God is to be experienced perhaps this will help some to wonder. If science is there only god note smal g then let us consider that the spirit worked the science, how is thi s , well perhaps as jesus said it is not the flesh and blood that gives life, donot think carnally it is the spirit that gives life. Someday I believe that spirit will be proven to have antanomical matter that we can not see yet. Imagination is greater then knowledge.  God bless Dr Thomas

It’s funny reading an article by someone as robustly proud of his ignorance as Mark Shea. His hatred of atheists is driving him over the edge.

Has Mark ever volunteered as a medical first responder? I do. Has he ever done CPR on a dying human being? I have. Did he volunteer after 9/11 in NYC? I did. Did he ever do hospice work and care for babies..BABIES…dying of AIDS? I did. Yet I’m the evil one because I’m an atheist!

Materialism? Mark and all his hocus pocus theology can’t explain why a rock falls off a cliff let alone how life works. If Mark had his way we’d all be living in caves chanting to ward off the evil spirits lurking outside in the dark.

This worship of ignorance would be risible if not so tragic. So, Mark, get a life. Take up a hobby. Get out and serve your community like we atheists do. Perhaps you’ll learn to live without hatred.

Bob, Mr. Shea never said anything about hating atheists, only questioning your philosophy.  As for all of the good that you’ve done, nobody ever said that none of those things are indeed good and commendable or that atheists are incapable of doing them, because they are atheists.  What Mr. Shea is asking is whether atheists consider the full implications of their philosophy.  And what you describe—nay, caricature—is a faith divorced from reason.  Of which Mr. Shea gave no indication, and what Catholicism decidedly is not.

I have and I am sure Mark through his good works brings guidance to many. Now, the subjecy was the 61 minute back to life. How?  Thatis the question. Please read my response first, it does not deny science, Does spirit have measurable matter then can incert itself on our reality. Oh, thank you for your good works . Where did you inherit your values from?  God bless and my love. Dr Thomas

bob: Ad Hominem, Strawman, Deflection, Refusal to Address the Argument, Contemptuous Language, Boastfulness, Accusations of Hatred, Accusations of Insanity, Irrationality.

The author couldn’t have dreamed up a more perfect example of what he’s talking about. You make his case for him.

As Father Brown would say, a real live man with two legs once told me “miracles are explainable as extraphysical phenomena.” Oh, yes, that really makes a COMPLETE difference.

Got it in one, Phil.

Oh, and Bob…. Not to hit too hard on this (Phil, I am suprised that you missed this one!), but an athiest must never be caught using the protestant anti-catholic slur “hocus pocus”. You should not attack what you don’t believe in, Should you? It would be considered an impurity in athiestic language and thought wouldn’t it?

I’ve got your back on this one, (Just trying to keep you out of trouble).

Steve
(level A all the way, Analytical Chemist and medic since 1980)

“There are, said St. Thomas, only two really good objections to the existence of God.  The first is the existence of evil.  The second is that nature seems to get along fine without God.”
—
One interesting fact is that modern science seems to illuminate these assertations.  Let’s take them in reverse order.
—
There is a lot of scientific evidence that shows that the origin and evolution of life requires a really BIG universe.  I does appear that the odds of life developing and surviving are really low (sorry Trekkers).  For example, for a planet to develop life it may not only need to be the right distance from the right kind of star, but it may also need a large moon close enough to tidally “stir the pot”, and the formation of that moon is now seen as the result of a chance collision with just the right geometry.  Let’s restate this theologically: Why did God need to create such a universe?  Probably because ‘natural’ processes that lead to the creation of humanity are the only way to preserve free will.  A universe that is ‘obviously’ created by God is one where people are less free to turn to Him on their own motives.
—
Science goes the other way, at least on the issue of natural evils.  The biggest example is the beautiful landscapes we have on earth.  We love them and build vacation resorts at them, yet they exist as the result of tectonic forces that frankly kill a lot of people.  Just think of the resorts hit by the Indonesian tsunami.  If the previous paragraph is true, and God needed to create natural processes to allow for free will, then humanity could not exist as it does without natural processes that inflict great evil on humanity. 
—
So for me, the bottom line is that St Thomas’ statement on evil is still true, but it would seem that his statement on nature can be safely retired.  For now.

It is interesting to contemplate: Why is atheist Bob even reading this blog?

@William F: Great question. Apparently the atheist religion has a clearing house somewhere that alerts the masses every time a person of faith writes anything on the internet with the word “atheist” in it. But I’m just spit-balling here.

No.  It is because atheists are really searching for that one comment, that one response or piece of information that will break down their wall.  I believe that all atheists really want to believe in God, but they just keep tripping over their own PRIDE.

“Apparently the atheist religion has a clearing house somewhere that alerts the masses every time a person of faith writes anything on the internet with the word “atheist” in it. But I’m just spit-balling here.”

We don’t have to rely on spit - we harness the magic with Google. Also I like reading Mark’s stuff.

OK onto miracles.

Logic:  There is a really nice outcome to what usually ends up in tragedy - a newborn survives desite the odds (with considerable science based medical intervention, but ignore that!) => Miracle => evidence of god => atheists are dogmatic materialists.

There is a bit of confirmation bias here as there is no corresponding “Tragical” count to determine the actual ratio of “Miracle” saves vs. “Tragical” outcomes due to inaction by the magic supernatural power to a similar situation. 

Furthermore, by the hard numbers of international health statistics, the infant saving miracle appears to be much more common in some heathen-dominated countries when we compare the Infant Mortality Rate per 1,000 Live Births.  The rate is much lower in Singapore (Rank#1 - 1.9 per thousand), Japan (#3 - 2.62) vs. USA’s dismal ranking 34th in the world with a 6.81 per thousand rate.  The miracle effect is statistically undetectable.

The other mystery is that medical “miracles” never include miracle recoveries from traumatic amputation.

@Bob - In your post you recommend that Mark serve his community (as you do)and he’ll live without hatred. By the tone of your post whatever you are doing in your “world of atheism” doesn’t seem to be working for you. Once again you prove how attacking and hating people of faith just makes you look foolish.

@William F - Athesist Bob doesn’t have a reason for existence except to post on Catholic blogs. He hates Catholicism so much that posting is an obsession with him. He’s the ultimate Catholic bashing troll.

The other mystery is that medical “miracles” never include miracle recoveries from traumatic amputation.

We can now re-attach “traumatic amputated” limbs. Who says that isn’t a miracle.  God gave us brains and we have used them to perform many miracles.

Shorter bob: “Shut up!”

To my readers: bob is not a ringer hired by me to illustrate my point.  Just FYI.

All be forewarned Bob is a troll.

William F:  you write, “It is interesting to contemplate: Why is atheist Bob even reading this blog?”

To provide the rest of us with comic relief.  Furthermore, it’s not like he’s said anything that we haven’t all heard before.  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  Old hat, really.

@David Homoney
A troll is someone that posts things just to insult people and start flame wars.  Bob is obviously passionate about the subject and is attempting to engage the topic at hand.  Dismissing him as a “troll” is just a rude way to say “don’t talk to that guy so he will SHUT UP!”

@Wsquared
You’re really going to answer Bob with “Blah, blah, blah”? You’re essentially saying that his post is just irrational noise that should be ignored.  In essence “shut up!”.  Which side are you on again?

This is why comboxes devolve into echo chambers.  Dissenters are hounded out with insults or dissmissed as unworthy to participate.  Just because Bob is rude doesn’t make it ok to be rude back.

@Craig Roberts - It is Bob who is continually rude. He is not interested in meaningful dialog. He doesn’t respect people of faith and as a matter of fact if you had checked out other Catholic blogs you will have seen his blasphemous comments. He’s much more than a dissenter, he hates Catholics and Catholicism to the core.

Thank you for your kind response Amy.  Bob’s distaste for faith is obvious.  No matter how much venom he spews though, it is not cool for Christians to respond in kind.  All that does is reinforce his belief that Catholics tend to be as hate filled and arrogant as the next guy.  Here.  Let me show you how to approach an atheist who is foaming at the mouth…

Dear Bob,
Thank you for your wonderful works of charity and your awesome community service!  If more people contributed as you do the world would be a better place.  Now please rest assured that Mark does not hate you.  It’s true that his article mocks atheists for being closed-minded ignoramuses, but that is just the way that Mark shows his love!  He wants to show you the error of your ways by annihilating your arguments and shaming you into acknowledging your own stupidity.  See Mark knows that your pathetic belief system will destroy the world if it is allowed to spread and so he’s doing his best to make sure that you don’t end up ruining everything.  It’s for your own good.  But isn’t that really what you’re trying to do too?...save the world from ignorant religionists that are always ruining everything with their stoopid morality and un-provable beliefs?  See, you actually have a lot in common.  In fact, aren’t you both crusaders for truth?  Well I’ll bet that if you guys met at a hospice for babies with AIDS you could become firm friends!  Now kiss and make up.

@Craig Roberts - I appreciated your humorous approach to responding to the Bob’s of the world. I, however, didn’t think anyone’s responses were filled with venom.

I don’t know how familiar you with Bob’s posts but he definitely crosses the decency line. Now that Mark Shea is moving over to Patheos and if Bob chooses to continue to follow Mark, Bob will be their problem and no longer the problem for the National Catholic Register who is owned by EWTN. The National Catholic Register and EWTN is ENTITLED to have comments posted that are devoid of vulgar and blasphemous comments. Those types of comments don’t belong on a Catholic blog and that’s my idea of Catholic charity and the correct message to send to detractors.

@Amy
Sorry to hear that Mark got fired.  Bob’s comments may have been heated and insulting, but they were not indecent.  Calling Bob a ‘troll’ is an insult and attempt to marginalize him and his views.  We can do better.  I appreciate the forum that is provided by NCR.  I just hope that we can all find creative ways to express our thoughts without resorting to flame-fests…or even worse, creating a boring, mono-tone, mutual admiration society.

This blog isn’t going anywhere.  It’s my Catholic and Enjoying It blog (www.markshea.blogspot.com) that is moving to Patheos.  Just FYI.

@Craig Roberts - I should have clarified that Bob’s comments have been vulgar and blasphemous not on this particular topic but on other topics and blogs appearing on the National Catholic Register. Yesterday I was the recipient of one of Bob’s blasphemous comments (which I will not repeat)which he posted to Jennifer Fulwiler’s blog. His comments were subsequently removed. Clearly someone else thought that Bob’s comments were inappropriate if his comments were removed.

Civilized discussion is necessary but when someone has an agenda,it is not a discussion but merely a ploy to get attention and not good attention I might add.

yay!

sorry for the confusion, Mark.

No sweat.

Hey Mark, weren’t you an atheist at one time?  It would be interesting to read about how you got converted.  I’ll bet it wasn’t by somebody that convinced you that atheists were a bunch of hostile morons.  A link to some article or post regarding your conversion story would be much appreciated!

@Craig Roberts - I’ll bet you somewhere in the story God will be mentioned!

Odd Mark brings up Atheism in a feel good story about a family that doesn’t believe in using doctors unless they get in a jam home birthing.  Of course the family would call on God or anyone to help them and the midwife.  There are no atheist in home births gone bad.  As a veteran, I know there were atheists in fox holes.

I’m glad the baby lived.  Before they had CPR, they used to put drowning victims on horses and gallop them (crude breath motions helped).

As an atheist, my attention is always drawn here when they use Atheist in the title of the blog versus anything holy.  God was NOT given credit, just Atheists are challenged. 

God has a tough way of showing himself when he is only given credit for saving the one 4 year old and all 158 other people on the plane dying (for example).  I don’t see this so much as God but as parents, not using hospitals, getting lucky.  Your milage may vary.

@bob. You modestly did not mention your qualifications as a psychiatrist. FYI, everyone, bob was most generous with his time in diagnosing me on a prior blog as being schizophrenic and most concerned that I get treatment before I killed someone. So you see in spite of spending 24/7 hating Catholics (and possibly any theist) he has the kindness of heart to take the time to warn me of my danger.
@rover…you express the anguish of all who ask that question, “why.” why my loved one? Or why not my loved one? Or why me? Etc. Theist or atheist, we all have that pain. I have found comfort in my faith and in numerous scriptures but none so clearly, perhaps, as is found is Wisdom 3, in a Catholic bible, (Luther and Calvin omitted that along with other books when they revised the bible for Protestants.) I read that at my mother’s memorial service and I think it did help. Best of all, though, is in I Thessalonians where we are told in chapter 5, verse 13, that, as Christians, “We do not grieve as those who have no hope.”  Death does not have the last word—though frankly, life would be easier if it did.

I agree with Craig.  Antagonizing your opponent will drive him away.  I count 20 pros against 1.5 contras.  Is this how you want to spend your Wednesday nights?

Besides, there’s better ways to pluck a chicken.  If I were bothering to share my views in writing, it would be with the object of converting the heathen, and not to annihilate him.  It’s better (Christian) form.

Bob, I really admire your seat-of-the pants humanitarianism.  It’s worth far more in my eyes than empty blathering.  As Jesus might say, “You are not far from the kingdom of heaven.”  Keep up the good work.

(It appears, however, you’re frightening the little girls.)

@Matt. Indeed, the pope just said in Germany that agnostics are closer to the Kingdom than many a Christian. I agree completely. And gentle humor more effective in response to some tirades. Much of that seems to come from the frustrated anguish of caring people in a world that can carry so much suffering to so many.

“Finding in everything only deception and nothingness, the soul is constrained to have recourse to God Himself and be content with Him” Jean-Pierre de Caussade

You know you’re on the wrong side of an argument when you have to misrepresent your opponents. Mr Shea is definitely on the wrong side of this argument.

@Maggie McC - “Indeed, the pope just said in Germany that agnostics are closer to the Kingdom than many a Christian.” My thoughts exactly. It is not enough for us to “just” attend Mass and “collect our token”. As the hymn goes “they will know that we are Christians by our love”.

@Matt B. Love is not accepted by everyone. As God tells us, we do have free will. In Bob’s situation, I have witnessed many people engaging him in conversation on various topics. Inevitably, no matter what you say to Bob the wall goes up and the insults come. Matt,in a civilized society people should not be treated with such disrespect and as Catholics we should not be subjected to blasphemous statements by anyone! I for one responded quite charitably I thought to Bob’s blasphemous comment the other day about Jesus Christ. I don’t know about you but I have a very big problem with anyone mocking Jesus! I am not a psychiatrist but I do believe that there is an underlying reason for Bob’s anger and his subsequent actions. It’s not simply that he considers himself an atheist. People can be atheists and not spend their time on Catholic blogs spewing their hateful comments. Bob hates the Catholic Church and only he knows for sure what that’s about thought. It’s up to Bob to open himself up to receive and respond appropriately which is in essence the love that connects all human beings. Christian love is demonstrated by not hating our neighbor and sacrificial love. I’m pretty sure those of us who have had the opportunity of dialoging with Bob many times feel this way.

I for one think bob’s comments are intelligent and thought-provoking.  Atheistic thoughts and feelings are deeply pessimistic.  Believing in God, no matter how much the gift of grace, requires a fundamental act of will.  That some people cannot or will not make that act of faith is incredibly interesting to me, even in a merely anthropological way.  As a disciple of Christ, bob represents the neediest among us, who according to St. Faustina, are the most deserving of mercy.  And if you can’t stand a little horse manure, you shouldn’t be toiling in the barnyard of atheism.  Thank you, though, for giving so much time and attention to my comment.

God is an experience perhaps Bob has missed this. I pray that Bob may be touched by the spirit and open his eyes and arms wide and wonder wonder and always wonder, for I magination is far greater then knowledge. God bless Bob and much love.  Dr Thomas

“To my readers: bob is not a ringer hired by me to illustrate my point.  Just FYI.”

You mean he works for free? Wow, what a deal!

Maggie McC: I had never read Wisdom 3 before (being raised a Methodist).  Verses 10-12 are very intersting.

10 But the wicked shall receive a punishment to match their thoughts, since they neglected righteousness and forsook the LORD.

11 For those who despise wisdom and instruction are doomed. Vain is their hope, fruitless their labors, and worthless their works.

12 Their wives are foolish and their children wicked,accursed their brood

I’m glad you recieved comfort reading this at your mothers funeral, but I suspect you read vs. 1-9, the nice carrot before the stick.

btw, Quoting the bible to me is probably like quoting Harry Potter to you.

hope you have a great day,

Bishop Sheen rocks.

Regarding why one baby miraculously survives, while the many perish regardless: the purpose of a miracle is to demonstrate the trustworthiness of a particular object of faith.  The point being, that, under natural causation, this baby was as good as dead.  Therefore, some supernatural cause must be attributed.  In this case, the supernatural agent was Fulton Sheen.  A logical conclusion is that Abp. Sheen’s teaching and witness is a reliable object of faith.

That the many die is unfortunately the natural offshoot of our sinful, fallen nature.  The ultimate lesson of the Catholic faith is not that we can avoid death, but that we must conquer death.  “O Death, where is your victory; O Death, where is your sting?”

dch: I’ll go you one futher.  I’ll bet you that the little infant of this story will herself one day die!  Does this take away from the miraculous quality of her tale?  Even Jesus, who performed many miracles, was hung on the cross.  They mocked him: “You saved others, now save yourself, if you can!”  Apparently, dying is part of the script.  Why the resentment and anger about it?  Have you no hope?

So the 26,000 stillbirths that occur each year are a result of just not praying enough?  Someone should do a paper on this.

Interestingly enough a quick google search turned up a report in the Tee Medical Record.  A servent girl he passed out while giving birth, alone in a stable while leaning up against a wall at 4:30AM.  When recovered she found the infant with placenta attached under the cutting blade of a dislodged spade, cold to the touch.  In her confused state she buried her infant in the garden.  When suspicions arose the infant was exhumed at approximately 9:30am from a depth of 30cm wrapped in an apron laying face down on it’s placenta.  A Surgeon was called who used means to reanimate it and after an additional two hours the infant showed signs of life and it’s wounds began to bleed and the infant cried.  On the 17th and 18th day the wounds supperated on the 19th, the infant died in convulsions. A.C. Hoffmen, MD of Jersey City concluded: “One would seem to be encouraged to persist much longer in the attempts at resuscitation in cases of infantile asphyxia than is generally done by the majority of us [doctors], and he who would be the most successful in such attempts need not be the most-skillful, but must be the most patient and persevering”.

This was in 1850, perhaps if they prayed a bit harder….who knows.

@Matt B - A little manure headed my way?  Sorry, Matt, I don’t understand your position. Sorry, but blasphemy is not a little manure headed my way! Perhaps you are new to the blog but Bob’s comments for me are not thought provoking when they are regurgitated. I agree, however, that if anyone is entitled to God’s mercy it is certainly Bob.

How do we know that this miracle wasn’t participated by the Flying Spaghetti monster?

Click on the link and read the incredible story of the baby’s revival.  The medical professionals worked non-stop to help that child.  There was skilled medical care involved—anyone can see that this was not a case of magic saving the child, but caring people.

Why do you Catholics need to inject childish fairy tales when there is no cause to?

Maybe the doctors should have done nothing for 61 minutes—then you believers would have an excuse to claim a victory for your imaginary friend in the sky….

And that would make it less supernatural? (Just like it would make it less intelligently designed?)

That is even stupider than the “extraphysical phenomena” pseudo-rebuttal.

I read about the baby.  I think it is an excellent example of the wonders of science.  It is a good example of the inherent danger of home delivery and a reminder that before modern medicine the major killer of children and women was childbirth.

It is also a good example that we don’t have a good definition of death.  Doctors routinely use techniques now that “kill” a patient during advanced surgery and then “bring them back to life” again afterwards.  Dramatic cooling, stopping of the heart, cessation of brain function no longer mean death in every case.

This is a wonderful story on how a father beat the odds and saw his child saved.  By doctors.  Given the billions of humans on Earth, a “once in a million ‘miracle’” is guaranteed to happen almost 7000 times a day.  It is the fallacy of large numbers.

When Mark Shea uses this amazing medical marvel, this almost tragedy, to ride his hobby-horse against atheism, he is despicable.  It is ghoulish to use a family’s pain to further your own goals.

And that’s the problem with Christianity.  Christian beliefs allow a good man to do evil things and call them good.

BTW,  I would suggest the blogger take a few minutes to read http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm.

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization.  The *only* possible dogma that could be attributed to atheist is that they see no creditable evidence for the existence of deities.  Anything beyond that is just the author setting up a straw man.

Yeah Right,

<blockquote>How do we know that this miracle wasn’t participated by the Flying Spaghetti monster?</i>

Seriously?  After all this time you still don’t get it?  God is not “a” creature.  He was not created.  He is not “a” being.  He is being in itself.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster is “A” being.  He cannot exist, and no one claims that he does.  To ask for proof of “A” being is reasonable.  To ask for proof of “being” itself is ludicrous.

The FSM, the Sky Fairy, the abominable snowman, green martians, and our little invisible friend are all creatures that IF they existed would exist in a world created BY God.  He is not a product of Himself.  Honestly, before you make such statements, you should really understand what it is you are making fun of.  Clearly, you do not.

Calladus,

I think it is an excellent example of the wonders of science.

You might get away with saying that it is an excellent example of the wonders of nature…but science?  Science failed.  That’s the point.  The baby either came around aided by the intercession of Bishop Sheen and God, OR he came around by some natural cause.  What he did not due is begin to breathe due to anything science did.  That would be the entire point of the story.  That the child’s recovery is not explainable.

Pluto,

  The medical professionals worked non-stop to help that child.

Yes, they did.  But it didn’t work.  Whatever took place it had nothing to do with science.

As for magic and the Catholic Church…see my comment to Yeah Right.  Before you make fun of something, know what it is you are making fun of.

Magic is the attempt of man to manipulate the world around him.  Faith in God is exactly the opposite of this. It is an acknowledgment that we are helpless to change reality and turn to someone Who can.  Those who believe know their limitations.  It is you, who worship scientism, that believe you have no limitations.

This is an amazing story of faith and hope!

Yeah, Right - sorry, I can’t take anything you say seriously now that I know you honestly believe that a woman pregnant with a male fetus has her very own penis (until the baby is born—then it magically becomes the baby’s!). (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/what-i-learned-from-praying-in-front-of-an-abortion-clinic/)

That kind of belief is so anti-science that it makes your comments in support of science utterly laughable.

Calladus writes, “It is ghoulish to use a family’s pain to further your own goals.”

How is it possible to get this story so backaswards?  The family is obviously overjoyed.  The article is meant to share their joy and explain what they believe was the most wonderful gift anyone could ever recieve and you say Mark is exploiting their pain??  He’s sharing their joy.  You should too, regardless of your beliefs.

“Yeah, Right - sorry, I can’t take anything you say seriously now that I know you honestly believe that a woman pregnant with a male fetus has her very own penis “

LOL, you asked if you had a penis!  A question only you can answer:P

Calladus…dude.  You need to think a sec before you write something as silly as:  “Christian beliefs allow a good man to do evil things and call them good.”

Where to start?  A ‘good man’ who does ‘evil things’ is an obvious contradiction regardless of your belief system.

If somebody does not hold ‘Christian beliefs’ are they less likely to do ‘evil things’?  Or does that matter?  If atheists are free from delusions are their evil deeds less evil because they do not ‘call them good’?

An evil deed is (by definition) evil.  If you call it good you just show that you are confused about what is good.  This mitigates your guilt.  But if you call it evil you just confirm your culpability.

It’s seems like what you are trying to say is that, “Christianity confuses people about what is good and what is evil, so nobody should follow it.”  Unfortunately it does not address the alternative.  It’s the equivalent of saying, “Because so many people drop out of high school, nobody should waste their time going to high school.”

MK,

Why so defensive?  Is it because you know deep down inside that the Flying Spaghetti Monster blessed this little one with his noodly appendage?

“The FSM, the Sky Fairy, the abominable snowman, green martians, and our little invisible friend are all creatures that IF they existed would exist in a world created BY God.”

Actually the FSM is responsible for creation, so your assertion has failed.

“Apparently the atheist religion has a clearing house somewhere that alerts the masses every time a person of faith writes anything on the internet with the word “atheist” in it.”

It’s called “google.”  Since Mr. Shea often spews about atheism, atheists tend to notice; since his arguments are just emotional rants, atheists respond in kind.

@Brian Westly
hmmm…Mark does tend spend a lot of time kicking the atheist hornets nest.  But if they really are “just emotional rants” why respond?  And you do realize that to respond ‘in kind’ means that you are doing the same thing?  Why don’t you respond with some of your super air-tight arguments, instead?

I think you angry hornets are afraid that if Mark’s mighty light is allowed to shine unchallenged, your idols will melt and your belief system will collapse.  And so you rush to defend yourselves with all the intellectual firepower you can muster.  You must not have a whole lot of faith in your firepower because it is so quickly abandoned for sticks and stones.  Sadly, Mark’s minions respond ‘in kind’ (with insults) because they are unable to penetrate the atheist hive-mind with reason.

@Craig Roberts - Perhaps you would like to assist us with ways of penetrating the atheist-hive-mind. It seems very resistant to any type of reasoning I’ve seen many people use.

One reason atheists keep showing up in these threads is because it is not just posted to your site - the webmaster made a deliberate decision to have these conversations indexed by Google. Since there is mockery of atheists or worse showing up on google searches (such as in Google News) atheists of course want to respond.

The atheist response to this “miracle” - atheism just means we don’t believe in gods (including Yahweh). It doesn’t mean we know gods don’t exist, just that there doesn’t seem to be enough evidence to allow us to believe in one. Even Richard Dawkins has said he can’t rule out gods existing, but gives it a very low chance. Personally I hope God does exist - it would alleviate existential pain -but wishing is not the same as believing. Note that Agnostic comes from the greek root gnosis meaning knowledge - agnostic in a strict sense means not professing knowledge of gods existence or nonexistence. In contrast Gnostics believed they had secret knowledge of God. Most atheists I know, including myself, consider themselves agnostic atheists.

The definition of miracle by the Church seems to include anything with a very low probability of occurring, which is a problem for us. We know that many people have gone an hour or even much longer with CPR and no heatbeat and have suffered no ill effects. These all might be miracles to you, but to me they just seem like a normal probabilistic distribution. Rare doesn’t equal miracle. Also, an atheist is not likely to just take one anecdotal incident at face value. For example, what did the doctors working on the baby say about this? I saw one nurse called this a “miracle” but I have had nurses tell me that myself a few times.

Atheists will also question the assumption that “God did it” for anything you can’t explain. For example, even if this was the action of an outside force, why is the default God? It could just as easily been Isis, the Roman pantheon, the ghosts of ancestors intervening, aliens with much higher technology, etc.

It may be a mistake to start like this, but I am a fallen Catholic, now Atheist, and I found this blog because I follow “@atheismreview” on Twitter, which posts links about both Atheist and Religious topics. I like reading information from both sides, because I know that one cannot be a rational person unless they hear all rational sides of an argument. My intent in writing this is not to provoke emotions so much as to provoke the minds of the readers by correcting and/or expanding upon points made in Mark Shea’s post.
1. There is no such thing as an Atheist Dogma. No two Atheists believe the same things. In fact, the only common belief that almost (stress on the almost) all Atheists share is the belief in skepticism. Atheists do not worship science. We freely admit that science is constantly changing, and we embrace those changes, because we seek the truths of reality.
2. One thing I will dispute is the claim that atheists tell theists to “Shut up.” If anything, it is the other way around. I personally would never tell a theist to “Shut Up” as long as they were making rational, relevant points. I want them to make their points so that I can either learn from them or make them learn from their mistakes. That being said, some opinions aren’t valid, but that is for a different post.
3. No Atheist has a “commitment” to “atheistic materialism.” This goes back to the Dogma argument. There is no such thing. Materialism isn’t a belief system. It merely means that, since we cannot perceive or measure anything outside of the natural, material world, there should be no reason to believe in it. Once good, falsifiable evidence can be provided for something, we will believe in it.
4. Atheists rarely, if ever, speak in “musts.” There are no sacred cows in Atheism, nor are there any sacred cows in science. The potential discovery of neutrinos that move faster than the speed of light, and the scientific reaction to it, are proof positive of that. And therefore, “miracles” are not threatening to us or our lack of beliefs.
5. How does one define a miracle. When I believed, and even today, the best definition I ever heard was “A suspension of the natural order.” Another would be “divine intervention.” Since there is no supernatural world that we can perceive, and there is no real reason to believe in one, there must be a logical, rational, empirical explanation for something. Often, they are the result of charlatanism. Generally, however, they are merely mistakes resulting from a lack of scientific understanding, a “God of the gaps argument.” Before Germ Theory, people believed that plague and pestilence were God’s punishment; before genetics, birth defects were believed to be the result of possession or the parents’ sins; now we know that there are actual, nonsupernatural reasons for these things. Oh, and saying “miracles exist because of the miracles of science” is wrong. That is actually the logical fallacy of “equivocation,” meaning that the definition of a key word is changed within the argument. A similar example would be, “One shouldn’t play baseball because bats bite.”
5. This is one thing that really gets me, so forgive me if it comes out blunt and possibly rude. Atheists DO NOT have faith. In anything. Period. Atheism literally means “lack of belief in deities.” Faith is defined as “believing in something without proof.” Again, Atheists DO NOT have faith in anything, including faithlessness. And it is not upon the Atheist to provide proof that God doesn’t exist; rather, it is the theist’s job to prove to us that God does exist. Atheists come to their conclusion that there is no reason to believe in God because of rationality, not in spite of it, and to say otherwise is not so much erroneous as it is a lie.
6. I’m glad to see that the author didn’t disregard the Problem of Evil. However, to say that the so-called “miracle” weakens the argument that nature gets along fine without God is simply false. It tells us nothing of the sort. In fact, it really is irrelevant. In no way do “medical miracles’ point to God anymore than deformities or natural disasters point to the wrath of a deity. As for the objections to miracles based on the fact that not everyone gets them, that is a perfectly valid point. If the water at Lourdes was really magically changed into healing water by God, wouldn’t more than the, I don’t know, five hundred (I am not sure if this is the accurate number, but I know it isn’t higher than five hundred, so this is being generous) who have been miraculously healed by the water at Lourdes been healed? Millions of people have visited Lourdes since the Marian apparition, so five hundred is almost nothing in comparison. That isn’t a miracle, but chance.
7. Arguments from authority (the Chesterson quote) doesn’t make a statement true. Just because he believes it, it doesn’t mean it’s correct.

Thanks, if you read it. I am glad to take any responses. I like debates, so if you’re rational and not insulting, I’d be glad to respond.

Larry, you complain about references to what “atheists believe” because atheists are not in agreement about everything. But a favorite atheist talking point is to imply that because different subsets of Christians disagree about some things, therefore Christianity is discredited. (“They can’t even agree about what ‘Christianity’ says, nya, nya, nya!”)

This crops up in your reference to “the” Church….  I find that almost always the people who carry on about the awfulness of “the church” are the same ones who sneer at us for being divided.

@Scott; @Larry

Posted by Scott - “The definition of miracle by the Church seems to include anything with a very low probability of occurring, which is a problem for us.” 

The Church’s definition of a miracle - and I am paraphrasing here - is a spontaneous medical “healing” that cannot be attributed to medical intervention. Two spontaneous unexplainable medical miracles are required before someone is declared a Saint.  Prayers are offered to the holy soul who has passed on and we ask them to intercede for us with God for healing of a particular person. In this particular case, prayers were offered to Archbishop Fulton Sheen. The Church never makes rash determinations on miracles. Great care is taken to gather information before any miracle is attributed to anyone’s intersession.

It may be a mistake to start like this, but I am a fallen Catholic, now Atheist, and I found this blog because I follow “@atheismreview” on Twitter, which posts links about both Atheist and Religious topics. I like reading information from both sides, because I know that one cannot be a rational person unless they hear all rational sides of an argument. My intent in writing this is not to provoke emotions so much as to provoke the minds of the readers by correcting and/or expanding upon points made in Mark Shea’s post.
1. There is no such thing as an Atheist Dogma. No two Atheists believe the same things. In fact, the only common belief that almost (stress on the almost) all Atheists share is the belief in skepticism. Atheists do not worship science. We freely admit that science is constantly changing, and we embrace those changes, because we seek the truths of reality.
2. One thing I will dispute is the claim that atheists tell theists to “Shut up.” If anything, it is the other way around. I personally would never tell a theist to “Shut Up” as long as they were making rational, relevant points. I want them to make their points so that I can either learn from them or make them learn from their mistakes. That being said, some opinions aren’t valid, but that is for a different post.
3. No Atheist has a “commitment” to “atheistic materialism.” This goes back to the Dogma argument. There is no such thing. Materialism isn’t a belief system. It merely means that, since we cannot perceive or measure anything outside of the natural, material world, there should be no reason to believe in it. Once good, falsifiable evidence can be provided for something, we will believe in it.
4. Atheists rarely, if ever, speak in “musts.” There are no sacred cows in Atheism, nor are there any sacred cows in science. The potential discovery of neutrinos that move faster than the speed of light, and the scientific reaction to it, are proof positive of that. And therefore, “miracles” are not threatening to us or our lack of beliefs.
5. How does one define a miracle. When I believed, and even today, the best definition I ever heard was “A suspension of the natural order.” Another would be “divine intervention.” Since there is no supernatural world that we can perceive, and there is no real reason to believe in one, there must be a logical, rational, empirical explanation for something. Often, they are the result of charlatanism. Generally, however, they are merely mistakes resulting from a lack of scientific understanding, a “God of the gaps argument.” Before Germ Theory, people believed that plague and pestilence were God’s punishment; before genetics, birth defects were believed to be the result of possession or the parents’ sins; now we know that there are actual, nonsupernatural reasons for these things. Oh, and saying “miracles exist because of the miracles of science” is wrong. That is actually the logical fallacy of “equivocation,” meaning that the definition of a key word is changed within the argument. A similar example would be, “One shouldn’t play baseball because bats bite.”
5. This is one thing that really gets me, so forgive me if it comes out blunt and possibly rude. Atheists DO NOT have faith. In anything. Period. Atheism literally means “lack of belief in deities.” Faith is defined as “believing in something without proof.” Again, Atheists DO NOT have faith in anything, including faithlessness. And it is not upon the Atheist to provide proof that God doesn’t exist; rather, it is the theist’s job to prove to us that God does exist. Atheists come to their conclusion that there is no reason to believe in God because of rationality, not in spite of it, and to say otherwise is not so much erroneous as it is a lie.
6. I’m glad to see that the author didn’t disregard the Problem of Evil. However, to say that the so-called “miracle” weakens the argument that nature gets along fine without God is simply false. It tells us nothing of the sort. In fact, it really is irrelevant. In no way do “medical miracles’ point to God anymore than deformities or natural disasters point to the wrath of a deity. As for the objections to miracles based on the fact that not everyone gets them, that is a perfectly valid point. If the water at Lourdes was really magically changed into healing water by God, wouldn’t more than the, I don’t know, five hundred (I am not sure if this is the accurate number, but I know it isn’t higher than five hundred, so this is being generous) who have been miraculously healed by the water at Lourdes been healed? Millions of people have visited Lourdes since the Marian apparition, so five hundred is almost nothing in comparison. That isn’t a miracle, but chance.
7. Arguments from authority (the Chesterson quote) doesn’t make a statement true. Just because he believes it, it doesn’t mean it’s correct.

Thanks, if you read it. I am glad to take any responses. I also started to feel a bit lazy toward the end, so if you want more of an explanation of something I’d be glad to go into more detail. I like debates, so if you’re rational and not insulting, I’d be glad to respond.

@Will “Larry, you complain about references to what “atheists believe” because atheists are not in agreement about everything. But a favorite atheist talking point is to imply that because different subsets of Christians disagree about some things, therefore Christianity is discredited.”

I’m not disputing that I said that. Nonetheless, it was taken entirely out of context. I was not complaining. Moreover, the fact that no two Atheists believe the same things and no two Christians believe the same things are two totally different standards. Atheism has no dogma. There is no holy book for Atheism that says that it is the one true word of the lack of god. Atheists can believe in different things. Christians, on the other hand, have a holy book, that each one claims to be the one true indisputable word of their deity, yet each one says that his interpretation is the correct one, while all others are wrong and are doomed to an eternal hell. If the Bible were something to believe in, what it says should be indisputable fact, not a mismash of often erroneous information that people can arbitrarily say “This is real but this is metaphor” or whatnot. Valid information leaves little room for arbitrary interpretation.

Please note that, like the response from “bob” that everyone is complaining about, you’ve done the same thing by arguing information irrelevant to my statements. Never did I reference “the” Church, nor did I say “nya nya nya.”

Atheists CAN be divided, because we have no set in stone set of beliefs.

Hey Mark, weren’t you an atheist at one time?

Nope.  Never had enough faith.  I was a sort of agnostic pagan.  Always believed there was some power behind the world of some kind, but had no confidence we could understand It (whatever it was).  That changed by the grace of the Holy Spirit.  It did not change by people coddling my most cocksure and arrogant tendencies.  I think atheists should be addressed and grownups and rebuked as grownups when they are rude jerks.

Sorry that long comment came up twice. The website doesn’t seem to like my comments…

And I did not say that everyone who differs from my “interpretation” is “doomed to eternal Hell”. You are making another broad-brush statement about “Christians believe” and putting it into all our mouths. If it is “irrelevant” to note some of the things atheists are constantly beating us over the heads with, it can not be “relevant” to attribute a stance to the “Christian” hive mind.

@Larry - I don’t think there is an explanation for everything - hence the word “mystery”. Religion is also mystery and that’s where faith comes in to play. As for the water at Lourdes it is not “magic water” but God permits healing to those who have been “chosen”. So we’re back to that word mystery once again. Why some and not all? God is a mystery and we need to approach God that way. As a person of a faith (Catholic faith) although I was not always the faithful person I am today, I know that He knows all about me but I can’t begin to know all about Him. What is boils down to Larry is faith. Faith is a gift from God. I can’t fathom that the universe exists in this perfect order without a Supreme Being. That does not make sense to me. When I was just a marginal Catholic God “revealed Himself” to me in nature. That occurred after reading the Gospels and I was never the same. I knew that God had created the trees, the flowers, etc. Prior to my conversion I just saw the tress, the flowers, but not the hand of the Creator. God gives us free will to choose; to choose Him or not. He gives us opportunities time and time again to open ourselves up to Him. That grace is available to all.

@Amy
As a former Catholic, I am aware of the rigorous “testing” miracle claims go through. However, the fact that something cannot be explained by current medical science does not make it a miracle. This is what is called the “God of the Gaps” logical fallacy, the kind of argument that says, “Because I don’t know how this happened, God must have done it.” The problem with that is, however, that as science, especially medical science, progresses, many so-called miracles ARE explained scientifically. Spontaneous cancer remission is a rare but documented occurrence in the medical field. It is something that happens, and there is no proof that prayer or God had any more to do with it than medicine did. Sometimes, even, people with cancer will quit chemotheraphy, but then their cancer goes away: this isn’t a miracle—it was the chemotherapy and other treatments doing their jobs. Moreover the fact that they prayed to Archbishop Sheen is immaterial because there is no proof that he had anything to do with it. She could have prayed to Aesclepius (the Greek god of medicine), or even Joe Pesci, and the same result probably would have occurred. That doesn’t mean that prayer has any magical powers, nor does it account for all the other people for whom prayers did not work.

@Amy: Yes I am aware of the Catholic definition of miracle. In regards to probability, note that Aquinas said that “properly speaking miracles are works done by God outside of the order usually observed in things” which also speaks to probability. I think this particular “miracle” would be a third degree miracle according to him, which is not convincing to atheists. You also note that miracles are “unexplainable” which does not prove anything. This logical fallacy is known as the “argument from ignorance”, and works as well for this miracle as it did for Bill O’Reilly when he said not knowing what caused tides was proof of god.

@Amy
What is a mystery but something to be solved? Don’t take this the wrong way, but calling something a “mystery” and then leaving it at that, saying that since it is a mystery we’ll never be able to understand it, tells me that you lack intellectual curiosity, which I find troubling since you make extremely intelligent answers. As humans, we long to understand, and saying that we should approach things as if we’ll never understand them is a far more bleak outlook for me than saying that there is not supernatural plane. Why should God be above our inquiry?
Pardon my French, but faith is bull. Think about it. You are told it is a virtue, but is it really a virtue? “Believe in something because I tell you to, not because I’m giving you proof, not because you know me well enough to decide whether you can trust me on something, but only because I tell you to believe in it.” Faith stifles the mind. Do you realize that if people went solely by faith, that child in the story would not have lived because the advances in medicine that made it possible would not have been here? If people only went through life believing “God loves me and he’ll take care of me because I believe in him,” nothing would happen.
It is hard to explain how frustrating I find the “It’s called faith” argument because it is no argument at all. It is a cop out. It’s that simple.
Also, nature isn’t “ordered” at all. If God designed the universe with humans in mind, he did a horrible job.

@Larry - Once again, it is faith, mystery and free will. You choose to not believe it but that does not mean that it is not true. Of course you can say the same to me that because I believe doesn’t make it true. This brings us right back to faith, mystery and free will. Through roughly twenty years of my journey with God He has brought me to places (actual places and spiritual) that I could never, ever have imagined. However,I am not unique in any way since many people have the same experiences. It is the Holy Spirit who does it all, Larry. I see with the eyes of faith and I know that the joy that I feel in my heart does not come from me, but from the Holy Spirit. I don’t need to analyze every single thing because I accept the mystery of faith. Jesus tells us that we must become like little children to inherit the Kingdom. Those of us with faith become like little children in that we trust in God and we know that He has a plan for our lives. It’s a mystery, Larry. I would encourage any atheist to pray to God for the grace of understanding and to read the New Testament with an open heart.

@Amy
So glad you asked!  As Christians we have an arsenal at our disposal that is unmatched. 
First:  Prayer.  Mock all you want atheists, but prayer works.  St. Augustine attributes his conversion to his mother’s prayers.  Believe it or not many militant atheists come from religious families and have friends and relatives praying for them right now. 
Second:  Example.  Usually when an atheist thinks of a believer they think of some smug, self-righteous, Mr. Knowitall that has nothing but contempt for them.  (Hmm…I wonder why?)  Often when they actually meet a humble servant of the Lord, they abandon their prejudice and open their minds to other possibilities.
Third:  Compassion.  Even if you’ve never been an atheist, most of us have spent plenty of time searching.  Being blinded by pride is no fun.  So instead of saying, “Stupid atheists have given up the search because they think they’re soooo smart!”  we should try a little more, “I encourage you to keep searching because you may be surprised!”

Of course our ultimate ally is God.  His judgement will be perfect.  But because faith is a gift, we all require His mercy.  If an atheist is not given the gift of faith, how could they be punished for not going to church?  Jesus reserved his harshest condemnations for the ostensibly most religious people.

@Craig Roberts - Good post.

@Will
I do apologize for making the “hive mind” statement that so upset you. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Look at the evangelicals who say that you as a Catholic, are not a Christian, because you do not practice in the same way as they do. I was subject to this same nonsensical abuse when I was a Catholic. “Catholics are going to Hell because they worship the pope, think they’re eating Jesus, confess to a priest instead of to God directly, worship Mary, think they’re saved through faith AND works, do repetitive prayers, blah blah blah.” Honestly, I have far more respect for Catholicism than any other Christian faith, because the majority of their literature does not so blatantly misrepresent the beliefs with which they disagree (aside from this post, of course, and the Catholic League) as the evangelicals do.
Nonetheless, attacking my phrasing does not disprove my point. Differences among the Atheist community are inconsequential. Believe what you want, just be rational. Christians, however, are told what to believe explicitly in the Bible. The fact that so many different interpretations have come out of it (as of 2010, there were 38,000 in the U.S. alone) shows that maybe it isn’t all it is cracked up to be.

@Amy
I don’t “choose” not to believe things. I simply can’t believe in things that have no evidence. You can say all you want that the Holy Spirit did something. That doesn’t mean it is true, nor does it mean it is convincing to an outsider. Assuming that the supernatural world is real, how do you know your happiness didn’t come as a gift from Bacchus? Did Njord have something to do with what happened? Maybe Ptah had you in mind when he made those wonderful places that you talk about.
I said it before and I will say it again: I find it extremely sad that you don’t want to understand things. As an Atheist, and as someone who understand the basics of science, I see wonder in everything. How erosion caused the beautiful formations in the Grand Canyon, how evolution by natural selection caused such animals as butterflies and sugar gliders, how the laws of physics explain so much and yet so little at the same time, how I have no idea how little I know. I find all of that inspirational. I want to know. Faith and mystery, by your definitions, deprive me of that.
You know what faith does, really? Faith causes people to die because they would rather pray than seek medical attention. Faith causes the murder of children in Africa because adults have faith that the children are witches, and they have faith in the Bible which says “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Faith is a curse, not a virtue.

@Craig Roberts
Although what you said is a breath of fresh air, I’m afraid that what you plan will convince most of us little more than you are a good person.
One correction: Prayer doesn’t work. It really doesn’t. There is no proof that prayer does anything supernatural. Certainly, it won’t change an Atheist’s mind.
That said, everything else you said will at least get you a meaningful dialogue with a nonbeliever.

@Mark
Thanks for the answer.  I’ll try my best not to “coddle your most cocksure and arrogant tendancies.”  One more question?  Are you now, or have you ever been, a rude jerk?....kidding!  You don’t need to answer that.

@Larry - I do not lack intellectual curiosity. But all understanding cannot be attributed to “just” the intellect. Everything that we find mysterious is not revealed to us in this life but it will be when we pass on. So it does not remain mysterious forever. It will be revealed to us by God. We will have all the answers to all of our questions. I didn’t say that faith is a virtue. I said that faith is a gift. There is also no contradiction between faith and medicine. However, what medicine cannot always achieve can be explained through faith. Faith is not forced on anyone. If it was, it wouldn’t be faith. If you want to lament about the state of the universe you can blame humans for that. God doesn’t manipulate us and the universe; He gives us free will to make choices and there have been many terrible choices made by humans.

“First:  Prayer.  Mock all you want atheists, but prayer works.”

I’d like to see a demonstration.  For example I’d like to see someone regrow a limb, something we know to be outside of the natural realm.  You know, outside of the natural realm of known probabilities.

“St. Augustine attributes his conversion to his mother’s prayers.”
See: The Confessions of Saint Augustine, Book VIII, Paragraphs 28 and 29.

“Usually when an atheist thinks of a believer they think of some smug, self-righteous, Mr. Knowitall that has nothing but contempt for them.  (Hmm…I wonder why?”

This has been addressed on several fronts, see here: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

“Those of us with faith become like little children in that we trust in God and we know that He has a plan for our lives.”

I don’t know about you, but in my part of the country children aren’t allowed to enter into agreements..you know..the kind that require full faith and trust.  Not really a pervasive statement.

@Amy
According to Christian belief, Faith is a virtue. And you’re making another “God of the Gaps” argument. The fact that medicine cannot explain things now DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT, mean that a deity had anything to do with the currently unexplainable.
What kind of understanding do you not apply to your intellect? I can think of none. And there is no way you can prove that there even IS a next life in which you will understand that which you did not understand before.
Also, you can’t say that faith isn’t forced upon you when a metaphysical gun is held to your head (the metaphysical gun being the threat of hell for not having faith).
If you say that God doesn’t manipulate us and the universe, you’re conceding that miracles don’t happen and that God doesn’t answer prayers.
And the state of the universe, if God is real, is His fault. I don’t think humanity in any way caused every known planet but Earth to be uninhabitable by humans, and Earth just barely so. I can’t imagine how a perfect God who holds humans in such high esteem would engineer our bodies so poorly. So don’t tell me that the Universe isn’t God’s fault. He made it this way (according to your theology); it is his fault.

Well, there is this point to consider. The magnitude and wow factor of miracles cited for canonization have been diminishing over the centuries as our scientific knowledge has increased and our tools for documenting events have improved. To me this suggests a pattern reflecting the “God of the Gaps.” Something unexplained is labeled “miraculous” because it can’t be explained today. In the next century the explanation is found. It is not irrational to expect this pattern to continue, until the number of “miracles” is vanishingly small. That makes me doubt the supernatural element in all of them.

The emotionalism of some atheists is not hard to explain, in my opinion. For my atheist spouse and me, religion is mixed up with some nasty parochial school experience and some bad effects of religion on our home lives. For my secularly raised and schooled atheist children, religion is just some inexplicable culty thing that some people do. Except for the bozos trying to enshrine their religious beliefs in laws about medicine and marriage.

US governmental authorities are explicitly told in the Constitution what they are to do and not do. Lo and behold, there are conflicting interpretations of what the Constitution “really” orders. Are we to conclude that the Constitution is bad, or “no good”, or that Americans are simply stupid or bad to disagree about this? Or that democracy is bad, or that the federal system is bad, or that America is bad?

@Larry
Thanks for the response!  You just inadvertently exposed the soft spot of the atheist-hive-mind!  MUUUUUHHHWAAAA HAA HAAA HAAAA (*cough*)...sorry about that.  You say that prayer “won’t change an atheist mind.”  But the weakest link in the atheist world view is it’s failure to acknowledge the role that the ‘heart’ plays in human personality.

So!  We will send our prayer panzers on a blitzkrieg through your heart.  Once we have conquered the hub of your supply lines the capital of your cranium will fall like a…a…something…military…falling.

But seriously, prayer works on the heart.  There’s no ‘proof’ that it works because you can never ‘prove’ higher things like trust, love, justice.  If you don’t believe me, try to ‘prove’ that your favorite rock band is the greatest.  You can’t because it’s a matter aesthetics.  You know in your heart it’s true, but you can’t ‘prove’ it, even to yourself.

Okay, first off, if the magical 61 minute survival happened, why is it I can only find it mentioned in religious blogs and articles, not in a mainstream or local paper of the town? I am calling bullshit on this.

Secondly, an improbable event does not mean miracle only god made. The odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 100,000 yet to win it is considered a “miracle”. Not basic math, but a miracle. Same thing, while something might be statistically unlikely, it does not mean impossible.

Thirdly, if you read the story, the child received top notch medical care. It wasn’t a miracle, it was a lovely example of how science and medicine, as usual, save the day. And as usual, rather then be thanked, it goes to this god fellow, who was the cause of the sill birth to start with.

In summation, this is a case of western medicine saving the day yet god somehow getting credit for the save but not the stillbirth.

Actually, Larry, it is usually the unbelievers who tell me that I am not a “real” Christian, because I do not fit THEIR stereotype. This is known as the “no true Scotsman” argument.

“For my atheist spouse and me, religion is mixed up with some nasty parochial school experience…”

Diagnosing by your own complaint. I went through hell in childhood and adolescence, and it had nothing to do with Bad Religion… indeed, the bullying was more likely to be anti-Christian in content.

  And I was beaten up by thugs of the so-called “peace movement”. Would you find it understandable to “react emotionally” to anyone who calls “peace”? Or, like so many ideologues have, tell me that it DIDN’T HAPPEN?

  Bracing for another “that’s DIFFERENT”..

@Larry - It’s very difficult to have a conversation about faith over the internet and try and make sense of it all. I’ve personally had a conversion experience and I know that it is real. My intellect was used to analyze what has occurred in my life and in my husband’s life and through reasoning it all out I came to the decision that what occurred was accomplished by God working in my life. “If you say that God doesn’t manipulate us and the universe, you’re conceding that miracles don’t happen and that God doesn’t answer prayers.”  What??? Miracles are given to us by God’s love for us. We can’t manipulate God ever! God is pure love and love does not manipulate and cannot be manipulated. Prayer is not manipulation. The answering of prayers is a response to God’s goodness. God made the universe but He gave it to humans to care for.  You say you were once Catholic but there is an awful lot about Catholicism you do not know as evidenced by your comments. I sincerely recommend that you pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you are going to argue Catholic theology.

Ok, let’s look at non-Catholic miracles. What about reports of Buddha statues moving their eyes and crying pearls? There is a Shinto shrine in Japan that was untouched by the recent quake/fires/tsunami where everything else around it was flattened. There is the famous Hindu Milk Miracle where milk offerings to Ganesha disappeared from glasses in front of people’s eyes, which was replicated around the world for a day. Now, the question is do you believe in these miracles? If not, why not?

There was another Catholic blogger who recently caught heck from atheists for trying to state their position (he was a former atheist). Apparently they took offense to some generalizations. Since atheists are trying to tear down some perfectly good institutions that promote social order, then maybe they’d like to explain themselves rather than leave it to others to speculate.

It is not for the laity to say. They may wonder but all acts like you mentioned are worthy of study and full understanding. The Church uses much effort to determine these matters. The laity in some cases can choose to believe or not. Many however after investigation are dismissed, but the spirit has intervened in many instances and independent investigation by a collection of all faiths laity science scholars etc make these determinations. But, never stop always wonder wonder and wonder. Imagination is greater then knowledge and most times it is the engine that drives new thought and understanding. God bless, Pax Dr Thomas

@Yeah, Right
Thank you for reading my comment!  I like your name. It was obviously chosen to express the maximum amount of juvenile cynical sarcasm.  That way everybody knows exactly where you’re comming from before they read your post.

Anyhoo, prayer is not a way for Christians to do miracles.  We can’t even make God do miracles (or anything else for that matter).  Wait…did you really mean to type, “You know, outside of the natural realm of known probabilities.”....*sigh*...I’d drop a ‘dude’ on you but that’s only funny when it’s done ironically.  Do you really think that you exist inside “the natural realm of known probabilities”?  I know this is hard to grasp, and I don’t want to blow your mind too hard, but what is unknown is greater than what is known.  Ask any scientist, or sophomore.  If we had to limit ourselves to what is ‘known’ how could we ever discover something new?

Look, it’s obviously going to take too long to parse all of your thoughts so if you’ll let me just skip to the last point regarding minors entering into contracts.  You are right.  Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts.  The reason why is because they can’t be expected to grasp the more subtle ramifications of such an agreement.  But that doesn’t mean that children can’t do anything.  Children can’t enter into contracts, but they can enter into relationships.  In fact they are born related to their parents whether they like it or not.  What the saints are saying is that you can’t expect to understand God completely before you begin to trust Him.  We have to have faith, because compared to Him, we’re all minors.  In other words, God wants us to love, honor, and obey Him as child does his father.  No contract required.

Wow, the misunderstanding about faith is so thick I wonder if any light can pierce it.  “Faith as a substitute for evidence” is a pretty well-worn path.  But I wonder where it goes?  It leads to the cynicism and corruption of todays governement, economy and culture-of-death. 

It leads to a proliferation of snarky sarcastic “entertainers” dry to the point of dessication.  We are the society of the smirk.  Faith is the rain that turns that desert into a flowering garden. 

Empirical evidence shows that the faith response is more reasonable, more productive, more humane - and more conducive to civil virtue and prosperity. 

Your vaunted medicine would be no more than butchery without the tempering hand of faith.  Science itself is a midget that looks tall because it’s standing on the shoulders of faith. 

The truth of faith is more clearly documented, and more generally available than “science,” which hides behind arcana and a cadre of white-coated acolytes.

Faith gives access to goods far more valuable and important than science does.  The goods of faith improve life both here and in the hereafter.  The most science can aspire to is humble, obedient service to faith and her God.

You can keep your “knowledge” and “understanding.”  Far better than both, and far beyond, is “wisdom,” a key component of which is faith.

“It is not for the laity to say.”

LOL, yeah… Make sure you close the gates least the sheep escape.

“Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind”
    guess who my atheist friends?  God bless ,  Dr Thomas

@Thomas - the same person that said this: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” In any event, using a quotes like these is an argument from authority, which is also a logical fallacy.

“Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind”

LOL.  For those interested here is the full text with context:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm

I’m pretty sure that quote is useless when in context:)

Science can tell you how to do something, but it can’t tell you what to do, or why.

Knowledge (or science) can be the knowledge of good or the knowledge of bad.  One is highly to be sought, the other highly to be avoided.  But worship of knowledge does not distinguish.

Some things it is good to understand, but some things should not be understood, but only rejected.  The scientific paradigm of research -> knowledge -> understanding -> acceptance is only one path.  Some understanding only comes after acceptance.

The scientific method is a religious practice, much like any other.  Any arguments against religion likewise convict science.

Scientists accept cause and effect when it relates to things which are infinitely small - electrons; infinitely distant - thet outer limits of the universe; or infinitely buried in the past - the big bang.  But they reject simple truths developed and confirmed in the experience of billions of people in the past and right now.

Atheist will believe the evidence of scanning electron microscopes or superconductors buried somewhere in the Swiss Alps, but they reject the testimony or witness of their own neighbors, friends and family - who care for them far more the some CERN scientist.

Of the hundreds of ways to demonstrate cause and effect uncovered or developed by mankind over the aons of his existence, scientists recognize only two: Can I bring it to market: or, Does it result in a catastrophic explosion.  All other ways are judged impertinent.  (Talk about a religious discipline!)

@Amy
I don’t see how you can tell what I don’t know by what I say. If I leave anything out, it is probably because I find it to be pointless drivel. I’ve gone to Catholic schools for thirteen years, I’ve read the Bible and the Catechism. I know Catholicism so well I could have taught my Confirmation class. I used to be the most faithful in my family, so don’t tell me that I don’t know Catholicism. The reason I know it is the reason I left it.
You said that God doesn’t manipulate the universe. Yet, the very existence of miracles implies that God does, in fact, manipulate the universe. You can’t have it both ways. And I never said humans manipulate God.
I sincerely insist that you do a little research about what you believe. Especially look up ideas that contradict what you think. The worst that can happen is you become a more well rounded person.

“Science can tell you how to do something, but it can’t tell you what to do, or why”.

Neither can religion.

“The scientific method is a religious practice, much like any other.”

I think you have a basic lack of knowledge in either science or religion, perhaps both.  Google is your friend.

“But they reject simple truths developed and confirmed in the experience of billions of people in the past and right now.”

Simple problem to solve.  Provide creditable evidence.

“...they reject the testimony or witness of their own neighbors, friends and family - who care for them far more the some CERN scientist.”

Because caring for me has nothing to do with reality, but I like the emotional blackmail attempt, kudos.  I’d believe ‘em if they showed creditable evidence…..

The simple fact of the matter is there is a complete lack of evidence for a god.  At one time people thought the earth was flat, every body and their brother and family attested to that *fact*, no matter how much they believed that the earth was flat…it just didn’t make it that way.

Many intelligent, fascinating posts! It would tale me all day to respond to just some of them. So…let me just say that there are two things that astonish and puzzle me:
1. Why is there something….you, me, etc…rather than nothing?
2. If God exists and is the Creator of all, why would a human, with limited reason (made in His image, but obviously not with His mind) expect to understand Him?

Many years ago, while studying for a DPhil (PhD) at Oxford Univ. I had a discussion one night with an atheist philiosophy professor who was dying of cancer. Shy asked why I was a believer. We discussed the various theological and philosophical arguments for God’s existence without really getting anywhere. Oddly, it was when I told her I KNEW and why that she became interested and open. Job said ” I know that my redeemer lives.” We ask How did he KNOW? Possible answers: he was delusional, hallucinating, just wishing, smarting off to his friends, etc. The thing is, there is a knowing that is inexplicable, derived not from any teaching, scripture, parental or other authoritarian influence, nor from any of the five senses, I.e., no voices, visions, and the like.

Science tells us germs caused the Black Death. So? Why are there germs? Why did the rats will infected fleas come in the 14th century (in the largest outbreak) and why in Europe? Why not China or Australia? Why did some die and others recover? And on and on. Behind every explanation, there is a WHY. Science continues to tell us many ” what’s” and ” why’s” but iy has no answer at a all to the ultimate what’s and why’s. Neither does our reason. Faith does. It passes the buck, so to speak, in saying it is God’s will and for purposes we do not understand—as in why this baby lived and others did not. And it actually is the only answer we have that is not sheer randomness. The problem comes in our not being willing to accept that because we can’t figure it out, can’t see it or predict it, and have no control over it—the great frustration we humans live with. We should so much prefer to be our own god in charge of our lives ( and others’ too probably).

Yeah, Right
Google is your friend.  Behind your gigabyte machine are a handful of like-minded atheists like yourself.  Just because it’s splashy and colorful, doesn’t mean it’s true.  GIGO.

I think you have a bad understanding of science and religion.  Religion, or faith rather, is all about making the important decisions like what and why.  Perhaps you’re mistaking it for something academic and unimportant, like marxism or (atheistic) existentialism.

You’re trotting out of the “flat-earth” argument proves you’re no scientist either.  Relativity tells us that we can only evaluate the truth value of a claim within a particular range of experience.  What may hold true on the interstates of America might not hold true in interstellar space.  For as far as those ignorant “everybody and his brother” would know or could care, the earth was flat.  It was a viable approximation in a world where ox-carts defined the speed limit.

But I have a more fundamental gripe with this method of arguing: it completetly dispels generations of human knowledge and experience, including my own and other people of faith.  You arbitrarily dismiss my personal testimony, as well as the deposit of faith - not just of Catholicism, but of every religious testimony of the past.  And you claim to be scientific?

And to justify this wholesale ignorance, you trot our the term “creditable evidence.”  This is a real charade.  The creditable evidence you countenance provides verification for only the narrowest sliver of reality.  Even the history of science proves that.  Yesterday’s science fiction is todays fact.  Yesterday’s science vogue is discredited tomorrow, and taken up again the next day.  Your “creditable evidence” is very fluid indeed.

The testimony of human beings is indeed more probative and reliable than any electronic equipment weilded by subjective scientists caught up in the bubble of their method and their quite faulty worldview.  Religion is a crucible of the soul, purifying men and women for every good thing, including recognizing and understanding reality, and testifying to the same.  The testimony of pure love is a “philosopher’s stone” of infinite edification value.  Seek this, and you will find all truth.

Or you can hang around the lab with computer geeks, playing violent and obscene video games until the eternal brown out comes and you’re forced to look around and see what you’ve really become.

Will at 4:44 on Sept. 29
“Would you find it understandable to ‘react emotionally’ to anyone who calls ‘peace’? Or, like so many ideologues have, tell me that it DIDN’T HAPPEN?

“Bracing for another ‘that’s DIFFERENT..”

Relax! No bracing required. I would totally find it understandable if you reacted with negative emotions to concepts that you encountered as the cause of violence and abuse. We can’t help but react to experience emotionally if we’re normal human beings. And I have no problem believing that some thugs committed abusive acts either pretending to have peaceful goals or truly believing that violence would further their cause. There are people who shoot doctors for Jesus. There are plenty of people who think peace can only be achieved by violence.

What I’m saying is that one’s ideas about a belief are emotionally colored by our experience with those professing that belief. So my children take atheism as the undramatic default, while my spouse and I deal with memories of church-related psychological problems and family hassle. Yes, we can get a little emotional about our attitude toward religion. And our kids don’t understand why I enjoy verbal tussles over religion on a blog, or why spouse occasionally goes off on a rant over people who insist on their right to open a public meeting or a public school graduation with a prayer. Our kids are more like “whatever” about that.

What DID make them angry over religion was the spectacle of the Catholic church and the Mormon church teaming up in an effort to deprive their gay friends of the right to marry in California. THAT got their (negative) attention. If the U.S. churches continue on this path, I suppose they will also start to feel negative emotions toward religion and religious people.

But the reason none of us believe in the supernatural is the lack of evidence, not because of emotions. I’m sure that you know intellectually that the concept of world peace can be separated from the behavior of idiots who beat up on people for peace, just as I know that there are many good and loving people out there who are believers.

Maggie MC at 10:01 pm on Sept. 29
“1. Why is there something….you, me, etc…rather than nothing?
2. If God exists and is the Creator of all, why would a human, with limited reason (made in His image, but obviously not with His mind) expect to understand Him?”

1. It is ok to leave this question unanswered until we have more data. I’m not against exploring it, but why assume that the answer is available in our lifetime? Who knows when we will the discover the answer to this question?

2. I would not expect to understand the Creator of All in any way whatsoever.  The understanding gap would be greater than the gap between my human self and a random rock. Because at least the rock and I share a measurable physical existence on earth. One thing I think believers don’t understand is that the difference between a physical earth inhabitant and the Creator of All would be more than an order of magnitude. How do you measure the gap between finity and infinity? And what is the evidence for assuming that humans have infinite potential?

@cowalker. I could not agree more. It’s just that I don’t see why others do not. I put the questions out there for those who have problems accepting the mystery in all its awesomeness.

@cowalker. For now we see through a glass darkly….it is quite something to look forward to, isn’t it? For now, I am sweetly content to be entirely in the hands of a Creator, Lord, and God who is, as you say, as different from me in understanding as a rock and a human. Once one “sees” the holiness, purity, beauty, and GOODNESS that He allows one to sense, one can only prostrate oneself before Him and weep for joy. After three quarters of a century of my life, full of delights, love, suffering, pain, human-ness, I “look forward to the resurrection of the dead” with total peace and anticipation.

O Cowalker, you’ve put your finger right on the disadvantage of believing in a Supreme Being.  After all, if He exists, He might make inconvenient demands for things like worship and obedience.  If all you believe in is yourself, you can reserve these awkward “donations” for the person you value the most - yourself.

But really, this kind of behavior takes place even outside religion, I mean obligations to someone or something other than yourself.  For example, every physician is given a scalpel and a bag of saline solution upon graduation from med school.  But they are constrained from murderous usage of these instruments by their Hippocratic Oath, which says in part “First Do No Harm.”

After all, the upside of obligations to an outside, objective God is that He will reward your worship and obedience by keeping you from inadvertent mass murder - something which might cause a disturbance to your human conscience even in this world, should by some accident you were to wake from your slumberous ignorance to discover you’re really guilty of annihilating half the incipient population in a mass intergenerational genocide, should that be the case.

Believing in a “God” might also mean conceding that you didn’t create yourself, and don’t have the ultimate say about the meaning and purpose of your life.  After all, God might have given a command in your regard, like “Be Fruitful and Multiply,” which you could have some personal objections about.  No problem, if the Almighty imposes difficult or burdensome obligations, like “sleep with your wife without impediments,” you can outflank Him with contraception and unbelief.

And if He asks you to “love you neighbor as yourself,” which I’ll concede can be very difficult, opt out with the prevarication “I don’t expect anybody to tell me what to do; and I treat my neighbor with the same type of respect.”  However, if it’s a matter of green compliance, fast food for children, or circumcision within city limits - draw the line.

Cowalker, you’re free to ignore the witness of objective reality, countless generations of believers and your own conscience - it’s in there as the “still small voice” you’re suppressing in the name of “victim of organized religion.”  Just don’t try to make a virtue of it.  Cowardice is, after all, cowardice.

I find it interesting that no one is really responding to the article linked at the beginning of this piece. I know the word “fact” is most likely not welcome but I must say should it not be applied?  The qualifications for a miracle or Gods intervention are always perplexing to me when the best of modern medical science is abundantly supplied.  Can no one agree that if that baby was delivered stillborn and no medical assistance was needed for his recovery after 61 minutes and all that was done instead was only prayer, it would make a much stronger case for God applying his Power?  it seems to me that would be much more impressive to the claim instead of minutes, hours, days and weeks of constant high tech medical application. Face it, that is what saved this child, without those actions, he would have not survived.

The other point is this, the reference to the story really need not apply, it was only a vehicle to right a blog post that really wanted to be titled “I don’t like Atheists”. Creating terms such as evangelical atheist is ...silly. When atheists start knocking on doors to spread their good word, or dominate radio and tv waves with all access religious type programming
or have their own city with their own set of rules of immunity, then you can go down that road. To be put in the same class as true evangelicals is totally misguided and inaccurate.  Prayer circles will never put a shuttle into orbit regardless of the amount of prayer and the want, desire and belief that it will provide lift off and small stillborn children born in a time without the science of today unfortunately do not survive. Peace.

To much mental anquish tryinf to think you can know God. I have said in the past God is to be experienced never really known, sometimes through the intervention of the spirit we may be touched and certainly in humanity by the living words deds and actions of Jesus Christ, alas the beauty of the Trinity. Open your arms and hearts wide and wonder always wonder and do love. God bless. Dr Thomas

@Larry - What happened to you that you left your faith? I’d be interested to know if you care to share that.

oh my eyesight is bad sorry for the typos,and I am not that comfortable typing, still write long hand. Amy is right. The man does not really know the Bible nor his faith, or Religion that he claims to be part of at one time. god bless Doc

@Amy
Losing my faith is kind of a long story. There was no singular event that made me Atheist, so much as it was an accrual of a lot of different factors.
It is really long and kind of too personal to post here.

After all these decades I still can’t grasp the concepts of emotional irrationalism promoted in this thread. I am curious as to where people of differing opinions here fall on the Myers-Briggs personality scale.

Dean at 2:58 am Sept. 30
“Can no one agree that if that baby was delivered stillborn and no medical assistance was needed for his recovery after 61 minutes and all that was done instead was only prayer, it would make a much stronger case for God applying his Power?”

I can. But you aren’t going to see that kind of miracle anymore. Nowadays almost everyone relies primarily on medical science for serious health problems. Indeed, U.S. law compels parents who would prefer to rely on prayer to have their children treated by legally certified medical professionals. I think it’s telling that there are no laws in place that require parents to pray for their recovery from illness. People know which treatment can be skipped without affecting the outcome.

So very little space has been left for the occurrence of an unequivocal medical miracle. The instantaneous replacement of an amputated limb could still wow us, but this miracle is strangely missing from modern history.

Of course there are still unlimited opportunities for walking on water, parting the waters of a sea or raising the dead from their graves. These things don’t happen either.

We must remember in the gospel of John Jesus says that it is the spirit that gives life and do not think carnally flesh and blood are of no avail. Does the spirit intervene, does it contain presence or any antanomical particles that can be vtraced or measured by science, well some day maybe and perhaps Jesus was telling us something. God bless, Dr Thomas

@Dean
The word ‘fact’ is much appreciated and often applied around here, but usually in it’s proper context and not as a childish insult.  I’m sure the ‘fact’ that the baby’s heart started only after all attempts at resuscitation had been abandoned will not impress you.  Sure it would have been more convenient if an angel had appeared and said, “Stand back everybody, it’s MIRACLE TIME!”  But even if that happened you would still accuse the witnesses of being either high on leaking anesthetic or in on a big publicity stunt.  But don’t feel too bad.  This sort of behavior has been going on since miracles began.  As close as St. (doubting) Thomas (not to be confused with our own beloved Dr. Thomas) demanded evidence.  But as Jesus makes clear from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (and others), even if God sends somebody back from the dead, your bias against faith will prevent you from believing.

It’s fair to say that the article is aimed at debunking atheism, but that is not dislike for athiests.  It is an attempt to show that the philosophical world view of atheisim is biased, incomplete, and insufficient for an open-mind.  The term ‘evangelical atheists’ describes perfectly the tone taken be the new-atheist wave that are attempting marginalize Christianity to make way for their own view of reality.  In a world where books like God is Not Great sell millions of copies, people like Mark see no reason to wait until the confusion has gained mass appeal before seeking to combat its fallacies through friendly debate.

Peace to you too.

PS Do you prefer it if I capitalize atheism?  I always thought that it should be, just like other religions.

The big mistake atheists make is wanting God to reveal Himself to them on their terms and not on His. Humans are finite; God is infinite. We are created; He is the Creator. If atheists cannot believe in someone’s personal conversion story what else is there to say? Should we throw out St. Paul’s conversion story or Edith Stein or so many others that were touched by Christ and say it’s a myth? Miracles happen each and every day if we just look! Atheists don’t want to look. They have made the choice to not look. It keeps them locked into a very limited world despite their claims that those of us with faith need to search deeper because we are intellectually stunted. What they miss in not knowing God is more than what can be put into words. That is the real sadness

All men seek God ethier to know or not to to know, it is funny that the atheist thinks so much about God why would they be on this blog. Perhaps there education on philosphy only begins in post enlightment or humanist intellectual thought, perhaps they became very impressed with late 19 th and 20 th century philosophical thought. They have been cheated by there educators. God bless Pax Dr Thomas

Dean on life issues like the childs what if spirit contained measurable matter we are not aware of with the power to intercede science is working on this now, it bias spirit that gives life. Dean Imagination is greater then knowledge without that are intellectual advances dye. Always never stop too wonder open your arms and heart look upward. ““Science without religion is lame,Religion without science is blind”  Albert Einstein Gob bless and Pax and love Dr Thomas

Thomas, I’d say that most people seek truth. What I find here is people making unsubstantiated claims, appeals to emotion, Bible quotes, pretending to speak for what others think or their motivations, accusations and other argumentative fallacies.

@Psy - I think for the most part people have attempted to dialogue honestly. If an atheist looks for truth in ways that are only acceptable to them, they may never find it.

Amy, If you are saying we have no common frame of reference I have to agree.`I find many of the comments nonsensical and bewildering. Then there is the issue of denouncing rationality and intellect without explanation.
It would seem I am at a disadvantage here and we are unable to grasp each others perspectives to express our thought on term each other can understand.

One thing to remember about the miracle Mark cited—it’s not just that the baby was without a pulse for 61 minutes and then his heart started beating again, it’s also that he now has NO BRAIN DAMAGE and no developmental delays as a result of being without a pulse for 61 minutes. His mother was initially told that he likely had severe brain damage, and early MRIs indicated such as well, but his doctors and therapists have no explanation for the fact that he is a developmentally normal child with normal MRIs.

It truly is a miraculous story.

JoAnna, are you advocating ‘jumping to conclusions’?

I’ve given CPR to a full grown adult for just over 50 minutes with no braid damage.

Psy,

A full-grown adult with no discernible pulse by medical technology standards (i.e., he was hooked up to monitors, not just relying on purely tactile observation) went for 50 minutes without oxygen and suffered no brain damage, even though initial MRIs showed there was significant brain damage?

Well, he’s a miracle, too!

Psy - I posted a comment about my conversion story. Perhaps you do not believe my conversion supports rational thinking. It is perfectly rational to me so I have to say that what is rational and what is not to some degree is subjective. I absolutely applied my intellect and reasoning ability to draw the conclusion that what I experienced was a supernatural.  I was “drawn” to spend time in a chapel before the Blessed Sacrament that was reserved in the Tabernacle. One does not leave a company picnic to do this if this has not a common practice in the past. One does not leave a church and feel arms of love wrapped around them, see no one and not associate it with God. This is all perfectly rational to me! This is evidence of the supernatural. Not just some unidentifiable experience either, but the experience of God.

Yes you are right a lot of bable, sometimes reason brings us to faith, and faith wants us t0 seek more knowledge. The Church, Faith and fullness of the entire teachings of the centuries can not be taken in a vacum. As a Catholic I am proud of all the history, nwe are not sola scritura nor are we sola fidei we are all the customs an traditions before written history it is quite full and something to be in awe of. Oh and please leave alone with amatuer history lessons I have heard them all YAWN, I love and understand it all and I might say The very good the bad and the sometimes ugly, we are just humans you know. God bless and much love and peace. DR Thomas

Amy, I’ve have similar experiences brought on by spending too much time in deep thought, the whole oneness with the universe, joy and contentment. Its a common occurrence for myself and many others. My daughter had a near death experience and defined it as the process of the brain shutting down. She found it fascinating and talked about it but never considered anything more than that.

@Amy - regarding your conversion story, you might want to take a look at this essay: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2010/05/18/i-feel-it-in-my-heart/
I would also be interested in your take on the non-catholic miracles I posted about earlier.

JoAnna - in regards to “Well, he’s a miracle, too!”, this gets back to my assertion that the Church’s main criterion for a miracle is just that it is very rare. Also, I wonder where you read that “doctors and therapists have no explanation for the fact that he is a developmentally normal child with normal MRIs” - I must have missed that. Can you link that please?

Psy - in the VirtuousPla.net article Mark linked, the author (mother of the boy in question) states, “EEG’s showed very abnormal brain activity.  An MRI showed that the brain had been injured from the severe lack of oxygen.”  Toward the end of the article, she links to her own personal blog (which I follow, and have for quite a long time), wherein she reported the news that her son’s latest assessments revealed no brain damage.

Psy - So you’ve felt someone’s arms around you in love and felt drawn to sitting before the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the Tabernacle. I didn’t hear you say that. What you are describing is New Age stuff which is definitely not of God. if anything, it has satanic influences. Do you believe the devil exists?

I looked at the link you posted. Here’s what the owner of the web page said “But here’s the problem. (about believers) Well, one of many problems. Our hearts and our minds can’t automatically be trusted.” What? If your hearts and minds can’t be trusted than how can you know for sure that God doesn’t exist? The fact is we have to draw from something! Our intellect, our senses, something! If someone “experienced” a vengeful God as she noted, then that is not God but that persons own inner “demons”. Here’s something that really happened. I was at Mass on day with my husband. The Deacon was being blessed by the priest prior to him proclaiming the Gospel. I heard a male voice say, “that should be (my husband’s name) up there”. The voice was so real that I looked around in several directions trying to figure out who just said that. I then said in silence, “Lord if this is you, please give the same inspiration to my husband and I will know this is coming from you.” After Mass I asked my husband if anything unusual happened. He said he thought he should be a Deacon. Are you going to tell me I was hallucinating and that my husband was also hallucinating and that we were hallucinating about the same thing? After Mass we spoke with the Deacon at our parish and told him what had occurred. He said that he had been praying for my husband to hear the call. So what I have just provided you with is the experience of God and someone’s prayer being answered. My husband was ordained Deacon in June after six years of study at the seminary.

As far as miracles go, they don’t have to be “Catholic miracles” God loves us all and He can heal anybody and save anybody’s life at any time.
In fact, one does not even need to be considered a “good person” for God to do this. It can happen solely because God wishes to reveal Himself to that person so the experience can be life changing for them. We don’t see them as the hand of God touching our lives and the lives of others when we don’t look through the eyes of faith. I have a Jewish relative who survived the events of September 11. He was making his way down the staircase and was on the 33rd floor when the second plane hit the South Tower. It wasn’t his time. it wasn’t just luck. God had other plans for him. Today he is a devout Jew with a wife and children. God’s hand is everywhere and his miracles are everywhere and they are for everyone! I hoped I’ve answered your question.

Matt B at 2:44 am Sept 30
“O Cowalker, you’ve put your finger right on the disadvantage of believing in a Supreme Being.  After all, if He exists, He might make inconvenient demands for things like worship and obedience.”

“And if He asks you to ‘love you neighbor as yourself,’ which I’ll concede can be very difficult, opt out with the prevarication ‘I don’t expect anybody to tell me what to do; and I treat my neighbor with the same type of respect.’  However, if it’s a matter of green compliance, fast food for children, or circumcision within city limits - draw the line.”

I assume you’re referring to my resentment of church personnel, church money and church members driving the effort to make marriages licensed by the state between same-sex couples illegal. The problem is, no one has made a good case for preventing same sex marriage based on social benefits versus social costs. Our laws shouldn’t be based on religious tradition or particular religious sensibilities. I resent it when wealthy, tax exempt institutions throw their weight around in the middle of political processes. Making male circumcision illegal isn’t one of my causes, but if it were, you would certainly expect me to provide a ton of evidence to justify intruding into such a personal family decision. Accordingly, I expect more than religiously rooted arguments against allowing gay people the same right to marry as straight people. The church can reserve its right not to marry them just as it reserves the right not to marry divorced people.

However I think the ill-advised interference in California will prove to be one of the last such successful interventions. Social attitudes are changing in spite of churches’ attempts to maintain the status quo.

I don’t know if you saw my response above to Amy that a human would have more in common with a rock than a putative infinite Creator of All. This opinion makes it impossible for me to imagine this Creator, if it does exist, pining for a personal relationship with a human. In addition, I am aware of countless, humanly-imagined versions of this Creator who have equal claim to being the “true” version. This situation does nothing for the credibility of any of these versions. You can call my belief cowardly if you like, but I don’t see how that adjective applies. I don’t have the choice to believe something different unless the facts change.

Amy, I’m sorry but you seem to have closed the conversation when you started on the New Age and Satan stuff. I even consider philosophy a pseudo-science. I started to respond a few times and deleted everything after a few paragraphs. I’ll try to get back to you later.

@Psy - I’m not anticipating you getting back to me Psy. So please do go ahead and blame your non response on the New Age and Satan stuff I mentioned. After all you do need an out for not being able to refute what I said because you simply can’t!

I’m sorry, my comment above (12:36 PM) should have been directed at Scotty, not Psy.

Amy, refuting it isn’t important, finding a new idea or thought that I haven’t come across before is.

I’ve been through these discussions on several occasions and really don’t care to rehash the same old arguments that I’m sure you and I have both encountered over and over again. In the mean time I’m going to evaluate an idea I ran across on a Jewish site and see where it leads.

Thank you for your time and much appreciated responses.

Amy, I should respond to you question about whether you were hallucinating or not. I say no. Call it ‘God’, psychic, ESP or whatever I experienced it often as a child and less often as I grew older. My son at age 30 still has it as does my brothers and sister. Unless others have experienced it I wouldn’t expect them to take your word or mine for it. I’ve never had information come through voices myself, either I just know or see it as pictures.

Stephen Hawking recently asserted his skepticism about the existence of God.  Score one for you guys.  He also said that the universe started with nothing, and that nothing consisted of…  It doesn’t take a Ph.D in meta-physics to know that if something ‘consists’ of anything it cannot, by definition, be nothing.

The majority of scientists would reject the role of ultimate arbiters of truth because they are well aware of the limits of their methods.  They don’t idolize intellect.  They know that there are essential elements to life that can never be quantified.  They must cringe every time they here somebody say something as silly as, “Science shows there is no God.”

@PSY - Thanks for responding. This is the first time you have acknowledged the possibility that it could be God even though you chose to put God in quotes. Look, we’re not stupid people. ESP from who? The person next to me? The person 10 rows down who was also communicating to my husband and both my husband and I were able to “connect” to this ESP messaging despite the fact that we were at Mass and were entirely focused on what was going on. I’m also not quite sure what being psychic has to do with this experience. And then there’s the validation that prayers do work. I don’t see how anyone could deny this was a supernatural occurrence.

@Craig - actually Hawkings was referring to a particular kind of string theory (not proven, not by a long shot) which requires supersymmetry (which is in doubt after this summer’s findings of the Large Hadron Collider). So don’t score one for us yet. In any case, the “something from nothing” argument depends upon time, which may or may not have existed at the start of the big bang. There may not have been anything “before” the big bang as just because there was no time to have anything before. It’s like saying there is nothing north of the north pole. That is the mathematical reason Hawkings said what he did. Without time, there is no causality. And if the neutrino “faster than light” finding is true, then causality is thrown out the window entirely as retrocausality likely would be proven (faster than light particles move backwards in time).

Craig Roberts, “Science shows there is no God” is not what most scintist or non-believers claim, Hawkings assertion as I understand it is there is no need for a ‘God’ to explain the Universe. As far as I know ‘science’ has found no evidence of a ‘God’ and ‘science isn’t in the the ‘God’ proving or disproving business.

As for the universe coming from nothing that is a topic I am defiantly interested in but I don’t have an answer for you. I’ve been following the work of Steve Lamoreaux on the Casimir effect. I went to high school with Steve and I don’t yet accept quantum fluctuations from empty space as absolute fact without further verification. There may be enough radiation from the galaxies existing matter to account for the effect. You on the other hand are free to dismiss it as you choose.

Amy, I haven’t exactly acknowledged ‘God’, I see it as an incorrect term which you may choose to consider it an acknowledgement if you choose to as it may be on some level.

As for ‘ESP’ the brain uses electrical currents as does my HAM radio, any electrical spark sends out radio waves. There is also the theory of quantum entanglement which could explain the phenomena. I have seen arguments calling quantum theory mystical or spiritual which I suppose you could use to justify ‘God’ if you wanted to do the research. There was an article a few months back theorizing the consignees happened on a quantum level, I suppose if you could show this process happening outside the brain it may support the claim of ‘God’s’ existence to some degree.

(consignees) should be ‘consciousness’, stpid spel chek

I don’t see any posts telling me why there should be something instead of nothing. The Chrustin faith has an answer for that-but what do atheists say?

Maggie, what is the Christian answer for why there is something rather than nothing? If your answer is “God”, that doesn’t explain much. Why is there God rather than nothing then?

Maggie McC, a single quantum fluctuation in a perfect nothingness would lead to more fluctuations. From there an occasional fluctuation being able to maintain a stable standing wave would be the building blocks of matter.

@psy - are you familiar with bilocation?

The Christian answer, as I understand it, is because God wanted company. There is God because there must be a First Cause, it must be self-starting, and it must be creative. That “it” is also personal is Christian theology, not necessarily an element in other religions. I simply cannot believe that a single cell or a stagnant pool could have the ability or the will to create something out of nothing since it would not have the power to create itself. As we and all things do exist, there must be a Cause. This does not imply that it is the Christian God, of course, but that is where Christians bring Jesus into the picture as being the human face of God the Father with all the characteristics that Jesus says are part of His being. Jewish scriptures also have mu h to say about the nature of God and, to a Christian, prepare the way for the revelations of Jesus. I still say the most astonishing thing is that there is existence at all as the mind really has trouble wrapping around a First Cause, especially one who cares about anything or has a personal aspect. I am continually in awe of thus.

@psy. True enough but at the risk of sounding simplistic, whence comes the fluctuation?

@Psy Suppose the fluctuation is the result of the Word, as is Fiat or “Let there be light”, etc. Perhaps I am just dense butI cannot see anything possible of creating matter except a self-creating being, spirit, whatever capable of engendering matter. That my mind cannot conceive of all aspects of this is not grounds for denying it.

Amy, I just looked up bilocation on the internet, I’ve heard stories claiming it happened long ago.

Maggie McC, the one constant in the universe they say is change. Considering and infinite amount of ‘time’ and an infinite nothingness the law of probabilities would demand an eventual flaw or virtual flaw in nothingness. One problem is whether we have to justify empty space and time. Personally I don’t think time exist, only a constant ‘now’ and that is still open for debate. As for empty space I don’t see where it needs justified.

@Scotty in The O
Very interesting.  Time plays a huge part in the theological explanations for God.  God must exist outside of time to be the primary cause of existence.  He also created the universe from, literally, nothing.  The implications of these things are far beyond our imagining, but not our comprehension.

Yes, it is interesting that scripture has God saying “I change not.” the Christian view is that God created time and space.

@Psy
You are quite right that most scientist recognize that they are not in the God proving business.  That’s why it is so frustrating to hear atheists assert that God does not exist, because if he did, SCIENCE! would have proved it.

@Scotty, I had a reply for you but the computer thinks it might be spam…?? But I hope it will eventually be posted.

Craig Roberts, yes, lack of evidence is evidence of absence but it isn’t proof of absence. However my argument against the existence of ‘God’ is the fallacious arguments, unsubstantiated claims, special pleading, ad hominid attacks and deceptions used to persuade people that ‘God’ does exist. But seriously I’ve never seen the need for a ‘God’ to justify existence. I has to be simpler than than.

If anyone is interested here is a link to an long winded rambling on the topic of something from nothing from a Jewish perspective.

Something from Nothing By Yaakov Brawer

http://tinyurl.com/3q4hnwu

BTW, for those interested in bilocation, Padre Pio was said to experience it pretty freely in this century.@psy, I will look up your link. Sounds interesting. One note: the great quantum physicist, Sir James Jeans remarked that the more one studied it the more the universe seemed the product of a great mind rather than a great “machine.” which leads to the fun story of a U. Berkeley prof who was delivering something of a rant that there was nothingbexisting except matter until a student asked “What is matter?” begging the delightful couplet: “What is matter? No mind. What is matter. never mind” reminds me of the words of someone whonwrote….“about it and about and evermore, came out the same door wherein I went.” the problem with a First Cause if, of course, that it implies a beginning yet Christians are told that God is eternal, so having no beginning and no end….until He created time and space. Presumably for our use in this material world but not having power over our soul/spirit, which is immaterial once we are out of the material body.

Psy - There were a number of saints who were able to bilocate (be in two places at the same time), Padre Pio who lived in the 20th century was one of those saints. I looked at the link you provided. The Rabbi’s philosophical approach to the topic was a bit too deep for me but since Christianity is built upon Judaism (we as Christians believe in the Jewish scriptures as the inspired Word of God)our foundational beliefs would be similar. In the New Testament, however, we have the experience of knowing God (Jesus) on a more personal level.

How the atheists on this string like to boast smugly about the accomplishements of (atheistic) science, while implying that miracles never occur.  Let’s analyze this:

Science has given us the computer, an interactive version of the hallowed TV.  This technology is nothing however without content, which has historically bordered on the violent, the stupid, the inane and the obscene.  The idiot box: certainly nothing for science to brag about.

A big triumph for science has been worldwide mobility, an asterisk of which could be considered our famous trip to the moon.  This has been great, homogenizing cultures across the world, so that McDonalds hamburgers and KFC are available from Main St. to Beijing.

Automotive society also accounts in large part for “global warming” which purportedly threatens to doom life as we know it.  So much for progress.

Medical science is a big boon, except for occasional lapses into the utter barbaric: like infecting innocent poor people with contagious diseases, just to chart the effects; pioneering techniques on destroying human fertility; your occasional devolution into nazi-style eugenics; medicine marketed as as a spurious fountain of youth; medical faddism driven by a barely submerged, heavily promoted fear of death.

One unqualified good of science has been the increase in food yeilds.  This has been unfortunately offset by malthusian hysteria, class warfare and xenophobia, population control efforts ennabled by deceit and misinformation, perversion of whole cultures, and mass murder of huge numbers of the next generation - physical and spiritual.

But let’s not forget how science has openned up for us the vast frontiers of inner and outer space!  The only thing more remarkable than pictures of distant galaxies or neutrinos speeding along, is how we can witness these things - in a unprecedented way in the entire history of man - and still not imagine an All-powerful and infinitely creative God.  For how advanced we now are, we’re still missing a fundamental and vitally important connection.  (VALUES JUDGMENT ALERT!!!)

Jesus said, “it’s amazing how you can read the signs of the heavens and the earth, and still not be able to read the signs of the times.”

@Matt - there is no such thing as (atheistic) science. It’s just science. Also, I think you misunderstand what science is (and perhaps the role of the Church in its history) - it’s a methodology, and as such a tool. Like any tool, it can be misused.

@Psy
You’re right.  God in his infinite wisdom has made ‘faith’ a prerequisite for belief.  Why?  I have no freakin idea.  Wouldn’t it be easier if faith was not required?  Then again, the theologians teach that nothing is more ‘simple’ than God.  He is all good.  There is no differences in Him.  His justice is the same as His mercy as His wisdom as His power as His love.  As Maggie McC pointed out, He said “I do not change.”  We are the ones that are complex and limited and finite and ultimately dependent.

Whatever happened to my post the computervhought might be spam but surely was not. Could you please post it as I don’t have a copy.

Craig Roberts: “‘faith’ a prerequisite for belief.  Why?  I have no freakin idea.”

Well that’s easy, its a foundation for authoritarianism.

“Science without religion is lame religion without science is blind ” Albert Einstein among others who always wonder and know imagination is greater then knowledge.  God bless Dr Thomas

@Psy
Right again!  If God is a loving father he does have authority over his children.  But it’s not the foundation, just a consequence.

@Craig Roberts, A consequence? I’d say more like a tool for conformity. Have you noticed the repetitive, unsubstantiated claims in this thread?

@Psy
C’mon man.  Do you really think that an all powerful Creator Of The Universe needs a ‘tool of conformity’?  He can do whatever He wants with you.  And He choses to give you freewill so that you can either chose to conform to His will, or do what you think would be better.
Goodluckwiddat!

@Craig Roberts,

There is no evidence of a ‘God’, the church needs tools of conformity to affirm the illusion of speaking for and representing a ‘God’.

How can those of you who say you are atheists explain what occurred with Padre Pio and bilocation and having also received the Stigmata - the four wounds of Christ?

@Craig Roberts
Actually I think it’s “we believe” therefore we have faith.

bwha haaa!....*sigh*...I mean, Psy!
Try to imagine a completely objective observer looking at the world with no pre-conceived notions of what it is or why it’s here.  The evidence is everywhere!  There is a lot more evidence (churches, religions, believers) for God than against.

The problem is that there is a fashionable view that if you maintain a sort of super-skepticism and only believe stuff that can be ‘shown’ to be true you will be able to ward off delusions and not be a victim of the ‘tools of conformity’.  If you adopt this attitude you throw trust out the window.  All of a sudden millions of witnesses, history, the greatest minds that ever lived, even your parents, are not to be trusted in matters regarding the most important aspects of life.  You think you’re free from illusions…but the delusion that the majority of people are either evil manipulators or conformist morons is worse than the alternative!

@Amy
Hmm…dunno.  I thought ‘faith’ was a gift.  If you ask for it, and are granted it, you become a believer.  Technically I could be wrong.  Please enlighten me.

a suggestion for Amy perhaps Faith brings to reason and or reason can bring us to faith, for conversion purposes these are good ways to look at. Also a divine love and faith can be a gift from spirit. God bless. Dr Thomas

@Craig Roberts

What evidence do you have that there is a ‘WHY’ we are here?

The evidence is everywhere? Show me your proofs, the math, how you move from your claimed evidence step by step to your conclusion. Substantiate you claims.

“There is a lot more evidence (churches, religions, believers) for God than against.”

Ad populum fallacy.

“The problem is that there is a fashionable view that if you maintain a sort of super-skepticism and only believe stuff that can be ‘shown’ to be true you will be able to ward off delusions and not be a victim of the ‘tools of conformity’.”

Its no wonder you can’t provide a reasonable argument.

“If you adopt this attitude you throw trust out the window.”

I’ll admit I am loosing trust in your ability to reason and wonder if you are intentionally or unknowingly being deceptive.
 

All of a sudden millions of witnesses, history, the greatest minds that ever lived, even your parents, are not to be trusted in matters regarding the most important aspects of life.”

“You think you’re free from illusions…but the delusion that the majority of people are either evil manipulators or conformist morons is worse than the alternative!”

Fist, you presume to think for me.

Second, I don’t think religions intention is evil, on the contrary but there are ethical problems with the promotion of ‘faith’ which opens the doors to abuse.

@Psy
Thank you for the rebuttal.  I’ll take your statements individually to make it easier to respond.

Evidence is not required for a ‘why’ we are here.  We can start with the acknowledgment that we do indeed exist, and because we exist, there must be a reason.  If we see waves on the ocean we naturally think that something must be causing them.  We don’t think, “Why do I have to think there is a reason ‘why’ those waves move.”  What the reason actually may be (the ‘why’) is immaterial.  We haven’t proven God.  But we have shown that it is reasonable to start with the assumption that there is a ‘why’ for the question of existence.

@Psy again
Regarding evidence.  When a crime is committed the police collect evidence like, the statements of witnesses, objects at the scene, and pictures of the crime scene.  None of these are formal or mathematical but they are considered evidence.  If we did away with them we wouldn’t be able to catch criminals.

If you are the judge presiding over a trial you are free to reject all evidence.  That does not mean you have not received a TON of evidence!  It just means you don’t think that what has been presented is worthy of consideration.  What you’re really saying is, “I want a different type of evidence.  Something so air-tight and fool-proof that it will erase all doubt.”

I’d like that too.  But God in His infinite wisdom has decided that it’s not going to go down like that.  Doh!  Here we begin to touch on some of the deeper mysteries of faith.  Personally I think it has something to do with trust.  If we’re going to have a loving relationship with somebody we can’t pester them to provide ‘proof’ of their love.  At some point trust is a must.

@Psy guy
Regarding ‘Ad populum fallacies’

While an appeal to popularity is bad basis for extolling something’s value, it’s not really germane to it’s existence.  For example, I don’t care how many records Lady GaGa sells I will NEVER (barring a stroke or something that turns my mind to mush) say that she is fine artist whose work is worthy of my time, attention, and admiration.  But I will not deny that she exists, or even that she is a musician, or that she is popular.  Please don’t take offense if you think she is the shizznit.  My tastes just tend to go in other directions.

The point is that, at a minimum, God exists as an idea.  How else could we argue about Him?  You can argue that the Christian idea of God is a bunch of hooey.  But you can’t argue that ALL of mans ideas about God are a bunch of hooey because the atheist assertion that ‘God does not exist’ is, itself, an idea about God.

@Craig - There is no “atheist assertion that ‘God does not exist’”, because atheists simply don’t believe in god. See my posts about knowledge and Gnosticism above. Also, there doesn’t have to be a “why” for the question of existence, as that only applies to causal relationships. There may not be a causal link to the universe as a whole as that depends on the existence of time. Also see my post above. And yes, God is an idea (and I believe only and idea), but according to your logic, there must be something to little green men on mars too, since that is an idea too.

@Scotty from Oakland: 
“@Matt - there is no such thing as (atheistic) science. It’s just science. Also, I think you misunderstand what science is (and perhaps the role of the Church in its history) - it’s a methodology, and as such a tool. Like any tool, it can be misused.”

I think everybody on this string misunderstands the relationship between faith and reason.  Faith and reason are both indispensible attributes of the human soul, like an eye and a knee are both parts of the body.  The eye cannot say to the knee “I don’t like you, you can’t see.  So, you’re not a part of the body.”  Conversely the knee can’t say to the eye, “you can’t bend, therefore you’re not part of the body.”

The atheists on this string remind me of a 5 year-old who says to his daddy: “I don’t want a wee-wee, daddy.  All it does is urinate.  Maybe if I didn’t have one, I wouldn’t need to pee at all.”

Speaking as one who does believe, I strongly recommend that, before you amputate your ability to trust, have faith, to know God; consider that you might want to do all those things, when you’re a little older.

@Craig Roberts

For myself it is unreasonable to assume there is a ‘why’ or purpose for us existing as opposed to or not being confused with ‘how’. I think its more reasonable to peruse the ‘how’ and see if it supports evidence of a ‘why’. If you are concerned with emotional comfort I can understand a person wanting to jump to a conclusion.

The closest thing to a ‘why’ for human existence that I’ve found is DNA evolving to different life forms to continue survival.

“The point is that, at a minimum, God exists as an idea”

Its an idea. Affirming with a choice of words “God exist (as an idea)” does nothing for your argument.

“You can argue that the Christian idea of God is a bunch of hooey.  But you can’t argue that ALL of mans ideas about God are a bunch of hooey because the atheist assertion that ‘God does not exist’ is, itself, an idea about God.”

Yes I can argue against all mans ideas about ‘God’ one at a time or the !@#$% concept of ‘God’ or ‘Gods’. You seem to make random claims for no reason other than to discredit yourself again and again. I have done in the past on several occasions done exactly what you have told me that I can not do.

What good is an idea if you don’t think it through or test it? From my perspective in this thread this ‘idea’ has failed miserably. How is it doing from your perspective? I understand very well two or more people can see the same event and have totally different understandings.

@Scotty from the home of the rock
(eight woofers in the back beatin’ down the block)

Thanks for the response.  By reading your posts I can tell that you are thoughtful, knowledgeable, and lucid.  This leads me to believe that you’re not in the habit of frequenting Oakland’s ubiquitous dispensaries for medicinal relief.  Regardless!  If my ‘idea’ of little green men on mars was derived from some experience or evidence of them, I would probably be on a different forum right now.

Although you are correct to point out that all ‘ideas’ are not worthy of examination, the ideas we are discussing are nothing less than the ultimate essence of reality.  Ideas have implications.  If we believe that death is just the end of us, we will act very differently than if we believe that we will face a final judgment.  And how we act defines what we are.

Logic and reasoning are only valuable when they help firm up our grasp on reality.  But at some point they may become a straight-jacket.  If you believe you have a soul, your mind is free to try and use it to discover ‘more’ of reality.  If you believe that man has no soul, you are cut off from trying to go beyond what your reason can handle by itself.

We both want to plumb the depths of Truth as best we can.  I happen to believe that doing that (finding Truth) is our reason for living and not an impossible task.  You might too.  Or you might believe that there is no reason for living.  If that’s true, I hope you find one.

@Matt B, Speaking as one who does believe, I strongly recommend that, before you amputate your ability to trust, have faith, to know God; consider that you might want to do all those things, when you’re a little older.

If I get much older I will be dead. Perhaps if you would explain what you are talking about instead of telling childish stories those of us who are not irrational could make sense out of it.

@Craig Roberts “we will act very differently than if we believe that we will face a final judgment.”

Are you saying religious people are incapable of ethics and require authoritarianism to be responsible? Perhaps you should consider giving ‘reason’ a try.

But seriously I think it depends on the person or personality type. I’m defiantly not an authoritarian personality type. I’m both INTP and ISTP personality types.

@Psy
Again, thank you wrestling with these weighty questions.  It can be pain sometimes.

‘Why’ has to do with purpose.  If we don’t ask ‘why’ we could end up wasting our time finding a ‘how’ for a worthless endeavor.

I find no emotional comfort from the idea that I am being watched by an all powerful being that will judge my every action after I die.  Frankly the idea is so terrifying that denying it is a real temptation.  But I can’t deny the truth.  Lucky for us the all powerful being didn’t make us to torture.  Like an artist that cares about his work he strives to perfect every aspect of it.

“All ideas about X are hooey”
“This is an idea about X”
“This is hooey”

If I can say something that might give a little comfort…this stuff ain’t easy.  Figuring out life is hard…and Christianity is harder.  Who wants to pick up a cross?  Don’t expect me to volunteer.  Unfortunately the truth has a way of drafting us into it’s cause.  If the choice is between a hard truth and a soft lie, most will gladly accept the lie.  I can tell that you want the real truth no matter how hard it is.  Keep thinking, keep testing, use any means you have at your disposal, and never give up.  You may have a breakthrough that will change everything.  The real enemy is the self-satisfied, Mr. Knowitall attitude that makes us think it’s time to stop thinking because we’ve got it all figured out.

This thread might be considered a horrible example of people fighting over things, and using sloppy logic, and resorting to insults out of frustration, and getting nowhere.  But from my perspective it also shows their willingness to pursue the Truth no matter how frustrating it gets.  And even a sloppy debate can clarify your own thoughts and beliefs.

@Psy-guy
“I’m both INTP and ISTP personality types.”

So ‘Psy’ is short for psychology and not psycho?  Good to know….KIDDING!  I’ll be sure and give that reason thing a try.  Just don’t think that if you get tired of reason you can give religion a try.  The Authoritarian In The Sky requires all of his followers to use all of their gifts the best they can.  That includes reason, judgment, freedom, time, talent, blood, sweat, tears…basically everything.  I’d be lying if I didn’t tell you that it can be a pain.

@Craig Roberts, I find life simple and entertaining, other than having to work for a living I have no complaints.

@Psy-fi
Baaahaaa!  That’s the best one you’ve told all day.

Psy- my comment involves argument from analogy.  I’m not sure if it qualifies as scientific evidence, but it’s amply represented in literature throughout the ages, much of which is considered quite rational (if not rationalistic).

My point is that reason and faith are both necessary elements of the human person - both are needed to be fully human.  Only recently has “reason” in the form of science and materialism, been considered sufficient for a fully human life.  As a result, many of the horrible atrocities mentioned in a prior comment - evidence of a critical personal and social imbalance.

The story of the 5 year old represents a misstatement.  Really this kind of reasoning is suitable in a 2 or 3 year old.  I think the analogy is clear, however.  Figure it out for yourself.

As a final point, if you’re into psychology, or any of the social sciences, and deny religion, you’re really being intellectually dishonest.  All the best ideas of psychology are grafted from ancient religions - albeit not necessarily Judeo-Christian forms of religion.  Psychology without religion is just a zen diagram and some abstractions.

If by getting any older, you’re going to be dead - try getting younger instead.

“culminating in the popular explanation, “Shut Up!””
No.  The proper response is that one anecdote means nothing.
“There can’t be a supernatural God.”
Well, there could be if that concept actually made any sense.
But there’s no “evidence” of such a thing and the absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
“countless other well-documented incidents”
Hilarious.
“preclude the possibility of a supernatural answer to prayer”
Hilarious.  You have no “evidence”.
“It all depends on a priori philosophical (and deeply emotional, not rational) commitments to atheistic materialism.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong.  It depends on the fact that there’s no “evidence”.  And because of such a lack of evidence, materialism is the only rational response.

God can not be known but only experienced which for most of the world including the bthree momotheistic fdaiths and those great philosphies understand that . Through all forms of literture and oral tadition we try to give God a face or character but it is truly an experience which some will never have.  ” Science without religion is lame,Religion without science is blind”  ” Imagination is greater then knowledge”  Albert Einstien. It is sad that some cease to wonder wonder, and wonder. God bless and Pax and love. Dr Thomas

@Matt B, ‘Faith’ is a broad term, as boring a semantics are, what exactly are we talking about? Calculated risk on available information or accepting a belief with little or no information emotional or rational? Life is full of judgment calls on a daily basis.

As for psychology and religion its obvious that psychology is a promenade factor, punishment-reward, affirmations, ect.

promenade should be ‘prominent’, sorry, bad eyesight and stupid spell checker.

@Thomas, is that a claim or affirmation?

“First:  Prayer.  Mock all you want atheists, but prayer works.”
There is no “evidence” in favor of your opinion.
“Second:  Example.”
Ridiculous.
“Third:  Compassion.”
That is not an “argument”.
“Of course our ultimate ally is God.  His judgement will be perfect.”
Your assertions are not an argument.
So it appears that your have no arguments.
“Everything that we find mysterious is not revealed to us in this life but it will be when we pass on.”
This is seen as an empty assertion.
“However, what medicine cannot always achieve can be explained through faith.”
Since anything and everything can be “explained” by “faith”, such an explanation is meaningless.
“But the weakest link in the atheist world view is it’s failure to acknowledge the role that the ‘heart’ plays in human personality.”
Hilarious and the correct word is “its”.
“But seriously, prayer works on the heart.”
Hearts are supposed to pump blood.
“Since atheists are trying to tear down some perfectly good institutions that promote social order,”
It would seem you need a new blog post for this accusation.
“what is unknown is greater than what is known.”
Hilarious.  Why such I respect your opinion on what is “unknown”?
“It leads to the cynicism and corruption of todays governement, economy and culture-of-death.”
Your misunderstanding is not hilarious.
“Faith gives access to goods far more valuable and important than science does.”
I can haz cheeseburger?
““wisdom,” a key component of which is faith.”
Hilarious.
“some things should not be understood, but only rejected.”
Ouch.  This seems like anti-wisdom.
“The scientific method is a religious practice, much like any other.”
Hilarious nonsense.  What religion has decided that its holy books have errors and need to be corrected?
“1. Why is there something….you, me, etc…rather than nothing?”
Really, really, good luck.  A million sperm and one ova and then you!
“2. If God exists and is the Creator of all, why would a human, with limited reason (made in His image, but obviously not with His mind) expect to understand Him?”
But if your premise is false, why should anyone bother with such a question?
“It passes the buck, so to speak, in saying it is God’s will”
Better known as good luck and bad luck.
“it completely dispels generations of human knowledge and experience, including my own and other people of faith”
Of course it does.  Since there’s no “evidence”, such “knowledge” is simply “wishful thinking”.
“you’re free to ignore the witness of objective reality”
A believer uses the words “objective reality”?  Hilarious.
“It is an attempt to show that the philosophical world view of atheisim is biased, incomplete, and insufficient for an open-mind.”
Hilarious.  My “open mind” is ready to accept “evidence”.  Where is it?
“The big mistake atheists make is wanting God to reveal Himself to them on their terms and not on His.”
Define “reveal”.  Define “faith”.  Belief without evidence?
“I don’t see any posts telling me why there should be something instead of nothing. The Chrustin faith has an answer for that-but what do atheists say?”
My opinion is that your question is meaningless and your answer is ridiculous.
“There is a lot more evidence (churches, religions, believers) for God than against.”
That’s simply evidence for “wishful thinking” (delusions).
“We can start with the acknowledgment that we do indeed exist, and because we exist, there must be a reason.”
Nope.  That’s just “wishful thinking”.

Dr Thomas affirms the transendant creator of all that is seen an unseen through experience I long and want to know more but I look up witkh love and wonder. I have felt the spirit and know the son. God bless you and much love and kindness. The Doc

@Thomas, I have had several of these ‘spiritual’ experiences and I can assure you that they have lead me to the opposite conclusion. Its all in our minds, though I can understand your choice to believe.

Thank you for the respectfull response and I pray you will some day be touched by the spirit and perhaps yourb heart will be open. God Bless, Dr Thomas

Mike, there’s a lot of interlocutor in your comment of Oct. 2 @ 1:52pm.  It gives the impression of a series of knee-jerk reactions.  Is there any thought in your position that actually reaches the cortical area of your brain?

Psy, Faith and calculation are quantitatively and qualitatively different.  You could say that hope for an eternal reward leads to calculated risk taking.  This is good - and meritorious - as far as it goes.  But real faith enters in when people continue to trust and obey, when no hope of gain is present; or when the imminent fear of loss should overmaster any putative gain “farther on.” 

This is one kind of witness, both red and white martyrdom, which historically has given ample testimony to faith.  Unfortunately, it fails to meet the “empirical proof” test required by atheists on this string.  I guess the only rebuff I can offer is “material truths are evidenced by material proofs; whereby spiritual truths are witnessed by spiritual discernment.”  To deny either would indicate to me the kind of fatuous partisanship you only see in politics, not science and not religion.

Hamlet tells Horatio, “There are more things in heaven and hell than are dreamt of in your (natural) philosophy.”  My own considerations tell me that “materialism” should be called “immaterialism,” since the scope of it’s reality is so constrained.  It’s a little like lab rats expatiating on the workout wheel.  Does it exist?  Yes.  Is that all that exists?  Think again.

@Matt B, Can you show how most of those assertions, affirmations, wild unsubstantiated calms deserve any response? I did notice one and responded to it already. How is your commenting on Mike’s brain any better than your complaint against him?

@Matt B

“But real faith enters in when people continue to trust and obey,”

Yes,I understand authoritarian ideology an the concept of loyalty.

“whereby spiritual truths are witnessed by spiritual discernment.”

It sounds like you are trying to glorify simple philosophical concepts.

“Is there any thought in your position that actually reaches the cortical area of your brain?”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  You are making an extraordinary claim - that the supernatural “exists”.  You have no evidence.  Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
“You could say that hope for an eternal reward leads to calculated risk taking.”
But since there is no evidence for an “eternal reward”, your premise is simply false.
“But real faith enters in when people continue to trust and obey”
Trust what?  Obey what?  Why?  If faith is belief without evidence, why should anyone trust or obey?
“Unfortunately, it fails to meet the “empirical proof” test required by atheists”
Of course.  So why should it be trusted?  Why isn’t it just “seeing what you want to see”?  “Believing what you want to believe”?
“spiritual truths are witnessed by spiritual discernment”
Define “spiritual discernment”.  Why not call it “wishful thinking”?
“Hamlet tells Horatio ...”
How silly.
“My own considerations tell me that “materialism” should be called “immaterialism,” since the scope of its reality is so constrained.”
Hilarious word games.  Materialism is properly named because its scope is the material.  Define “immaterial”.  What would “evidence” of something “immaterial” really be?  Ghost Hunters International fails.
“It’s a little like lab rats expatiating on the workout wheel.”
Hilarious mis-analogy.  It would seem that you are placing yourself as a “god” and claiming that it is “obvious” that there is something more than the “material” to “reality”.
“Is that all that exists?  Think again.”
Your opinion has been considered and rejected due to lack of “evidence”.

“Evangelical Atheists”
What a silly label.
“attempting various ways to explain them away”
Of course.  But there is only one “natural” explanation - the electro-chemical processes required for life had not ceased.  A “supernatural” explanation is simply rejected as “wishful thinking”.
“culminating in the popular explanation, “Shut Up!””
Simply false.  And labeling that an “explanation” is silly.
“It all depends on a priori philosophical (and deeply emotional, not rational) commitments to atheistic materialism.”
I love that “not rational”.  That’s sooo hilarious.  Here is someone who believes in the supernatural calling someone who accepts only the natural “not rational”.
Why is there the claim that this is an “a priori” commitment?  Why is it not an “a posteriori” commitment?  After all, the natural world has been observed for centuries and there has never been any evidence for anything other than the material.  So Mark Shea’s opinion is irrational.

Like I said all men seek God or cr wonder and continue to debate, why is an atheist hear except seek to understand the existence or non existence of thr transcendant. God is an experience of the spirit, one hpes and prays all may get there some day it would be terrible to live forever in such a void. God bless, Dr Thomas

@Thomas - I don’t believe that all men seek God. Those who choose to believe in something or somebody based upon scientific evidence alone are bound to be left wanting. Even when presented with the unexplainable they refuse to believe that there is a God. I think the evidence is all around us and I can also make that statement based upon the events in my life and the life of those closest to me. What a sad life if one has no belief in God in our human existence and an understanding of what’s to come when we die. It also sets oneself up for being ones own “god” and following ones own rules. Imagine a world with this thought process? It’s not a life that is rich because science alone does nourish the human heart.

All men do seek God, your a post enlightment thinker most likeky 20 th century all philosphical descourse deals with God it seems to be always the underlying basis of all thought, Why are you on a Catholic site you are curious and still seek something you are lacking. Even the Dialectic materialists sought out God and the answers. “Science without religion is blind, Religion without science is lame” ” Imagination is greater then knowledge”  Albert Einstein. You are here and you wonder wonder and wonder. Good luck on your quest. God bless and love. Dr Thomas

Psy, Maybe I’m being too hard on Mike.  It just seems like he’s heckling.

I think the important part of this discussion that you seem to be missing is that, quite independent of your opinion or mine, God is the all-powerful creator and judge of this universe your scientific instruments are clocking all the time.  Without the invincible power of God, all my assertions would be, as you said, idle philosophizing.

I’m sorry you have an issue with authority.  There must be some kind of mental health professional where you live who can help you with that.  I’m only curious how you handle father/son relationships in your little psychological world.  The doctrinal truth is that God allows us into a father/son (daughter) relationship with himself - despite the fact that he’s the almighty creator of the universe.  God is not merely great, God is also good.

But that God is great, you too will find out.  He is coming as either a loving father, or as a just judge.  Take a look at all the puny half-attempts of mankind to judge their fellow man; then imagine what the just judgment will be like: terrible, aweful, final.

Final word: Man=blustery talk; God=omnipotent power.  Keep an eye out for it!

“continue to debate”
There is no “debate”.  You have no evidence.  One does not debate “wishful thinking”.
“Even when presented with the unexplainable they refuse to believe that there is a God.”
Science does not understand this yet, therefore a god exists is simply the “god of the gaps” (in our knowledge) fallacy.
“What a sad life if one has no belief in God”
What a sad life if one has to depend on such a belief to give meaning to one’s life.
“an understanding of what’s to come when we die”
And how would you know “what’s to come when we die”?  You have no evidence, only “wishful thinking”.
“It also sets oneself up for being ones own “god” and following ones own rules.”
Violate society’s rules and get caught and you might suffer the consequences.  Violate other’s trust and you might suffer the consequences.  Why are your god’s “rules” so silly in so many ways?
“Imagine a world with this thought process?”
Of course 90+% percent of the time, people operate by following their own rules.  Some go to jail.  Others get divorced.  It seems that you wish that the world was different from what it is.
“God is the all-powerful creator and judge of this universe”
Hilarious wishful thinking.
“Without the invincible power of God”
to create earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, plagues, and mosquitoes?  Natural explanations are enough.  “God did it” is not an explanation.
“I’m sorry you have an issue with authority.”
No.  I am very deferential to policemen and the IRS.
“There must be some kind of mental health professional where you live who can help you with that.”
Obviously all atheists have mental health problems.  Not.  Perhaps someone could help you with your god delusion?
“God allows us into a father/son (daughter) relationship”
Hilarious.  Perhaps someone could help you with your god delusion.
“God is not merely great, God is also good.”
Hilarious.  Yes, the “problem of evil” really is a problem.
“He is coming as either a loving father, or as a just judge.”
The current expectation date is Oct. 21?  Just one more of the thousands of erroneous predictions?  Why should one live one’s life in fear of what is never going to happen?
“Keep an eye out for it!”
1984 - Big Brother is watching you.  Latest TV shows - A Gifted Man is shadowed by his ex-wife as a angel?  A supercomputer sees and hears everything and finds “A Person Of Interest”?  Hilarious.

@ Thomas - Is your posted directed at me?

I agree time to close this thread, the debate has become reduntant. God bless Dr Thomas

Attention all atheists - Seek and ye shall find; knock and the door will be opened. Remember one thing, if you are wrong there will be eternal (very unpleasant) consequences for your rejection of God; if I’m wrong no big deal.

No not you but all sometimes the discussion gets reduntant to much talk about God defeats the spirit of the transendant. To over intelleculize is not the wAt to go on forever at some point you have the experience or you do not. I magination is greater then knowledge. God bless. Dr Thomas

Yes, heckling is about the size of it.

@Amy:
“if you are wrong there will be eternal (very unpleasant) consequences for
your rejection of God; if I’m wrong no big deal.”

It’s funny how the old (and flawed) arguments keep coming up. First of all, this point of view implied that you chose to believe in god out of fear of an insanely disproportionate punishment (“Be wrong and suffer eternal pain”...).
Secondly, this famous “Pascal’s wager” you’re mentioning implies there is no downside to believe. In fact, there is one. And a big one if you ask me: If you’re wrong, you’ve chosen to waste some precious time of the ONE life you’ve got (once you’re dead, it’s all over) to worship an non-existing god and to follow irrational rules… while in the mean-time, atheists will spend this very precious life enjoying it…

@Amy:
“if you are wrong there will be eternal (very unpleasant) consequences for
your rejection of God; if I’m wrong no big deal.”

It’s funny how the old (and flawed) arguments keep coming up. First of all, this point of view implies that you chose to believe in god out of fear of an insanely disproportionate punishment (“Be wrong and suffer eternal pain”...). This is hardly a good reason: are you telling me that god would be happy you’d believe in him because you’re scared??

Secondly, this famous “Pascal’s wager” you’re mentioning implies there is no downside to believe. In fact, there is one. And a big one if you ask me: If you’re wrong, you’ve chosen to waste some precious time of the very ONE life you’ve got to worship a non-existing god and to follow irrational rules… while in the mean-time, atheists will spend this very precious life enjoying it…

sorry about the multiple postings… my browser crashed.

Oliver -

“If you’re wrong, you’ve chosen to waste some precious time of the very
ONE life you’ve got to worship a non-existing god and to follow irrational
rules… while in the mean-time, atheists will spend this very precious life enjoying it..”

You say that as though no one who is Christian could POSSIBLY enjoy being Christian… but I assure you, that is not the case. I’m incredibly happy being Catholic, and enjoying life very, very much. If there is nothing after I die, then my life would not have been wasted or lacking in enjoyment in the slightest.

@Oliver
“Atheists will spend this very precious life enjoying it…”

You tipped your hand my friend.  You’re just a hedonist that uses atheism to justify his lifestyle.  Faith, hope, and love are the greatest things we can aspire to in this life…and they require that we focus on something higher than our own selfish enjoyment.

Amy, it is a Beatific vision ethier you have it or you do not you decide where your soul and spirit goes after death you alone can choose nothing
God Bless Pax and Love Dr Thomas

All you people saying fear is the reason you believe don’t understand what faith is.  Fear is the flip side of faith.  Fear implies a self-centered concern.  Faith on the other hand requires putting aside fear and trusting in something outside of your self.

Sheesh Doctor T…you sound like a gnostic.

...or a trippin hippie.

Hardly gnostic more Orthodox Roman Catholic Beatific vision is firmly Catholic theology. You should loofk up gnostic. God bless. Dr Thomas

@Craig Roberts
“and they require that we focus on something higher than our own selfish enjoyment.”

Excuse me, but that sentence tells me much more about you and your judgmental character traits than about me….
Where in my sentence did you read I was selfish? Where did I say I didn’t care about other? Have you, just one second thought, that I could actually be the kind of guy who would help people just for the sake of it, and actually be happy to?

The difference between you and me is that I don’t need a celestial daddy to tell me right from wrong and I’m not seeking his approval. I’m not expecting an afterlife reward for my good deeds.

@Amy:
Yes, I’m sure you could live a happy life by being a christian. I don’t deny this. I’m just contesting the whole idea that I should believe because I should be afraid of the consequences if I’m proven wrong. Believing out of fear is a rather sad notion and that would be a waste of a life (and you should realize that because of this, Pascal’s wager is a very poor attempt at converting people).
In fact, you should realize that saying “believe or else!” is nothing more than a threat.

@ Oliver - Just what is it I’m missing? What precious time am I wasting and what is it I’m not enjoying (I’m afraid to ask)?  You must think that people of faith don’t have fun. Actually we do it’s just not probably what you would think of as fun. I have never been happier in my life since embracing Catholicism fully. I am at peace, my life has purpose,and I experience great joy. Rules? I don’t see it as rules but guidance for living a very fulfilled life. The secular world actually appears very, very boring to me. My husband and I rarely go to movies or tune in to prime time tv. I don’t indulge in drugs, drinking (except for the glass of wine with dinner) and I spend a lot of time in parish activities. It’s actually a very full, blessed life. To many it may seem boring because they need the excitement of the secular world. If I died tomorrow I would not feel that I missed anything. Until you have experienced the joy of solitude and being with God you do not know what real joy is. My faith has absolutely nothing to do with fear and everything to do with love and joy.

@Amy

I addressed your point in my previous post. I suppose our responses were sent at the same time.
Again, I’m certain that lots of people can be happy being religious. But I find it interesting that lots of people are reacting at my replies and still are missing the point: I’m quoting you here: “if you are wrong there will be eternal (very unpleasant) consequences for your rejection of God; if I’m wrong no big deal.”

What you say here is, I’m sorry, nothing but a threat. I’m sure you’re well-intentioned, but if I were to believe because of this remark, then I would be believing out of fear and that would be a pretty bad way of living my life.

I have always felt that the so called atheist is intellectualy dishonest, if they claim to have ethics and values then where did they get them you should be honest and examine the roots of your worth. I am sure you did not come from outer space. You did not evolve in a vacum. You may be confused about God and the transendant, but you live in this world and the values you have came fron ur of the cahalders over many centuries to get us here. You do not know your own selves. I pray for God bless and my love. Dr Thomas

@Thomas

“I have always felt that the so called atheist is intellectualy dishonest”

You’re free to think (or at least feel) whatever you want. I’m not even going to bother asking you to elaborate because I’m not sure you’ve got much to back it up (but I’m curious to know what is a “so called atheist”)

“if they claim to have ethics and values then where did they get them you should be honest and examine the roots of your worth”

May I ask what is the root of your worth?
As for ethics, I may not come from outer space as you say, but you seem however to imply that ethics and values do come from there. As a matter of fact, most if not all social and gregarious animals have also rules (which you might call ethics) and share similar taboos as we do (such as murdering a member of the community or incest for example). Sociability, charity, friendship, etc… are most likely simply evolutionnary traits. A society can not prosper if its members keep harassing each other.
I may be wrong of course, but I don’t need a god to make sense of it. And it does not make those qualities less admirable.

@Oliver - I agree that no one should believe anything out of fear. Christians believe that Jesus is Lord and with His suffering, death and resurrection we have eternal life. That being said, God gives us free will to accept Him and to live with him in eternity or to reject Him and to live eternally separated from Him. Our love of God is demonstrated by obeying. We obey because we love and we do not wish to offend God; not because we fear God. Still it is good to remember what can happen to us if we ultimately reject God. That is healthy fear but it is not the basis of our faith.

@Oliver
Congratulations for being a big hearted, caring, generous, happy, hedonist.  If you are giving your time, talent, and money, to charities and worthy causes, you know it requeres a sacrafice on your part.  I applaud you.  But if that was true you wouldn’t put ‘enjoyment’ on the top of your Things To Live For list.  Sacrafice requires that you put something ahead of your own enjoyment.

If you live for your own enjoyment you are pretty much the definition of selfish.  If your enjoyment is your main concern, and you think you’re a kind and giving person, you’re headed for a train wreck with reality.  You don’t need to start believing in God (yet), but you do need to get your thoughts about life straight.

@Amy

Well, first of all, the concept of free will is clearly at odds with an omniscient deity. If god can know everything, second by second, that is going to happen to you, then you only live with the idea of free will. From god’s point of view, you have a fate and I find it curious that he has to wait for you to do something that he knows is going to happen.

In any case, the idea that god gives you free will and you can chose to love him or face the consequences is still a threat. What are the consequences? being thrown to hell? Who created hell? who ultimately decides whether or not you’ll be saved? In the end, this is exactly the same as somebody mugging you in the street and saying: “give me your cash or die!”. And according to your logic, you should thank him for giving you a choice.

@Craig
Congratulation on being a sarcastic, judgemental catholic.
So helping is only worth it if it goes along with pain? Feel free to call me hedonistic if you want. What’s the alternative according to you? taking a masochistic pleasure out of sacrifice? Whether you want to admit it or not, everybody gets some sense of fulfilment out of helping/caring. Just because it is so doesn’t make it less valuable. Pretending you don’t just make you sound self-righteous.

Please spare me the guilt trip.

@ Oliver - Catholic theology teaches that God knows everything that happened in the past and everything that will happen to us in the future; however, he does not manipulate our every move and ultimately we choose our destiny. You may find it curious but it is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. There are some Protestants who believe in predestination and that God predetermines our destiny but that is not Catholic teaching. God does not impose His will on us. He wants us to choose Him freely. He gives us opportunity after opportunity to do just that with the graces He makes available to us. If we ultiamtely reject Him the consequences are the separation from God for all eternity. But that is a decision that we have made, not God. God will not force us to be with Him. To view this as a threat from God is erroneous thinking.

@Amy

“however, he does not manipulate our every move and ultimately we choose our destiny. You may find it curious but it is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches”

I am not saying he manipulates anything. This is not my point. I am only saying that if you look closely into your logic, you’ll have to admit you don’t have in fact a free will. If god knows precisely what you’re going to do, then it means you have a fate. That your actions are written (metaphorically obviously) and predestined. This is not a question of catholic versus protestant, it simply is a matter of consistency.

And I’m sorry, but you haven’t disproven my case. You can claim it is not a threat, but it still is. According to your logic, if I chose not to give my cash to the mugger and get shot, it is my fault and I should be blamed for not playing by his rules.

@ Amy - You have a strange concept of choice. God will not force you to be with Him, you have a choice. However, if you don’t choose Him, you’ll burn in Hell for eternity. It’s such a generous choice that God has given us…

“I won’t force you to do anything, ok? But if you don’t do it, you’ll suffer for eternity. But I’m not forcing you, right?”

@Oliver

Bwhaa haaa!!  How ironic is it that I, Mr. Sardonic Smartypants, gets accused of being a “sarcastic, judgmental catholic” on THAT post.

Anyhoo…I deliberately said “you don’t need to believe in God” so you could see that my comments aren’t meant to be sarcastic, judgmental, or Catholic.  There is nothing masochistic about the truth.  But ‘life involves pain and sacrifice’ is a hard truth that only a child or deluded person would deny.  One good alternative to being a hedonist is to be real.

If you uderstood the historical reference of my last post you would know where my values come from where to you get yours, I already told you. Your ethics and values came from somewhere. God bless Dr Thonmas

@Craig - You can’t live normally in a society if you follow your logics of sacrifice fully. At some point, you have to think of yourself. The only other possibility is to become a monk or a hermit. As soon as you have a job and a house, you think about yourself. Otherwise, why don’t you sell your house and give the money to the poor? And don’t tell me it’s for the children. Nobody forces people to have children. They could give the money to the poor instead.

So Craig, have you sold your house yet? Have you given all your savings and your clothes to the poor yet? If you did, sorry, but I guess you didn’t because you are writing on an internet forum, so you have a computer. By the way, you have a computer, so you’re selfish. Sell your computer and give it to the poor.

@Craig
“But ‘life involves pain and sacrifice’ is a hard truth that only a child or deluded person would deny.  One good alternative to being a hedonist is to be real.”

Bwhaa haaa!!  How ironic is it to be call deluded and infantile by somebody who prays to a magic celestial paternal figure and seek his approval?

In any case, life MAY (please note that verb) involve pain and sacrifice. But it doesn’t have to. I had my share. People close to me had theirs. But reducing life to just that is rather sad. You can spend your life flogging yourself and feel smug about it because you’re a real grown-up who knows real pain… or you can actually BE an adult, and learn to move on when hardship hits up and enjoy as much as you can.
Some people also may have it easy. Well, good for them. They’re lucky and it’s nothing to be ashamed of. It’s actually disturbing to find people taking pride in having gone through hard time. If anything, it should make you humble!

This is all starting to sound like children fighting . Enough already this is not productive. Time to close this thread. Too mean spirited it is becoming a vexation of my own spirit. God bless Dr. Thomas

@Thomas

For once, I’m siding with you on this one :)

@Craig - “But ‘life involves pain and sacrifice’ is a hard truth that only a child or deluded person would deny”

Aha, the old “what I believe is true and only insane people would deny it” argument. As if that proved anything…
Look, I can do it too!

“Believe in me or you’ll burn in Hell” is a threat, and only a child or deluded person would deny it.

Well, apparently God is very selective about answering prayers:
-
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2011/09/jurors_in_faith-healing_trial_1.html
-
The only difference is that the couple was from another sect, and the baby “saved” by Father Sheen was given CPR and other medical treatment while others prayed. I’m just glad the parents didn’t depend only on prayer.

It looks like I haven’t missed anything, the same rhetoric repeated over and over again. Intellect and reason are the enemy, reaffirmations, promises of judgment, ect.

If you really believe your faith is the ‘truth’, why do you have to re-affirm it to yourselves? I’m sure we’ve all heard of Joseph Goebbels.

@sebgur
sebgur…dude.  Do your *really* think that Christianity teaches that you have to give everything to the poor and be homeless?  Really, really?

@Oliver

You’re right.  You don’t have to go to school, find a job, a spouse, buy a house, have kids.  All those things would require some pain and sacrifice.  You can just….hmm…I dunno…sit around taking bong hits and playing x-box?

@Oliver
You are incorrect. Catholic teaching is that humans have free will. God knows what we will choose; that is not the same as choosing for us.

You are also incorrect in stating there is no difference between Catholic and Protestant theology. There most certainly is! Both Luther and Calvin deny free will as belief a belief. Because of the Protestant creation of the doctrine of “sola fide”, or that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, these reformist taught that each person does not cooperate in their own salvation.  In essence, Protestant doctrine is that all of our moral choices are predetermined. Salvation is ours to accomplish, it is not something that we have no control over. This is most certainly not Catholic theology. 

@sebgur - I never mentioned hell; you did. However, so I see that you do believe in hell. What I said was eternal separation from God.

Every day of our life we make choices that affect us in insignificant ways and significant ways. That’s just how life is.  I don’t understand what the problem is. If you don’t want to be with God then you will not be with God. Once again, from a Catholic perspective that is a choice. All choices have consequences.

Thanks Dr. T.  If we were on your lawn you could tell us kids to get lost but this isn’t that type of forum.

Craig:

It’s good to see that after scolding me for speaking bluntly to the Napoleon Dynamites with a mean streak who so often constitute Internet Atheist Brigades, you are discovering the the proverb “Answer a fool according to his folly” does sometimes make sense. Guys like Oliver, who worship rather than use the intellect, are why Jesus said, “Do not cast your pearls before swine, do not give what is sacred to dogs.”  His mind is closed tighter than a drum.

@segbur

[“But ‘life involves pain and sacrifice’ is a hard truth that only a child or deluded person would deny”  Aha, the old “what I believe is true and only insane people would deny it” argument. As if that proved anything…]

So your position is that life does not involve pain and sacrifice?

@Thomas, I’m not a Doctor but my fist guess of ‘where morals come from’ would be a natural tendency towards ‘empathy for others’ for most of us.

By they way, what kind of Dr. are you?

Morals and ethics are taught and learned . Yours were taught to you.  You inherited your values. Cardiologist, Phd Amherst College History.  So that would be MD and Phd. God bless Dr Thomas

@Psy - “I’m not a Doctor but my fist guess of ‘where morals come from’ would be a natural tendency towards ‘empathy for others’ for most of us.”

It’s called Natural Law.

@Mark Shea
As usual your remarks are insightful, funny, and true.  And as usual I have some quibbles with them.  It sounds like you think it’s a waste of time to beat on these drum headed heathens.  I don’t agree.  But then again, my motives are mixed at best.  Hopefully I can learn how to spend more time reaching out and giving them something to think about, and less time cracking wise and guffawing at their amazing obtuseness.  Either way, I appreciate you giving the atheist-hive-mind a good swift kick every now and then and creating such a target rich environment.

It also sounds like you think ‘pearls’ in the quote refers to your wisdom.  Correct me if I’m wrong.  I’m not exactly offering anything sacred or holy in my comments.  And these zombies aren’t about to rip anybody apart.  (Although the metaphor kind of gives new meaning to, “Brains…BRAINS!”)

Sorry for scolding you.  (It’s just that I’ve got this darn beam in my eye…)  I’m not sure which scold you’re referring to, but as much gratuitous ripping I’ve done on you in the past, I’m sure I owe you an apology for something.

I notice that Oliver and company keep returning to a couple points, which demonstrate to me that they’re having a hard time distinguishing between man and God.  And as a result, they’re living in a world of their own making - and not a very sturdy one at that.

Oliver paints God as an extortionist, by offering us a choice between eternal life with him, or hell.  Like all Christian doctrines, this one helps define not only who God is, but also who we are.  Firstly, our souls are eternal, made to live forever.  There is no “great grey beyond.”  I consider this a royal dignity, not a curse.  Secondly, we were made to be with God - this is our great fulfillment, the cause of our joy.

God gives us the opportunity to reject him, but since he is our true joy, rejecting God comes with the consequence of rejecting our joy, our happiness.  What happens in hell?  Who knows; but eternal life without God is bound to get old, let’s say after the first million years.

This docrine also tells us about that most dire of sins: pride.  Man’s pride rejects God’s yoke, and prefers it’s own head.  Meanwhile, true happiness consists in obedience and humility.  Just as “virtue is its own reward,” so vice is its own punishment.

So Oliver’s entire argument revolves around a misunderstanding under which he and many of his confreres are laboring.  But we should see things his way, because to unlock a man from his chains, we need to be able to find the key.  He sees God as a great bully, not a loving father.  He considers eternal life a tedious bore, not an endless adventure.  He prefers the limitations of his own mind, to yielding to the divine pneuma.  How sorry.

Oliver’s other canard is the “if God knows everything, then how can there be free will???” ploy.

Once again, Oliver is confusing himself, or humanity in general, with God.  For, just because God knows something, does not necessarily mean that he’s let us in on the secret.  There’s a fundamental difference between God’s knowledge, and man’s!

Therefore, even though God may know all the ins and outs of my life, I’m still stumbling through it.

What’s more, God knowing, and God willing are two different things.  He can know I will disobey his commandment, while ceding me the freedom to do just that.  The amazing “simultaneous equation” of it all is that “All things work towards the good, for those who trust in God.”  That is, although humanity is constantly departing from his will, through misunderstanding, mistake and outright abuse of freedom, God is somehow working it all out for those who love him.

Bottom line?  Big difference between what God knows and what I know.  Recognizing this is part of the plan.

Today’s liturgy talks of Jonah.  You know what?  Those Ninevites were confirmed bad guys, and Jonah was right to shun them.  But through Jonah’s preaching (and God’s mysterious action) they too came to know, love and worship God.  I hope the same holds true here, not out of some threat of eternal punishment.  But because heaven wouldn’t be the same, with God crying big tears over Oliver’s condemnation - it might spoil the whole thing for all of us.

@Matty B
You’re a good man, Matt B.  Unfortunately there are a lot of us that might (like Jonah) get a little miffed that the Ninevites didn’t get blasted.  It’s like the prodigal son’s brother, “Hey!  Where’s my fatted-calf party?”

I had a few responses now that I have time, but it seem most here are more interested in shuning swines. I’ll let you continue with your hate fest.

Craig:

I wish they were heathens.  What they are is close-minded bigots who insult beliefs they don’t understand and then whine about “hate”.  I have no time for such stuff.  It appears you are coming to understand a bit of why I don’t as you struggle to reason with the most unreasonable type of homo sapiens on earth: the worshipper of the intellect.

@Craig - “Do your *really* think that Christianity teaches that you have to give everything to the poor and be homeless?  Really, really?”

No, I don’t. But you criticized Oliver for being selfish because giving to the poor or helping was not the only point of his life. So I was just saying that except for a few extremely rare people, nobody makes helping others the main point and priority of their lives, and that is independent of whether you are a Christian or not.

So your portrayal of Oliver as selfish is not valid, that was my only point.

@ Craig, Amy - Back to Pascal’s wager, I wonder what Christians think about applying it to Islam. I mean, Christians deny that Mohamed was a prophet of God, that the Quran contains His words, that they should follow. According to some Muslims, this means that Christians will go to Hell, together with the Atheists.

So my question is, if Christians believe that Pascal’s wager is a correct way of confronting Atheists, why haven’t they converted to Islem yet?

@ Thomas - Moral and ethics are taught, yes. It doesn’t mean they come from God though. Moral and ethics exist in all human societies, atheist, monotheist, polytheist, everywhere. Every single human society has come up with a set of rules so they can live together.

Killing each other in particular is an obvious threat to the balance of society, whether you believe in God or not. Stealing is a danger for that balance too. So it’s no wonder that nearly all human societies have rules against killing and stealing, and many others such as adultery (which is an obvious problem for people wanting biological heirs, independently of a belief in God).

So sure, moral and ethics are learnt. But they were built with time from an obvious need of stability in society. They don’t come from a book. It’s the other way around. Moral and ethics were made by humans, who then wrote them in a book.

The world is not made only of Christians and Atheists, morals and ethics exist everywhere, even in places where people have never heard of Christianity.

All that to say that Christianity is not a requirement to have ethics, and Atheism doesn’t prevent from having rules either, it’s just unrelated.

Wow… I go away for a few hours and I missed quite a lot:

@Craig:
“You’re right.  You don’t have to go to school, find a job, a spouse, buy a house, have kids.  All those things would require some pain and sacrifice.  You can just….hmm…I dunno…sit around taking bong hits and playing x-box?”

Ouch, the x-box card. After such a profound comeback, what’s left to say. I guess I should stop there.

@Mark:
thank you for summing up exactly what I thought about the author of this article: “unreasonable type of homo sapiens on earth: the worshipper of the intellect.”
There, you said it. The shame of this earth is actually people who try to reason and rationalize. Nothing to add here either.

@Amy (and @Matt):
Glad there is a couple of people I can have an discussion with. Sorry to bring back the same points, but I still haven’t heard any convincing argument against.
Amy: again, I did not deny the various denomination have different points of view and teachings. I’m aware of this. But it doesn’t answer the question. What you and Matt are basically saying is that god knows all that is going to happen but you don’t. Hence, you have free will. That only gives you in fact the illusion of free will. There is still a fundamental logical contradiction. Free will requires a completely undecided future where you are free to go whichever way you want (or at least can). If the future is known, you’re just going down one path.
This is not a matter of teaching and I’m not trying to convert you to calvinism or other brand of christianity.
I am yet to see a convincing argument against what I said. In fact, I feel like people eventually respond with an untenable argument of the like: “yeah, but it’s god so it’s different. You can’t understand”. Fair enough. But this is just a polite version of the infamous “SHUT UP” that Mr Shea likes to attribute to atheists.

Matt: “He sees God as a great bully, not a loving father.”

I don’t see god as anything as I don’t believe. I’m only saying that the description you make regarding the choice you’d be given make it sound a lot like a bully. You still haven’t got past the point “yeah, but it’s god so it’s different. You can’t understand”.

“He considers eternal life a tedious bore, not an endless adventure.  He prefers the limitations of his own mind, to yielding to the divine pneuma.  How sorry.”

If there was an eternal life, I’d be more than happy to embrace it. But as long as I have no proof of it, I’ll stick to “the limitations of my own mind”.

As a form of a small conclusion:
What’s interesting with your replies (and most religious people’s reply in fact) is that you assume that atheists know god and eternal life exist, but chose not to care (because they’d be, say, narrow-minded hedonists playing the xbox in their parents basement). You’re failing to see that atheists don’t believe. Really, they don’t. They don’t believe in this any more than you believe the world is carried on the back of giant turtle cruising through space…
Using religious arguments, tautologies and bible verses has no more effect when it comes to convert an atheist, than logic to when it comes to convert a christian. </end of digression>

@ Oliver - Indeed, very often they assume that somewhere deep inside we believe in God, but we just refuse to admitt it. It’s a convenient way of avoiding questionning their beliefs. I think the reason is that to them it is so natural that God would exist, they can’t understand that somebody else, in their healthy mind, wouldn’t feel the same.

And quite often the only explanation they find is that we do feel it, but we don’t admitt it by arrogance, or we refuse it for selfishness, or we were hurt by religion in the past and react out of protection, but it’s much more simple than that, we just don’t believe it, sanely, without hiding anything, without protecting anything.

They cannot acknowledge the fact that on our side, it is a deep non-belief just as deep as their belief. They can’t accept our disbelief is genuine otherwise it threatens their belief. The fact that some people could, while being totally sane and honnest, refuse their belief, means that their belief is not that obviously true, it’s not the only possibility for living well in our society. Our existence is a permanent reminder of this fact which they have a lot of difficulties assimilating. As long as they can’t understand that, they will remain angry and insulting.

But some of them are bigger persons than that and are able to admitt the honesty of atheists. Fortunately, some Christians are able to look at atheists without seeing dishonnest selfish hedonists, but just honnest people genuinely disagreeing, ready to debate anything.

I did not mention God I asked you where you got your values and what is the basis of them. Except for the atheist who does concern themselves with God, all the others you mentioned comw from a belief in God or the transendant spirit greater then ones self. Like I said all men seek God and even Amy is still hear and wondering. Anyways for the most part since the beginig of time and or civilization all have looked for God does not matter if you are mono poly theist etc, that would all except the post 20th century Atheist that mostly came with the teachings of Marx and Darwin and the rather new school of Dialectic materialism. Now this may shock you but Christian, Jew, Muslim , Hindu, Budhist all believe in God and most other faiths not mention do also. That is most of the world. Atheism is just and intellectual movement that loves to feel different and smug. The quwstion was where did you get your values and ethics from. Someone gave you your right to party, understand. Gee I just quoted the Beasty Boys. God bless you Amy., Pax and love. Dr Thomas

I’m a medical doctor, send me the medical records—including the paramedic reports—and I’ll make my own decision about the alleged miracle.  Or better yet, show me the refereed medical journal where an expert editorial board reviewed the case and determined that this was no natural explanation for the outcome.  Short of that, I don’t buy it.  And it’s that I have a “doctrine against” miracles, it’s just that I’ve never seen viable evidence for one. 

Such an extraordinary claim requires at least some valid evidence. 

You believe in miracles because you want to believe in miracles.  Fine.  Why the snark about “dogmatic atheists”?  I would think someone with his ticket already punched for heaven wouldn’t be so pissed off.

@sebgur - “According to some Muslims, this means that Christians will go to Hell, together with the Atheists.”  Sebgur, you are certainly fixated on “hell”. Couple of points, “according to some Muslims”, sounds like some Muslims are of the opinion certain groups will go to hell which doesn’t mean anything to me. Secondly, I’ve made a choice to be a Christian. And here it comes again….FREE WILL….I CHOOSE to cooperate with God’s grace and follow Christ. Catholics believe that all public revelation has ended until Christ comes again.

@Oliver - My ultimate destiny and yours is pretty much based entirely if we cooperate with God’s grace. God provides all of us with the opportunity to cooperate with the grace He sends us. But we can accept it or reject it. Salvation is a free gift offered to all (we don’t earn it) but we need to choose to accept it or reject it (free will) and cooperate with God’s grace and make the decision to follow Christ and all that he asks of us in this life. We don’t know necessarily what we are going to choose tomorrow or next year but God does. However it does not make free will an illusion. There are no illusions in Christianity. Catholic theology teaches that those who believe in God and want to be with God for all eternity and die in the state of grace will not be lost. God does not choose for us; we choose and He gives us what we want. Time and time again God will provide us with the grace to cooperate with His Divine Will and because God is love He would never ever desire that any human being be lost. That is not who God is. He loves each and every single person as if we were the only person that existed on earth. It does not matter if we are Christian, or Jewish or Muslim or nothing! That is something that is very important to remember. We are all precious in His sight and all that He desires is that we love Him. We do this by responding to His grace.

@ Thomas - Atheism started long before the 20th century, it did not originate or come with Darwin or Marxism, those just used it as a part of their thinking.

Budhism does not strictly speaking have a God, although some versions of it do. Anyway, that’s not the point. Most, if not all, societies have religions, with God, or gods. That doesn’t mean morals and ethics come from them. People come up with ethics whether they believe in a God or not, why is it so difficult to understand? As Oliver said, even animals have rules when they live in a group…

@ Amy - ““According to some Muslims, this means that Christians will go to Hell, together with the Atheists.”  Sebgur, you are certainly fixated on “hell”.

I’m not fixated on something I don’t believe exists…

“Couple of points, “according to some Muslims”, sounds like some Muslims are of the opinion certain groups will go to hell which doesn’t mean anything to me.”

Well then, if you are not aware of it, let me explain to you that some Christians believe Atheists will go to Hell, and some don’t. Same thing for Muslims.

” Secondly, I’ve made a choice to be a Christian.  “

So what’s your point? Amy, I’m not talking about your motivation to be a Christian, there are plenty of reasons why people might want to be Christians. I’m talking about Christians using the threat of hell to push atheists or other believers to become Christians, as earlier in this thread.

And I was explaining to you that Pascal’s wager works both way. If it is a valid point to convert to Christianity, then you must admit it is equally valid to convert to Islam. Or it is not a valid point at all, and Christians should stop using it.

At some point you need to be consistent. You can’t have it all, use it when it’s convenient against Atheists, and forget about it when it’s bothering with Muslims…

So I’m asking again, Amy, and other members of this post, is Pascal’s wager valid or not in your opinion, and if you believe it is, then why would it push people Atheists to Christianity rather than Islam or why wouldn’t it push Christians to Islam or any other religion with punishments for non-followers?

Can’t anyone see a problem with the logics here?

Amy for the most part atheism is a 20th century intellectual philosphy. I guess forms of it were around but historicallty it is insignifigant. Now, where did you get your values and ethics think about it. God bless you. Dr Thomas

Oiver,thanks for responding to my comment.  I have a question for you: when it comes to the truths of science, do you systematically examine each one you take for truth, or do you take the word of scientist whom you know and trust?  I would guess, unless you are a nobel laureate in every field, with endless time to devote to examinations, you take the word of people with specific knowledge - whom you trust.

Why then can’t you concede the evidence-value of testimony or witness, especially in regard to religious knowledge or experience?  Do you believe that so many people could be so seriously deceived into a common, remarkably consistent, and really quite exquisitely structured view of reality?  Or develop such a view independent of an underlying reality?  What are the mathematical possibilities of this?

Just as an aside, the Knox girl who was convicted in an Italian court was released yesterday: faulty interpretation of (fool-proof) DNA evidence.  Apparently even ironclad scientifically based evidence is subject to mishandling.  Apparently there’s a human element even in the white-coated world of forensics.

sebgur, Pascal’s wager is for “losers and fools.”  It must have been intended by him as a kind of a joke on taunting atheists, one they will only “get” when the time comes to pick up their chips, and they find they have far fewer than they had imagined.

The punch line of the joke is that, while atheists (or really hedonists) consider that they’re really “living the life,” their life is really a paltry dessicated seed which has failed to germinate.  (This they only find out when their eyes are opened.)

Believers, on the other hand, even if they undergo great suffering, much persecution, and even humiliating death, are far happier, more fulfilled, and vastly more fruitful than unbelievers.  There is a principle of life flowing through their lives which animates not just their beliefs, but also everything they touch and do.  This luminous quality is portrayed in religious art as aureoles, or light surrounding people of faith.  You’ve probably seen it.

On the other hand, not to be too “judgmental” about it, unbelivers are depicted as part-man, part-animal, twisted with “elemental passions” into distorted caricatures of human beings.  This is the testimony of classical art.  Contemporary art just shows the contorted images, without the saintly ones.  I wonder what that says about art, or society?

@Oliver
Hah!  I didn’t realize their was an ‘x-box’ card.  Is that like the race card?  Are video gamers discriminated against?  Or is, “You play x-box!” the type of pejoritive that is thrown out to intimidate opponents and stifle debate?  I would be really interested to hear an explanation.

I wasn’t trying to stereo-type you.  I was just trying to imagine the answer to the question, “What is it that people who’s main occupation in life is ‘enjoyment’ and don’t think ‘pain and sacrafice’ should necessarily be part of the equation, do with their lives?”  Get high and have fun is what came to mind.  What do you think?

I would never stoop so low as to say something about your mother’s basement.  And I didn’t.  Did you bring it up because it’s part of the atheist stereo-type?

BTW opening your mind to other possibilities will not force you to stop playing, move out, sober up, or anthing else that you fear.

@ Thomas - Atheism has been around for millenia. It is present in Hindu and Ancient Greek philosophies and already existed as early as 600BCE. Just read around, these informations are easy to find. So if you want to call these philosophies insignificant, it’s up to you, but you’re pretty much insulting two of the most important civilisations of our History.

Second, I do think about where I get my ethics, and I already answered your question. My ethics come from choices that started millenia ago when we started living in organized societies and we realized such things as killing or stealing were not good for us. These rules existed before Christianity, Judaism or Islam, then incorporated some concepts from these religions, and others, some from philosophies, and later dropped some of these, and gained others, in a dynamically evolving process, until today.

My ethics comes from all these, like everybody else for that matters. Both you and I choose what we take and what we refuse in this big pool of rules and ideas. I choose according to what I find reasonable and what can lead to a peaceful society. Some of my important focus are peace, tolerance of differences, and equality of chances. Sometimes I agree with Atheist concepts, sometimes with religious ones, sometimes with Asian or Western philosophies, it depends on the subject, because I don’t believe any single culture/religion/philosophy got the best answer on all subjects.

Now, Thomas, everybody makes choices on what they follow, not just Atheists. Religious people as well, for example Christians chosing what they accept and what they reject in the Bible (don’t get me started on the Leviticus). So what’s your point?

@sebgur - “some Christians believe Atheists will go to Hell, and some don’t.” I’m Catholic and I believe in Catholic theology only and so I speak only from a Catholic perspective. That being said, Catholics believe that humans cannot judge anyone’s final destiny. That is left to God alone so that is my position as well.

“I’m talking about Christians using the threat of hell to push atheists or other believers to become Christians, as earlier in this thread.” I can only speak for myself and I don’t use this kind of language. As a Christian I do believe that Catholic Christianity has the fullness of truth but I am not in the business of threatening anyone. Faith comes to someone through God’s grace. No one can be or should be pushed to faith.

Look, the thing is this. All I know is that I live and I will die. I firmly believe that the “good” Jew, the “good” Muslim, the “good” Christian or the “good ” person who has no knowledge of God but seeks to do good with his limited knowledge and all who know God do God’s will as they know it can be saved. And this is not just my theology; it is Catholic theology. I cannot judge the condition of anyone’s soul including my own. That is known only to God. I do not understand why you and other atheists have rejected that there is a God; only you and God know why you have. I have no ability to judge your final destiny although it is prudent to say that if one persists in rejecting God that he will not be with God in eternity. Where God sends non believers for all eternity I do not know. What I do know is that hell exists and people do go there. It is a “place” for unrepentant sinners but I would never be so presumptuous to say that all atheists are going there. God makes that final call for all of us. If we reject that there is a God then we must be prepared to accept now and at death the consequences associated with that decision. But God does not abandon any on us in this life. It is my hope that all will respond to God’s invitation.

once again insignificant, going back even to the cradle of civilization and ancient native tribes they sought God,Gods or dieties. Even Plato abnd Aristotle looked for those answers. Atheism was not in the main frame . I am sorry most of the world we both live in seek God or the transendant. The question was how did you get your values and ethics, you were born you live on this planet and you have your right to think on differentr terms but they are not unique, nothing new hear. You did not come from another planet I am sure? Someone fought for your right to be a free thinker. You may be a student product that took from the age of reason or the enlightment what suite your tastes at the time , but how did you get your values and ethics, did you have nice people around maybe that influenced you , You tell me who and what are you what is your spirit soul essence etc. You do sound like a freshman in college and I do mean this most kindly. God bless pax and love. Dr Thomas

@Tony61
If you didn’t have a ‘doctrine against miracles’ you wouldn’t be pronouncing this debate dead on arrival.  You just said you needed more evidence, but instead of calling the results inconclusive, you went ahead and made a final judgment.  How does that work?  Demand more evidence and then declare the case closed before it can be reviewed.

If you really cared about the answer you would go look for the evidence yourself.  I believe there are some privacy issues with medical information, but you would know as a doctor, better than me.

The wager is fine if you do not choose the wager then fold your hand. It is your choice I see no harm hear so do not be mean . God bless you, Dr Thomas

@ Matt B - Thanks for your answer. Finally somebody admitts Pascal’s wager is a joke and it doesn’t have its place in a serious debate.

“atheists (or really hedonists) consider that they’re really “living the life,” their life is really a paltry dessicated seed which has failed to germinate…
Believers, on the other hand, even if they undergo great suffering, much persecution, and even humiliating death, are far happier, more fulfilled, and vastly more fruitful than unbelievers.”

How can you possibly measure the level of my happiness while you don’t know me at all? You might have an opinion about Atheists but you don’t know me and you don’t know anything about my life. Happiness is a feeling, and you can’t feel my feelings, so you can’t know my level of happiness, period. How arrogant do you have to be to tell people you don’t even know how much more something you are than them…

This is insulting, and pathetic. Is this type of attitude considered as acceptable here?

Sounds to me that you are unable to debate and reason calmly so you’re just trying to convince yourself how great you are. Very grown up. Congratulations, you just lost all credibility.

  There is a principle of life flowing through their lives which animates not just their beliefs, but also everything they touch and do.  This luminous quality is portrayed in religious art as aureoles, or light surrounding people of faith.  You’ve probably seen it.

On the other hand, not to be too “judgmental” about it, unbelivers are depicted as part-man, part-animal, twisted with “elemental passions” into distorted caricatures of human beings.  This is the testimony of classical art.  Contemporary art just shows the contorted images, without the saintly ones.  I wonder what that says about art, or society?
“

@Thomas - “The wager is fine if you do not choose the wager then fold your hand. It is your choice I see no harm hear so do not be mean . “

But again that’s not an answer to my question… I’m not talking about my choice. Now I’m thinking the wager is a logical fallacy and I’d like to know if Christians still think it is valid or not, and if they do, what’s their logics?

Christians don’t believe that Islam promising them punishment is real, so the wager can’t work on them.
Atheists don’t believe Christianism promising them punishment is real, so the wager can’t work on them.
So the wager is pointless.
So why do Christians keep using it so often?

@Matt B: “I have a question for you: when it comes to the truths of science, do you systematically examine each one you take for truth, or do you take the word of scientist whom you know and trust?  I would guess, unless you are a nobel laureate in every field, with endless time to devote to examinations, you take the word of people with specific knowledge - whom you trust.”

Matt, While I ‘trust’ that scientist have more knowledge that I, I don’t accept their conclusions with ‘certainty’. They show me facts, a workable theory followed by a lenitive conclusion based on current facts.

I’ve been arguing against the big bang theory and against the existence of the Higgs boson for years.

“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” ~ Bertrand Russell

‘lenitive’ should be ‘tentative’. sorry.

@segbur
The wager is packed with the assuptions of Pascal’s day.  Nobody said it was perfect.  It can be rephrased as “Would you rather try to spend your time on earth trusting, hoping, and loving…or whatever it is that atheists do.”

@Psy - “The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” ~ Bertrand Russell I have known some highly intelligent people and they are some of the ignorant people on the planet.

Psy- I wonder if Russell ripped off Yeats, or vice versa?

sebgur, If I now have no credibility, it’s a step up from where I was before.  Your passionate outburst of indignation tells me I’ve hit a nerve: thou protesteth overmuch. 

If you’re able to “debate and reason calmly,” you obviously don’t care about the outcome.  I’m not like a man who’s “shadowboxing,” I compete for the prize.

I don’t need to “best” anyone at word games to confirm my self-image.  I’m really concerned about you.  I want to see you experience fullness of life.  What’s really sad is that simple groundlings, eating dirt in the third world, with no education and not the foggiest notion of cellular biology or advanced physics - are winning the prize.  While the “new man of science” is suffering under fatal delusion and doubt, and capitulating to engines of nihilism that were perfected in WWI and led to the decapitation of life in Europe and the West.  You’re a refugee from the trenches, segbur, and still suffering civilizational post traumatic stress disorder.

Come away from the captivity.  Release yourself.

Matt B ~ “I wonder if Russell ripped off Yeats, or vice versa?”

I don’t know, while the quote is a sweeping generalization, I often find it observable in the world.

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
WB Yeats “The Second Coming”

I have to believe Yeats was mocking Russell.  He was an avid spiritualist in a world of feckless British empiricism.

Craig Roberts,
Who said the issue of miracles was “dead on arrival”?  Those are your words, not mine.  I said, “Such an extraordinary claim requires at least some valid evidence.”  I’m not even asking for extraordinary evidence.

Yes, there are confidentiality issues with medical records, but the family can release them.  This is 2011, we have an internet, release them. Do you believe in the tooth fairy without evidence?

Mark claims, via Chesterton, that “athesits” have a “doctrine” against miracles.  No.  That is completely wrong.

=“I have to believe Yeats was mocking Russell.”

I didn’t read it that way, but I don’t know the context of the quote.

=“Mark claims, via Chesterton, that “athesits” have a “doctrine” against miracles.  No.  That is completely wrong.”

From my perspective, (I can’t speak for others) I would think it great if someone could demonstrate a ‘miracle’. It would to wonders for our understanding of the physical law we can observe.

@Tony61
The parents have evidence and they have passed it on to us via the article.  But that’s not enough for you.  They probably have already made the medical records public and would be happy to show them to anybody with a sincere desire to see them.  But that’s not good enough, they need to come to you.  You’re not going to contact them.  Why?  Your doctrine won’t allow you to follow your own inquiry.  Your doctrine says that it would not matter how extraordinary the evidence was, you’re not going to start believing in God, and so the evidence must be denied.  Therefore it would be a waste of time.

@Tooth Fairy
The quarter under my pillow is all the evidence I need to tell me that somebody has been there.  Atheism doesn’t say, “Your mom left the quarter.”  It says, “This quarter doesn’t prove anything.”

Craig Roberts: “you’re not going to start believing in God, and so the evidence must be denied.”

Evidence is evidence, its the steps to the conclusion that are in question.

“They probably have already made the medical records public…”

Yeah, probably.  We’ll never know.  I have read several articles on the case and there is never a cross-reference to the actual records, which is de riguer for any medical case presentation.

Maybe a miracle did happen, who knows?  You say, “Your doctrine won’t allow you to follow your own inquiry.”  I’ll be blunt: you do not know me.  You have no idea about me or my “doctrines.”  It seems you are the one who believes stuff based on nothing… and I’m supposed to trust that a miracle happened?  Without valid evidence?  Please.

I have no problem with people believing stuff, I just find it odd that Mark goes off about “atheist dogma” because we expect to use the senses and reason that God supposedly bestowed upon us.  Why the snark?

The serious dilemma presented by this string is that nobody believes that ANYONE constitutes a valid witness.  Everybody is “flying with the tooth fairy.”  Do you see what a critical failure that is for social cohesion.  Do you see what that says even about secular trust - the kind that keeps economies running, allows us to submit to medical specialists, and even fosters the homespun belief that our children are our own.

Religious faith is one thing, but this erosion in basic trust and confidence in our fellow man has left us basically unable to do anything!  So many atheists claim that “social traits are the result of natural selection.”  If that’s true, we’re doomed.

The great secular feast of Halloween is fast upon us.  Now I know why people dress up as demons goblins and ghouls.  They’re just “coming out” as the humans (all-too-human) they really are.  Modern art done large.

Let us know when you are done proselytizing Mark.

I’m sorry, that should be Matt B.

@Tony61
I know you’re a person, a doctor, and an atheist.  How do I know?  I’ve read your comments.  A whole lot can be extrapolated by just those few things.  You’re a doctor?  You’ve spent a long time in school.  You’re a person?  You were created in the image of God.  An atheist?  You don’t think you were created by God.

I’m not going to waste my time and yours demanding that you prove that you’re not a machine, or just some kid playing…well I’m sure Oliver could tell you the stereo-type.  The point is atheists, who claim to be the most reasonable people, make unreasonable demands when it comes to the evidence required to establish truth.  Super-skepticism is just a defense mechanism for holding the truth at bay.

@ Matt. B - “Your passionate outburst of indignation tells me I’ve hit a nerve: thou protesteth overmuch. “

You’re cute. You insult people you don’t even know, telling them that their lives are dessicated and yours is much happier. And when they answer that you’re wrong and complain about your insults, you tell them they react too much. You sound like a teasing school girl. You didn’t hit a nerve at all. I’m happily married with a great job that pays well and is interesting. I have free time to spend with my family, think, read, learn. And in that free time, I thought I would try to talk with people with different faith than me and see how they think.

Instead of that, I meet someone who doesn’t know me and declares that his life is so much better than mine because of whatever reason. Feels like talking to you is a waste of time, but just for the road…

“If you’re able to “debate and reason calmly,” you obviously don’t care about the outcome.  I’m not like a man who’s “shadowboxing,” I compete for the prize.”

Congratulations! You won the prize of the best insult and contempt.

“I want to see you experience fullness of life.”

Don’t worry so much for me, I have experienced a lot, lived in several countries, met many people, experienced several jobs, and a loving family around me. I have a fulfilling life, I certainly don’t need you to worry.

“What’s really sad is that simple groundlings, eating dirt in the third world, with no education and not the foggiest notion of cellular biology or advanced physics - are winning the prize.  While the “new man of science” is suffering under fatal delusion and doubt, and capitulating to engines of nihilism that were perfected in WWI and led to the decapitation of life in Europe and the West. “

Says the guy who doesn’t need word games to confirm his self image. Now you’re becoming boring. Your insults are baseless, it’s time to leave you here.

“You’re a refugee from the trenches, segbur, and still suffering civilizational post traumatic stress disorder.

Come away from the captivity.  Release yourself.”

I’ll certainly get released from you now, I have more important things to do with my time than reading you pleasure yourself with your own self-proclaimed greatness.

@ Psy - “Let us know when you are done proselytizing Mark.” *Matt B.

Wouldn’t wait too long Psy, if I were you.

In every such forum there’s a guy like Matt B. Who keeps repeating that his faith/sport/favorite music band/himself is the best and insults everybody who says differently. Usually that guy ends up talking alone because everybody gets tired of him. If it’s about religion, he’ll end up quoting the Bible as if it impressed anyone that he can read.

Matt B. says,
“The serious dilemma presented by this string is that nobody believes that ANYONE constitutes a valid witness.”  Really, is asking for valid evidence—different from a “witness” which can be unreliable—too rigorous? I can understand that evidence of the Resurrection may be hard to obtain, but this medical case should be very accessible.

He adds,
“So many atheists claim that “social traits are the result of natural selection.”  If that’s true, we’re doomed.”  I don’t know about the causation of our eventual doom, but you are correct: we are doomed.  Large mammalian species tend to last 1 to 2 million years—give or take a few hundred million—so yes, eventually humans will be gone.

Craig Roberts,
“The point is atheists, who claim to be the most reasonable people, make unreasonable demands…”

Says you.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I’m just asking for any evidence.  But actually, I’m not even asking for that, because I know the drill and have stopped expecting evidence—but if you have it, please send it.  The purpose of my original comment was just to ask why the anger and snark about “atheist dogma”.  If requiring empiric evidence of physical claims is dogma, then, yes, I’m guilty; but I don’t think that is the proper definition of “dogma”.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/atheist-dogma/#ixzz1Zq318H4x

Waitasec!  Best insult goes to Matt B???  I was robbed!  You guys really don’t know about anything do you…

Can’t you kids just get along. God bless, Dr Thomas

sebgur =“In every such forum there’s a guy like Matt B.”

That is often the case but not the rule. The forum I regularly debate on is extremely civil, informative and productive, I’m sorry they prefer I don’t leave a link to it. The moderator is a Christian and a university mathematician. People are treated like people there, not labeled and targeted.

@ Craig - “The wager is packed with the assuptions of Pascal’s day.”

Finally some answer, thanks. What assumptions are there in the wager that belonged to Pascal’s day and are different today?

“Nobody said it was perfect.  It can be rephrased as “Would you rather try to spend your time on earth trusting, hoping, and loving…or whatever it is that atheists do.””

And again assumptions about an Atheist’s life. You and Matt. B need to give examples because otherwise it’s just wishful thinking. I’m an Atheist, and I have a very nice life filled with love for my family and hope in the future. It’s funny how you two seem unable to accept the idea that Atheists could be happy and able to love. That’s… weird.

To answer your question about what Atheists do, they get up in the morning, kiss their wives and kids good bye, go to work, talk with colleagues, TRUST them, come back home, talk to their kids whom they LOVE, talk with their wives about their common HOPES for the future, and in the week-end they bring their kids to their grand-parent’s place so the whole family can enjoy a day together.

Is that really so different from what believers do?

@ Psy - “That is often the case but not the rule. The forum I regularly debate on is extremely civil, informative and productive, I’m sorry they prefer I don’t leave a link to it. The moderator is a Christian and a university mathematician. People are treated like people there, not labeled and targeted.”

Too bad, I’d be interested to know where it is, I haven’t found any like that until now. I’m sure it’s possible to talk like adults between Christians and Atheists. Here it starts being a little too pointless.

I believe it is all Souls and all Saints for those couple of pagan holiday days , was fun once now i say no and go to mass and pray . God bless, pax Dr Thomas

sebgur=I’m sure it’s possible to talk like adults between Christians and Atheists.

All faiths and non-believers are represented there. Also most there have exceptional IQ’s, logic and reason is not denounced and demonized as it is here.

@ sebgur - Are you raising your children as atheists and if so how do you explain that religion plays such a big part in peoples lives? Life events are bound to involve religion. How do you handle that? What do you,your wife and children do when religious holidays come around?

@ Craig - “The point is atheists, who claim to be the most reasonable people, make unreasonable demands when it comes to the evidence required to establish truth.  Super-skepticism is just a defense mechanism for holding the truth at bay.”

Super-skepticism is a defense against hoaxes, false results, misunderstandings, mistakes. Science works like that, whatever the subject is, it’s not just against miracles. Super-skepticism is a way to reach unambiguous conclusions, not to avoid truth. It has been applied in science for centuries and it’s thanks to super-skepticim that you’re typing a message on your computer today. Without super-skepticism, you’d be carving it on rocks in a cave.

sebgur, I hope I haven’t insulted you up until now, but I’ll go ahead and chance it one more time.  I hear how you’re satisfied with your life, and far from being angry about it, I’m very happy.  You certainly don’t need my permission to enjoy your wife, your family, your job.  I’m glad you do.

My real question is: how do you manage to feel so self-satisfied while denying half of who you are?  If you were to concede that religion and the faith response are “atavistic throwbacks” to medieval/ancient/prehistoric times, then don’t those layers of human development, or accretions of human ontology, figure into the person you are today?

It’s like by assuming this mantle of “modern, scientific” man, you’ve completely disavowed everything mankind has been up until 1910.  This doesn’t pertain exclusively to your own personal biology, which is shaped by human development.  It relates even more consciously to the specific people in your geneology who hoped and believed in God.  You’re cutting yourself off from who you are.

To me, this seems a very radical and unhappy thing to do.  In any event, you can’t be at peace with your ontogeny - which is certainly shaped by faith and religion.

@ Amy - “Are you raising your children as atheists and if so how do you explain that religion plays such a big part in peoples lives? Life events are bound to involve religion. How do you handle that? What do you,your wife and children do when religious holidays come around?”

Good question. I have 2 kids, one is 7, the other one is 2. The 2 year-old boy is a little young for that subject, but the 7 year-old boy goes to Christian teaching once a week, where he learns about the faith and the content of the Bible. I put him there because I wanted him to be knowledgeable in the religion that has been part of western culture for so long (I’m European). However I also tell him about other faiths and cultures so he knows about them too, and he learns that there are other religions and possibilities, including atheism. As my wife is non-western anyway, I find that a dose of international knowledge is only fair.

None of my kids are baptised. When they get older, they will choose if they want to be baptised or not, if they want to stop going to Christian teaching they will be free to do so, as I did when I was young, if they want to take up buddhism or Islam or Atheism, they’ll be free too. We’ll just always talk about it.

As for holidays, it’s not complicated. I explain to them what is the origin of the holiday, whether it’s a pagan holiday or Christian one, because I believe they should know about history and the meaning of events happening in the country where they live.

Why the question? Anyway, me and my wife being a double-culture couple, it’s kind of natural that our kids would know about several possibilities.

@Amy= “Are you raising your children as atheists”

My wife was a devout Christian and we raised our kids to think for themselves, I don’t know what my son believes though I do know he occasionally attend church with his wife’s family. My daughter on the other hand is an atheist as she was put off by constant threats of eternal damnation and bigotry taught at her mothers church.

“how do you manage to feel so self-satisfied while denying half of who you are?”
It would seem that you are making an unwarranted assumption.
“you’ve completely disavowed everything mankind has been up until 1910.”
Hilarious.
“the specific people in your geneology who hoped and believed in God.”
Why should their opinions unduly influence their descendents?  Failure to properly indoctrinate when too young to think for oneself?
“You’re cutting yourself off from who you are.”
Hilarious.
“To me, this seems a very radical and unhappy thing to do.”
Well, you certainly live in a different world - a world of delusion.

Oh no, by sharing my views with animation and warmth, I’ve become… the ANTI-BOB!

“The forum I regularly debate on is extremely civil, informative and productive, I’m sorry they prefer I don’t leave a link to it. The moderator is a Christian and a university mathematician. People are treated like people there, not labeled and targeted.”

But psy, what did you expect, you’re on the Catholic side of the tracks now.  Are you scandalized to find people who care passionately about what they believe, who care deeply about you, and who are willing to talk about it?  You’re in the world of Italian opera now, not French farce.

And just like your interlude with Sophia Loren, you’ll go back to the civilized suburbs of the blogosphere - blogurbia.  You’ll taste tea with your “mathematics professor,” in all the gentility and civility and hand-holding niceness that bloodless watchdogs can muster.  You’ll boast how you countenanced those uncultured Catholic yahoos.  But you’ll have a tough time explaining the tattoo.

To you, too!

@Matt B, I don’t have a common frame of reference with you to understand what your are asking sebgur. Mike McCants has pointed out some of the problem with your questions. What are you talking about? or could someone translate it for us?

@ Amy - In that subject of how it goes in families, both my father and mother were Christians. They were not going to Church often, but they sent me to Christian teaching every week during several years.

They didn’t get me baptised though, considering I should be the one choosing when I’m older. They also gave me books on science and brought me to many museums. At home we were talking about both types of subjects, religious and scientific, as I was curious about both.

Around Junior High school, I started realising that although I enjoyed the Christian teaching class, I enjoyed it from a different point of view as what was supposed to be. I was thinking that many lessons taught by Jesus and the new testament were good and I was trying to apply them in my life, as much as a kid can. But I never really believed that there was God behind that. I always thought that Jesus was a respectable peaceful wise man, and that we should listen to what he had to say, but whether God existed or not was a different story.

The origin of the world and how things work always seemed to me to get a better explanation in science, and when I realised that Christian teaching did not only require me to listen to Jesus’s teaching, but also required me to believe in God, then I stopped going, because that was no longer consistent with how I saw the world, and nothing in the class convinced me I was particularly wrong.

Anyway, under the same education, I became an atheist but my sister decided to be baptised and be involved in Church. Several years later she gave up though, but she is still a Christian.

All that to say that sometimes, Christian parents give freedom to their kids to choose, and I respect my parents for doing so.

@Matt B. “But psy, what did you expect,”

Matt, the low quality of debate here is exactly what I expected. Its bewaring. Yet there are a some here who are worth getting to know.

@ Matt B - “what did you expect, you’re on the Catholic side of the tracks now.  Are you scandalized to find people who care passionately about what they believe”

it’s one thing to be passionate about what you believe, totally understandable, but it’s an other to insult anybody who disagrees.

“who care deeply about you”

Don’t kid yourself. You can’t at the same time say you care about someone and also tell them their life is miserable and you’re so much better than them. Looks like you’re pretty high on giving yourself a good image of… yourself. The caring guy, who insults people… out of love. A big comedy indeed.

bewaring should be ‘boring’. sorry I’m involved with 3 other debate forum and keep getting in a hurry.

@ Matt B. “sebgur, I hope I haven’t insulted you up until now”

joke, right?

“My real question is: how do you manage to feel so self-satisfied while denying half of who you are?”

I don’t see what you mean here so I’m returning your random question. Matt, how do you manage to feel so self-satisfied while denying half of who you are?

The half you’re missing is the one where mankind has used reason and facts over faith in order to advance to where it is now, with the use of tools, technology, and scientific knowledge. I don’t know, just throwing random stuff, like you, maybe one will hit the target.

“If you were to concede that religion and the faith response are “atavistic throwbacks” to medieval/ancient/prehistoric times, then don’t those layers of human development, or accretions of human ontology, figure into the person you are today?”

You mean like all the traces in our body and mind left by Evolution across millions of years? Sure. It’s just that I don’t let our past define our present. We as humans did great things, but also terrible ones, we should keep in mind both. It is our responsibility at each generation to decide what is worth keeping or not. I personally decided that the belief in God was not worth keeping, but that’s just me. You and I both decided that climbing in trees to pick fruits was not worth keeping. So what’s your point?

“It’s like by assuming this mantle of “modern, scientific” man, you’ve completely disavowed everything mankind has been up until 1910.”

What do you mean by that? What happened in 1910?

“It relates even more consciously to the specific people in your geneology who hoped and believed in God.  You’re cutting yourself off from who you are.”

Nope. Who I am is defined by what I choose, and what I choose comes from multiple sources. The generations before me are one source of choice, but not the only one. Happily we don’t always preserve what previous generations did…

“To me, this seems a very radical and unhappy thing to do.  In any event, you can’t be at peace with your ontogeny - which is certainly shaped by faith and religion.”

Sounds like you’re assuming a lot here. Ok, sure, past generations have an impact on us. That’s how we learn and build. But we have free will, don’t we? Amy won’t deny that ;-)
Anyway, our past was shaped by many things, including religion, but religion is far from being the only factor. My parents consider me and love me as their son even if I’m an Atheist and they are Christians. And vice-versa. This conflict between past and present you are talking about, it’s a non-issue, at least in my family.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/atheist-dogma/#ixzz1ZqRcbS4M

@ Matt B. “sebgur, I hope I haven’t insulted you up until now”

joke, right?

“My real question is: how do you manage to feel so self-satisfied while denying half of who you are?”

Simple: I know who I am.

“don’t those layers of human development, or accretions of human ontology, figure into the person you are today?”

You mean like all the traces in our body and mind left by Evolution across millions of years? Sure. It’s just that I don’t let our past decide our present. We as humans did great things, but also terrible ones, we should keep in mind both. It is our responsibility at each generation to decide what is worth keeping or not. I personally decided that the belief in God was not worth keeping, but that’s just me. You and I both decided that climbing in trees to pick fruits was not worth keeping.

In the west we used to take Black people as slaves. We stopped that. Does it mean we don’t know who we are any more?

“It’s like by assuming this mantle of “modern, scientific” man, you’ve completely disavowed everything mankind has been up until 1910.”

What happened in 1910?

“It relates even more consciously to the specific people in your geneology who hoped and believed in God.  You’re cutting yourself off from who you are.”

Who I am is defined by what I choose, and what I choose comes from multiple sources. The generations before me are one source of choice, but not the only one.

“To me, this seems a very radical and unhappy thing to do.  In any event, you can’t be at peace with your ontogeny - which is certainly shaped by faith and religion.”

Sounds like you’re assuming a lot here. Ok, sure, past generations have an impact on us. That’s how we learn and build. But we have free will, don’t we?
Anyway, our past was shaped by many things, including religion, but religion is far from being the only factor. My parents consider me and love me as their son even if I’m an Atheist and they are Christians. And vice-versa. This conflict between past and present you are talking about, it’s a non-issue, at least in my family.

@sebgur and @psy - Thank you both for sharing.

I am very involved in my parish and my husband and I teach religion to adults who are interested in becoming Catholic. Some have never been baptized. Some are Christians from another tradition. We also catechize children over the age of seven who have never been baptized or completed their Sacraments of Christian Initiation. I have heard more than once parents tell us that they felt the children should choose what religion they would like to follow when they get older. I always found this kind of odd. I personally don’t believe in that approach. It has been my experience that a conflict usually arises down the road when those same children read adulthood and usually when they begin planning a marriage. We always remind parents that they are the primary educators of their children.

Thank you for your response Amy, I hope you and your husband continue to find your lives fulfilling.

@ Amy - “I have heard more than once parents tell us that they felt the children should choose what religion they would like to follow when they get older. I always found this kind of odd. I personally don’t believe in that approach.”

Thanks for you response Amy.
I understand the feeling. As a parent, since we believe we are right, it is difficult not to teach children what we believe is correct. The line is not easy to draw between necessary education and abusive use of authority to impose opinions on people who don’t have a choice. But it worked in my childhood, so I know it’s possible, and I think it is a very healthy education. It leads to good analysis skills and tolerance to difference, 2 important qualities for success in life and personal relations.

“It has been my experience that a conflict usually arises down the road when those same children read adulthood and usually when they begin planning a marriage.”

I guess it depends on who they marry. If religion is a very important factor in someone’s life and they can’t accept a little difference in their household, then it’s better if they make that clear from the beginning and choose who they start a relationship with.

I have missed several days and trying ti catch up, I can address only a few issues: 1 what was Aquinas’ 1st argument for thevexistence of God help me out here….that each thing is dependent on another which was its creator…a chair, it’s maker, the artist his creator, etc….until we come to the first cause which is rather circular in that he must be eternal, implying neither beginning or end; nether less we are here so something or someone was eternal…
2. Why is science considered other than God? Its laws came from somewhere—why not an Ultimate Mind, the discovery of it’s laws being only partial so far? So why is a miracle not an action of this Creator, done in such a way that we have not yet uncovered its mysterious law, I.e., supernatural, if you will. Why is medicine not part of thus supernatural gift. Sometimes it works according to expectations, sometimes not. Perhaps the lattervwe may term a miracle. We may believe Bishop sheen’s intervation was one cause—or not. We will not know in this life.
3 why on earth do some think that believers are motivated ny fear of a diety? Never crossed my mind.
4. .“Raise up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it” surely wasn’t true for me! Myfather was a Mason, ,y mom never mentioned the idea of God. I was not allowed to join the Catholic Church which for no discernible reason I was drawn to as a teenager though I knew no Catholics and few Christian Protestants. With all my heart I have regretted that I spent most of my life as an agnostic wandering around searching for something I knew must be there but could not find and following thorny, miserable paths. Pure grace is all I can credit for completely changing this in one brief moment at the age of 50. Actually I was reading a book on reincarnation when out of the blue I had a Heart,  spirit, brain….whatever…transplant and knew once and for all that Jesus was and is the Son of God. Exactly the opposite of my upbringing. All I can figure is that God knew I actually was seeking truth and, knowing that I would wander all my life in desert places, He just had mercy and implanted the surety—which I would give my life at any time.
5. Having spent many years studying physics and living with you, and being engaged to a Nobel Laueate in Science, I have much gratitude and respect for thus queen of science. And Medicine as well, as it is prominent in my family. But now I know whou created the laws that govern both. May He come to all who put aside their own convictions and ask humbly for Truth. He will not deny you.

@Maggie McC - Your post is incredibly beautiful and touching because it comes from the depths of your heart. As St. Augustine said, “our heats are restless, Lord, until they rest in you”. When the Holy Spirit infused in your heart and mind that Jesus is the Son of God that was your personal miracle. God does these kinds of things all the time. When we search with an open heart God will come in. If we insist on scientific answers to everything we shut God out. You are so right, Jesus will not deny anyone who seeks Him with a sincere heart.

@Maggie McC

Stories like that fascinate me—it is about the opposite of my story, oh well—and I appreciate the sentiment.  It’s a Holy Spirit thing, some have it, some don’t.  Now, inform Mark that snark about “atheist dogma” sounds like anger directed at people who are deficient is some saving force and raging at them seems like he’s picking on the handicapped, or something.  Where’s the compassion? Odd that.

@Tony61 - I can understand how you might feel there is a certain amount of hostility being directed at you. I don’t believe in being hostile towards anyone who doesn’t believe in God provided they are respectful in their conversation. I am a believer but it’s only by God’s grace. I good easily be on the other side of the fence. I don’t say this to appear that somehow I am better. No, it’s only because I responded to God’s call. That grace is available to all of us. We just have to take the first step and move towards God.

@Amy—Actually, I felt no hostility from you, and Mark’s is something I’m intrigued by.  Having been away from Catholicism for 3 decades until about a year ago, I never remembered such derision of the unfaithful as being part of the catechism or practice of Catholicism—not to mention the just plain error of the definition of “dogma” (as in the title of this blog—the recent blogpost titled “Human Toothaches”, referring to US soldiers, is another example).

None of my buddies growing up have left the Catholic Church and in some cases their faith has grown stronger, yet we all seem to maintain a cordial relationship.  I have never thought of the RCC as evil, and if I believed that there was a God whose nature we could discern I would likely still be a practicing Catholic. I just don’t see how anyone can conjure a Knowledge of God and His Purpose from anything written in the literature of Scripture or elsewhere, but that’s another issue.

@Tony61 Re:  Mark the snark
I used to give Mark a lot of grief for being snide and condescending towards atheists and oddballs.  I told him that he should set a better example and all that.  After gaining a little more experience with commenters (like you) I realized that I was being to harsh on him.  As Mark pointed out, you and your ilk love to taunt sweet and sincere people like Amy, Maggie McC, and Matt B, with no intention of seriously considering their points of view.  In short, you’re acting in bad faith (no pun intended).

I think (I can only speculate) that Mark takes a tough love approach to those that claim to be debating when they are just heckling.  Like a teacher dealing with a disruptive student that keeps blurting out, “This is all a waste of time!  I can’t do this!  I refuse to try!” in a math class, Mark just draws the line so that those that want to try aren’t put off.  He realizes that one of the favorite techniques for scoffers is to turn around and accuse him of being unfair after he has said something snarky.  But your intention is just to make him feel bad.  You’re not going to listen if he’s nice.  He knows that you’re not here to seriously consider and talk about different view points.  You’re just here to complain that miracles can’t happen, and there’s not ‘evidence’, and anybody that believes is a sap, and God is the same thing as the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster.  Failing to make a coherent case you resort to, “Mark’s a meanie.”
 

I can’t really disagree that Mark can be rude.  (It would be pretty silly of me since I spent so much time ripping him for not being a saint)  But he’s not a meanie by nature.  It’s just (occasionally) his way of dealing with close-minded hecklers that have no intention of listening, and are arguing in bad faith.

@Tony61 - If Craig is correct in his assessment of you and your intentions for being on this blog are not honorable, I’m not worried. God will correct the imbalance when you get to the other side. :-)

PS:  Try praying to God and ask Him if He’s real. Better yet, visit a Catholic Church and pray.

@Tony61 Re:  Mark the snark

You don’t know how often Mark simply holds his tongue when being baited.  It takes strength and compassion to not retaliate when you’re being mercilessly taunted by people that don’t even realize how ill equipped they are to get into a flame-fest, much less a debate regarding the most profound and subtle aspects of life.

“As Mark pointed out, you and your ilk love to taunt sweet and sincere people like Amy, Maggie McC, and Matt B, with no intention of seriously considering their points of view.”
Booo.  How do you know that someone has “no intention of seriously considering their points of view”?  What if someone has “seriously considered their point of view” and rejected it?
1) “until we come to the first cause”  Considered and rejected.
2) “Its laws came from somewhere”  Considered and rejected.
3) “why do some think that believers are motivated by fear of a deity?”
Because little children are taught that they will go to hell if they are “bad”.  This should be considered “child abuse”.  Pascal’s Wager.  What if you are wrong?  Motivated by a fear of hell.  Considered and rejected.
4) “Raise up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it”  In other words, indoctrinate children when they are too young to think critically.
5) “But now I know who created the laws that govern both.”  Considered and rejected.

Bottom line:  Of course you have no “evidence” and absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  And there is that little “problem of evil”.

“@Maggie McC - Your post is incredibly beautiful and touching because it comes from the depths of your heart.”
And it shows the absence of a critically-thinking brain.

“I told him that he should set a better example”
Yes, he should.  Writing what are essentially lies about atheism is setting a very poor example.

“It all depends on a priori philosophical (and deeply emotional, not rational) commitments to atheistic materialism.”
This is simply false - a lie.

“Catholics go and see whether Mary has turned up at Lourdes.”
Hilarious nonsense.  Where are the video recordings?
“Atheists stay at home”
Simply a lie.
“It [atheism] is a close-minded and dogmatic creed”
Simply a lie.
“The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them…”
Simply a lie.
“It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence”
This is a misuse of the word “evidence”.  You have no “evidence”.
“it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed.”
Simply a lie.
So he has set and he continues to set a very poor example.  But he cannot do otherwise and maintain his faith (belief without evidence).

@Mike McCants
Thanks Mikey.  You’re timing is impeccable.  Unfortunately I took a vow never to pick on you again after our last little exchange over at Jennifer Fulwiler’s blog.  So forgive me for being brief.  Blessed are the peacemakers!

must….resist….mocking!

@Craig Roberts I’m heartened that you apparently know my motivations so well, and I would be interested in why you think I’m “taunting” anyone.  Maybe you are correct that Mark views himself as a teacher and perhaps I’m just not responding to his teaching technique.  If I ever had a teacher who showed that much hostility, I don’t remember him/her, and for good reason.  Honestly, I’m more attracted to @Amy ‘s approach and I’m not above trying the praying thing. 

Here’s the deal: I plead ignorance; I’m not saying I’m right, I’m just wondering why it’s so important to convince nonbelievers that a miracle is a physical earthly event.  If the parents believe that Fulton Sheen saved their baby, fine.  If a billion people believe that Christ rose from the dead, great.  The case is that you are asking us to believe something that we don’t; either you have the Holy Spirit or you don’t.  I might be disappointed that my cat won’t fetch a ball, but at the time I don’t get all snarky on it either… I just go play with my dog who gets it. I don’t write blogs entitled “Feline Dogma” or “Feline Toothaches” in order to teach my cat a lesson.

My frustration with the Fulton Sheen thing is that there really is evidence somewhere and it’s not being made available.  If this really did happen the way the parents say it did—and I’ve dealt with enough parents to know they sometimes they get it confused in such an emotional situation—then I would think these believing Catholics would be ecstatic to share the details of their good news.  Who knows, like Fatima, maybe thousands would convert.  I realize that I’m deficient in the Holy Spirit, but the case seems odd and the shrieking defensiveness of guys like Mark only increase my skepticism.

@Tony61
Good for you!  Seriously, no sarcasm.  You picked out the most straight-forward, sincere, and effective advice on the board!  Thank you Amy!

Hopefully you’re not just saying you’ll do your homework so you can get back to trying to change the subject to what a jerk Mark is.  I know.  You know how I know?  Because I used to be that guy!

Unfortunately, our motives are sometimes a mystery even to ourselves.  Regarding your demands for acceptable evidence, since you refuse to consider all arguments, let me try a joke:

This guy is sitting on his porch when a car drives up.
Car driver:  “There’s a flood coming!  Get in and I’ll drive you to safety.”
Guy:  “Hmmm…Well if a flood is coming, God will save me.  So no thanks.”

Pretty soon the water comes, a little later he’s up to his waist in water when a rescue boat floats up.
Boat Captain:  “Get in!”
Guy:  “No thanks, God’s going to save me.”

So the boat takes off and he climbs up on his roof to avoid the rising water.  After a while a helicopter comes along with a rope.
Helicopter pilot:  “Grab the rope you dope!”
Guy:  “I’m not going to because God is going to save me.  And why do you have to be insulting?”

So the water rises, the guy drowns, and goes to heaven.  He sees God.
Guy: “Why didn’t you save me?”
God: “DUDE!  I sent you a car!  I sent you a boat!  I even sent you a helicopter with a snarky pilot!  What more do you need???”

What more indeed.

@Craig Roberts - “Thank you Amy!” - Thanks be to God!

@Craig Roberts Funny that your joke is exactly the one I had in mind when I first read about the Engstrom case in the original post.  The parents in the case chose to have a baby at home by a midwife eschewing all the benefits of modern health care—the car, the boat and the helicopter from your joke.  My question is why would someone would refuse to accept standard obstetric care?  Lost in this entire episode is that the parents took an incredible risk with their baby’s life, and for what? 

Does it apply to me, too? I’ll think about it, but it doesn’t really jump out at me.

@Tony61
Yeah that makes a lot of sense…EXCEPT THE BABY LIVED!  (How do you make an emoticon of a guy sighing while rolling his eyes and grinding his teeth?)

What’s NOT lost in this entire episode are your continuous attempts at misdirection.  People that have no faith in any religion decide to have babies at home.  The Catholic Church does not say that people should eschew the hospital.  Should people have babies at home?  I don’t know…MAYBE WE SHOULD FIND A FORUM WHERE THAT’S THE TOPIC!  (Oh look, he’s yelling now.  That’s not necessary.  Who thinks that’s necessary?)

I don’t expect it to ‘jump out at you’.  Faith is a confusing, subtle, and complicated subject.  Sometimes people call themselves ‘atheists’ because it sounds better than ‘just too lazy to seriously think about hard stuff’.  (It’s shorter too)  But if you’re serious about thinking about it you have officially elevated yourself above the rank of closed-minded heckler.  I apologize for questioning your open-mindedness and honesty.

I’ve got to admit, the atheists on this string are a touchy group, and by and large have no sense of humor.  If I’ve “overgeneralized” “mistakenly assumed” “considered my self better than” or “postured insincerely” what do you think this is: the Magna Carta?  The Treaty of Versailles?  Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address?  I’m afraid you guys are putting way too much of an investment into your (calm) (collected) (cooly intellectual) on-line personna.  Stop fragging the lieutenant, guys, and get a (real) (eternal) (non-virtual) life (which doesn’t revolve around inserting 2-bits of change into the little slot at the top of the machine).

@Craig Roberts   Let’s see, I’m “lazy”, a “closed-minded heckler”, and you know all about my “doctrine” (whatever that is) and take offense whenever I question your arguments.  You seem like kind of a dick, but whatever…

You claim I don’t “think about the hard stuff”, yet the argument seems to be that belief has nothing to do with thinking.  So which is it?  I come to websites like this for something, I used to think it was to get some understanding of Catholic thought and practice and belief… but now I’m wondering if my motive is different, maybe unconscious.  Maybe I come here just to reinforce my observation that Catholics are odd and judgmental. If that’s the case, then it might explain why I engage people like you.

I would like to think that I come here to find out—really understand—why Catholics believe the things they do.  I’ve learned a lot here, and it seems to dovetail with what I remember from decades ago, mostly that Catholics have a lot of frustration over why nonbelievers “just don’t get it.”  Let a tired old heretic give you some advice: don’t worry about what nonbelievers think or “get”.  You have the Holy Spirit.  Smile.  Follow Amy’s advice and rejoice.

@Tony61
You sure you’re a medical doctor?  For somebody with eight years of college your reading comprehension sure is poor.  You might want to try that last paragraph again champ.

@Matt B
OUCH!  For somebody who isn’t here for the tricky banter that sure was BRUTAL.  Who da thought that such good advice could come wrapped inside a beat down?

@Craig Roberts
I accept your apology.  You’re a funny guy.

@Tony61
BAAAHHH!!!  You ruined my ultimate-napalm-flame-bomb!  I was almost finished constructing it when you posted…that…that…de-fuser ray.  ARRRGGGHHH!!!  Well played, sir!...well, played.

Looks like you will retain your championship title Matt B…for now.

“Faith is a confusing, subtle, and complicated subject.”
No, it’s not.  Faith is belief without evidence.  Astrology, UFOs, homeopathy - it’s all the same as religion.
“just too lazy to seriously think about hard stuff”
Hilarious lie.  You must have been hitting the “hard stuff”.
“closed-minded heckler”
Hilarious epithet from a close-minded believer.
“get a (real) (eternal) (non-virtual) life”
Where is the Fountain of Youth?  Science needs to test its waters.
“why Catholics believe the things they do”
They know they are following the One True Religion.  The Pope told them so.
“You have the Holy Spirit.”
That plus $4.95 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

Perfect…just perfect.  Thanks again Mikey for humbling me.  The only thing that could have been better is if you capped off your comments with a punctuation correction.

@Mark Shea
If you were trying to push a few buttons with your blog post…mission accomplished.

@Amy. Thank you for your beautiful words. Clearly, you know Him. @ Tony16: it will happen for you in time. God’s timing is inscrutable (and can be so frustrating!) but “He that endures to the end….” God does not mind our doubts! He will answer them when the time comes. @Mike McCants. I have no wish to contradict you or seem to brag, but according to my Phi Beta Kappa and fellowship for studies ar Oxford credentials, it might be thought that my critical faculties are reasonably good. Mensa too, for that matter. BUT, for His own reasons and perhaps due to the most brilliant minds falling short of His, He seems to choose to reveal Himself in ways beyond mere rationality. until you realize the limits of your human intelligence, you are bound to experience nothing where there is Something. BTW, Mike, I would be very interested is the why of your various rejections of certain theses. Finally, to reply to why anyone would choose a home birth, my own reason was due to the OB refusing to agree to my desire for no anesthesia—whatever I wanted. My 5th child I delivered at home (just 2 miles from a hospital) with ease-and no pain. For anyone interested (wow, are we off subject) massaging the abdomen stops the pain of contractions and the actual delivery is not AT ALL painful. Of course, this was my fifth and the baby and I had no complications according to my OB, so I was running no more risk than my grandmother and countless others. I would not recommend it to everyone. I was just inspired by my cat. Really. :)

@Mike McCant. “Faith is belief without evidence.” I am guessing you mean without SCIENTIFIC evidence? Have you considered that there could be other grounds of evidence?

@Tony61. Dear “tired old heretic” it seems that in spite of your hurt, you continue to listen….and perhaps hope. I pray that your search will be rewarded very soon and you will be filled and bathed in the light of the Holy Spirit. God be with and in you. :)

@Maggie McC Thank you for the kind words, your good intention is apparent and appreciated and is good for your well-being.  I may be tired and old, but I’m already rewarded and hoping for anything else is a waste of time and effort, as is fearing bad consequences for the path I’ve taken.  I’m heartened that so many find fulfillment in something—anything—even if it’s something I cannot fathom intellectually or spiritually. To believe in stuff I don’t would be hypocrisy…

@Maggie “Faith is belief without evidence.” I am guessing you mean without SCIENTIFIC evidence? Have you considered that there could be other grounds of evidence?”

The only grounds for evidence are facts and science. The rest is opinion and beliefs. If what you call “evidence” is a feeling you have, however deep it may be and however sure you can be of it, it is not evidence. If you have evidence that God exists, then please share it with us. As a scientist, who believes in facts and evidence, I’d be glad to become a believer if I could see some. But an evidence in the real meaning of the term, not in your own personal definition, whatever it may be.

Both Atheism and Faith in God are opinions, none of them has evidence supporting them unambiguously. So people should stop using the word “evidence” when what it really is is “opinion”, or using “know” instead of “believe”. You don’t know that God exists, otherwise you would have evidence. You don’t have evidence, otherwise there would be no atheists. You BELIEVE He exists, and Atheists BELIEVE He doesn’t. Nobody KNOWS.

@ Craig - Your joke about the flood is pretty funny, especially as it doesn’t prove your point at all, even proving the opposite, as Tony61 said.

Also one remark about your answer “But the baby lived!”. When you’re in a debate where you try to prove a point, you need to be more careful about consistency with your own logics, otherwise you lose immediately.

In the present situation, I’m sure you’re aware of these multiple cases of Christian/Religious parents refusing modern medicine to their children and this leading to their death. When you say “But the baby lived!”, you also need to consider the cases where it didn’t. For example

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1583169/Diabetic-girl-dies-as-parents-pray-instead-of-calling-for-medical-aid.html

If you ignore such cases because they don’t fit the conclusion you want to reach, you’re just too easy to refute. You need to step up in your argumentation skills.

I thank you Sebgur.  Your skepticism makes my belief possible.

It’s dark.  Two people are walking home.  Someone emerges from an alley, and an altercation ensues.  Final verdict, one of the pair is dead, the assailant runs off, and someone has become a screaming grieving widow.

As the murderer departs, a passerby stops the car and asssists.  He catches a glimpse of the fleeing assailant, enough to get the general picture.  He comforts the soon-to-be widow and calls the cops.

They get there fast and take the initial story, while rushing the man off to the hospital.  He gives them some detail, but sadly dies on the way.  The APB quickly goes out, and soon a perp is collared.

At the trial, the prosecution offers 4 pieces of “evidence:”  the man’s deathbed testimony recorded by police; the wife’s testimony; the passerby’s testimony; the man’s wallet picked up near where the defendant was taken; and microfibers from the perps maroon turtleneck sweater found on the victims topcoat.

What qualifies as evidence?  You be the judge.

@tony61 - Never give up. I do hope you decide to take my advice and take your prayers into a Catholic Church. If you are not aware - Jesus is truly present in the Tabernacle in every Catholic Church. +

@sebgur - “The only grounds for evidence are facts and science.” Those who think like this are limiting themselves in their human experiences. I can see evidence all around me of a Supreme Being. The biblical accounts confirm that. This is not my opinion. This is fact. Actual people wrote this down. If you read the Bible as a science book you are bound to be disappointed. Really, it need not be this complicated. To make progress in faith we need to begin with humbling ourselves and admitting that we do not know everything because we do not. The “spiritual world” is mystical and it is vastly more complicated than the scientific world. I would offer to you the same advice that I gave Tony61. What have you got to lose?

@tony61; @sebgur - I also think it would be helpful if you made the time each day to read the Gospels. Begin with Matthew, move on to Mark, Luke and finally John. The Gospels are not dead words; they are the Living Word of God. If you are a searcher of truth you have nothing to lose. Make sure you can read in a quiet place with no distractions.

@ Amy - Thanks for the suggestion. I went to Christian teaching for several years, and recently I re-read the Bible. To me the Old Testament is mostly a set of old rules and stories in pretty brutal times where people used to own their wives and children and kill each other for very light reasons those killings being supported, if not asked for, by God. Many of these rules would be illegal by today’s standards in our industrialized countries anyway, so I’m glad you didn’t talk about that one.

On the other hand the New Testament is a much more modern and peaceful book. I’ve read it already twice in my life, but I can’t, as you say, read it every day, because there are a lot of other sources of knowledge in the world, just as valid from my point of view, so I can’t restrict my culture to this one book. I feel it as a duty to learn on a wider range. For example, I plan to read the Quran next.

While we are at the advice on books, I recommend you to read The Origin of Species by Darwin, which I also read recently for the first time. I learnt a lot about plants and animals, and could feel the joy of being part of this wonderful world. An other very interesting book you might want to read is “The Elegant Universe”, by Brian Greene, explaining one very promising theory of Physics in easily understandable wording. As Christians often say that Atheists or Scientists (and it’s not the same) can’t feel amazed at “the Creation”, you’ll see that it is actually quite the opposite.

@Amy - “I can see evidence all around me of a Supreme Being.”

I’m sorry Amy but these are not evidence. You are twisting the meaning of the word. These are things that you see and that you interpret. If they were really evidence, there would be no way for anybody to refute them, like there is no way to refute that 2 + 2 is 4. For example, by using your same twist of meaning, Atheists can also claim they see evidence of the opposite of what you are saying. So with your meaning of the word, there are in this world evidence of totally opposite things. So these are not evidence. Instead you should call them feelings, or opinions, as they are subjective.

“The biblical accounts confirm that. This is not my opinion. This is fact. Actual people wrote this down.”

People wrote down in the Bible that they felt things the way you do, yes. That’s it. That people in the past felt there was a God and wrote their feelings in a book is not an evidence that they were right. People feel a lot of different things in this world, and they can write them in books if it pleases them, and they have done so in many different places and times on our planet. It’s not an evidence of facts, it’s only a proof that people feel things and want to write them down.

“If you read the Bible as a science book you are bound to be disappointed. Really, it need not be this complicated. To make progress in faith we need to”

But Amy, who told you I want to make progress in faith? I want to make progress in truth. And my opinion is that faith is not the right way to reach the truth.

” begin with humbling ourselves and admitting that we do not know everything because we do not.”

Totally true. It is the same attitude which drives my work in science and my general life, in amazement at the beauty of the world and how small we are.

“The “spiritual world” is mystical and it is vastly more complicated than the scientific world.”

I have a spirituality, I have morals, I have ethics, I have philosophy. Don’t fall into the same trap as Matt B. and the likes who assume that people who don’t believe in God are not able to love/trust/feel/have a spiritual life/have a life.

I am amazed at how the world is, everyday in my life, and science brings me joy by revealing more and more about the nature of this wonderful world. You can’t measure my joy, so you can’t affirm yours is more whatever than mine.

“I would offer to you the same advice that I gave Tony61. What have you got to lose?”

If you’re refering to reading the Gospel, well, I’ve got to lose, yes. By reading the same book everyday, I lose on the fact that there is wisdom in many other books on Earth, not just in the Gospel.

So I can return this point to you Amy. By reading the Gospel everyday, don’t you lose knowledge from other wise sources? People very similar to you, in Islam, or in other religions, would tell me exactly the same thing as you. So Amy, do you read the Quran every day? Do you read science book every day? If not, what have you got to lose?

@ Matt B. - “What qualifies as evidence?  You be the judge.”

I don’t see your point but I’ll answer from my opinion, as I’m not a judge anyway. None of these are real evidence. Human testimonies are unreliable. The wallet is just a wallet, what would that tell? If it had finger prints, that would be a good start for an investigation, but only a start. The micro-fibers could easily be there for multiple reasons other than murder.

What’s your point?

@sebgur - I don’t want you to think that I am passing judgment on the quality of your life and that you are not capable of having a meaningful happy life. However, I do believe that the person who believes in a Supreme Being has a much richer life. Being in relationship with the Divine brings with it a deeper and different type of joy. Unless you have been there you cannot fully understand what I am saying. Your comment about my twisting the word “evidence” is not valid. There is evidence everywhere about the existence of God; you have chosen to not accept it as evidence. That is very different from saying there is no evidence. In your search for truth would you not agree that it should include God? I’m a very curious person by nature and I read a lot of different things but my Roman Catholic faith really defines who I am as a person. I would not consider the Quran a wise source but I have no objection to reading it to find out more about what Muslims believe. I read Jewish thought as well. But I am firmly grounded in my beliefs as a Roman Catholic. I believe, as does the Catholic Church, that there are elements of truth in Judaism and Islam. Islam has a very high regard for the Virgin Mary so they share with Catholics in that same belief. Catholics affirm that the Hebrew Scriptures are the inspired Word of God so we certainly share much with the Jewish people. I’m very interested in science but I have not made science the definitive source for truth. We’re just different, sebgur and I am in no way implying that I am better than you. I just believe that because I believe in Jesus I have the fullness of the human experience. There are days when I leave Mass thinking, “it doesn’t get any better than this”. That’s an example of what I mean about the joy one feels when they are in relationship with the Divine.

“If you were trying to push a few buttons with your blog post”
by lying through your teeth, you succeeded in playing to your ignorant audience.
“He seems to choose to reveal Himself in ways beyond mere rationality.”
Hilarious.  Of course “beyond mere rationality” lies irrationality.
“until you realize the limits of your human intelligence”
Hilarious.  Can you be a little more specific?  Exactly where is the “limit” of “my” human intelligence?  Quantum electrodynamics?  Why is “my” human intelligence important?  Am I allowed to access the intelligent writings of other mere humans?
“rejections of certain theses”
There’s no evidence for anything “non-material”.
“Have you considered that there could be other grounds of evidence?”
Well, can you be more specific?  What “other grounds” could there be?  Eyewitnesses?  Hilarious.  Consider all those UFOs flying over our heads all the time!  Everyone sees them!  They must exist!
“Your skepticism makes my belief possible.”
Hilarious non sequitur.
“Jesus is truly present in the Tabernacle in every Catholic Church.”
Where’s the “evidence”?  But not Protestant churches?  One True Religion?
“Those who think like this are limiting themselves in their human experiences.”
Do you have “non-human” experiences?  That would seem to be unusual to me.
“I can see evidence all around me of a Supreme Being.”
Using your X-Ray vision?  Nope.  Astronomers use X-Rays all the time and they don’t see anything unnatural.
“admitting that we do not know everything”
therefore a “god” exists.  The is the fallacy known as “god of the gaps” in human knowledge.  Name one.  The gaps are getting smaller.
“The “spiritual world” is mystical and it is vastly more complicated than the scientific world.”
Hilarious nonsense.  Fortune telling?  Ghosts?  Ouija board?
“What have you got to lose?”
My sanity!  You don’t have any to spare.
“None of these are real evidence.”
I hope you aren’t ever on a jury.
“However, I do believe that the person who believes in a Supreme Being has a much richer life.”
Now you have a point.  Children that believe in Santa Claus also have a “much richer life” (especially at Christmas).  Often it is better to live in a fantasy world rather than an uncaring universe of uncountable galaxies, stars, planets, and possibly other sentient life forms.  So now we can agree to disagree.  You are happy in your fantasy world and I am happy in my reality and we can go our separate ways.
“Your comment about my twisting the word “evidence” is not valid.”
Perhaps it is not valid in your fantasy world, but it is valid in reality.
“I’m very interested in science but I have not made science the definitive source for truth.”
In other words, you are happy in your fantasy world and you reject reality.
“I just believe that because I believe in Jesus I have the fullness of the human experience.”
Correct.  Since humans became self-aware some millions of years ago, they have mainly decided that a belief in “gods” should be part of “human experience”.  Perhaps that is why the rise of science is also called “The Enlightenment”.
“That’s an example of what I mean about the joy one feels when they are in relationship with the Divine.”
This brings to mind the Feynman quote: “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Another quote from the Wikiquotes page for Feynman:  “God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you’re taking away from God; you don’t need him anymore.”
Read Feynman’s book “What Do You Care What Other People Think?”

sebgur…the point is that you would make a great defense attorney…and a lousy detective…jk!

Crossexamination showed that the dead man never carried a wallet.  It was dropped by an unindicted co-conspirator who became inexplicably unavailable to stand trial.

The microfibers were shown to originate in the “colors” of a street gang which had viciously assaulted the man just moments before the episode of his death.  However, this beating did not cause his death.  (And you thought the couple were returning from an evening of Merlot and cocktail weinies at some downtown loft!)

5 - 2 = 3.  What was the fourth critical piece of evidence?  The man himself.  He revived from death after 39 hours without signs of life, and testified on his own behalf what had happened.  (Talk about a miracle!)  Ironically he forgave the man who killed him.  In a soundbite from the evening news he was heard to observe, “but he did what he did before love came to town.”

sebgur - if you’re going to deny the evidence of your own senses, even empiricism has no basis.

“if you’re going to deny the evidence of your own senses”
Well, your own senses need to be interpreted properly.  Who gets to decide how to interpret such information?  Scientists decide by repeating their experiments in an attempt to get the same results.  So, yes, sometimes your own senses are correct (here comes a car!) and sometimes you are simply fooling yourself (there’s a UFO!) and you are the easiest person to fool [Feynman].  My above comment was held in moderation for several hours.  And eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.  Have you seen the bouncing balls where the gorilla walks by in the background?  Most people who are told to count the bounces don’t notice.

@Mike - Did I happen to push a few of your scientific buttons? No Mike, I don’t live in a fantasy world but you do! You’re really sad, Mike. I can “hear” you shouting! I thought this was supposed to be a civilized discussion? Why are you so angry that I believe in God? What exactly is that to you? I came to faith through God’s grace and it has changed my life. I would never renounce that because I believe it with my entire being. Instead of reading all those science books why don’t you read about some converts to Catholicism such as Edith Stein. Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist because He said so! If you want to see evidence search on the internet for Eucharistic miracles. I was selected on a jury and I’m quite capable of thinking pragmatically and not come across as a delusional nutcase. You’re real good and spewing quotes left at right, here’s one for you. “I am the bread of life” ~ Jesus

Amy, Amy, Amy….how to put this?  Did you ever meet somebody that acted so strange that you realized they would need to treat them completely different than a normal person?  That getting mad at them was a waste of time because their ‘special needs’ meant you would have to forgive them for anything?  Maybe it was an elderly relative who was no longer on top of their game, or a kid at school that couldn’t keep from getting beat up because no matter what he couldn’t stop talking crazy smack.  If they can’t help it, they’re innocent.  It’s the ones getting mad at them that are guilty.  Does that make sense?

“I don’t live in a fantasy world but you do!”
We seem to have a fundamental disagreement.  Why should I accept your opinion?  Do you have any “evidence”?
“You’re really sad, Mike.”
That’s a very silly statement.  Why should I accept your opinion?  You don’t know anything about me.
“I can “hear” you shouting!”
You’re confused.  I’m stating my opinion and laughing at you.
“I thought this was supposed to be a civilized discussion?”
You’re confused.  There is no discussion.  You have no “evidence” and that ends the “discussion”.
“Why are you so angry that I believe in God?”
You’re confused.  I’m not angry.  I’m laughing at you.  You’re soooo irrational.  But that’s certainly to be expected.
“What exactly is that to you?”
I think that this world would be better if more people were rational.  Are you going to vote for a Republican clown?  That would be irrational.
“I came to faith through God’s grace and it has changed my life.”
Fine.  Then go your way and ignore me.  I certainly would not want you to doubt your faith.  :-)
“why don’t you read about some converts”
Hilarious.  Why read the ravings of deluded people?
“Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist because He said so!”
Have you heard of a circular argument?  I thought not.
“search on the internet for Eucharistic miracles”
Hilarious nonsense.  There is no such thing as a “miracle”.  There’s no “evidence”.
“I am the bread of life”
That plus $4.95 will buy you a latte at Starbucks.
“treat them completely different than a normal person?”
The correct English is “different from”, not “different than”.
“That getting mad at them was a waste of time”
That’s for sure.
“you would have to forgive them for anything”
Hilarious.  What does “forgive” really mean?  I have done something to you that you must “forgive” me?  I have “assaulted” you with reason?
“If they can’t help it, they’re innocent.”
Hilarious.  Of course I could “help it”.  Can you?
“It’s the ones getting mad at them that are guilty.  Does that make sense?”
Not in the slightest.

“And eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.”

That must be why ordinary expressions like “eyewitness account,” “eyewitness news,” “first-hand information” and “from the horse’s mouth” imply faulty and untrustworthy information, bouncing gorillas notwithstanding.

But I have another question: when people say “I had a good time,” or “a good time was had by all,” how do scientists measure the truth-value of such a statement?  Do they count the beer cans?  Or the number of overturned cars that have been set on fire and destroyed?  Is there any way for science to assert or deny such claims?  Yet happiness is the most important thing - sought after by everyone.  Is science incompetent to venture a guess in this most significant of areas?

“That plus $4.95 will buy you a latte at Starbucks.”

Who would spend $5.00 for a Starbuck’s latte when a cup of Mickey D’s Joe is better and less than 1/4 the price.  And yet it’s an expression you use repeatedly.  My conclusion?  You’re buzzin’ Mike.  Come down.

Mike - I’m not asking you to believe me that’s what you don’t understand. I also don’t have to prove anything to you. You’ve never even heard me ask you for proof that God doesn’t exist. You’re a very sad man, Mike, not just because you don’t believe but because you mock and condescend others. I guess being an atheist isn’t all it’s cracked up to be if people become angry and bitter.

@ Amy - @sebgur - “However, I do believe that the person who believes in a Supreme Being has a much richer life. Being in relationship with the Divine brings with it a deeper and different type of joy.”

Amy, you can say it brings YOU deeper joy or richer life, and I believe it does. But you cannot say it brings deeper joy in general to everybody, because you cannot know the joy other people feel. Now you believe that and it gives you the feeling that your joy is special and better than other’s, but that’s just wishful thinking, as you have absolutely no proof that it’s true.

“Unless you have been there you cannot fully understand what I am saying.”

Same thing holds against you. You cannot fully understand the joy I’m feeling with science or my philosophy of life, unless you have been there.
And from the way you talk about science, it’s clear you haven’t. Not a blame here, just a remark.

“Your comment about my twisting the word “evidence” is not valid. There is evidence everywhere about the existence of God; you have chosen to not accept it as evidence.”

Alright, I think I just made a translation mistake in English (I’m native French). I always thought evidence had the same meaning as proof because that’s what I learnt in school, but after checking more carefully, it looks like evidence in English means more “indication, hints”, not something strong like a proof. My bad.

So you can see indications of God everywhere, sure. These are not proofs though, just indications, and only from the point of view of some people. Looking at the same thing that you see as a hint of God’s existence, other people will see it as a hint of His non-existence. So again what you’re saying also applies to you. There are evidence that God doesn’t exist everywhere, and you have chosen to not accept them as evidence.

“In your search for truth would you not agree that it should include God?”

yes, among other things. And as I said, I have spend quite some time in my life in a Christian environment and reading the Bible. So that’s it, if after all of that I still don’t believe in God, I have no reason to keep forcing myself to read the Bible over and over again. Same thing as you. You read Jewish things but you’re not a Jew, and it doesn’t seem like you’re reading Muslim books. At some point, you make your opinion and you can’t spend too much time reading things that you already dismissed, because, well, there are only 24 hours in a day.

“I just believe that because I believe in Jesus I have the fullness of the human experience. That’s an example of what I mean about the joy one feels when they are in relationship with the Divine.”

Good for you. As long as you can admitt that somebody who doesn’t believe in the same things as you may have the same amount of happiness, joy, experience, and so on… then there is no problem, no judgment, no wishful thinking on your side. The problem is when you go as far as declaring, as you did earlier in your post, that your faith gives MORE of this feeling or MORE of that feeling to everybody in general, not just you. This is something you cannot say, I mean of course you are allowed to say it legally, but it’s just wishful thinking and arrogance.

I’m just telling you, because you seem like a person I can talk to easily, unlike Matt who’s just a big ball of anger and pride. When you declare unilaterally that your faith is better at bringing joy to everybody, this doesn’t impress non-believers at all, on the contrary, it is seen as silly, offensive, it is blind arrogance, and it pushes people away. Just letting you know since you seem to spend regular time talking to people outside of your faith, I thought it could be useful for you to know how these people may feel when talking to you.

@ Matt B: I still don’t see what you story proves. There’s a murder, or something that looks like it, a bunch of clues, some of them turn out to be true, some just illusions, so what?

All that means is that before somebody is sentenced, “evidence” is not sufficient, proof is required if we don’t want to punish an innocent. Your little story can prove whatever point you want to make.

@ Amy - @sebgur - “However, I do believe that the person who believes in a Supreme Being has a much richer life. Being in relationship with the Divine brings with it a deeper and different type of joy.”

Amy, you can say it brings YOU deeper joy or richer life, and I believe it does. But you cannot say it brings deeper joy in general to everybody, because you cannot know the joy other people feel. Now you believe that and it gives you the feeling that your joy is special and better than other’s, but that’s just wishful thinking, as you have absolutely no proof that it’s true.

“Unless you have been there you cannot fully understand what I am saying.”

Same thing holds against you. You cannot fully understand the joy I’m feeling with science or my philosophy of life, unless you have been there.
And from the way you talk about science, it’s clear you haven’t. Not a blame here, just a remark.

“Your comment about my twisting the word “evidence” is not valid. There is evidence everywhere about the existence of God; you have chosen to not accept it as evidence.”

Alright, I think I just made a translation mistake in English (I’m native French). I always thought evidence had the same meaning as proof because that’s what I learnt in school, but after checking more carefully, it looks like evidence in English means more “indication, hints”, not something strong like a proof. My bad.

So you can see indications of God everywhere, sure. These are not proofs though, just indications, and only from the point of view of some people. Looking at the same thing that you see as a hint of God’s existence, other people will see it as a hint of His non-existence. So again what you’re saying also applies to you. There are evidence that God doesn’t exist everywhere, and you have chosen to not accept them as evidence.

@ Amy - @sebgur - “However, I do believe that the person who believes in a Supreme Being has a much richer life. Being in relationship with the Divine brings with it a deeper and different type of joy.”

Amy, you can say it brings YOU deeper joy or richer life, and I believe it does. But you cannot say it brings deeper joy in general to everybody, because you cannot know the joy other people feel. Now you believe that and it gives you the feeling that your joy is special and better than other’s, but that’s just wishful thinking, as you have absolutely no proof that it’s true.

@ Amy - “Unless you have been there you cannot fully understand what I am saying.”

Same thing holds against you. You cannot fully understand the joy I’m feeling with science or my philosophy of life, unless you have been there.
And from the way you talk about religion and science, it’s clear you haven’t. Not a blame here, just a remark.

“Your comment about my twisting the word “evidence” is not valid. There is evidence everywhere about the existence of God; you have chosen to not accept it as evidence.”

Alright, I think I just made a translation mistake in English (I’m native French). I always thought evidence had the same meaning as proof because that’s what I learnt in school, but after checking more carefully, it looks like evidence in English means more “indication, hints”, not something strong like a proof. My bad.

So you can see indications of God everywhere, sure. These are not proofs though, just indications, and only from the point of view of some people. Looking at the same thing that you see as a hint of God’s existence, other people will see it as a hint of His non-existence. So again what you’re saying also applies to you. There are evidence that God doesn’t exist everywhere, and you have chosen to not accept them as evidence.

“In your search for truth would you not agree that it should include God?”

yes, among other things. And as I said, I have spend quite some time in my life in a Christian environment and reading the Bible. So that’s it, if after all of that I still don’t believe in God, I have no reason to keep forcing myself to read the Bible over and over again. Same thing as you. You read Jewish things but you’re not a Jew, and it doesn’t seem like you’re reading Muslim books. At some point, you make your opinion and you can’t spend too much time reading things that you already dismissed, because, well, there are only 24 hours in a day.

“I just believe that because I believe in Jesus I have the fullness of the human experience. That’s an example of what I mean about the joy one feels when they are in relationship with the Divine.”

Good for you. As long as you can admitt that somebody who doesn’t believe in the same things as you may have the same amount of happiness, joy, experience, and so on… then there is no problem, no judgment, no wishful thinking on your side. The problem is when you go as far as declaring, as you did earlier in your post, that your faith gives MORE of this feeling or MORE of that feeling to everybody in general, not just you. This is something you cannot say, I mean of course you are allowed to say it legally, but it’s just wishful thinking and arrogance.

I’m just telling you, because you seem like a person I can talk to easily, unlike Matt who’s just a big ball of anger and pride. When you declare unilaterally that your faith is better at bringing joy to everybody, this doesn’t impress non-believers at all, on the contrary, it is seen as silly, offensive, it is blind arrogance, and it pushes people away. Just letting you know since you seem to spend regular time talking to people outside of your faith, I thought it could be useful for you to know how these people may feel when talking to you.

The point:
Mark Shea has presented ERRONEOUS information about atheism.
He is not to be trusted as a authority on atheism.
It is to his advantage to misrepresent atheism.
He is a grownup and since he is presenting erroneous information, I consider that he is LYING to you about atheism.

I an trying to present correct information about atheism.  My “authorities” are scientists like Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, and Weinberg.  A large majority of natural scientists in the United States are atheists.  I quote Feynman and MacDonald above to try to indicate that I think that I am presenting atheism accurately.  I read Myers, Coyne, and MacDonald in order to gain a proper understanding of atheism.  Then I come here to try to present that understanding.

“Did you ever meet somebody that acted so strange that you realized they would need to treat them completely different than a normal person?”
In other words, did you ever actually try to communicate with an atheist about things like this?  If I have accurately presented the ideas of atheism, then your criticism of me is simply a criticism of atheism.  It would seem unlikely that you would be able to tell me how I have not presented the ideas of atheism accurately.

“I guess being an atheist isn’t all it’s cracked up to be if people become angry and bitter.”
Hilarious.  I continue to say that I am not angry and bitter and you continue to say that I am.  Who is allowed to say what my emotional state is?  And perhaps my perceived emotional state when I spend 10 minutes writing these things does not match my emotional state when I live the other 1390 minutes of the day.

“but because you mock and condescend others”
Ok.  Obviously you think I have “crossed a line” with my mocking.  And we have the usual “but you don’t actually do this to others in your daily life, do you?”  Of course, no, I don’t.  Normally when I try to do something like this in blog comments on their blog to someone who does not accept evolution, I am instantly banned.  In fact, I was kind of surprised that I was not banned from these blogs.  But I do not have any opportunities to interact with anyone in this way in my daily life.  But perhaps you will understand me better when I admit that I have been reading the atheist blogs by Myers and Coyne and MacDonald for several years.  And they very often mock the writings of people like Mark Shea.

“And eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.”
And that is why police line-ups are subject to more and more careful requirements.  There is much too high a probability that the eyewitness is making a mistake.  And a mistake in this situation is very important.  From Wikipedia:  “Justice Brennan also observed that “At least since United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), the Court has recognized the inherently suspect qualities of eyewitness identification evidence, and described the evidence as “notoriously unreliable”.”

“when people say “I had a good time,” or “a good time was had by all,” how do scientists measure the truth-value of such a statement?”
Why should scientists care about the truth-value of such a statement?  Now when the eyewitness says “That’s the guy”, the truth-value becomes much more important.  And that’s why the justice system is supposed to require competent defense counsel.  And when a believer says “that’s a miracle”, scientists say “wait a minute here”.  And when a believer says “The Bible is true because Jesus said it was”, philosophers and logicians say “wait a minute here”.  And when a believer quotes “I am the bread of life”, the atheist says “what does that even mean?” or “that does not make any sense in my reality”.

“Maybe it was an elderly relative who was no longer on top of their game”
Or maybe it was an atheist and they don’t even speak the same language that believers do.

“It’s the ones getting mad at them that are guilty.  Does that make sense?”
It’s the believers getting mad at atheists that are guilty.  No, that does not make a lick of sense.  And, of course, it would not make any sense for a atheist to “get mad” at a believer.  They can’t help it?  They are innocent (of critical thinking about religion).

Sorry all for the double postings. Some problem with the browser or monitoring I guess.

@ Mike - “Obviously you think I have “crossed a line” with my mocking.”

I don’t what your “debating strategy” is in details, but mine is that if I see a weakness or mistake in my opponents, I try at all price not to do it myself, otherwise how can I criticize them for doing so?

When you debate with Christians, or believers in general, I guess you have observed how angry they get when they run out of arguments, and how often they mock Atheism or Science while they often lack basic understanding of them, and stay in a convenient, safe, mischaracterization of them.

So just a friendly advice, but if I were you I wouldn’t do the same, otherwise you’re guilty of the same mistake.

Their anger is a proof of weakness. It comes when they have nothing else to say to prove their point appart from “I believe that…” and they think they will impress you by showing how strong they are. Same thing for the constant arrogance with how better their life is or how much more feelings they are able to have. It’s a childish strategy, like a cat who makes himself look bigger to scare his ennemy. It’s groundless, so I would personnaly choose to avoid doing the same.

Other than that, well done for your answers and thanks for your contibution in replacing the discussion to its center, some guy writing a blog mischaracterizing and mocking atheism, showing only his own lack of culture and honnesty.

Please let’s understand one another.

“Their anger is a proof of weakness. It comes when they have nothing else to say to prove their point appart from “I believe that…” and they think they will impress you by showing how strong they are. Same thing for the constant arrogance with how better their life is or how much more feelings they are able to have. It’s a childish strategy, like a cat who makes himself look bigger to scare his ennemy.” I am not angry; I don’t need to prove anything to you since I believe what I choose to believe; I have no interest in scaring anyone because that is not who I am; from my own like experience I know that my life is better (happier) with God playing a very active role in what I do (you need not believe me). I have never said that I am better than anyone, in fact I made it a point to specifically say that I am not. What does make me angry is bad behavior. In a civilized society we don’t attack people personally. I acknowledge everyone’s right to believe what they want; I expect others to treat me in kind. Is “evidence” the favorite buzz word of atheists?  I have evidence that people are happier with God in their lives. I see it all the time and I see who they were before and who they are now. I don’t discount anyone’s feelings or life experiences so please allow me to voice mine. I don’t care who you are, your life is not complete without God. That is my belief; I don’t force it on anyone and you have the right to disagree but please don’t bounce it back to me with the usual “show me the evidence of God” response. It’s just a defense mechanism.  Frankly no matter what I would say to you you would still refute it. I believe in God’s grace which gives me faith. Faith gives purpose and depth to my life. That’s it. I do not force that on you.

@ Amy - “I am not angry; I don’t need to prove anything to you since I believe what I choose to believe; “

I didn’t say you were angry Amy, you don’t sound angry to me. Matt and Craig on the other hand look pretty angry and aggressive. What I wrote is only about that kind of reactions of anger going up to insult, which, as you said, don’t need to be in a civilized society. That was not meant to you or all Christians, that was meant only to the ones who have these reactions. Sorry if you felt included.

“Is “evidence” the favorite buzz word of atheists?”

If we talk about the quest for truth, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the word “evidence” keeps coming up in the discussion.

“Their anger is a proof of weakness.”

I wouldn’t say weakness as opposed to an individuals thought process. Reason and intellect are more dependent on the volume of gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex and better skills in error detection while faith is more invoked with the size of the right amygdala associated emotional memory and the fear threat response.

@ Amy - “I don’t discount anyone’s feelings or life experiences ... I don’t care who you are, your life is not complete without God.”

Aren’t these 2 sentences in contradiction?

“That is my belief; I don’t force it on anyone and you have the right to disagree but please don’t bounce it back to me with the usual “show me the evidence of God” response. It’s just a defense mechanism.”

I’m not asking you for evidence of God’s existence.
You’re telling me my life is not complete and your’s is richer (quoting your previous post). Ok, you’re not saying YOURS is richer than MINE. You’re saying that the one of believers is richer than the one of non-believers with more joy, applying for all. But you’re a believer and I’m not, so that comes back to the same.

That’s a judgement on my life. I don’t appreciate being judged and sentenced without evidence. So I ask my judge to prove her statements. Then you seem to be annoyed at my asking for evidence of your judgements. So what, you want to affirm things about my life and my only right of defense is to shut up?

You start sounding like Matt. He insults me about my life, and when I defend it, he says that proves I’m guilty. So if I shut up, it’s a proof I have nothing to answer and you’re right. If I defend myself, it’s a proof I have something to hide or it’s a “defense mecanism”, so I’m guilty too.

Maybe there was a misunderstanding. As long as you don’t try to prove to me that God exists, I won’t ask you for proofs that He does. I’m asking for proofs of something else. We are in a discussion, a debate. So when somebody affirms something as strong and universal as you did, it’s only normal that others ask him/her to justify it, isn’t it? Otherwise it’s not a debate anymore…

invoked should be ‘involved’, sorry

“Their anger is a proof of weakness.”  said the teenager to himself when his parents told him to stop acting like a smart-alecky brat.

@sebgur - What one considers “evidence” appears to be very subjective. I consider the existence of the universe and the miracles he has done for me in my life as evidence of God; you do not. There could be any number of sources that I could point to that will support my view. By faith, I believe. It’s a gift, sebgur. I don’t have any other way of explaining it. As a young adult I worked, married and did the things anyone else does. Then one day, I “turned a corner” and I was headed to a relationship with God. I don’t know how else to say it except that it’s a gift from God. I know now that He exists and that He loves me. I can’t prove that to you; I can only say it.

@Craig Roberts, I find it fascinating that fables, stories and odd caparisons are so often used in this thread.

@Psy - Your mind is closed to any type of possibility of the existence of God so to you it all looks like fables, stories and odd comparisons. There’s nothing else that anyone of us can say to you.

Yes Amy, denounce me instead of presenting an argument.

@Psy - Any number of times I posted arguments (evidence). You reject it. I’m done.

@ Amy - “I believe in God’s grace which gives me faith. Faith gives purpose and depth to my life. That’s it. I do not force that on you.”

Why do you feel like you have to justify your faith making YOU happy? Have I denied that?

I tried to explain that before but maybe I was not clear. I am at no point doubting your faith in God makes you feel happy and fulfilled. I sincerely believe it does. I don’t even ask you to show it does, because if you say so, that’s enough for me, it’s your life, you’re the best person to know how you feel.

I’m not affirming anything on your life. Reread my posts addressed to you if you want, I’m pretty sure I never judged your life or your feelings, and never said my life was richer or fuller than yours. You’re the one belittling my life (yes you do, saying other people’s lives are poorer and emptier is belittling) and that of millions of people you don’t even know, and I end up being the one guilty of defending it.

If you don’t want to justify your affirmations, fine, but then, why are you debating on a forum?

@Amy, most of what you have supplied is unsubstantiated claims, appeals to emotion fallacies and leaps to conclusions.

I have no problem with you personally accepting your beliefs as I understand the thinking process that brought your there. I am curious as to why you would think your choice of beliefs should be held by others?

@Psy - Are you baiting me? I don’t believe my choice of beliefs should be held by others and I’ve been pretty clear about that.

@sebgur - I never said anyone else’s life is poorer or emptier. We can only judge our life based upon our life experience. My life experience tells me my life is richer with God in it.

Mind if I field this one, Amy? 

“I am curious as to why you would think your choice of beliefs should be held by others?”

Life without faith is lacking.  If you knew calculus and discovered a civilization that didn’t, wouldn’t you share it with them?

Jesus tells all of his followers to go out and spread the good news so that everybody has a chance to live life more abundantly.  Amy is trying to do what all good Christians should do, share the good news.

Thank you Craig - could not have said it any better myself.

@Amy: =“Psy - Are you baiting me?”
Is asking for more thoughtful responses baiting? Many of the responses on this thread appear to be conditioned responses.

“I don’t believe my choice of beliefs should be held by others and I’ve been pretty clear about that.”

“your life is not complete without God.”

These statements seem to be in conflict as are others you and others have made in this thread.

@Craig Roberts -“Life without faith is lacking.”

Craig, Faith comes across to me as a dependence, a shield for insecurities. Could you elaborate on your claim other than some irrelevant comparison or story.

@psy - It is my opinion that anyone’s life is not complete without God.  Do I firmly believe that? Absolutely! Do I demand that you do? No! What I propose is an invitation to faith.

Amy -“What I propose is an invitation to faith.”

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

I have read the Bible from cover to cover and other religious text, The Book of Mormon, some Eastern text and the Koran. I found that many of the good things these books teach are inline with my own values. But I can’t relate to the concept of religious ‘Faith-believing’ as others can nor do I see a need to.

sebgur, please do not think I have insulted you about your life.  If you feel that way, I apologize.  You are a human being, with a history and a hope I can’t possibly imagine, with only these paltry posts to go by.  I salute the wonder with which you approach this great big universe of ours, and I hope for that “bolt out of the blue” which will transform it to fearless faith.

Mike - I apologize for baiting you.  It gives me great personal satisfaction that during the course of this exchange, you have come to realize the validity of an argument from authority.  I only hope that you come to choose your authorities more judiciously.

Psy - I expect you’re someone who considers himself eminently reasonable, and personally dignified in a rational sort of way.  However, I find that your mind is closed.  Your atheism is pharasaical, and not at all like sebgurs, who still sees beauty amongst the dust.

However, my judgment is in no way condescending!  Who am I to tell you?  I just thought you’d like to get some unbiased feedback on it.

@Psy
We do depend on faith.  Just like we depend on our eyesight.  It’s would be pretty hard to describe vision to a blind man.  I’m sure you find the comparison irrelevant.  But that’s because you can’t ‘see’ it. 

The fact is you depend on ‘faith’ everyday.  You have absolute ‘faith’ in your senses, your intellect, and your dogma.  You have faith in other atheists that tell you, “Don’t believe those believers they’re just trying to control your thoughts and make you feel bad.”  But your doctrine pre-supposes that there is no more to life than what you can comprehend.  And so you remain cut off from the light.

But why should you care?  You find life “simple and entertaining.”  You’re only complaint is that you have to work.  Well guess what Einstein?  It takes hard work to find out what’s real and what’s not.  Even people of faith (like Amy) have to work hard to apply and cultivate their faith.  I don’t think you’re up for that sort of thing.

Amy and Craig, thank you for your inspiring words.

@ Amy - “There could be any number of sources that I could point to that will support my view. By faith, I believe. It’s a gift, sebgur. I don’t have any other way of explaining it.”

But why do you keep justifying your faith to me?
I didn’t ask you for that, I don’t deny what you feel about your life and what makes you happy, and how happy you can be.

“I can’t prove that to you; I can only say it.”

It’s honest of you to say that. But again, I’m not asking you to prove that you believe in God or why. I am asking you to prove your affirmation that your life is fuller or richer than mine without knowing me or my inner feelings.

Matt B, thank you for the big laughs.  “Stop fragging the lieutenant and get a (non-virtual) life.”  BWAAAA HAAA HA HA!!!!

@ Amy - “sebgur - I never said anyone else’s life is poorer or emptier. We can only judge our life based upon our life experience. My life experience tells me my life is richer with God in it.”

Glad to hear you correct it Amy. But you did say other people lives are poorer and emptier, with shallower joy. Let me quote your posts:

“However, I do believe that the person who believes in a Supreme Being has a much richer life. Being in relationship with the Divine brings with it a deeper and different type of joy.”

“I don’t care who you are, your life is not complete without God.”

Matt B “pharasaical”

I find this ironic that you and Craig are focused on me personally. I have not given you a suffering explanation for your simplistic judgments-conclusion. Neither asked for clarification before following your assumptions.

“fearless faith”

I’ve never heard it put this way, its usually ‘God fearing’. Its also odd that others have dismissed ‘Faith’ as fear based. I seem to have dealt with fears and insecurities as a child including the fear of death.

Can you clarify what you mean or how faith is related to fear? I don’t want to jump to wild conclusions based on assumptions. How has it helped you personally if you don’t mind me asking?

suffering should be ‘sufficient’

@Psy
Hunh?  It’s ‘ironic’?  What’s ironic about focusing on you?  I don’t assume anything about you.  You said you were nothing but a shallow, happy-go-lucky, lazy, simpleton.  Not me.  Do I need to go back and quote you?

@sebgur The opposite of richer in this context is not poorer. It’s kind of like comparing an ice cream sundae to a dish of vanilla ice cream. There are more ingredients in the sundae than the dish of vanilla ice cream. Your senses are awakened to the sight of the sundae and the taste of it with it’s whipped cream, nuts, chocolate syrup and the cherry on top. Believing in God adds a dimension to ones life that is not possible in the exact same way without God. It’s an experience like no other. You cannot possibly compare it to anything else. If someone doesn’t believe in God they can’t compare the difference between a life with God and a life without God. They haven’t experienced it. They can only experience it based upon a believer’s testimony. So, my claims about life not being complete without God, I stand by that statement. I have made the comparison because I have lived both. It’s not passing judgment on a non believer. They couldn’t possibly relate to what I am saying and to them it sounds judgmental which is reasonable assessment, but this not my intent.

@Craig, If you don’t have answers or an intelligent response just say so.

@ Amy, Psy - Quoting Psy “I have no problem with you personally accepting your beliefs as I understand the thinking process that brought your there.”

I keep wondering why Amy justifies her faith and happiness while I never doubted it. My own mother is an example of a Christian person strongly involved in Church and very happy in her life, so I hope Amy you understand I have no doubt it is possible and you are in that case.

I explained several times that what I’m asking for is a justification for the assumption that all non-believers are less happy than you and the believers, and how you can prove it since you cannot measure their happiness. Why does your/the believer’s happiness imply the lack of it for non-believers? Why would it be impossible for both believers and non-believers to be just equally happy?

@Psy
I don’t have a response that you can understand.  Matt B, Amy, and most of the six billion other people on the planet would understand, but not you.  I guess I’m just forced to bow to your superior intelligence.  An intelligence that is too smart to ‘fall’ for simple explanations, and demands proof of things that others take for granted is scary indeed.

Craig Roberts =“I don’t have a response that you can understand.”

I appreciate your acknowledgement, I’m sure the pieces will fall together an give me a better understanding.

Why do you have so much disgust for those of us with high IQs?

@ Amy - “I have made the comparison because I have lived both. It’s not passing judgment on a non believer. They couldn’t possibly relate to what I am saying and to them it sounds judgmental which is reasonable assessment, but this not my intent.”

That sounds quite reasonable to me. You explain how your life got more dimension with God, and that it can’t be the same. And when you say I can’t understand how it has changed for you, I guess you’re right, I can’t feel it. And the same holds for you. You can’t feel what happened when I decided to quit Christian school, and you can’t know what dimension philosophy and science bring to my life. And even if you had been a scientist before, that wouldn’t tell you how I see the world and feel about it. So it’s just different, without means of judgement of superiority/inferiority. What I want to say is, when you talk to people, you should specify it is your experience, relating to your life and the life of some people you met. It becomes judgemental only when you word it as if it was an absolute truth valid for everybody on the planet.

@sebgur - “I explained several times that what I’m asking for is a justification for the assumption that all non-believers are less happy than you and the believers, and how you can prove it since you cannot measure their happiness.” I thought I explained that in my last post.

@ Amy - “I thought I explained that in my last post.”

Just a post-timing issue.

@Psy
“Why do you have so much disgust for those of us with high IQs?”

*giggle*snort*  You sure you want to go down this road champ?  You just lofted up a fat hanging curve ball and I’m giving you chance to take it back before I launch it out of the park.

@Craig, Please launch it, I should be back in an hour or two, that should be plenty of time.

Psy “Why do you have so much disgust for those of us with high IQs?”

I’m not sure where you’re going with this Psy, sounds like you’re playing their game. Craig and Matt are barely able to write a paragraph without mocking or insulting someone, you, me, Oliver, anybody who disagrees. The best attempt of Matt to say something clever was some story about a murder which could be interpreted in many ways, including the opposite to what he wanted to show.

From that he somehow gave us a lesson about what empiricism is. I don’t know who you are Psy, but I’m a researcher in applied mathematics and some angry Christian guy on a forum explaining to me what empiricism is, is, mmm, entertaining, to say the least. Same thing for Craig telling me I would be a lousy detective while all I do during the day is solving problems and finding causes.

All that to say these two guys don’t know what they’re talking about and just throw punches around randomly hoping one of them will be lucky enough to hit a target. They’re not even worth the time it took you to write the post. It’s good to talk with Amy as she has consistent civilized conversations, but Craig and Matt are just two comedians, it’s a waste of time to try to talk to them.

Anyway, there’s no way you can tell me the place with that interesting forum you were talking about?

@Psy
Pfffft!  It won’t take two seconds.  A better analogy than baseball would be dueling pistols…and you keep shooting yourself in the head! Oh but wait, you said yourself that you can’t understand analogies, so you dismiss them as “some irrelevant comparison or story.”  There’s a name for people that can’t understand analogies, metaphors, and evidence by comparison…and it’s not smart!

You said, “I find life simple and entertaining, other than having to work for a living I have no complaints.”  Congratulations, your easily amused…but those are not the types of attributes normally associated with a high IQ.

Then you have such a complete lack of self-awareness that you can say, “Why do you have so much disgust for those of us with high IQs?”  You want to know what ‘ironic’ means, since you failed to demonstrate an understanding of it in your own post?  THAT’S ironic.  Somebody that is too dumb understand irony, analogy, metaphor, even evidence, complaining that he’s being picked on because….(wait for it)....HIS IQ IS TOO HIGH!!!

Finally, the ultimate proof is that all of this is 99% guaranteed to be completely lost on you.  Any school kid could understand exactly what I’m saying and all you’re going to come back with is, “Why don’t you try reasoning.  Your arguments are irrational.  I fail to see the relevance.  Please provide some evidence.  Don’t hate me because I’m super-smart.” 

Puuuuuuuleeeeeezzzzz…unfortunately I don’t think your brainiac friends, segbur and Mike McCants, are going to be able to help you with this one.  You’re going to have to actually start doing the hard work of thinking, or be forever consigned to the ‘too smart to learn’ crowd.

Sorry if I was a bit harsh.  But you (literally) asked for it.

@segbur
Researcher in applied mathematics, eh?  Nice.  Maybe you could show us some of your intellectual chops?  Oh wait.  You already did.  Never mind.  You know, Tony61 is a medical doctor.  Maybe you can get together and swap stories about the best ways to hone and polish your online personas so that nobody calls you out.

“you have come to realize the validity of an argument from authority.”
Hilarious.  I have quoted “authorities” that I agree with.  I do NOT claim that the “argument” is “won” by an “argument from authority”.  I merely claim that these authorities seem rational to me and your “belief without evidence” seems irrational to me (and to them).  I continually claim that there is NO debate or argument.  There is religious irrationality and irreligious rationality and ne’er the twain shall meet.  So you have misinterpreted my comment of course.
“Jesus tells all of his followers to go out and spread the good news”
And WHY does Jesus say this?  To have you obtain “salvation” - the topic of the other thread.  But “salvation” is irrational, so the purpose is irrational.
“Believing in God adds a dimension to ones life that is not possible in the exact same way without God.”
That seems irrational to me.
“You have absolute ‘faith’ in your senses, your intellect, and your dogma.”
What a stupid thing to say.  I expect that a lot of intelligent scientists will have an opinion that makes sense.  Laplace:  “That hypothesis is unnecessary.”
“But your doctrine pre-supposes that there is no more to life than what you can comprehend.”
It seems you are repeating one of Mark Shea’s lies.  No.  You are misrepresenting a position even worse that what he did.  That’s stupid.
“An intelligence that is too smart to ‘fall’ for simple explanations”
Yes.  The God Delusion has been around for millenia.  It’s simple and irrational.  “God did it” always works as an “explanation”.  But it’s irrational.
“If someone doesn’t believe in God they can’t compare the difference between a life with God and a life without God.”
Hilarious.  Jennifer often quotes how her life is different from when she was a very young atheist.  Why couldn’t I quote how my life is different now that I have outgrown the indoctrination of my youth?
“You just lofted up a fat hanging curve ball”
Hilarious from an irrational believer.

“Any school kid could understand exactly what I’m saying”
Hilarious.
“I don’t have a response that you can understand.”
Hilarious.
“First.  Prayer.  Mock all you want atheists, but prayer works.”
Hilarious erroneous nonsense.  Why don’t you know better than that?  It seems you are ignoring the evidence.
“Second:  Example.”
As if that actually meant anything.  Atheists can be good without god.
“Third:  I encourage you to keep searching because you may be surprised!”
Hilarious.
“We do depend on faith.  Just like we depend on our eyesight.  It’s would be pretty hard to describe vision to a blind man.  I’m sure you find the comparison irrelevant.  But that’s because you can’t ‘see’ it.”
Hilarious irrational nonsense.
“An evil deed is (by definition) evil.”
Hilarious.  Who decides?  The Pope?  Contraception?
“Of course our ultimate ally is God.  His judgement will be perfect.”
Hilarious irrational nonsense.

Craig Roberts, anyone can tell stories and compare apples to oranges and find a fallacy to support their need, I could also tell some story with multiple possible interpretations and continue your nonproductive game.

You and Matt enjoy this banter as I do at times. I would guess your biggest problem with High IQ people is they are not easily swayed or intimidated by with these Jr. high school games and simplistic child psychology.

Craig =“Don’t hate me because I’m super-smart.”
I don’t care if you hate me or not, I simply asked why and you pretty much implied it was because you have to rely on stories as you are unable to articulate your thoughts.

I have missed a day and find the discussion still quite lively. Ma y I say: if you all got together you would probably find ineach other a good friend. Some are angry, most are not. Why are we in opposition? What do we hope to accomplish? I am a believer-and with Amy, find that belief brings great joy at other times, it brings pain. It would be a lot easier to just forget the very notion of God.  But the simple fact is: I wantTruth.  And every time I turn my back on it, I ger jerked back-in a variety of ways. I have been Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Mormon, Non-Denom. I have taken lessons from Jehoven’s Witnesses—many wonderful people.why am I then Catholic? Darned if I know! Except that when I sat before the Eucharist at Holy Hour, I cried until I had to leave because I ran out of tissues; my heart simply melted before Him. There was some kind of healing that I hadn’t even known I needed. Perhaps it helped that a seer of Medjugore says that in this world we are divided by religion, but inHeaven, it is not so. I studied the Qu’ran in college, read it many times, along with every other book of different religions, not to mention spending 9 years in science. I doubt that I have not heard any argument for or against God or any particular concept of Him. As Malculm Muggeridge said, he did not know why he became Catholic, considering its many problems. Yet, sinner that he insisted he was, he did join the Church-very likely because what he saw in Mother Teresa was pure, unadultered holiness. For all the sins of the Catholic Church—which are many—and, let us be honest, no more than the sins of other churches, other schools, it has the Eucharist. If you read John 6, perhaps you may see why I would die for that one inscrutable gift. For the wisdom of God is the foolishness of Man… Makes no scientific sense, does it?

@Maggie - “Except that when I sat before the Eucharist at Holy Hour, I cried until I had to leave because I ran out of tissues; my heart simply melted before Him. There was some kind of healing that I hadn’t even known I needed.” It was the Eucharist that drew me in as well, Maggie. I would feel called to sit before the Tabernacle in the middle of the day. When I was near the Eucharist I was near tears because I knew it was!

Thank you.  Perfect.  Exactly.  I’m sorry that I was unable to make myself more clear to you.  Luckily you were able to come along and demonstrate what I completely failed to articulate.  I don’t hate you.  Just trying to give you something to think about.

@Craig Roberts =“Just trying to give you something to think about.”

And that would be?

Thank you Maggie McC.  Your testimony is more powerful than all of my arguments, proofs, and theoritical exapmples, combined.

PS You woudn’t happen to be related to Mike McCants?

@Psy
Nothing, Psy, nothing.  Stick to what you’re good at.  When the final jusgement comes just remember to say ‘invincible ignorance’.  I’ll vouch for you.

@Maggie McC =“Makes no scientific sense, does it?”

Sure it does, I understand the concepts of emotionalism and philosophies.

“Some are angry”
Hilarious.  You failed to name names.
“But the simple fact is: I want Truth.”
Well, define “truth”.  No fair going to Wikipedia.  Believers are so silly with their “truth”.
“my heart simply melted before Him.”
Melted hearts fail to pump blood?  You should have used your brain?
“sinner that he insisted he was”
Hilarious religious nonsense word.  Define “sin”.
“any particular concept of Him”
Well please enlighten us poor benighted atheists.  Please state any one “particular concept of Him”.
“no more than the sins of other churches”
Well, part of Ireland is mainly Catholic and it seems that their sins were very much worse than other churches.  The report would upset your stomach, heart, and brain.
“For the wisdom of God is the foolishness of Man.”
Hilarious religious nonsense.
“Makes no scientific sense, does it?”
Yes and no.  It certainly is irrational.  But most people are irrational some of the time.  So in that sense, you are only human.  Science accepts that humans can be irrational.  Especially when their emotions come into play.
“Your testimony is more powerful”
Hilarious.
“When the final judgement comes”
Hilarious religious nonsense.  Found on the web:  “One such statement can be found at Matthew 16:28, in which he says “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.””  Seems like he was off a couple of thousand years or perhaps forever.
“remember to say ‘invincible ignorance’.”
It would seem that you are well aware that humans are capable of this.  Look in a mirror recently?  40% of Americans deny evolution.  Yes, invincible ignorance.  And mainly due to religious fundamentalism.  But why should Catholicism escape such a fate?  It seems you refuse to confront the “truth” that your book is mere mythology.  So you, too, have invincible ignorance.

After 444 postings and multiple approaches to these arguments it always seems to come back to having emotional inadequacies and needing to believe in some grand illusion.

Don’t forget:  Invincible Ignorance

Craig, I hope you overcome your communication issues.

Thanks buddy.

@Craig. No, not related to Mike McCants. If I knew him better I would tell him that repeating “hilarious” so often makes his posts very unconvincing. @ Sebgur do you not see the incredible beauty of mathematic and wonder at the Mind that created it? Symmetry? I have looked in awe at the remarkable beauty seen in an MRI of an ankle. To me the wonder of a cosmos of laws, of infinite complexity, yet nothing random—except what science has not yet found the operative law governing it. It is interesting that astrophysicists are the scientists turning toward a belief in God. They are now observing things never seen in the history of mankind and realizing how perfectly everything must function for our universe to exist at all….it makes for an entirely new concept of the origin and laws that govern all that is. Someone mentioned Richard Feynman.he is dead, I seem to recall. I wonder what he would say now? And I believe Einstein did express some notion of belief in God’s existence. I guess some of you would agree with Bertrand Russell, who said that if he ever had to appear before God, he would say “why didn’t you give me more evidence?”  I think the believers and the atheists on this blog will simply never agree on what constitutes Evidence. I know why Christians are engaging in these debates but have to wonder why the unbelievers do.

@Maggie McC =“why the unbelievers do”

Maggie, I can’t speak for others but I just like to debate, I have four other debates going on at the moment on science, politics, religion and music. That and Mark’s ‘Atheist Dogma’ title showing up on Google News was an open invitation.

@Amy. Thank you for your witness and your patience and humility.  I pray it will bear fruit you would never dream of.@Craig. Thank you too, especially for your kind words to me, and your forbearance in attempting to debate without losing your way or your sense of humor.and thank you all for a stimulating and mostly quite civil discussion. My beloved brother-in-law is a fallen-away Catholic and atheist. We have had some interesting conversations. Only one thing, he said, made him wonder if there might not be a god after all and that was the way Chrustians went to their death in Roman arenas. Psy would likely say that was due to their emotionalism and philosophy. BTW, Pascal’s wager was not just a dry sort of bet. Be had an extremely vivid “revelation” which he only described as “Fire” that lasted some hours, apparently. And I doubt anyone posting here could top his IQ. Yet he wrote “le coeur a ses raisons que le Raison NE connait point” so for him, Reason was not the summit—the heart had its own rationale. Something I think every believer would agree with.

@Psy. I thought that might be it for you. Would love to see your debates on music and politics!

Maggie McC,

I have atheists relative too.  It grieves me, but I have taken much comfort in the theology of Henri DeLubac who basically shows from a biblical perspective that, in some sense, we’re all in this together.

I had my own sort of revelation that was along the lines of Pascal’s wager.  Basically: it’s better to live your life embracing faith, hope, and love, than to reject those things, regardless of the final destination.  Atheists think they can live a life of hope and love, but they can’t hope for eternal life, or the love of God.  They are blind to what is obvious to us.  That hope for the future, when there is no future, is not hope at all.  That human love is such a weak glimpse of the love of God that to reject the love of God is to reject love.

Thanks again for your encouragement and powerful testimony.

“repeating “hilarious” so often makes his posts very unconvincing”
Hilarious.  I am well aware that attempting to “convince” you that the sun rises in the east would be hopeless.
“do you not see the incredible beauty of mathematic and wonder at the Mind that created it?”
Hilarious non sequitur.
“yet nothing random”
Hilarious.  Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes - yet “nothing random”.  A million sperm compete to fertilize that ovum and one wins - yet “nothing random”.  Drive 34 miles per hour instead of your usual 33 mph and the car running the red light at a blind corner misses me by one car length (personal anecdote that proves nothing) and yet “nothing random”.  Well, your have your version of reality and I have mine and we certainly live in different realities.
“astrophysicists are the scientists turning toward a belief in God”
Hilarious.  I don’t believe your assertion.
“for an entirely new concept of the origin and laws that govern all that is.”
Hilarious nonsense.  Entirely new in the last century?  So what?  The universe was “created” 13.7 billion years ago.  Humans came along about 0.00001 billion years ago.  What was that creator waiting for during that 13.69999 billion years?  And what could this possibly have to do with the silliness that make up the tenets of any particular religion?
“I wonder what he would say now?”
From Wikiquotes:  “It doesn’t seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”  Nothing has changed except that humans are discovering more and more planets around other stars.  Perhaps we will one day in the not too distant future discover a planet at the proper distance from it sun to support liquid water and life.  Perhaps we will discover that that planet has water or oxygen in its atmosphere.  Then we can speculate that perhaps a sentient species could have arisen millions of years ago or millions of years in its future.  So what?  That is science and it has nothing to do with religion.  The universe is far too big for anything to care about the tiny little drama that is occurring for 0.001% of the life of the universe in this 0.0000000001% (or so) of its mass and energy.  “Made in the image of a god”?  How silly.  Quite hilarious.
And the one I already quoted:  “God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.”
So I can add:  Things like the origin of the universe, the origin of our natural laws, and the origin of life from non-life (until we do figure it out).
And this:  “I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don’t know anything about, but I don’t have to know an answer I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn’t frighten me.”  Of course he was an atheist and nothing has really changed since he passed away.
A long quote with this in the middle:  “Our [science’s] freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science.”  Science rejected religious authority several centuries ago.  Nothing has changed.
“but they can’t hope for eternal life”
Quite true.  So it’s much better to live this life as if it’s the only one you will ever have.  How much time to you waste doing things in the “hope of eternal life”?
But now my post is too long and it will get hung up in moderation for how long?
“That human love is such a weak glimpse of the love of God that to reject the love of God is to reject love.”
Your assertion is silly.

@Mike mcCants. My remark about the beauty of mathematics was not a non sequitor as it was not directed to you, as you can see in the post:it was addressed to Sebgur, who says he is a mathematician. The most of your post I will let pass as the only sentence that struck me was the question of how much time we ” waste” in our lives on eternal things. To me that displays such an astonishing lack of knowledge of how Christians (and other believers) live that it is clearly hopeless to even attempt a response. May you be blessed with every good and perfect gift by the God I believe in, whether you acknowledge Him or not. :)
@Craig. Obviously we are of one mind in the matter under discussion and I am heartened by your words. I have not read Henri deLubac but will look him up. Have you read Dinesh D’Souza’s books on faith? I find them wonderful. He is a good friend of Christopher Hitchens and a few of their debates are on YouTube. They are certainly a study in contrasts and both possessed of great intellects. Thank you again—and if you would, say a prayer for me at Mass (I am having some real health issues) and for my friend, Jan, whose son shot himself two months ago. She has great faith but of course she is grieving.

“My remark about the beauty of mathematics was not a non sequitor as it was not directed to you”
Hilarious.  It seems that you do not know what “non sequitur” actually means.
“do you not see the incredible beauty of mathematic and wonder at the Mind that created it?”
The implication that I took from what I assumed was your religiously-motivated nonsense was:  Since mathematics exists, therefore “the Mind that created it” (God) exists.  Such a syllogism is a non sequitur.

@Mike McCants You must have failed Logic. Hilarious.

From Wikipedia:  “Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.  In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur.”

Mike, do you really think passing Logic 101 is as easy as copying the definition from wikipedia?

@Maggie Mc C “Sebgur do you not see the incredible beauty of mathematic and wonder at the Mind that created it?”

I do find mathematics very beautiful. To the point I decided to spend my whole days working on them. However, I don’t need to imagine a Mind behind them to find them beautiful. Mathematics are beautiful, period, with or without God.

“They[astophysicists] are now observing things never seen in the history of mankind and realizing how perfectly everything must function for our universe to exist at all”

Incorrect. Things are not perfect. That old story that believers keep bringing up, of how things have to be exactly the way they are otherwise our universe would not exist, it’s false, and it has already been debunked I don’t know how many times. You should update your arguments on this subject. This is one of the reasons why I’m here, annoyed at hearing the same fallacies about science repeated all the time by believers, who heard them once, and never checked.

The world is far from perfect. I say nature is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, and it doesn’t mean everything is beautiful in it. There are some beautiful and amazing things in the world, as well as some terrible ones too. It’s too easy to look only at the beautiful ones and see God in them, and then forget about the rest.

“Someone mentioned Richard Feynman.he is dead, I seem to recall. I wonder what he would say now?”

Why now? What is so different now compared to 1988 that would make him change his mind? Are you assuming that the period we live in is special, by opposition to the previous one?

By the way, he was an atheist, and here is one of his quotes
“To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature”
Just to answer your first question about the beauty of mathematics. Of course we see it, and the more we understand Math, the more we find it beautiful.

@Maggie Mc C - “And I believe Einstein did express some notion of belief in God’s existence.”

Yes, some notion that sounds like the God you’re referring to, although different. But I’m wondering what is the point you’re trying to make by listing scientists who were believers. If you’re trying to show us that some scientists believe in God, nothing new here, it’s a well-known fact. Or if you’re trying to show that clever people can be believers too, it’s known too, I don’t think Atheists deny that, at least I don’t.

Most scientists are atheists, but some are believers, and still do their jobs just as well. Anyway, Science is not in contradiction with a belief in God. It’s when the belief in God leads to arrogance (believers have the best faith, best lives, best love, best whatever), anger (some non-believers are just equally happy and it appears this is annoying some believers), intolerance (against minorities, gays, etc…), or denial of scientific proofs (Evolution, global warming…), that there is a problem.

“I think the believers and the atheists on this blog will simply never agree on what constitutes Evidence.”

I prefer using the word proof. Believers are satisfied with “evidence”, as hints. Something confirms their belief from their point of view, they take it as evidence, even if other people will see it differently, and they can’t prove their interpretation is correct. Scientists have higher standards as to what constitutes a proof, as acknowledged and complained about by some believers on this forum, which makes it much more difficult to reach near-certainty. So indeed, as you say, there is a problem to reach an agreement on what constitutes evidence, and that’s no surprise.

Science has already proven more than enough that it works. The high standards by which we judge evidence have led mankind to build all our technological tools, medicine, trips to space and the Moon, and so on. You wouldn’t be typing on a computer today if Science didn’t have a very high standard for what constitutes a proof. A computer doesn’t work by hints, and it doesn’t work just if the point of view of the user is suitable, it works whoever the user is.

So these high standards are not unrealistic, as someone mentioned on this forum. They are realistic, and they have proven to be exceptionally productive.

@Maggie Mc C - “I know why Christians are engaging in these debates but have to wonder why the unbelievers do.”

I can’t answer for all unbelievers, but on my side, I’m trying to understand the reactions of believers. I’m particularly interested in the denial of science. So this forum is not really the best place to be, since people here don’t really talk about science but more about abstract concepts. I’m more interested in specific discussions on things like Evolution, Physics, Biology.

In general I am not much interested in asking believers to justify their belief in the existence of God, since I already know they believe in it because of their inner feelings and they can’t prove it, nor explain it with scientific accuracy. All they can give as evidence are things that they see as evidence, but that other people will see differently. That’s fine, I don’t mind, don’t really care anyway, people believe whatever they want.

So to answer your question about why I am on this forum, there is one thing I don’t like, it is when believers talk about Science or Atheism and propagate misconceptions, mischaracterizations, or even plain wrong facts. When I see that, I feel like I have to jump in and correct what is said. Believers can believe and feel whatever they want, but they shouldn’t propagate lies about other faiths or philosophies, and even more importantly, distortions or too old ideas about science (such as “the universe wouldn’t exist if things were not perfectly as they are now”). Which brings me to a forum held by Christians talking about Atheism.

Sometimes people can be too smart for their own good. That is how I see non believing atheists. The spiritual component in a human being cannot be measured with mathematical formulas or some sort of scientific proof. It is not something that can be “figured out” and that is where the atheist can search all they want and come up empty. Faith is a supernatural gift. God’s grace permeates the soul of the believer. It’s as simple and as profound as that.

Well said, Amy.  You explained perfectly why most all of our attempts to get atheists to open their hearts and minds to faith are doomed.  We can’t use our intellects to get their intellects to “figure out” that there is more to being human than just intellect.  It’s a failure in the heart.  When an atheist hardens their stance against God (and by association faith, hope, and love) they are really hardening their hearts to all spiritual possibilities.  Eventually their hearts get so small that they deny that it plays any role in their lives at all.  To deny the soul is to be cut off from it.  Luckily “all things are possible with God.”  So their obtuseness can never destroy our hope for them.

“Sometimes people can be too smart for their own good.”
Yes.  Perhaps it would be better to be deluded and perhaps happier because living in that fantasy world feels better.  Jesus loves me is so comforting when I’m hungry.
“The spiritual component in a human being cannot be measured with mathematical formulas or some sort of scientific proof.”
Of course not.  Science deals with the rational.  Irrational nonsense cannot be measured or reproduced as an experiment.
“that is where the atheist can search all they want and come up empty.”
Hilarious.  Why should an atheist “search”?  That would be irrational.
“Faith is a supernatural gift.”
Or else it’s just deluding yourself with “belief without evidence”.
“God’s grace”
Irrational religious nonsense.  Who are you going to vote for?
“the soul”
Irrational religious nonsense.
“It’s as simple”
Yes.  Delusions can be very simple.
“that there is more to being human than just intellect.”
What does that statement have to do with delusional religions?
“It’s a failure in the heart.”
Head for the nearest emergency room.  Heart failure is often deadly.
“hardens their stance against God”
or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  They are both delusions.
“hope, and love”
Thanks for the insult of asserting that I am less than human.
“To deny the soul is to be cut off from it.”
Being “cut off” from a non-existent entity is painless.
“So their obtuseness can never destroy our hope for them.”
Meaningless religious nonsense.  Your hope for me plus $5.27 will buy me a hamburger.
“That’s fine, I don’t mind, don’t really care anyway, people believe whatever they want.”
But who are they going to vote for?

“Thanks for the insult of asserting that I am less than human.”

Actually Mike we are the ones asserting that you do in fact have a soul and are therefore, technically, human.  You are the one denying your soul and by extension, your humanity.

“You are the one denying your soul and by extension, your humanity.”
Irrational religious stupid nonsense.
Humans, like many animals, are capable of thinking and feeling.
“When an atheist hardens their stance against God (and by association faith, hope, and love)”
Animals are capable of hope and love.  It would seem that you wish to deny atheists hope and love.  That’s an insult.  And it’s an insult available only to one who is religious.  So it’s irrational.  It’s religious.  And it’s stupid nonsense.

You are the one insisting that you are nothing but an animal.

sebgur =“it is when believers talk about Science or Atheism and propagate misconceptions, mischaracterizations, or even plain wrong facts.”

Propaganda is an integral part of authoritarianism, I’m sure you noticed the simple conditioned-preprogramed defense responses that help keep them from thinking outside of the restrictions of their beliefs. By creating imaginary enemies with propaganda they promote cohesion of the group. They target the right amygdala or part of the reptilian portion of the brain producing a fear-threat response to protect their beliefs.

“You are the one insisting that you are nothing but an animal.”
If you are claiming to be “more than an animal”, that’s really foolish.
You have no evidence.  A soul?  Hilarious idiocy.

Mike - do u have anything else to say except hilarious, or stupid nonsense?
I will say it once again; there is a spiritual dimension to the human person. To you it’s stupid and nonsense. To those of us who live in “God’s world) it can compare to no other earthly experience. If you and others who think as you do persist in your rejection of God He will send you where you choose (away from Him) for all eternity and perhaps that is as you would have it.

Could an animal have this conversation?  If you say yes, that we are animals having this conversation, then you can no longer whine that you are being treated as ‘less than human’.  Only a human (as opposed to an animal) can demand to be treated like a human.

Amy =“Sometimes people can be too smart for their own good. That is how I see non believing atheists.”

Nobodies perfect.

Amy =“The spiritual component in a human being cannot be measured with mathematical formulas or some sort of scientific proof. It is not something that can be “figured out” and that is where the atheist can search all they want and come up empty.”

Its odd that you would confuse ‘atheism’ with ‘secular’ scientific research. You seem to be implying a preference to religious ‘conformation bias’ as opposed to a neutral objective approach.
You say “cannot be measured” while the US military has a ‘spirituality test’ that was in the News not to long ago. We have all sorts of cool brain scanning toys and a more recent break through suggesting the source of consciousness in the brain though more studies, research and experimentation is needed. Coming up empty as far as finding a soul would seem to lean towards evidence of its non-existence.

Craig Roberts =“Could an animal have this conversation?”

There is some evidence that some probably could. Great apes, dolphins, whales, ect. all have evolved spinal neurons in their brains the same as humans, they have taught a gorilla named Koko sign language and estimated her to have an IQ of 90. The results are quite impressive.

spinal neurons should be ‘spindle neurons’

Psy - You and others have repeatedly asked for “proof” of God’s existence and when proof was given you and others repeatedly relied upon the fact that science can’t prove it. And once again you tell me that evidence of a soul is non existent. Well it’s non existent to you because you don’t believe what’s written in the Bible. I’m made my point that the atheist is not searching for the spiritual dimension. I’m done going around and around with this discussion. I said it before no matter what anyone says to any of non believers you will come back with something to challenge it. Please remember what I said to Mike; if you persist in your rejection of God He will give you what you ask for in the end; total separation from Him for all eternity.

Amy =“when proof was given”

Amy, no-one here has presented any ‘proof’ of existence of a soul or gods. They have repeatedly demonstrated ‘confirmation bias’, jumping to conclusions, emotionalism, and misrepresenting what nonbelievers are saying.

@psy - I said there is a another dimension to a person - the spiritual dimension that cannot be proven by science or mathematical calculations.
“They have repeatedly demonstrated ‘confirmation bias’, jumping to conclusions, emotionalism, and misrepresenting what nonbelievers are saying.” The only bias, jumping to conclusions, emotionalism and misrepresentation of believers is coming from nonbelievers. Once again, persist in your non believe and God will give you what you ask for, separation from Him for all eternity.

Amy =“Please remember what I said to Mike; if you persist in your rejection of God He will give you what you ask for in the end; total separation from Him for all eternity.”

Amy, do you have any idea how shallow statements like this make you appear?

Psy - I considered my statement profound. Nevertheless,I’m stating what I believe.

Amy =“I said there is a another dimension to a person - the spiritual dimension that cannot be proven by science or mathematical calculations.”

Many of my religious friends have told me I am a very spiritual person, though after they explain what they mean, I still don’t know what they are talking about. It appears to be a conflict in terminologies that we are expressing the same thing but using the wrong words.

Amy =“I considered my statement profound. Nevertheless,I’m stating what I believe.”

Amy, using the equivalent of ‘You will burn for all eternity’ is anything but profound. It comes across as a childish attempt to scare people into seeing things your way.

Psy - Spiritual to me is God and religion. Spiritual about the earth or anything but God can be seen as spiritual but it’s New Age spirituality which is not of God.

Psy - I personally do care where people spend eternity. If you think I’m trying to scare you, good! But like I have said all along it’s up to you.

Amy =“If you think I’m trying to scare you, good! But like I have said all along it’s up to you.”

Amy, a few years a go I was on a date with a girl who asked me if I was afraid of going to hell, I drew blood biting my tongue and did everything I could to keep from laughing out loud. It did work. I still laugh out loud even with my former brother-in-law who understands and still asks me to help him with his religious studies as he knows I am more than happy to help him sort out the meanings of different scriptures and have no intent of changing his beliefs.

“It did work.” Should be “It didn’t work.”
And I’m still sorry I embarrassed her.

@Psy - Whatever. I’m done, Psy. have a good life.

Amy, Thank you for taking the time to converse with me and I think we both have a better understanding of each others perspective now. Have a great life and thank you again for your time and indulgence.

Amy, I’ve returned with the smelling salts.

Biblical research has revealed a halfway place between purgatory and hell, where God consigns atheists upon their death.  In his mercy, he gives them a chance to determine for themselves where they want to spend eternity, based on “sensory evidence.”

It’s actually a pissoir frequented by demons on their way back to hell, after tormenting souls in purgatory during the day.  They come in, make a a terrible mess, and then are plunged back into the infernal night.  You can imagine the smell.

God gives it to the atheists to clean up this pissoir, then decide which way they want to go.  To assist them, he equips them with two cleaning implements: a toothbrush called intellect; and a toothpick called knowledge.

Needless to say, some of the atheists never make it out.  Only those who cry out “God, I can’t do this by myself” stand half a chance.

Grace and peace to you, Amy.

“a halfway place between purgatory and hell”
Hilarious religious nonsense.  Of course you have no evidence.

@Psy

“...they have taught a gorilla named Koko sign language and estimated her to have an IQ of 90.”

I’ll have to ask Koko about atheism.  I suspect the reply will be more cogent than most.

@Amy. Blessings and thanks for all your comments. Wish we were neighbors! @Mike McCants. Sorry for my snarky comment to your hilarious repetitions. Please forgive me for getting too irritated. @Sebgur.I enjoy your posts and hope ours have been entertaining if not enlightening. I have no qualms about hell; it has just never been s factor for me. I guess it’s true that “perfect love casts out fear”, even though mine is do far from perfect. I count on my Lord to understand and compensate as .he said he had done. I was actually referring to Anthony Flew in remarking on how perfectly thingsvwork, as he became a deist after he said it had become impossible for him as an atheist to explain the apparent design in the cosmos. Not that I consider all is for he best in this best of all possible worlds as Dr.Pangloss isaid. Obviously there is evil. But then trusting in an omnipotent God puts it into a different perspective. I am not a scientist but have worked and studied in the world of physics for much of my life. And am married to a nuclear physicist, who really doesn’t bother with the question of God. He says he just lives by the Golden Rule and that’s it. If only everyone would, whatever their theology/philosophy. @Matt B, Psy et al.: thanks. It has been very interesting. Perhaps we wil meet again.

@Oliver. I believe there is no conflict between free will and God"s omniscience because He is outside of Time.

P.s. You are all in my prayers.  :)

God bless you all and especially you atheists. :-)

@ Maggie - “@Sebgur.I enjoy your posts and hope ours have been entertaining if not enlightening…  Not that I consider all is for he best in this best of all possible worlds as Dr.Pangloss isaid. Obviously there is evil. But then trusting in an omnipotent God puts it into a different perspective. I am not a scientist but have worked and studied in the world of physics for much of my life. And am married to a nuclear physicist, who really doesn’t bother with the question of God. He says he just lives by the Golden Rule and that’s it. If only everyone would, whatever their theology/philosophy.”

Wise words, pretty good as a conclusion. Thanks Maggie and good bye everybody.

“I suspect the reply will be more cogent than most.”
I suspect that you don’t know what “cogent” means.
“Please forgive me for getting too irritated.”
Hilarious.  You’re just continuing to repeat your nonsense.  Why should I be “irritated” at your irrationality.  It’s only to be expected.  I would assume you were properly indoctrinated as a child and you can’t help it.  And it’s probably a wonderful social society if you ignore silly things like prayers.
“You must have failed Logic.”
Have you learned what “non sequitur” really means?
“hope ours have been entertaining”
Hilarious in their repetitiousness.  And sometimes hilarious in their errors.
“Anthony Flew”
Hilarious.  His “ghost writer” was successful?
“he became a deist”
Do you know what that is?  It’s not really a believer.  Apparently his ghost writer convinced someone whom you consider to be an authority.  Who cares what one person thinks?
“impossible for him ... to explain the apparent design in the cosmos”
Oops.  You messed up your talking point.  It’s actual design, not mere apparent design!  Hilarious.  And, of course, “impossible for a doddering old fool to explain” is simply “god of the gaps” as usual.  Do you understand what “god of the gaps” really means?
“trusting in an omnipotent God”
is quite irrational.  You have no evidence.
“who really doesn’t bother with the question of God.”
So, for practical purposes, is he an agnostic or an atheist?  In any case, he’s apparently not a believer.  Count him in the majority of natural scientists.
“the Golden Rule”
Yes.  Atheists can be good without a god.
“If only everyone would”
Is a Mormon really a Christian?  Will you vote for him?
“He is outside of Time.”
Hilarious irrational nonsense.
“You are all in my prayers.”
But I need that and $4.56 to buy a hamburger.
“God bless you all and especially you atheists.”
Hilarious.
“pretty good as a conclusion”
In other words, it is just fine that he is not a believer.
Why does anyone “bother with the question of a god”?  It’s such a waste of time.
Adam and Eve, Original Sin, inherited sin!, Resurrection, salvation, eternal life.  It’s a wonderful mythology to build a religion on.  But it’s just a mythology.  And it does not make a lick of sense.

Romney is a Mormon!  Who knew?  Will you vote for him?
A comment today:  “One of the more ridiculous aspects of this entire enterprise is that one group of religious nutballs is criticizing another group of religious nutballs for not being mainstream enough.”

Atheists will never be convinced by miracles. They wil always assume any miracle will have a naturalistic explanation behind it no matter how absurd or remarkable it is.

When you think it over. All life is a miracle. Just the way our bodies are made and how everyday it constantly fights off all kinds of diseases in our immune systems etc. is ignored. Just the act of the sun rising every morning is itself a miracle, but it happens so often that the extraordinary becomes mundane. All existence is a miracle, but it’s one we take for granted entirely.

If God were to perform a miracle, it’ll be ignored a-priori, because athiests have their own religious set of dogmatic values that they will try to interpret it by. Then proclaim that if God is providing miracles for one why not for everyone and proclaim Him a monster or someone disinterested in His creation. If God were to provide a miracle to everyone everyday, which He pretty much does all the time from existence itself to our immune system and all the pleasures and joys and wonders we take for granted,then like those it’ll just seem like the natural course of events and reduced to something unremarkable.

Miracles are not ever going to be convincing to hardened atheists dead set on following their own delusions. God knows this, which is why He only responds individualy to people when He chooses and decides is going to be most beneficial to them and others of faith personally. Not for the benefit of atheist onlookers who’ll pretend nothing of the sort took place.

Athiests can hardly explain any of their own convictions. How is the universe or anything at all here? They don’t know. How does evolution work if it ever really did at all in the first place. They don’t know. How is it possible for a group of people who disbelieve in anything they can’t see or measure scientifically to believe that logic or morality or anything concrete and abstract exists? They don’t know. They like to assume too much and take it for granted. The very fact that logic and an invisible law exists that upholds the universe that must be pre-immenent to any existence to make it possible is enough to falsify atheism. But they ignore it.

And of other funny questions that must be asked is why they are so inconsistent with their own beliefs? They cry and wine about how ‘cruel’ God is, but why should this matter? After all it’s a dog eat dog survival of the fittest world according to them. Do ants have any right or purpose to complain when something of a higher nature like man steps on them? Then what good is it for an atheist to wine about something of a higher nature (like God) doing whatever it wants to them?

They cry and wine about religious people doing bad things, but if nature and the universe is a dog eat dog world where there is no such thing as absolute morality then why are they concerned by any contradictions that religious people might arbitrarily make? And why fight religion if religion has by and large offered great survival advantages for those who follow it? So what if it is a false one? If atheism is true, then whether it is correct or not hardly matters at all. They are free to get with it and survive and thrive or do whatever they want.

They worry about preserving the world or creating some kind of grand naturalist eco system to protect nature or whatever and ‘enlighten’ others and percieve some great utopian future generation… but it is in vain if according to naturalism, millions of years from now, the sun will implode and destroy the earth and the universe as a whole will ground to a halt and everything will be gone and cease to exist once again, so any such efforts on their part have always been futile.

Then again given how atheism itself is one big contradiction, it’s only fitting that atheists be conflicted and nonsensical in their approach and outlook of life. That’s probably the only consistent thing about something so inconsistent… So it is always humorous to see peope who pescribe to such daft concepts and contradiction proclaim themselves ‘bright’ or ‘smarter’ and ‘intellectually honest.’ In reality atheists are troubled to deal with anything that can’t be reduced to convenient simplistic mechanical explanations so as not to trouble their minds any further. Just because one can cite all the nomenclature of the periodic table is no more academically impressive than a child who can name you all 300 Pokemon. So no, having any so called scientific degrees or being scientifically minded doesn’t in fact make you any smarter or correct when it comes to using flawed philosophy dressed and peppered with scientific and other fancy words in a vain attempt to discredit God and Catholic morality.

@Johnno
Well said!  Mike?  Psy?  Anybody?  I didn’t think so.

Yes, Johnno, but where’s your evidence?

Matt B
Are you being funny?  You of all people should know that some things, the most important things, are self-evident.

“If God were to perform a miracle, it’ll be ignored a-priori, because athiests have their own religious set of dogmatic values that they will try to interpret it by.”
That’s a lie.  However, the standard of evidence for a “miracle” is very high.
“Miracles are not ever going to be convincing to hardened atheists dead set on following their own delusions.”
That’s a lie.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Do you have any extraordinary evidence?  I don’t think so.
“He only responds individually”
Hilarious delusional religious nonsense.
“How does evolution work”
You are ignorant.  You should read a book about evolution.
“They cry and wine about how ‘cruel’ God is”
That’s a stupid lie.  The correct word is “whine”.
“Then what good is it for an atheist to wine about something of a higher nature (like God) doing whatever it wants to them?”
Hilarious ignorance.  What is a “higher nature”?  Some sort of religious gobbledygook?
“why are they concerned by any contradictions that religious people might arbitrarily make?”
Because religious people try to influence the laws that everyone has to live under.  Would you like to live under Sharia?  Death for apostasy?
“And why fight religion if religion has by and large offered great survival advantages for those who follow it?”
Yes.  If one angered the local witch doctor, one was likely to suffer the consequences.  But that was thousands of years ago.  If one contradicts the local Islamic authority, one is likely to be stoned to death.  But that is not in the US.  Have we advanced in the last few hundred years?  Yes.  Religion is now superfluous and its “costs exceed its benefits”.
“They are free to get with it and survive and thrive or do whatever they want.”
Unless there are religiously-motivated laws.  Was abortion illegal?  Do you want it to be illegal in the future?  Is assisted dying illegal in most states?  What is the religious position on sex education in high schools.  Yes, religious people would love to implement a religious agenda.  Look how Catholics squeal when Obama is going to require health insurance to provide contraception.  How trivial!
“so any such efforts on their part have always been futile.”
Hilarious.  Correction - the sun will expand to be a red giant in several billion years.  And religious efforts for “salvation” and “eternal life” are also quite futile.  So let’s all commit suicide tomorrow?  What’s your stupid point?
“atheism itself is one big contradiction”
Only in your stupid opinion.
“In reality atheists are troubled to deal with anything that can’t be reduced to convenient simplistic mechanical explanations”
Your opinion is ignorant and stupid.
“to using flawed philosophy”
Hilarious.  Do you have some “non-flawed philosophy”?
“attempt to discredit God”
One cannot “discredit” something that does not exist.
“discredit ... Catholic morality.”
Yes.  Catholic morality is partially based on interpreting a book of mythology.  That’s fundamentally flawed.

I have seldom read such a large number of ignorant and stupid opinions.

“Well said!”
The ignorant and stupid echo chamber is happy.
“the most important things, are self-evident.”
Hilarious religious stupidity.

Johnno, you seem so negitive about everything.

@Psy
How is ‘the miracle of life’ negative?  The negative view is that there are no miracles and everything is mundane.

@Mike
True is true.  Dumb is dumb.  Hilarious means hilarious.  You take the self-evident for granted, but without it we could not exist, much less converse.

Mark Shea quotes Chesterton two weeks ago: “The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them.”
This “rightly or wrongly” does not make any sense.  Either there is evidence or there is not.  So either it’s a miracle or it is not.  Of course scientists say there is no acceptable evidence.  So it does not make any sense to “believe” in something for which there is no evidence.  But that does fit the definition of faith - belief without evidence.  Bottom line:  Those who believe without evidence can easily believe in miracles without evidence.

If you trace this Chesterton statement, it was made in 1908 and it refers to eye-witness testimony.  It contains:  “The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle.”  Well, that may be “obvious”, but it certainly would not be acceptable to scientists.  Perhaps Chesterton did not have thousands of eye-witness UFO stories to evaluate in 1908.  “The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant’s word about the ghost.”  Perhaps he would not be so credulous of eye-witnesses if he had to watch the ridiculous ghost nonsense on the SyFy channel.  So, when someone sees a “ghost”, do you believe them?  Or do you require the “evidence” gathered by “Ghost Hunters International”?  Hilarious.

Chesterton continues:  “looking impartially into certain miracles of medieval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred.”  Well, he may claim impartiality, but I have my doubts.

“All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle.”
Quite true.  If I say I saw a ghost, you cannot prove me wrong.  You were standing right there beside me and you didn’t see it, but just like the new TV show “A Gifted Man”, the ghost was only visible to me.  I know what I saw and there is no way you can “prove me wrong”.  But this is not science - this is “anti-science”.  This is belief based on mere hearsay.  If I say I saw a UFO, you can only prove me wrong if you can come up with the appropriate natural explanation for what I saw.  As long as I deny that your explanation is valid, you cannot prove me wrong.  This is madness.

Shea continues quoting Chesterton:  “The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.”
The problem with this is that it is not true.  Scientists do not accept miracles because there is no acceptable evidence for them.  So we need to argue over “acceptable evidence”.  But it is certain that scientists would never accept the “evidence” in your book of mythology.  No wonder that so relatively few of them believe in a god.

You [Johnno] simply repeat:  “They will always assume any miracle will have a naturalistic explanation behind it no matter how absurd or remarkable it is.”  But this is not true.  Scientists simply require appropriate (extraordinary) evidence.

“When you think it over, all life is a miracle.”
This is simply absurd.  Life is observed to follow “natural laws”.  So life cannot be considered a miracle.  Eventually the “origin of life” about 4 billion years ago will be found to follow the natural laws of physics and chemistry.  It will not be a miracle.  And the “god of the gaps” fallacy is no way to assert that a god exists.  Not to mention that a god that created life 4 billion years ago would not necessarily bear any relationship to Christianity or any other religion.

“The negative view is that there are no miracles and everything is mundane.”
In other words, “mere reality” is “negative” in your opinion.  But life exists.  That’s not negative, that’s positive.  But you require “more” for your reality.  But you have no acceptable evidence.  So your belief in your “more” is belief without evidence.

“True is true.”
How ridiculous can you get?  Not much more ridiculous than that.

“without it we could not exist”
Well, perhaps this sentence makes sense in your fantasy world.  “Without the self-evident we could not exist???”  What is “self-evident”?  You are not specific enough to even allow your sentence to be evaluated.  So it’s nonsense.  Without the self-evidence fact that we exist, we would not exist?  That’s about right for you - absurd.

“much less converse”
We are not “conversing”.  We are simply talking right past each other.  I find everything you say to be completely ridiculous and you seem to ignore everything that I say.

“the most important things are self-evident.”
Hilarious nonsense.  Are you allowed to be specific?

Google found several thousand references on the web to that Chesterton quote and one of them was by Mark Shea in 2002!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2002/10/28986/
Here is a quote from that entry:
“Since God and the supernatural are ultimately the biggest part of reality (He existed before all else and, when heaven and earth pass away, will still exist), atheism has a tough row to hoe to continue plodding away in denial of reality.”
Hilarious assertion of belief without evidence.  Talk about denial of reality!
“Believers in the supernatural are free to believe in all sorts of supernatural phenomena they can’t explain.”
Quite correct.  Do you wonder why scientists are not impressed?
“when presented with a home videotape of a Eucharistic miracle at Betania, which numerous other eyewitnesses attest”
Dec. 8, 1991.  Apparently there are numerous “Eucharistic miracles”.  I wonder why scientists are not impressed.

Here is a skeptical article:
http://www.examiner.com/rationalism-in-national/mark-shea-and-the-irrational-belief-miracles
“Feel free to slap your forehead again. You can read the full quote here, in which Chesterton explains that you should believe everything everyone says.”  The full quote of Chesterton talks about believing an “apple-woman” who sees a ghost!

Here’s a hilarious Chesterton quote from 1908:
“Things that the old science at least would frankly have rejected as miracles are hourly being asserted by the new science.”  I wonder what he would have thought about science in 2011 - DNA, vaccines, wonder drugs, modern surgery.  Not to mention computers, satellites, cell phones.  Clarke’s 3rd law - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.  So 2011 technology would certainly have been “magic” to Chesterton.

Where’s the scientific evidence that that’s hilarious?

So 2011 technology would certainly have been “magic” to Chesterton.

Existence was magic to Chesterton.  That it is not magic to you is simply the most obvious demonstration of your poverty.  That virtually all you can do is repeat “hilarious” like a broken record to express your pathetic need to feel superior is deeply sad.  Your contempt cuts you off from even understanding what you sneer at.

From Chesterton’s Orthodoxy:
“Here is the peculiar perfection of tone and truth in the nursery tales. The man of science says, “Cut the stalk, and the apple will fall”; but he says it calmly, as if the one idea really led up to the other. The witch in the fairy tale says, “Blow the horn, and the ogre’s castle will fall ”; but she does not say it as if it were something in which the effect obviously arose out of the cause. Doubtless she has given the advice to many champions, and has seen many castles fall, but she does not lose either her wonder or her reason. She does not muddle her head until it imagines a necessary mental connection between a horn and a falling tower. But the scientific men do muddle their heads, until they imagine a necessary mental connection between an apple leaving the tree and an apple reaching the ground. They do really talk as if they had found not only a set of marvellous facts, but a truth connecting those facts. They do talk as if the connection of two strange things physically connected them philosophically. They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two together somehow make up a comprehensible thing. Two black riddles make a white answer.

In fairyland we avoid the word “law”; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it. Thus they will call some interesting conjecture about how forgotten folks pronounced the alphabet, Grimm’s Law. But Grimm’s Law is far less intellectual than Grimm’s Fairy Tales. The tales are, at any rate, certainly tales; while the law is not a law. A law implies that we know the nature of the generalisation and enactment; not merely that we have noticed some of the effects. If there is a law that pick-pockets shall go to prison, it implies that there is an imaginable mental connection between the idea of prison and the idea of picking pockets. And we know what the idea is. We can say why we take liberty from a man who takes liberties. But we cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a bear could turn into a fairy prince. As IDEAS, the egg and the chicken are further off from each other than the bear and the prince; for no egg in itself suggests a chicken, whereas some princes do suggest bears. Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the “Laws of Nature.” When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o’clock. We must answer that it is MAGIC. It is not a “law,” for we do not understand its general formula. It is not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen. It is no argument for unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things. We do not count on it; we bet on it. We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet. We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception. All the terms used in the science books, “law,” “necessity,” “order,” “tendency,” and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, “charm,” “spell,” “enchantment.” They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched.”

“Where’s the scientific evidence that that’s hilarious?”
My opinion is that most scientists would contend that you would not find it hilarious if you were not alive.

The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals.

From examiner.com:
“Chesterton’s logic is so twisted, his understanding of belief and non-belief so skewed, that his words are rendered imbecilic. If this is the sort of thinking Shea applies to his discussions with skeptics, it’s no wonder they end badly.”

“Existence was magic to Chesterton.  That it is not magic to you is simply the most obvious demonstration of your poverty.”
Define “magic”.  If existence conforms to natural laws, it is not magic.

“they will call some interesting conjecture about how forgotten folks pronounced the alphabet, Grimm’s Law.”
From Wikipedia:  “Grimm’s law was the first non-trivial systematic sound change to be discovered in linguistics; its formulation was a turning point in the development of linguistics, enabling the introduction of a rigorous methodology to historical linguistic research. The “law” was discovered by Friedrich von Schlegel in 1806 and Rasmus Christian Rask in 1818. It was elaborated (i.e. extended to include standard German) in 1822 by Jacob Grimm, the elder of the Brothers Grimm, in his book Deutsche Grammatik.”  Note that the word “law” is in quotes on Wikipedia indicating that this is not really a physical law.  So Chesterton was aiming at the “soft” science of linguistics.

“If there is a law that pick-pockets shall go to prison, it implies that there is an imaginable mental connection between the idea of prison and the idea of picking pockets.”
Now the use of the word “law” means man-made political laws.

“But we cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken”
Perhaps that was true in 1908.  It is no longer true in 2011.

“When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o’clock.”
This is a very anti-science statement.

“We risk the remote possibility of a miracle”
Because no miracle has ever been observed, there is no risk at all.

“All the terms used in the science books, “law”, “necessity”, “order”, “tendency” and so on, are really unintellectual”
This is a very anti-science statement.

“A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched.”
This is a very anti-science statement.

“Existence was magic to Chesterton.  That it is not magic to you is simply the most obvious demonstration of your poverty.”
That everything is “magic” to you is evidence that you are not using the common meaning of that word.
It would seem that “this discussion has ended badly”.

Mark Shea writes:
“For the committed atheist, it’s not “I coolly and dispassionately conclude that there is no God”.  It’s, “There can’t be a supernatural God.  There mustn’t be.”

Wrong and wrong.  Would you like me to write for your journal so you can see what a real atheist believes?

In practical terms, there is no difference between Mike’s hilarity and Mark’s belief.  The vast majority of reality falls within the “center circle” of the Venn diagram where Mike and Mark concur.  There may be some disparity about the poetics: Mark likes the lyric, while Mike prefers math.  But in fact they agree on most everything.

However, where Mike finds Mark irrational about his eccentric Venn sliver - outside the commonality, Mike is equally irrational on his side.  Ask him to explain how medical doctors can routinely excise human life from living women, or how to justify eugenics against darker people on continents far away - all in the name of science - and he too falls into the babble of irrational belief.

That’s to say nothing of the hyper irrationality of astonomic quantities, distances and time - of which the scientists love to speculate, but about which they have as much knowledge as infants in the cradle.

It’s interesting that each can identify the idiot in the other, but miss it in themselves.

@Matt B

really?

CR - I’m betting both Mark and Mike are adept at getting to work, doing their respective jobs, depositing their paychecks into their FDIC-insured checking accounts.  They both recognize that it’s important to stop at a red light.  Although they may differ in their choices at the supermarket, they both realize they have to pay before leaving.  And even within their respective milieus, they understand the importance of pleasing their wives, educating their kids and paying taxes.

It’s only way out on the fringes that they disagree:  Mark believes in God, and Mike believes in the inscrutable forces of nature.  But neither of these beliefs has much to do with the greater part of reality, about which they invariably concur.

If this were not the case, Mark would convince Mike by moving a mountain, or by telling a tree to be transplanted in the ocean - by faith.  Similarly, Mike would invent some new fuel by physics, and fly us all to Planet Zoron.  But as it is, Mark’s faith, and Mike’s “science” are similarly ineffective and fringematic.

They’re quick to pick up the lunatic in eachother, but physically unable to recognize it in themselves.  I guess that’s why eyes point outward.

You’re calling Mark a lunatic?

The idea that ‘all belief systems are basically the same’ is a equivalence fallacy.  God is not ‘way out on the fringes’...He is the very core of reality.  There is nothing crazy about faith.  Faith and reason are required to grasp the Truth as fully as limited humans can.  To deny that and rely on just reason is irrational.

To say that ‘checking accounts, red lights, educating kids, paying taxes’ are the things that make us human is incredibly shallow.  Being human is sooo much more.

Breathing, sleeping, and eating are incredibly important to being alive.  But they still aren’t anything more than the average squirrel can accomplish.  So don’t fall for the ‘they’re all the same on a deeper level’ trap.

CR - what I’m saying is that there is far more agreement than disagreement, and that the areas of disagreement are non-essential, like wearing a feather in one’s cap.  We can get by on all the things we agree on, easily.  The “distinctive differences” between a zealot for religion and a science nut, are only matters of form, not substance.  Look at it this way: Mike can shoot off all he wants about a “big bang theory” happening billions of years ago, but what difference does it make when he goes to pay his cable bill.  Is there going to be a test on “photonic activity” when he goes for a promotion at the post office?  No, it only matters within the micronic sphere of internet-ania (abbr. in’ania)

Similarly, Mark is “way out there” with his discussion of Chesterton.  He might as well be instructing Gengis Khan on medieval french grammar.  Gengis would tell him, quite rightly, “I eat frenchmen for breakfast.  Burp.

What relegates Mark’s faith to the dustheap of in’ania is that it lacks power.  As St. Paul must have said somewhere, it’s not about polite words, it’s about the power of the living God - coming home to you.

“Why should the heathen go about saying, “where is your God?”  That’s Davidic in origin.  Look it up!

@Matt B

Your understanding of ‘essential’ is wrong.  Luke 10:42.  To deny the “one thing necessary” is to fall into the same pit that Mike is stuck in.  Stay out of the pit!

If you’re just trying to insult Mark there is no need to be cryptic.  Passing judgement on his faith however would be a grave mistake.

At bottom, my observation is that faith is about power, not talk.  I’m not really sure if this applies particularly to Mark, but in general it certainly does.  If he can make endless disparaging remarks about the “chattering classes,” what’s to prevent the same observation being made about him?  Different subjects, same MO.

I tell you what would vouchsafe his bona fides: God’s power poured out.  That’s certainly what distinguished Peter and Paul from the “super-apostles.”  That’s also what converts skeptics of whatever stripe.  If it’s not here, this is just a chat room.

And lest you think I’m just a blood-thirsy power monger, I agree totally with you that absolute power and true love are quite the same thing.

@Matt 12:39

But Jesus replied, “Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign; but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah.”

You have something against the prophet Jonah?  According to my survey of sacred scripture, he’s the most successful prophet of all.  All he said was “40 days more, and Nineveh will be destroyed.” And the Ninevites repented in sackcloth and ashes.  Not powerful?

*sigh*  You need to read Jonah (don’t worry, it’s very short).  Jonah was kind of a jerk.  He was more concerned about his own comfort than the fate of thousands of people.

More to the point, had the Ninevites told him, “Eh, prove it.” or “We’ll believe it when we see it.” or “Show us a sign.” they would have (much to Jonah’s delight) been blasted.  The point is that they repented when they got the message…they didn’t protest that the message or the messenger was not good enough.

Jesus uses Jonah to foreshadow his three days in the tomb, a parallel to Jonah’s three days in the belly of the whale.

“At the preaching of Jonah, the people of Nineveh repented; and there is something far greater than Jonah here.”

Regardless of Jonah’s prelude, his preaching was very effective.  In just two days, he put the brutal Assyrians under the yoke of God.  And I suspect that it had little to do with his eloquence.

St. Paul too asserts that he “does not come with worldly eloquence.”  And yet he was hugely effective - converting the known world.

What’s behind their evangelistic success?

Joshua: “Was not the sun held back by his hand?”
Samuel: “And God did not let a single word of his go without effect.”
David: “The Lord took away his sins, and exalted his power forever.”
Elijah: “How glorious you were, O Elijah in your wondrous deeds.”

What’s missing, Craig?

PS - I don’t think it was his comfort that Jonah was thinking about.  More like conscientious objection.  It would be a little like asking a nice Jewish boy to preach to a neo-nazi militia up in the hills of Idaho.  Both sacred and secular accounts of the Assyrians testify to this:

“They all come for violence: terror of them goes before them.”  Hab 1, 9

Habakkuk is also a nice little prophecy to read:

“O Lord, how long shall I cry out for help, and you will not hear?  Or cry out to you “Violence!” and you will not save?”  Hab 1, 2

I guess this context renders the Jonah account even more improbable - or miraculous.

You’re not the same Matt B as the person posting amonth ago, are you?  Is that you Psy?

Let me ask you a question, Craig:  What does it mean to be a witness to the Resurrection of Christ?

A)  You talk a lot about things you learned in catechism/college/church;
B)  You rise from the dead and raise others from the dead; or
C)  You so resemble the risen Lord as to irrefutably demonstrate this doctrine.

???

You’ve reduced salvation to one multiple guess exam question?  33% odds?  Nice!

But seriously (or at least as much seriousness as I can muster under the circumstances) by process of elimination, it’s none of the above.  Jesus refutes the very question of ‘witness to the resurrection’ in John 20:29 when he tells Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me?  Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”

Since ‘witness’ is not a requirement for salvation, what is?  John 6:54 puts it directly:  “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.”

Mark 16, 15 - “And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.” 20 “And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by signs that attended it.  Amen.”

Luke 24, 48-49 - “You are witnesses of these things.  And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.”

John 17, 18-19 - “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.  And for their sakes I consecrate myself, that they may also be consecrated in truth.”

And regarding the 33% chance of success: “to those whom much has been given, much will be required.”  Isn’t that the credo of the nuns that taught you?

Good quotes.  Is your point that if you don’t have a tongue of fire on your head you don’t have the Holy Spirit?  If you can speak in tongues and handle snakes by the power of the Holy Spirit that’s fantastic.  I wasn’t taught by nuns and my spiritual gifts are embarrassingly humble.  What I can do (by the power of reason) is cut through your mumbo jumbo.  If you have a problem with Mark because he is Catholic, why don’t you just say so?  I’d rather debate an honest atheist than a crafty believer.

Is there such a thing as an honest atheist, or a crafty believer for that matter?  “I send you out as sheep among wolves.  Be as innocent as doves, and as cunning as serpents.”

My point is that there are plenty of pundits, more than enough.  What we need instead is a massive dose of Jesus Christ power.  No amount of “honest debate” with people like Mike O’Cants or Psy makes the slightest dent in their “invincible ignorance” as you call it.  They just keep rambling on.

The Prophet Daniel talks about a massive rock hewn out of a mountain but not by human hands.  This rock crushes all it falls on and those who stumble on it are “dashed to pieces.”  Is this the kind of power you’re seeing on this website?  But Jesus is that rock!  Is he here?

Perhaps.  But not in earthquakes, wind, and fire.  (1 Kings 19:11-13 for those of you scoring at home)

Elijah had just come from slashing the throats of the 400 priests of Baal, after calling down fire from heaven to consume the Lord’s sacrifice.  He had stood alone against them.  He also prophesied against Queen Jezebel - and it happened just as he said (dogs age her until nothing was left but the palms of her hand).  He sealed up the heavens for three years so that there was no rain except at his command.  He raised a child who had died.  He called fire down on two battalion commanders that had come out seize him for prophesying against the king - which totally consumed them and all their men.

I can see where Elijah deserved a quiet moment alone with God.  Maybe today he’d merit a trip to Disneyworld.

Not that I’m claiming that it was by his own might these mighty deeds were accomplished.

‘Elijah deserved a quite moment alone with God’, eh?  You might want to rethink the meaning of “What are you doing here, Elijah?”  It’s not ‘good job, let’s take a break.’  If this was some type of reward why does Elijah complain so bitterly?

You still haven’t said (in plain English) what your problem is with Mark.  But judging by your exegesis you don’t have the credibility to criticize anyway.

Criticize?

I just checked in on Mark’s latest blog post.  Seems pretty reasonable.  The response: quibbling about on-line manners; irrelevant asides staking out “reason,” vs. “faith;” missing of the point completely; calling names.

Did you read the part about Elijah when he calls out the prophets of Baal: “What’s the matter, are you’re gods sleeping!  Perhaps he’s had a big lunch!  Cut yourselves more, and maybe he’ll respond.”

Notice the difference?

Differece?  Er, yeah.  The point?  Not so much.  If you really intend to compare Mark’s blog to the Holy Bible, I can see how you might be dissapointed.

I guess the comparison I’m making is that when Elijah taunted the prophets of baal, his life was on the line.  He bet it all.  And when fire came down from heaven he was vindicated in a big way by a big God.  The entire tide turned, curious onlookers picked up the hue and cry and joined in the massacre of the idolators.  It was a massive reversal of fortune, which turned on one man’s faith.

As I read the discussions surrounding Marks blogpost, I have a sense that it’s all academic.  Completely besides the point.  Nothing is at stake.  Just arrogant atheistic kids sniping.  And religious people defending a God they hardly know.

God is all-powerful.  Where is he in all this?

Before you ask “should we call down fire from heaven to destroy them?” read Luke 9:54-56

“I have come to light a fire on the earth.  Would that it were already ablaze.”  John something?

You’re missing my point if you think I’m all about imposing a violent judgment on everybody not myself.  I’m the worst of sinners when it comes to that.  I’m not even considering myself; I’m trying to understand what God is capable of, desirous of, and doing.

The seers of Fatima said that souls were falling into hell like snow flakes in a blizzard.  It’s got to be from cold indifference and preoccupation with stupid things.  Jesus himself said as much in the parable of the sower.  The Lord of creation, who holds all things in existence by his will, is capable of more than just: ?

My Bible tells me so.

>>Stories like this threaten objection 2, because they suggest that there is, after all, something behind nature and that our over-confidence about knowing how everything works may be rather premature. 

Its called a normal distribution. Look it up.