them as children to sugar-coat the pill of death and make the reality a bit easier to swallow. You may tell me that this is not your understanding of your existence. And to that, I say you are lying.

I am a human being. I don’t know what this universe is. I don’t know where it came from. I don’t know why this universe exists. And I don’t know why I exist in this universe. And neither does anyone else. Not now, not at any time in the past. And probably not ever in the future. That’s the truth; the REAL truth; and you all know it!

This perpetual bickering over make believe deities and fairy tales handed down from our ancient ancestors, who knew far less of this universe than we know today, has been the cause of needless suffering, torture, war, and death. In fact, “religion” has been responsible for more human misery, suffering, and death, than all other forms of human calamity combined throughout all of human history. How much longer must humanity suffer from the insanity known as “religion”?

Stop it! Just stop it!

Fludger: Fr. Andrew’s sentence “If the believer is silenced, then the atheist has no cultural moral code to answer to and can go about his life of debauchery and evil uncontested.”  Your response: “Unfortunately in a number of well publicised cases being a Catholic priest does not always appear to be any bar to leading a life of debauchery and evil especially when the hierarchy are keen to keep things covered up for the transgressing cleric - or is there a special get-out clause for child molestation and abuse that is not available to the non-religious?”  Fr. Andrew made a simple conditional.  Your response skips over that conditional.  Further you misrepresent Fr. Andrew’s sentence as explicitly enumerating all atheists.  The evidence indicates your pet point was that priests rape.

@Bryant Lister: So you believe in air because you have no substantive proof of its existence? You believe in the existence of gravity because you have no substantive proof it exists? Your statement is irrational and illogical. People believe only when they have evidence of something that exists. Yes, the something may be unseen - like gravity, or air, or “wee beasties” - but there is some form of evidence which has given us an indication of the presence of that unseen thing. God may be unseen, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have substantive proof of His existence.  Love is unseen, difficult to describe, harder to qualify and to quantify, but that doesn’t negate its very real existence.

http://themakingofanatheist.com/

Before engaging in these discussions, which is pretty much a time waster all around, try giving Spiegel’s book, as linked above, a read.  It’s a fascinating look into not only the mind and argument, but the common traits of atheists and agnostics, from childhood on up. 

And never forget: you can only do so much; the Holy Spirit has to do the rest.  And the real work has to be done by the individual seeker.  You’ll never hear music emanating from your radio if you’re tuned to a different station, and yet you’d vehemently deny, even to great anger, that no such music exists.  A lot of that anger would be envy: why can’t I hear the music, too?  Let’s be sensitive to those who are probably dealing with a bit of frustration over not “feelin’ it.”

Retreat and regroup. We can’t give up on these folks, the lost, because we have the Great Commission.

Dave:

Ah yes, the elusive context that the non-Catholic always seems to miss. Given the amount of time I’ve devoted to studying the issue, I’m confidence appeal to some context won’t be of any benefit to you.

You mustn’t be familiar with Dogmatic Theology, which says that those who die in the state of original sin alone are deprived of the Beatific Vision, but don’t suffer poena sensus [the pain of mortal sins]. Check out Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma on the subject, or any other Catholic Dogmatic Theology manual. They’ll say the same thing.

So, appeal to the potential salvation of the invincibly ignorant is irrelevant to this discussion. Also, the quote you provide is about the invincibly ignorant *who are justified*. If someone dies in the state of original sin alone, they’re not justified.

Jennifer, the idea that you are writing full-blown posts this soon postpartum is staggering. I’d like to see our friend who wrote his response do that. Love this piece. May God bless you with a full night of sleep very soon.

Now I remember why I don’t do this often, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.  I know you don’t think love is god, I’m saying you are adding things to the definition that are unnecessary.  Atheism is love.  Does that give you a better idea of what atheism actually is?  No, it’s a meaningless addition.  Pick a definition and stick with it, otherwise you’re just moving the goal post. 

I said jen probably wast an athiest because if she was, I would think she’d have a better understanding of why we don’t believe, but she seems to not get it.  You say you have already presented evidence, well it must not have been too compelling.

And will someone please answer the homeless man claiming to be jesus question? Do you believe him or not? You all know you would want some kind of hard proof, which is all we want.

Hey all you Atheist why are you even on a Catholic Site?? Weird people

@Catholic turned Atheist: People do wake from the dead all the time these days; new organs are created from single cells - soon, I’m sure, entire people will be; virgins can conceive today; science is doing its dead level best to ensure that people live longer than 120 years - and I’m sure if they can figure it out they’ll get to the point where people live 600. Why do you find it so hard to believe that if man can do these things with our limited knowledge and limited technologies God - a being with unlimited knowledge who created the laws of physics - could do it long ago without technology to aid Him?

You think that bad things happening proves God doesn’t exist. I tell you love can’t exist without the bad things that happen. The bad things that happen are due to sin, and sin exists because God gives you the choice of whether or not to love him. If there were no choice to refuse God’s love, then it wouldn’t really be love.  Love must be chosen or it isn’t love at all. 

You hold your anger like it’s a shield that will protect you. It’ll destroy you, eating you from the inside out. Let go of your anger and bitterness. Sit down, talk to God, tell Him about your anger and your hurt. Give it into His hands and then let Him do with it what He does best - turn it for your good and for the good of others. God does exist. He does love you. He does care about you, and about your problems. Just because you’ve stopped believing in Him doesn’t mean He’s stopped believing in you.

Staggerizer,

I’ve read Ott’s book.  So, of course I agree that “those who die in the state of original sin alone are deprived of the Beatific Vision, but don’t suffer poena sensus [the pain of mortal sins].”

The fact is, though, (as I tried to point out before) we don’t KNOW who dies in the state of “original sin alone”.  The concept of Baptism of Desire comes into play here, and we don’t know for sure the exact limits of how far that concept extends.

What we DO know is that God is infinitely merciful and wishes all people to be saved.

SteveP
Priests do rape - so do atheists and probably any sizable group you care to mention. It is not that pertinent to the argument. Fr Andrew asserts that without the cultural moral code of the believer then “the atheist” can go about his (sic) life of debauchery and evil - apart from being offensive to all non believers it is an attempt to defame all atheists as potentially immoral however you read it (and I have re-read it to make sure that my reaction was not too hasty).

shut up loser!

Lost Control writes: “God is love
God is pudding. Makes equally no sense.”

I can’t accuse you of lack of imagination here, LC, but the reason one can say “God is love” is that the notions involved in understanding love are also involved *analogously* in understanding God: it is intrinsically relational, a sense of mutual generosity, radical acceptance of the other, selfless desire for the good of the other, a desire for unity, finding mutual pleasure and health in the partners, something that is life giving and of highest value, something necessary for human flourishing, a willingness to sacrifice one’s self and ego and will for the benefit of the beloved, etc.”

Pudding, as tasty as that is, seems to come up short in making any sort of meaningful comparisons.

To Catholic turned Atheist, Maybe you might like to discuss the hero of Atheism Lenin, who was responsible for the murders of millions of Catholics and other Christians both Clerics and lay people, he also closed down their Churches and Monasteries and turned them into Museums of Atheism, did you not know about this? or did you not want to know?, as for converting you, I could not care less.

@Aaron Maxwell: Ahh, yes. Religion is the cause of all evil. Just like money is the cause of all evil, or technology is the cause of all evil, or write in your favorite pet dislike here and if you just get rid of that you’ll solve all of humanity’s problems. How elegant, how simple. Are you so naive as to really believe it is religion that causes the problem? Have you ever stopped to consider that there is one common thread behind all evil? It’s people. People cause evil. People who are jealous, people who are frightened, people who allow their selfishness and greed and vanity to overcome their concern for the well being of others. Selfishness, Aaron, is the root of all evil - not religion. The refusal to care about the needs of others, is what causes evil.

Religion, contrary to your statement, isn’t the cause of evil. It’s the one thing that stops human beings from giving themselves over to it completely. It’s the one thing that binds us to each other and teaches us to see beyond our own belly buttons. Does it always work? No. People often live their religions badly, or choose the wrong religion to begin with. Doesn’t mean that religion isn’t good for us - it means that it’s something that has to be applied regularly and often and that it must be chosen with great care.

Someone who has no concept of what reason is should not be trying to reason with anyone.

Absolutely clueless….

It’s incredibly easy to reason with atheists like PZ Myers. Present evidence. That’s it. That’s all it takes. If you don’t have evidence, you’re going to lose. And given the millenia that have occurred without evidence, you’re going to lose (don’t bother trying a First Cause argument since a) that doesn’t imply Catholicism, and b) the assumption “all effects have a cause” has been soundly disproven) don’t try the fine tuning argument either, since again, it doesn’t imply Catholicism and the weak anthropic principle is a sufficient counter.

Its me and Greatest Demon Was Talking to me sooo…. SHUT GREATEST DEMON

P.S I will pray for the person who is a Atheist and is named DEMON

@Dave, Fatima, really? Go stare directly at the sun for a few minutes and tell me if it moves (hint: it will). I’m not responsible for any retina damage if you’re stupid enough to do it.

@Paul H: Try seeing it from our side. Imagine if you were one of a very few people in the world who could see, and the whole rest of the world was blind. You don’t blame the blind people, you know it isn’t their fault that their eyes don’t work the way yours do - but you aren’t crazy, either. It’s downright discouraging when you try talking to those blind people and they all tell you you’re delusional, that there are no colors, that there is no sky, that there is nothing but blackness even though you know that’s not true.  So you do the best you can, you keep talking to the blind people, keep trying to encourage the blind people to follow you so you can take them to the fountain where you found the water that gave you your sight.  You try not to lose your patience with them when they call you crazy. You keep hoping that someday they’ll have heard from enough people who can see that they will give the fountain a try. You dream of the day when everyone who started off life blind like you did can see the beautiful things you see.  And, all of that, while they spit at you and rage at you and call you names.  But you understand. Really, you do. You remember that you were blind once, too. You remember how long it took you to finally gather the courage it took to go with the person who invited you to the fountain, to sink yourself in the water. You remember that the vision didn’t come all at once, but little by little as your eyes began to open.

Ryan - if you ever get tired of being blind, if you’d like to see the world we talk about, that fountain has a name. His name is Jesus. All you have to do is ask.  It won’t come all at once, because you won’t be ready for it, but it will come.

and ill pray to satan

Dave:

That’s all the argument needs to run :) If it’s possible that someone dies in the state of original sin alone, then it isn’t necessary that everyone dies in mortal sin or justified. But, if God gives everyone an opportunity to be saved, then everyone dies in mortal sin or justified. Therefore, it isn’t necessary that God gives everyone an opportunity to be saved. I could toss a few magisterial quotes which contradict that conclusion. Never mind that folks like Bellarmine believed God didn’t desire the salvation of everyone.

You know, funny thing. Let’s compare and contrast two parts of this little rant.

Title: Reasoning with Atheists

Fourth paragraph: “Myers and atheists like him are trapped in a prison of reason”

Do you see where things start to break down there? Well, probably not, since you so staunchly hold that God gave you a brain capable of reasoning, and then commanded that you not use it.

Oh, and your citation of GK Chesterton doesn’t work well, either: poets tend to go mad at a higher-than-“normal” rate (assuming they don’t start that way).

A better quote might be “Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt.” [Clarence Darrow]

@Ryan: I do believe the homeless man. He is Jesus, just as you are. Christ told us whatever we do for the homeless man we do for Him.

Fludger: “the atheist” is not the same as “all atheists”; the articles are different and the nouns differ in implied quantity.  In fact, Fr. Andrew’s original sentence supports the meaning of “believer” to be “believer in moral codes.”  Your first response is uttering its irrationality; Fr. Andrew said, in paraphrase, if no one believes in a moral code there will be no moral codes.  Your response: Oh yeah?  Some priests have no moral code!

Keep fighting hate with love.  Excellent article.

Help! I am trapped in a prison of reason! I need to escape and be more unreasonable!

From the article: “...when you care more about being gentle than being right.” Then you understand that the value of reason is that it helps us find what is true.

Also, do you agree with the quote you posted by G.K. Chesterton that artists have never been crazy? I’m sure you can think of a more than few creative artists and poets that had a few screws loose.

“God is love.”

yep…The guy who created the human body and then thought it would be a good idea to create a series of horrible, painful diseases to afflict every organ within that body.  Who created a world that offers bounty and comfort to less than half of his creation while leaving the rest to live in squalor and misery.

A loving god who rewards those most who grovel and beg (pray) the most often and effectively…who doesn’t like anyone who doesn’t spend a fair amount of their time sucking up to him.

A nice guy who, when he created humans, thought it was perfectly fair to send one of his creations, a being infinitely superior to those humans, known as the prince of liars, to trick them into disobeying him.  Then when this angelic con man succeeded (the equivalent of a human tricking an insect), he punished not only the poor, dumb humans who got conned, but their descendents throughout time. 

A sweet person who, when he got tired of punishing the human race for that one lapse, thought that the best way to illustrate his “love” would be to have his son sent to earth to be tortured and killed (but only temporarily) as an example to humans.  ?

There are hundred more examples of how god demonstrates that he is love. All one needs to do is read his instruction manual, the bible.

@Ryan: “You all know you would want some kind of hard proof, which is all we want.” Give me some hard proof that you actually exist. Don’t send me a driver’s license - that could be faked. Don’t send me a birth certificate - that can be faked. Don’t send me DNA results - that could be faked. Don’t point to your postings here - those could be the result of a clever bot. Don’t tell me a life history - those could be faked. Even if we met in person that wouldn’t prove you actually exist. It could be some strange person playing a role. Facebook page? Could be faked. Friends and family who vouch for your existence? Could be deluded or could be hired to fake a relationship that doesn’t actually exist. In the end, every bit of “evidence” you can provide for your existence can be rejected on some grounds or another. In the end, I have to decide whether or not I’m going to believe in your existence or not. If I accept your existence, I’ll accept your evidence. If I reject your existence, no amount of evidence will ever be enough proof for me.

Staggerizer,

First of all, we don’t know if anyone really dies in the state of “original sin alone.”  Perhaps God, desiring everyone to be saved, presents young children or others with a choice at or near the moment of their death.

Secondly, God desiring everyone to be saved does not mean NECESSARILY that everyone has an opportunity to be saved (i.e. experience the Beatific Vision).  As long as they are not punished unjustly, it would not affect the goodness of God, if for example, some are in the state of Limbo.

Again, what we know for sure is that every individual will receive a just and merciful judgment.  The nitty-gritty details are above our pay grade.

Madame, you have it completely backwards.  Atheists, or simply rationalists, “reason” with believers, not the other way around, since, “reason” and logic are the only tools they use.

You folks are being pulled into the latest debate concerning “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.  Religion is simply mind-rotting nonsense.  Why exgage these morons?

Yes, god is exactly like love—an abstraction which can found only be in the human brain. God is also like Harry Potter or the concept of justice. In other words, god is not real.

That’s what the atheists have been saying all along.

I love it. “Trapped in a prison of reason.”  I guess that is to distinguish it from being free within a universe of delusion?

Dave: I’m not sure you’re following. I realize that we’re not in a position to know if anyone at all dies in the state of original sin alone. But, it’s possible. By ‘opportunity to be saved’ I mean something like ‘offered the chance to be justified.’ It follows from God’s allegedly universal salvific will that no person would die without being offered the chance to be saved. But, then it’d be necessary that no one die in the state of original sin alone. Since that’s possible, a contradiction between teachings arises.

Catholic Turned Atheist,

I don’t think you have heard of the 4 senses of scripture. Look it up. Besides, your own arguments can used against you. Why should we listen to an atheist, when communist atheists have been some of the world’s most horrible people, killing more people in the 20th century, than Christianity has in 2,000 years.

If you want to justify your beliefs to me, all you have to say is, “This inspires me to be a better person.”

If you want to convince me to share your beliefs, you seriously have your work cut out for you. I’ve spent a lifetime trying to figure this stuff out, and every attempt I’ve seen at proving the existence of God has been one I’ve found wanting. It always seems to come down to either raw emotion or strange contortions of logic.

You folks are being pulled into the latest debate concerning “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.  Religion is simply mind-rotting nonsense.  Why engage these morons?  Your time is better spent talking with adults.

Staggerizer,

It’s called free-will. You are offered the opportunity, but you choose to reject it.

Most of us atheists are merely indifferent to catholic thinking since it is based on premises too far from our own to support a meaningful dialogue. Institutional catholicism, on the other hand, is a matter of legitimate concern to nonbelievers. You may fight against principalities and powers, but we’re combating flesh and blood, i.e. the bad behavior of the clergy, the political machinations of the hierarchy. You may not want to hear any more about the coverup of priestly child abuse, for example, but you don’t have the right to wash your hands of the matter. After all, you’ve never actually washed your hands. Not one single bishop is in prison. Not one. And the vicious system of church governance that guarantees future sexual, financial, and political crimes remains. In my experience, lay catholics are vastly better than their church; but lay catholics are responsible for tolerating and financing it and therefore have to share the blame.

Once again, I’m not complaining about your spiritual beliefs, which are none of my business so long as you don’t revert to your former practice of inflicting them on everyone by murderous force. Worldly people, however, have a right to protest worldly evils.

“Catholics have evidence for…”
systematic, institutionalised child-rape.  But they won’t let you see it because they’re trying to protect the rapists.

Jennifer,

While I do not doubt that you were an atheist prior to converting to Catholicism, I DO doubt that you arrived at that position for intellectual reasons.  In my opinion you were a ‘casual’ atheist - not giving much thought as to why.  And while I don’t always agree with PZ’s harsh tone, I do agree with his opinion on the value of this post.  It is even more ridiculous than yesterday’s piece.  First - the is no intellectual consistency at all in the Catholic faith - there is no intellectual content at all.  It is just a large group of people parsing a collective delusion.  And, if it is possible, the Chesterton quote is even more devoid of value.  Or perhaps he thinks artists like Van Gogh were perfectly sane.  He was trying to sound deep and profound, but managed neither - he sounded confused and moronic.  And if I am trapped in a ‘prison of reason’, then it is a prison I am happy to be trapped in.  Th quote the late Carl Sagan: “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

By a prison of reason, Jen is likely referring to a prison of “reason alone”.  Of course, we should use our reason.  It’s just that life is much more than simply a series of logical if/then statements.  That would leave no room for love, honor, sacrifice, and many other noble human actions and concepts.

@Rob, re: Fatima….sooooooo, then why did none of the viewers of the Miracle get retinal damage??  In your arrogance, you are dismissing the events much too quickly.  Also, there were other elements of the miracle, such as the ground, which had been completely swamped, suddenly becoming completely dry in a matter of minutes.  Even the secular press, which had come out to snicker at the crowd, reported the miracle, which had been predicted in advance (though not what the miracle would be).

Jennifer,

While I do not doubt that you were an atheist prior to converting to Catholicism, I DO doubt that you arrived at that position for intellectual reasons.  In my opinion you were a ‘casual’ atheist - not giving much thought as to why.  And while I don’t always agree with PZ’s harsh tone, I do agree with his opinion on the value of this post.  It is even more ridiculous than yesterday’s piece.  First - the is no intellectual consistency at all in the Catholic faith - there is no intellectual content at all.  It is just a large group of people parsing a collective delusion.  And, if it is possible, the Chesterton quote is even more devoid of value.  Or perhaps he thinks artists like Van Gogh were perfectly sane.  He was trying to sound deep and profound, but managed neither - he sounded confused and moronic.  And if I am trapped in a ‘prison of reason’, then it is a prison I am happy to be trapped in.  To quote the late Carl Sagan: “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

Good grief. Even granting God’s existence, you still can’t assume all of the five points in your previous article. Why? Because Protestants assume God exist, and they don’t generally believe most of the five points from the previous article. I mean, just ask a Baptist if they believe in Apostolic authority!

If those five teachings don’t necessarily make sense to other Christians, why would they make sense to atheists?

And I really couldn’t let this pass:

Brandy Miller:
@Ryan: I do believe the homeless man. He is Jesus, just as you are. Christ told us whatever we do for the homeless man we do for Him.

Okay, so the homeless man is Jesus. Would you buy him a ticket to Italy? After all, wouldn’t Jesus want to go to Rome, in order to resume his position as the head of the Catholic Church? If you truly believed the man was Jesus, you would buy him a ticket to Italy when he asked for it.

But I bet you’re just saying that, because you don’t put a significant fraction of your resources into helping every delusional person on their own quixotic quest.

This is the sort of thing believers do which is just irritating. You take a statement about reality (“is this man Jesus?”) and treat it as a metaphor - and then pretend that by making a metaphor, you’ve both answered the question (you haven’t) and made a point (you also haven’t). I put it to you that in fact your actions after meeting that homeless man would be most consistent with you not believing he is Jesus, no matter what you say.

“and ill pray to satan”

So, you believe in satan. 

It’s a start.

Lea S.—actually, it was part of a protest against sacred _things_ being held in higher regard than people.  Webster Cook, a student in Florida, attended a Catholic communion and wanted to bring the host back to his seat to show a friend.  When he was accosted by members of the congregation (according to his account, quite hostilely!) he then popped the host into his mouth as walked out with it.

-

The outcry about this was _huge_, making national news.  Bill Donahue and his Catholic League attempted to get Cook expelled, howled about how his disrespect for the host was a hate crime, even going so far as to compare it to the Shoah, and in the backlash, Cook was successfully stripped of his student government position, all the while being deluged in death threats (some overt, some veiled) by some of the less well-behaved Catholic faithful.  Basically it was reminiscent of the Muslim riots over the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed.

-

PZ responded with his protest, obtaining a consecrated host from an anonymous source and, inspired by the antisemetic screeds from the early middle ages depicted Jews impaling hosts with nails, did the same, though the host was not alone—he impaled the host, several pages from the Quran and several pages from Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” and threw them together into the trash, making the statements to the effect that _nothing_ should be held sacred to the point of destroying another human life over and that no one has the right to enforce respect for the items they view sacred on people who do not share their beliefs.  (Analogous, really, with the annual “Draw Mohammed Day” response to those islamic riots mentioned earlier.)

-

Of course, much of the same behavior he was protesting ensued, now directed at him, including one gentleman making such flagrant threats using his wife’s work email account that she got fired from her job over it. From what I understand, the occasional threat still trickles in to this day.

-

What’s my point?  Please, please, when recounting this kind of event, be honest enough to get the motivation right, and quit pretending as well, that Catholics were the only targets in his protest.

“Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom.”

This is not true. Just a few famous creative types off the top of my head who were/went mad:
Van Gogh, Virginia Woolf, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sylvia Plath, Woody Guthrie, Beethoven… If you are willing to grant depression as “mad” then the list includes just about every famous creative person you can think of.

Artists and ‘creative’ types (I would argue mathematicians/logicians are creative too—Aristotle, Newton, Nash, Einstein, Da Vinci and Galileo being good examples) actually have a reputation for being the mad ones. What matters is that you can’t suggest that mental illness is more likely to affect analytical types than “creative” types based solely on someone’s quote. Anyone can make a quote. You need some data to test that claim… which really means you need to apply reason.

Jim Harrison,

We are not washing our hands off anything, but you are wrong to assume that child abuse is the only feature of Catholic life. Most of us go to schools, and churches where they is no abuse. The church is not just a building or an institution, she is the bride of Christ, who has been deeply wounded by the sins of her own members.

There are however drastic changes taking place, in the church that are only visible to practising Catholics, since most of our critics never frequent a church to begin with.

Being a prisoner of reason and one who expects empirical evidence, though I’ve no idea what other sort of evidence there is, perhaps a believr would answer me a simple question:

Consider a world without god and one with god. Now how do I tell the difference?

(Please do not prattle on about atheist’s supposed lack of morals. I’ve been an atheist for nearly 50 years and in that time I’ve not abused , murdered, raped or beaten anyone. Nor have I stolen or defrauded anyone. And so on. Such arguments are not only insulting but simply wrong.)

What effect did god have on the Indian Ocean and Japanese tsunamis?
What effect did god have on 9/11?
How many Vietnamese are alive today thanks to god who would otherwise be dead?
How many Jews, and others, were saved from the Holocaust?
How many from the atrocities of Stalin and Mao, Pol Pot?

In what way does god make this a better place?
In what does no god make it a worse place?

I’m one of those atheists who is not against religion, and who doesn’t want to trash you for your belief. I’m not looking to insult you or belittle you. But I did want to take exception to the idea that love=god is some sort of universal equation that can’t be questioned, and the associated implication that atheists are somehow stunted in their ability to give or receive love. Is love inexplicable?  Yes and no.  There are certainly rational explanations for why we love others. Can atheists feel love without obsessing on how love is a neurobiological adaptation common to higher social animals? Sure. There’s no quicker way to kill a joke than explain the hell out of it.  There’s no quicker way to end a date prematurely than to tell your date that your feelings toward her are partially hard-wired and the desire to reproduce is an adaptive trait selected for by the benefits of exogamy in resisting parasites and disease.  That may be true, but that’s not what science geeks ought to be feeling on a date.

We all function in the real world.  My coffee mug is solid.  I don’t obsess about how it is comprised of atoms, and those are comprised of electrons or Higgs bosons or whatever.  I approach physics like any other science - I functionally accept conclusions and remain open to new evidence. But a mug is a mug and I deal with it on that basis. Maybe love is the same way.  I love my wife, and I love this astoundingly beautiful planet we all live on.  My ability to love is a function of incredibly complicated and sophisticated neurobiology.  There’s no proof or evidence or even need to impute a magical cause for that, although love can certainly feel magical.  Are my only choices to obsess as a rational being on scientific explanations for love, or to accept that my strong feelings are proof of an imaginary being? No. It’s enough to love, and love well, and love generously. And be grateful for it. Nobody has made a convincing argument or provided proof to me that you need God for that, but I’m not the sort of boorish atheist who is going to insist that you agree with me.  May you love well, however you want to interpret or explain it. If you have proof for the divine origin of love, then I’m willing to listen - but let’s make a deal:  I won’t tell you that your divinely inspired love is cheap or silly or stupid, if you don’t assume that my love is somehow stunted or invalid because I don’t have faith in a god.

Posted by Susan - Again, my hat is off to you.

As long as you don’t take it off in church Susan.

And that’s one of the least vile precepts of your misogynist religion.

It’s nice hearing Catholics talk about blood being on anyone else’s hands. Let’s talk about their bloodthirsty history with pagans and anyone else who didn’t bow down to their church. How about their crusades? Oh, and what about their lovely inquisition. That was such a huge hit in Spain, the most catholic of all the kingdoms. How about we look at more modern bloodshed. What about that pope who was an apologist to Hitler? And Hitler himself remained a catholic in good standing to the day he died. Your current pope was indoctrinated as a nazi when he was a child and was the head of your modern inquisition which thankfully isn’t allowed to actually torture people anymore.

How about we talk about how catholic missionaries in Africa spread lies about how condoms doesn’t prevent aids. And your general anti-contraceptive propaganda which all contributes to keep Africa in the dire grip of AIDS? I’m afraid your church is build with the bones of generations of dissenters, heretics and anyone else who disagrees with you. It is awash in the blood of the innocent, but not metaphorical blood of christ, but the literal blood of innocent people.

Before anyone says it, I’m not angry at catholics or their church. Those are just the facts. It’s something we atheists are good at and sadly, believers just aren’t.

Matthew,

You said this:

“I love that some are saying that you were never REALLY an atheist. It’s like an atheist inquisition.”

Are you really so heartless?  The Catholic Church had a REAL inquisition - that’s where we get the word from, remember? - and many people were tortured and killed.  Yet here you are, equating negative comments on a blog to widespread evil - evil, I hasten to add, which was perpetrated by the religious for the sake of religion.  The Inquisition is one of the prime examples we point to when we suggest that religion has a negative effect on society, and you’re trying to lump our criticism of Jen into the same category as the organized and systematic slaughter of thousands of people.  Have you no shame?

And as for the rest of you who are religious: not one of you stood up and condemned this.  Not one had the moral fiber to speak out and say that this comparison was unfair, and that (as Cornell West, himself a theist, once put it) religious folks do have a history of violence and wickedness that needs to be addressed.  Instead it was all cheers and “yay, our side!”  So much for morality.

Oh also re: “prison of reason” -

It reminds me of this old joke.

A mathematician is asked to create an optimal fence enclosure for some sheep in a pasture, in order to put as many sheep and as much of the pasture as she can inside, using as little fencing as possible. The mathematician thinks for a bit, and then gets to work. She sets up a little square of fencing around herself, so small that there’s only room for her in there, and says “I declare myself to be outside”.

That’s what you’ve done. You’ve fenced yourself off from reality, and declared the tiny area you’re standing in to be “outside”. Yes, we’re all trapped in a prison of reason, if you choose to look at it that way; but why is it that our “prison” has provided us with amazing things like the very computers and Internet in which this discussion is taking place, the medicine that kept you from dying in childbirth, the vaccines that keep your children from getting sick (even if you don’t get your children vaccinated), and the health care system that will pretty much guarantee them at least seventy years of life, barring accidents - while your “outside” has done almost nothing throughout history?

HorsePheathers—what life was destroyed over that Cook incident? I don’t remember the story very clearly, so educate me.

And as far as holding sacred things over and above human life—why is human life so important to an atheist? Why should you or I be treated any differently than any other animal, or even the Koran for that matter? And I’m being honest, not snarky.

Staggerizer,

I do want to commend you, because unlike other atheists, you are apparently able to suspend your disbelief long enough to discuss the issues of Catholic teaching.

Where I think your logic fails is in asserting that: “It follows from God’s allegedly universal salvific will that no person would die without being offered the chance to be saved.”  God also does not will any man to sin, but yet, we do, all the time.  It depends on the “level” of His will.  Some things He wills and without fail they will come to pass.  Other things He wills, but He will allow not to occur, for some greater purpose.

Another failure is that just because the Church’s teaching is that if someone WERE to die in the state of original sin alone, such and such would be a result, it does not mean that it is actually possible (other than theoretically) that someone dies in that state.  That’s up to God, and there are some details of the afterlife and judgment that God has not deigned to reveal to us.

I see what you are getting at, but there is either:
1) a just state for those who die in original sin alone, usually called Limbo.
or
2) everyone gets the opportunity to be saved.

I lean towards the 2nd option, but in either case, God is just and there is no contradiction.  Even within the Church, this very issue is debated quite often.

I’m one of those atheists that is not against religion, and who doesn’t want to trash you for your belief. I’m not looking to insult you or belittle you and cringe a bit when other atheists do so. But I did want to take exception to the idea that love=god is a universal equation that can’t be questioned, because the associated implication is that atheists are somehow stunted in their ability to give or receive love. Is love inexplicable?  Yes and no.  There are certainly rational explanations for why we love others. Can atheists feel love without obsessing on how love is a neurobiological adaptation common to higher social animals? Sure. There’s no quicker way to kill a joke than explain the hell out of it.  There’s no quicker way to end a date prematurely than to tell your date that your feelings toward her are partially hard-wired and the desire to reproduce is an adaptive trait selected for by the benefits of exogamy in resisting parasites and disease. That may be true in a technical sense, but that’s not what science geeks ought to be feeling on a date.

We all function in the real world.  My coffee mug is solid.  I don’t obsess about how it is comprised of atoms, and those are comprised of electrons or Higgs bosons or whatever.  I approach physics like any other science - I functionally accept conclusions and remain open to new evidence. But a mug is a mug and I deal with it on that basis. Maybe love is the same way.  I love my wife, and I love this astonishingly beautiful planet.  My ability to love (and to feel wonder) is a function of incredibly complicated and sophisticated neurobiology. There’s no proof or evidence or even need to impute a magical cause for that, although love can certainly feel magical.  Are my only choices to obsess as a rational being on scientific explanations for love, or to accept that my strong feelings are proof of an imaginary being? No. It’s enough to love, and love well, and love generously. And be grateful for it. Nobody has made a convincing argument or provided proof to me that you need God for that, but I’m not the sort of boorish atheist who is going to insist that you agree with me. My sincere hope is that you love well, however you want to interpret or explain it. If you have proof for the divine origin of love, then I’m willing to listen.  But let’s make a deal:  I won’t tell you that your divinely-inspired love is cheap or silly or stupid, if you don’t assume that my love is somehow stunted or invalid or unworthy because I don’t have faith in a god.

The sanctimony and patronization by the “loving and accepting” Christians here is nothing short of hilarious. Some of you are positively glowing with pride at your sappy, insincere, “Christlike” natures. The fact is that the garbage that was spewed in this series of blog posts is extremely frustrating to rationalists in its inanity, and that’s compounded by the innate irrationality of the True Believers. If that turns to something resembling anger, it’s only due to our fallible humanity. Don’t judge our entire characters by our response to this foolishness. I, along with the atheistic community with which I associate, are no different than you save this one contention. We’re your friends and neighbors. I challenge you to identify an atheist by his/her everyday behavior alone. You can’t.

Most of you know nothing about what it means to have healthy skepticism (though you claim to have maintained your Catholicism through rational inquiry—a joke in itself). Conversely, most atheists I know are former Christians, myself having indeed been raised Catholic by a loving, stable family. I *do* know what the Kool-Aid tastes like, and I also know the liberation of shedding the mythology and dogma I was taught as an unwitting child. Compare the numbers of adult religious conversions to those who cast off religion as adults. I don’t have a reference, but a hunch says it’s quite lopsided in favor of non-belief.

Then, the notion that a sliver of taxpayer money going to Planned Parenthood (of which a sliver actually funds abortions, the rest doing far more good to women’s health than any holy house) is comparable to the vast amount accumulated by forced religious tithing is absurd. Try watching a little less Faux “News”. Further, compare the portion of that intake spent on actual charity by the Catholic Church with the portion spent on frivolity and ritual, not to mention the support of a despicable organization in Italy responsible for harboring child-molesters and thieves.

Anger? Damn straight, and fully justified. But to judge outspoken people by this alone is just stupid. Perhaps we should judge you by the dirty look you gave in traffic the other day? By the time you spoke harshly to your child? Please, be reasonable.

Freethinkers,
You are being drawn into a “debate” akin to the proverbial “how many angels can dance on the head a pin?”  Why would you waste your time trying to reason with morons?  A good walk or a chat with an honest friend would serve you better.

Horse-Pheathers,

It’s against the law to disrupt a religious service. It could be that the student was not sufficiently informed about what the Eucharist stood for.  The point the Catholic league was trying to make is that it would not be tolerated anywhere else, a mosque, or a synagogue or any other central place of worship.

The pastor Terry Jones, who burnt the Quran, got in the US government asking him to step down.

I would disagree that it’s a case of placing sacred things above people, because given Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist. It is the body of Christ himself.

If someone does not share this view. Then they should not have been at the service to begin with.

I do agree that some Catholics may have gone overboard, but that’s only because it would not have been tolerated anywhere else.

@ivorybill: If your love ends with your neurobiology, then your marriage ends when you stop experiencing the chemical sensations? Love, at least the love we are talking about here, is a choice. It is a decision. It is not a feeling. It is the choice made to love when the other person has hurt you, to forgive them and begin again. It is the choice you make to love them when you are getting nothing from it, and to keep loving them until death do you part even if they don’t return the same feeling.

@savvy, please remember that Mr Hitler was a Catholic. So was Mr Franco. And those were just in the 20th century, and we can assign at least 11 million deaths to the Catholic Adolph Hitler. Let’s look back at the Inquisition, shall we, and notice that this was a Catholic institution. Of course, one could say that the Inquisition never actually executed anyone, since persons condemned to death were handed over to the secular authorities, but that is rather a weak argument. Don’t let’s drag up the crimes of Institutional Catholicism or we’ll be here forever trying to list them all.

Turns out my nephew proclaims he is, (gasp) “Atheist”. My solution? In the privacy of my home I pray for him, and when I’m with him I lead by example. The rest of the work is for God, the patient tolerance is up to me. God bless you all.

Great post.  You cant reason with atheists, because they insist on reason (are too reasonable?), and if you accept theism and Catholic dogma hypothetically, then even an atheist would agree that the Catholic dogma is consistent with itself.  Well that was enlightening.

Jennifer,
I’m sorry but your backpedaling here is even worse than your previous article. I think you need to find a new profession. Sorry but Critical Thinking is not one of your strong points.

“If you try to evangelize to these folks through reason alone, your head will feel like it’s going to split too..” Really? Using reason alone will not prove your argument? How else are you to prove your argument then? If your argument/reasoning is not sound then of course your going to be questioned. You might want to step back for a moment and realize that your reasoning is very flawed. That’s why you are faced with counterpoints to every point you make. But it seems that you do not see the flaws in your argument even still. Trying to paste up the cracks in your argument with “Fairy Dust” is not helping.

I don’t want to be mean here but seriously you need to realize that your argument(s) are complete rubbish and it is YOU that do not get it. For example: if I were to argue that the world is flat I better have tested my logic/reasoning is sound before stepping up to the podium at the Geologic Conference.

People actually publish your work? Worse yet, people actually buy your work? Humanity is dumb and doomed.

Good luck, you’re going to need it.

Jennifer, please just stop digging! Learn to admit when you’re talking out of your net6her regions, admit that you haven’t a clue, and stop prooving hoe ignorant you are by continuing this “debate”! Just Stop!

Freethinkers,
You are being drawn into a “debate” akin to the proverbial “how many angels can dance on the head a pin?”  Why would you waste your time trying to reason with morons?  A good walk or a chat with an honest friend would serve you better.  Let us away ...

Jennifer, please just stop digging! Learn to admit when you’re talking out of your nether regions, admit that you haven’t a clue, and stop proving hoe ignorant you are by continuing this “debate”! Just Stop!

“Myers and atheists like him are trapped in a prison of reason.”

Yes, exactly.  “Trapped” in the same way that those not in actual prison are trapped in a prison of freedom.  I like being in a “prison” of reason just as much as I like being in a “prison” of freedom.

I suspect you will live to regret writing that, it just sums up how silly your whole argument is.

I usually get this and other NCR news/blogs on my Kindle, which does not show or accept comments.  I enjoy you-all’s writing on theological matters, even if I don’t always share your politics.  I had to go online and let you know that THIS article was exceptionally helpful in my understanding of why I, a believer but a very linear and rational person, struggle with that final “leap of faith” to complete trust in God.  The Chesterton quote really clarified this issue for me.  As I struggle with compulsive eating, I am reading the AA Big Book and coincidentally was on the chapter about atheists and the description of reason as a bridge that can lead to faith. (Check it out.)  The LORD is definitely trying to bring this message home to me! Thanks again and many blessings.

Madknitter,

Hitler was Catholic?  Hardly, saying he’s catholic is no more true than saying a baptist who attended Catholic school is catholic because he attended Catholic school.

Thanks bud, but I’d like to see some legitimate evidence of this from several sources.

And @ Stephen, you should learn to spell before you try to troll.

Yo Fludger…I posted my name…are you really “Fludger”?

You fit the profile I put forth to a T! You expect all conclusions to be drawn on some academic stringent lines when all it takes is simple observation skills. It does not take a jr high grad to notice the vile acrimony that spews forth from the likes of pz myers and the accolades he receives to draw the conclusions I put forth.

A bigot is a bigot no matter how they wrap it in intellectual nonsense.

If Fludger has an issue start addressing the spokesmen so heralded by your cause and don’t expect me or others to buy the weak argument because the likes of you are impressed with the delivery.

I have never posted a comment before, but I was so amazed by Jennifer’s ignorant and self satisfied remarks that I just had to.  Do you not realise, Jennifer, that you belong to a faith whose priests rape children, and whose hierarchy cover those rapes up?  Not just priests but nuns and others in positions of power and authority in the Roman Catholic Church have, over many years, abused innocent children in their care.  This is what you should be interesting yourself in, not some half-baked philosophical argument with atheists.  I notice that Ireland is rapidly distancing itself from the Vatican, perhaps you should take a leaf out of their book!

Jennifer: “people simply cannot reason their way into faith.”

Truer words were never spoken.  This, however, is not the selling point you seem to think it is.

RE: G.K. Chesterson quote:
So a writer said that artists (which would include writers like you and him, I presume) don’t go mad, it’s all them others that do. Is that the level of rhetoric you use?  What about the folk wisdom that madness and art go hand-in-hand? It’s almost like your reasoning runs thus, “Some guy you like said something that agrees with your point, so it must be true. Someone else said something that disagrees, so you ignore it.” Oh, wait. I forgot where I was for a second. I guess presenting psychological studies that show any correlation between professions and the prevalence of mental health problems would be out of the question on a religious blog. What about the symptoms of “increased religiosity” that are common in the mentally ill? Right, I forgot again.

If Hitler was Catholic, he was a very strange sort of Catholic who went out of his way to kill other Catholics.  I thought atheists were supposed to be smart?

I take exception to the Chesterton quote, especially since there is an extensive study that actually shows the opposite, conducted by Dr. Arnold M. Ludwig in 1992. He studied the lives of over 1,000 public figures in the 20th century and discovered that artists and writers experienced two to three times the rate of psychosis, suicide attempts, mood disorders, and substance abuse than did comparably successful people in business, science, and public life.

Chesterton is wrong, and so are you.

Madknitter,

This thread is a great example of what Jennifer is trying to say, about the inability of Atheists to reason. They very thing, they claim to be good at.

Hitler was an ex-Catholic, who renounced his faith. Franco, initially supported the church against church-burning, nun raping communists, but turned his back on them, when they did not return the favour for his nationalist crusade.

There are documents to prove these things.

Heresy was a crime punishable by state law too. Look this up. It was Catholics who finally began to question the need for such a law to begin with.

And burning at the stake was a concept introduced by the Germanic tribes, who were actually pagan.

Christianity spread because the pagans took it very seriously. The first few centuries of Christianity are filled with volumes of apologetics on the Christian faith.

The Crusades were a reaction to 400 years of Muslim aggression and occupation of Christian lands. I don’t like how it ended though, I will agree.

Among sinners, I fully agree that we are chief.  It was St. John Crysotom who said, “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops”

But, even he would have stood up and defend Catholicism from nonsensical attacks.

@Brandy Miller
I don’t disagree with you when you write: “Love, at least the love we are talking about here, is a choice. It is a decision. It is not a feeling.” Yes, of course love is a choice… my point was precisely that the subjective experience of love is not something that can or should be reduced to neurobiology. My problem is with the equation love=god and the tendency among many Catholics to assume that atheists cannot love, or that we are somehow stunted because we don’t attribute love to god. I would not tell you that your love for your family or spouse is impoverished or invalid because you attribute your ability to feel those emotions to god. What grates on me, and many others who are not religious, is the implication that we do not experience or know love fully because we don’t attribute that capacity to god or have not accepted Jesus as our savior. I find that objectionable, just as I find conservative Catholic rejection of the love between same sex couples as, well, cruel.

Intellectual consistency within Catholicism?  Pull my other one.

@Dave, Hitler’s mother was Catholic.  He was raised attending mass.  He wrote in Mein Kampf some garbage about his goals being in alignment with God (I believe he used the phrase the Lord Almighty my father, but I haven’t it that since high school so I may have the specifics off).  He made frequent references to his belief that his plan was ordained by God in his speeches and personal notes.  This is all public record.

Gordan Morris,

Guilt by association can be used against you too.  We are all watching the situation in Ireland closely. It has been discussed on Jennifer’s previous thread, please take a look.

Would you go around calling all Muslims terrorists?

Fanatical atheists are not winning anybody to their cause.

I am through with this discussion. Have a nice day.

You are complaining that reasoning with atheists (title of your article) is difficult because atheist are too attached to reason.

Irony?

A few misconceptions need correcting here.  First, Hitler and Mao were not atheists.  Hitler was a member of the catholic cult and Mao was a buddhist who also dabbled in taoism.  Stalin is a trickier figure to nail down, since he was in seminary before entering political circles and he did reestablish a church in Russia during World War II.  Second, the imaginary sky daddy that some call ‘God’ has been documented in cult mythology as many things, but to suddenly replace him with the term love (which they still don’t actually define) is intellectually dishonest.  If you want to argue that something actually exists, you don’t replace it with something else as proof.  There’s a pink elephant standing behind you if you understand that pink elephant to be air…see doesn’t make sense to play a shell game with reality.  Finally, someone directly responded to me saying that I ‘believe in air even though I didn’t have any evidence of it’.  We can measure the air, the particles in it, the movement of it, the effects it has directly and consistently on things it comes into contact with.  Same for gravity.  An imaginary sky daddy is not something you can measure, detect, or see the effects of it acting directly and consistently on things it comes into contact with.  Are people affected by the idea of their cult’s deity?  Yes, but this is neither direct or consistent because it is just a fairy tale character. 
A little advice, if you want to claim you have some evidence of your mythological deity, then provide some actual proof…something that couldn’t also be said of other fairy tale characters, like zeus, odin, peter pan, etc.

What vacuous hilarity from Fulwiler. My favorite line in her entire piece:

“..Myers and atheists like him are trapped in a prison of reason.”

That’s the most supremely funny weapons-grade stupidity I’ve read in a long, long time.

I was laughing so hard that my dog got up and left the room.

“‘‘prison of reason’‘?

Some might call that sanity”

Some might call that madness.

It is stunning how some people can’t get past their own limited world views. Most atheists, as thinkers (which this deeply flawed commentary admits) would change their views upon being given “all the compelling arguments in favor of our beliefs.” The problem that christians fail, seemingly constantly and after being told so repeatedly, to understand that there are no compelling arguments in favor of your position.

The writer also utterly fails to see that no Atheist should, in discussion with a theist, allow for a moment the existence of any deity when no reason exists to entertain such a flawed and failed idea. Any such discussion must begin with the existence of a deity and any other exchange is wasted lacking proof for that initial point. Show a reason to believe in your sky god and then we can talk about what his/her qualities may be.

The idea that “openness to love is” is a christian trait that atheists lack is both insulting and stupid. It exists in virtually all humans. What you really need is “intellectual consent” to convert someone. That person has to say “I will believe without reason”, the very crux of faith. The problem is that somewhere the stupid idea (up there with inherent male superiority to women and the like) that faith is a good thing took hold. Shame on you, Jennifer, and on everyone who propagates that outdated and harmful idea.

Brynt Lisater,  “Atheiam is a Material and inseperable part of Marxism “. Lenin, of couse in your anti Religious comment you failed to mento this great Atheis hero, eho in the Russian Revolution murdered according
to various figures between 5 and 10,000,000 Catholics and other Christians, closed down their Churches and made them into ” Musuems Of Atheism ” , Let me educate you a bit Stalin was an Atheist, so was Mao and so was Pol Pot, and do not forget “the land of the free” North Korea with the Atheist Regime named the “dear Leader”, a futher bit of education to refresh your Anti Christian mind, Hitler gave up the Catholic Church long before he entered politics, and when he married Eva Braun in 1945 it was in a civil service, now this individual Murdered in the region of 3,000,000 Million Catholics and some 3,000 Catholic Clergy, some Catholic Hitler was. I fail to see why you are on a Catholic site if you have such loathing for Christians or their beliefs, and your sneering comments comments about their beliefs, but that is your problem not mine

@Con O Sullivan
I guess Pius XI backed Hitler in the ‘32 elections because he admired his atheism?

Um, why do all you atheists read this blog?  It seems that you are here just to argue and insult believers.  I don’t get why this is so entertaining to you.  I don’t read blogs or other web pages that are in direct conflict with my own believes/opinions because it just isn’t interesting to me.  The only reason that makes sense to me is that you are not secure in your believes/opinions and seek justification through condemning others.

1 Thessalonians 4:6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

Tina—
You write “I don’t read blogs or other web pages that are in direct conflict with my own believes/opinions because it just isn’t interesting to me.”

-

Too many of us, other viewpoints _are_ interesting and we actively seek out challenges to our own belief systems.  Oddly, many people claim we are arrogant because we offer challenges back, when really we are testing our arguments to see how they hold up.  Rather than pridefully assuming we have the Truth, we seek out other peoples’ thinking to see if there’s anything we’ve missed.

-

Also, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this site, there are more of you religious folks than there are of us heathens, and what you do strongly affects us.  It’s in our better long term interest to engage you in discussion and debate and to challenge the misconceptions about us that are rampant among the religious community.

@Tina
I guess when the author writes a post specifically addressing atheists and then writes another directed at the author of an atheist blog, one could assume that Ms. Fulwiler is trying to attract this kind of debate.

I greatly like this, as well as the first one. It was not meant to be doctrines that Atheists have no argument against and believe themselves, it was meant to be things that Atheists can see the logic behind believing but don’t believe themselves. Although I think anyone would get defensive when someone claims to know their opinion on something before it’s been given.

Mouse—also, and most tellingly, he was never excommunicated from the church.

I applaud Jennifer’s attempts to reach over the aisle as hopeless as the results may seem. Unfortunatly the vocal atheist is incredibly paranoid and defensive I suppose due to some pre-pubescent trauma at the hands of some evil nun etc….

True Story: I had a science teacher in 5th grade. He accused me of something I did not do and actually attacked me pushing me into a wall and breaking an aquarium. He never spoke to me again and ostracized me in the science class. Would it sound reasonable to say I have no belief in science based on this incident? Like I said 90% of the atheists I meet have some similar sob story about not being allowed to do something in church school.

I suggest we ignore the vocal atheist as they are basically emotionally immature, but of course leave the door open and welcome mat out if they ever choose to grow up.

Dear atheist we have heard it all before…the bigotry the lies…. please note this before you go flying of the rails you think you have so cleaverly designed. Nothing new from this group so far…

Warren

Horse-Pheathers, Hitler left the Catholic Church, you cannot throw someone out of an organisation whenhe has already left can you.

The main issue with your argument, Ms. Fulwiler, is that love is the flimsiest basis to commit to anything. Love is simply too tenuous, too amorphous, too fleeting. It’s foolish to base anything on love. I don’t know your writings that well, but it appears you try to intellectualize your position through the claim that you are a converted atheist. Irony? Using a simple logical expression to buttress your entire position? ‘I was an atheist once ==> therefore, you can change too!” Hey! That’s I’ve been there, done that logic. I hope you didn’t bust G.K. Chesterton’s head open. In the end, atheists are actually MORE open than believers. That is the point missed by the majority of people who think as you do. IF god were to present himself (admittedly god is an untestable hypothesis), an empirical atheist would ‘believe’. In contrast, believers are simply not open to a world w/o god, even with evidence mounting over the centuries that the world’s scriptures are simply stories. Of course, religious followers bend these stories to their will to fit modern times. Regardless, atheists don’t want you to pray for us. Go do something nice for somebody. Be generous. Enjoy the lives around you. And realize the enormity of it all. How after eons of collisions and randomness, it has come to this… me, posting a comment on your blog. How amazing is that? And we didn’t even need god, just probability theory and math to romanticize the whole darn thing! I love it.

RE Chesterton Quote misinterpreters, read Chapter 2 of Orthodoxy.  Chesterton is often quoted, but less often read and reading what he wrote does make a lot of sense AND he completely understands, acknowledges and defeats your argument.

You have no evidence so you can not call it evidence. All you have is faith and belief which is not a valid basis for deciding the morality on anything.

To do what you did here, how about you convert to the Incan religion. After all, we have just as much proof of the Incan religion as you do for Catholicism. It’s a great religion over all. It even calls for the death of non-incans, blood sacrifices, executions, etc , just like Catholicism. If you follow it’s tenants then you’re assured a place in Incan heaven.

You see the problem now? Your religion is just as valid as any other religion. e.g. not at all valid. This is the point that PZ was attempting to make to you. It’s unfortunate that you were merely a theist-in-denial, not an actual atheist before converting back or you would understand this.

Warren,

You are simple minded and wrong. You have no place to speak for what atheists experienced and are arrogant and hypocritical for presuming to do so.

It is amusing, that you, like so many other theists, suggest that when someone disagrees with you, they are bad and likely malicious. It’s funny that you say “ignore them” when what you really mean is “I can’t make them believe me so I quit!” .

The fact is, you are wrong, you are too damn insular and arrogant to admit it, and it annoys you when people point these facts out to you. Get over yourself, child. Do you think it’s actually OK to ignore facts and then insult those that point them out to you?

In all seriousness, here is my contribution to all this debate. There are many references, even if not a substantial body of evidence, that small brain lesions cause subjects to modify irrationally their stance on subjects like faith or politics that would seem difficult or impossible to be changed without a larger modification of one’s life outlook and point of view. I am mildly concerned that the conversion to Catholicism of Ms. Fulwiler and her subsequent attempts at justify rationally such improbable behavior may stem from such physical impairment.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I think Myers’ atheists won this round. After seeing how hate-filled, insulting, and condescending Jennifer has been in response to the reasoned, thoughtful, elevated discourse that PZ Myers has brought forth and deigned to send to Jennifer’s unworthy blog, how can anyone be left unconvinced as to the soundness of his arguments and viewpoint?

Just looking at the comments, you can tell that Myers and his fans are just about the happiest, nicest, most fulfilled people you’d ever want to meet, while Jennifer is petty, mean, and purposely misunderstanding her opponents.

Oh, wait. I think I got some things reversed there.

@MikeH and Horse-Pheathers,

That must also be why Pius XI issued “Mit brennender Sorge,” which was distributed to be read in every German Church simultaneously and is a blistering, undisguised attack on Hitler and Nazism.  Hitler was no fan of the Church; it opposed and infuriated him.

I’d like to start by speaking to those of my fellow atheists who doubt Fulwiler’s former atheism, as though one can be an atheist only for rational reasons.  Yes, that’s the ideal, but let’s not pretend it’s a requirement.  For one thing, we should be honest with the label and not follow the Christian example of denying the use of the label to those we disagree with or find despicable.  We have better ways of distancing ourselves from the foolish and evil* atheists, as well as good arguments for how atheism doesn’t dispose one toward foolishness or evil.  For another, defining atheism as a position of reason intellectually superior to that of religion runs the risk of making us think so long as we’re atheists we’re automatically more reasonable than Christians without us putting in the effort of living up to that.  I’ve been an atheist since I can remember, but atheism never protected my younger self from shoddy reasoning or belief in nonsense, even supernatural nonsense.  I have no reason to doubt Fulwiler’s claim she was an atheist, and neither should you.
.......
*Speaking in general.  I don’t think Fulwiler is/was evil, but there are examples of atheists who are/were.  (Foolish, on the other hand…)

Jennifer Fulwiler says:

For every point you make in the case for Christianity, there will be a counterpoint, and then you’ll have a counterpoint to their counterpoint, and this will go on and on until it spirals back to where it began when they say “BUT I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD!”

No, it spirals back to “but you haven’t demonstrated god exists.”  While that may be why the atheist doesn’t believe, the atheist’s core argument is not merely the tautological statement of her non-belief.  Or perhaps such atheists exist, but in addressing PZ and his commenters and the commenters on your “5 teachings” thread, you’re not addressing such an atheist, but the rational, skeptical sort who expect you to demonstrate the existence of god before we’ll buy into any god-based reasoning.

And that’s when you see that people simply cannot reason their way into faith.

Was this ever in doubt?  Faith is, after all, the abandonment of reason.  Which could theoretically be a legitimate way to approach the world if faith could be used to subjectively distinguish between true claims and false claims, even if it was limited to those claims people think need to be determined through faith.  But faith is equal-opportunity; faith can be invoked by anyone to support anything, be it the claims of Catholics, Muslims, alien abductees, Libertarians, or even atheists.  Because faith can lead you to any conclusion imaginable depending on what you intellectually assent to and open up to, rational, skeptical atheists do not consider faith a good tool, especially compared to empiricism.  So you have to explain to us atheists why faith really is a good tool for understanding the world and not merely for fooling oneself and entrenching ones biases.

(Trying for better formatting on this post.  Sorry in advance if it backfires.)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

mk says:

“But so far the only argument you guys have ever put forth is ‘You can’t prove it empirically’ which is no argument at all.”

Because, precious, the little fishy you’re trying to sell us isn’t the only one in the market.  There are all sorts of competing supernatural claims out there.  What method are we supposed to use to reject the false ones and find the true ones if not empiricism?  Why ought we prefer your fish to the fish of the monger a few stalls down?

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Dave says:

“To hear that certain atheists are unwilling or unable to even imagine for the sake of argument that there could be a God is a sign of their madness.”

Granting for the sake of argument that god exists is only productive if one likes arguments that remain meaningless because a key premise remains undemonstrated.  Some atheists enjoy arguing over theology, just like some bother to learn Klingon, but it’s hardly a sign of madness to consider such things a waste of one’s time.

“‘The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.’ ~ Dante Gabriel Rossetti”

I can be thankful to all the people, living and dead, who have made possible the life I have.  And I can work to become the sort of person others give their thanks to because I have improved their lives.  How ridiculous to think that because I don’t believe in a master of the universe pulling all the strings that I lack anybody to give my thanks to.  How dismissive of the hard work, sacrifice, intelligence and caring of our fellow human beings.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Brandy Miller says:

“Try seeing it from our side. Imagine if you were one of a very few people in the world who could see, and the whole rest of the world was blind.”

My whole approach to the world is built around the fact that I am easy to fool and that my unaided senses are terrible tools for understanding the world.  I live with the expectation that I am wrong about many things, and that the more something appeals to me, the more I must treat it with suspicion.  How open are you to the possibility that it is you who is blind?  Or that you are fooling yourself?  How often do you put cherished beliefs to the test and how often do you have to give them up?

If I understand your point, it is ‘Catholicism is internally consistent’.  I just don’t understand why that matters. You could say “The world in all its glory was created last thursday by an omnipotent invisible pink unicorn’ - and develop an internally consistent worldview. Go ahead and accept this premise and check it out - i.e. do the experiment that you think atheists will learn so much from. An infinite number of worldviews are internally consistent; that doesn’t mean they are accurate.

Jennifer Fulwiler: “He missed the point, but that may have been my fault: I evidently did not make it clear enough that all of my examples were meant only to illustrate the intellectual consistency within Catholicism, and therefore assumed that you would be in a discussion with an atheist who would stipulate belief in God for the sake of argument.”

Maybe it’s because you should actually be arguing with other theists, then. People like Protestants, Orthodox Russians or Muslims. Your arguments would make much more sense to them, as they already believe in some god. Yet they vehemently disagree with you. An atheist like me does not even pretend that any gods exist. My arguments usually go around something like: If your god is a god of love, as stated in the Bible, then why does the same Bible contradict your statement. Your arguments are not applicable to atheists, but to theists. I think you confuse the word ‘atheist’ with words like ‘protestant’ and ‘Russian Orthodox’. They are not the same.

Jennifer Fulwiler:”…is that Myers and atheists like him are trapped in a prison of reason.”
Reason surely is the opposite of prison. Anyway I hope you don’t think that reason is ever wrong. I see being accused as “trapped in prison of reason” as a compliment. Intelligent people use reason. Reason always is the best method. The “prison of reason” brought me the computer I work on and also the internet we use to distribute information.  Faith didn’t. If you think that reason is a prison, you live in an alternative reality. A very deluded reality. We’ve had “prisons of non-reason” for thousands of years, when reason was not allowed to be used and was not allowed to be distributed.

Using “faith” has always been proven to be very detrimental to humanity. Rather give me reason every time. You complimented me by ‘accusing’ me as being ‘trapped in a prison of reason’. Great compliment, actually. Rather be trapped in the ‘prison of reason’ than trapped in ’believing an ancient myth’, for which there is absolutely no objective evidence. Go science!

“...for the average person whose identity is deeply wrapped up in his or her atheism, it’s not going to get you very far. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that reasoning with them is a waste of time.”

You are very right about this Jennifer. In my debates with atheist’s I have come to discover that there are, ah… surprise, emotions playing a larger role in their antipathy towards God. Some have such a fear of hell, that for that reason they are willing to be atheists. I picked up on this from a Vietnam veteran who may have done things he cannot forgive himself for underestimating God’s forgiveness in the process. Others may have a hand-me-down disdain for Catholics if they come from a British background for instance, but finding the Anglican church obviously wanting have dismissed religion altogether.

When we think of young men in Afghanistan becoming suicide bombers for instance, it would be shallow of us to believe that their entire reason for doing so is because of their faith. A lot has to do with their cultural and parental expectations, a lot has to do with the war around them and how it has affected their lives. That is not to dismiss their religious justifications for doing so in my opinion. If you feel called on to carry on that way in the name of God and Holy Jihad, I respect that. I think the gay vote in New York has really made it clear to me that the prophecies of Daniel and John will have to come to pass before things get better. In this vain, some atheist are certainly tares planted by the devil. So you are right to say that love plays a part in our belief in God. There is a difference between those searches who are seeking the truth and those who are stalwart against God even when He is proven true. There is also the use of rationalism ad nauseum to explain, not how humans behave but presumably how they ought. We speak of reason but as you pointed out what passes as reason is usually just a scaffolding of justifications for our motives, which are rooted in our emotions. So many atheist thrive in pride. So many harbor stories of nuns in grade school who were incorrect on this or that science lesson who scolded them as children although they were ‘right’.

Glad your a Catholic now and such a charming woman. It is almost as if this masculine escapism, this need for the Protestants to deny the Virgin Mary, why the atheist always tout reason, even though one can reason incorrectly and rationalism although it is more of a psychological defense against reality than the thinly applicable utilitarian philosophy which seeks to deny the irrational, the emotional, those things between heaven and hell, the very human soul.

@ivorybill: For you, though, don’t you limit love to those you know - to those who have done things that “warrant” love? Do you love others simply because they are even when they haven’t done anything at all to “deserve” the love you give them? Do you retract your love from people when they hurt you, therefore rendering your love for them conditional? Do you love the person who cuts in front of you in traffic, steals your identity, or tries to undermine your efforts at work so much that you would be willing to die for them? This is the kind of love we, as Christians, are striving to have for others. We are striving to love the homeless person so much that we aren’t content until they have somewhere to stay. We are striving to love the person who hurts us just as much as, if not more, than the person who has done nothing to us. We strive to see Jesus in the face of the person who has killed an innocent child just as much as we see it in the holiest of persons we know.  We don’t always succeed - the papers are full of stories about Christians who fall short of the goal, sick people who give in to the sickness or have a relapse of the soul sickness that brought them to the Church in the first place, but God doesn’t count the number of times we fail, He only counts the number of times we fail to get back up and try again.

It isn’t that I think your capacity for love is stunted, for God has written His laws of love on your heart. It is that I believe you are not challenging yourself to love to your fullest capacity. That is what my religion does for me - challenges me to love deeper and with more meaning than I ever did when I stepped away from it. I know that I love better here, in the safety of the Catholic Church, and hurt less people than I ever did when I went it on my own. I have 10 years of experience in what happens when I don’t obey Christ to show me the kind of damage that can be done to those I care about most.

So you’re saying that your delusions work together? So what? That makes them no less ridiculous on the core premise of saying imaginary things are real.

I respectfully disagree with your tenet that if the atheist simply stipulates the existence of God, then the whole internal consistency of your religion would be a telling argument. The sticking place is with your prerequisite assumption that that atheism is a belief system. It’s not, any more than the OFF button is another channel on the TV remote (credit to NonStampCollector for the analogy). I could write a highly internally consistent urban fantasy novel in which I tell you to pretend unicorns are real, and you might enjoy it if you like that sort of thing, but it’d be mighty silly of me to try to convince you that because my novel is internally consistent, unicorns are therefore real. So you’re free to read the bible and pray to characters in it and all, if it comforts you, but they’re no more real than unicorns are.

@A. Noyd: I left the Church for 10 years because I doubted that She was right. I doubted God’s existence, and Christ’s existence, and doubted everything I was ever taught. I came back home to the Church, as many people do, when I’d broken things so badly human hands couldn’t fix them and I didn’t know where else to turn. I have seen God work miracles in my life. I know He exists, just as much as I know that my husband and my son exist and the sun exists and the earth exists. I have spoken to Him, I have heard Him speak to me. I know, you’ll write that off as crazy talk. It’s okay. I would, were I you. But He is real. You can find Him.

The trick, of course, is understanding what prayer is and then connecting the dots between when you pray and when things happen. First, prayer is a conversation and not a request line. Treat God like a friend, not a sugardaddy. If you’re upset about something, be honest with Him. He likes honesty. If you pray for a puppy and you don’t get the puppy that doesn’t mean God isn’t answering your prayer. That prayer for a puppy may be what you say but what your heart really wants is someone to love. So, God looks at your situation and says I’ll send you a friend instead because a puppy isn’t what you really need right now. A puppy would only allow you to isolate yourself more than you already are, whereas a friend would help you to reach out to others.

God has often said no to my requests, and while at the time I didn’t want to hear no, as I look back on it those no’s were the best thing to happen to me. I asked for wealth, and God said no. He gave me poverty instead. My poverty has been the biggest blessing of my life, believe it or not. It has kept my marriage together because there were times when all that stood between us and divorce was the money to make it happen. It has kept me from getting addicted to alcohol or drugs - too little money to be able to afford either. It kept me from buying an overpriced house in a housing market that was about to crash. God loves me, and He knows me better than I know me. He’s going to answer my prayers - but He’s going to answer the real need behind them and He’s not always going to pay attention to what I say.

If you’re brave enough to try it, test God. Say to Him, God, make me an instrument. He’ll send you someone who needs His help in a way that only you can answer. Just be sure to keep your eyes open. It’s going to require a sacrifice of your time and your effort, but you’ll be an answer to someone’s prayers. Keep a journal and write down every day what happens when you say that prayer. Pretty soon, you won’t be atheist anymore. You’ll have a journal of evidence proving God’s existence to you.

A. Noyd, I just want to say that your post leads me to believe that I, a practicing Catholic, have more in common with you, a professed atheist, than with just about any other commenter on here.  Your willingness to take your like-minded peers to task is helpful.  Thanks.

Now if I could just get some of my fellow practicing Catholics on here to acknowledge that Ms. Fulwiler’s article (esp the initial “5 arguments” article) was unclear and poorly worded.  If she wanted to talk about the internal consistency of Catholicism that’s fine, but to somehow link that to atheism (with the primary link being that she was one herself) is simply out of place.  I have many atheist friends, and I have read next to nothing of value in these articles that would be helpful in talking with them.  You know what is helpful?  They know they can talk to me about anything because I listen sincerely, I don’ tell them they are stupid (or evil, or pathetic), and I respect their experiences and thoughts.  Will that convert them to Catholicism?  I don’t know.  But it sure makes for great friendships.

I say this with love in my heart - remember that Christ did not chase after anyone to convince them to follow Him.  He made sure they understood what He was saying, and then, if they walked away, He let them walk away. (We see this in John 6, and Mark 10, for example.)

Seeds have been planted.  All have ears to hear.  No one should fall to the level of sin in order to make a point.

I shall wash my hands in innocence,
And I will go about Your altar, O LORD,
That I may proclaim with the voice of thanksgiving
And declare all Your wonders.
~ Psalm 26:6-7

The definition of religion, according to Webster’s dictionary is ” a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”  According to this definition, atheism is indeed a religion.

Hi Mike!

Thanks for backing me up with your post! If you had read closely and not been blinded with the very defensive attitude I presented you would have found I was speaking from experience and NOT directing towards you personally. You atheists should really try to de personalize from these conversations and not be so self centered to think it’s all about or directed towards them. What a group!

Why do you take such offense? I made no attack towards you, I simply commented on a pattern that I have experienced from the vocal atheists such as pz myers.

Face it it is IMPOSSIBLE to read ANY thread involving atheists without the bigotry and some pre pubescent “event” they have not been able to get over. No it’s not everyone but I’d wager a vast majority judging by person encounters.

I have several atheists friends and neither can keep their heads enough to hold a polite discussion. Forget the internet as the tendency is towards personal attack from the likes of Mike who once again are defensive about some imagined wrong done them.

Pearls before swine and all that…..

@Brandy Miller - Why does God hate believers who are and continue being addicts, divorcees, and victims of the housing crisis, when they have surely prayed for assistance in those situations? Or are those prayers actually answered and the believers are somehow better off the way they are? And how can you tell an unanswered prayer from an answered one?

Troublemaker: The definition of religion, according to Webster’s dictionary is ” a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”  According to this definition, atheism is not a religion.
Fixed that for you :)

“replace the word “God” with “Love.” “

—————————————————————
Replace the word “God” with “Leprechaun”.

Trying to use reason to explain faith is like trying to pick up an egg by the handle.  I can understand why professed atheists were put off by Ms. Fulwiler’s articles; any attempt to explain a theological point to an atheist that begins with the unspoken assumption that the listener ‘stipulates’ the existence of a deity closely resembling the God of the Catholic Church is an act of monstrous and unexamined arrogance.

Most atheists I know personally were raised in a religious environment (typically Christian or Jewish). Their atheism is not the result of ignorance of religion.  They do not have an affirmative faith in the nonexistence of god(s); the best way I can explain it is by comparison.  Do you believe in Odin?  The answer is almost certainly no.  How about Zeus or Isis? No?  Well, imagine someone whose attitude towards YOUR god is exactly the same as yours toward those three.  My joke about it is ‘the difference between the monotheist and the atheist is that the atheist disbelieves in one more god’.

@Adam K: God doesn’t hate anyone. We all have some sins that are harder to overcome than others. That’s why we go back to confession, sometimes for the same sin, over and over and over again. God forgives us each time, gives us special graces to resist the sin the next time, and asks us to get up and try again. Progress is slow, and God understands that. God simply asks that we make the progress, that we keep trying because in that effort to try again we are showing that we understand what we are doing is wrong, we aren’t surrendering to the darkness we’re struggling toward the light. There’s a difference.  There are no unanswered prayers, just those prayers to which God’s answer may be no.

Suffering isn’t a sign that God doesn’t love someone. If that were true, you could say that He didn’t love Jesus or Job but we know that’s not true. When we suffer for the sins of others, we are being given the chance to unite ourselves to Christ, to carry a cross for someone else.  When we suffer for our own sins, we are being given the grace to suffer a little bit now instead of the larger amount we were actually due to pay in eternity. All human beings suffer due to the fact that there is sin in the world. It is what we do with that suffering that makes the difference.

If you want a prayer that God will always say yes to, with very quick results, do as I recommended earlier and pray that God will make you an instrument.  Then open your eyes. You’ll find that someone with a very real need will present themselves to you, needing something that you are uniquely qualified to help them with. Keep a journal of when you prayed and when it happened. After a while, you won’t have any doubts any more…and you will have made the world a better place for your efforts.

Two questions for Ms. Fulwiler:

1.  You cite G. K. Chesterton on “imagination vs reason.”

Is this G. K. Chesterton the psychiatrist?  Or G. K. Chesterton the psychologist?  the behavioral scientist?

You greatly undermine your own argument by citing such a silly comment.

2.  Re reason, isn’t it the CATHOLIC church that claims “faith is a gift”?  That is, faith is NOT based in any way on reason?

I think a Catholic could believe that Odin/Zeus are progressive steps towards that singular moment in time which is the incarnation of God as man in Jesus Christ.
Scientists speculate that we are programmed for religious belief and so the human mind was preparing itself for the great event.A more ancient way is to say that some of these ancient religions may have been preparing the way for people to finally believe in the one true God

It’s obvious to me that many of you Catholics don’t have a clue about atheism.  So let’s consider a couple of points:

Atheists do not believe there is a God.

Yep, I’m using the definition of Atheism as my first point. And I do this not because I think you don’t know what the word means, but because I’m fairly certain you’ve not yet realized the concept. When you witness to an atheist, the person whom you are addressing does not believe there is a God - therefore, any information about God, Jesus, the trinity, etc. falls on deaf ears.

To put this in more universal terms, you’re attempting to sell a concept for which there is no proof other than the beliefs of peeople who have spread the word before you.

Whether you like it or not; whether you accept it or not, the fact remains - you’re attempting to convince someone that something they cannot see, feel, hear, or otherwise partake of any empirical evidence of its existence, exists. Regardless of how much you believe in the story and how much it has affected your life and the lives of those around you, they do not.

This is important to understand. Until you do, you’re arguing with a stop sign.

Second, Atheists do not need to believe in a God.

We’ve established that you’re communicating with a person who does not believe what you are sharing with them exists. You’re asking them to buy on faith the fact that spending time in church, telling other people about this belief and living a life based on it may one day reward them. That’s difficult enough. When you add to this the fact that you are not only selling them something you can’t prove exists, but that they don’t even want, things turn from difficult to impossible.

Atheists assert that the foundation for their actions and deeds lie in proven methods related to science and the establishment of undeniable fact. In this, we believe we have everything we need to live a healthy, happy, rewarding life.

We’re not wrong - no more than you are in asserting that your faith in the tenets of Christianity are all you need to live your life. And that’s the point. It’s hard to convince a man with two working legs that he needs to buy a third, or worse, get rid of his and try the ones you have on. And when he looks for your version and cannot see, feel, touch or otherwise prove that they actually exist, he’s going to completely dismiss you. It’s not personal, it’s just how we work as people.

If you follow it’s tenants then you’re assured a place in Incan heaven.

I’d like to rent an Incan room…

@Brandy Miller So God does answer every prayer, and the outcome of either answer (btw, does God actually change the world in any way when answering a prayer positively or negatively, or is what happens to you set in stone beforehand? And either way, how do you know?) is completely in line with natural law or chance, unlike so many miraculous, positively-answered prayers in the Bible. The religious claim miracles happen, sure, but Mary in a cheese sandwich or a merely statistically-anomalous remission of cancer is hardly in the same league as manna from heaven or regrowing an ear.

Also, I’m sure those dying of starvation and praying for food that never comes, or whose limb has been amputated in an accident and despite prayer never grows back, or whose home and livelihood are destroyed by a natural disaster, or child victims of kidnapping and torture, will be glad to hear that God’s answer of “no” only indicates that they themselves are at fault for not asking for the right thing, or their sinful nature is an impediment, or it’s for their own good, or imagine how much *worse* it could be.

Also, I thought Jesus was the one who “suffered for the sins of others”; in fact, taking all of our sins onto himself through crucifixion and death made him pretty important. If you mean, “suffered as a consequence of the sinful acts of others,” I hope torture victims appreciate the opportunity they have to be so Christlike.

And thank you for the prayer/journal suggestion made twice, but I would rather keep my ears and eyes open for someone in need and help them for their own sake, rather than as a conduit for, and the aggrandizement of, some third party who may or may not exist. I help others to help others, and because I feel a little better when I see others feeling better.

A.Noyd,

Because, precious, the little fishy you’re trying to sell us isn’t the only one in the market.  There are all sorts of competing supernatural claims out there.  What method are we supposed to use to reject the false ones and find the true ones if not empiricism?  Why ought we prefer your fish to the fish of the monger a few stalls down?

Preeeeeeeeeeecious….

Why, you use the method of reason, of course!  You look at each one of those little fishies, check if the eyes are clear, if there’s a fishy smell, if the scales are pulling away from the skin…was it frozen or is it fresh?  Goodness, there are dozens of ways to discern which fish to buy.

There are dozens of religions, yes.  And dozens of “gods”.  BUT, there is only one who made an appearance.  And that this “Man” lived can be verified outside of religious sources.  Then you have the fact that all other Gods require humans to sacrifice to THEM.  This God, and only this God, said “Let Me Sacrifice For You”.  That’s HUGE!  Add the fact that this God preached a most radical idea.  Love for the sake of love.  Forgiveness instead of vengeance.  Mercy instead of Justice.  These ideas were unheard of!  Turn the other cheek?  Nonsense.  Cut off his head is more like it!  Love one partner for life??  Ridiculous!  Forgive your enemy?  Yeah, when he’s dead by my sword!  Help your neighbor?  Why, what’s in it for me??

But how do we know that this God is who He says He was?  Lewis gives a good argument.  Use reason.  You’ve got 3 options…he was a liar.  But if he was, this is the only thing he lied about.  It doesn’t stand to reason, given his character in all other instances, that he would lie only about this one thing.  Besides, would a sane man die for a lie?  What would he gain?  Money?  Fame?  What good is fame if your dead?  Power?  Who would he control?  What kingdom would he rule? 

That he was insane?  Again, nothing in his character leads us to believe that he was out of touch with reality.  If anything he was the most sane man ever written about.  Every action was consistent with his words. Some would say he was simply a great moral teacher.  But how could a moral man claim to be God if he wasn’t?  That would be immoral!

Or…He was indeed who He claimed to be.  That is the only reasonable explanation.  None of the others makes sense.

Then look at the other fish…all of them have something good in them.  Most of them have some sort of moral standards.  But what about the rest?  We reincarnate?  We keep re-becoming until we have become perfect?  And how do we become perfect?  By being absorbed into everything else?  And where did this revelation come from?  A man.  Not a man who claimed to be God, or to have spoken to an authority, but a man who admits he was just a man.  Or a religion that believes in the very God that Jesus claims to be, but again, a man, and only a man, saying that Jesus got it all wrong and HE knows better!  Again, on whose authority?  How about Nature Worship/Paganism…seems to me that that is like worshiping the book while ignoring the author.  On whose authority do we believe in a goddess and a horned god?  On ancient myth that was not revealed to or by anyone, but simply passed down from one man to another?  Judaism works, but if they prophesied a Messiah and that man appeared and fit all of the prophecies, why reject Him?  How about Zeus?  Socrates blew that one out of the water.  Why believe in a flawed God?  Crazy talk!  If I’m going to believe in a God, He dang well better be a better person than I am.  Who needs a God that lies, commits adultery and eats his own children?

I propose that the only fish worth buying is the fish offered by those world renowned fisherman…the Twelve.  These guys knew fish!  And like any other product, look at what you’re getting.  Be absorbed into the universe?  Grab all you can while you’re here and then die?  40 virgins?  Or live forever in a place where there is no sadness, no hunger, no pain.  Meet Love and Truth Himself.  Spend eternity with your loved ones. 

It all comes down to whether you want a cheap imitation or the real thing.  Tuna in a can or Salmon fresh from the ocean!  Choose wisely my friend.  IF you’re willing to accept that there IS a God, then the God of the Catholic Faith is the ONLY fish in the sea!  Certainly the only one that a reasonable man would choose! (Hey, they don’t call it the Church of Faith and Reason for nothin’!)

It makes me terribly sad that PZ Meyers is, apparently, a tenured professor.  Not surprised, but terribly sad.  Our children deserve smarter professors (and no, that’s not an ad hom attack, it’s just an observation based on the limited reasoning skills I’ve observed on his blog). 

On the other hand, your blogs are a light and a blessing, even when you’re in the mommy-stupor.  Thank you for your sound reason and your good humor. The analogy to love—or to any other abstract concept, really, is excellent.  I’ve often thought that trying to describe faith in God to unbelievers is a lot like trying to describe married love to prepubescent children (or to determined singles, for that matter).  They simply haven’t the framework for understanding your descriptions, and won’t, really, until they experience it for themselves.

Keep up the good work.

I think the main goal of the RCC is to acquire, and use, power.  It has always been this way in modern, and ancient, history:  in the 20th century alone, just consider the cases of Spain, Poland, Ireland….enormous injury to ALL people under the yoke of catholicism. 

BUT, that’s what comes from accepting premises that have not a shred of empirical support, indeed, in which empirical investigation is expressly forbidden.

“The analogy to love—or to any other abstract concept, really, is excellent.”.

Really excellent at missing the point.

I am the love your Love.
You shall have no other loves before Love.
Do not take the name of the Love in vain.

In the beginning Love created the heavens and the earth.  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of Love was hovering over the waters.

And Love said, “Let there be light”, and there was light.  Love saw that the light was good, and he (love) separated the light from darkness.

@Adam K: The journal suggestion was for your benefit, not for God’s. He knows He exists and doesn’t need your help to prove His existence to Himself. If you are interested in being scientific about God’s existence, then do what scientists do and conduct an experiment and keep records to show what does or does not happen.  Even if, as you posit, God doesn’t exist, it’s a very good way to hold yourself accountable for how much good you are doing each day.

One of my religious education teachers once said, and it is usually true, is that miracles are miracles not because of what happens as much as because they happen exactly when they do happen and exactly how they happen.  A family who has no food in the pantry and no money opening their door to find a neighbor who just happened to be moving offering them food is a miracle. A mother who has miscarried six times and manages to give natural birth on the seventh pregnancy has just experienced a miracle. The big, showy miracles are not usually what converts a person’s heart in a permanent manner. It is those small, moment-to-moment miracles of a personal nature that give you the confidence that God really is looking out for you and build a lasting faith.

God does not want sin or suffering, but He permits it because in the middle of suffering we grow in our ability to love our neighbor, to be compassionate toward those who are suffering. The man who has lost a hand is the only person who understands the grief and struggle of another person facing such a loss, and is the only person who can help them find hope and purpose in the face of what seems like a great tragedy.  The person who has spent time homeless is the only person who can understand what it’s like to be homeless, the fear, the terror, the hopelessness - and help the homeless person to combat it.

Christ told us all that we would have to pick up our cross if we wanted to follow after Him. That cross is very real, and it’s a hard call to answer because it requires you to learn to sacrifice everything. I can understand why it doesn’t appeal to you. There was a time when I didn’t want that cross, didn’t want to have anything to do with it. However, now, I know that the Cross is the only bridge strong enough to support the kind of love that it takes to get to Heaven.

Howard Karten, It was not the RC Church that caused the terrible damage to Poland, it was the Atheist-Pagan Nazis who murdered 6 Million Poles, 5Million Polish Jews and 3 Million Christian (mostly Catholic Poles) and after World War 11 their country was taken over by the Atheist run Soviet Union who installed an atheist Puppet Government who persecuted the native Poles vast majority Catholics. Remember in 1940 the Atheist Government of the Soviet Union was responsible for the Murder of 10,000 Polish men in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk, and tried to cover it up by blaming the Nazis, Maybe Mr Karten you would do some research before you let yourself loose on your keyboard

Yeah Right,

I couldn’t tell if you were being sarcastic or not.  Reading all those quotes where you replaced God with Love?  That gave me chills!  I’m going to try doing a few of my own.  You could use Truth also.  Whether you meant it or not, that was awesome!

“…If any man thirst, let him come to love, and drink.”

“Delight yourself in Love and Love will give you the desires of your heart.”

“The name of Love is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe.”

“I will say of Love.  Love is my refuge and my fortress:  In Love
    will I trust.”

“Truth will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go, Love will
    counsel you and watch over you.”

Welcome to America Mike where I am free to say as I wish. If you don’t like prove me wrong or refrain from personal attack although I’ve heard it all…. and frankly don’t mind…its just been my experience that atheists attitudes get so out of hand threads tend to get locked because they lack self control.

Once again I in no way shape or form approach the level of animosity sir PZ provides so it is obvious you have no concern about decorum else you’d rail against him…which is just my point.

Atheists are an ultra sensitive bunch who respond way out of bounds for any imagined slight. Even a hello and a smile can be confused as an attack to this paranoid bunch. But oddly champion the more obnoxious as their “leaders”. SO we’re too afford them some sort of place at the table yet would be dealt much worse given the option by them. Yes a generalization but I present pz myers as exhibit A and it goes down hill from there. At least pz doesn’t pretend to be what he is not.

On second thought ALL of the atheists I know are grumpy and ill tempered, defensive and rude…a real pain in the butt to be around because you have to walk on egg shells as they lack a sense of humor and tend to consider any conversation that even veers anywhere near philosophy or dear lord religion to be just too much to take.

They tend to espouse some sort of pseudo intellectualism that is wholly lacking on facts (hitler was a practicing Catholic…yawn…). They have learned as my esteemed pal Mike illustrates that a good defense is a good offense so add little to any conversations.

PZ is the poster child for this attitude and as mentioned above the Humanist saw fit to award him for his actions. There is nothing even remotely appealing about pz myers if you have read any of his work. I had the displeasure when working on a college english paper that dealt with controversy.

This entire thread is based on a attempt to find common ground and instead gets dragged down by the immature. Big surprise huh?.....

See ya Mike!

For the people that can’t accept Hitler’s membership in the catholic cult:
From Hitler’s Mein Kampf
“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..”
“The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schonerer’s opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality.”
“As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.”
“Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord’s grace smiled on His ungrateful children.”
“...we must pray to the Almighty not to refuse His blessing to this change and not to abandon our people in the times to come.”
“This game is repeated again and again, and in it the role of the so-called ‘German princes’ is just as miserable as that of the Jews themselves. These lords were really God’s punishment for their beloved peoples and find their parallels only in the various ministers of the present time.”
“The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.”
“A man who knows a thing, who is aware of a given danger, and sees the possibility of a remedy with his own eyes, has the duty and obligation, by God, not to work ‘silently,’ but to stand up before the whole public against the evil and for its cure.”
“Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
“It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world.”
“It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.”
“For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.”
“In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another.”

Slogan on Nazi belt buckles:
“Gott Mit Uns” which translates to “God with Us” (look it up, you can find pictures of this slogan and the swastika on belt buckles from WWII)

“He missed the point, but that may have been my fault”

Of course it was your fault.

“illustrate the intellectual consistency within Catholicism”

Why should an atheist care in the slightest about that?  It’s obviously ridiculous, but there’s no reason to care.  Ay one can build a supposedly self-consistent fairy tale.  Science fiction is more interesting though.

“educate these folks about the truths of the Faith”

Ridiculous.  You are misusing the word “truth”.

“openness to the discussion”

Bzzzt!  Openness to evidence - but you have none.

“identity is deeply wrapped up in his or her atheism”

What a silly thing to say!  Identity is wrapped up in personal relationships as well as a commitment to reason and evidence.

“Nobody should check his rational mind at the door when it comes to exploring nonmaterial realities.”

Hilarious nonsense.  There is absolutely no evidence for “non-material realities”.  Reality means material!  Non-material means non-reality!  That is what a rational mind concludes.

“to do so is a great way to end up in a cult”

And you can call that cult Catholicism, Mormonism, Scientology, whatever.  They are all equally ridiculous.

“To understand the limits of reason in the conversion process”

You should understand that reason simply fails.  Your faith is belief without evidence.  That is contrary to reason.

I know that Hitler was very interested in Madame Blavatsky, the occult, Theosophy and such.  Lord does not always mean Jesus or The God of Abraham.  Blavatsky and her ilk called Lucifer “Lord” as he was considered the light bearer…the bringer of knowledge.  (Associated with Venus)  My point is that my understanding is that while Hitler may have started out with a Christian ideal, he switched over to spiritualism and the occult later on.  Hard to know at which point the above quotes came from. 

I realize Wiki isn’t the best source, but this article is well sourced.  One of Hitlers goals was to erase Christianity form existence. 

No matter what you think, Hitler did NOT annihilate millions of people for religious reasons.  He had a mustache but we don’t say “See!  He had a mustache!  All people with mustaches must be bad!  It was his mustache that made him do it!”  He ceased practicing his Catholic Faith when he was a young boy, and it appears he used Christian “speak” to gain support and trust.

While we cannot know everything, we CAN know this.  Hitler was neither a practicing Catholic nor a practicing Christian of any other denomination.

Mike,

Love is non material.  Truth is non material.  Mathematics is non material.  Thought is non material.  Honor is non material.  Warmth is non material.  Happiness is non material.  Pleasure is non material.  Desire is non material. 

You seem to throw out a whole lot of stuff if reality to you is only what is “material”.  That’s sad.  Or not, since sadness is non material.  Bummer.

@Brandy Miller I think I and those whom I care for can keep track of good works. I don’t need or want to keep a running tally to hold myself accountable. Besides, scientific studies have been done that show intercessory prayer is not effective, and if God’s not willing to help those that actually medically need it, I’m not going to bother him.
Neither of your examples are remotely miraculous, of the large or small kinds. The first is the result of good timing and human generosity. Would it have been a miracle if the neighbor had been moving a week before, and his surplus food had been provided then so that the family would not have been in need a week later? And the seventh childbirth is perhaps unusual but, especially with the help of medical science but even without it,  not outside the realm of possibility. Would it have been a miracle after five miscarriages? Four? When does the result stop being natural and become a miracle? Or is it all the selective results of wishful thinking and looking through faith-colored glasses? And don’t think that “small, moment-to-moment miracles of a personal nature” would be lost on me, because I’d love to hold onto some evidence of God’s existence. It’d be the scientific find of the millennium!
I’m glad you admitted that God “permits” sin and suffering, because I’d been wondering about how culpable he is. I can’t fathom why he permits misery that ultimately prevents a child, for instance, from “grow[ing] in [her] ability to love [her] neighbor, to be compassionate toward those who are suffering.” Is a child who dies in a natural disaster merely a stepping stone for others to build up their own empathy, or to get some healthy mourning in? And I resent the implication that you can only empathize with someone who has gone through things similar to what you have. Although many, say, with addictions can gain comfort from being with a group of former addicts, compassion should not be merely based on how common one’s life experiences have been to another’s. Before Internet groups of similarly-experienced individuals could come together through Facebook or Meetup.org, before telecommunications of any kind for that matter, do you really think someone who lost a hand could only be adequately comforted by someone else who lost a hand? That is to quite underestimate the human capacity for compassion.
And please don’t claim to know why Christianity doesn’t appeal to me.

“Why should an atheist care in the slightest about that?  It’s obviously ridiculous, but there’s no reason to care.”

You know, the one thing that is abundantly clear from the barrage of comments is that, for whatever reason, at least some atheists care a whole lot.

Here’s an analogy for the prison of reason:
If you’ve known kids or read much child psych, you may be aware that if kids spend a lot o time in structured play with rules, they then lose th ability for imaginative play. Being tied too closely to the real and logical restricts their ability to make mental leaps.

My faith comes, largely, from reason. (And I know a lot of atheists won’t like that statement. Sorry.) But the *solidity* of my faith comes several experiences (such as acute feelings that God was present, and also that for a while when I doubted I tasted blood when I took the Eucharist) which reason can’t explain alone. To understand faith, you have to be able to go a bit beyond mere reason. You don’t discard reason, you just don’t limit yourself to it.

That’s why reason can be a prison. The mind is capable of working in other ways—like how kids can play in their imagination until they restrict themselves. If you deny the mind’s ability to do more, you’re missing out—not only on religion, but on a lot of other flexibility of thought.

Posted by DKeane on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 6:49 AM (EDT):

“intellectual consistency within Catholicism”

I would ask then if it is possible to get a blood born disease from the blood of christ when taking communion?

I read your original article, and as an atheist I did not agree with a single point (none of the teachings made “sense” to me”, and as PZ suggested, I am not convinced you had arrived at your previous atheism from an intellectual standpoint.  It sounds as if you were just a theist in denial or in “thenial” - it happens all the time.

## Yes, it is possible. And something similar has happened - a 19th-century South American bishop died, because the Host he swallowed was poisoned.

This is not surprising, because what the Consecration changes is what the Bread & Wine *are*, so they are no longer Bread & Wine; it does not change the “properties” by which the Bread & Wine are made accessible to the senses. So although the Bread & Wine no longer exist, after the Consecration, their “properties” do. So if either of them is poisoned, the toxicity will remain; just as properties such as shape, size, taste, extension, weight, visibility, palpability, all remain.

As for the molecular structure of the Eucharistic Gifts of Bread & Wine, you didn’t ask about them, but they are at least tangentially relevant. The perceptible realities of Bread & Wine are perceived because their atomic structure is within the sense perception of human beings - unlike, say, a dog-whistle, which is not; or some of the spectrum. What matters is that there is a real something we have access to through our senses, that we call bread - and for our purposes, in this world, it is solid enough for us to use in certain ways: such as eating. And in the world we live in, bread & wine can be poisoned: certain arrangements of molecules can be brought into connection with other arrangements of molecules, so that the first lot becomes deadly to us if we eat it, & not nourishing, all because it has been made made deadly to us by the addition of the second arrangement of molecules.

IOW: transubstantiation does not detoxify a poisoned Eucharist. There is no reason in Catholic Eucharistic theology or metaphysics why it should be expected to. If cyanide is added to it before the Consecration, it will kill, just like any other unconsecrated or everyday substance.

I hope that some use to you

Brandy Miller says:

“I have spoken to Him, I have heard Him speak to me. I know, you’ll write that off as crazy talk. It’s okay. I would, were I you. But He is real. You can find Him.”

You’re not crazy for believing you’ve spoken to god any more than a child is crazy for believing Santa Claus exists.  After all, there’s the evidence of presents in the stockings and the evidence of the cookies being gone.  However, it turns out that there are other explanations than a jolly, generous elf for that evidence, just as it turns out that there are other explanations than your god’s existence for why you feel you’ve spoken to and been answered by your god.  You surely accept that yourself when it comes to other people, because I doubt that you would say “Allah has really spoken to Mr. Naser” as the reason for why a Muslim might feel he has conversed with Allah.  So, faced with the existence of people like Mr. Naser, this is one area where it should be really easy to question your “evidence,” to ask yourself why, if such personal experiences supports your version of god, it doesn’t also support his, and to realize perhaps some better sort of evidence is necessary.

“The trick, of course, is understanding what prayer is… If you pray for a puppy and you don’t get the puppy that doesn’t mean God isn’t answering your prayer.”

Do you intend that I should use prayer as a test of god’s existence?  Because I hope you understand that if prayer works as you say, then it can’t test anything.  If prayer always gets me “what I need,” then I’m merely redefining whatever happens to me as “what I need.”  And how does that prove anything?  Without a way to ensure things would have been different without prayer, I would just be putting a spin on the bad things in order to enable belief in a god.

“It has kept me from getting addicted to alcohol or drugs - too little money to be able to afford either.”

But plenty of people living in poverty do get addicted to alcohol or drugs despite not being able to afford them.  What I see is that you have found this self-control and you have enabled yourself to come through bad times without turning to things that would make your life harder.  It makes me sad when people dismiss their own efforts and circumstances.  Furthermore, poverty should never be a means to an end, even one as admirable as avoiding addiction; poverty is a wrong we should be trying to eradicate, one that comes with more negative consequences than addiction.  You might be able to talk yourself into being thankful for it, but I hope you don’t think others should be thankful for their poverty or that poverty for others is a sign of god giving them what they need.

“Keep a journal and write down every day what happens when you say that prayer. Pretty soon, you won’t be atheist anymore. You’ll have a journal of evidence proving God’s existence to you.”

I can see why you would find that compelling, but only because you don’t seem to understand much about fallacies and cognitive biases.  (That’s not meant to be an insult.)  Keeping a journal like this borrows much from cold (“psychic”) reading techniques (casting a wide net and intentionally seeking confirmation of a preferred conclusion) and depends on the post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy.  It would be a giant exercise in attempting to attribute cause and effect to sequential events without actually establishing cause and effect.  I could not be convinced this way, not because I’m closed to the possibility of there being a god, but because this is not an effective way of determining the existence or efficacy of anything.  There’s no doubt it’s convincing to those who hope there is a god, just as similar things can convince the hopeful that psychics exist.  But I don’t have a stake in god existing, and I’m wary of techniques that rely on that sort of hope even for things I do wish to be true.

I appreciate your answers.  I am happy to admit it looks as though you do try to put your beliefs to the test, but would say that it seems you do not understand why your “tests” are inappropriate.  I’m glad you’re happy, but I wish you could at least understand why it’s reasonable for me to reject such “tests.”  My tests, my safeguards against blindness, are a great deal more stringent, and I apply them to all matters, not just religious ones.  Accepting “tests” as lax as yours would give me no reason to prefer your religion over that of Mr. Naser and others.

Richard says:

“If she wanted to talk about the internal consistency of Catholicism that’s fine, but to somehow link that to atheism (with the primary link being that she was one herself) is simply out of place.”

Indeed, it’s enough to say that her former atheism gives her no automatic insight into how other atheists think.  In the same vein, I also find her attempted explanations of love to be contrary to my own experience and understanding.  If that’s how love works for her, that’s great, but it doesn’t inform her about love in general.  She seems to be one of those “understanding and wise” people who is nothing of the sort.  (Lots of that type in the circles I used to frequent before I got into skepticism!)

“They’ll fancy themselves to be intellectual woodchippers (to borrow Myers’ analogy), and you’ll feel like you’re trapped in some macabre version of Who’s on First…And that’s when you see that people simply cannot reason their way into faith.”

## A major flaw with too much apologetic is that it is based on the assumption that “people [can] reason their way into faith”. So people point to the continuity of the Church, or to a list of the Popes, or to the extent of the Church, or to its works - as if these proved anything ! None of these means anything whatever - they are totally & utterly useless, because they have absolutely nothing to do with God of Christ or faith in Christ. The Japanese Empire is older than the Church; so is Judaism; & so is Hinduism. Others than Catholics have great achievements to point to. In short, none of these arguments is as strong as those making them appear to imagine. The approach is far too often of this materialistic, theology-free kind. And it is far too often defensive, & over-flowing with self-justification. As for the Church being a mystery or a sacrament, forget it.

The mistake made is that which treats the Bible as self-evidently true, as so obviously the Word of God that people will be converted by reading it. That is to treat reading it as a form of magic - which is a superstition. The notion that one cannot but become Catholic if one os well-informed out about the CC, is the same sort of superstition. And as for faith being a divine gift - that is in practice denied: Catholicism is reduced to a conundrum which people avoid, not because of the faults of the Church (none are admitted to exist, unless with the caution that those guilty of them are not true Catholics), but because they are too thick to see that the CC is the only True Church: that faith is needed to see this, is ignored.

Yet people think that apologists should not be required to have a solid background, and preferably some kind of licence, in theology :(

mk says:

“Why, you use the method of reason, of course!  You look at each one of those little fishies, check if the eyes are clear, if there’s a fishy smell, if the scales are pulling away from the skin…was it frozen or is it fresh?  Goodness, there are dozens of ways to discern which fish to buy.”

That smells fishily like empiricism, the failure of which, when it comes to god, is no argument at all, according to you.  So, no, precious, you need to offer me a different method of sorting “fish” beyond the one you’ve already denied me.

“BUT, there is only one who made an appearance.  And that this “Man” lived can be verified outside of religious sources.”

Even were there a case to be made for a historical Jesus, that a man of such a description existed proves nothing of god.  Rather, Jesus comes off as a fellow who borrowed, or had borrowed for him, the mythology of the other sacrificed-and-resurrected sons of god.  As for the rest, there are things unique to all religions (though, little of what you would claim for yours is actually unique to it, including the whole sacrificed son of god bit); if what sets your religion apart is meant to be compelling by merit of being unique, then I must find what sets other religions apart compelling as well.  Also, maybe “turn the other cheek” was radical for its time, but the Sikh religion advocated, as a core tenet, equality for women (as well as for all people in the world) back in the 16th century (or perhaps earlier).  In this, it was well ahead of its time (a time the Catholic church has yet to catch up to).  Should this make me open to the reality of the one true Sikh god?  As for Lewis, there’s plenty wrong with the Trilemma, and you can find smart critiques all over the web, but I’ll just bring up one criticism of my own: Lewis leaves out the option (among many others) that other people lied about Jesus.

“Why believe in a flawed God?”

Why not believe in a flawed god?  You might have a personal preference for one without flaws, but it’s no sort of argument against flawed gods to say you’d rather your god was better than you.  Anyway, I would heartily agree that matters of taste are excellent criteria for choosing fish.  But that’s fish.  When it comes to truth, one needs something more.  I will say that your religion, both in many (but not all) of its tenets and the way its practiced, contain quite a few horrible elements (such as original sin).  Your fish stinks.  However, I wouldn’t ever let my low opinion of Christianity/Catholicism keep me from accepting it as true; I don’t accept it’s true because it fails to pass any tests of empiricism.  But hey, that’s no argument at all, according to you.  Not that, from what I’ve seen, you know much about arguments.  Reason, for you, seems to be tied quite inextricably to casting your own personal preferences as universal.  How very silly.

So how does someone go about accepting love? Again, think about what we know from the world of relationships: You look at the data to see if there’s good reason to believe that the other party loves you, but then, in order to go any further, it takes vulnerability and humility. By humility I don’t mean low self-esteem, but that softening of disposition when the wellbeing of others becomes more important than appearing smart, when you care more about being gentle than being right. Only then, when your heart is open, will you experience love. And so it is with God.

## Very well said :) - especially this: “...but then, in order to go any further, it takes vulnerability and humility”.

Some people just refuse to accept reality and think that Hitler wasn’t part of the catholic cult.
So here’s some more facts for you to digest:
Deputy Fuhrer and close friend Rudolph Hess said this of Hitler: “I know Herr Hitler very well personally and am quite close to him. He has an unusually honourable character, full of profound kindness, is religious, a good Catholic.”

On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany” and added with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.”

Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signed the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933.  The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world.

Hitler Oath:
“I swear by God,
this holy oath,
to the Führer of the German Reich and people.
Adolf Hitler…”

It bothers me when atheists suggest that a person who is now religious but was once an atheist was “never really an atheist.” This does nothing to further the discussion, it’s just a baseless assumption. I am an atheist, but I was once a Christian. Does the fact that I’ve renounced my former faith mean that I was never a “real” Christian? Of course not! I was a true believer up until I was about 15. But the moment the thought came to me that maybe God doesn’t really exist, the world suddenly made much more sense. Now, I can no longer really see the world through the eyes of a believer. I try not to be a jerk on this point but I do find it difficult when someone is arguing, essentially that God created the universe and everything in it, including cancer, malaria, HIV, syphilis, not to mention earthquakes, tidal waves, and wild fires. I’ve heard the argument that suffering is caused by free will. And I can certainly see that some of the horrible tragedies on Earth are caused by humans of their own free will. But that does not excuse God HIS atrocities. He may not be the God of rape and murder, but he is still the God of cancer, the God of tsunamis, the God of suffering. For this, I cannot forgive him.

You go, Jen. Thanks for having such a thick skin to the negative commenters. You are right, you can’t use reason alone. To be trite: that’s why it’s called faith.

Jen, I thank God that you have the intelligence, creativity, faith, and experience to write such a solid piece.  This does remind me when I would stay up late on the old Prodigy Athiest bulletin board trying to convince some folks.  Humility and vulnerability do seem to follow being knocked off your intellectual high horse by love.  It is amazing how open a person touched by love can be to hear and LISTEN to arguments for the first time when there is no arguing with the movement in their soul that they can not rationally explain away back to some lightning hitting some organic soup.

@Bryant Lister: A man may believe himself to be an orange. He may wear orange clothing, spend his time amongst the orange trees, talk about having grown up hanging from a branch, and yet not be an orange.

Hitler was not a good Catholic. He did not attend Mass even one time after leaving his mother’s home. Catholics are obligated to attend mass on every Sunday and on Holy Days of Obligation. He did not go to confession once per year, another requirement for Catholics to remain in good standing. Had he have gone to confession, I am absolutely certain a priest would have set him straight on the bit about killing off the Jews being God’s will, since nowhere in the Bible is that to be found and no Pope in the entire history of the Catholic Church has ever released a document encouraging or condoning such behavior.

Good Catholics obey the teachings of the Magisterium. Good Catholics attend Mass as often as they are physically capable of being there. Good Catholics belief that all life is sacred and worth protecting. Good Catholics remember that Jesus was a Jew, as was his mother, father, and all 12 of the Apostles. Good Catholics do not engage in mass murder and call it God’s will.

I can’t decide if you’re genuinely this ignorant about what it is to be Catholic or are simply being a troll.

Hitler said he would deal with the Christians after the war. He called the pope a “half-jew” and bemoaned the meekness inherant in Christianity. Can any atheist provide one bit of evidence that any of the top Nazi’s attended regular religious service? Of course not. The children of the SS were expressly forbidden from receving baptism. THAT IS A FACT! Very Christian eh? Of course Hitler used generic terms such as “god” and Lord” to court popularluty, but privately he was opposed to Christianity while Bormann was a complete atheist.

“You will know a tree by its fruit.”
The atheists here have been shown up for the closed minded BULLIES they are. People like PZ Myers are so caught up in their own arrogance, they believe their supposed intellectual superiority gives them the right to blast and insult anyone who dare cross their path.
We should pray for them.
As Peter Kreeft said, God didnt say “Blessed ae the clever of mind, for they shall see God, he said Blessed are the PURE OF HEART for they shall see God”. Amen

@Adam K: You can imagine what it’s like to run a race, but until you’ve run one you don’t KNOW what it’s like. That’s the difference between empathy and knowledge. The man who is missing a hand KNOWS what it’s like to be without a limb. He KNOWS how hard it is to do even the smallest of tasks that other people take for granted every day. He KNOWS about phantom pains, about the looks that people throw his way when they notice the hand that he’s missing. I can empathize with the homeless person when I’m warm and comfortable - but until I’ve lived it I don’t KNOW what it’s like. Do you understand the difference? The mother who buries her child KNOWS what it is to grieve the loss of a child, and can comfort another parent in a way that someone who hasn’t been on that journey cannot. It’s the reason we form support groups of people who have been through the same kind of situation.

I apologize if I was in error about your reasons for rejecting Christianity. I made the statements I made because you seem to focus so much of your attention on suffering, as if that were proof that God - at least a God who loves His creation - didn’t exist. Being as I once rejected God for the same reason, it made sense to me. If that isn’t your problem, then might I ask what is?

Here’s some food for thought: As an atheist, who holds you accountable for how you live your life? Who keeps you honest about the good you are doing - or not doing? Who prevents you from rationalizing away the things you do that aren’t good or healthy? Who defines right or wrong for you?

The reason that the “five catholic teachings that make sense to atheists” do not, in fact, make sense to atheists is the same as the reason that belief in god doesn’t make sense to atheists. There is no evidence for it. Even *if* i were willing to accept for the sake of argument, that god exists, i would still want evidence for any particular belief about that god.

Brynt Lister, You are very silent about the Murderous campaign of the Atheist Lenin and his henchman Trotsky, the murder of Millions of Christains, the closing of their Churches, and in their place the Museums of Atheism
You are becoming amusing when you quote Hitler speaking to Hesse, where did you get this piece of imformation, and can you give evidence where Hitler attended Mass each Sunday

Fellow atheist brothers and sisters of the human race,

I have had much fun conversing you with in my life. A very good friend of mine in college was a well-read dogmatic atheist from Germany. The argument, “God is non-sensical, therefore God does not exist” is an argument that presupposes the non-existence of metaphysics. It is an assumption grounded in materialism, of which is a better debate—first—than the God debate. So, let’s not argue about God let’s debate the possibility of metaphysics.

I have much respect for slow, methodical thinkers. I don’t respect rash, knee jerk, “quipers” who think that name calling proves anything—or that “show me proof” in a combox makes sense (okay, we’ll email you some and clear that up…). That is not scientific but rather a kind of fundamentalism that I find repugnant within any intellectual tradition. If we are to assume that we all shall follow a course informed by science (knowledge), then we should mark our conversation by our tedious confrontation with each other’s arguments and not through a quick dismissal that assumes what it already believes (begging the question). That, I’m afraid, doesn’t happen in comboxes but rather to opening one self to their interlocutor’s arguments in an intellectually dispassionate way, thinking within their paradigm, etc. I apologize if some theists have begged you to first assume that God exists, but I think the better question—that I would hope you would inquire—is the possibility of metaphysics, and what—in that domain—is so entailed.

Let’s keep thinking!

A.Noyd,

You accuse me of not being able to argue.  Let’s look at the facts.  Your question was NOT how can you empirically prove that there is a God, BUT, if I accept that there IS a God, why should I accept yours.  Then you blast my argument because I did not empirically prove that there is a God.  How unreasonable of you!

Now let’s look at your counterarguments, brilliant as you seem to think they are (hey, the adoring audience of one is better than none, right?  Even if that one is you yourself?)

First you say that I didn’t prove it empirically.  Yet, you never asked for empirical proof.  You asked why you should believe in the Christian “God”.  I gave you REASONS.  For some reason, a man who perceives himself as the most intelligent man alive, cannot distinguish between empiricism and reason. 

Second, you say:  Rather, Jesus comes off as a fellow who borrowed, or had borrowed for him, the mythology of the other sacrificed-and-resurrected sons of god.  So am I to assume that you go with the “Jesus was a good but deluded man”?  The evidence says no.  People who are deluded about one thing are often deluded about others.  And those who are deluded are usually alone in their delusion.  Even in the rare instances (Manson, Koresh) where followers are deluded enough to die for their leader, the delusion eventually wears off.  Not too many Manson followers today.  In fifty years there will be none.  This means that billions of people today are as deluded as they were 2,000 years ago (with no signs of waning) and the leader isn’t even alive anymore.  Please show me where that has happened before or since.

As for the uniqueness…yes, of course other religions are unique.  The criteria is not THAT Christianity is unique, but what makes it unique.  Other Gods have BEEN sacrificed, but what other God has been both sacrifice and sacrificer FOR US?  There is the rub. 

Next, why wouldn’t I want a flawed God?  Why, what would be the point?  Perhaps you first need to define God for me.  If God does not mean the greatest thing that man can conceive, then why is it “God”.  The gods that you speak of have small “g’s” for a reason.  The one true God is called such precisely because of His perfection.  A thing cannot be greater than it’s cause.  If God is no greater than His creation, then by definition He cannot be God.  He is simply “part” of everything else.

As for my fish stinking…lol…IF God is real, then I hardly think it would be up to us to dictate how He should run things.  Either He IS God, or He is not.  What you are saying is that YOU are God and therefore the “God” that YOU would create would be different.  Great logic IF God was something that we created.  Since it’s the other way around, He makes the rules.  We abide by them.  If original sin bugs you (and it should) then that sucks for you.  But you don’t throw out reality because you don’t like the way it is.  This is the problem with you guys.  In the Catholic Faith there is Truth.  When we don’t like the Truth we humble ourselves and realize that WE must change to adapt to that Truth.  You on the other hand, think that if the Truth is unpalatable, you simply change the Truth. 

As for requiring empirical proof and nothing else…can you prove to me empirically why that is so?

And finally…asking for empirical proof to prove metaphysical realities is like asking me to explain how a car engine works using sheet music.  There is the physical world, and empirical proofs work there.  There is the metaphysical world, and there, empirical proof is useless.  This is the prison that Jennifer is speaking about.  You are using the wrong tools for the job at hand.  You cannot prove that Love exists using empirical methods.  Nor can you prove that honor, beauty, Truth, happiness, loyalty, honesty, sweet, friendship, thought or hope exist using empirical methods.  These things EXIST, are part of reality.  But they do not belong to the physical world.  Therefore empirical methods are useless.  You might be able to measure some of their physical manifestations (blushing, heart rate) but you cannot measure the “things themselves” empirically.

Which leaves with 2 choices…admitting that there is a metaphysical world (adapting yourself to the Truth) or denying that they are real, but are merely physical in nature (changing the Truth to fit your beliefs). 

In other words, if our fish stinks, perhaps the fault lies with your olfactory sense, and not the fish.  You should get that checked out.

letskeepthinking,

I apologize if some theists have begged you to first assume that God exists, but I think the better question—that I would hope you would inquire—is the possibility of metaphysics, and what—in that domain—is so entailed.

AMEN!

“Love is non material.  Truth is non material.  Mathematics is non material.  Thought is non material.  Honor is non material.  Warmth is non material.  Happiness is non material.  Pleasure is non material.  Desire is non material.”

I’m sooo impressed with your list of things that human non-material brains are capable of defining and understanding.  Wait.  Humans brains are material, not non-material.  I noticed that you failed to list “a belief in a god” as one of the countless non-material concepts that a human brain is capable of thinking about.

Your non-material thoughts “exist” in a very material human brain.  So there seem to be conflicting definitions for the word “exist”.

“Reality” does include the thoughts of a human brain of course.  But those thoughts really are very material - electrons and chemicals swirling around in your gray matter.  So your attempt to label thoughts as non-material fails.

Bandy, I could care less if you consider Hitler was a ‘good catholic’ cult member.  To claim that Hitler was not actually a catholic cult member because you don’t consider him a ‘good catholic’ cult member is just a reflection of your own ignorance.  The point was that he was a catholic cult member; good, bad makes no difference to the point.  He was not an atheist, just as Stalin and Mao were not atheists.  Lenin was an atheist, Lenin did commit atrocities, I never claimed otherwise.  The point I was making is that the majority of the atrocities in human history were not committed by atheists, as some have tried to claim. 

It is hilarious that people who believe in the ridiculous cult fairy tales of the various religions require such exacting evidence to acknowledge that Hitler was a catholic cult member.  Your standards of proof apply to facts you don’t like, but you hypocritically ignore those standards when it comes to your delusional belief in an imaginary sky daddy.  Clinging to the cult you were indoctrinated into as a child is the height of ignorance and immaturity.

Mike,

“Reality” does include the thoughts of a human brain of course.  But those thoughts really are very material - electrons and chemicals swirling around in your gray matter.  So your attempt to label thoughts as non-material fails.

No, actually, your understanding of “material” is what fails.  Showing me the effects of thought are not the same as showing me thought.  Thoughts are not material.  There is a physical mechanism that takes place, sure, but can you “show” me a thought?  Can you smell a thought?  Can you hear a thought if it is not spoken?  Can you see a thought if it is not written?  Arguing that love, honor, Truth etc are material things makes you sound deluded.  If you cannot even make the elementary distinction between material and immaterial, I fail to grasp how you expect me to take you seriously. 

And I noticed that you failed to give me empirical proof that only empirical proof is real.

As Dumbledore said to Harry when he asked if what he was seeing was real or in his head “Of course it’s in your head.  Does that mean it isn’t real?”

What you fail to understand is that there is a difference between the mind and the brain.  One belongs to the physical world, and one to the metaphysical world.  Now you might call me crazy for accepting the metaphysical world, but what shall I call someone like you, who with all the evidence of metaphysical realities in front of him, still insists on denying one half of the REAL world?  Calling you blind would be to give you the benefit of the doubt.  You are free of course, to live in your little material box…but the rest of us are busy enjoying ALL of reality. 

By the way, your nasty tone, used to express your non material notion that the world consists of only the material, is yet another non material proof that materialism is a form of insanity.  Tone itself is non material, and if you want people to respect you and thus respect atheism, you should work a little harder at not sounding so thoroughly pompous and condescending.  Civility, yet another non material reality, goes a long way in furthering a conversation.

He was not an atheist, just as Stalin and Mao were not atheists.

Do you just make stuff up???

Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[85]
Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions, St Martin’s Press, New York (1988) p. 89

The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism,[8]  in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism and stay away from churches; this attitude was especially militant under Joseph Stalin.[9][10][11] The Soviet Union attempted to suppress religion over wide areas of its influence, including places like central Asia.[12] The Socialist People’s Republic of Albania under Enver Hoxha went so far as to officially ban the practice of every religion.[13]# ^ Greeley (2003).
# ^ Pospielovsky (1998):257.
# ^ Miner (2003):70.
# ^ Davies (1996):962.
# ^ Pipes (1989):55.
# ^ Elsie (2000):18.

Originally more tolerant of religion, after the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba began arresting many believers and shutting down religious schools, its prisons since the 1960s being filled with clergy.[67] Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has amended its statutes to declare itself a “secular state” rather than atheistic.

North Korea’s government exercises virtual total control over society and imposes state sanctioned atheism, and the cult of personality of Kim Jung Il and Kim Il Sung have been described as a political religion.[72] Although the North Korean constitution states that freedom of religion is permitted,[73]  free religious activities no longer exist in North Korea as the government sponsors religious groups only to create an illusion of religious freedom.[74][75] # ^ DPRK’s Socialist Constitution (Full Text)
# ^ Essential Background: Overview of human rights issues in Human Rights in North Korea (DPRK: The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (Human Rights Watch, 8-7-2004)
# ^ CIA - The World Factbook

Methinks this post title is a misnomer as from reading your comments it is obvious that there IS no reasoning with an atheist.  And we wear tinfoil hats?  lolololololol

Perhaps you could site some sources which will empirically prove that Atheism is not responsible for most of the wars and death in the world?  Or something that proves empirically that Stalin, Mao, Castro etal were NOT atheists?  I mean of course, something other than a blog where yet another reality denier opines from his own imaginings?  You know, something with authority?

</B>The People’s Republic of China was established in 1949 and since then the government has been officially atheist.[43][44] For much of its early history maintained a hostile attitude toward religion which was seen as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism. Houses of worship, including temples, mosques, and churches, were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use.</B> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Clinging to the cult you were indoctrinated into as a child is the height of ignorance and immaturity.

Well, given that you are an expert on both ignorance and immaturity, I guess I’ll take your word for it…!  BTW, casting aspersions is always a good argument.  Gets ‘em every time.  With reasoning like that who needs religion!

Both teams firmly entrenched.
I wonder, does anyone struggle with their faith/lack of faith among the commenters.  The rigidity and apparent whole-hearted belief/non-belief seems forced.  Maybe evan a waste of time…..I doubt that anyone will be won over here…........tit for tat, emotional snarking on both sides gets old after a few hundred posts.

A few years back I read a book about the scientific study of the image of Guadalupe….the image’s eyes, in particular.  Maybe the authors were frauds.  I don’t know.  It strengthened my faith…...which I (I may be alone here) struggle with.

Doubt that very many will make it this far on the comments.  If you made it here

(I skipped) ;  congrats!

Brian,

I think everyone struggles with Faith.  I know I have days where I think “Am I crazy”?  But then I remember that I have a relationship with a real live person, and that it is reciprocal.  Usually when I “doubt” it is because I am looking at my Faith as an intellectual pursuit…it is only when I remember that I believe in a “WHO” not an “IDEOLOGY” that I come to my senses. 

How many times has He been there for me?  I can hear His voice.  I can see His works.  The little things He sends my way…His sense of humor…His tenderness…and I think, Good Heavens, denying He exists would be like denying my husband exists!  Those moments of insanity and doubt pass quickly, and peace returns.  Ceasing to believe would be like ceasing to breathe!  As Peter said “Where else would I go?”

I can explain love.Estrogen/testosterone, then adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin, then a touch of oxycotin and vasopressin.

And that took only seconds to google.

Bertrand Russell once said that one can prove ABSOLUTELY anything with faulty premises. Can you prove the Catholic Church? Sure, but it all rests on the shaky foundation of gods. Prove there’s a god, and then we can talk.

Chesterton’s assertion that creative types are somehow more stable is absurd on its face, and I’m rather shocked to see it coming from such a well-educated person.

Shakespeare:
“The lunatic, the lover and the poet
Are of imagination all compact”

Keats, Dylan Thomas, Lord Byron, Arthur Rimbaud, the 27 Club (Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, now Amy Winehouse), Vincent Van Gogh…the list goes on and on. These were not well-adjusted people.

Further, if you really think that mathematics does not require imagination, talk to some mathematicians. The process varies by person, but it’s creative work.

Those are poor starting points for your argument.

Eve wrote: “I can explain love.Estrogen/testosterone, then adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin, then a touch of oxycotin and vasopressin.”  Unfortunately you just described eros.  If indeed your mother loves you as you describe, you have my sympathy.  To quote IBM: THINK!

Brynt Lister, So you are telling us that Stalin was not An Atheist, well then if he was not an Atheist what was he,a Catholic Priest ? and Mao was not an Atheist what was he A nun? Strange because those two people were heads of the most oppresive regimes ever known on this earth, and they both were Atheist Regimes, and you might explain that. You seem not to be able to give any answer about Poland after World War 11,where they were taken over by a Puppet Atheist Regime ruled by Moscow which oppressed this mostly Catholic country. You also fail to answer the question is where Hitler attended Catholic Mass each Sunday and you seem to have no answer why This “great Catholic murdered 3,000,000 fellow Catholics and why he Married Eva Braun in a Civil Ceremony, all you can do is use the usual insults of “Fairy Tales and Sky Daddies for you have no arguments, but then that is your problem not mine

Wow, a lot of well made points on both behalfs. A lot of points by some on both sides completely missed said points made by the posts that they are responding to. I eventually just skipped the last quater of post as I started to get a headache. Debates over beliefs generally turn to hostilities, especially on the internet when inflection can’t be realized.

I’ve seen a few times criticizing Atheists for not having an open mind to the existence of god. That is what the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic. An Agnostic is not sure, an Atheist is.

As an Atheist, I am very live and let live. I do believe that life’s mysteries can and will be answered by science. Most importantly I believe in adaptation in thought and belief.

There isn’t a book that can explain why Atheists become Atheists, most of us just do. For me, it was an unwavering curiosity. I was a Christian when I was younger. Christianity was not for me, it was something I wasn’t. I can’t believe or feel something because a book tells me so. Damn curiosity again.

As for why I’m here, if I’m to better understand what I believe, I have to understand the thoughts of other’s beliefs and why they believe.

Not all Atheists are agressive. Frustration does get the better of us sometimes though. Most of the time we are met by hostility for questioning the mindset of the majority.

StevenP,

“I can explain love.Estrogen/testosterone, then adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin, then a touch of oxycotin and vasopressin.”  Unfortunately you just described eros.  If indeed your mother loves you as you describe, you have my sympathy.  To quote IBM: THINK!

lol…not only that, but she explained the physical responses to eros, not eros itself.  Couldn’t exactly bottle those and sell it as “Love”.  What these guys fail to realize is that “Love” comes first, then the responses.  Lust is a different story.  But then, that is just another example of material vs metaphysical.  Lust vs Love/Brain vs Mind It’s not like by acknowledging the metaphysical we are denying the physical.  We embrace ALL of reality.  Unlike those who deny half of it.

Where do I start? It’s ironic to see a believer claim that she is on the side of reason, but it’s more than ironic. It’s laughable. Then when she claims that god is love we move from unreasonable to delusional. Jennifer, have you ever actually READ the old testament? When god commanded his people to commit genocide, are you saying you actually see LOVE in that? When Jepthah had to sacrifice his daughter to god, you see LOVE in that? When god allegedly destroyed cities, you see LOVE in that? Here’s the bottom line: 1) the only real reason you have to believe in god is “faith” 2) christians reject the “faith” of other believers past and present from the ancient mesopotamians and aztecs to modern day hindus 3) there is nothing that actually distinguishes christianity other than your own “faith” 4) “faith” as a mechanism for accepting the truth of revealed knowledge is flawed 5) there is nothing about the world or universe that compels a belief in the supernatural 6) notwithstanding observations one through five, your god is a monster (I find that most catholics have never actually bothered to read the bible for themselves) 7) the sad truth is that your belief is the result of an evolving concept of god that began with a 6000 year old tribe of bronze age nomads who thought the earth was flat and believed that women were property. No, Jennifer, there is nothing whatsoever about your world view that is even remotely relevant to the modern world.

Your essay reminds me of a recent article by Harry Binswanger PhD (a member of the Ayn Rand Institute Board of Directors, and teaches philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center) who said:

‘To live, man must use his mind; he must think.  All human values—from money to art to love—are based on and require unbroken commitment to rationality.  This is why, in the Objectivist ethics, rationality is the primary virtue.’

(http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_ayn_rand_vs_jesus_christ_campaign.html)

My response is: Okay, money yes, but art and love?!  What a joke!  To take this position is not rational and is non-empirical in that it contradicts experience and the actual lived reality of real human beings.

Owen,

If a man came into my home and threatened to rape and murder my daughter, and I clubbed him to death with a frying pan, would you say that I did it out of love for my daughter?  What if her brother was the one attempting to rape and murder her.  Could I still say that I loved the son, but had to kill him to protect my daughter whom I also loved?

Actually love is an emotion, an abstract one at that.

Eros is an emotional response to the physical world.  It is a reaction to specific stimuli.  Insisting that it has physical properties is being just a bit disingenuous.

“What these guys fail to realize is that “Love” comes first, then the responses”.

LOL, got things a little reversed there.  I guess if you go around selling love bottled up in a book that could happen though.

These kinds of arguments always go the same way. Snarkiness/self-righteousness (or at least the accusations of)and a pissing contest of atrocities.

Athiest says: “pedophile priests!!!”
Catholic says: “Communists!!!”
Everybody altogether says: “NAZIS!!!”

It’s always annoying when Godwin gets violated. I’ve yet to see anything conclusive regarding Hitler’s religion (or lack thereof)however I would guess that we could all agree that Hitler was a crazy nut and a demagogue whose purpose was crazy-ass racialism that existed outside of his thoughts on God. From what I can tell, Hitler had few consistent thoughts on anything. He may very well have been the world’s most devout Catholic-Athiest (Cathiest?). Anything is possible when you’re that nutty. At least we can all agree that Nazis suck, right?

Pedo-Priests? One does not need to be an expert in Catholic theology to realize that these priests are not abusing children in furtherance of their Catholic faith. The cover-up by the church, on the other hand, is fiendish and should raise grave questions regarding the “Vicar of Christ” (and more). I would hope that Catholics would agree. At least we can all agree that pedophiles are scum, right?

Commies? Somebody else can look up the numbers, but of the millions of people killed, most were not priests. Stalinist purges etc. were part of a political agenda, not a religious one. However I do not doubt that the killing of priests and closing of churches was due to the Athiest agenda within Communism. Though not an act I would expect to be supported by Athiests (closing of churches maybe). At least we can all agree that Commies suck, right?

There are plenty more we could all toss into the fray, those were just the most obvious examples. As an Atheist I feel no more a connection to Commies than I imagine the average Catholic feels toward priests who rape children. One of the great challenges of the 20th century was the defeat of Communism by the west. Our society depended on it. The challenge for the Catholic Church in this century is to clean house, sooner rather than later. I believe your church’s survival depends on it.

Regarding the OP? I thought it somewhat naive, but otherwise not offensive or insulting as many seem to. At least it was well intended. Many of the subsequent posts bored me though, regarding the worth of empirical evidence, God’s love, etc. Yawn. ‘Round and ‘round we go. Pointless.

My final thoughts (well, we’ll see): Believers are as unlikely to be swayed by repeated requests to “prove it” as Atheists are to be swayed by “open your heart to God’s love” (or whatever), and we should be able to discuss our opposing viewpoints without either. On the rare occasion when I get to sit down with a believer and discuss this we’ve always been able to avoid such arguments, and we do not try to convert each other. People who try to shove God down my throat in conversation get the same treatment as the Mormons/JW’s that come to my door with the “good news”. They only come once, I assure you. I can’t imagine being treated (nor deserving to be treated) any different if I were to try to crack another person’s faith.
That’s about it. Just a few musings I hope didn’t come off as snarky/self-righteous.

Yeah, Right,

No.  I got them exactly right.  If you are speaking of Eros, and I am not, then yes, the feelings often come first.  But when you “love” someone, the responses come second.  The physical attraction and physical responses that come with it, are not love.  They may be the initial thing that sets of the relationship which will grow to BECOME love, but they are not Love and the physical responses to LOVE come after you have LOVED.  Love is an action word.  It is something you do, not something you feel.

Bittersteel,

Excellent comments!

Yes, as a Catholic I am mortified by the cover up done by our hierarchy.
I agree the demand for empirical proofs is ridiculous given the nature of the topic.
I only slightly agree that “opening your heart” is not a way to conversion.  Perhaps it would be better to say “Opening your mind to the possibility” would be better.  To dismiss it out of hand shuts the door more tightly than I am able to pry open.  But many a conversion has been had by the opening of one’s heart.  You’re right tho, I doubt this would work with an atheist.
Finally, that was my point about Hitler all along.  Doesn’t matter what he was, what he DID was not in the name of any “religion”, Catholic or otherwise.  It was not beause of his religious convictions, but rather because, as you so eloquently put it, he sucks.

Nope,

Love is an emotion that results from specific stimuli.  That simple.

“But when you “love” someone, the responses come second.”

Love IS the emotional response to specific stimuli.

“They may be the initial thing that sets of the relationship which will grow to BECOME love, but they are not Love and the physical responses to LOVE come after you have LOVED”

You are now talking in circles.

Yeah, Right,

Actually love is an emotion, an abstract one at that.

I’m sorry, did you say abstract?  As in non material?  As in not empirically provable?  Hmmmmmmmm….I was told that NOTHING exists which is not empirically provable or material…

“I’m sorry, did you say abstract?  As in non material?  As in not empirically provable?”

Yep, you just jumped the shark.  It isn’t a very high bar to prove an emotion exists.

What if - now bear with me - what if instead of love, we talked about orgasms. Just sayin’ and just for fun, try explaining an orgasm to someone who has never had one. You can use all the charts and diagrams and biology textbooks, MRI’s, puppets, and pornography there is, and it won’t come close to the awesome reality. To understand an orgasm, you have to have one. Now then. A Believer has an orgasm (religious experience etc)and tries to explain it to an Athiest. That won’t work, since Atheists have their own kinds of orgasms. The Atheist claims that it isn’t a real orgasm since there is no proof of your partner (God, and I swear I’m not trying to be offensive). Therefore the Believer is just masturbating. The Atheist has orgasms (scientific endeavor, spirit of inquiry, whatever)and the Believer claims that they can’t be real orgasms since the only partner for such is God. Therefore the Atheist is just masturbating. See, I told you this would be fun! So far, most of this thread is like a bunch of teenagers hanging around bragging about the sex they’re having, when in reality we’re all just a bunch of wankers. All of us.

Nothin’ but love though!

Sometimes people use the word “atheist” to refer to anybody who doesn’t believe in god, but more often they use it to refer to members of particular social groups whose ideology includes disbelief. In this second, sociological sense of the word, the atheists at P.Z. Myers place don’t have a huge heck of a lot in common with Communists. In fact, the one issue of atheism aside, Christianity and Marxism have many more similarities than Marxism has with the positivist versions of atheism retailed on Pharyngula. What we have here is what logicians call the fallacy of the excluded middle: All cats are carnivores, all dogs are carnivores, therefore all cats are dogs.

Meanwhile, it is a familiar bit of snark among intellectual historians that Marxism is the fourth Abrahamic religion since its roots in prophetic social criticism are as clear in its case as they are in Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. In fact, I would argue that Marxism is especially close to Christianity in view of not their messianic eschatologies but because both deify man, albeit in different ways. Marx didn’t write a book entitled Cur Deus Homo like St. Anselm, but he sure could have. One other similarity: Christianity and classical Marxism are failed systems, but that doesn’t mean that individual Christian and Marxist thinkers have become valueless.

I apologize for the comment, whose relevance violates the oldest of all internet traditions and also offends by introducing a halfway new idea into this cliche fest.

Love IS the emotional response to specific stimuli.

If that’s what you choose to believe. 

We believe that love is not a feeling although you can feel it.  It is a thing in itself and it is an act of the will.  I have been married to the same man for 32 years.  I love him more today than I did when we got married.  But I can guarantee you that there have been plenty ‘O times when I wasn’t “feelin’” it.  The feelings associated with love are just that…feelings.  Which is to say they are not identical with the actual thing.  Sometimes the feelings cause an attraction, and sometimes the act of loving in itself causes feelings…but they are two different things.  What you are describing is attraction or infatuation…sensations.  But not Love.

Yep, you just jumped the shark.  It isn’t a very high bar to prove an emotion exists.

I’d say it was pretty hard to prove an emotion exists.  All you can prove is that chemical changes have occurred in the body.  Can’t prove the person is or isn’t “feeling” it.  Emotions are subjects.  You can measure the chemicals, but you can’t measure the emotions.  Regardless, as you said they are abstract, which means immaterial, which means you can’t prove them empirically…yet I was told that anything immaterial does not exist.

Bittersteel,

I think a better analogy is platos shadows on the cave walls.  The guy who leaves experiences something and comes back to convince the others that what they are seeing is just a shadow of what really is.  Tries to convince them that he has seen and experienced a whole different reality and that they too can experience it if they will only trust him and leave the cave.  Which of course they do not do…an open heart wouldn’t convince them but if just one of them opened their mind to the “Possibility”...ahhhhh…that would have made all of the difference.  Instead they call the guy nuts, pointing to the shadows on the wall and saying “That is what we can see, and that is all there is”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

On the other hand, even believers are not privy to the totality of reality.  We won’t know the “real story” til after our physical death, but because our minds and hearts are open, we have glimpses of that reality that you do not.  It’s perfectly logical, given that, that you think we’re crazy.  We see and experience things that you don’t.  Why should you believe us?

Jim Harrison,

Bishop Sheen says that the East (Communism) is the cross without the Christ, and that the West is Christ without the cross.  In Communism you make all of the sacrifices without any of the love.  In the west we want all of the benefits of the love and mercy, but no one wants to sacrifice.  Neither one of these is Christianity. 

And I beg to differ that Christianity has failed.  Failed to take over the world and control it maybe but that was never its goal.  Christianity continues to grow.  The ideals of Christianity are the truest democracy ever implemented.  It is in the failings of these implementations that you find it failing.  But the Church has two natures.  It has it’s Human nature and it’s Divine Nature.  The Divine Nature is alive and well.  The Human is also thriving but not so perfectly executed.  What do you want from an organization whose members are fallen, broken and sinners?  That’s the whole point.  The Church is made up of humans, and while we are in the realm of time, we remain flawed.  Hence the Human side of the Church is flawed right along with us.  That doesn’t make it a failure.  If anything, it makes it heroic as it is still standing while by any reasonable examination, it should have fallen apart eons ago.  It will only fail when we give up.  God has not asked us to succeed.  He has asked us to try.  And we’re still here and growing!

OK Yeah Right—prove that love exists.  Prove that you love your mom, your dog, yourself—whatever.  It should be easy, right?

mk: Excellent reference to Plato’s allegory.  Keep up the good work.  Peace be with you.

“I’d say it was pretty hard to prove an emotion exists.”

Nope, not at all.  One can measure not only the bio-chemical reactions but also map those to electrical impulses in the brain.

Love is not a thing, it is an emotion that results from specific stimuli and experiences.  There is nothing metaphysical about it.  One experiences emotion…get it yet?  It is not a tangible thing by it’s very definition, and does not exist outside the human mind.

Yeah, Right:  We are told someone once said “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”  Is your life tangible?

“OK Yeah Right—prove that love exists”.

It’s pretty easy.  Empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments.  We can observe the effects of the emotion called love, we can create specific stimuli and measure graded reactions to it.

One could even use a PET scan to isolate and measure the reactions to stimuli. 

These things can be observed and tested, there is your empirical evidence.

mk

Without starting a pointless argument, let me clarify something. When I say Christianity, indeed theism in general, has failed, I’m not making a judgement about its worldly prospects, which for all I know are rosy from a marketing point of view. I’m simply pointing out that for the most part, theological explanations no longer make the cut for educated people who aren’t under some for of social or political constraint. What most people think is no concern of mine since serious thought is a minority operation.

mk,
I like shadow puppets as much as the next guy, but you’re ruining my fun.

“but can you “show” me a thought?”

Go argue with a neuro-biologist.

“I fail to grasp how you expect me to take you seriously.”

I certainly don’t take you seriously.

“What you fail to understand is that there is a difference between the mind and the brain.”

Your assertion does not make it so.

“Now you might call me crazy for accepting the metaphysical world”

Yes, I certainly might call you that.

“all the evidence of metaphysical realities”

Hilarious nonsense.

“if you want people to respect you”

Why should I have the slightest interest in your “respect”?

“I can hear His voice.”

The book’s title is “The God Delusion”.  You match that title.

“We embrace ALL of reality.  Unlike those who deny half of it.”

Hilarious nonsense.

““Opening your mind to the possibility” would be better.”

Your brains have fallen out.

“We won’t know the “real story” til after our physical death”

There is no evidence that this assertion is true.  So I call hilarious nonsense.

Jim Harrison: In using explanations as a synonym for conclusions as well as using thinking as a synonym for ratiocination you have indeed shown “serious thought is a minority operation.”

mk, you failed to show that Stalin and Mao were atheists.  You only demonstrated that your reading comprehension skills are very poor.

mk says:

“You accuse me of not being able to argue.  Let’s look at the facts.  Your question was NOT how can you empirically prove that there is a God, BUT, if I accept that there IS a God, why should I accept yours.”

No, precious, I accused you, in an oblique way, of not understanding how to argue well.  This is evidenced in your incessant question-begging and how you tie up so much of your argument into your preferences about god.

My question was not at all “if I accept there is a god, why should I accept yours?”; the question is that if I’m not allowed to rely on empiricism to settle the question of whether there is a god, then what system would I use to distinguish false gods from real gods (including the possibility that all gods are false)?  You need to offer some other system because there are plenty of other claims about plenty of other gods out there and just ditching empiricism gives no honest means of deciding amongst them.

“I gave you REASONS.  For some reason, a man who perceives himself as the most intelligent man alive, cannot distinguish between empiricism and reason.”

I do know the difference between reason and empiricism; you have merely mistaken my argument.  Reason (or reasons) alone is no assurance that one’s reasoning can be applied to reality.  One’s premises always need to be established as true before one can say one’s reasoning is sound.  What I am saying is, if not empiricism, what alternative ought we be using to establish the truth of things?  (Also, I am neither a man nor do I perceive myself to be the most intelligent person alive.  You don’t know how I perceive myself and I’ll thank you not to pretend.)

So am I to assume that you go with the “Jesus was a good but deluded man”?

I don’t think he even existed as a man.  But, if a case for that can be made, it doesn’t get you very far; it’s most likely that his life was heavily mythologized using tales borrowed from other religions.  One need not even assume it was him who did so, as the accounts of his life were written decades after his death at the earliest and not even by those who supposedly knew him, and there are numerous discrepancies even in the accounts that weren’t altered or discarded, as many were.  I wouldn’t rule out a mad or lying Jesus, though.  But, again, you can find the rebuttals to the Trilemma all over the place if you’re honestly interested in that.  I don’t think you are, and I’m not going to waste my time on it.

As for dying for false beliefs, you clearly have worked up a wall of fallacies like appealing to popularity and special pleading to blind yourself to the unfortunate reality that people die for false beliefs all the time, both now and throughout history.  Moreover, there are good reasons why members of smaller cults are more prone to losing belief versus those of larger cults.  But, as can be attested merely by the former Christians/Catholics posting in this very thread, people do lose the latter.

“The criteria is not THAT Christianity is unique, but what makes it unique.  Other Gods have BEEN sacrificed, but what other God has been both sacrifice and sacrificer FOR US?  There is the rub.”

You don’t get it.  Why would I find those particular difference either meaningful or attractive?  The whole story behind that sacrifice is off-putting; the concept of sin that supposedly made the sacrifice necessary is ludicrous and cruel, and I see no merit in sacrificing oneself to oneself to forgive anything.  I’d accept it as true if there were evidence for it, sure, but you’re not going to get me to say, “Oh, hey, that’s a right lovely thing Jesus did.  What a swell guy.”  There’s nothing genuinely exceptional in what makes Christianity unique.

“Next, why wouldn’t I want a flawed God?  Why, what would be the point? Perhaps you first need to define God for me.”

I’m not saying it’s wrong for you to want a god that isn’t flawed; I’m saying it’s wrong to assume that everyone wants or should want such a god, or to dismiss them for not wanting that.  I would prefer a god who isn’t perfect because, for one, it would be more consistent in explaining why there is evil and suffering in the world.  (I’m extremely unimpressed with the Catholic “solutions” to this.)  If there’s a perfect god with ultimate power over this world, then allowing evil and suffering is part of his perfection.  As a moral person, I couldn’t help but feel utter disgust at such a god.  (Again, those feelings wouldn’t prevent me from accepting his existence.)  As for definitions, that’s for the theist to provide; I’d be a poor atheist indeed if I tried to define god for theists and/or only disbelieved in the gods I could think up myself!

“As for my fish stinking…lol…IF God is real, then I hardly think it would be up to us to dictate how He should run things.  Either He IS God, or He is not.  What you are saying is that YOU are God and therefore the ‘God’ that YOU would create would be different.”

I’m saying nothing of the sort.  This is another stereotype about atheists that you think I’ve lived up to, but I haven’t. I merely do not think anyone or anything should be immune from criticism, even supposedly perfect beings.  And anyway, if such a perfect being couldn’t lower itself to personally explain in understandable terms why my criticism of it is off base, then it’s not very perfect at all, because the ability and generosity to do so would certainly be qualities of any “greatest being” or whatever I could imagine.

“But you don’t throw out reality because you don’t like the way it is.  This is the problem with you guys. ... You on the other hand, think that if the Truth is unpalatable, you simply change the Truth.”

Oh, darling precious, did you read what I wrote at all?  Immediately after pointing out that your fish stinks, I said: “However, I wouldn’t ever let my low opinion of Christianity/Catholicism keep me from accepting it as true.”  So, apparently, the problem with “us guys” is that precious darlings like you don’t listen to us.  You have no idea of all the things I believe are true that I wish were not.  I would appreciate an apology for your obviously false accusation.

“As for requiring empirical proof and nothing else…can you prove to me empirically why that is so?”

I don’t know what you’re asking.  I’ve been trying to make the point that we rely on empiricism because no one can offer a working alternative, and challenging you to show me that that’s wrong.

“There is the metaphysical world, and there, empirical proof is useless.”

And the evidence for that assertion…what?  You cite the inability to measure things like love or honesty, but that’s simply a category error.  Abstractions aren’t measurable, sure, but there’s also no reason to think they’re “things” with an ontological status outside the mind, or even have any basis at all besides wishful thinking.  For example, there’s the Eastern concept of “qi,” which is something believers in acupuncture and reiki and the like often say requires “other ways of knowing” besides empiricism to understand.  Like “qi,” I accept “god” as an abstraction, the belief in which can influence reality, but that doesn’t exist independent of the human mind.  And of course, in an ultimate sense, abstracts are all physical in nature because the brain is physical and the mind is an emergent property of the brain.  Destroy all brains and you destroy love, justice, qi… and god.  (Note: That is not how I wish things to be, but where all the evidence points.)

The important thing to remember is that asserting things are metaphysical and immune to empiricism is a game anyone can play.  If I was a horrible person (and this is meant to be a provocative example but does not reflect my beliefs at all), I could say, “Black people are inferior in a way that can only be understood metaphysically.  I can’t prove it empirically because their inferiority is just too all-encompassing, but if you haven’t closed yourself off to the possibility, then you can open your heart and experience this truth.”  Disgusting as it is, there’s no reason why that sort of assertion is any less sensible on the face of it than what you’re selling.  And that’s why my standards for accepting such things are so demanding.

So, once again, if I am supposed to use some system besides empiricism to establish the truth of the premises behind the existence of god, you will have to provide that system.

One could even use a PET scan to isolate and measure the reactions to stimuli.

These things can be observed and tested, there is your empirical evidence.

No.  That is empirical evidence that the chemicals exist.  As I pointed out earlier it does not prove that specific emotions exist.  The brain can do all sorts of things and yet the person themselves might not be registering it.  If a person has bi polar for instance, they might be having all sorts of brain activity that is causing “feelings” in their body, but their “mind” might not match those feelings at all.

For instance, they might be very depressed after breaking up with a girlfriend, but their chemicals are out of whack so they actually FEEL happy or manic.  Conversely, their life might be going great, but their chemicals are going haywire and they FEEL depressed. 

The only thing that chemicals in the brain prove are that there are chemicals in the brain.  They don’t really tell you anything.  True, chemical reactions often go hand in hand with emotions, but they are not the same thing.

Jim Harrison,

I’m simply pointing out that for the most part, theological explanations no longer make the cut for educated people

You are respectful and gentlemanly and I will be happy to engage you in discussion anytime.

I think it is false to claim that educated people “know better”.  Some of the smartest people that ever lived were and are believers.  /education have nothing to do with it.  Here’s why.  Science is awesome.  Absolutely awesome.  It answers so many questions, has made all of our lives better and tweaks the imagination in ways that nothing else can.  But it is only one part of the world.  The problem comes in when you start to believe that intelligent people believe that Science is the only thing that matters.  There is an entire other realm which science cannot touch.  It doesn’t even try to.  Why?  Because that is not what it deals with.  A musician doesn’t use a paint brush, a dancer doesn’t use a wrench, a plumber doesn’t use trombone.  Each subject has it’s own toolbox and is meant to express or do the thing it was intended to express or do.  Science deals with the physical world.  It is not equipped to deal with the metaphysical world.  So using scientific methods to prove metaphysical concepts won’t work any more than plunging the toilet with an accordion will.  You prove metaphysics with metaphysical tools, you prove physics with science.  You can’t mix the two.  It’s irrational and unreasonable.  So every time one of you says “prove it empirically” I picture a guy trying to fix his car with a map of the United States and a pair of drumsticks.  It just ain’t gonna happen.

Bittersteel,

:)

Mike McCants,

Your comments were so brilliant that I’m still reeling from the impact.  I can’t even think of any comebacks as you are far too advanced for me. 

Hilarious.

Nonsense.

Bryant Lister,

Wow.  You must have gone to the same school as Mike McCants.  You guys are scary good.

mk, SteveP,

Funny. All this talk of love and all you can think of is to take cheap shots at my mother. Cute. And Steve, what makes you think I’m just talking about lust? Oxycotin is stimulated by breastfeeding. It bonds a mother to her child. Lab experiments show that when oxycotin is blocked, mammals LOSE ATTRACTION to their children and abandon them. You’ve got it completely backwards. Even your CS Lewis said that hormones were an engine through which further bonding can be facilitated (Mere Christianity I believe, and as apologists went he was rather classy. And I liked Narnia)

You say I embrace only half of reality. No. I embrace that of reality that I KNOW is real.

SteveP,

ratiocination

Niiiiiiiice!

Oh, look he can use big words. I’m impressed.

Eve,

Yeah, well right now our side has ratiocination guy while you’ve got hilarious nonsense/you’re brains have fallen out guy.  You do the math.

I never even mentioned your mother.  Neither did StevenP.

You say I embrace only half of reality. No. I embrace that of reality that I KNOW is real.

Exactly! That’s what I just said.  You only embrace half of reality…that which you know is real.  We embrace the other half.  That which is unseen. 

I liked Narnia too.

No one here has argued that hormones/chemicals don’t play a role.  All I have said is that they are not the same thing as the emotion itself, any more than warmth and fire are the same thing even tho they are intimately connected.

Eve wrote: “Lab experiments show that when oxycotin is blocked, mammals LOSE ATTRACTION to their children and abandon them.”  Precisely my point: bonding, in humans, is facilitated biochemically but comes down to an act of will: I might be wrong but will guess your mother did not abandon you nor will you abandon your children when you lose your aided attraction to them.  That is love.

mk, what do you call this?

>If indeed your mother loves you as you describe, you have my sympathy.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/reasoning-with-atheists/#ixzz1TYYXmFQt

And How do you know the unseen isn’t just unreal?

mk,I am willing to bet my life that if someone were to find the right amount and method of transporting hormones to the brain, you CAN make someone fall in love with someone else chemically, and it WOULD be the same thing.

SteveP, “I might be wrong but will guess your mother did not abandon you nor will you abandon your children when you lose your aided attraction to them.  That is love.” Great! None of this god hypothesis is needed, then. Occam’s razor can take care of that.

Eve: Thank you for the response.  May I offer an apology for assuming a tone on your part which, in retrospect, was an invalid assumption?  You are correct that no hypothesis is needed when one knows one is not abandoned.

Define ‘unseen’.  Saying that something is unseen means what exactly?  We don’t directly see many things, like gravity, but we can measure it, see it’s affects on things it comes in ‘contact’ with in a consistent, repeatable and predictable way. 

If you’re speaking of things which can not be measured or it’s affects on other things are not consistent, repeatable, or predictable, then you’re talking about things that don’t actually exist outside of your own mind.  The mind can dream up lots of things but that doesn’t make them real, just figments of your imagination.

Metaphysics is great for a hypothetical philosophical discussion, but fails when attempting to transition that into something that actually exists, especially when that discussion involves cult mythologies and imaginary sky daddies.

Late to the party, but Jessie, way away, made the claim that us atheists lead hopeless and empty lives. Although I’m in a loving relationship (see actual evidence of it daily), our children are happy and well-balanced and know they are loved and cared for, I like my job, and keep myself amused with various pastimes, I didn’t know until now that my life was hopeless and empty. Thanks, Jessie! (Incidentally, that was sarcasm, in case not all your neurons are firing in the right order). You really should stay away from the jug of sefl-righteousness and try for the occasional cup of charity; who knows, if you manage that one day you might get mstaken for an actual Christian.

Eve,

mk,I am willing to bet my life that if someone were to find the right amount and method of transporting hormones to the brain, you CAN make someone fall in love with someone else chemically, and it WOULD be the same thing.

For how long?  Is that love?  Or is that attraction?  Would you have to keep pumping those chemicals into the person forever?  If not, what would happen if they wore off.

I am willing to bet my life on something that has not yet been proven also.

“No.  That is empirical evidence that the chemicals exist.”

Nope, a PET scan measures the *reaction* to stimuli in the brain.  Get it yet?  Love is a emotional reaction.  It is most definitely not some *thing* floating in the aether.

“As I pointed out earlier it does not prove that specific emotions exist.” 

Ok, now we have common ground.  Love is an emotion, not a specific *thing* hanging about in the aether. 

“The brain can do all sorts of things and yet the person themselves might not be registering it.”

Yeah, one of them is thinking.

“If a person has bi polar for instance, they might be having all sorts of brain activity that is causing “feelings” in their body, but their “mind” might not match those feelings at all.”

One can think of a thousand what *ifs*, this is called moving the bar.  What if there is a pink elephant in the trunk of my car.

“For instance, they might be very depressed after breaking up with a girlfriend, but their chemicals are out of whack so they actually FEEL happy or manic.”

Then they would feel happy or manic.  Not love…geeze.

“Conversely, their life might be going great, but their chemicals are going haywire and they FEEL depressed.”

Then they would feel depressed, it would be a unexpected reaction to the stimuli.  What if elephants were pink?  There is a point here?

“The only thing that chemicals in the brain prove are that there are chemicals in the brain.”

And there we have it.  A total disconnect between cause and effect.  We’ll disreguard the *effect* of those electrochemical reactions in our brains… that can be measured, observed and reproduced because it doesn’t meet some silly romanticized notion.

“They don’t really tell you anything.  True, chemical reactions often go hand in hand with emotions, but they are not the same thing.”

LOL.  Because you have evidence to this effect?  Perhaps because you *need* to attach some significance to the reaction beyond it’s already awesome properties to fit in with a skewed version of reality?

Bryant,

Saying that something is unseen means what exactly?  We don’t directly see many things, like gravity, but we can measure it, see it’s affects on things it comes in ‘contact’ with in a consistent, repeatable and predictable way.

Again, that’s the right tool for the right job.  But you wouldn’t use a ruler to measure the temperature outside.  Of course it would be repeatable and predictable.  It is physical.  Those are the laws that physics works by.  Metaphysics has laws also. But they are not measured with instruments. 

Metaphysics is great for a hypothetical philosophical discussion, but fails when attempting to transition that into something that actually exists, especially when that discussion involves cult mythologies and imaginary sky daddies.

Well, we all know what a unicorn is.  But no one here believes they exist.  So we clearly have the ability to distinguish what is real and what is imaginary.  One of my favorite games to play as a child was “Let’s Pretend”.  But I always knew I was pretending.  I never REALLY thought that robins could talk or that I was an actual Queen. 

Everyone here has loved someone or something in their life.  Unseen.  YET, no one here would question anyone’s claim to love someone. 

People like music.  Unseen.  Some music is liked by most.  Some by few.  Why do most people like The Wizard of Oz or Gone With the Wind but few people like Howard the Duck?  You can explain it, but you can’t prove it empirically.  EVERY time you drop a penny from a 12 story building it will fall, but not EVERYONE liked the Wizard of Oz.

Is honey sweet?  Can you prove it?  What about the one guy that can’t taste sweet?  He would say you were nuts.  How would you prove to him that honey IS sweet?

What does “good” mean?  How do you prove it?  Why do some people have better senses of humor than others?  How do you prove humor exists?

Why do most people love the beach but few people like garbage dumps?  Why are certain destinations magnets for tourists while some places never get visited at all? 

Lots of things are unseen, unprovable, yet we accept that they are real.
Lots of things are unseen and unprovable yet we know that they are not “real” except in the imagination.

One of the ways we know something is real is by accepting the experiences of others.  If a drunk guy is standing in a room of twelve people and claiming that there is a pink elephant standing in the corner and no one else sees it, we conclude that it is not real and all in the guys head.  But if 11 of those people claim to be seeing something that you do not, you have just enough doubt in your mind that you concede there might actually be something there, and you and you alone cannot see it.

Billions of people all over the world, all with different life experiences, claim to experience something called “God”.  Not one lone drunk, but billions of people.  People who in every other respect are sane and rational.  They don’t just claim to believe in God, but to experience Him.  They don’t all experience or express Him in the same way…some experience Him through nature, some in Scripture, some in the way the world works (like Karma), some in their everyday life…Hindus, Wiccans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims…all of these people claim to experience something (or someone).  That is evidence.  Maybe not measurable, but it is evidence.  To dismiss ALL of them out of hand, is not very scientific if you ask me.  You are basing your view of reality on what YOU can see.  That eliminates a whole lot of possibilities.  I have never been to France, but I want to go.  Why?  Because I have heard lots of people tell of their experience and even tho I have not experienced Paris, I trust others opinion on the matter.  I don’t dismiss them simply because I have not seen the Eiffel Tower.  I don’t assume they are making up their enjoyment.  Sure, I can prove that Paris exists.  But can I prove that it is amazing?

</i>And there we have it.  A total disconnect between cause and effect.  We’ll disreguard the *effect* of those electrochemical reactions in our brains… that can be measured, observed and reproduced because it doesn’t meet some silly romanticized notion.</i>

Are cause and effect the same thing?  Is that possible?  Or are they two different things?  There is the cause, there is the effect, but they are not the SAME thing.

Chemicals in the brain CAUSE an emotional response.  Does that mean that chemicals in the brain ARE an emotional reponse?

I get hit by a car.  I feel pain.  Does this mean getting hit by a car and pain are the same thing?  Or do we say getting hit by a car is painFUL.

Chemicals are released in the brain and cause me to feel happy.  Does this mean chemicals and happiness are the same thing? 

If I am bi polar and I win the lottery while in my depressed phase, does this mean that I am not “happy” to have won the lottery?  Is my body feeling depressed but “I” am happy? 

What do we mean when we say “I”.  Am I my body and nothing else?  If so, then “who” is it that is calling themself “I”.

“Your comments were so brilliant”

Thank you.  You should be aware that you have said nothing that I have not read many times in the past and likely I have said nothing that you have not read many times in the past.  We have irreconcilable differences.  Why are you wasting your time?

Perhaps you should try “reasoning” with someone who is approximately equally deluded - Mormons?  Pentecostals?  Muslims?  Buddhists?

“I am willing to bet my life on something that has not yet been proven also.”

Hilarious nonsense.  In what way are you “betting your life”?

“Metaphysics has laws also.”

Hilarious nonsense.  Both your opinion and metaphysics itself.

“So we clearly have the ability to distinguish what is real and what is imaginary.”

I do not think that you fall into that category in one particular case at hand.

“Everyone here has loved someone or something in their life.”

You make that assumption because you think everyone here has a human brain.  So what?  A human brain is necessary and sufficient.  No “god” is necessary.  No “metaphysics” is necessary.  No “metaphysical world” (whatever that means) is necessary.

“Lots of things are unseen, unprovable, yet we accept that they are real.”

But any attempt to put a “god” in this category is a category error.

First we would need to agree on a definition of a “god”.  And part of that definition would be “what effects appear in reality” that can unequivocally be attributed to that “god”?  And when we cannot agree that any such effects have ever been “observed”, then we conclude that “absence of evidence really is evidence of absence”.

“One of the ways we know something is real is by accepting the experiences of others.”

True, but mere hearsay evidence is very unreliable.  What criteria should one use to “accept the experience of someone else”?  Truth is not determined by voting.

“Billions of people all over the world, all with different life experiences, claim to experience something called “God”.”

Irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential.  A very large number of reliable people have seen UFOs.  You aren’t going to “reason” with an atheist in such a silly manner.  Try a Protestant.

“That is evidence.”

That “evidence” is easily dismissed as unreliable.  Not to mention that they all have quite different concepts of their yet-to-be-defined “god”.

“To dismiss ALL of them out of hand, is not very scientific if you ask me.”

Obviously I’m not asking you.  I’m asking people who are more rational than you.  So, yes, of course I dismiss them all after a careful analysis of their conflicting “evidence” over the last few thousand years.

“Does this mean chemicals and happiness are the same thing?”

Why do you pose such ridiculous questions?  You obviously have no respect for your opponents’ intelligence?  This is under the heading “reasoning with atheists”?  Hilarious nonsense.

Bottom line as usual - you reject 99+ religions and accept one.  An atheist simply rejects one more.  I’m sure you’ve heard that one before.  But I needed to demonstrate my “brilliance”.  :-)

mk, Everything that your described from ‘love’ to interpretations of sensory experiences like taste occur in someone’s mind or imagination.  These are not things that actually exist but interpretations of electrochemical signals occurring in the human body.  To claim that these imaginings translate into some sort imaginary sky daddy from a cult’s mythology just proves how absurd the comparison is.  If you had 11 people stating there was a pink elephant in the room, but not a single one of them could provide actual evidence, a picture, a foot print…something more tangible than their shared delusion, you’ve got nothing.  Is honey sweet?  Define what sweet is. We can quantify what the majority of people would find ‘sweet’ in the lab based on what we know elicits specific chemical responses from taste receptors on the tongue.  It is measurable, repeatable and predictable. 

Your rambling leads to one conclusion, that the imaginary sky daddy that all these cult members believe in, simply exists in their own mind and no where else.  Billions of people experience a biochemical reaction and then labeling it as a ‘religious experience’ only shows that humans easily deceive themselves, which we already know to be true.  A billion people can fall for any nonsense, that doesn’t make it true, and it definitely doesn’t make it science.  Bring forth a repeatable, measurable and predictable response and then we’ll see some science.  Until then it’s just a philosophical exercise in self delusion. 

Clearly you don’t understand the difference between imagination and reality.

Bryant,

Define what sweet is. We can quantify what the majority of people would find ‘sweet’ in the lab based on what we know elicits specific chemical responses from taste receptors on the tongue.  It is measurable, repeatable and predictable.

Exactly.  We base our understanding of sweet on the expressed experiences of people.  In other words, while you can record what happens in the mouths/brains of people when they taste certain chemicals, you cannot definitively state that the person is tasting sweet.  Why?  Because the concept of sweet resides solely in the mind.  It is subjective.  However, we all accept that sweet exists.  The fact that you asked me to define sweet, is exactly what I am trying to say.  Sweet exists in the mind, and only in the mind, yet who would say that there is no such thing as sweet.

mk, You state: “Sweet exists in the mind, and only in the mind, yet who would say that there is no such thing as sweet.”

Yes, you have things that occur only in your mind…that’s the point.  Thanks for agreeing that there are things that happen only in your imagination.  Atheists, like myself, are not denying that you are imagining your particular cult’s sky daddy.  Your personal delusion exists in your own mind.  The problem is that you think that people should acknowledge your personal delusion in an imaginary sky daddy as something that exists outside of your mind.  This would require actual evidence: repeatable, predictable, measurable.

Again, you clearly don’t understand the difference between imagination and reality.

Bryant,

Don’t put words into my mouth.  The definition of mind is not the same as the definition of imagination.  You yourself have just distinguished a difference between brain and mind.  Imagination.  What IS imagination?  Is it real?  If not, then how do you know what I am talking about when I use the word?

Are you saying that sweet does not exist?  That it is not real?

This would require actual evidence: repeatable, predictable, measurable.

Only for someone that is mentally challenged.  People with average intelligence and above recognize that just because something occurs or exists in the mind, does not mean it is imagination.  But for you, I would go very, very slowly so that you could keep up.  Actually, what difference would it make since the transfer of knowledge is all in your head anyway…everything you’ve ever learned, every thought you’ve ever had is just your imagination.  How DO you get through the day??? ;)

mk

Thinking doesn’t take place in a vacuum. Without assumptions, it doesn’t take place at all. Thing is, though, some of the assumptions are necessarily negative assumptions that involve what is no longer useful to consider. Thus while Pascal’s wager is a meaningful notion for somebody who is inside the Christian tradition, it has no cogency at all outside of the church or an analogous religious framework since it is based on the prior notion that it is reasonable to consider the possibility of a god who offers us eternal bliss in exchange for faith. After all, in the abstract, there are a countably infinite number of alternative Pascal’s wagers based on premises of the form “it is reasonable to consider the possibility of a demon who offers of eternal bliss in exchange for trying to hop on one foot n times.” (By the way, judging from other remarks in his Pensee, I expect Pascal would actually agree with my analysis of all this; but that’s another story)

There are obviously intelligent people who continue to be believers, but that neither the empirical sciences nor philosophy really has a place for traditional theological ideas is increasingly evident. It isn’t that contemporary science has ruled out god so much as that god isn’t even relevant enough to rule out, i.e. ruling out god wouldn’t be physics. So far from figuring in anybody’s physics, god hardly figures in anybody’s philosophy. Contrary to what you may assume, I’m not a positivist and I’m perfectly willing to entertain non-scientific arguments but taking god talk literally doesn’t appear to be of much more use outside of science than inside it.

Somebody up thread invoked Aristotle, which makes sense since the Council of Trent pretty much endorsed the Thomistic version of his philosophy as having a special relationship to Catholicism. I agree that Aristotle’s thinking does make sense out of God, and I certainly respect Aristotle as a philosopher with whose ideas, as it happens, I am extremely familiar. Thing is, though, the expiration date has passed on ancient idealism. If you could bring Aristotle to our times, he wouldn’t be an Aristotelian for very long any more than St Thomas would remain a Thomist under similar circumstances. For a while it looked like Husserl could replace Aristotle as the philosopher that made Catholic thinking respectable. I just don’t think that worked.

If you’re a believer and determined to remain a believer, you have a different task than somebody like me who has never been a believer. The rules of playing the defensive game of apolegetics only oblige you to make some showing that what you claim is not incoherent. Note I’m not suggesting that Christian apolegetics has become impossible, only that it has nothing to offer anybody who has no other reason rational, political, or emotional to believe in what certainly looks from the outside as just another one of mankind’s systems of superstition. And note, too, I’m not asserting that Catholicism or religion in general is somehow the root of all evil a la the rather Manichean philosophy of history one encounters among the so-called gnu atheists. The church’s history is pretty deplorable, but perhaps no more deplorable than any other comparable institution—the one theological dogma that continues to appeal to me, albeit merely as an inductive generalization, is original sin.

There are obviously intelligent people who continue to be believers, but that neither the empirical sciences nor philosophy really has a place for traditional theological ideas is increasingly evident.

Well, to borrow your argument, what evidence?  There are brilliant scientists (those working with time theory and quantum physics) who are coming to the conclusion that God exists because of what they are discovering scientifically.

SOME people draw the conclusion that Science is all there is.  SOME people draw the conclusion that there must be “more”.  But I don’t see any “evidence” that proves that ALL or even MOST scientists (read intelligent persons) are overwhelmingly concluding that science is all there is.

Science answers a lot of questions.  But it does not answer all of them.  Certainly not the ones that have plagued mankind since day one.  Why?  Who am I.  What does it mean to BE and “I”.  Where did it all come from?  Where does it go from here.  Is this all there is or is there more reality than meets the eye.  Sure you can say that we fall in love in order to propagate the race…but why should/do we care if we propagate the race.  You can say it’s in our genes…but WHY is it in our genes.  You can cite the big bang but you can’t tell me what caused it or what it was before it blew up.  You can tell me how to make a baby but you can’t tell me what that thing that animates us is…Why is a rock not alive, but I am.  Telling me that I have replicating cells doesn’t tell me where replicating cells come from. 

Until those questions an be answered with absolute certainty, I’m afraid philosophy and theology are here to stay.  And they will continue to be pursued by the greatest minds around.

I disagree that Aristotle would leave the ranks.  I believe he’d feel exactly as he did all those centuries ago.  He might be intrigued by the scientific breakthroughs that have taken place, but what would be different as far as “Where did it all come from/who am I?”  It was wonder that drove him to his ideas in the first place…the world has only become more wonderful…I’d bet that would just cement his views in his eyes.

I’m curious as to why Original Sin intrigues you.  The fact that it even mildly intrigues you argues to the point that even you are still “wondering” and asking questions, so it doesn’t look like philosophical exercises are as dead as you make out.  There are plenty of us out here still asking.

You know, as a Catholic I surround myself with fellow Catholics.  One can get the erroneous idea that everyone thinks like we do.  I’ll bet the same thing happens where you haunt.  If you are surrounded by techies and scientists, you might have a skewed view of the rest us. 

And yes, some of the Churches history is unsavory.  Some of EVERYONES history is unsavory.  So that doesn’t really speak to anything.  There is most certainly a human element to the Church, therefore there will be flaws.  Some very serious, others not so much.

Thing is, though, the expiration date has passed on ancient idealism.

How is it possible to have an expiration date on Truth?  That’s like saying the sky has been blue long enough.  It’s time for change!  Or we’re sick of gravity.  Let’s just stop believing in it and it will go away.

If a thing is True, eternally true, then it is as True today as it was Yesterday as it will be tomorrow.

Human Nature doesn’t change.  Physics doesn’t change.  Metaphysics doesn’t change.  We can discover new things about it, but the things themselves remain unchanged.

“But it does not answer all of them.”

Irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential.
A belief in a god based on ignorance of these questions is irrational.

“but WHY is it in our genes?”

We have evolved “big brains” over the last few hundred thousand years.  Obviously “big brains” are capable of asking such questions.  That does not mean that such questions will ever have “good answers” or that any religion can supply any rational answers.

“you can’t tell me what caused it”

We cannot YET tell you what “caused” it.  And perhaps “nothing” caused it.  That answer does not seem satisfactory to you.  But this is no basis to jump to a god or religion conclusion.

“doesn’t tell me where replicating cells come from”

Of course the “origin of life” 4 billion years ago is currently being investigated.  But this ignorance is no basis ...

“Until those questions can be answered with absolute certainty, ...”

Hilarious.  No scientist uses “absolute certainty”.

“... I’m afraid philosophy and theology”

and religion.  I’m afraid too.  This poor planet is overpopulated (and what is one religion’s stance on contraception?).  And staving religious fanatics could well choose war in an attempt to avoid starvation.

“Original Sin”

Hilarious mythological nonsense.  Why did someone make this up?

“One can get the erroneous idea that everyone thinks like we do.”

And now you know that isn’t true.  :-)

“How is it possible to have an expiration date on Truth?”

Hilarious.  No scientist uses “Truth”.  Define “Truth”.  There are “facts” and there are possible/probable “explanations”.  :-)

“If a thing is True, eternally true ...”

Hilarious nonsense of course.  Name something “eternally true” that is not simply a “fact”.  Water is wet?  :-)

“Human Nature doesn’t change.”

Hilarious nonsense.  Go back one thousand years and explore “human nature”.  Two thousand years.  Five thousand years.  When does “human nature” become “ape nature”?

“Metaphysics doesn’t change.”

So-called metaphysics is irrelevant.  :-)

“We can discover new things about it, but the things themselves remain unchanged.”

That seems like a statement that belongs with irrelevant metaphysics.  :-)

(The spam filter said it was holding my post for moderation, but that was a day ago, so I’m trying again, breaking it up into smaller chunks in case the length triggered the filter.)

mk says:

“You accuse me of not being able to argue.  Let’s look at the facts.  Your question was NOT how can you empirically prove that there is a God, BUT, if I accept that there IS a God, why should I accept yours.”

No, precious, I accused you, in an oblique way, of not understanding how to argue well.  This is evidenced in your incessant question-begging and how you tie up so much of your argument into your preferences about god.

My question was not at all “if I accept there is a god, why should I accept yours?”; the question is that if I’m not allowed to rely on empiricism to settle the question of whether there is a god, then what system would I use to distinguish false gods from real gods (including the possibility that all gods are false)?  You need to offer some other system because there are plenty of other claims about plenty of other gods out there and just ditching empiricism gives no honest means of deciding amongst them.

“I gave you REASONS.  For some reason, a man who perceives himself as the most intelligent man alive, cannot distinguish between empiricism and reason.”

I do know the difference between reason and empiricism; you have merely mistaken my argument.  Reason (or reasons) alone is no assurance that one’s reasoning can be applied to reality.  One’s premises always need to be established as true before one can say one’s reasoning is sound.  What I am saying is, if not empiricism, what alternative ought we be using to establish the truth of things?  (Also, I am neither a man nor do I perceive myself to be the most intelligent person alive.  You don’t know how I perceive myself and I’ll thank you not to pretend.)

So am I to assume that you go with the “Jesus was a good but deluded man”?

I don’t think he even existed as a man.  But, if a case for that can be made, it doesn’t get you very far; it’s most likely that his life was heavily mythologized using tales borrowed from other religions.  One need not even assume it was him who did so, as the accounts of his life were written decades after his death at the earliest and not even by those who supposedly knew him, and there are numerous discrepancies even in the accounts that weren’t altered or discarded, as many were.  I wouldn’t rule out a mad or lying Jesus, though.  But, again, you can find the rebuttals to the Trilemma all over the place if you’re honestly interested in that.  I don’t think you are, and I’m not going to waste my time on it.

As for dying for false beliefs, you clearly have worked up a wall of fallacies like appealing to popularity and special pleading to blind yourself to the unfortunate reality that people die for false beliefs all the time, both now and throughout history.  Moreover, there are good reasons why members of smaller cults are more prone to losing belief versus those of larger cults.  But, as can be attested merely by the former Christians/Catholics posting in this very thread, people do lose the latter.

“The criteria is not THAT Christianity is unique, but what makes it unique.  Other Gods have BEEN sacrificed, but what other God has been both sacrifice and sacrificer FOR US?  There is the rub.”

You don’t get it.  Why would I find those particular difference either meaningful or attractive?  The whole story behind that sacrifice is off-putting; the concept of sin that supposedly made the sacrifice necessary is ludicrous and cruel, and I see no merit in sacrificing oneself to oneself to forgive anything.  I’d accept it as true if there were evidence for it, sure, but you’re not going to get me to say, “Oh, hey, that’s a right lovely thing Jesus did.  What a swell guy.”  There’s nothing genuinely exceptional in what makes Christianity unique.

(cont.)

“Next, why wouldn’t I want a flawed God?  Why, what would be the point? Perhaps you first need to define God for me.”

I’m not saying it’s wrong for you to want a god that isn’t flawed; I’m saying it’s wrong to assume that everyone wants or should want such a god, or to dismiss them for not wanting that.  I would prefer a god who isn’t perfect because, for one, it would be more consistent in explaining why there is evil and suffering in the world.  (I’m extremely unimpressed with the Catholic “solutions” to this.)  If there’s a perfect god with ultimate power over this world, then allowing evil and suffering is part of his perfection.  As a moral person, I couldn’t help but feel utter disgust at such a god.  (Again, those feelings wouldn’t prevent me from accepting his existence.)  As for definitions, that’s for the theist to provide; I’d be a poor atheist indeed if I tried to define god for theists and/or only disbelieved in the gods I could think up myself!

“As for my fish stinking…lol…IF God is real, then I hardly think it would be up to us to dictate how He should run things.  Either He IS God, or He is not.  What you are saying is that YOU are God and therefore the ‘God’ that YOU would create would be different.”

I’m saying nothing of the sort.  This is another stereotype about atheists that you think I’ve lived up to, but I haven’t. I merely do not think anyone or anything should be immune from criticism, even supposedly perfect beings.  And anyway, if such a perfect being couldn’t lower itself to personally explain in understandable terms why my criticism of it is off base, then it’s not very perfect at all, because the ability and generosity to do so would certainly be qualities of any “greatest being” or whatever I could imagine.

“But you don’t throw out reality because you don’t like the way it is.  This is the problem with you guys. ... You on the other hand, think that if the Truth is unpalatable, you simply change the Truth.”

Oh, darling precious, did you read what I wrote at all?  Immediately after pointing out that your fish stinks, I said: “However, I wouldn’t ever let my low opinion of Christianity/Catholicism keep me from accepting it as true.”  So, apparently, the problem with “us guys” is that precious darlings like you don’t listen to us.  You have no idea of all the things I believe are true that I wish were not.  I would appreciate an apology for your obviously false accusation.

“As for requiring empirical proof and nothing else…can you prove to me empirically why that is so?”

I don’t know what you’re asking.  I’ve been trying to make the point that we rely on empiricism because no one can offer a working alternative, and challenging you to show me that that’s wrong.

“There is the metaphysical world, and there, empirical proof is useless.”

And the evidence for that assertion…what?  You cite the inability to measure things like love or honesty, but that’s simply a category error.  Abstractions aren’t measurable, sure, but there’s also no reason to think they’re “things” with an ontological status outside the mind, or even have any basis at all besides wishful thinking.  For example, there’s the Eastern concept of “qi,” which is something believers in acupuncture and reiki and the like often say requires “other ways of knowing” besides empiricism to understand.  Like “qi,” I accept “god” as an abstraction, the belief in which can influence reality, but that doesn’t exist independent of the human mind.  And of course, in an ultimate sense, abstracts are all physical in nature because the brain is physical and the mind is an emergent property of the brain.  Destroy all brains and you destroy love, justice, qi… and god.  (Note: That is not how I wish things to be, but where all the evidence points.)

The important thing to remember is that asserting things are metaphysical and immune to empiricism is a game anyone can play.  If I was a horrible person (and this is meant to be a provocative example but does not reflect my beliefs at all), I could say, “Black people are inferior in a way that can only be understood metaphysically.  I can’t prove it empirically because their inferiority is just too all-encompassing, but if you haven’t closed yourself off to the possibility, then you can open your heart and experience this truth.”  Disgusting as it is, there’s no reason why that sort of assertion is any less sensible on the face of it than what you’re selling.  And that’s why my standards for accepting such things are so demanding.

So, once again, if I am supposed to use some system besides empiricism to establish the truth of the premises behind the existence of god, you will have to provide that system.

mk

Just to round out this discussion: I’m not arguing against the notion that something like God exists. I was trying to make the point that the challenge to you folks is that people like me, who are a majority among educated people, don’t think there is any more point in arguing about god than there would be in coming up with a new proof that anvils don’t float.

You do seem to have a problem detecting irony or sarcasm. I wasn’t suggesting that I’m intrigued by the notion of original sin. I was just admitting that I don’t have an excessively high opinion of the human race, which is rather different than buying in to a theological/mythical theme of the Fall. If you are going to buy into the notion that “In Adam’s Fall, we sinned all,” the next thing you’re going to start thinking that the death of one man could some how affect the moral state of everybody else. I know you accept this sort of thinking: I’m just trying to point out that you shouldn’t assume that anybody else does. If you weren’t raised on the idea, the atonement is a pretty grotesque idea.

Jim,

You say educated people.  This is different than intelligent people.  It means that they have been taught by someone.  Universities are notorious for their disdain of religion (even Catholic ones, go figure) so is it possible that yours and others, biases might have been part of that education process?  I mean just as you think we are products of our upbringing and believe what we have been fed, is it possible that the same is true of you?

I only recently began college (I’m 52) for the first time.  Ive only had three classes and those are at a community college.  I haven’t had the experience that you and other “Educated” people have had.  So I still tend to think “outside” of science.  I’m actually hoping you’re wrong about the metaphysical world because I seem to grasp it much better than I do the physical world.  I suck at math and science.  But I found the philosophy course I took was like breathing.  I have always been bent toward the “supernatural”.  I was wiccan for the first half of my life.  Not saying that’s real or not, just saying that I have always been more comfortable in the world of the “unseen” and “other worldly” stuff than I have in the concrete, what you’d call “real” world.  So if you’re right, I’m screwed.  It means my actual IQ is in the single digits!

You’re right, I missed your sarcasm.  I knew you weren’t saying you were fascinated with Original Sin…I get that you find it interesting that we’ve worked backwards to get to it…I was just curious why that of all the obviously far out there things that we believe. 

BTW, Christ’s death did not affect every man’s moral state.  It simply gave us a way to stand up when we fall.  A way back…Now if you’d said it affects our morTal state, it would be a different story.

Here’s a question.  Do you believe in Free Will?

Jim,

don’t think there is any more point in arguing about god than there would be in coming up with a new proof that anvils don’t float.

So are you saying that even if God exists, He is irrelevant, given how advanced we’ve become?  It’s not whether He exists, but whether He matters?

mk

What I was talking about has nothing to do with anybody’s IQ. I’m just pointing out that there really isn’t any place for a god concept in the sciences or most varieties of philosophy as they have developed. I’m certainly not saying that god is irrelevant because he is unfashionable. Just the reverse. Absent some credible scientific or philosophical framework that might define what we’re talking about in talking about god, god just doesn’t show up except, perhaps, as a symbol of old cultural loyalties. Generalizing from many autobiographical writings as well as personal conversations I’ve had myself, a typical trajectory of the life of a scientists or scholar who comes from a religious background might be summarized like this: when they are young they labor mightily to find some way of making sense of the theological notions they were brought up with. Eventually, they just lose interest in this exercise and discover they are non believers. They don’t convert to atheism or agnosticism; they simply relax into what is the default case. They may still care about the tradition they come from, but they no longer try to cling to the metaphysical claims that go along with this tradition.

Now it is certainly logically possible that the contemporary indifference to theology is all wrong because there is, as you insist, something like the traditional god remains in heaven. In that vein, you might like the writings of the Protestant theologian Schliermacher who wrote speeches defending “Religion against its cultured despisers.” I’m not trying to sell my point of view to you. I just figured that it was appropriate in the interest of mutual understanding to write some paragraphs about Reasoning with Believers in a thread on Reasoning with Atheists.

mk says:

“So I still tend to think “outside” of science.  I’m actually hoping you’re wrong about the metaphysical world because I seem to grasp it much better than I do the physical world.”

If you want to properly think “outside” of science you have to understand the importance of the scientific method and why it’s so successful.  You don’t seem to understand how to know things.  Since you’re into philosophy, you ought to familiarize yourself with at least the basics of epistemology.  Look into psychology, as well, so you can understand how our minds work such that we need tools like the scientific method.

You accused me of rejecting truth for being unpalatable, but what do you do to keep yourself from falling into that trap?  What can you do if you don’t understand how to know things or what your mind tends to do when left to its own ends?  How honest can you be with yourself if you aren’t able to recognize your own dishonesty?  If you’re invested in a beautiful illusion that you consider part of who you are, then you’re going to close yourself off to those things that will disillusion you.  That’s not some flaw in you and only you, that’s human nature.  It takes awareness and vigilance, as well as a willingness to be disillusioned, to give one even a chance of keeping an open mind about such things.

You said, above, “You know, as a Catholic I surround myself with fellow Catholics.  One can get the erroneous idea that everyone thinks like we do.  I’ll bet the same thing happens where you haunt.  If you are surrounded by techies and scientists, you might have a skewed view of the rest us.”  You’re not entirely wrong, but it’s a bit different when one is surrounding oneself with scientists and skeptics.  (Techies are another matter.)  There’s this expectation that you’ll have to support your assertions and that when you say something factually wrong or philosophically fatuous you will be called out for it.  Also most of the people at atheist blogs like Pharyngula come from a religious background, and still have friends and family who are religious.  So while misconceptions exist, they’re far more rare than you find at a place like this, and we’re always willing to have our minds changed by religious people who stop by to say “no, you’re portraying us/our beliefs wrong.”  See, we skeptical atheists don’t expect that we can be open-minded all by ourselves; we cultivate communities where we are always coming up against the differences in one another’s thoughts and use that as a safeguard against falling into bias or trusting illusions.

Posted by Jared on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 11:13 AM (EDT):

“For example, if a materialist atheist argues “I believe only what has been proved,” then I would start with asking if he believes in things that I am pretty sure he believes but has not been proved.  Like does he have a heart?  Although we can open many cadavers and find a heart, it has not been proven he has one.  He must accept it that he has a heart.  If he is intellectually honest with himself, he will have to believe that he believes some things without material evidence.”

I am surprised nobody corrected this nonsense. I do not have to “accept” and “believe” that I have a heart, I can physically feel it. I can hear it pumping blood, I can measure it’s activity (pulse), I can very precisely measure it through ECG, and, if I go to a clinic, I can even see it. I have some amazing pictures of mine, do you wan to see?

When you come up with a deity that you can see, hear, touch, feel, record and measure it’s activity, I will be the first worshiper.

Jim,

This is what I’m getting from what you are saying.  (And I understand that you aren’t saying God is not relevant to some people) You think that God has no place in the world today. You’re not saying this is a fad and we’ll get over it, but rather we’ve gotten over God and that is why He is no longer important.

Am I understanding you correctly?

I am certainly not trying to change your mind either.  You don’t sound like some of the atheists I’ve spoken with, who gives a knee jerk response devoid of meaning whenever they’re asked a question.  You’re articulating your feelings well and doing so without sounding condescending (which I appreciate as it is obvious that you are light years ahead of me in the smarts department).  I’m in learning mode here and simply picking your brain.  I AM interested in learning what you guys think (which can be tricky since atheism is not a religion and therefore has no dogma or doctrine…each of you can believe your own particular brand of atheism/agnosticism).  So if you have the patience, bear with me.

The only reason I brought up the intelligence/education thing is that I’d be a rich woman if I got a nickel every time an atheist insulted my intelligence.  So my first assumption when you said “educated” was that we were revisiting that merry go round.  Then I realized that you were speaking to education not intelligence.  I understand now that you weren’t in any way trying to insult my intelligence. 

I promise when I ask you questions, it is not with the goal of “converting” you.  These are things that I’ve run into in my Philosophy class that have never been satisfactorily answered.  I want to learn how you think.  How you reconcile apparently irreconcilable ideas.

That is why I asked if you believe in free will.  I’m always stumped by the idea that we are just brains, yet have free will.  The two ideas seem incompatible to me. 

In essence, I guess I’m asking you a two fold question.  Do you believe that we have free will, and do you believe that we have a “soul”.

Also, yes, let’s clarify what we mean by God…what do you mean?  What is this God that you “don’t”  believe in?

“I’m always stumped by the idea that we are just brains, yet have free will”

You have free-will because you have a brain.  Simple answer huh?

mk, You’re pretending that your delusion is reality, when it isn’t.  This mythical wonderland that you want to be true is not going to become real just because you don’t have the reasoning capacity to understand that it is only in your imagination.  Let’s try to put this in simple terms for your obviously uneducated mind to understand.  If you imagine a tree in your mind, can you turn that imagined tree into a real piece of furniture that you can actually sit on?  No, but you can use that imagination to design a way to take a real tree and through physical work make it into a chair.  In order to represent the imagined in reality, you must start with something real to begin with.

Since you asked about ‘sweet’, let’s discuss that a little.  ‘Sweet’ is the imagined perception of biochemical signals, which differ from person to person and from time to time.  A 5 year old perceives the taste something as ‘sweet’ that when he’s 75 might perceive the taste of very differently.  Has the chemical makeup of what he is tasting changed?  No, still the same ingredients.  The perception of taste is not something that ‘exists’, it is just your sensory interpretation of what does exist.

It’s hilarious when someone tries pass of the cult mythologies of highly uneducated people as some intellectual pursuit.  Believing in fairy tales is childish, not intelligent.

How do you get up each day and not believe every silly fairy tale story you see or hear?  Seriously, do you watch Independence Day and then worry that the aliens just invaded?  Do you read Peter Pan and think with a little fairy dust that you can fly? 

The best advice I can give you is to grow up, you’re mortal and have to learn to deal with that.  Don’t cling to cult mythology because you want it to be true, so you don’t have to get off your ego trip and live a finite existence as a human being.

mk says:

“You’re not saying this is a fad and we’ll get over it, but rather we’ve gotten over God and that is why He is no longer important.”

I think what Jim Harrison is trying to say is that god is a failed hypothesis.  That is, because god is not useful in answering questions about the world, we’ve set god aside like we set aside humoralism and planetary epicycles.  It’s not that humoralism or epicycles are no longer important; it’s that they do not give us accurate and consistent answers about the way the world works, especially compared to germ theory and heliocentrism.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

@Bryant Lister
If a person says foolish things or exhibits poor reasoning, then confront those things or that reasoning and leave out the aspersions on her intelligence.  You might spend some time yourself learning why religious beliefs are so hard for believers to examine critically.  The answer is not so simple as “religious people are childish.”  That’s as stupid, useless and wrong a thing to say as when religious people tell us atheists that we really do believe in god but are angry at him or deny him so we can indulge in immorality.

Bryant,

First, thanks for the words in my defense.  I honestly don’t come on these boards to talk people into Faith.  I come to share how I see things, and hope to learn how those of a different persuasion see things as well.  I have more questions than answers, I know.  If both parties walk away, wiser for the discourse, I am satisfied.  I have no illusions that I am changing your minds, and I highly doubt that you will change mine, but we do share a planet and we are, after all, just regular folk.  While blogs are a great way to pick each others brains, it helps if I remember that for the most part the atheists and Catholics who frequent these places are not necessarily a good representation of the general atheist/Catholic population. 

I know atheists in “real life” and some of them are as moral as any Catholic I know.  One is my brother-in-law and I actually look to him sometimes for the “right thing to do”.  So no worries here about me judging anyone. 

Now onto the conversation…okay, so you guys don’t think God is useful in answering questions about the world.  By this, you don’t necessarily mean “GOD”, (as that would imply that He existed and was useful at one time), but the “IDEA of GOD” per se.  We know longer need to “fill in the blanks” with a “God” figure, because we are filling them in with Science.  Have I got that right?  God is not passe’, the need for a God to exist is passe’?

Here is where I run into trouble with that thinking.  It assumes that the only questions anyone is asking are scientific ones.  But there are many people who are asking a different set of questions, that science is not answering.  The “whys”.  The whole “nothing can come out of nothing” question, so there has to be one thing that always was.  Otherwise we just keep going backwards until we can’t answer the scientific questions anymore.

And I do understand about the “nothing” theory and that there is actually “less than nothing” and we are finding out that blackholes and time theory and whatnot fall into that category, but when you use “nothing” in that way, you are speaking mathematics/physics not philosophy.  In philosophy, nothing means something totally different.  Because even less than zero is something…see? 

My point is that, yes, the questions that are being asked by scientists today do not need to be answered with “God did it”.  But other questions remain, and science is not equipped to answer them.  Things like free will, rational minds, Universal Law…

Free will is a complicated question and may fall into the “not even wrong” category.  A lot depends on how you define “free will” to begin with; we do make decisions based on the circumstances of the moment and our previous experience an knowledge, but if we were to run a million trials given the exact same starting circumstances, I bet that decision making process would prove to be largely deterministic—same starting circumstance yields same decision over and over again.  If it _isn’t_ deterministic, it reduces each decision essentially to random chance and we might as well remove ourselves from the equation—our intellects and perceptions and experiences no longer determine the outcome and free will is rendered moot.  If it is, as I suspect, deterministic, that reduces free will to an illusion born of our own inability to perceive the causation chain leading up to the moment of decision and how it and our own previous experience determines our future course.

-

Whether the soul exists is a much simpler question.  No, it does not.  Personality changes due to brain injury and neurological research prove that who and what we are is intimately linked to the meat inside our skulls.  Disrupt the brain, disrupt the person, leaving nothing meaningful of who and what we are to carry on after death.

cd asks, “Can any atheist provide one bit of evidence that any of the top Nazi’s attended regular religious service?” (Then, without justification, assumes “Of course not.”)

Yes, I can provide a few bits of photographic evidence from Life magazine.

mk on Wednesday:

“We have reasoned arguments for the reality that He does exist of course.”

And we have heard them all and rejected them all.

“But so far the only argument you guys have ever put forth is “You can’t prove it empirically” which is no argument at all.”

That’s not quite right.  Perhaps better - you have only “hearsay evidence” of your “god” and that is not acceptable.  So the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  There was a discussion a while back on the blogs you dare not read as to what acceptable evidence might be or if there could never be acceptable evidence.  And advanced civilization might be able to do things that we would call “magic” or “miracle”.

“Not only that, but you have never come up with a single plausible alternate explanation of “where it ALL came from”.”

This is an “argument from ignorance” and it is also not acceptable.

“God however, is reality.”

This is also not acceptable.  From wiki:

“Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, in the mind, dreams, what is abstract, what is false, or what is fictional.”

mk on Thursday:

“BUT, there is only one who made an appearance.”

This hearsay evidence is not acceptable.

mk on Sunday:

“response devoid of meaning whenever they’re asked a question”

You have asked very few questions and I attempted to answer them.  You ignored my answers and you ignored my questions.  Obviously you are simply ignoring everything I write.

“I asked if you believe in free will.”

Interestingly enough, there have been a number of discussions about this topic on the blogs you dare not read in the very recent past.

“do you believe that we have a “soul””

There is no evidence for such a thing and absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

HorsePheathers,

Thank you for that respectful answer.

IF there were such a thing as a soul, then wouldn’t it mean that brain damage does not actually change who we “are” but only how well we are able to express that “who”?

I think that there really are only two ways to go.  Either, as you say, the whole thing is determined (albeit in such a complicated way that we can’t clearly “see” it) or there is a soul. 

Personally, I believe that we can “choose” to go which ever way we want.  We can give into our natures and simply “react” according to those complicated machinations, OR, we can choose to utilize that which makes us different than other animals who are “victims” if you will, of their natures.  I do believe in a soul, obviously.  I can see the logic of what you say IF we do not have souls however.  No soul, no free will.

But how do you explain the conscience?  Even if it is just a matter of chemical exchanges and neural pathways, that wouldn’t explain the niggling feeling one has when he has made a poor choice.  For instance, I have $5.00 and I am headed into a Starbucks.  I see a homeless guy asking for money.  I debate with myself.  I walk past him and get my coffee.  That should be the end of it if it is only a matter of the brain working it out.  But for hours afterwards I have that “feeling” which we call conscience that I did not do the “right” thing (morally speaking).  What is that voice?  Why is it there?  What utilitarian purpose could it possibly serve?

“I evidently did not make it clear enough that all of my examples were meant only to illustrate the intellectual consistency within Catholicism, and therefore assumed that you would be in a discussion with an atheist who would stipulate belief in God for the sake of argument.”

lol - of course once you make up the initial premise then everything you build on it can be consistent. If you accept the premise that in the 23rd century there will exist the starship USS Enterprise commanded by Captain Kirk boldly going where no man has gone before, then these conditions are consistent: there exists a race of Vulcans that is closely enough related humans to interbreed; faster-than-light travel is possible; and time travel is possible.

As an atheist I say, great, your religion is internally consistent, and the Star Trek universe is internally consistent. That was easy; can we tackle something harder now, like how does Santa Claus deliver presents to houses that don’t have a chimney?

mk says:

“So no worries here about me judging anyone.”

Nonsense.  I don’t know why you’re ignoring my long reply to you above, but you all too happily judged me as thinking I am god and judged me as someone who throws out reality because I find it unpalatable.  You seem to buy into quite a few stereotypes about atheists and aren’t afraid to attribute them to people you’re talking to even in the face of disconfirming evidence.  That’s just as obnoxious as Bryant Lister pretending theism is evidence of a theist’s lack of education.

“By this, you don’t necessarily mean ‘GOD’, (as that would imply that He existed and was useful at one time), but the ‘IDEA of GOD’ per se.”

Well, no, no more than epicycles or humors really existed at one point.  (Although, the model for epicycles was fairly useful for predicting planetary motion—just not as useful as later heliocentric orbital models.)  Science is fine with hypothesizing on the existence of things that turn out to be imaginary.

“We know longer need to ‘fill in the blanks’ with a ‘God’ figure, because we are filling them in with Science.”

While this, by itself, is not untrue, it’s not what I was getting at.  You’re begging the question of them being separate things.  In science, we don’t know things are wrong till we test them.  For all humanity knew a few hundred years ago, some sort of god would fit right in with, or even be integral to, explanations of how the world works.  It turns out that god is not useful to science (or philosophy), but god was never necessarily a false hypothesis.  But now that we’re aware of this, it would be detrimental to try to add god in as part of a theory, just as it would be foolish to add in epicycles or humors.

“My point is that, yes, the questions that are being asked by scientists today do not need to be answered with “God did it”.  But other questions remain, and science is not equipped to answer them.  Things like free will, rational minds, Universal Law…”

Just because you can think something up doesn’t mean it’s real or meaningful.  Do you not understand this?  Saying science isn’t equipped to answer questions about Universal Law is rather silly until you somehow demonstrate that such a thing exists and that empiricism can’t touch it and that you have a “way of knowing” that can.  Do you think it’s a flaw in science that it can’t explain karma, reincarnation and nirvana, or is that not a concern because you don’t accept those things as real?

Science does quite well, however, in explaining free will (or rather the lack of it) and is making great strides in explaining rational minds.  It’s not coming up with the answers that religious people want, of course, but that doesn’t mean it’s the wrong tool for the job.  In fact, you haven’t even attempted to propose an alternative tool, like I’ve been asking for from the start.

“IF there were such a thing as a soul, then wouldn’t it mean that brain damage does not actually change who we ‘are’ but only how well we are able to express that ‘who’?”

No, it wouldn’t.  That’s a rather lot of assumptions you’ve crammed together.  For one, you’re assuming, on the basis of nothing at all, that brains control the soul’s expression.  Which hinges on assumed knowledge about the nature of the soul, such as the rather contradictory supposition that a soul is at once exempt from causality (if it enables free will) and yet not exempt (in that it can’t choose to override a damaged brain).  Sure, we could have free will within a set of limitations, but then you’ve got to make all the assumptions of what those limitations are.  All in the name of avoiding the more obvious and elegant answer that there simply is no soul.

“But how do you explain the conscience?  Even if it is just a matter of chemical exchanges and neural pathways, that wouldn’t explain the niggling feeling one has when he has made a poor choice. ... Why is [the feeling of not having done the right thing] there?  What utilitarian purpose could it possibly serve?”

Why wouldn’t it explain that niggling feeling?  This is an argument from ignorance.  You can’t imagine how it could, therefore it can’t.  The utility of altruism in a social species like Homo sapiens is to increase survival chances of those carrying similar sets of genes.  (We’re a bit odd in how we extend that instinct to non-relatives, but we’re also a bit odd in the degree to which we take our xenophobia.)  Put that together with how we’re an intelligent species that can learn to adapt its behavior as well as condition one another to feel certain things in response to certain actions and it becomes hard to say how much of a niggling feeling is instinct and how much is environment.  However, a possible utilitarian explanation for the feeling is that it make us more reflective on the consequences of our action.  If we benefit from acts of selfishness, we’ll learn to be more selfish; if we suffer for our selfishness, we’ll change to become more generous.

Mk

I used to joke that I didn’t know if I were an atheist or not because until somebody told me what it was I wasn’t supposed to believe in, how could I know that I didn’t believe in it. Pliny the Elder, the old Stoic, defined god as man helping man. Well, I’m happy with man helping man. Then again, my Dad was a Spinozist, a sort of pantheist if you like. For him, god was simply nature. Hans Kung, the catholic theologian who was disciplined by the current Pope back when he was in charge of the Holy Office, had a view of God that pretty much made him equivalent to an affirmation of being, though that version assumes I got what Kung was trying to say, something I’m certainly not sure. The point is, your question about what god I don’t believe in is pretty much unanswerable short of a multi-volume book. And why would my opinions matter particularly?

I’m also reluctant to wade in about free will and the reality of the soul and for similar reasons. I’m an old man who has read a great many books. As a consequence, I know that there is no simple way of approaching either issue in a setting like this.

For what it’s worth, if you feel somewhat put upon by some of the other people who have attacked you on this thread, I sympathize. Over and out.

On conscience and altruism—we are a social species.  Somewhere along the way, we started using strength in numbers and teamwork as a means to aid our survival, evolutionarily speaking having stumbled across the idea that the lone brute doesn’t stand much chance against a pair of wimps armed with a rock and a plan….

-

Altruism and conscience are merely instincts bred into us over millenia of selection pressure favoring human cooperation.  We are not the fastest or strongest of creatures; we have some major advantages endurance-wise over many, but that, too, is part and parcel of working together, since endurance hunting as a strategy works very poorly, relatively speaking, if it isn’t a group effort.  What makes humans “bad-ass”, really king of the jungle dangerous is our unsurpassed ability to work together, to share knowledge, to plan group action and communicate it to each other in clear and unambiguous form and to act on it as a group.

-

If we could not trust each other to share the fruits of the hunt, our ability to survive would suffer.  If we could not reasonably expect help from each other in times of crisis, when injured, when under attack, this survival strategy would fall apart.  In short, without a certain baseline of altruism (at least within our tribe or local societal grouping), we can’t do the things that have made us such an evolutionary success so far.  That mutual trust and willingness to risk harm for each others’ benefit and protection is thus behavior that is fairly strongly selected for.

@Jim Harrison. I wonder if you have read Anthony Flew?It’s quite a fascinating story. He died fairly recently, I think, but his last years brought quite an interesting development in his beliefs.  BTW, wouldn’t you love to sit in on the conversations of Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D’Souza, who are friends? There are some of their debates on uTubes but not enough, I think.

Ms McConnell,

I don’t give too much credit to the Anthony Flew story, which strikes me as just another case of the sad effects of senility—a couple more years and I’ll probably become a Druid. And I don’t have a huge amount of use for either Christopher Hitchens on Dinesh D’Souza. Neither Hitchens or D’Souza bothers to make a properly philosophical explanation of their point of view. Hitchens, in particular, is rather like William Buckley, a rhetorician who can thank his lucky stars he never encountered a Socrates who would make him explain himself instead of getting credit for taking clever pot shots at the opposition. In politics, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In philosophy, the enemy of my enemy is probably just wrong in a different way.

Jim,

I had no idea who Socrates was until that first Philosophy class.  When I read his story, the conversations with that lawyer outside the courthouse, and the way he accepted his death…all for a love of the Truth…I went home that night and told my husband that if Socrates was alive today I might have to leave him to follow Socrates around.  I absolutely fell head over heels, madly in love with Him.  The only other Philosopher that even came close was Augustine.

I understand your reluctance to discuss free will and the soul.  It was worth a try tho as it ain’t easy these days finding people who are willing to talk about stuff like that.  All of it to me (Philosophy), even the guys that I hated, like Nietzsche, is fascinating…it’s like a never ending box of chocolates.  I want more, more, more!

And about the other commenters.  I try, I really do, to be respectful and engage with each and every person that is willing to talk, but it was really getting out of hand.  It doesn’t bother me tho.  Not on any deep level.  Their rudeness and insults say more about them, than me.  I just decided to let them talk amongst themselves.

You sound like you’ve had a really interesting life.  I wish I had grown up with “philosophers”.  Lol, my parents were great but naaaaaaaaaarow.  I was a wild child for a lot of years, but find I’m getting pretty narrow myself as time goes by.  I don’t know.  I came to the Faith a little later than most and just can’t imagine living any other way (which is amazing given the fact that our friends have accused me of having such a vivid imagination ;) ) 

So thanks for the time that you did give me.  And thank you for being so wonderfully respectful.  You and Bryant and HorsePheathers were like a breath of fresh air.

mk says:

“You and Bryant and HorsePheathers were like a breath of fresh air.”

Bryant is the one who was calling you childish for believing in fairy tales and saying you’re obviously uneducated.  First you thanked him for “words in [your] defense,” now you’re saying he’s engaged with you respectfully?  I’m confused.

I don’t lightly use the word ‘childish’ when referring to religious cult members, there are some basic facts and reasoning to support this description.
1. Over 90% of religious cult members remain in the cult that they were indoctrinated into as a child.
2. Adults who believe in the fairy tales and mythologies of religious cults, denying logic, reason and evidence (or the lack thereof) are not displaying mature or intelligent behavior.
3. It takes the ego and arrogance of a child/teenager, to believe that they as a human being have some magical, immortal ‘soul’/‘ghost’ inside them so they don’t have to face their mortality.
4. It’s childish to think an omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural deity would kill billions of people (see the bible fairy tales for details) in order to obtain their allegiance/belief/worship.

As for morality, the beliefs of religious cults negate moral behavior in their members.  If you believe that an imaginary sky daddy is watching over you and will reward or punish you based on your behavior, then your actions are not guided by morality.  They are guided by the selfish and foolish desire for immortality and some mythical ‘spiritual’ being.  Morality is measured by what you do when no one is watching and when you won’t receive direct reward/punishment for your actions.

@Bryant Lister
Even if #1 is true, mk already said she started out Wiccan, so she’d be in the other category.  And so what if most people stick with the beliefs they were raised with?  As for your other points, they’re about as substantive as the inane things religious people say about atheists, and you’re just as much of a fool to apply generalities to specific people as believers are when they do it to us.  Furthermore, you don’t actually explain how these things you’ve listed are childish, you merely assert that they are.  I guess that’s fine if you’re just here to pat yourself on the back for your obvious superiority, but if you were hoping to convince anyone of anything, then you should try sticking some arguments into that mess.

A.Noyd, Do you think believing in religious cult fairy tales is mature and intelligent?  Do you think believing in a mythical immortal soul, based on no actual facts of evidence, is mature and intelligent?  Do you think believing that human beings are some special creation of an omnipotent, omnipresent mythical deity, willing to kill billions so that other human beings will bow down in worship to it, is mature and intelligent?  Seriously, these are not generalizations.  These statements are based on the mythologies of religious cults.  Faith is delusion, and it is immature to cling to such delusions.  If the members of religious cults want to counter this, then they are free to provide evidence (actual evidence, not metaphysical ramblings) to demonstrate their beliefs are anything but the fairy tales of long dead nomadic tribes.

@Bryant Lister
Reality is a bit more complicated than your opinion that believers and beliefs are childish and foolish.  People can’t be boiled down to “childish” or “uneducated” for having religious beliefs.  Religion is not just all the supernatural crap, after all.  It provides community and can unite people around charitable causes.  There’s elements of genuinely decent philosophy and morality mixed into most.  While you might argue those things don’t come from religion, you don’t get to throw them out to make the case for religion lacking reasonable appeal, either.

Faith is more complicated than “a delusion,” because it comes out of our instinctual trust in our own experiences and the experiences of the people we respect.  From the experiencer’s perspective, there’s no obvious break between “real experience” and “false experience.”  The reality of how the mind works and learning to draw a line between the two is hugely counter-intuitive.  Even clinical psychologists who make their living studying such things are prone to all the same biases as the rest of us.  It’s not unintelligent at all to find our instincts difficult to overcome or even to fail repeatedly at doing so.

Mature and intelligent people can be wrong.  Being blind to the mistakes that lead one to form erroneous beliefs does not make one foolish.  That’s what humans are like.  But religion also rewards people for this.  For one example, take the people here saying, “I know you’ll think I’m crazy for this, but…”  Religion isn’t the one saying they’re crazy; no, religion tells them what they experienced is how things are.  Is it immature or foolish to prefer that answer over the idea that things that feel so real aren’t to be trusted?  No.  It’s wrong to go on to make conclusions about reality on that basis, but it’s not childish or stupid.

I do think that religions and their adherents need to start supporting their claims and abandoning the ones that don’t hold up to honest scrutiny (which will necessarily be most of them).  But religion is very good at finding ways to reassure believers their beliefs are rational.  Or that, if they’re not rational, there’s some special way of knowing that believers understand but non-believers are closed off to.  The inability of believers to notice why that’s false and their unwillingness to give up the illusion of being right is explained by believers being mature and intelligent human beings with all the usual instincts and biases of our species.

A.Noyd,

I apologize.  Seriously.  There were so many insults flying around that I stopped reading the comments “closely” and started just skimming them.  You wrote @Bryant, and when I went back to check on who had come to my defense to thank them I saw that and thought it was FROM Bryant not TO Bryant.  At this point in the posts it basically “me” and a whole bunch of “yous” and everyone was being so nasty that you all started to blend into one insultcommenter.

Bryant was NOT a breath of fresh air, he was a pain in my ankle.  You bordered on nasty, but were more sarcastic that outright rude.  I even liked your moniker.  When I “saw” (incorrectly) that Bryant had come to my defense, I was confused myself as he had been being such a jerk up til then.  Now that I realize it was you, not him, it all makes sense. 

So thank you A.NOYD, NOT Bryant, for coming to my defense, I apologize profusely and sincerely and will now skip Bryants comments and respond to yours…

Peace?

A.Noyd,

Okay, it’s going to take me awhile to get to all of your “long post” but I’ll do my best.  It’s way up there and I have to keep going back and forth…

I don’t know why you’re ignoring my long reply to you above, but you all too happily judged me as thinking I am god and judged me as someone who throws out reality because I find it unpalatable.

I just read over my comments and can’t find where I said those things (not saying I didn’t, just couldn’t find them).  I did see where I implied that you think you are the most intelligent man on earth, and that was a bit snarky, but you had just been very condescending in a response to me.  Not an excuse, I still shouldn’t have sunk to name calling, but for the most part I answered you sincerely.

I really do try (when I’m not in a “senior fog” and mixing up who said what, to take each of you guys as you present yourselves.  I make an honest attempt not to lump you all into some stereotype…I admit I don’t always succeed.  I have stated on this blog (in other threads) a number of times that I like arguing with atheists because so many of you a.know your stuff b. argue logically and while sarcastic aren’t usually downright mean and c. are usually very patient with me, which means I walk away knowing something I didn’t know til we argued.  (I have a much more difficult time with Protestants.  While I believe that your premise is wrong, your arguments for it are usually very sound.  I think that the Protestants premise is wrong also, but their arguments are rarely sound.  Frustrating to say the least). 

I’m saying nothing of the sort.  This is another stereotype about atheists that you think I’ve lived up to, but I haven’t. I merely do not think anyone or anything should be immune from criticism, even supposedly perfect beings.  And anyway, if such a perfect being couldn’t lower itself to personally explain in understandable terms why my criticism of it is off base, then it’s not very perfect at all, because the ability and generosity to do so would certainly be qualities of any “greatest being” or whatever I could imagine.

Ahhhhh…that’s where I said that you think you are God…my response was that IF God IS God then it wouldn’t be our job to tell Him how to be God.  You said you weren’t doing that and then proceeded to do it again.  In “your” opinion, God should make Himself clearer.  You’ve come up with criteria that God should have and I merely pointed out that given the nature of “GOD”, if He exists, we don’t get to say what He should or should not do or be. 

This is why I think we first need to define what we mean by “God”.  It’s hard to argue about something when our definitions aren’t the same.  See, you’ve said as much yourself, here:

.  One’s premises always need to be established as true before one can say one’s reasoning is sound

My premise is that God exists.  You’re premise is that he does not.  Every argument I give is going to be flawed in your eyes, because you do not accept my premise and the same is true for me and your arguments.

Since I obviously cannot establish my premise as true to you satisfaction then you have already ended the argument before it has begun.  And of course I feel the same about your premise.

I am usually told at this point, that you do not have to prove your premise as it is a “negative” and the burden of proof is up to me.  Nonsense.  It all depends on how you frame the premise.  If you say God does not exist, then you are correct.  It would be up to me to prove that He does.  However, if you change that premise to “The only reality is that which can be seen and measured and proven empirically” I most certainly can ask you to prove it. 

My question was not at all “if I accept there is a god, why should I accept yours?”; the question is that if I’m not allowed to rely on empiricism to settle the question of whether there is a god, then what system would I use to distinguish false gods from real gods (including the possibility that all gods are false)?

Well, that is just a disguised way of asking yet again that we prove there IS a God, empirically.  I have already said that that cannot be done.  But it can be proven logically and many arguments have been put forth that do just that.  You might not accept them, but that is the way to argue metaphysics.  The argument from contingency, from desire, cosmological, ontological…and dozens upon dozens more.  There is even a new book out that gives arguments from Science.

Plus, although you refuse to accept it, there is our personal experiences.  Experience can be used as evidence.  While it is not true simply because “a lot” of people claim it is, the fact that “a lot” of people claim to “experience”, not believe but experience, the same thing, it suffices as evidence, even if you perceive it as weak evidence.  Not saying it’s proof.  Just evidence that should be thrown in along with the arguments from reason.

A. Noyd,

(LOVE that moniker btw),

“But you don’t throw out reality because you don’t like the way it is.  This is the problem with you guys. ... You on the other hand, think that if the Truth is unpalatable, you simply change the Truth.”

I apologize. 

In my defense, (and rereading it I can see where you took it to mean “you” personally, I meant that as a general “you” and I didn’t mean atheists, I meant so many people today…generally, people do not believe in absolute moral Truth today.  We live in a relativistic society and Truth to me might not be Truth to you.  Which defeats the whole purpose of the word “Truth”.  So that was not to all “atheists” but to all “relativists”, who are sometimes atheists and sometimes not.

I think everyone struggles with Faith.  I know I have days where I think “Am I crazy”?  But then I remember that I have a relationship with a real live person - mk

Tosh. If your faith was a relationship with a real live person, rather than a figment of your imagination, you wouldn’t have such thoughts, any more than I have them about my wife.

KG,

I believe I said as much, didn’t I?  I always “love” my husband, but I don’t always “feel” it.  I have had doubts over the last 32 years about him also.  Some days my husband feels like a complete stranger!  I have many times doubted my marriage (usually in the heat of an argument) but eventually return to my senses (Thank God!).  Sometimes I wonder if believing in God is crazy.  Especially given the fact (as you all point out often enough) that there is no “Empirical” evidence.  In truth, it’s not so much that I doubt God, as it is that I doubt myself.  It wouldn’t be honest to say that I don’t question my own reliability occasionally.

I’m fully aware that we are capable of deluding ourselves at times.  If I am, as I claim, interested in the TRUTH, wherever that takes me, I have to be open to the possibility that what I believe is not the Truth.  I have to constantly examine it.  That’s why Catholics saying that “Conversion” is not a one time deal.  It’s ongoing.  I have to “convert” every day, sometimes every hour, even every moment.

mk,

Don’t be silly. You don’t have doubts about whether your husband <I<>exists</I> (or at least, if you do, you should seek urgent psychiatric help). You do have such doubts about God. That’s because your husband is a real person, while God is a figment of your imagination.

mk,

You are obviously convinced that making strenuous efforts to believe something for which there is, in your words, no empirical evidence, is somehow admirable or virtuous. It isn’t.

If you have to capitalize the word ‘truth’, then you’re only highlighting that it isn’t.

A.noyd, You make a lot of excuses for member of religious cults and the delusions they cling to under the label of faith.  However, the fact that they cling to these delusions is immature and not intelligent.  They have no evidence for their fairy tale beliefs and yet they claim that they have some sort of ‘truth’, which they of course capitalize. 
Religious cult members worship and believe in a mythical supernatural deity that according to the fairy tales would condemn people who don’t believe or worship to some mythical eternal torment.  That’s childish and immoral.  In the posts above they’ve pointed out the atrocities of dictators killed millions, but readily accept as their imaginary sky daddy a fairy tale character who killed billions in their bible myths.  The hypocrisy would be hilarious if it weren’t so disturbing.  Their cults teach them to value the lives of their fellow cult members above the lives of those that don’t believe their fairy tales.

Wow, I missed a couple of huge articles by Jennifer in the last week. (I keep remembering the truism, “Whoever cries ‘nazi’first lost the argument” and then resorts to name calling, both on high and low (very low) levels.

I simply came to this arguement after taking a course in Geochemisty followed a semester or so later with a course in Physical Biochemistry. I found myself in a deep muse one day during class, thinking to myself “for life to simply “spring from the primordial soup” and then replicate” is impossible. How many “forbidden transitions” to catalyze how many hundreds and thousands of “impossible reactions” must take place in such a specific relational order for even the simplest and smallest begining of life to even begin to not only form but to replicate??? I quickly understood that Life on its own hook (self initiating) was and is impossible!!!! There is no defendable rational explanation for self-evolving life. Darwin was a hack and his theory at best seems applicable only in the micro-scale of trait.

My next decision was equally crystalized, I ran back to Christ, the truest of ALL truth.

@mk
I do believe you are sincere in that you think you’re not judging atheists, but even though you know you don’t always succeed at taking us for who we are, you can use when someone points out that you’re being judgmental as a way to avoid it in the future.  I’m fine with snark (I’d be a hypocrite otherwise), but it’s impossible to tell if someone is being sarcastic when their snark parrots stereotypes, such as that we atheists think we’re god, that we think we’re smarter than everyone else, or that we reject religion because we don’t like the implications.  If you snark about a black person being lazy or someone of Asian descent driving poorly, it’s understandable if those people assume you’re stereotyping them even if your intentions were nothing of the sort.

“You’ve come up with criteria that God should have and I merely pointed out that given the nature of “GOD”, if He exists, we don’t get to say what He should or should not do or be.”

Ah, but why do you think the criteria you’ve come up with are special?  You’ve asserted “this is what god is like,” but I’m not buying that till you establish the existence of god and can demonstrate that is indeed his nature!  In the meantime, I can damn well say that the qualities you ascribe to god, such as perfection, should play out logically in certain ways.  Such as it’s fair to expect a perfect being to give a consistent explanation for why it allows evil and suffering to exist.  You earlier mentioned god is “the greatest thing that man can conceive,” yet here you are rejecting the things I can conceive.

“My premise is that God exists.  You’re premise is that he does not.”

Um, no, “there is no god” is not my premise, but rather a conclusion<i> I have come to based on factual premises.

I am not saying this.  I even bolded what I am saying in my long post.  This is a matter of epistemology: <i>how we know things.  The actual premise you’ll get from most skeptical atheists is that “the only parts of reality we can know about are those things that can be established through empiricism.”  There could be all sorts of things out there beyond empiricism, but we can’t know they’re real or true unless we have some alternative objective (I said subjective above but that was an error) means of telling “true” from “false.”  So if your contention is that we have such a way, you need to show it to me.

“Well, that is just a disguised way of asking yet again that we prove there IS a God, empirically. ... But it can be proven logically and many arguments have been put forth that do just that.”

No, it’s most emphatically not such a request.  Can you please trust me that I am, in fact, asking for something besides empirical proof of god?  The request I am making is for a working alternative to empiricism.  You yourself agree that premises have to be true in order to come to sound conclusions, but you don’t seem to get how we figure out what is or isn’t true, nor do you appear to understand what it looks like when an argument’s premises have been demonstrated as true.  I’d be perfectly happy to accept your premise that “god exists” if you could demonstrate that premise is true in some fashion that ruled out contradictory claims without resorting to fallacies (like begging the question or special pleading).

“Plus, although you refuse to accept it, there is our personal experiences.  Experience can be used as evidence.”

Experiential evidence is weak because if you’re going to accept it for one set of claims, then you have to accept it for competing claims, including those of religions contrary to yours (or the beliefs of alien abductees, etc.).  You have to accept that Evangelical Christians’ experiences are evidence for their beliefs, that Muslims’ experiences support their beliefs, that Sikh experiences can be used to prove their beliefs, and so on.  And you also have to explain why “my brain is messing with me” is not a better explanation for those experiences than “god exists,” especially given what we know of the brain and how readily experiences can be used to support contradictory beliefs.

Oh, and thank you for the apology.  I’m glad you could go back and look at my posts.  I just wish you could understand that I’m not saying the things you think I’m saying so you could engage with my actual arguments.

steve,
Gosh, after a whole course in geochemistry and one in physical biochemistry, you clearly know more about the origins of life than, for example, Nobel prize winner Jack Szostak, whose lab is currently investigating the question. And a whole lot more about evolution than all those scientists who study it for their entire careers, and who have collectively written literally millions of research papers developing, refining and applying Darwin’s insights. Your comment is a shining example of Christian humility for us benighted atheists.

Bryant Lister says:

“You make a lot of excuses for member of religious cults and the delusions they cling to under the label of faith.  However, the fact that they cling to these delusions is immature and not intelligent.”

They’re not excuses, they’re explanations of why your opinions are idiotically simplistic and prejudicial.  Yes, people should try to overcome their biases and instincts, but it’s not immature or foolish when they don’t; it’s just normal.  From the point of view of the religious person, religion is reasonable and consistent, and they can find reinforcement for that everywhere in daily life.  They’re wrong, of course, but not for immature reasons.  And while many of their reasons are foolish, you can’t fault someone for that if they’re naive about why that is.  To say they should know better is to ignore the strength of the influences that keep them from doing so.

It’s not helpful in the least to redefine normal, intelligent adult behavior to suit your biases against the religious.  The errors in thought that religious people make ultimately stem from being human.  And you, dear Bryant Lister, are also human and also prone to making such mistakes.  It’s admirable that you make an effort to avoid them, but trying and succeeding aren’t the same thing.  Argue against arguments, and make cases for why the arguments of religious people are wrong; don’t argue against people, especially if you can’t bother to learn enough about how the mind works to see normal behavior for what it is.

A. Noyd,

In those instances tho, I wasn’t stereotyping.  I was responding to your specific comments.  First, you stated what God “should” do.  I would have responded to anyone that that is making yourself God.  It’s why I keep asking you to define God as you see Him.  Taking the definition for God :that for which nothing greater can be conceived.”  If you can conceive of a more perfect God, then that would mean that you were greater than God, which would make you God unless someone came up with an even better version…see?  That’s what I meant by you are making yourself God.  As for thinking you are smarter than everyone…read your responses to me before I made that comment.  They were pretty dang condescending.  I was responding to your tone, not your atheism.  I’ve done the same to Protestants and Catholics when I’ve felt they were crossing the line.

Ah, but why do you think the criteria you’ve come up with are special?

Again, you need to clarify what you mean by God.  Obviously, I am coming from the Christian God, so that is the one I am referring to.  I can barely remember how we got to this point, but I do know somehwere you asked why you should believe in my God, IF you were to allow for the possibility of any God, or no God at all. 

I can damn well say that the qualities you ascribe to god, such as perfection, should play out logically in certain ways.  Such as it’s fair to expect a perfect being to give a consistent explanation for why it allows evil and suffering to exist.  You earlier mentioned god is “the greatest thing that man can conceive,” yet here you are rejecting the things I can conceive.

But I agree with you here. The difference being of course that I believe the God of the Catholic Church IS consistent on evil and suffering. Plus, that for which nothing greater can be conceived doesn’t mean you can think of better ways of doing things.  I mean, a 5 year old can conceive of a God that makes it rain ice cream and to him THAT would be better than the God I believe in…The point of his argument is that if you can “understand” what is meant by “God” then he must exist because
“being” is greater than “imagining.”  Understanding the concept of God is one thing, but actual existence is greater than simple understanding.  You should understand this because St. Anselm is saying that to actually exist, to BE in the real world is greater than to simply exist in the mind, which is sort of one your own arguments for atheism. 

There could be all sorts of things out there beyond empiricism, but we can’t know they’re real or true unless we have some alternative objective (I said subjective above but that was an error) means of telling “true” from “false.”  So if your contention is that we have such a way, you need to show it to me.

For heavens sake, of course I can’t show you empirical evidence of God.  I’ve said as much a number of times.  What I can give you is “proofs by reason”.  You can’t prove the metaphysical with physical means.  It’s simply not possible.  You can reason up to a point, and show that it is rational to believe in God, but eventually you’re going to have to make that leap.  That’s why it’s called Faith.  That’s why we say “We Believe”.  But the arguments from reason for God are plentiful.  Many a person has been swayed by them.  Maybe not you, but that doesn’t mean that they are pointless.  You, as you have admitted, will require more.  In philosophy (at least ancient philosophy) a proof by reason was enough/acceptable.  It might even be said that proof from reason was better proof than proof by physical evidence, as the 5 sense can deceive.  Optical illusions, infrared/ultraviolet, high/low pitched sounds…all of these would be considered “empirical”, yet they could give you wrong data.

The request I am making is for a working alternative to empiricism.

But I HAVE been giving you the alternative.  Reason…proofs from reason.  There are dozens of them. 

Oh, and thank you for the apology.  I’m glad you could go back and look at my posts.  I just wish you could understand that I’m not saying the things you think I’m saying so you could engage with my actual arguments.

lol…I’m feeling the same way.  You keep asking me for something other than empirical evidence, and when I say reason, you ask again…and I said that “experience” is not proof, but it is evidence.  I agree it’s weak, but given the number of people who have had the experience, it gains credence.  There are relatively few people claiming to have been abducted by aliens.  If a billion of them claimed it, we’d sit up and take them seriously.  Not proof, but not totally dismissible either, given the numbers.

I do think we have been talking past each other (at least I might have) as I got distracted by the onslaught of trolls. 

I think, I hope, we’re more on track now…

BK,

  Sure… I’ll even up the ante…and save you a few billion years
I’ll let you collect purified jars of all of the amino acids in the world which comprise biological cells, to be poured into you own brand of primordial stew to let sit to the ravages of tide and time and we’ll stand back to watch life assemble itself and then in another stunning fit of serendipity, figure out how to replicate itself. And then, we’re off to the races.
The formation of amino acids is a simple thing compared to the orders upon orders of magnitude to take each successive step.

Do you understand how terribly complex “life” is even on the most elementary level?  Just because some hollywood schlub proposes a “just so” story doesn’t mean that science can or ever will support it.

The problem with todays research into the quest for the generation of life is that the potential for cross contamination by existing microbes is ever present. The geological evolustion of the matter comprising earth assumes molten matter…
BK, the elephant in the room is that you can not have it both ways, ( and NO…forget all of the Star Trek pseudo-science that you ever saw that has crept into your (perhaps?) and everyone elses psyche.)
Either the laws of Matter and Science are obeyed or they are not… BOTH arguments are tied to the same data.

Or suppose this canard… A million children playing with a million chemistry sets, pretty soon one of the will create life????
This seem to be the mentality of the world… It is much more probable that the monkeys will bang out Shakespere first.

God is the first cause of all things!

But I HAVE been giving you the alternative.  Reason…proofs from reason.  There are dozens of them. - mk

And not one of them sound. Hardly anyone who is not already a religious believer takes them seriously. If any of them were generally agreed to be sound, of course, there would be no need for there to be dozens. But why not present whichever you think is strongest? Here you have an audience of atheists, agog to hear your marvellous logical proof. what an opportunity.

There are relatively few people claiming to have been abducted by aliens.  If a billion of them claimed it, we’d sit up and take them seriously. - mk

Actually, I believe there are millions, according to surveys; and no, those of us with any sense would not take them seriously just because there were billions of them, if their stories were as nonsensical as those of current “abductees” are, except perhaps as an alarming example of mass psychosis. If your god is real, mk, how is it that missionaries have never come upon a hitherto uncontacted tribe who already know all about the Triune God and his incarnation on Earth? How is it that the vast majority of people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and communities? That makes no sort of sense if there’s a real god who actually wants to be worshipped, does it? It makes perfect sense if gods, souls, angels and demons are just human fantasies.

Steve,
You’re ignorant, which is potentially curable, but it’s evident you are also a fool, which probably isn’t. Your word salad is not worth responding to in detail. If you, or anyone else, wants to know about current work on the origins of life, then read the first two chapters of Nick Lane’s Life Ascending.

Well KG…. Thank you for jumping right into name calling and character assassination instead of reasoned discourse… You’ve jumped past the “nazi” calling which is the first sign of losing your argument. Having now declared me the winner of the debate by “name calling”. (But this can be cured !)

Your entry ticket back into the DISCUSSION is your treatise on the evolution of cyanobacteria from nothing !

“evolution of cyanobacteria from nothing”

Of course if you *think* that evolution has *anything* to do with abiogenesis you might as well knock yoursellf out of the discussion:)

A.Noyd, If you want to have such an incredibly low standard for maturity and intelligence, that is your problem, not mine.  Claiming that it is ‘normal’ to believe the delusional fairy tales of religious cults, does not make it mature or intelligent. 

It’s hilarious that you claim I’m not arguing against arguments while you ignore the majority of my post and the questions asked within, while putting forth your limited definition of ‘normal’ as an excuse for the delusions of faith.

Steve,

I had brought up something similar in a previous comment…that many scientists working on quantum physics and time theory are coming to the conclusion that rather than proving there is no God, they are starting to think more and more that there is One.
 

Something about the way it works and how things don’t work as you’d expect.  My husband explained it to me once and I tried reading a book on it, but it was like listening to and reading Greek.  I’m sure you could find stuff on it if you googled it.

“I had brought up something similar in a previous comment…that many scientists working on quantum physics and time theory are coming to the conclusion that rather than proving there is no God, they are starting to think more and more that there is One. Something about the way it works and how things don’t work as you’d expect.”

So, there are unknowns in quantum physics….let’s put our imaginary sky daddy in there to explain it.  What a ridiculously immature approach.  This is straight out of the Deepak Chopra nonsense, reflected in his ignorant use of quantum terminology.  More cult fairy tales and delusional beliefs. 
Silly christians, myths are for kids.

re:Abiogenesis from Yeah, right

Is that not the root of the discussion? The evolutionists believe, whether they know it or not, that the odd elements will purposefully combine and then, SHAZAMM, will rise to awareness. This includes the proposition that ordinary matter will of its own accord, marshall itself to life and purpose. The point expressed was, i believe, that elements will NOT self assemble, self direct, and then self replicate simply by the nature of its own Chemisrty.
It would seem that the biologists are looking from the top down and the chemists are looking from the bottom up. Where is the transition from lifelessness to autologous life? What is the transition? How does it transition? The atheists simply wave their hands and blythely ignore this.

Evolutionists?  No such thing.  The only people that use the term ‘evolutionist’ are the cult members that think their imaginary sky daddy waved his magical wand or wiggled his nose to create life.  There are evolutionary biologists, but no ‘evolutionists’. 
Atheists aren’t ignoring the issue, some of us understand that the chemical energy found in individual molecules is the same energy that generates ‘life’ in biological organisms.  The energy is biochemical, there is no great barrier to cross here, just the arrogant delusion of some human beings thinking they are some ‘master race’ of organism.  We are a product of chemical reactions that are not a great mystery. 
You want to believe that there is some mythical deity pulling the strings of creation, or getting in his chariot to pull the sun across the sky each day, or throwing lighting bolts down to earth from his mountain top home, or flooding the earth killing billions because they weren’t obeying his rules.  Just another fairy tale mythology from ancient cults that could barely manage to create fire by rubbing sticks together.

(Note: I won’t be responding again because I have to focus on school, though I would read a response if you wanted to write one.  Just thought I’d give you the heads up before you bothered answering some of the questions I ask.)

mk says:

“It’s why I keep asking you to define God as you see Him.”

I don’t disbelieve in a god, I disbelieve in all gods, so I do not go around with an idea of god in my head.  I examine other people’s claims about god as I encounter them.

“Taking the definition for God ‘that for which nothing greater can be conceived.’ If you can conceive of a more perfect God, then that would mean that you were greater than God, which would make you God unless someone came up with an even better version…see?”

No, that doesn’t follow.  After all, I’m not saying I can conceive of a more perfect god that god can conceive of; I’m saying I can conceive of a more perfect god than you can conceive of.  (Well, not exactly, but let’s go with this for now.)  I don’t magically make myself into the god of this definition just because I can conceive of a more perfect god than you can, but if that’s how things work, then logically you were god up until the point when I came along with my more perfect idea.

“As for thinking you are smarter than everyone…read your responses to me before I made that comment.  They were pretty dang condescending.”

I tend to be rather snarky when I run up against people being arrogant in their ignorance, sure, but that doesn’t mean I think I’m super smart.  Rather, I remember all too well the times when I was given snark for being arrogant in my ignorance.  Not everyone responds to that sort of thing, but some do.

“Again, you need to clarify what you mean by God.  Obviously, I am coming from the Christian God, so that is the one I am referring to. I can barely remember how we got to this point….”

You were saying “if He exists, we don’t get to say what He should or should not do or be” after saying “given the nature of ‘GOD’.”  So you were trying to make the point that we can’t question god by having me agree that god is unquestionable.  But all these attributes you’re attributing to god simply do not follow from the definition of a perfect being/that for which nothing greater can be conceived.  You apparently think that they do follow, so when I don’t play along with your ‘given’s, you get confused and want to know how I see god.  In this particular instance, the problem is that I’m still going with your definition of god, but perfection to me would include allowing people to question oneself because I don’t think anyone or anything should be immune from criticism.  The being who allows questioning is therefore necessarily greater than the being who doesn’t.  Now, you can disagree if you like, but you’ll have to explain how when you say what god’s like you’re not telling him how he should or should not be!

“The point of his argument is that if you can ‘understand’ what is meant by ‘God’ then he must exist because ‘being’ is greater than ‘imagining.’ “

He “must” nothing of the sort.  Anselm was simply asserting that existence is more perfect than imagining.  If you accept that, then you should accept my assertion that allowing criticism is more perfect than being unquestionable.  And anyway, why isn’t “being what everyone imagines” greater than simply “existing”?  I mean, obviously a god who makes it rain ice cream and really exists is more perfect than a god who exists but doesn’t make it rain ice cream.  If the “greatest thing” can’t live up to everyone’s expectations of greatest-ness, than it’s a rather pathetic “greatest thing,” and thus is disqualified from being god by this definition.

” You keep asking me for something other than empirical evidence, and when I say reason, you ask again….

As I said before, “Reason (or reasons) alone is no assurance that one’s reasoning can be applied to reality.  One’s premises always need to be established as true before one can say one’s reasoning is sound.”  Which I figured you agreed with because way upthread you said: “Reason is only good if it is founded on Truth/Reality.  A reasonable argument based on a false premise, untruth, is insanity.”

Reason cannot be used to establish the truth of its premises.  Reason is perfectly happy with constructions like this: Atoms are made out of boogers; people are made out of atoms; thus people are made out of boogers.  It’s ridiculous because atoms are not made out of boogers, but we can’t use reason to know that; we need something else.  When it comes to the natural world, that something else is empiricism.  If you wish to demonstrate the reality of another sort of world for which empiricism does not work, then you’ll need an alternative method of establishing the truth of your premises in that world.  Simply saying “‘being’ is greater than ‘imagining’” doesn’t make it true any more than saying atoms are made of boogers makes that true.

No doubt here’s where you’ll say faith comes in.  But this is where we go back to those fishies.  If one is going to make such a leap, then one can as easily leap to anything that someone claims must be reached by faith.  And that can be claimed for anything.  So your combination of reason and faith gets one to any conclusion imaginable.  If it can do that, then why on earth would you trust you’ve used it to find Truth?  Why would you think your Truth is the true Truth but Mr. Naser the Muslim’s Truth or Ms. Kaur the Sikh’s Truth (and so on, ad almost infinitum) are not?

Bryant Lister says:

“If you want to have such an incredibly low standard for maturity and intelligence, that is your problem, not mine.  Claiming that it is ‘normal’ to believe the delusional fairy tales of religious cults, does not make it mature or intelligent.”

Your standards for maturity and intelligence are completely unreasonable because going by them, the vast majority of the world, and pretty much everyone who ever existed in history is immature and foolish.  It’s much more sensible to draw the baseline for “mature” and “intelligent” so that at least half of the world qualifies.  And even if we go by your standards, you still have to explain how religious beliefs are different from other types of false beliefs such that you are not among the immature fools.  (Although, my standards are not so low that I don’t already think you belong there.)

“It’s hilarious that you claim I’m not arguing against arguments…”

Except I never claimed that, genius boy.  One doesn’t say “do X but don’t do Y” only to people who aren’t already doing X.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Nydia Burdick says:

“The evolutionists believe, whether they know it or not, that the odd elements will purposefully combine and then, SHAZAMM, will rise to awareness.”

Good thing you put in that bit about “whether they know it or not” because otherwise if I told you that as someone who accepts evolution I believe nothing of the sort you wouldn’t be able to point to it to show me how you know better than I do what I believe.  Winning arguments is a breeze when you can simply tell your opponents what they think, right?

A.Noyd,
Your previous comment:
“Argue against arguments, and make cases for why the arguments of religious people are wrong; don’t argue against people…”

If you can’t accept your past statements, again that is your problem, not mine. 

“you still have to explain how religious beliefs are different from other types of false beliefs such that you are not among the immature.”

Actually, I don’t because I have no beliefs.  Nice try though, little one.

@Bryant Lister: If I understand you correctly, you believe that people who believe in God are childish because we cling to what is imaginary, living a fantasy life based on wish-fulfillment and magical thinking. Again, assuming I have that first part correct, you also believe that our faith life is selfish and directed toward personal gain, therefore immoral.

It might surprise you to find that none of that is true for me. I know I encouraged you to say a specific prayer and document what happened, and that this would then prove the existence of God to you, but when I sat down and thought more on the topic I realized that answered prayers aren’t what have me convinced of God’s existence. Those things can be, and often quite easily, explained as coincidence or the laws of the universe at play.

As for having grown up Catholic, that’s really only superficially true. Yes, I was brought to Mass every Sunday - but at home my Mom taught me that the Catholic Church was wrong on women’s issues such as abortion and contraception, sexual relationships, and that it was essentially run by a group of men who were intent on oppressing women. I had absolutely no trust for any person in charge. Furthermore, Mom taught me to horde things, not to be generous with them; she also taught me that money was way more important than relationships; that sex should be reserved for someone you “love” and that living with someone before marriage was just smart - kind of like test driving a car. My grandfather taught me to always look out for number 1 because nobody else would. My stepfather taught me that it was okay to lie, steal, break laws or cheat as long as you didn’t get caught; that there was nothing wrong with porn or incest or any of the other things that were against Catholic theology - it was all just a matter of preference, really. We had a Bible in our home, I think, somewhere - but I never saw it and I didn’t even know what a rosary was until I went to Catholic school one year at age 15. So, even though I did have one to two hours a week where I was hearing Catholic Christian messages being read to me from the Bible, the rest of my weeks were pretty much steeped in secular culture.

I ended up leaving the faith completely at 16, convinced that I was throwing off the shackles of religious oppression and entering into freedom. What I didn’t understand then, and do now, is that without some kind of standard by which to judge my behavior as good or evil I was capable of doing some really awful things and rationalizing them as okay.  I hurt a lot of people, all the while convincing myself that I wasn’t really doing anyone harm.  Our need to believe we are good people is so strong that when we are confronted with having done something wrong we are fully capable of finding a way to justify it. I was a good liar, so good I even fooled myself, until the day my 8 year old son confronted me with his own pain - pain that I had caused - pain that was bad enough he told me he was going to kill himself and then told me exactly how.  The person in the world I had convinced myself I loved the most was the one person in the world I had hurt the most with my behavior.

I came back to the Catholic Church because that’s the one religion whose rules make sense, and help guide me on a path where I do the most good and the least harm. It’s because I want to love better, because I don’t want to be the cause of anyone else’s pain, that I remain in the Church even when I’m discouraged by the sin that surrounds her. It’s because I understand that the rules and guidelines set down by Christ are there to make sure that I am given all the help I need to love people who hate me, people who treat me like I’m an idiot or a child, for my beliefs. It’s for the sake of loving others that I am and remain Catholic, not for what I gain in terms of prosperity or fame or glory or honor or human affirmation - if I were looking for those I would have left long ago - but for what I become the closer I walk with Christ.

It isn’t just me, either. I have seen my husband, who was ardently atheist until two years ago, also grow in his ability to love other people, to look past his own needs and see those of others around him, to be more thoughtful and more faithful and more reliable, to believe in his own worth, and to become a better father to our son. I have seen it transform and change my mother - the same woman from earlier into someone who would give a stranger what little she has without a second thought.  The more closely she walks with Christ, the less full of anger and bitterness toward the world she has become. This is why I am Catholic, and why I believe in God.  It isn’t a case of wish fulfillment, or selfishness. It’s because I know what I was before I became truly Catholic and I don’t ever want to be that person again.

Brandy,

Heads up.  I too tried to open myself up, make myself vulnerable, share my innermost with Bryant and the like…He’s going to rip your comments to shreds just as he did mine.  Mean spirits do that.  BUT, I wanted you to know that I read what you wrote and for what it’s worth, it moved me deeply.  I had a similar turn around in my life and I too have experienced the changes in myself and my loved ones that you have just described.  Nothing short of miraculous.  Go back???? NO WAY!  As Peter said “Master, To whom would I go?  You have the words of eternal life.”

Anywho, for what it’s worth, I read your comments and others will also, so don’t be disheartened when Bryant or someone else comes back with that ever so clever line “You believe in the Sky Daddy”...actually, come to think of it, Sky Daddy isn’t the insult that he thinks it is…lol.  The word “Abba” translates to “Daddy” better than “Father”, and I can think of nothing more comforting than “I am my Daddy’s little girl…”
The fact that He lives in the “Sky” just makes it that much better!  ;)

A. Noyd,

I leave for a week long camping trip myself today so I won’t be around either.  Perhaps we’ll meet again.  Thanks for the discourse.  It was good stuff.

Brandy, I don’t believe anything.  I’m just restating your own cult mythology.  Prayers are just wishing upon a star (something else from childish fairy tales).  Scientific experiments with regard to prayers have demonstrated that they ‘aren’t worth the paper they are printed on’. 

If you need a set of cult rules in order to behave in a less selfish, more thoughtful way, then you are only proving my point.  Children need that kind of guidance in order to behave, not adults.  Your pathetic life story only backs up what I’ve been saying about religious cults and childish behavior.  If you need to have an imaginary sky daddy watching over you so that you don’t behave immorally, then you aren’t capable of acting like an adult.  You need your cult’s structure and rules because you aren’t fully capable of thinking for yourself.  I wouldn’t want you to leave your religious cult, because acting morally is not something you appear capable of.

mk, Do you really want to talk about ‘mean spiritedness’.  Most religious cults want to believe in a mythical supernatural deity that torments, kills and punishes with eternal torture anyone that doesn’t bow down to it.  Seriously, do you think that’s not ‘mean spirited’?

If you’re comfortable with the term ‘imaginary sky daddy’ and being “Daddy’s little girl…”, that’s great.  It demonstrates what I’ve been saying about your cult beliefs being childish.  Thanks for agreeing with me.

Bryant,

Lol…and therein lies the rub.  If as you say those guys are imaginary, then they are not capable of being mean spirited as they don’t exist.  No culpability. You on the other hand are flesh and blood and empirically provable…you are one of the most ineffective debaters I have ever met (and I’ve been doing this for 10 years). You also win the award for one of the nastiest.  And that is saying a lot.  Since you are NOT imaginary, you’ll have to own that.

Have a great week.

@Bryant Lister: Adults need guidance in order to behave as well, or do you think laws are created just for fun? If laws were adequate to guide behavior, do you think the prisons would be full?

Declaring yourself “good” does not make it so. The prisons are full of people who have done evil things and yet each and every one of them would tell you how good they are. As long as you’re writing your own standard for what is good and what isn’t, for what is moral and what isn’t, it’s easy to be “moral” and “good”.  Just a hint, though, try spelling good without God - all you get is “o”!

You’ve said often enough that you don’t need to hold yourself accountable for doing good deeds - you don’t need to keep a record. If your actions on this particular message board are any indication at all of how you treat people in the real world, I think you need to rethink that statement. You even treat your fellow atheists with disdain and disregard, as if they were worth nothing to you. And yet, you hold yourself as being “good”? Is that the action of a “good” person, a “moral” person?

I pray for you, Bryant. It is obvious to me from the kind of comments you post on this thread that your sense of self-worth is so low you feel the only way you can gain any at all is by insulting and demeaning others. It breaks my heart, because you are worth so much more than you realize and there is so much love available to you if you just stretch out your hand to receive it and open your eyes to see it.

Mm, Reading comprehension is a lost art.  My statement was that it was mean spirited to want to believe/worship a mythical supernatural deity that according to your cult fairy tales did those things.  The existence of the imaginary sky daddy is irrelevant, it is your desire for that to be real that is the problem.
If being called childish, immature, and unintelligent is the ‘nastiest’ you’ve encountered in 10 years on Internet forums, then you have been very sheltered in your online experiences.

“Just a hint, though, try spelling good without God - all you get is ‘o’!”

I think you’re on to something here, but you haven’t quite thought it through yet. That’s not the only surprising revelation you get from subracting three letters from the word “good”. For example, if you try spelling “good” without “goo”, then all you have is “d”.

So maybe you need both God AND goo to be good? But that can’t be the whole story either, because we now have an “o” and a “d” unused, unless… wait… I’ve got it. OD is an acronym for over-dosed, so what I think the word “good” tells us is that you have to have both God and goo to be good, but not too much or you will OD.

Now if only I can figure out what kind of goo is being referenced here. Maybe it’s that coagulated transubstantiated magic wine mentioned earlier? Perhaps the Catholics in thread can help clarify for me?

I’m starting to see the appeal of theism, actually. It’s like a word puzzle!

“You also win the award for one of the nastiest.”

Only because you completely ignored me.

“I’ve been doing this for 10 years”

and remained sooo ignorant.  That’s hard to believe.  Go post your nonsense on PZ’s blog and get ripped to shreds.

“As long as you’re writing your own standard for what is good and what isn’t”

What a silly thing to say!  It would seem that you have your stereotype and you’re sticking to it.

“If your actions on this particular message board”

Hilarious.  The original title was “reasoning with atheists” in case you have forgotten.  What would you expect when those who been indoctrinated into “wishful thinking” encounter those who have broken away from that into actually thinking for themselves.

You should read the really nasty things posted by “Christians” on the USA op-ed by Jerry Coyne titled “As atheists know, you can be good without God”.

“You even treat your fellow atheists with disdain and disregard”.

Anyone who posts irrational nonsense should be treated with disdain.

“It is obvious to me”

Well, something is obvious to me.  You don’t like someone questioning your “wishful thinking”.

“there is so much love available to you if you just stretch out your hand to receive it and open your eyes to see it.”

Typical faith-based nonsense.

“It was good stuff.”

Hilarious.  After 10 years, this is your idea of “good stuff”????

Bryant,
    I know evolutionary biologists who are excellent scientists and good people. I know many “evolutionists” who believe in the various stripes of Darwinian theory, Dawkinsian theory, and even Hawkingsian theory. (And they are Athiests, Agnostics, and Believers)
For one to attempt to classify all “believers” in the world as being ‘mythologists of the great sky daddy’ or some such term is most certainly foolish on your part as you stoop well below proper manners in public discourse.
To therefore use the term “evolutionists” is certainly not derogatory nor is it defaming, but at least states an acknowledgement that not all could or would agree on everything. (The same is said of christians by the way).

Belief or lack thereof is a personal journey of study, testing, meditation, and especially digestion (reumination). For many, it is a lifetime of pondering the mysteries of life but especially lived experience.
For me personally, the journey has progressed through the sciences of Chemistry, Geochemistry, Astronomy, Physics, and Biochemistry. After more than 40 years of study, for me,the mysteries are even more profound; deeper and more complex and interrelated than I believed all those years ago.
I eschew the trivial certainty that some arrive at, BASED ON SO LITTLE DATA, those simplistic two point or even worse, one point calculations,  which place the incomprehensible magnitude of Life, from which so many people arrive at with such certainty, onto the simplistic ” I don’t want to believe and you can’t make me”.
That is hideously simplistic.
The journey from molten planetary rock to even the simplest form of carbon chemistry, which might be called “biological” is more than many lives study.

I think…Therfore I am… but HOW?, Why ?  Evolution is utterly too simplistic a word.

Brandy, Do you need laws to keep you from committing crimes?  Again you’re proving my point that the majority of the population is immature and unintelligent.  The need cult fairy tales and laws to keep them from acting immoral and hurting other people.
So, will you be praying that your imaginary sky daddy doesn’t flood the earth and kill billions? Or will you be praying that your mythical deity doesn’t subject all those that don’t believe/worship it to eternal torment?
How do you ever expect to grow up when you continue to talk to imaginary creatures? 
You can’t spell ‘good’ without ‘god’. What a great lining of reasoning.  Let’s take that further than your tiny mind would obviously handle.  You can’t spell ‘peace’ with ‘god’, you can’t spell ‘mature’ with ‘god’, you can’t spell ‘free’ with ‘god’, you can’t spell ‘think’ with ‘god’, you can’t spell ‘America’ with ‘god’, and you can’t spell ‘pizza’ with ‘god’.  Hey look at all the things that aren’t possible with your imaginary sky daddy. 
Silly christians, myths are for kids.

Steve, your babbling is unproductive.  Do you have some evidence?  No, didn’t think so.  You’ve got a bunch of little sayings and a lack of understanding that you call ‘mysteries’.  However, your beliefs are your own delusions, nothing more.  Let me know when you have something that can stand up to scientific scrutiny.

@Bryant: I am very curious. You posit that adults do not need either laws or guidelines to know what is good and moral or to be good. Where is the science that backs up your statement? Morality isn’t scientific, so far as I am aware. There is, to my knowledge, no quantifiable quality that marks moral versus immoral.  In fact, biologically speaking wouldn’t “moral” be an irrelevant term - what is “right” would simply boil down to whatever you could do and whatever would allow you to gain the greatest advantage over others competing for the same resources?

I admit that I am not as learned as some, so I am open to the probability I have overlooked something here. However, it seems to me that for someone whose focus is on what can be measured and quantified you are speaking an awful lot about things that aren’t able to be either. From my uneducated perspective it looks an awful lot to me like you are borrowing a moral code from Christianity and then scorning the source of your own moral code.  That behavior doesn’t seem very logical.

I think it’s sad that PZ Myers is most famous for his mean-spirited atheistic blogs where he poses as an expert and voice of reason in matters of metaphysics, history, philosophy, theology, etc.  when in fact he is none of those things.  He is first and foremost—a respectable fish scientist—and not an eminent one at that.  And it’s sadder that he has an army of followers who build a personality cult around him, nowhere near close to Dawkins, but he has one nevertheless.  It would be wise for Prof. Myers to concentrate on his fish and become eminent in that field instead of causing an army of intellectual neophyte atheists to commit the “appeal to authority” fallacy in their lives by accepting him as an expert on matters he has no training in.

Everybody knows that atheists don’t believe in romantic love; they believe in the neurological and hormone-driven animalistic impulses in the brain that call the human species to secure the survival of their species through the act of mating.

Everybody knows that atheists don’t believe in fraternal or maternal love.  They believe in the animalistic neurological impulses in the brain that call the human species to protect the herd and their offspring. 

Therefore, love is an quixotic delusion that doesn’t exist.

If Christianity is considered (by atheists to be) reducible to a backwards Medieval idea, then atheism is reducible to a positively primal ideology—further behind than even the Early Stone Age.

Science is relevant to atheism as it forms their backbone for their identity (for lack of belief).  However, please understand that atheism is utterly, positively irrelevant to science.  Just like atheists argue that God is not necessary for science to be, neither is atheism.  If so, I would like to hear arguments to how science “needs” atheism.

Brandy, There is no ‘christian cult’ morality.  As I said before, if a person believes they are being watched by an imaginary sky daddy then they cannot be considered to act morally.  Avoiding punishment and seeking reward becomes the motivation for behavior in cult members. 
From the perspective of logical reasoning, morality is very simple.  ‘Treat others as you wish to be treated.’  (This comes from Confucious :“Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” written around 500 B.C., well before the bible fairy tales)  No silly cult mythology or laws are needed.
Did you have nothing to say about my extension of your spelling word game?

@Bryant - You are providing a philosophical statement as a substitute for any scientific evidence. Shall I conclude that you have none? Incidentally, Confuscius was a believer in a “silly cult mythology” - he worshiped his ancestors and encouraged ancestor worship among his disciples. Your statement indicates that your belief in morality is based upon a “silly cult mythology” rather than any logical or scientific basis.

You might be interested to note that the Jewish law upon which all of Christian law is built contained in Deutoronomy a statement that the upright Jew was to love his neighbor as himself, a law that was given to the Israelites immediately following the Exodus in 1451 B.C. - well before Confuscius was even conceived.

Brandy, You’re grasping at straws, I have no beliefs.  I said it was based on logical reasoning, not on any mythical beliefs Confucius might have had.  The bible fairy tale books were not written in 1451 B.C., that’s the fictional setting for the stories they contain.  The archaeological evidence (not the fluff put out by cult members) dates the bible fairy tales being written in the 300 to 600 B.C. range.  Most of these stories were then rewritten, translated, rewritten and so on many times after that. You need to stick to facts and not the mythology created by your cult. 
Did you have nothing to say about my extension of your spelling word game?

Atheists say they do not believe in God because they did not see him. However, they believe they have a brain which they never see.

Roger Fields, Having done human dissection, I’ve seen and held a human brain in my hands.  Have you seen and held an imaginary sky daddy in your hands?
Cult members dismiss logic and reason because it conflicts with their childish belief.

@Bryan: You do have beliefs. You believe that there is a moral code for human behavior, something you cannot support with empirical evidence of any kind. You believe that mature human beings should know this code without having anyone else provide it to them and without the need for anyone else to enforce it.  You have stated that it is a biological advantage - yet I can list you any number of cultures which would scoff at such a notion of “Do unto others as you would have done to you” - and this actually includes Confucius as he limited his statements only to those whom he considered his equals. He had no problems with men treating women, children, and slaves as possessions. Men were to have any number of wives, while women were to remain chaste and exclusive to their spouse even after the death of their spouse.  Indeed, in your behavior you have demonstrated repeatedly that although you believe that people should treat others as they would like to be treated you do not hold yourself accountable to that standard. Your treatment of other people on this message board has been rude and intentionally antagonistic, something I am sure you would not appreciate were it done to you. You have called those of us who believe in God childish, immature, uneducated, and a whole host of other names. I find it interesting that a person who considers himself to be above the need for an external moral code does not demonstrate moral nor even mannerly behavior in a forum where his actions are being publicly viewed by those who might be considering his point of view.

You are contradicting yourself. Several of the people on this thread have stated that they came to belief in God based on logical reasoning, just as you have come to belief that there is a moral code for human behavior based on logical reasoning. Yet, you have told those people that their logic reasoning was invalid because they could provide you no scientific evidence to support their statements. Again, you are demonstrating that you do not hold yourself to your own standards. You argue for the application of logical reasoning to arrive at the proper moral behavior, yet refuse to allow logical reasoning to be the grounds upon which someone believes in God.

Brandy, I do not have beliefs, I know this is difficult for your little mind to comprehend, but you’re just going to have to deal with it.
  “You believe that there is a moral code for human behavior, something you cannot support with empirical evidence of any kind.”
I stated it was based on logical reasoning, not belief.
  “You believe that mature human beings should know this code without having anyone else provide it to them and without the need for anyone else to enforce it.”
Never said that they couldn’t have anyone else teach them about morality.  I stated that requiring an imaginary sky daddy negates moral behavior.  If you’re only barrier to immoral behavior is reward vs. punishment, then there you are not acting morally.
  “You have stated that it is a biological advantage”
Nope, never stated that.
  “Indeed, in your behavior you have demonstrated repeatedly that although you believe that people should treat others as they would like to be treated you do not hold yourself accountable to that standard. Your treatment of other people on this message board has been rude and intentionally antagonistic, something I am sure you would not appreciate were it done to you. You have called those of us who believe in God childish, immature, uneducated, and a whole host of other names.”
If I was delusional enough to believe in imaginary sky daddies and cult mythologies, then I would hope that a someone would point that out.  But since I don’t believe in such nonsense I have no need of that.
  “I find it interesting that a person who considers himself to be above the need for an external moral code does not demonstrate moral nor even mannerly behavior in a forum where his actions are being publicly viewed by those who might be considering his point of view.”
I have done nothing immoral on this forum.  People are free to have whatever delusional beliefs they wish.  I have not wished death on anyone, nor worshipped an imaginary sky daddy that would subject others to eternal torture. 
  “You are contradicting yourself. Several of the people on this thread have stated that they came to belief in God based on logical reasoning”
There is no logic in belief, and there is no logic in worshiping the imaginary.
  “Yet, you have told those people that their logic reasoning was invalid because they could provide you no scientific evidence to support their statements.”
Again, belief is not logical, it is accepting something as fact for which you have no logical, evidentiary or factual basis.

So, little one, why do you repeatedly ignore my question: ‘Did you have nothing to say about my extension of your spelling word game?’  Was it just to much for your little mind to handle?  Or is admitting that your silly word game was idiotic, too much for you?

Bryant,
  As a scientist, of long decades (the degrees say in the field of Chemistry, however I have failed to limit my studies), I have struggled with the question of evolution from the formation of all matter to the presence of each separate element trying to see a scientific possibility let alone probability for life.
You continually avoid the question and seek to name call and dismiss what you obviously refuse to delve into in any scientific approach, whatsoever.
I am beginning to think that you are either unwilling or incapable of much more than the spewing of vapid vomitus.
To simplify matters for you a bit more, The Darwinian theories can only be defended in the very late stages of what is grouped under the word “evolution” .
Science can NOT explain the possibility of life. from the base elements forward. We do not know why so many, many forms of life found in the most ancient levels of the fossil record have not changed in billions of years. And yet the variety and diversity and complexity of life on this planet is so diverse.
I would hazard a guess, Bryant, that unlike was previously posited here in this blog, no truly GOOD Scientist does not wonder at these questions. In fact, I would suggest that really all rational thinking persons do come to the question and then according to their intellect, personal tenacity, and perhaps one must say it, their own personal level of integrity.

Bryant, I have come to “believe” that people, and especially scientists, but all people are only limited in this life that we have by their integrity or the lack therof…

Every Good “scientist” or call it even “rigorous thinker” regardless of discipline, comes to form theories about all sorts of things, but when faced with evidence to the contrary, will reform their theory based on new data, that data being everything from experiment to experience, at least those with integrity certainly will. However, I have also experienced in this life, those with less integrity holding on or clinging to their theories to their own demise..(There are countless reasons as to why people continue to push “detritus down a rathole” , I am sure Bryant that you can come up with a few dozen even on your own).

Let me pass on some wisdom from an old “yet thinking” man. About the age of 19 or 20, I learned the value of “the depth “of personal integrity from looking in the mirror, while shaving. To look ones self in the eye for 5-6 minutes each day is an experience. To lie to yourself and believe it while doing this is a clear sign of the lack of integrity.

And so we come to the ultimate question here Bryant, are you vapid, vain, and do you lack personal integrity? Or are you capable of rising to an intellectual discussion, without relying or name calling, and character assassination and the silly posturing?

Three or four times now I have attempted to pull the discussion to the intellectual nexus of what I have studied for 40 years, to the questions which have surfaced in my studies. Each time you have answered, with avoidance and name calling.
I admit that not everyone can or will take the same path, nor should they. However, the integrity of truth in our life’s journey is what MUST accompany each of us.

Bryant, are you such a man of reason, intellect, and integrity? If so, you have yet to demonstrate those qualities in your posts thus far.

It is not a sin to be wrong, but it is to be knowingly wrong and to continue down a rathole.  As your generation
might say, Bryant, “MAN UP”. ( Bryant, I won’t post in this again, but good by and God Speed in your life)

Blessed be GOD, King of the universe, Amen.

“You continually avoid the question”

You are not paying anyone here enough for them to waste any time attempting to dispel your ignorance.

“unwilling”

Yes.  This is not the place for such a discussion.

“faced with evidence to the contrary”

Were you there :-) when it happened 4 billion years ago?  What “evidence” do you have that it was “impossible”?  It’s usually rather difficult to prove what did or did not happen 4 billion years ago.  But scientists are continuing to try and they claim they are making progress.  Who cares?  Scientists have not explained this perfectly yet, therefore a god exists?  What nonsense.

“are you vapid, vain, and do you lack personal integrity?”

As Dawkins said of evolution deniers - are you ignorant, stupid, or evil?

“I won’t post in this again”

Thank his royal FSM!  Google is your friend?

Steve,
  “As a scientist, of long decades (the degrees say in the field of Chemistry, however I have failed to limit my studies), I have struggled with the question of evolution from the formation of all matter to the presence of each separate element trying to see a scientific possibility let alone probability for life.”
An actual scientist would know that the theory of evolution does not cover the ‘formation of all matter’ or he beginnings of ‘life’.  You demonstrated your limited knowledge and lack of understanding in that statement.  The only accurate part of that statement is saying that you have failed, that is painfully obvious.
  “You continually avoid the question”
Actually, I did not avoid the question.  I stated above that the thing we call ‘life’ is fueled by the same chemical reactions we see in things that are not ‘alive’, meaning that the barrier is more a matter of perception and the complexity of the reactions, not a physical barrier that requires a mythical supernatural event to cross.
  “To simplify matters for you a bit more, The Darwinian theories can only be defended in the very late stages of what is grouped under the word “evolution” .”
Now, you’ve really jumped the shark in claiming that you’re a ‘scientist’, especially when it comes to the biological sciences.  Darwin was one man, his theories were written of over 150 years ago.  The theory of evolution has itself evolved since then.  Trying to base and argument about the scientific theory of evolution by limiting it to ‘Darwinian theories’ is another demonstration of your ignorance about the subject.
  “Science can NOT explain the possibility of life. from the base elements forward. We do not know why so many, many forms of life found in the most ancient levels of the fossil record have not changed in billions of years. And yet the variety and diversity and complexity of life on this planet is so diverse.”
Science has a multitude of theories about the beginning of life, and in the lab it has been demonstrated that proteins can ‘self replicate’ in the presence of other base molecules. The theory of evolution does not state that a species of organism must change over any amount of time.
  “I have come to “believe” that people, and especially scientists, but all people are only limited in this life that we have by their integrity or the lack therof…”
This is why science is not dependent on the views of independent scientists.  Science requires that something be observable, repeatable, testable, etc and not just the perception of individual scientists.  If you were an actual scientist, you would already understand this and not have to have it explained to you. 
  “Let me pass on some wisdom from an old “yet thinking” man. About the age of 19 or 20, I learned the value of “the depth “of personal integrity from looking in the mirror, while shaving. To look ones self in the eye for 5-6 minutes each day is an experience. To lie to yourself and believe it while doing this is a clear sign of the lack of integrity.”
How you waste your time each time, is irrelevant.
  “Three or four times now I have attempted to pull the discussion to the intellectual nexus of what I have studied for 40 years, to the questions which have surfaced in my studies. Each time you have answered, with avoidance and name calling.”
Let me know when you’re capable of discussing something intelligently.  The comments you’ve posted so far, especially about the theory of evolution do not display an understanding of the science more than that of a grade school student.
  “Blessed be GOD, King of the universe, Amen.”
That’s hilarious, you think your imaginary sky daddy has been crowned ‘king of the universe’.  I’m sure you can demonstrate some scientific evidence of that. 
Silly christians, myths are for kids.

Laws and morality are made by society.

As always, I loved your post, Jen! Your last article really did ring true, most civil atheists I have spoken to agree that those are logical things that would follow if they did have a belief in basic Christianity.

And also, to all those who think that Jen could not have possibly been an atheist before-SERIOUSLY? Of course you can change your beliefs about something in your lifetime and have truly believed both things. In researching belief in God, she found evidence that moved her to belief that there was indeed a God. When a scientist makes a discovery that changes his belief, x,  about something, to y, it doesn’t mean he never truly believed x, it merely means that further study has led him to believe that y is more reasonable. Nothing wrong with that, it happens all the time.

What G.K. Chesterton said in that quote was true, but perhaps in is better understood in the context of the whole book. What he says is that crazy people are trapped in their own little circle of reason, in which everything is logical, although not at all likely. The example he used is a man who thinks everyone is part of a conspiracy against him, and he interprets every action of other people in such a way. His arguments don’t necessarily lack logic . . .. . they lack basic common sense.

Holy Communion, under the species of both bread and wine contain exclusively and entirely the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. A blood-borne disease could not be contained in the Precious Blood because it would be a foreign entity, not part of His blood. Nothing peculiar to His Body (like a disease) EXCEPT His Body could be transmitted. Now, if dust, etc. was to fall into the Precious blood it would be transmitted to the communicant, but it would not be part of the Precious Blood as DKeane seems to suppose. When the wine undergoes transubstantiation to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ it does not become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ with an additional blood-borne disease.
Make sense?

“Make sense?”

Did you actually type that with a straight face?

Nope. Tongue was firmly planted in cheek and I was rather hoping that I had not made a hash of the explanation, as I was having difficulty formulating it.

Poe’s Law in operation.

Having read this entire comment thread over the past several days the one thing that seems to stand out more than others to me, and is so incredibly fascinatin, is this: atheists come to a Catholic website and demand that Christians prove the existence of God.

What would happen if Christians went to an atheist website demanding that they prove God doesn’t exist?

I know, you’d ridicule, deride and insult us out of the place.  Do you see that going on from the Christians here?

No. You don’t.

Kris, that is a rather simplistic assessment. Atheists appeared on this site specifically because two articles appeared that purport to represent the atheist perspective and how to ‘reason’ with atheists. Why on earth would you not expect atheists to respond?

Religious people often comment on atheist web sites. They aren’t chased off, although their ideas are generally given a good drubbing. That’s the price of engaging in conversation.

And please, go googling on the subject of “burden of proof”. Demands for evidence for the existence of something are not equivalent to demands for proof of the non-existence of something.

Kris,
Did you see what was written about atheists on the Fox(which is basically a christian cult site):
  Paul Altum-“I say kil them all and let them see for themselves that there is God”
  Bob O’Connell-“Shoot them. Shoot to kill”
  Joe Martinez-“To all atheiest die an go to Hell HAHA If I could ID shoot all of you in the head with a 12gauge”
  Joseph Sneckenberg-“thats easy shoot them”
  Casey M Jones-“Shoot em. At least we know where they’re going, waste of oxygen”
  Mike Holeschek-“Nail them to that cross then diplay it”
  Richard Silva-“Someone show me where they live∧ they will live no mere!”
  Tim Allison-“Kill Them”
  Sindy Clock-“Stupid athiests, I hope God kills them all”,“I love Jesus, and the cross and if you dont, I hope someone rapes you!”
  Hans Anderson-“atheist has no rights a snail has more rights than a atheist has i say throw them out to the sharks let them eat them like the ate bin laden”
  Michael Perri-“these people are f’ing scum of the earth. can we start kill them now? few groups are filled with more hatred than athiests”
  Scott Miller-“If the cross offends you: so should this country;leave before we kill you!!!”
These are the kinds of comments that atheists deal with on the web routinely.  Did you see any atheists above threatening christian cult members?  The title of Jennifer’s post was ‘Reasoning with atheists’.  If you want to reason with atheists, then you need to do it with reality, not fairy tales.  So, of course atheists will require proof if you’re going to claim the existence of an imaginary sky daddy. 
Silly christians, myths are for kids.

“I’d go so far as to say that reasoning with them is a waste of time.

Myers and atheists like him are trapped in a prison of reason

Reason breeds insanity
people simply cannot reason their way into faith”

How does this make any theist sound intelligent? I’m not saying they are stupid or incapable of intelligence… but saying you can’t use logic and reason to define who you are and how you live your life is ludicrous.  But your saying yourself that in order to believe in a religion you can’t use reason or logic… please read that to yourself out loud, then you will hear what it sounds like when a theist speaks with an Atheist.  You say that people who use reason go mad… well the truth and complexity of everything is mind-blowing, and when you try to understand the reality of everything, you are leaving the comfort and security of the faith illusion.  You are looking into the abyss of knowledge and understanding…and when it looks back it is scary, but so fantastic at the same time.  Religion seals off that abyss and keeps feeding everyone the Blue Pill.  Im sorry but I would much rather live knowing the truth than putting blind faith in a fairy tale story about omnipotent sky daddy(s)/mommy(s).

Also, claiming that explaining love cannot be done with logic…that’s false, we know what love is, it’s a chemical reaction.  We can measure it and even see it through brain scans… can you measure or see god? No? Next…

and LMAO! The captcha was “science31” oooh the irony!

Brynt, Maybe some ignorant would make nasty comments about Atheists which I would not condone but Atheists during the 20th century have made it a pastime of murdering Christians , shall we mention Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin. You can deny it all you want but Stalin was an Atheist and one of the biggest Mass Murderers in History. He conducted Brutal methods against the Catholics in Lithuania , Poland and in the Ukraine, now you can play the Catholic card about Hitler but if he was such a Catholic could you tell me where he attended Mass each Sunday, or maybe why he married Eva Braun in non Catholic Ceremony, or why he murdered 3 Million Catholics

Still at it, huh?
@ Con, and anyone else who trots out this tired old cr@p.
If the first person to say “Hitler” has already lost the argument, what about the first person to say “Stalin”?
Hitler’s religion was Fascism. Stalins religion was Communism. Nuff said. This argument has become goofy enough without this rearing it’s ugly head all the time.

Bittersweet, Stalin was also an Atheist who murdered Chtistians and Catholic

@ Con
So what? How many were killed because they were Christian and in furtherance of Stalin’s Atheism? I don’t know, and I don’t care. Your Pope is currently engaged in protecting priests that have been raping children, in effect making sure that they will have the opportunity to rape more. Is this the kind of pissing contest you want to get into? You get to pull out all of histories monsters who called themselves Atheists while we get to go through history, pope by pope, and list all the atrocities for which they’re responsible? It seems a bit off topic, to say the least. And pointless.

edit: I shouldn’t say “I don’t care”, that’s not true. However, can I ask, did Stalin kill because he was an Atheist? Or because he was a Communist?
BTW, I still think this line of discussion is pointless.

Stalin killed because he was a ruthless power freak. He killed irrespective of religion. He wasn’t guided to kill by atheism.

It is tiresome to constantly hear from defensive people that someone who may have been atheist (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are offered) did dreadful things. As if that were anything but a pathetic attempt to distract from the actual point: Religion is not, and never has been, the source of morality in human life.

This simple fact is demonstrated by the existence of profoundly religious people who have done terribly immoral things throughout history. The fact that some non-religious people have done some terrible things, too, is quite irrelevant.

Bittersweet About the Pope protecting paedophilles, I suppose you have some evidence to prove your claim.
Gregory James   strange he seemed to have a special hatred for Religious, Lenin murdered Christians, closed their Churches and in their place opened Museums Of Atheism

Con… read up on your history. He (presumably you refer to Stalin) killed millions of people. He had no special affection for religious people, nor for non-religious. If he thought you were in the way or just felt like emphasizing the power of the state he happily whacked you.

But, do I need to restate the point?  I guess so since you seem to miss it. Maybe this time you’ll read it?

“Religion is not, and never has been, the source of morality in human life.  This simple fact is demonstrated by the existence of profoundly religious people who have done terribly immoral things throughout history. The fact that some non-religious people have done some terrible things, too, is quite irrelevant.”

To Con O Sullivan,
Let me see if I understand your ‘thought’ process.  Kris tried to insinuate that christian cult members were more respectful to atheists on public forums than atheists were to christian cult members.  I responded by listing the many death threats issued against atheists by christian cult members on the Fox/right-wing propaganda site last week.  Both my comment and Kris’s had to do with forum postings in the past few weeks.  You responded with the atrocities of a communist dictator from 70 years ago??!!  Seriously kid, that certainly defies reason and only further proves my point that membership in the christian cult is immature and unintelligent.

@Gregory. You make a great case for original sin.

Nonsense, Maggie. It is no case at all for original sin. It is a statement that arm waving by the faithful is little more than sloppy thinking.  Changing the subject instead of addressing the point is a yet another example.

Nonsense Gregory.

Bryant Lister, My point is very clear, while some ignorant Christians may make dreadfull remarks on Fox news, the great Atheist hero Lenin murdered Christians and turned their churches into Museums of Atheism, you can insult my faith all you want by calling it a cult but I would rather be a Christian than to have the likes of Lenin as a fellow member, but you are the one who tried to pass stalin off as a christian when everyone knows he was an Atheist.
Lenin was such a hero in the Russian Atheist Regime, that when he died he was stuffed and put on display in Red Square, he is still on display, maybe you shpuld go and bow down at the murderer of members of my “cult”

Maggie… here’s the difference. The reason your “original sin” comment is nonsense, as as was Con’s arm waving about Uncle Joe, is that neither of you are willing (or able) to respond to the actual point.

Even if I give you a pass on ignoring the original point, you say I’ve provided a case for original sin. I haven’t, and you haven’t shown that I have. You’ve just made an assertion and seem to expect that making assertions substitutes for rational argument. It doesn’t. You need to explain _why_ the assertion is true, _why_ it makes sense.

Relying on unsupported assertions, of course, comes naturally to most religiously-minded people. They get a lot of practice at it. The entire god-proposition is nothing but assertions made without evidence.

Gregory James, I find it strange you can refer to one of the most evil monsters that ever inhabited the earth as “Uncle Joe, are you pointing out a relative to us

Con…

sar·casm? ?[sahr-kaz-uhm]  noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

Search elsewhere for an appropriate response to the actual point.

Con O Sullivan,
So, if I send you to the store to buy apples, I should tell you to get oranges instead.
The post you were responding to was about the current behavior of christian cult members toward atheists and vice versa in forum postings.  Lenin is irrelevant to that discussion and is not an atheist hero. Just as Hitler is not a christian hero, although he was a member of your cult. The 9/11 terrrorists believed in the same imaginary sky daddy as the christian cults, are they your heros?
Considering the actions of christian cult terrorists in this country over the past 25 years and the lack of atheist terrorists, it’s hilarious that people would compare the behavior of atheists to that of christian cult members.
Again, your ‘thought process’ does not show much thought or processing.

@Con,some official Vatican policy for your reading pleasure:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_ratzinger06.htm
http://www.sarabite.info/vatletter.pdf
Shhhh!!! it’s a secret!

Wrong Bryant Lister, Hitler gave up the Catholic Church long before, I have asked this question before, If he was a Catholic which Church did he attend Mass in? , Strange for such a “Catholic” that he murdered 3,000 Catholic Clergy, and 3,0000,000 Catholics? and did he not marry Eva Braun in a non religious ceremony if he was a Catholic, of course you tried to palm off Stalin as a Christin and how many did Stalin Murder again,20,000,000and how about Lenin, !0,000,000 and Mao 40,000,000. Those heroes of Atheism have butchered Millions and all you can do is sneer about “Sky Daddies”, well I would rather have a hero that is “sky daddy than heroes that are mass murderers, by thr way did you go to Moscow yet and see the stuffed remains of the Atheist Hero Lenin, you will not need to q for no one visits there now, and by the way Lenin’s Museums Of Atheism are gone and the they are now used for the purpose they were built for

Bittersweet I asked you for some evidence about Benedicts collusion in covering up Child Abuse,and all you can do is sents me some pieces from some Anti Catholic Websites, Now the case of Murphy and the Abuse of deaf boys, these cases were reported to the civil athorities and they ignored them, the case went to Rome and unfortunately Murphy died before the case was finished, how do you blame Benedict for this occorance, are you saying he murdered Murphy, The letter of 2001 was sent from Rome to Dioceses for unfortunately many Biships were not dealing with paedophillia
and if you bother to read the letter you will find that in no part does it forbid the abused party from going to the Civil Athorities.
and if you think that Atheist do not cover up,let me remind you of the Katyn where the Atheist Stalin ordered the murder of 10,000 Poles and tried to blame the Nazis, and it took until 2009 until for the Russian Parliament to acknowledge this crime.pair13

“Atheist heroes” LOL, you’re too absurd. Shall I start referring to Lawrence Murphy as a “Catholic Hero”? I’m not sure what the raping of deaf children has to do with Catholicism, but following your “logic”, it must. Do we really need to continue down this road?

Bittersweet Murdering Christians because they were Christians and turning ther Churches into Museums of Atheism like Lenin has nothing to do with Murphy. unfortunately neither the Civil or the Religious athorities punished Murphy, and when the case was sent to Rome Murphy died, what in common you see with Lenin is beyond me. I am not going to condone abuse by Cathololics Priests and Bishops, but neither am I going to forget the Crimes of Atheists.

Con,
You’re saying that Stalin (or Lenin) was an Athiest who murdered people, I’m saying that Murphy was a Catholic who raped people. If you can ignore the fact that Stalin killed because he was a Communist dictator, I can ignore the fact that Murphy raped because he was a pedophile. Fair is fair. Is it sinking in yet why these kinds of arguments are pointless?

If God = Love, then you need to define love. Love seems to be the name that people give to the effect that chemicals(dopamine, seratonin, oxytocin, vassopressin) have on the brain to make humans feel attachment for other humans and ensure the survival of their families and offspring.

There is evidence that when people fall in love these chemicals/hormones flood the brain, and this makes evolutionary sense because people survive better in groups than on their own.

God is Love
Love is the effect of chemicals & hormones in the brain.
God is the effect of chemicals & hormones in the brain.

If God is the effect of chemicals & hormones, then there is something greater than God and that is a contradiction in all faiths.

Therefore, God does not exist.

Con O Sullivan,
Apparently, your point is to ignore the issue that was being discussed (the difference between the postings of christian cult members and atheists on the net).  Last time I checked, Lenin and Stalin didn’t do much posting on the net and certainly nothing in the last 50 years. 
With regard to Hitler and his membership in the catholic cult, why was he not excommunicated?  The catholic cult had no problem excommunicating Fidel Castro in 1962 and Napoleon in 1809. 
The catholic cult claims 77.7 million members in the United States. Yet, less than 28 million regularly attend Sunday mass.  So, is the catholic cult lying about the number of members it has, or is your standard that people have to attend mass to retain their catholic cult membership just a pathetic excuse to ignore the facts about Hitler.
Feel free to keep babbling on and demonstrating your ignorance.  It’s painfully obvious that you’re not someone that can handle logic and reason.

Wait a minute Con, earlier didn’t you state that Hitler couldn’t be a Catholic because he didn’t attend mass regularly and wasn’t married in a Catholic ceremony????  Keep your bulls**t straight at least. I’ve stated earier in my posts (it’s obvious that you didn’t read it all or you wouldn’t be pulling this cr@p) that this is a pointless venture but you are bound and determined to make Hitler an Athiest and pin the crimes of Lenin and Stalin etc. on the modern Athiest community (assuming such a thing exists, which really doesn’t). Fine, you want to play this game? Let’s play. Here are some quotes from Hitler, your favorite Athiest:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God.

-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 01 Aug. 1923

It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.
-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed “A New Beginning,” 26 Feb. 1925 (yeah, I think he might be talking about Jews here)

We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

I could go on, there’s TONS of this online if you have the nerve to search for it. But I’m guessing you have no interest in reality. You want to sit around screaming about “Athiest heroes” like Lenin and Stalin and Hitler and assume you’re right without doing any of the leg-work that actual research requires. Even the easy stuff like doing a google search. There’s far more evidence that Hitler was a Christian than anything else, but ya know what?? I don’t care. I don’t truly believe that Hitler was inspired by his Christianity to murder millions of people. He was a horrible power-hungry dictator and a rabid anti-semite who was a gifted demagogue that inspired the multitudes of Catholics and Protestants in his country to go along (happily, I might add) with his mad ambitions to terminate the Jews. You can say that Hitler wasn’t a real Catholic and I won’t bother to argue with you. But Germany was predominantly Catholic, and I don’t recall any mass uprisings of them in protest of the Final Solution. They were his willing partners. Centuries of anti-semitism in European Christendom had led up to this point. Why would the Christians of Europe back off now? Now that they had the Jews right where they always wanted them. I don’t care if you deny that Hitler was Catholic. He had millions of willing Catholic soldiers, both in the army and in the mob. Watch a film of Hitler giving a speech, you can bet that the vast majority of people giving the SEIG HEIL!!!!! go to mass every Sunday.
That’s some food for thought.
And if you still want to play this game, pointless as it is, can you tell which tenet of Athiesm it is that encouraged Lenin (or Stalin, Mao, whoever) to massacre millions of people? And I don’t mean a Communist tenet (I know them), I mean an Athiest tenet. What doctrine of Athiesm is it exactly that drives men to murder. Catholicism has come up with doctrines that allow you to torture Jews and burn women and heretics at the stake. And we all know about these horrors and the CATHOLIC doctrines that support them. But I’m truly interested in what ATHIEST doctrines are out there that support mass murder. Please enlighten me.

@ mk and other rational people on this board:
I feel like I should apologize for my recent posts. I started posting here to stop the stupidity that always infects such arguments as we are having. I do believe that men (and women) of honor can disagree, but all of us may be victims of our more emotional/irrational selves. I truly have no interest in discussing Hitler/Stalin et al, because it adds nothing to the debate and the arguments inevitably go nowhere. We are talking about people so terrible that no side would ever claim them as their own, and certainly not as “heroes”. However, as can be seen, I’m easily pushed into such an argument. Mea culpa.  In the meantime, can somebody please refresh my memory….....what were we talkiing about?

Bryant Lister, I see you are turning into a bit of a Comedian now, but for someone who said Stalin was a Christian some days ago your career is on the up. Hitler left the Catholic Church long before he became Chancellor and Napoleon received the Last Sacrements of the Catholic Church and received a full Catholic Funeral. As for Catholic Attendence at Mass in the US, no one can actually tell how many go to Catholic Mass each week far more than attends your Atheist coven I would think but all I know is that Hitler had 3,000 Catholics Priests murdered so I do not think he was much of a catholic but of course to your mind the Murder of so many Catholic priests shows the devotion of Hitler to the Catholic Church

Bitter Germany predominately Catholic, at the time of World War 11 Germany was 60% Lutheran, and if you bothered finding you will find that anyone who spoke out agaist this Junta was murdered, in the Usa I could ask was there any uprising against the treatment of the Native Ameracans and the black people, as for will Christian you anti Christian bigotry is running away with you for you know the Nazi aramy was an army of conscripts, tell me where is the evidence of all the people who give the zeig heil salute go to Mass each Sunday.
I am not saying that Christians did not commit terrible crimes but the 10 Commandents furbids us to murder so any Christian who murders breaks those rules, so there is no Christian tenet that allows murder,
Atheism is a material and inseparable part of Marxism Lenin

“so there is no Christian tenet that allows murder”

No heavenly-sanctioned murder in the Bible? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. There’s a book full of it.

I do this with trepidation, because I know I’ll just unleash the usual alternate interpretations and the old tropes: “That’s so Old Testament” and “But -THAT’S- not murder!”. Nevertheless…

“You should not let a sorceress live. ” (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

“Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.”  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.”  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

“Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.”  (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

“If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.”  (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

“All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.”  (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.”  (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

“A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.”  (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.”  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

It goes on and on and on and on and on.

“Atheism is a material and inseparable part of Marxism Lenin” [sic]

So what? Lenin was a bad man. He did bad things. He was an atheist. He also a lawyer. His bad deeds did not result from atheism any more than it resulted from his having studied law. There is no causal relationship between atheism and Marxism. Asserting one without evidence is simply lazy bullshit. More arm-waving.

Con O Sullivan,
Now you’re making me pity you.  Unfortunately for you, you don’t get to determine who is and is not a member of the catholic cult.  Because the catholic cult is as much a political organization as it is a fairy tale woshiping cult, the membership is defined by the organization not by you.  As for Stalin, I said he wasn’t an atheist:
“Stalin is a trickier figure to nail down, since he was in seminary before entering political circles and he did reestablish a church in Russia during World War II.”
“Stalin and Mao were not atheists”
I never stated that Stalin was a member of a christian cult.  Again, reading comprehension is a skill you might try acquiring. 
Back to you fellow catholic cult member, Hitler, there are numerous pictures of him with cardinals and bishops, some in catholic cult churches.  Then we have the issue of the Concordat.  Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signed the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933.  The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world.
How many priests Hitler killed was not important enough for the catholic cult to excommunicate him or even to openly denounce his actions.  So, logically he was still a member of the catholic cult. 
The catholic cult freely reported the numbers I provided on membership and church attendance, if you have a problem with those, then take it up with them.  Covens are part of the childish wiccan cult, and have nothing to do with atheism.  Do you know anything?

It must be a nice guilt-free existence to be Catholic. No Catholic anywhere has ever done anything bad, since the moment they did something bad they stopped being Catholic, if I’m reading Con correctly. How convenient for them. “No true Scotsman” FTW!!

The final version of the 10 commandments from the bible fairy tales, exodus 34:
1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits
of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.
****************************************************
Nothing in there against murdering people.  Funny story, the guy breaks the first set of tablet and then the imaginary sky daddy tells him “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.”  Yet, the second set are not the same words as the first set.  Apparently the imaginary sky daddy from the fairy tale had an incredibly short memory.
Silly christians, myths are for kids.

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

“There are no atheists in hell.  All there KNOW God exists.”

Oh, Lordy, Lordy.  You guys do say some childish things!

Ah yes, Hell. Now perhaps somebody can refresh my memory, what was all that garbage earlier about “God is Love”? I know when I want to show people I love them, I LIGHT THEM ON FIRE!! This God of yours is truly a monster, and his worshippers are no better.

Here are a few facts that discussants here might find interestg and/or useful:

1.  In his youth Stalin spent some time in a Russian Orthodox seminary, training for the ministry.
 
2.  The Russian Orthodox church is one of the nastier Orthodox churches.  It was this church was was largely responsible for the pogroms against the Jews; thus, it should be no surprise that decades later, it was shown to be in bed with the KGB.
 
3.  Without addressing the matter of Hitler and Catholicism, it should be noted that at after WW II ended, least 2 Catholic priests were tried by the allies, and executed, for their roles in running concentration camps.  One was the Rev. Josef Tiso (q.g.) (i.e. Google him); the name of the other one escapes me at this time.

4.  Pre-WW II, the Polish catholic church was well-known for its vicious anti-Semitism; I knew at least one Jew who told me that as a boy, a Catholic friend had invited him to a Catholic service one day, and he was shocked and stunned when he heard this priest mouthing vicious anti-Semitism. 

5.  Re the IRISH catholic church, ALL Irishmen were its victims until circa 1995 when the church began losing its hold over the Irish.  Several commissions in Ireland—the Ryan commission, the Murphy commission—have documented the vicious abuse that occured in Irish Catholic institutions.  A whole bunch of observant Irish Catholic politicians have denounced the church.  That tells you a lot about how angry they are with thev church.

BYYANT lister , As I said you should be a commedian,  “noe Stalin was not an Atheist was he? how very convenient of you to deny he was a member of your coven, there is nothing tricky about Stalin, he was an Atheist? and of course was not an Atheist either, how conveient of you, you no doubt will say the same about Lenin.  Now you are telling me there are pictures of Hitler with Bishops in Catholic Churches, no doubt you will provide evidence of that. Hitler had agreements with the Atheist Soviet State , In 1939 Von Ribbontroff and Molotov signed an agreement between the Communist/Atheist,  Non agression Pact and the other an economic agreement, as I said Hitler left the Church so their was no need to remove him, how could he be a member of an Organisation when he left it.

Con O Sullivan,
Maybe you really should do what I suggested and take a reading comprehension course before responding.  I wrote this about a week ago in this forum (scroll up to July 29, 9:49am) “Lenin was an atheist, Lenin did commit atrocities, I never claimed otherwise.”  Do you even think about what you are typing or just spew whatever ridiculous crap pops into your little mind.  If you want pictures of Hitler with bishops and cardinals of the catholic cult, then simply google it (you do know what google is, right?).  Hitler regarded himself as a member of the catholic cult until he died. “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,” he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.  At a Nazi christmas celebration in 1926, Hitler said: “Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I—Adolf Hitler—will conclude.”  So, in 1941 Hitler was telling people he was part of the catholic cult.  Doesn’t really fit with your fantasy world, too bad little one.

Brynt Lister, You seem to be silent about the agreement between the Communist/Atheist government and the Nazi Government in 1939, but then of course you are saying that Stalin was not an Atheist, so now you are repeating as truth the words of a Nazi General who was put imprisoned by the Americans after the war, some witness you have, as for pictures with Bishops what does that prove, when JP11 was in Cuba there were pictures taken with him and Fidel Castro, and I have pictures taken with my friends who are not Christian, what does that prove. I notice members of an Atheist Coven are going to court to remove the Cross on Ground zero,because they are suffer, some of your buddies are Sufferinf symtons of physical and mental pain and other illneses because of the Cross,

Howard Karton
1 Stalin was an Atheist and ran An atheist Junta.
2 Did not Lenin close down syagoges and imprison Rabbis and he was not Orthodox.
I notice that any of those who murdered Christains in the Lenin and Stalin were ever executed were they? and all you can do is give me 1 name of one guilty there are many Priests and Catholics who gave their lives for protecting Jews.
2So the Polish Catholic Church was well known for being Anti Semitic was it, well if you go to the old Jewish Ghetto of Kralow you will find Catholic Churches and Synagogoes close by each other and Catholics and Jews lived near each other and were good friends , in fact Pope John Paul 11 grew up with Jewish friends and was much loved by the Jews. So wher is your evidence of vicious anti semitism.

Unlike the Atheist Soviet Union , Communist China and North Korea, Ireland is a democracy and freedom to practice any religion or none was is gaurenteed by our laws. so you are saying the Catholic Church had a hold Protestants and Jews, I am sorry for you but all other religions were allowed to run their own affairs so get your facts right
The Catholic had never a hold over all Irishmen as I said, however our miserable Irish Politicans put poor childrens put into homes which were run by Irish Catholic Brothers and Nuns and yes there was Child Abuse in Ireland, but I suppose there was never any child abuse in the Atheist regimes of the Soviet Union and China, Murdering Children is not Child abuse I suppose

Con O Sullivan,
What does the agreement between two goverments prove about Hitler’s membership in the catholic cult, when his own words state that he was?
It’s ironic that you state that I’m ‘silent’ about something that has nothing to do with the discussion, yet you ignore the Concordat, which “effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world.”  Comparing Hitler to Castro is an enormous leap of idiocy. The pictures alone prove little, but combined with the Concordat and other statements demonstrate the strong bond between Hitler and the catholic cult.
You also ignored the fact that in the bible fairy tales the final version of the ten commandments did not include any prohibition of murder (except that of a baby goat).  I know it’s troubling when your mythology is shown to be inconsistent and contradicatory, but that’s why it’s a mythology and not reality. 
The steel beams that are crossed at the site of the world trade center, do not represent the people that were killed there, only a single group of them.  Using it without representing the other people killed there, is insulting to anyone with even half a brain.  WHy would you want to erect an execution device to remember those that died there?  Why would you want to use a symbol of one fairy tale cult at the site where another fairy tale cult killed thousands of people?  It defies logic and reason.  ‘Science builds airplanes, religion flies them into buildings.’  This country is secular, the first amendment clearly establishes a separation of church and state.  Displaying a religious cult symbol at the site of a national memorial, while ignoring all other cults and those that have grown up and don’t belong to cults, is a violation of Constitution. 
Your ignorant use of the word, ‘coven’, is only an exhibition of your lack of intelligence, so feel free to keep using it, little one.

TO:  Con O’Sullivan
 
Con, your defense of the RCC is even sillier than the efforts of Bill O’Donaghue.  I think you have no idea how silly your remarks make you look.
 
Why do I say that?  Even ardent defenders of the church have acknowledged the truth of many of the criticisms of it.  Catholics with good solid credentials such as Sipe, Greeley and others—and even a few bishops—have admitted, “sadly”, that historically, some of the men who comprise the church they love, who are its leadership and its voice, have erred—men like Sipe and Greeley and even some bishops.

Even as we discuss this, Sean O’Malley in Boston has made yet another blunder, in refusing to release names of accused pedophiles if they are in orders, as opposed to being parish priests.  Before Seano, Bernie Law made several blunders (typically blaming others) that were DISASTROUS for the church and for children in the church.  And as is typical for the church, Law never admitted any failure, and was rewarded for his silence. 

I think you would do well to stop and THINK about some of the ways in which you are defending the church.  Your knowledge of historical fact is simply appalling; your methods in defending the church could be picked apart by any bright high school sophomore.

But you do give folks a good giggle.

Bryant Lister Does Hitler’s agreemant waih the Communist/Atheist Soviet Union mean he was an Atheist?, I am not comparing CaStro to Hitler ALL i AM SAYING THAT NOT EVERYONE IN THE SAME PICTUREs ARE BUDDIES, are you suffering from depression and are you feeling physical and mentally ill over the cross, is your local Atheist coven involved in the court case as well, so you say Religion flies into buildings, but I say to you Lenin murdered Christians, and according to opinion polls most American people do not agree with the members of the Atheist coven , and if you are not feeling well about the groung zero cross, lie down and say 1,000 times Stalin was not An Atheist and after that you will comvince yourself that you are right

Howard Karton
In my answer to your points on August 6, I gave you answers to the points you made. I pointed that Ireland was a democratic country unlike the Atheist run Soviet Union and China, and since the foundation of the state religion of any tradition or none can and need not be practised, are you going to contradict that, I pointed out that Pope John Paul 11 had Jewish friends who kept in touch with him and that Catholics and Jews lived as neighbours in Krakow,all you can tell me is so second hand story that supposidly happened in a Catholic Church in Poland over 72 years ago, Go through the four points I made in answer and tell me where I defended evil in the Catholic Church, and as for your childish effert to insult me,that is your problem not mine, and you can continue down that road if you wish.

Who the f*ck is that John Paul 11 you are constantly talking about? You don’t even know the name of the last pope and you pretend to be a Catholic?

@Bryant: Hi! I’m sure you remember me. We last spoke on Wednesday. I’ve been busy working and taking care of my family since then, but I thought I’d stop by and visit with you some more. I can see you’ve been keeping yourself quite busy in the meantime.

1. I did not respond to your reply about my statement that you can’t spell good without God, and this seems to have perturbed you, so I will take the time to do so today.  You listed a whole set of words that aren’t spelled with God in them, including pizza. However, you weren’t trying to demonstrate to anyone that you could be a pizza, or peace, or mature, or free, or think, or America without God. You were saying that you could be good without God. I was demonstrating to you that, quite literally, you cannot be good without God because you cannot even spell the word good without God in it.

2. You state that your acceptance as fact of the existence of a moral code is not a belief - then you define belief as “accepting something as fact for which you have no logical, evidentiary or factual basis”. Morality is not something that can be touched, tasted, smelt, felt, or heard. It is invisible and therefore you have no evidence to base the existence of a moral code upon. If it could be defined solely based upon logic, then every culture would agree on what is and is not moral; ergo, it is not something that has a logical basis. If it were fact it could be proven, which it cannot be. Therefore, you have by your own definition a BELIEF in a moral code.

3. You have stated that you have done nothing immoral on this forum. You state that your moral code is defined as “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” Yet, you admit that you treat others with condescension and disrespect. If you violate your own moral code, have you not done something immoral? Am I to then assume that this is how you prefer to be treated by others?

4. God does not desire anyone to go to Hell.  However, God’s justice is perfect. He will give you exactly what you have desired for yourself or others in eternity. If you have spent your life wanting a world where God doesn’t exist - that’s what you’ll get when you get to the next life.  Since everything good that you experience here comes from God, it’s only natural that you won’t have anything good in the next life if you keep wishing to live in a world without Him. If you spent your life wishing others would go to Hell - others will indeed be going to Hell, but you’ll be joining them in Hell because you didn’t do everything you could have to prevent them. 

5. Bryant, you might have a great deal of knowledge about a great many things, but you have so little knowledge of the Bible it makes you sound like a fool when you try and speak about it to those of us who do know it.
Exodus 20:1-17 is where the 10 commandments are given. Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder”. Murder meant taking of an innocent human life - one who was not guilty of sin.

6. If a man claims to be a member of an organization but does not follow their rules or attend their meetings, and executes members of the organization in great numbers, would you still count him as a member of that organization?

7. Bryant, this country may be but was not always secular. The law prohibits Congress from establishing a religion and was intended to protect those who practice religion from being forced to worship against their conscience - things which had already happened in Great Britain when people were forced to worship in the Church of England or risk death.  The founders of the Constitution were largely believers in God, although they differed widely in their choice of religion. I know what you may have read in textbooks, or on the websites of your fellow atheists, but try reading some genuine source documents for a change. You’ll be fascinated at the difference between what a founder actually said and actually believed and what makes it into the textbooks or atheistic treatises.

8. Apparently, Herr Hitler missed a few very important Bile facts if he honestly did say that he was continuing the work of Christ in fighting the Jews. You see, Christ didn’t come to fight the Jews. That would be silly because Christ was a Jew (as was his mother and father and cousins and aunts and uncles). Furthermore, Christ says several times in the Gospels that He came to save the Jews.

Brandy Miller on Sunday, Aug 7, 2011 4:18 PM (EDT):

“Congress from establishing a religion and was intended to protect those who practice religion from being forced to worship against their conscience - things which had already happened in Great Britain when people were forced to worship in the Church of England or risk death.”

I am sure you didn’t mean it, but you hit a nerve : once it became the official religion in the Roman Empire, this is exactly how Christianity spread into this world : people were forced to worship in the Church or risk death.

Brandy Miller, 
1. It is apparent that you did not comprehend my point about your silly little word game.  I was demonstrating to you that two words that share the same letters does nothing to prove a connection between the two.  You can’t spell ‘life’ without ‘elf’, but do you think you can’t have life without an elf?  You can’t spell ‘smart’ without ‘tar’, but do you think you have to have tar to be smart?  Seriously, your word game is childish and moronic.

2. Your premise is ignorant.  Saying that every cylture would have the same moral code, presupposes that every culture has a moral code and that their code is based on logic and reason.  You keep trying to claim I suffer from the same delusion that afflicts you, belief, but I assure you that you’re wrong.

3. I treat people with condescension and disrespect when they act childish and ignorant.  There is no conflict, since if I was spouting childish mythology as if it were real, I would expect to be treated the same.

4. I’m not concerned with what you believe your fairy tale character wants. Your childish beliefs only demonstrate a diminished respect for human life. To want to believe that people deserve torture and punishment for not believing the nonsense of religious cult fairy tales is mean spirited and ignorant. 

5. It’s hilarious that you don’t even know what your cult fairy tales actually are.  The mythology from Exodus is that the Moses character destroys the first set of tablets from Exodus 20, then in Exodus 34, the imaginary sky daddy characters helps make new tablets, which are supposed to be the same laws as the first set.  Yet the second set is almost completely different.  Exodus 34: “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.”  Maybe you should read your own mythology again, you might learn something about how ridiculous it is.

6. The catholic cult hierarchy acknowledge Hitler as a member, Hitler acknowledged himself as a member.  That means he was a member of the catholic cult, irregardless of his actions outside of those two facts.

7. The Constitution is the law of the land, and it is clear in its statement that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  The founders stated this was to draw a clear line of separation between church and state, making this a secular country from the start.  Obviously, you need to read some more about the founding of this country, your lack of knowledge and understanding about the Constitution is pathetic.

8. People can use the bible fairy tales to justify anything they want.  The stories are inconsistent and contain murder, rape, genocide, and a whole host of other atrocities.  It’s not a stretch for a mentally unbalanced mind, like Hitler, to utilize the catholic cult doctrine and dogma to persecute other groups.  It’s one of the dangers of religious cults.

Con, Heartless Atheist is not worth addressing. FYI, you need to hit the capital ” I” key rather than the 1 for JPII’s name.
Dominus Vobiscum. BTW, did you know the U.S. Catholic liturgy will be changing 11/27, the 1st Sunday of Advent. New music, too, more like the old chants.

Brandy beautiful post a few days ago on your testimony.

Con O Sullivan,
You’re so hung up on this talking point about atheists and the WTC display of an execution device, that you can’t even form a coherent thought.  I clearly stated that the elevation of a set of crossed steel beams (what skyscraper doesn’t have those) to a religious cult symbol at a national memorial is a violation of the Constitution.  This is the foundation of the lawsuit brought by the atheist group, the law that forbids the government from endorsing a religion.  To erect this execution device turned religious cult symbol at the site of a competing religious cult’s terror attack is the height of ignorance. 
First, there were people belonging to many cults and those who have grown up and belong to no cult, that died on September 11th.  Second, there is not plan to display symbols from other religious cults at the site, nor is there a plan to display a symbol to honor those that don’t belong to one of these childish cults.  Third, the opinion of the majority is irrelevant when it comes to violating the Constitution. 
Hitler regarded himself as a member of the catholic cult until he died. “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,” he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.  At a Nazi christmas celebration in 1926, Hitler said: “Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I—Adolf Hitler—will conclude.”  So, in 1941 Hitler was telling people he was part of the catholic cult.  Doesn’t really fit with your fantasy world, too bad little one.

@Gregory Been busy, but back for a few mo ents. I replied to you “Nonsense” tongue in cheek and briefly as I was ready for bed. I don’t argue with atheists,even in my family. If they sincerely want to know such truth as humans can grasp I share my experiences. You do not spout venom or obscenities or make ad homonim arguments so I rather think you are sincere, perhaps even open-minded. So someday you may have other views. What I have concluded after a long life spent searching is that faith really is a gift and is given to those who whole- heartedly seek to know God IF he exists. With that comes a sense, unlike our 5 senses useful in our material world and unlike what is commonly called a sixth sense. It is a special sense, either absent In or ignored by those who are apathetic or atheistic on the subject of God. It is this “sense” that gives the capacity to apprehend God. It is quite direct, varied in its revelations, and totally unexpected in what it reveals, at least for me. Raised by an atheist father and a mother who said nothing on the subject, I set out early to find out just whether or not there existed such a thing as God. My older brother argued that life began with a single cell and no god was there. He could not, however explain where the cell came from—any more than Darwin explained how his pool and its water or the earth it was in, came from. I argued that if something had to start itself, as clearly it had, as we exist, then I voted for an Intelligence, not a mindless cell. It remained to see what I could know of this Intelligence, which obviously hadf to be well above my own, in its mind, creativity, knowledge, etc. Over a long life I have been graciously given insights into that entity. With that gifted sense I was enabled to apprehend Love, Goodness, Purity, Holiness, Infinity. That was the beginning to what became a long and finally joyful jouney to God, the Inexpressible Being who made me, loves me, and Whom I love with all my heart.

Maggie, Yes the you are right, “where ingorance is bliss it is folly to be wise”. I have not studied the new words for the Liturgy yet but as I sing in my local Church Choir our conducter will organise it for us in September. My local Church St James is very small it holds 350 but we have a choir of 34.

Bryant Lister, while Atheist covens have every right to protest over the Ground Zero Memorial ( more than can be said about Christians protesing about their Churches being turned Museums of Atheism, we know what happened them) I am tot ally amused about members of the coven getting depressed and feeling mentally and physically sick at the thought of such cross. How they you yearn for the “great Days” of Lenin when those Christians would be put in their place before a firing squad or worse, not much chance for Christians before Lenin’s court was there Bryant?, it there even was a Court
 
You comedy skill has come to the fore again when you mention Hitler and General Engel, But was not Engel a Nazi General who was imprisoned by the Americans after the War, are we to take the word of a convicted Nazi criminal, where did you get this piece of news, did you know someone who overheard these words, I am very curious to find out.
About the Christmas Party, after a bottle many people say strange things

@Bryant Lister:

1. Try to take yourself a little less seriously. You’re bound to die young from the stress if you keep being wound so tightly.  When you encounter a game, have fun with it even if you don’t agree with the premise. Do I seriously believe that the spelling of a word is going to prove anything to you? No. It’s one of those things that make you go “hmm”, and on a slightly sadistic note it is funny to watch an atheist go nuts over such a silly thing.

2. I don’t assert it. You do - by your own statements, as I proved earlier. It seems to bother you to find that you do have a belief that is unsubstantiated, but don’t worry. It only makes you human.  I find it funny that you feel the need to deny you have any kind of belief at all.  I’m sure you have opinions, and those are beliefs, whether it’s a simple belief that winter is better than summer or eggplants taste gross while sushi is yummy. Beliefs aren’t bad things, Bryant. They are what show you aren’t simply a robot spouting off what you have been programmed to say, they are proof that you have a mind of your own.  Beliefs are healthy, and if it makes you feel childish to admit that you have them, there’s nothing wrong with embracing a little bit of the child-like qualities so long as you don’t become childish (i.e. self-centered and demanding).

2. I’m not sure how it diminishes my respect for human life to believe that people’s choices in how they want to live are respected not just here but in eternity as well.

3. Do you apply that to atheists, too?  I mean, if someone says they are atheist and has pictures with, for instance, Richard Dawkins but then goes and kills a bunch of atheists and erects crosses on the graves of the people he just killed and then goes on the witness stand to testify that God told him to do it all - he’s still atheist, right?

4. Were you more knowledgeable about Scripture than you pretend to be, you would know the prohibition against murder is written first in the book of Genesis 9:6 “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made”.  The laws you cite after Moses brought down the second set of stone tablets are additions to, and not replacements of, the law provided by the 10 Commandments. Of course, those who know Sacred Tradition would know this and those who don’t wouldn’t. Furthermore, the 10 commandments are twice written in Scripture - once in Exodus 20:1-17 and again in Deuteronomy chapter 5: 6-21. Deuteronomy 5: 17 “You shall not murder” matches exactly with what is written in Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder”.

7. Those laws were indeed written to separate Church from state - as a protection for the believers. If this were truly intended to be a secular nation, as you state and as you believe (but have no proof to support it) then why would they have prayed at public functions including the day they wrote the Constitution? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” - Not an atheistic statement yet it sits at the very foundation of the set of beliefs held by those who wrote the Constitution and was the premise upon which they based the entirety of the laws and amendments. John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
—Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

Further quotes can be found in source documents, but a small list of them are found here:http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers_2.htm

8. It is very true that human beings are capable of using any excuse to kill others, the Bible being just one of many. People use money, sex, power, possessions, and any number of things to justify the reasons they do wrong things. Religion is not the danger, as I have said earlier, it is man and man’s innate selfishness which poses the danger.  If you think religion is the problem, go take a seat in a lawyer’s office when the will of a billionaire is read to his relatives. There’s no religion in there, but I guarantee you will have no shortage of ugly behavior to be found.

to Con O’Sullivan:

1.  Can’t you write a decent sentence that is not run-on?
 
2.  I am hard-pressed to think of ANY country that has had a very strong Catholic church that was a Republic and a democracy as we understand those terms here in the US.  Not Spain, not Ireland, not Poland..well, maybe France.
 
3.  So pope JP-II had Jewish friends?  BIG DEAL.  That means nothing at all.  In the US, some years ago, foolish people here would sometimes say “some of my bestfriends are black…”.
 
4.  It is FACT that the Catholic church in Poland was anti-Semitic and preached anti-Semitism.  Read, for example, ANY material about the resistance in Poland, and you will not have to read many pages before reading of Polish (non-Jewish) partisand betraying Jewish ghetto fighters to the Nazis.  This is simply FACT; I hope you will attempt to deny this fact, so that all may see how foolish you are and how you live in a fantasy world.

5.  As I stated previously, the abuse of people that occurred in Ireland was an inevitable outcome of the power that the church had in Ireland.  Read the Murphy report, the Ryan report, the material about the Magdalene Laundries, and so on.  If you are interested (which I doubt) you should have no trouble finding numerous articles quoting Catholic clergy IN IRELAND re the church coverup. 

6.  A look around the world, and a look at history, shows very clearly, and quickly, that the main goal of the Catholic church is acquiring power, and using it to oppress people.  Oh, yes, it sometimes clothes this lust for power with “good works”—orphanages and so on—but those good works are clearly a figleaf. 
 
7.  Most thinking people understand what I have said; to the dismay of the Vatican, even many Catholics are finally having their eyes opened, and the result is that the Catholicchurch is having to focus more of its recruiting in 3rd world countries.

Brandy Miller,
1. Thanks for finally admitting that your word game was silly and childish.  I did have fun with it, showing how ridiculous it was for making any kind of point.  You may go ‘hmmm’ when you find two words that share a few letters, but that’s only a reflection of your limited mind.
2. Give it up kid, I have no beliefs.  I do not hold opinions as facts, just as preferences or presuppositions.  Your delusions are your own problem.  Your respect for human life is diminished by believing that a fairy tale character is greater than a human being. (Your numbering is way off at this point).
3. I don’t respond to incoherent rambling.
4. (which was actually my number 5 in the previous post) The mythology from Exodus is that the Moses character destroys the first set of tablets from Exodus 20, then in Exodus 34, the imaginary sky daddy characters helps make new tablets, which are supposed to be the same laws as the first set.  Yet the second set is almost completely different.  Exodus 34: “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.”—Nothing you wrote in response explains why the two sets of ‘commandments’ are different when the imaginary sky daddy character said they were going to be the same, not additions to.  The fact that the same mistake was made in two different fairy tale stories, only proves how ridiculous they are.
6. (apparently you agreeed, so you skipped over this one)
7. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, the latter is the law of the land, the former is not.
“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion.” 1797 the treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Washington, and approved by the Senate of the United States
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter, Danbury Baptist Assn. January 1, 1802
“I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled.” Millard Fillmore (1809-1865) 13th U.S. President
“There is not a shadow of right on the general goverment to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject tha I have warmly supported religious freedom.” James Madison - father of the Constitution
“I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this county in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.” Andrew Jackson, Statement refusing to proclaim a national day of fasting and prayer.
“Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?”
—John Adams
“The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests.”
—John Adams
Adams didn’t exactly like the catholic cult, did he?  Too funny.
8. So, your defense of the religious cults, is that people fighting over money are just as bad?!  That’s hilarious.

Con O Sullivan,
I can’t respond to babbling nonsense.  If you can’t form a coherent thought that actually has some basis in reality, then you will not get any further responses.

Maggie McConnell,
You don’t get to vote on reality.  You’re making an assumption based on a lack of knowledge (your brother was a poor substitute for a good education into science) and the fact that apparently you are hearing voices.  Seek help, you are obviously suffering from some fairly serious symptoms of schizophrenia.  I implore you not to ignore the warning signs and end up like the one of the sad cases of people who murder their children, parents or friends because they hear voices telling them to do it.
Treatment options for schizophrenia are good, and the outlook for the disorder continues to improve. With medication, therapy, and a strong support network, many people with schizophrenia are able to control their symptoms, gain greater independence, and lead fulfilling lives

Gregory. I will ask my brother, who is a psychiatrist, if he thinks I am schizoid. Funny that in my 74 years you are the only person to think that (projection, perhaps?) in case you are not merely sarcastic, let me reassure you—whatever gave you the idea I hear voices? It see that perhaps i was wrong: you are not above ad hominem attacks.

God bless you and deliver you from confusion and error.

Oh, sorry: I thought that response was from Gregory as he was the one I addressed my comment to and my email did not list a name with the comment. . Sorry, Gregory. It seems it is someone named Lister, Bryant who is lost in deception. I hope you yourself are well.

Maggie McConnell,
First, you should get an unbiased opinion for a psychiatric professional that you are not related to.  Second, please repeat what you posted above: “It is a special sense, either absent In or ignored by those who are apathetic or atheistic on the subject of God. It is this “sense” that gives the capacity to apprehend God. It is quite direct, varied in its revelations, and totally unexpected in what it reveals, at least for me….Over a long life I have been graciously given insights into that entity. With that gifted sense I was enabled to apprehend Love, Goodness, Purity, Holiness, Infinity. That was the beginning to what became a long and finally joyful jouney to God, the Inexpressible Being who made me, loves me, and Whom I love with all my heart.”
Let’s see how long they let you remain living without court mandated supervision after that. 
Silly christians, myths are for kids.

Bryant Lister So you will not respond to my comments, that is because you cannot respond, or I AM SUPPOSED YOU ARE SUFFERING FROM THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL UPSET THAT YOUR COVEN HVE ABOUT THE CROSS IN GROUND, about John Adams did not that President keep slaves,agood role model. So you can now spend your time with your” heroes of Atheism Colouring book” and colour in Lenin, Stalin , Mao and PolPot, make sure you have planty red to sigify the amount of blood they spilled

Keeping slaves is bad??? But, but, doesn’t the Bible say it’s okay??
Con, your constant referal to Lenin et al as “Atheist heroes” was absurd the first time you said it. Now you just come off as an imbecile. And a loud one at that with your ridiculous use of all-caps.
BTW, John Adams never owned slaves.

Bittersteel, I was addressing Bryant Lister, have you changed your name, maybe Lenin is a hero to Bryant Lister, by his sneering comments about Christians I would expect so

Con, you’ve mentioned Lenin and co. as “atheist heroes” a few times, that seems directed at all of us Atheists, not just Bryant. Like your idiotic use of the term “coven”, it’s just goofy. And if you wish to see “sneering” you need only look in the mirror. But why do all you God-botherers worry about what Bryant, or I, or any Atheist says? We’re all going to burn in a lake of fire (a metaphor for God’s love, I’m sure) for all eternity. Maybe you should just sit back and enjoy that. In my experience the faithful never seem to tire of telling me and mine that we’re going to Hell, they tend to be pretty smug about it. Just think, in Heaven you might even get to watch us all burn. Won’t that be a hoot for you!

Bittersteel I am sure Bryant Lister can answer for himself, there is a big difference in Mr Lister,s attitude and the Atheist friends, remember he started the abuse by using the word “Cult” to describe my Church , so I am not directing my comments at you or the vast majority of Atheist. Maybe Lenin and Co are heroes of Mr Lister, I am sure he is well able to answer that if he so chooses. If he stays silent the

I can draw my own conclusion

Con O Sullivan,
I told you that I would answer when you stopped babbling and started utilizing coherent sentences.  Well, you got part way there with semi-coherent sentences.  Using the word ‘cult’ is not abusive, it is accurate. 
Definition of Cult:
1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
The popular use of the word cult is to desribe a group that people generally don’t agree with and consider brainwashed, foolish, and fanatical.  From the perspective of mature and intelligent non-believers, those who believe in fairy tales and imaginary sky daddies are part of cults. 
Definition of Coven:
1. an assembly or band of usually 13 witches
As for Lenin, I have never said anything that would give even an ignorant moron the idea that he was a hero.  I wrote this about two weeks ago in this forum (scroll up to July 29, 9:49am) “Lenin was an atheist, Lenin did commit atrocities, I never claimed otherwise.”  My family lived in czechoslovakia when the Bolshevick Revolution occurred.  They fled their home because of persecution and fear of death.  So, no I do not consider Lenin or any other communist a hero. 
While I do consider your cult beliefs childish and ignorant, I defend your right to have them.  I do not advocate for your death or torture because of your beliefs, I just wish you’d grow up someday and the christian cult would quit wishing for the death and torture of atheists.

Bryant Lister. Of course there are strange Christians who have these dangerous and disguisting hatred of Atheists , as there are Atheists who wish evil on us Christians, unfortunately your description of Christianity as a cult and the ridiculas comments like fairy tales asnd sky daddies as grossly offensive. In my years of membership of my local Catholic Church I have never heard a word of abuse of Atheists, and as far as I am concerned people can believe what they wish,

Con O Sullivan,
You must live in a very sheltered sect of the catholic cult if you’ve never heard anything against atheists or non-believers.  Just look at the ‘end game’ of the christian fairy tales (no evidence=fairy tale).  All non-believers are tortured and subjected to a mythical hell in the wildest dreams of your cult.  You want to believe in a mythology that has your imaginary sky daddy (no proof=imaginary) killing billions of people in the worst ways, then you want to bow down to this imaginary sky daddy/murderer. 
Do you think people who don’t believe in an imaginary sky daddy deserve death?  Would you kill them?  If your answer to either of these is no, then why is your sense of morality greater than the mythical being you worship?  If you answer is yes to both, then you only prove my point more.

Bryant Lister, If you want to continue these insults, let us go back to lenin and Stalin who murdered people because they believed in your mocking Sky Daddy (of course in your mind Stalin was not an Atheist) In all my time in the Catholic I never heard any Priest saying that non believers were destined for hell, but I know that Atheists put to Death millions of people for beloeving in your “Sky Daddy”. Unlike the Atheists Stalin and Lenin I do not wish harm to anyone because of their belief and unbelief. as for evidence of Hitlers Catholisism used so called evidence from a Nazi General and Criminal Engels of a conversion he had with Hitler to say he was a Catholic, where is your evidence there or is that a product of your “Sky Daddy imagination

Con,
Was Stalin an Atheist? Sure, officially he had to be. Beyond that, who really knows?
Did Stalin kill millions of people? Nobody is arguing with that.
Did Stalin kill millions of Christians solely because they’re Christians? That seems to be your claim. Can you provide a source for that information? Millions were killed by Stalin in famines. It’s difficult to direct a famine at specific religious groups. So can you provide evidence for the millions of Christians murdered for their faith? Otherwise, if people were killed and they just happened to be Christian, that does not count as persecution.

Typical catholic cult, censoring free speech.

Folks,
  The whole point of Jennifer’s article was entering into reasonable discussions with athiests. This entire thread has proven the point, that you can not have an intellectual discussion with antireligionists. They will eschew all science, all published history and so forth.

They don’t, won’t, and can’t engage in rational exchange and it is pointless and foolish to try. They will turn the knowledge of the world upside down in order to keep their delusion going. Antireligionists have no goal other that to destroy those who will not follow their line.
You can have a more reasoned and rational exchange with a brick wall… Those “myers” syncophants play their own game and it is neither reasonable nor rational.
Stalin, lenin, mao, hitler, and etc all anti-religionists… these guys are just wannabes and poor ones at that.

Con O Sullivan,
If you are insulted because you belong to a cult and believe in fairy tales and mythical deities, then you need to examine your own childish beliefs.  Trotting out the idiotic ramblings about Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler is only demonstrating your ignorance.

As for your catholic cult, do you not know your own doctrine and dogma, 0r the bible fairy tales: 
Deuteronomy 13 - Stone the non-believers
Revelation 21 - Non-believers burn with sulfur and fire
Matthew 13 - Non-believers cast into a furnace of fire

Will you pick and choose the bible fairy tales that you acknowledge, just like you pick and choose what history you believe in? 
I asked you the following questions: “Do you think people who don’t believe in an imaginary sky daddy deserve death?  Would you kill them?  If your answer to either of these is no, then why is your sense of morality greater than the mythical being you worship?”  You answered the first two, but not the third question…why not?

Steve,
The hypocrisy of your calling Hitler anti-religious while claiming that others ‘turn the knowledge of the world upside down in order to keep their delusion going’ is hilarious.  You obviously haven’t been paying attention and don’t know the difference between fact and fiction.

Steve,
The whole point of Jennifer’s article was to claim that a religious person can have a reasonable discussion with an Atheist, so long as the Atheist begins by conceding her belief is correct. She wants a reasonable discussion, so long as reason isn’t involved. Us Atheists are in a prison of reason, IIRC, so where does that put the lot of you? In the free world of fantasy, I suppose. Enjoy it, reality is good enough for me. As for “eschewing science”, what world do you live in??? Religion is the vanguard of ignorance. You stand against every scientific breakthrough in preference to your mythology, and long after every rational person accepts the science, you pat yourselves on the back for finally agreeing (always with the stipulation that even if the science is right, God did it). Yours is a history of saying “we don’t believe that anymore” and “we don’t do that anymore” and “our religion is guided by God so it’s perfect and it’s not our fault that God never told us that the earth goes around the sun or that the whole Genesis story was nonsense. It’s still perfect though cuz God told us” So don’t try to pull that nonsense, your church has done little beyond holding back human progress. The sooner your churches fade away the better. There’s a big one in my neighborhood, the “For Lease” sign that’s been on it for years gives me hope for the future.

@Bryant: Silly atheist. What a strange kind of morality you believe in. You believe that people who have spent their entire lives wishing or causing harm to others should have to face no consequences for their actions. You believe that people who have worked hard their whole lives to become better people and to do good to others should be forced to share space with people who hate them and despise them for all eternity. I don’t think I care for your kind of morality at all, as it seems to entail people being allowed to do whatever they like with no consequences, which means they are perpetually robbed of their ability to take responsibility for the things they have done or failed to do.   

Isn’t it a bit childish for someone so “mature” as yourself to be resorting to name calling and ridiculing of others to make your point? Don’t you know the first rule of debate is that the first person to call names or make fun of someone has lost because, by doing so, they prove that their argument isn’t sufficient by itself.

As for Hitler, my friend, were you to know Catholic teaching you would know that there are two kinds of sin that one can commit - venial and mortal. Mortal sin is a disobedience of God’s law of such gravity that you are automatically ex-communicated from the Church until such time as you seek reconciliation. Murder is a mortal sin. Ergo, Hitler was ex-communicated from the Catholic Church the very first time he committed a murder, and was not Catholic. His association with other members of the Church caused and continue to cause scandal, but are not proof of his belonging. Venial sins are offenses against God, but they are not so grave as to remove you from full communion. 

The Declaration of Independence is not, as you have said, the law of the land but it is relevant to our discussion on the beliefs of the founders as it is representative of their thoughts.  This was the reason I brought it up. Historical documents and laws are viewed in the context of the time period in which they are written, which often means consulting other documents written from that same time period. If you were to wish to understand what the founders intended by what they wrote in the Constitution, for instance, it is often helpful to review the Federalist papers which were a series of responses written to states who had expressed reservations about signing the Constitution. 

It is both naive and impossible for political belief and religion to be separate, as religion is the rudder which steers the ship of politics. You, for instance, view all political issues through your lens of atheism. Were you to be a judge, for instance, you would always rule against the Church and for the secular since you view the Church to be founded upon a myth. Ergo, you bring your religion (and by religion I mean that set of laws by which you govern your life) into your politics. Your quote from James Madison supports my statement that the intention of separation between religion and the state was to protect the Church, and thus believers, from interference with their beliefs by the government.

You are correct. John Adams was no friend of the Catholic Church. In fact, most of the colonists weren’t. Most had a deep-seated hatred for it. That is a historical fact. If you thought that I meant that the laws about religion and state were intended to protect the Catholic Church from interference, you are mistaken. The government often did interfere with and persecute Catholics precisely because of that hatred, in spite of their own laws against such behavior.

My statement about religion was that it is not the cause or root of evil. The selfishness of people is. Money is no more to blame for evil than religion. It is not the money that causes the fight, but the people who quarrel over it, who feel they need more of it, who see it as more important than relationships.

Being selfless and thoughtful of others requires self-control and restraint, which takes years of discipline to hone. This is why we do not expect a toddler to control himself when he is angry, but we do expect someone who is 9 or 10 to do so. It’s easy to strike out when you’re angry, and much harder to reign in the feelings and keep control over the emotions you have.  It’s easy to open your mouth and spew out whatever garbage comes to mind, and much harder to take the time to think about how the things you are saying might impact someone else.  Religion, like exercise, can benefit you in gaining that self-control and restraint but it must be applied regularly before you see the benefit.

Nobody blames the gym when the fat guy who bought a membership fails to lose weight. They understand the fat guy is still fat because he didn’t APPLY the membership to his life on a regular basis. He may have come in once a year - like some “Catholics” - but that’s not likely to produce results, is it? You get what you put into it.

Brandy,
Morality is not about punishment and reward, that’s the problem with trying to connect cult doctrine and dogma to morals.  It doesn’t work.  If someone is motivated by gaining a reward or avoiding a punishment, then their actions are not motivated by morals.  Apparently you think morality is about selfishness, but it’s about right and wrong, not about the rules of your cult.
As I explained before, I am being accurate when I refer to your cults, fairy tales and imaginary sky daddy.  If you want respect for believing childish things, don’t expect it from someone that doesn’t believe the silly nonsense.
Your argument about Hitler is baseless, the catholic cult leaders embraced and supported Hitler repeatedly.  Hitler considered himself a catholic cult member, your desire to pretend otherwise means nothing.
The Federalist Papers are not the law of the land and were mostly written by Alexander Hamilton.  Hamilton was a christian cult member and definitely biased in his views about religious cults.  Nice try little one.
The first amendment was written to protect both cults and the government.  The cults have the freedom to practice whatever fairy tale rituals they want and the laws of the land will not be infringed by fairy tale beliefs and cult dogma.  You make some ignorant assumptions with respect towards how I would treat a cult with regards to the law. 
Believing in fairy tales may make you blissfully ignorant and delusional, but they are not going to give you self control and restraint.

Bryant -

Define these terms: Faith, religion, moral, good, evil, love, hate, and immoral.

Fight all error, but do it with good humor, patience, kindness, and love. Harshness will damage your own soul and spoil the best cause.

—St John of Kanty

Incidentally, Bryant, your statement that morality cannot be based upon gaining a reward or avoiding punishment is contradictory to the way the brain works. Every action you take creates either reward or punishment within the brain. The reward may be positive - pleasure - or negative - cessation of pain. The punishment is -always- pain. This encourages you to repeat or stop certain behaviors. For example, you feel pain (punishment) when placing your hand over a fire. When you remove your hand from the fire you cease to feel the pain (negative reward).  Your definition of morality, therefore, is problematic. It cannot exist as no man can ever be free from gaining reward or experiencing punishment by virtue of the nature of our physiology.

Brandy,
Google dictionary and you’ll find plenty of sources for defining words.  Jump through your own hoops, little one.

@Brandy. Wonderful posts, Brandy. I wonder if the atheists here would not have more fun commenting on the sites where they will find the current quarrel between the New Atheists (Dawkins et al ) and the NCSE/BCSE.  They do speak the same language.

Brandy,
Again you’re confused about morality, what a surprise.  If a person performs an action simply because it makes them feel good, that would not be a moral motivation.  The point you miss is that of a cause versus an effect.  A person may feel good after doing good for someone else, but was that the motivation.  The cause is the motivation, the effect is not.  If the motivation was to cause a selfish effect, then they are not acting morally.  If the positive effect results from a moral action, but was not the cause of the action, then the person is acting morally.  When you pretend/believe that an imaginary sky daddy watches your every move, then your motivation is controlled by that delusion. I know it’s difficult for cult members to break out of their dogmatic existence and they struggle to think through these issues. I do applaud you for trying even though I can see it is quite a struggle for you.

Bittersteel,

So this is the same reason that athiests and anti-religionists, seek to deny “big-bang” theory in favor of the theory that “the Universe always was and always will be what it is right now” simply because Big bang is too similar to Genesis?

As a scientist, working more than 40 years as a Chemist, your simple inference that all believers either throw science out the window or template their beliefs onto the framework of science is without merit.

As you should know, most scientific arguments, rely on the “black-Box” model of explanation for processes that science currently can not explain. ” Most statements go something like ” the current level of scientific research does not fully explain….etc. etc.”

You are stating the “relativist rationalization” ( I don’t have to understand much less explain anything that I don’t care to… You’re not the boss of me !! OR “You’re just not capable of understanding the basics of rational reasoning and therfore I am free to reject all that you say!!) (If I understand the current modes of expression).
Most of the Athiest/anti-religionists posters in this thread have resorted to this inane apporach.

AS I stated, you’ll do better with a brick wall.

Steve

for a beautiful experience that speaks to Chistians’ hearts—and I hope to the atheists’ as well, go to the blog on this site called “This will restore your faith in humanity.” Perhaps it will unite us for a moment at least.

It is interesting that in all the talk of Hitler, no one has mentioned his great hero: “God is dead” Nietsche. But perhaps not surprising.

Wow.  I thought about saying something in regard to either the article or the comments, but I’m way late.

“Say unceasingly the Chaplet that I have taught you. Whoever will recite it will receive great mercy at the hour of death. Priests will recommend it to sinners as their last hope of salvation.”

“Tell My priests that hardened sinners will repent on hearing their words, when they speak about My unfathomable mercy, about the compassion I have for them in My Heart. To priests who will proclaim and extol My mercy, I will give wondrous power, and I will anoint their words and touch the hearts of those to whom they will speak.”

“I desire that priests proclaim this great mercy of Mine toward souls of sinners. Let the sinner not be afraid to approach Me. The flames of mercy are burning Me—clamoring to be spent. I want to pour them out upon these souls.”

—Jesus Christ to St. Faustina (Circa 1930, Divine Mercy in My Soul)

http://thedivinemercy.org/mercysunday/christswords.php

The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?  Jeremiah 8

“Whoever will recite it will receive great mercy at the hour of death.”
Does this mean that the person will be allowed to have a peaceful and relatively pain-free death with the help of their physician?

@Mike: The kind of mercy referred to in that promise is mercy regarding judgement due at the end of your life. It is not about the pain you may or may not experience, in fact such pain can be a form of mercy in that it allows you to suffer all the temporal punishment due in this life rather than having to spend any time in purgatory.

I JUST STUMBLED ACROSS THIS SITE AND THOUGHT I WOULD THROW MY TWO CENTS IN.  I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED ON A FOX NEWS SITE ABOUT THE LAWSUIT ATHEISTS WANTED TO FILE AGAINST THE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO PUT THE CROSS IN THE 9-11 CENTER THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS USED FOR THEIR SERVICES.  SINCE THAT DAY, I HAVE RECIEVED OVER 200 E-MAILS FROM THESE PEACE LOVERS THREATING NOT ONLY MY LIFE, BUT MY PARENTS AS WELL.  DON’T BE FOLLES BY THESE IDIOTS.  THE IRONIC PART IS I MYSELF DO NOT BELIEVE IN ORGANIZED RELIGION, BUT WAS YET SUBJECTED TO THIS TREATMENT FROM THERE FOLLOWERS. 
  I’M SURE LIKE IN ALL THINGS, THERES GOOD AND BAD EVERYWHERE.  REAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION IS ACHIVED BY HAVING RESPECT FOR OTHERS OPINIONS.  JUST A WORD OF THE WISE FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TRY TO HAVE A CIVIL AURGUMENT WITH THESE PEOPLE.

@MIKE: There is no defense for any Christian who would threaten the life of anyone, regardless of what that person has done. Christ values all life, especially the lives of those who do not know Him.

Now, having said that, I’ll address the rest of your post. First, please turn off all-caps before posting. There’s no need to scream at people. Second, I’m not sure how anyone could be folles by anyone else as that is not a word in the English language. Third, to call us idiots and then say that real freedom of speech and religion is achieved by having respect for others opinions shows that you do not understand the concept of respect and it also shows that you are a person who is incapable of engaging in civil debate.  Fourth, while I would agree that there is irony in people who claim to be Christian behaving in such a hostile manner toward you there is no irony at all in your lack of belief and the way you were treated. A more appropriate demonstration of irony is when you say that you’re sure there’s good and bad everywhere, but you then lump every believer into one category - “idiots” and tell others that you’re giving them a word to the wise for anyone who wants to try to have a civil argument, which tells me that you mean exactly the opposite of what you have just said. 

The cross is an incredibly appropriate symbol, not only for Christians, but for all those who die in sacrifice for a cause they believe in because it is a symbol of one who so loved others that he was willing to give his life for them. The firefighters who died in the line of duty, whatever their particular faith, demonstrated that same kind of self-sacrificial love that is the cornerstone of true heroism. You are free to disagree, of course, but I invite you to reflect on what makes a hero a hero.  Look through your movies, read some books, and think on it. Every time you find a real hero - they are a hero not because they are smarter or stronger or braver than everyone else. Those things would be nothing if they were not willing to put those traits in the service of others. They are heroes because, in the end, they are willing to sacrifice their own lives to save the lives of others.  That’s what the cross represents. That’s its real meaning - a love so strong it is willing to give its life to save or to protect the beloved.  To refuse to allow the cross to be erected at the sight where these men and women have fallen is to deny them the honor that is their due.

Atheist. All I said about Stalin and Lenin were facts, they murdered people because they were Christians, as for telling us that Hitler was a Catholic cult leader, did not Hitler murder 3 Million lay Catholics and 3,000 Catholic Clergy , some Catholic cult leader. Is it not steange that there are no Atheist sites that you can spread your poison,maybe youy should read upon the Atheist Heroes , Stalin, Lanin, Mao, Pol Pot, I suppose you will try to say they were Catholic Cult leaders, keep going, give us a laugh

I was going to post a comment about the difference between substance and material, or the different types of belief (contrary to what an atheist said previously, a person can believe whatever he wants, which is not a true statement. Beliefs can be justifiable or unjustifiable) in a vain attempt to appear intelligent, bus a class on metaphysics and a class on epistemology does no a philosopher make, so I will shut up now.