“I find atheism requires much more of a leap of faith than my Christianity”

Atheism is the position that there is no evidence in support of the idea of a god, any god.  It has nothing to do with faith; if you dig around in a religion and learn the history of it, there is no evidence of a god anywhere.  The same is true for all religions, that is why faith is required to follow a religious creed.

Atheism is a position in which any evidence for the existence of God is discounted or discredited by an a priori argument which claims that there is no God.

The militancy of an atheist is motivated by faith in his a priori argument. Reason alone cannot prove or disprove God. Oftentimes the argument is received from another atheist, in which case, faith in the veracity and credibility of the atheist tradition is the basis for accepting the a priori argument against the existence of God.

You can’t escape the ultimate fact that faith is the basis for accepting one type of claim over another, since we cannot prove everything through our own personal investigation; it is humanly impossible to verify all received knowledge we accept on the authority of another human being.

In the case of the atheist, it is faith in the claims and arguments of another atheist who cannot conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God that sustains his conviction in the claims of atheism.

I think the phrase you are looking for is “res ipsa loquitur.”  Used everyday in the court of law.

“When I come across a finely prepared meal on a table, it would be quite a leap of faith to believe that nothing put it there.”

What would you think if you came across a house stocked with delicious food, furniture infested with bedbugs, a closet with clothes that fit you and shoes that didn’t and a pit of poisonous snakes in the basement?  Would you conclude that an omniscient person that loved you provided this house? I doubt it.

The real leap of faith takes place between two different points than you think. An atheist can say without making a leap of faith “Given our current state of knowledge of the material universe, we cannot explain its origin. We cannot prove or disprove that a natural explanation of the universe is possible. We have seen that adopting natural explanations for lesser phenomena has improved our understanding and added to our control of our environment. We now understand the natural explanation for things that were once attributed to supernatural causes. Therefore we will continue to rely on natural explanations until we see results that indicate there is something beyond the natural world.” You can call the decision to keep on doing what works “faith,” but that doesn’t make it so.

This is where theists make the first leap of faith. They assume that a natural explanation is impossible. Therefore—God. OK, you could stop there and say “There must be some supernatural Creator Being that creates the universe.” I think this is probably where Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers stopped. Since by definition the supernatural is outside of the natural universe, we can’t discover the qualities of the Creator Being.

But most believers leap on to assume that God is a whole lot like humans. That we exist in a universe with laws compatible with human life proves that He loves us. (I think if humans existed in a universe with laws INCOMPATIBLE with human life it would be more impressive, but that’s just me.)  Then they need an explanation for the snakes and bedbugs. Aha! We offended God, or God allows the Devil to test us, or God is just like us with lust, a temper, and a jealous nature. Leap, leap, leap, unconstrained by the need to produce pesky evidence. This freedom leads to many excellent stories, and that is exactly what we’ve got in religion.

Brudder, Brudder, Brudder, Brudder, Brudder, Brudder, Brudder, Please read your post again then look up the definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and faith.  Please follow your own advice and seriously “dig around in a religion and learn the history of it”.  If you choose Christianity, you will find there is evidence of a God, The God and lots and lots of it.  Not just circumstantial evidence but hard evidence and once you have completed that exercise simply look at the world around you.  Consider that you yourself live by faith today though not the faith taught by the Christ, faith nonetheless.  I think Thomas Aquinas was correct faith, like love, cannot be explained to one who has never experienced it.

I would add to your comment of “Faith is a vehicle that takes us beyond the grotesquley small limits of our own prison of reason” the words “personal experience” so it would read, “Faith is a vehicle that takes us beyond the grotesquley small limits of our own prison of reason and personal experience.”  Individually, each of us uses his personal experience along with reason to come to conclusions about the nature of reality.  But just because I have not experienced a phenomenon (e.g., and earthquake, snow, seeing a meteorite hit the Earth, a paranormal experience, Jesus’ Resurrection), doesn’t mean such a phenomenon is not part of reality.

Wow, I am amazed an electrical engineer wrote this.  Having had to take a bunch of science classes to get that degree, I would think you understand the standards of evidence for claims - possibly you just don’t apply them to religion?  Your god is the perpetual motion machine, the electrical circuit that has no resistance - if I told you such a thing exists, but was invisible - would you believe me?  If you don’t believe me, why? - Shouldn’t you apply those same principles to faith claims?

“In Christianity, reason takes us far and then faith takes it from there.”  - Please explain this further - what does faith get us?  I know reason is responsible for every major advance in human health, technology and understanding of the world.  And every time faith comes into contact with reason, it has to back-peddle farther into metaphor and the gaps of our understanding.  So I would REALLY like to what has faith done for us - comfort possibly, good feelings, tribalism? - none of this demonstrates truth in any shape or form. 

How do we know there is no truth there?  Christians can’t even come to agreement on the very basic tenets of their faith.  They argue and argue it all revolves around revelation and a 2,000 year old book that is filled with contradiction and superstition.  The scientific method is accepted worldwide.

“When I come across a finely prepared meal on a table, it would be quite a leap of faith to believe that nothing put it there.”

Yes, but that makes sense because we know finely prepared meals never, ever appear on tables without an intelligence putting them there. What about a table covered in a layer of dust? Would you assume an intelligence had deliberately placed every spec where it was?

You’ve made the all-too-common mistake of equivicating things we know require design & the things that form the basis of our understanding of “undesigned.” If there’s a big fireworks display in your backyard you assume a person is responsible because we never see things like that happen without one. A bunch of leaves blowing down from a tree into your yard, however, wouldn’t spark that assumption because things like that just happen, sans intelligence, all the time.

So it is with the rest of the natural world - we have never, ever witnessed an intelligence creating life forms out of nothing, but we do see them resulting from natural processes every day. So, just as we wouldn’t assume the dust or blowing leaves have an intelligent cause, we don’t assume life had one, either.

“If you choose Christianity, you will find there is evidence of a God, The God and lots and lots of it.  Not just circumstantial evidence but hard evidence and once you have completed that exercise simply look at the world….”

Why not just tell us what the “hard evidence” is as its is a concrete claim.

“More faith to be an atheist than a Christian”
What a stupid thing to say!
“it would be quite a leap of faith to believe that nothing put it there”
What a stupid thing to say!
“So it is with all of creation.”
So what?  If this “universe” came into existence about 14 billion years ago, it would be really silly to conclude that any particular one of the thousands of religious sects had any particular knowledge about anything.
“It’s also irrational faith.”
What a stupid thing to say!  This universe exists.  There is simply not yet enough understanding of what happened 14 billion years ago.  So what?  Your silly religion has nothing to offer about what happened.  “God did it” is simply an irrational non-explanation.
“Yet Christian faith is not irrational.”
Of course it is.  You have no “evidence” of anything and no “knowledge”.  That is why faith is simply “belief without evidence”.
“takes you truthfully beyond your reason”
Hilariously irrational nonsense.

You said, “Atheists belittle beliefs that are based on faith.”—Do you regularly make such broad generalizations? Or do you simply see your own belittling of atheists as something your deity would approve of? Then, you weakly continue, “When I come across a finely prepared meal on a table, it would be quite a leap of faith to believe that nothing put it there. And it would be far more reasonable to believe that something must have put it there.”—I agree, as far as the finely-prepared meals in my own house go, nothing didn’t put those meals there. I did. No faith required. I guess it really shouldn’t surprise me that you consider your faith as being the “good faith” and atheism as being the “bad faith”. WWJD?

As others have pointed out atheism is not a matter of faith, it is simply a matter of not believing any god claims. Do you call your disbelief in fairies a matter of faith? No, of course not - you don’t believe in fairies because they haven’t been demonstrated to exist.

“When I come across a finely prepared meal on a table, it would be quite a leap of faith to believe that nothing put it there. And it would be far more reasonable to believe that something must have put it there. So it is with all of creation.”

Yes, it is reasonable to believe that someone put it there because every experience you have with prepared food indicates that food is prepared by human beings. There just aren’t any examples of where it isn’t.

The problem here though is that you act like all of existence must be the result of an intelligent agency, and are confusing the notion of someone saying they don’t think a god did it with the notion that they think “nothing” did it. It is quite plausible that the beginnings of our universe come from a primordial force that is not in any way intelligent - in fact many religions in history have such beliefs, where the beginnings of our universe are from formless chaos and not an intelligent being, with the gods of those religions coming afterwards, so the idea isn’t exclusive to atheists.

“That is why faith is simply “belief without evidence”.

No, that’s not true at all.

There are many proofs which show, with certainty, that an infinite and self-existent Being not only does but must exist:

http://www.amazon.com/Rational-Faith-Existence-Catholicism-ebook/dp/B0084OTP2S

Yes - a priori claims are all over the place; looks like the atheists over here love the claim that “the scientific ‘method’ [good luck defining that] applies to everything!” and the other assumption, that I guess is merely a corollary of the first, that God is merely a “God of the gaps” theory that empirical science can analyze and, of course, debunk.

Well, a priori, I say all of that’s nonsense. Perhaps someone smarter than I am can correct me on this, but the understanding of Aquinas’ theology I’ve gotten myself to says that God gives to each thing what is necessary to fulfill its nature; as in that the natural world operates by natural causes - because it was made to be “natural.” Hence I think taking a “God of the gaps” approach from any angle is bad theology. Moreover, I love science (as a student of Physics) and I love scientific discovery - as I assume an eager scholar like Aquinas (and so many others in the Church’s history) would too.

I guess I just don’t see this whole discussion at all. It all sits on a priori claims of how the supernatural operates and how we define our terms; seems that too many people expect supernatural causes never to use natural means. Which is unfortunate, because seriously considering causality and the mysteries at the heart of things (heck, even the natural sciences - quantum, anyone?) is a wholly enjoyable exercise in philosophical heavy-lifting.

Modern science has reached a state of exaggerated pride and arrogance, also known as hubris. This was made possible by purposely abandoning all connection to the first principles that once made it a valid prescription for evaluating the natural world. Science once understood that its very method was workable only within the limits of the material realm. No more. Modern science now lays claim to barring realms it has not the tools to reveal, and has thus determined that such realms can not and do not exist. Looking only at that which is measurable, calculable, and empirical will, by definition, never reveal those things that are not. The rare, honest methodology that still holds to first principles is pointing to realms of existence unknowable and unacceptable by mere empiricism, and it is slowly accepting that religions firmly grounded in philosophical first principles are also firmly grounded in reason; and that reason now points, as it always has, to God.

“There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life.”—GKC

Seeing the entirety of existence in terms of the logical, rational and measurable, forces an abnormal dependence on half of the human brain. Complete thinkers, ever-rare in the world of modern science, accept the rational with the artistic—the two halves that make up a balanced human brain. The rational half reveals the physical nature of existence, the artistic half reveals the metaphysical nature of existence. When one half is weighted more or trusted more than the other, we have unbalance and disorder—we become half-brained, and that is dangerous. The Christian worldview, particularly the Catholic philosophy, with its balance of science and art, has proven to bridge the two halves of the human brain, allowing the human mind to flourish.

“I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification.”—GKC

The Atheist didn’t undestand the meaning of the text, I believe. The article is saying this: When a Christian says: “I’m a Christian,” they says they are Christians becuase of x, y, z. We dont’ say, I’m Christian because Judish are a, b, c, or because unbelievers are A, b, or, c.

The Atheism, otherwise, don’t say: I’m a Atheist because a, b, c. Atheist says: I’m atheist because religion is x, y, z.

What i’m trying to say is tha atheist don’t give positive reasons for why being an Atheist. They only have negative instances about religion, but they can’t support or giving reasons about why being Atheism without citing religion or God.

Having doubt or denying God’s existance dont automatic make you an Atheist. Budish also don’t believe there is a God, or Gods, or any superior being, and even so they don’t call themselves Atheists.

@Ricardo: Hear, hear!  Why define yourself by something negative?  I don’t define myself by my lack of belief in anything—that just doesn’t make sense to me.  Indeed, I recall reading (wish I could remember where) a Catholic blog that suggested that, if someone will not budge from atheistic beliefs, to at least consider them in a more positive self-definition such as secular humanism, or even some form of Buddhism.  While I don’t agree with everything those movements teach, they do have some truths to them, and “atheism” is too broad a term (precisely because it’s negative, not positive) to have any substantial meaning.  Indeed, I see that as more evidence than not of God’s existence: if there were no God, how did we develop the ability to conceive of the idea of a God naturally, to either believe or disbelieve, and therefore how is it possible for anyone to identify as an “atheist” (and especially, why is there the term “atheism” but not “a-fairy-ism” or “a-unicorn-ism” or “a-anything else-ism”?).  As far as I’m concerned, if you believe in love and moral goodness (and their opposites), and act on that belief, you believe in God whether you know it (or mean to) or not.  The only way it’s possible for OBJECTIVE morality (rather than subjective) to exist, such that it’s possible to be objectively right or wrong depending on if you agree or disagree, is if the supernatural exists—if the supernatural does not exist, the only “morality” that can possibly exist is entirely subjective, and therefore Adolf Hitler was no less moral than Martin Luther King.  If atheism were 100% consistent, it would teach just that, that we have no more reason to praise Dr. King and condemn Mr. Hitler than we do to praise Mr. Hitler and condemn Dr. King.  How many “atheists” believe that, though?

Oops!  The above comment is mine, but the other “Michael” posting above that comment is not me.  Sorry for the confusion.

A rock, or a tree, or an ocean, or a star, or a galaxy are not “somebodies”, but that doesn’t mean they’re “nothing” either.

The irony of religious believers using rhetoric that relies on obvious fallacies, such as the basic fallacy of false dichotomy, specifically to try to pretend atheists are wrong to criticize religious faith for being irrational is something that always gives me a chuckle.

If us atheists are so wrong prove we are wrong.. Everything you have stated is way off base ... If someone cooks a meal and we do not know who prepared it.. Really?’ that’s obvious.. Your going way out of context. Sorry that your crazy make believe land isn’t true.. But obviously if there is a cooked meal somebody cooked it.. That has nothing to do with your fantasy Santa Claus ... There is no god.. Get used to it.. And stop pushing your CRAZY beliefs on us!!!! You have nothing on us.. But if it makes YOU feel better then keep believing ... Nutcase

“Christians can’t even come to agreement on the very basic tenets of their faith.”

Actually, (true) Catholic Christians have never disagreed on the basic tenets of their faith and those tenets have never changed. You can find those tenets outlined and explained in detail in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Matt,

I don’t quite see how anyone is pushing anything down atheist’s throats. You can take it or leave it! No one is forcing their beliefs on anyone – except, perhaps the trollers. If I am not mistaken, this is a Catholic news/blog website.
So, tell me something, what brings you to the NCR website?  Be honest now…

My take is that you are not here for the purpose of edification or spiritual growth, but that your real reason for trolling about here is to sow discord on a website that is designed to provide the faithful with a perspective on the news of the day. The majority of the persons who comment on this website are here WITHOUT a selfish axe to grind.  Your pointless, specious remarks usually lead the reader away from truth, not toward it. Do you really expect us to take your sophomoric sophistries seriously? If you do, you need a reality check – big time!

I must say, you remind me of that “Mayhem” guy in the Allstate commercial.

Clarification - That is the trollers forcing their beliefs on us!

@cowalker (who usually never responds to comments addressed to him, but hey…I’d love to proved wrong)

I would like to share with you a conversation that I recently heard on Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s EWTN program, Open Line (6/6/12).
A young graduate student of the sciences scientist called into the show and described how he found God in science. This young man grew up in a family who were of no faith or religion. I think you will find that this conversation is well worth your consideration. What follows is an abridged version of their discussion. It wasn’t possible for me to transcribe the entire section of the program, but I believe it’s a pretty fair rendering of their conversation.
Fr. Pacwa tells the story about an old man riding on a train in France. He was sitting by himself saying the rosary. This young man said: “Old man, you are way behind the times and you don’t realize that science is going to solve all the questions of the universe . You won’t be around to see it and all the old beliefs of God and prayer are going by the board”.
The old man said: “Why, that’s very interesting!’  The two of them talked for a while; at the end, the old man handed him his personal card. The name on the card was Louis Pasteur. Dr. Pasteur told the young man that he was very much a believer and no in no way did he doubt the existence of God—and that science, was for him, a source of understanding more about God.
The young scientist and Fr. Pacwa considered the following – if one delves into the study of genetics, you will find that DNA is comprised of highly intelligent mathematical algorithms. There is a higher intelligence that structured DNA. The mathematical odds of this occurring randomly are astronomically low! The only logical outcome is that there is a God, the grand designer of it all. For many, studying science at deeper levels and coming to the realization of an intelligent design brought them to God –
Many scientists find faith in God as they study physics. The same kind of design that biologists have detected in irreducibly complex biological structures and that geneticists have found in the highly complex information content of DNA, what physicists see in astrophysics.
The constants of the universe that make the universe possible are very precise. The speed of light cannot be any faster or slower than it is; the force of gravity, the same way. And, there are ten or twelve of these factors, that were they to be slightly different from what they are, the universe could not exist – and all of them are so precisely correct as to make the universe “work” These principles apply everywhere even in the table of the chemical elements.
How is that these same chemical elements are found in every galaxy and solar system? They are the building blocks of everything that exists and permeate all of existence . This came to be in a mathematically wonderful way.  And the more people approach science with knowledge and more openness to faith in God, you see that there has to be a) someone who is more intelligent and b) more powerful than the universe to set all of these physical & biological laws in place. It’s utterly astounding! 
Fr. Pacwa told a little joke about a scientist and God who were having a bet. The scientist bets God that he could create life out of the earth. So God takes him up on his bet. So the scientist said –“well now I gotta get me some dirt”.  Then God tells him: “No, get your own earth! This all mine!”
The moral of the story is that the scientist couldn’t begin without something that God had already created and this assumption of God’s existence really does put the intelligent design into perspective. 

Yes, internal to each sect there is general agreement, which is why I said christians. You think they could make up their mind rather than having 30,000 flavors of what is supposed to be “obvious”.

Dejah,

Well said!

“Atheism is a position in which any evidence for the existence of God is discounted or discredited by an a priori argument which claims that there is no God.”

You can say this as many times as you want it will still not be true.  I do not, in any way, simply claim there is no god; I assert that nobody has presented any convincing evidence that a god exists.  There is a huge difference.  Present evidence in order to be taken seriously, present the evidence that convinces you there is a god.

I often find folks who advocate absolute proof are those whose scientific backgrounds are not complete.  Most intellectually honest scientists especially mathematicians are all too familiar with the reality of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and other conundrums and the consequences that such things imply.  If you’re looking for absolute proof, I can tell you you’re not going to find it.  It is a straw man’s argument to ask for something that is just not possible, especially when the limitations of man’s reason and thinking ability meets the mathematical reality of just not ever knowing certain things.  There are many hints of certain realities even those that are beyond our limited minds.  However, it will require something more than just our reason to believe in them, which makes it all the more important to be open to the possibilities otherwise you’ll just never know less experience them.

Just an observation: Evidence is different of proof. Evidence is what is evident to us, is what we can be learned only by observance of the eyes. For istance, is evident that the birds flies.

Proof is when we need to work with reanson to conclude an affirmation. Is when we learn by the use of the inteligence. For instace, is evident that the bird fly, but to conclude if the bird is sick, it makes necessary more examination of the body of the bird and use our intelligence to conclude it, because it’s not evident.

If you want a evidence, you will not have, because God’s existance is not evident, like the flying of a bird, but if you want proof, the proof of God’s exitance exists, and was already given many centuries ago by Socrates, Aristotles and S. Tomaz Aquinas. If you are really a sincere mind, before conclude such a complex matter, I invite you to visit a library and study these philosophical texts. They are realy difficult to learn, phylosophy is a touth matter, but it’s worth the check.

The statement “I find atheism requires much more of a leap of faith than my Christianity” is roughly equivalent to the statement “I find not having any toast requires much more bread than my grilled cheese sandwich”.

I wonder why it is that atheists are willing to accept 90% of things on faith, just like everyone else (since surely they don’t have direct personal evidence of EVERYTHING they “know”), except when it comes to God, when they suddenly require direct personal evidence and failing that conclude that as “evidence” that there is no God.  I challenge atheists to prove to me that China exists.  I’ve never been there, I’ve never seen it personally.  Show me direct personal evidence, without actually taking me there, that China exists.  You can’t?  Then I’m going to assume China is fake and laugh at people silly enough to believe in it.  That’s the exact same logic that too many atheists use, and I emphasize “without actually taking me there”, because atheists who argue that way are setting goalposts that don’t allow for God’s existence whether they realize it and mean to or not.  If I don’t allow you to take me to China, there’s no way you can prove it by direct personal evidence and so I appear to “win” the argument.  I don’t pretend that alone is “evidence” that God exists, but it’s certainly evidence that you can’t just assume, based on no DIRECT personal evidence, that God doesn’t exist.  If God is by definition supernatural, God by definition cannot be detected with our senses or instruments and therefore, if He exists, will only prove He exists in His own time and in His own way—therefore failing that, His existence or nonexistence must be arrived at by other means.  I only hope atheists will learn to accept this.  There are only two possible arguments for atheism that are not fallacious, and therefore only two that deserve to be addressed without simply pointing out the fallacy of the argument, something you can do without even believing in God—and I have reason to believe both of those can be proven false.

Posted by Ann Marie on Friday, Jun 8, 2012 5:56 PM (EST):
“The young scientist and Fr. Pacwa considered the following – if one delves into the study of genetics, you will find that DNA is comprised of highly intelligent mathematical algorithms. There is a higher intelligence that structured DNA. The mathematical odds of this occurring randomly are astronomically low! The only logical outcome is that there is a God, the grand designer of it all.”

I am aware that there are many religious scientists. Although there is a tendency for scientists—especially eminent scientist—to become atheists.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “DNA is comprised of highly intelligent mathematical algorithms.” I am not a scientist or a mathematician, but as I understand it, DNA is strands of biological molecules that encode the patterns for producing various proteins. Now presumably the patterns could be described by algorithms, which would be complex. The DNA itself would evolve by random mutations, but most of the mutations would be lost, with only the successful-at-reproducing patterns surviving. The mutations are random, but the selection process is shaped by the conditions around the DNA. The result is DNA that is compatible with conditions on earth. We have a very incomplete understanding of this process and no evidence of how it started. But why throw our hands up and proclaim “God!” rather than presuming there is a natural explanation? The presumption of a natural explanation is the approach that tends to work best on a day to day basis as well. My life goes better if I operate on the premise that nothing supernatural will hurt or help me in solving problems. I notice that believers never recommend prayer alone to accomplish something, and there’s a good reason for that.

“The constants of the universe that make the universe possible are very precise. The speed of light cannot be any faster or slower than it is; the force of gravity, the same way. And, there are ten or twelve of these factors, that were they to be slightly different from what they are, the universe could not exist – and all of them are so precisely correct as to make the universe ‘work.’ These principles apply everywhere even in the table of the chemical elements. How is that these same chemical elements are found in every galaxy and solar system?”

If you accept the theory of the Big Bang, it would be natural to find the same chemicals throughout the universe. It is true that if the constants of the universe were different, it couldn’t exist. This is only a “win” if the existence of the universe is intentional. We don’t know if universes are constantly “banging” and then winking out because the constants don’t balance. 

“. . . you see that there has to be a) someone who is more intelligent and b) more powerful than the universe to set all of these physical & biological laws in place.”

No, I don’t see that it HAS to be that way. It might be that way. But we can’t prove there isn’t a natural explanation for the universe any more than we can prove that there is a natural one. And the first thing that happens when one assumes a supernatural explanation, is that we tend to attribute natural qualities to it, such as intelligence. Then comes good, and evil and love and hate. In the absence of actual data, we just can’t help projecting ourselves on that blank screen. There’s nothing comforting about a blank screen.

I love the plenthora of logical fallacies in these post…LOL

Posted by Michael on Friday, Jun 8, 2012 9:00 PM (EST):
“I wonder why it is that atheists are willing to accept 90% of things on faith, just like everyone else (since surely they don’t have direct personal evidence of EVERYTHING they ‘know’), except when it comes to God, when they suddenly require direct personal evidence and failing that conclude that as ‘evidence’ that there is no God.  I challenge atheists to prove to me that China exists.  I’ve never been there, I’ve never seen it personally.  Show me direct personal evidence, without actually taking me there, that China exists.  You can’t?  Then I’m going to assume China is fake and laugh at people silly enough to believe in it.”

Well, if there were, and always had been throughout human history, as many widely divergent descriptions of China as there are of God, I’d be laughing with you at the mythological “China.” We’ve had the Inscrutable Brahman, the Feuding Olympians, the Battling Asgardians, the Way-Too-Closely-Related Egyptian Deities, the Hebrew Wingman, the I-Was-Dead-But-I-Got-Better Son of God, the Purveyor of Perpetual Virgins to the Saved, and the God that lives near Kolob, among uncountable numbers of nature spirits.

If I was also told that “China” was by definition supernatural, and could not be detected with our senses or instruments and therefore, if it exists, it will only prove it exists in its own time and in its own way, well, I wouldn’t plan my life around a particular conception of “China.”

Interesting to see so many Atheists reading a Catholic publication. Are they looking for something besides a good argument? Are they looking for that solid logic that will prove them wrong so they may believe?
Seems a “true atheist” would ignore the whole article.

How easy it is for an atheist or agnostic to believe, “why would a loving God allow evil and this-or-that to happen?”

Odd, though, that many of them never seem to think, “why is there good in this world?”

It works both ways, yet many of them only seem to want to see a narrow, negative view.

Faith is a gift, and I wish more people would ask for that gift. What deeply troubles me is when some of them think anything to do with religion must be destroyed.  Someone is obviously feeding their fears.

If I was walking through the woods and came upon a dead body I would question how it got there.  An autopsy might reveal that it did not die of natural causes and furthermore the fact that it’s skull was crushed showed the likelihood that the death was “caused” by an outside force.

There is no weapon, no motive, no suspect.  No material evidence to speak of. Yet, I could reasonably conclude that this man’s head did not spontaneously explode.  I might never catch the killer.  Might never be able to explain how his head got bashed in and never be able to definitively say exactly what happened.

But the body itself IS evidence.

We have a universe.  We have the knowledge that NOTHING, anywhere at anytime, has just spontaneously, without a cause, simply come into being.

Therefore, even without material evidence, it is reasonable to conclude, that the universe, like everything else, came from something.  Was “caused”.  We might not know how, or who, but we DO have evidence.  Like the body in the woods, the universe DOES exist.

Now who would be more reasonable?  The person who says “given what we know of how the world works, this man’s head spontaneously imploded” or “it is likely that this man’s death was “caused”?”

Who would be more reasonable?  The person who says “given what we know of how the world works, the universe created itself out of nothing” or “It is likely that the universe’s existence was “caused”?”

The existence of the thing (body or universe) IS evidence.  As Matthew says, it would take a greater leap of faith to believe that the man was walking along and his head spontaneously exploded than it would to believe that someone bashed it in with a blunt object.

Conclusions CAN reasonably be drawn simply by looking at the thing itself. 

We are accused of magical thinking.  Yet it seems to me that it would be more “magical” to believe that “POOF” a rabbit came out of a hat with no cause, than to believe that a magician CAUSED said rabbit to appear. Things simply do not happen without a cause.  Magic is just illusion.  For every magic trick there is someone who created the illusion.  You might be fooled into believing the elephant just disappeared, but you would be wrong.  Reasonable people would know that “someone” was behind the illusion.

The principle “only that which can be scientifically proven has meaning” is not provable by science…scientists accept this, their basic dogma, on scientific faith. Another is the principle that, eg since the sun has always come up, the sun will come upt tomorrow-principles of inference and of induction. There is a long list of scientific “dogmas” which atheists accept on faith - not to mention all they accept simply because anohter human being vouches for it.  And then of course we have the long long history of science getting so many things absolutley wrong. Human reason is limited and there is no “proof” - logical proof based on human reason alone - that proves God exists….and people of faith would not want a god whose existence could be so proven. Michael, if there was such a proof, any person of reason hearing it would be convinced; and that hasn’t happened. Every proof offered so far, a priori, a posteriori, cosmological, teleogical, ontological, involves errors of logic and/or of reason.

The fact that this priest is making these objections to atheism tells me he’s operating on the lower rungs of philosophy of religion. I know he’s addressing Joe-blow; but what you win them with is what you win them to. So, if he’s advancing these weak-sauce arguments knowing they’re unsound, he’s being dishonest and cultivating false beliefs. If he really thinks these are good, so much the worse for him.

Thank you Matthew Warner, for your insight. Trying to read the nonsense of those that call themselves “atheists”, a name that these people can’t even agree on, nor agree on what they themselves don’t believe in, is truly amazing. Edward Cummings, how did you get 14 billion years? A useless, unfounded number that you have made up. Those so-called scientists can’t even agree on what make-believe number to agree on, so which one of your gods gave you that number. It does take great faith to not believe as DKeane, Cowalker, Rufus, John D, Matt (the nutcase), Brudden, etc. have shown us; if only us Christians had so much faith, this would be a truly, wonderful world, without hate, crime, sin, etc.. ANN MARIE, you are fabulous with your input. Without the Holy Spirit, one cannot know Jesus as Lord and Saviour and cannot call God “Abba, Father”; but, at least these folks are searching for the Truth, without them even knowing it. The devil means to destroy all of God’s creation, but, thankfully, God will use his lies and evil to bring good instead as GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED and His time to send down His Wrath upon us is almost here.  +JMJ+

“GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED and His time to send down His Wrath upon us is almost here.”

People have been saying that same thing for thousands of years. Why would the almighty Creator of the universe bring wrath upon his own creation? What is the point of building a big universe and sticking a bunch of flawed hominids on it to play out a silly drama so he can send down wrath at a later date. Why not just engineer a solution and install the fix.
It was this stupid notion of punishment and wrath I heard in Catholic school in first grade that made me a nonbeliever.

we have many examples of people making meals, we have no examples of gods making universes

Ann Marie wrote, “I don’t quite see how anyone is pushing anything down atheist’s throats. You can take it or leave it! No one is forcing their beliefs on anyone – except, perhaps the trollers. If I am not mistaken, this is a Catholic news/blog website.”

Jack Tarr wrote, “Interesting to see so many Atheists reading a Catholic publication. Are they looking for something besides a good argument? Are they looking for that solid logic that will prove them wrong so they may believe? Seems a ‘true atheist’ would ignore the whole article.”

I love these remarks made by people based on such ridiculous premises that the internet doesn’t exist, that posts published publicly on publicly accessible forums with open comment response formats don’t exist, that search engines like Google with software robots crawling web pages and tools giving search results based on relevant keywords don’t exist, and that it’s perfectly okay to use all sorts of fallacious rhetoric to denigrate critics and that it’s certainly bad for the critics to actually use the internet and search engines and take notice of the fallacious rhetoric and actually dare to speak up and explicitly point out what the logical fallacies are.

With premises like that it’s no wonder that dealing with reality comes with such difficulty. It hurts when your rhetorical fantasies can’t bear up under the strain of rational analysis.

Brudder,
There is plenty of good evidence for the existence of God. You know them but you suppress the truth.
Look at the absurdities you must believe as an atheist:
1) You are an accident of nature.
2) You have no ultimate purpose in life. When you die, you cease to exist and it will not have mattered if you had lived since you will never be held accountable for your life by a Power greater than yourself.
3) No one can live consistently as an atheist.

“If I was walking through the woods and came upon a dead body I would question how it got there. An autopsy might reveal that it did not die of natural causes and furthermore the fact that it’s skull was crushed showed the likelihood that the death was ‘caused’ by an outside force. There is no weapon, no motive, no suspect. No material evidence to speak of. Yet, I could reasonably conclude that this man’s head did not spontaneously explode. I might never catch the killer. Might never be able to explain how his head got bashed in and never be able to definitively say exactly what happened. But the body itself IS evidence.”

So clearly intelligent aliens from another galaxy, using technology based on highly advanced science thus giving them the knowledge and ability to exceed the speed of light and travel the universe, came in space ships, and one happened to be flying invisibly over the guy walking through the woods and unintentionally a side effect of the ship’s propulsion unit caused the guy’s head to explode as the ship flew over him. The “roadkill” of an alien space ship.

Who woulda thunk it?

Religious believers engaging in theological babbling, just making up anything they feel like making up, as long as they feel it may serve to prop up their personal religious beliefs, with actually dealing with good evidence based on reality and the logical analysis required to make sure the conceptual thinking is straight.

“The universe can’t have spontaneously popped into existence for no reason at all” (a position that theists never tire of straw-manning atheists with), “therefore God did it.” No evidence of any gods doing anything at all necessary, no evidence of the existence of any spirit world from which gods are doing things necessary, no evidence of supernatural spiritual forces being invoked by any gods or other spirit beings like ghosts or angels or demons necessary. Just make up everything and everything you need to fit with your preconceived religious doctrines developed over the centuries by generations of other people making up all sorts of superstition-based crap for thousands of years, with the obvious fallacy of god-of-the-gaps rhetoric serving as backup.

And theists wonder why atheists are so critical, and why atheists dare to actually speak up and point out some problems when theists try to pretend that atheism takes more faith than the religious faith of belief in the Christian God. This is like a skit you see on the Comedy Channel.

I’ll make it real easy for you theistic dumbasses.

X represents the amount of faith the average theist has in their G/god.

Y represents the amoung of faith the average person has in other things (ie people, objects we interact with, things we take for granted based on previous experience).

For the average theist, the total amount of faith they possess is shown as X + Y where as the average atheist’s amount of faith is represented as just X.

So unless the theist has no faith in their G/god (or somehow had less faith in a G/god than an atheist), X + Y > X.

The Atheist will always have less faith than the theist. 

Alvin - which god?

Millions of people have worshiped thousands of gods and have lived very meaningful lives.  Look at the Greeks, they invented democracy believing in a whole host of gods.  My guess is they lived fulfilling lives worshiping their many gods.  So perhaps your implication is that all manifestations of god are valid?

Sb,
The God of the Bible. God intervened in history. Specifically with the Jews of the OT and in the person of Christ. His miracles attest that He was God in the flesh and those that knew Him claimed that He was deity.

Mecha Velma,
Actually the faith you have is greater than a theist in the sense that you have to believe all the incredible things in this world such as life and its complexity is just the result of the mindless forces of nature. That takes an amazing amount of faith. More than any theist.

The upside of the wave of popular books published by modern atheists, such as Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, is the wave of articles and books that immediately followed in response, as they pointed out the misrepresentations and flaws and foolishness in each atheistic argument. The most complete and compelling response lies between the covers of Robert J. Spitzer’s recent book, “New Proofs for the Existence of God – Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy”. It is inconceivable to me how anyone could remain an atheist if they read all of this book (check out the reviews on Amazon). But then, I remind myself that at the end of the day, materialist dogmas are inherently driven by a self-centered world view, and so, there is a motive for selfish people to ignore the God-centered truth for as long as humanly possible. Unfortunately, such people will suffer, not in spite of God’s love, but because of God’s love. They will suffer in pain and sorrow in the next life when they finally recognize how much God loved them and how much He wanted to do for them, if only they had invited Him into their lives. God won’t ever force His love on you. You must choose to live with God’s love, of your own free will. A simple prayer will suffice to get you started. Just do it. And then hold onto your seat…

I don’t believe in superstition and that included zeus, ghosts, biblegod, zombies, and a devil.

I don’t believe in superstition either.  Including something coming out of nothing.  But I do believe in God.  All I can say is, thank goodness reality does depend on what you believe, or we’d all be in trouble.

Steve Greene,

“The universe can’t have spontaneously popped into existence for no reason at all” (a position that theists never tire of straw-manning atheists with), “therefore God did it.

You are the one making the leap, not us.  We don’t say the universe can’t have spontaneously popped into existence therefore God did it.  We say it can’t (and there is NO EVIDENCE to say that is CAN) spontaneously pop into existence therefore it MUST have a CAUSE.  Only then do we speculate on the cause.  You on the other hand say that even tho there is not one shred of evidence showing that ANYTHING, ANYWHERE at ANYTIME has EVER just spontaneously popped into existence, the universe did.

As for you snarky comments about jumping to conclusions that aliens must have been involved in Mr. X’s imploding brain, that is just as unreasonable and irrational as the idea that the universe came from nowhere.  And you wonder why WE get so frustrated with you.

At least agnostics simply say they don’t know.

So, because atheists do not know the origins of the cosmos—preferring to wait for verifiable, testable conclusions, and thinking it highly unlikely to be the handiwork of a capricious, malevolent deity invented by ignorant, barbaric desert nomads who thought slavery was just peachy—we must naturally, therefore, believe that absolutely *nothing* created it! Brilliant!

There couldn’t possibly be another alternative—natural forces acting in accordance with observable physical laws, perhaps? Nonsense. Perhaps still another explanation that as yet eludes us? Poppycock. No, we must believe that the invisible god of the desert did it (and all for us, of course—forget the 350,000 known species of beetles), leaving us no testable evidence for his existence, or we must believe (there’s that word again) it poofed into being from nothing.

The stupidity on offer here is breathtaking. Matthew can’t conceive of any alternatives but “God” or “nothing,” so there must not be any. I can’t believe that an educated man—let alone an engineer, who must have had to take a science course or two—wrote this simplistic drivel. FAIL. Matthew, please return your degree.

Steve Green,

Yes, google exists.  But you don’t see me on an athiest site do you?  The point is that you made a CHOICE to troll here.  That is what peaks our curiosity.  Since you have not made a single rational argument against theism, have insulted all the believers here and appear to be a very angry, unhappy person, it is perfectly reasonable for us to conjecture as to your reasons for stopping by.  It always amazes me how people who claim to be comfortable in their beliefs (or lack thereof) so often come of sounding miserable.  If that’s what atheism breeds, then thank you, I’ll keep my faith.  Anything would be better than coming across as a pompous, egotistical brute.

Jack,

You must have gone to the same school of rude that Steve did. 

When you can show us something that came from nothing then we will concede it is possible that the universe did the same.  Until then, we will continue to believe that it was caused by “Something” outside of itself.

From that logical step, we look to other sources and deduce that a God who has revealed Himself to those with eyes to see and minds that are open, was that creator.

You don’t have to believe in God.  But only an unreasonable person would continue to claim that the universe came out of nothing.  From everything we know of the universe so far, that is how it does and always has worked.

Why you refuse to see that is beyond me.  You don’t even have to name the cause.  But you do have to admit that there MUST have been one, given what we DO know.

A “leap of faith” describes accepting something as true in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  Not, as in your example, a lack of all evidence to the affirmative. 

And secondly, a Universe is not a dining room table, especially in all the ways that matter in this context.

So, now that we’re all agreed that faith is a BAD thing, where do we go from here?

mk,

You must have had the same defective science classes as Matthew.

Much the way many theists can’t seem to grasp the meaning of the word “theory,” they also don’t seem to understand what scientists—particularly physicists and cosmologists—mean by the word “nothing.”

“Nothing” does not actually mean “nothing,” at least not cosmologically. I know that sounds like nonsense to those who are not scientifically inclined—and those who think that all the answers we have ever or will ever need came from one ancient book—but I’ll let physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss explain it to you (if you are open minded enough to watch):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

SallyStrange,

Best line in this thread! You win the Internet today. :-)

@coworker,

You give me too much credit! Had you carefully read my comments, you would have seen that what I posted was a summary of a recent EWTN radio program. The conversation was between Fr. Pacwa and a graduate student.

If you wish to criticize their ideas, why not email Fr. Pacwa at EWTN? He usually reads his email inquiries/comments on his show. There’s a very good chance that he’d respond to yours over the airwaves! Can’t wait to hear what he has to say!
______________________
And, oh——by the way, I am still waiting for a response to my earlier questions ...or will you continue to play dodge?
-

Posted by Ann Marie on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 4:06 PM (EST):
Cowalker:
Would you allow your wife (or a significant other to take a class one carcinogenic? (see World Health Organization ratings for Synthetic Estrogen and Progestin)
Do you think it “okay” for a healthy woman to expose herself to the well-documented serious risks of oral contraceptives? Scan the list of side effects that comes with a packet/box of birth control pills—you know, the piece of paper that gets tossed in the trash every month. That little insert will tell you that the side effects of “the pill” include (but not limited to): a greater risk of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke and blood clots; serious and potentially fatal heart problems; pulmonary embolisms:  deep vein thrombosis; gallbladder disease & gall bladder damage; kidney stones and renal failure. Also, life threatening high blood pressure, nausea, dizziness, depression, weight gain, migraines, heavy bleeding; yeast overgrowth and infection; an increased incidence of PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease) and of ectopic pregnancy; weight gain and breast tenderness to and…long roll of drums…loss of libido!
What do you think of this RECENT NEWS (source – recent reports in legal journals) : Yaz/Yasmin manufacturer, Bayer, has agreed to pay at least $142 million to settle the first 651 lawsuits over claims of blood clots.
Yaz has been linked to an increased risk of dangerous side effects compared other birth control pills. In May 2011, the FDA announced that two studies showed that Yaz use doubles or triples the risk of serious blood clots, or venous thromboembolic events (VTE).
Unscrupulous from the Start - When Yaz was first introduced, manufacturer Bayer touted it as a miracle drug that could relieve common premenstrual ailments ranging from bloating to acne. The FDA found that these claims were untrue and the effectiveness of Yaz was grossly exaggerated. Bayer was forced to run commercials and other advertisements that retracted their former statements.
Potentially Fatal Injuries/SAFETY ALERT: FDA forces Yaz Manufacturers to Update Drug Warning Labels to Reflect Blood Clot Risk
Unfortunately, it was too late for the millions of women who started or switched to Yaz. The use of Yaz has actually been found to be detrimental to the health of women. Even women who are completely healthy before taking Yaz may experience life-threatening side effects, such as:
• Blood Clots/Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT): blood clots in the veins that can result in serious medical conditions. They are most often found in the legs and can contribute to life-threatening conditions when they travel elsewhere in the body.
• Pulmonary Embolism (PE): this is the term used to refer to a blood clot that has traveled to the lungs.
• Heart Attack: blood clots that travel to the heart can result in a heart attack.
• Stroke: a blood clot in the brain can increase the risk of stroke.
• Death: blood clots may be fatal depending on where they travel in the body.
Another drawback of relying on contraceptives to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is that they frequently do not work!  The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, released a study showing that condoms fail 14% of the time. That’s enough to provide some concern, especially when coupled with the Guttmacher’s own numbers showing that over half of all abortions are on women who were using some method of birth control. This is a cry in the face of pro-abortion propaganda claiming that if women had better access to birth control, abortions would become unnecessary.
I think most of us on this website would like to know what you think of the fact that the mainstream media does not report this crucial information to the public? 
BTW – in another one of your posts you made the following statement regarding abortions: “An unborn embryo or fetus is not conscious of its situation and is not distraught that it will not be born. It does not have a fear of death”
My response – “I challenge you to head over to YouTube and watch The Silent Scream video - Abortion as Infanticide/ Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child’s pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a “silent scream” as her body is torn apart. Make sure that you view the high def version.
Let’s hear what you have to say afterwards.”
****So the BURNING QUESTION is - were you man enough to take me up on my challenge? ****
 

Posted by mk on Saturday, Jun 9, 2012 12:45 PM (EST):
“Steve Green,
Yes, google exists.  But you don’t see me on an athiest site do you?  The point is that you made a CHOICE to troll here.”

Lots of us atheists like to argue for our worldview. I’m sure Mr. Warner knew that putting the words “More faith to be an atheist than a Christian” out on the internet in an open forum would get lots of hits and comments from atheists. Incidentally, I admire the NC Register for being open to comments from non-believers. Sites that allow the participation of those with all points of view are usually much more interesting than one-sided sites.

Jack,

When we say nothing, we mean nothing.  What you are proposing is something.  Even if you choose to call it nothing.  And that nothing which is actually something came from something.  Infinite regress, my friend.

If you were open minded, you would read the book that was recommended and addresses your cosmological arguments better than I am equipped to do.

@SallyStrange:

Who do you define as “we” ? Exactly who falls under your “we” umbrella - are you referring to trollers? If you are implying that your “we” represents a majority, I think you are sadly mistaken.

You may want to consider the following key findings of the Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which draws primarily on a new nationwide survey conducted from May 8 to Aug. 13, 2007, among a representative sample of more than 35,000 adults in the U.S.:
- Christian 78.4%
- Other Religions 4.7%
- Unaffiliated: 16.1%  - Atheist 1.6%; Agnostics 2.4%  “Although one-quarter of this group consists of those who describe themselves as either atheist or agnostic (1.6% and 2.4% of the adult population overall, respectively), the majority of the unaffiliated population (12.1% of the adult population overall) is made up of people who simply describe their religion as “nothing in particular.”

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Posted by Ann Marie on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 4:06 PM (EST):
“Cowalker:
Would you allow your wife (or a significant other to take a class one carcinogenic? (see World Health Organization ratings for Synthetic Estrogen and Progestin)”

Don’t you think it’s a bit offensive to imply that a husband “allows” his wife to choose her means of contraception? I suppose you mean that if a husband believes a medication is extremely dangerous, he would try to convince her not to take it, which would be fine. The final decision should be hers.

When used under proper medical supervision, birth control pills are safer than pregnancy. I don’t get how you say the media doesn’t inform the public of the risks. I remember hearing about the risks when the pill was introduced in the sixties, and it’s always discussed when a new product is introduced. Perhaps the Yaz formulation should be withdrawn. I’m sure tests are ongoing. Life’s decisions require weighing risks and benefits. One of the greatest risks we all take, every day, is when we go out and get into a car. During the prime of our lives, automobile accidents are the most frequent cause of death. However we call people who refuse to travel by car “phobic.”

Can you point me to a version of the “Silent Scream” that just shows the abortion without all the editorializing?

Does anyone notice the irony in this line of argument? Faith is one of the most important virtues in the Christian tradition. The more faith one has, the more he or she is lauded by the tradition, for it is perhaps the very pillar on which the tradition rests. To argue that atheists require more faith is to say they are the most virtuous of all, no?  That they outdo Christians in a theological virtue?

Perhaps faith is not such a miraculous gift afterall, if one needs the more of it simply to disbelieve.

My point is that this argument is trying to having it both ways. Faith can not be a supernatural gift on which salvation hinges and, at the same time, something so necessarily evident within the universe that we require extra amounts of it to just to deny God.

My mistake, “so evidently necessary”.

Lots of us atheists like to argue for our worldview. I’m sure Mr. Warner knew that putting the words “More faith to be an atheist than a Christian” out on the internet in an open forum would get lots of hits and comments from atheists. Incidentally, I admire the NC Register for being open to comments from non-believers. Sites that allow the participation of those with all points of view are usually much more interesting than one-sided sites.

Ahhhh…I see.  You were “forced” to troll here.  See, I only go to blogs that I have an interest in.  If I were to say, type in “Catholic” and got a hit for a site that was all atheists, rather than comment I would leave.  I didn’t realize it worked differently for atheists.  Once you guys end up on a blog, you have to stay AND comment?  Interesting.

Oh wait, I see, lots of you like to argue for your worldview.  Isn’t that what I said?  You troll Catholic sites?  And that peaks our curiosity.  We like to defend our Faith also, but we, or at least I, don’t troll atheist blogs.  Why?  Because I am convinced that atheists are wrong and have no interest in hearing the same old arguments.  But you seem to seek precisely such debate and actually come to our sites to find it.  That’s not defending your worldview, that is attacking ours. 

And we can’t help but wonder what drives you to do so.  People usually attack when they a. feel threatened or b. wish to oppress another party.

Unless…could it be, that you are not convinced and are hoping someone can convince you?

cowalker,

I gotta apologize.  Looking over your comments, I don’t think you are a troll but actually sincere.  I was responding to the anger and rudeness of Steve Green and Jack.  I really am sorry.  Fingers typed before I thought.

Truthfully, I like a good debate too.  What I don’t like is ignorance and bad manners.

Posted by jordan on Saturday, Jun 9, 2012 3:12 PM (EST):
“Faith can not be a supernatural gift on which salvation hinges and, at the same time, something so necessarily evident within the universe that we require extra amounts of it to just to deny God.”

You make a good point, but I think believers are using “faith” in this context as atheists do—not as a supernatural gift but the natural need to take some things for granted without exhaustively analyzing whether it is true, day after day. It does get confusing.

Basically what believers are doing is trying to tweak us by saying “You think we’re gullible, well, right back at you.” And we can’t resist and try to show that atheism is based on experience of a world where we don’t see supernatural things happening, and they come back and say “those natural things you see can’t have any other cause than the supernatural,” and we ask “how can you know that?” and they reply “it’s obvious!” There’s really nowhere to go from there. The fun of it (for both sides) is thinking that maybe, just maybe, we will get someone to think about things differently.

mk, I read this site daily along with many others and generally avoid sites that agree with my views, why do you feel threatened by those who comment here that have other points of view that challenge your view?

“Posted by mk on Saturday, Jun 9, 2012 3:48 PM (EST):
cowalker,
I gotta apologize.  Looking over your comments, I don’t think you are a troll but actually sincere.  I was responding to the anger and rudeness of Steve Green and Jack.  I really am sorry.  Fingers typed before I thought.”

No worries. I’ve been on the intertubes since the forums looked mighty different (alt.net anyone?) because I like debates. If I didn’t have a thick skin I wouldn’t still be here. People can get carried away and I don’t take it personally. I do understand feeling angry at people who just come to insult. I regard myself as a guest on this site, and would refrain from commenting if asked by the author. That said, I HAVE to believe Mr. Warner knew what the reaction he would get from atheists when he posted.

Cheers.

mk, I’m an atheist but I’ve never respected you more for your honesty!  I normally enjoy your intelligent posts and your sincere talk with cowalker was great.

you just made my day.
Rover.

I’d like to buy you and cowalker a beer (or whatever) sometime.

When you ask a question of an athiest while in a foxhole who he prays to when things are about to hit the fan. He simply and queitly replys I pray to God. There is no athiests in foxholes when it comes down to it were all christians. We were all created in Gods image. For some sometimes we follow the wrong path in our spiritual journey, but eventually through our experinences, praying and recieving Gods gifts we come to realize that theres something bigger then ourselves,and in the end we realize that God Loves all through Jesus Christ His Son.

Sorry you have it wrong, only 30% of the worlds population is Christian.  The rest are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.  They might pray to god while in a fox hole but each are praying to a different god and each are equally convinced that they are praying to the right god.

So let’s say I’m an atheist and I look around one day and realize that this world is amazing—all the animals and the green leaves on the trees and the blue sky, and feel that something must have created it all.  Perhaps there is a god after all, and I should become religious.  But which god should I follow?  There’s Y-hw-h, the god of Judaism, there’s Jehovah, the god of Christianity, there’s Allah, the god of Islam, there’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and there’s other major religions, such as Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Yoruba Religion, and Daoism, just to name a few; most of these have gods as well.  [Note that Y-hw-h and Jehovah are different because Y-hw-h is not part of a Holy Trinity.] Which one should I choose, and on what basis?

@ Jack, June 9, 12:41 PM

“So, because atheists don’t know the origin of the cosmos—preferring to wait for verifiable, testable conclusions…”

Contradictory nonsense. Atheists, by definition, are waiting for no such thing. They’ve made up their minds and now prefer evangelizing to promote their “verifiable conclusions” that God can not and therefore does not exist. The waiting is over. Somewhere the evidence is in. Time to draw dogmatic conclusions. Time to add the “a” to “theism.”

Atheism, as Chesterton said, is the most daring of all dogmas, for it asserts a universal negative. It also dares not to wait for all verifiable evidence, preferring to assert unyielding conclusions based only on that which can be physically measured; rejecting all that is metaphysically unmeasurable but known by human experience nonetheless. When man finally evolves into the scientific superman whose left brain fully rules over the right, we will no longer be fully human, and that should satisfy atheists a great deal. 

@Americo Borges, As many times as I found myself in a life and death situation I don’t ever recall praying or thinking there might be a god. Often just a clam acceptance that my life is over.

Mark, when did you become the spokesmen for all atheist?

SB,
It is true that people pray to all kinds of gods. However that does not mean these gods exist. In fact when you get down to the depths of these other gods you find there is no evidence for them. Only in Christianity do we have the evidence and the reasons for belief in God.

Evan Pixley,
You should believe in the God of Christianity since He alone has revealed Himself in history. This is what the Bible is all about. God reveals Himself in history and in the person of Christ. Let me suggest you start with the gospels where you will see God in human flesh doing what what only God can do in Christ.

“Christianity do we have the evidence and the reasons for belief in God.”

So, what is this evidence?

So then Alvin you are an atheist when it comes to all gods but your own.  I’m sure all other religions are equally convinced that they have the right god and you have the wrong one.

Rover,

mk, I read this site daily along with many others and generally avoid sites that agree with my views, why do you feel threatened by those who comment here that have other points of view that challenge your view?

If you peruse this site often then you know I’m not usually so snippy.  AND you would have read the comment right underneath the one you refer to in which I state that I actually love debate, but do not like rudeness.  I also apologized. 

As a matter of fact, you and I have shared some of those conversations.  So no, I’m not threatened.  But I am perturbed.  Conversation?  Yes, even when and especially when, it is not echoing my own viewpoint.  Insults, rudeness, belittling?  No thank you.

SB,
I disbelieve in these other gods because the evidence for them is not there. The evidence for Christianity is too powerful to dismiss.

What is your position on these matters?

Psy,
There are a number of ways to answer your question. We could look at creation for evidence of God to the life of Christ that clearly shows that God does exist. We could also look at the inadequacies of atheism-naturalism to account for the universe and life.

What evidence?

I’ve never been to China, either, but I’m pretty sure I don’t have to die to get there.

Does it take “faith” for you to not believe in Ra, Apollo, Zeus, Diana, Uranus, Atlas, Cronus, Guan-Yu, Akumu, Inti, Morrigan, Danu, or any of the thousands of gods you don’t believe in?  Then why does it take “faith” for atheists to not believe in your god along with the thousands of gods you don’t believe in?

Atheism addresses lack of belief in gods, nothing more.  Atheism does not address the origins of the universe or humanity, the color of the sky or the world economy.  It’s simply a position on the existence of gods.

You’re trying to bring in abiogenesis to refute atheism. (Gee, the world couldn’t have been created by nothing so it obviously was created by a god.  Checkmate atheists!!!) It’s a common enough tactic, but a bad one.  It neither disproves the atheists basic position (there’s no evidence for gods) or proves yours (My god exists!) because it makes improper assumptions—that atheism is a claim about the origins of the universe—which it isn’t.  Thanks for playing, though.

The only reasonable answer to a question for which we don’t know the answer for is “I don’t know”. There is no possible way in which an explanation without evidence is more reasonable than saying “I don’t know”. You have no evidence for your claims. None. You are exepcting that people accept your claim when you can’t prove it. That’s unreasonable. That’s a leap of faith.

There is no shame in not knowing somehting. The shame resides in deciding not to keep looking for a real answer and settling for a made up explanation

@coworker:
I implied nothing - I asked you a question. I am really suprised at your statement that contraceptives are safer than pregnancy! Are you serious? What is your source of information? I just showed your post to my next door neighbors, both are OB/GYNs - and both professors of medicine at a major university hospital. (btw, they are not Catholics). They were utterly astounded that anyone would make such an uninformed statement. (and I’m putting it mildly) “hogwash & cow patties”.
16 yrs in practice and only one maternal fatality. The patient had 3 abortions prior to her pregnancy which caused placenta previa in later pregnancies (a life threatening condition for both the mother & baby due to abnormal development of the placenta due to uterine damage that led to excessive bleeding during labor). According to these good doctors, the pregnancy-related mortality ratio was only 15.1 deaths per 100,000 live births for the period 2006–2007.
Furthermore, neither one of these doctors recommend oral contraceptives for their patients because they have treated far too many patients who have suffered the side-effects of drugs (some were fatal - pulmonary embolisms, strokes, heart attacks.
Re: the video, are you able to interpret an ultrasound and have knowledge of suction abortion medical procedures? How could you possibly know what is you are watching unless a doctor explain what you are seeing? Even a first year resident wouldn’t be able to interpret the video without medical commentary. In my opinion, you are too frightened to watch the video because you don’t want to be proven wrong about your statement that a fetus doesn’t feel anything or fear death!

My initial statement was this: “‘The universe can’t have spontaneously popped into existence for no reason at all’ (a position that theists never tire of straw-manning atheists with), ‘therefore God did it.’”

“mk” replied, “We [theists] say [the universe] can’t…spontaneously pop into existence therefore it MUST have a CAUSE…. You [atheists] on the other hand say that even tho there is not one shred of evidence showing that ANYTHING, ANYWHERE at ANYTIME has EVER just spontaneously popped into existence, the universe did.”

Therefore, “mk”, thank you for proving that my initial statement was absolutely correct. Theists never tire of straw-manning atheists with the position that ‘The universe can’t have spontaneously popped into existence for no reason at all’.

That always gives me a good chuckle when theists say they don’t do something and then, whoops, turn right around and do it.

My initial statement: “‘The universe can’t have spontaneously popped into existence for no reason at all’ (a position that theists never tire of straw-manning atheists with), ‘therefore God did it’.... ...the obvious fallacy of god-of-the-gaps rhetoric serving as backup.”

“mk” replied, “We don’t say the universe can’t have spontaneously popped into existence therefore God did it. We say it can’t…spontaneously pop into existence therefore it MUST have a CAUSE. Only then do we speculate on the cause.”

Right. So you don’t really believe the Bible God did it, you’re just speculating that maybe a godlike being created the universe, and when you pray, you’re merely praying to a speculation about the possibility of a godlike being perhaps having created the universe.

This is why theistic rhetoric causes me to chuckle.

In the context of the Big Bang model, atheists certainly do think that there’s something that caused that event to occur. But that isn’t evidence of the existence of any god. The astrophysical evidence that the Big Bang model is based on is itself simply evidence that our currently observable universe had some sort of definite beginning, even while we have no idea what could have caused it. So when theist pretend that this scientific evidence is evidence of God, they are inherently relying on the fallacious god-of-the-gaps argument that ‘Since our currently observable universe was caused by something, therefore God created it,’ despite the fact that there isn’t any scientific evidence of any godlike beings, no good evidence of any spirit world where gods or angels or demons or anything else like that reside, and no good evidence of any supernatural forces being invoke by such spirit beings - and, more simply, no evidence of what caused the Big Bang (in the context of the Big Bang model) in the first place. The whole “God did it” is based on pure speculation, from one end to the other.

If, as you have attempted to pretend, theists were those who merely “speculated” that a godlike being is what caused the Big Bang to happen, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, since we wouldn’t be talking about religious faith in the first place (see the original article above), and you wouldn’t have atheists here pointing out to you the distinct error of the illogical absurdity of pretending that atheists have more religious faith than Christians who believe in the Bible God (see the original article above).

Theists are theists - and Christian theists in particular are Christians because they believe that the Bible God created the universe. It’s merely amusing that you would even attempt to use any rhetoric trying to pretend that that is not the context of this discussion.

Mark writes, “Modern science has reached a state of exaggerated pride and arrogance, also known as hubris.”

Atheists *always* laugh at the sheer irony when proponents of religious faith, and specific religious doctrines that are patently absurd when we, you know, actually take reality into account, spout remarks attacking people who grant good scientific evidence more credibility than unsupportable religious beliefs for having an “exaggerated pride and arrogance, also known as hubris”.

But of course it doesn’t take any hubris at all to pretend that atheists have more religious faith than religious believers who push religious faith precisely because that’s what is required by their religious belief in the first place. Well, at least you’re implicitly recognizing the fact that atheists actually do hold science in (much) higher esteem than religious faith.

Which means, the gig is up. (See the original article.)

Regarding “mk"s continuing denials of the reality of how the internet works, and how website blog posts with response comments sections work, and how search engines like Google work, I just have this to say: Your problems with dealing with reality keep showing. Thanks, man. If your guys silly claims about atheism and atheists can’t stand the light of critical scrutiny and rational analysis, then they don’t belong in a public forum. So that would be your bad, not ours.

“mk” writes, “[You Steve]have insulted all the believers here and appear to be a very angry, unhappy person, it is perfectly reasonable for us to conjecture as to your reasons for stopping by. It always amazes me how people who claim to be comfortable in their beliefs (or lack thereof) so often come of sounding miserable. If that’s what atheism breeds, then thank you, I’ll keep my faith. Anything would be better than coming across as a pompous, egotistical brute.”

Blatant hypocrites always make me laugh, so those remarks are certainly worth a ROTFL.

For the rest of you, “mk” doesn’t know me from the man in the moon, but - following the habits of that process of “religious faith” (believing in things you make up without any evidence at all) taught to religious believers - this would never prevent him from using complete fabrications as a pretext for continuing to spout anti-atheist nonsense.

Thank you for the demonstration, “mk”.

“mk” - oh by the way, regarding your blatant lying (demonstrating religious morality, no doubt) and me and some other atheists here “trolling” the site, the truth of the matter is that I don’t read this site at all, I don’t follow this site at all, and I came to *this one particular post* of a guy making false remarks about atheism specifically and only because it happened to show up in a Google News search I did on the word “atheism”. (Indeed, I don’t recall having ever read anything written by Matthew Warner ever before.) Now, I certainly do realize that a lot of people like you just can’t deal with that reality, because it doesn’t suit the purposes of your anti-atheist tirades, so you have to go off on your false tangents about “trolling” and making all kinds of obviously silly remarks about people who dare to actually point out the errors of obviously false statements. Thank you for demonstrating the manner in which so many religious believers feel so threatened by the weakness of their rhetoric that they cannot countenance such criticism. I seriously appreciate how you show everyone by example some of the nefarious characteristics of religious thinking.

“mk” quotes an atheist, who points out that “So, because atheists don’t know the origin of the cosmos—preferring to wait for verifiable, testable conclusions…”

Then “mk” replies, “Contradictory nonsense. Atheists, by definition, are waiting for no such thing.”

See, this exactly one of the distinct problems that atheists have with a lot of religious believers. No matter what the facts are, the religious believer is just going to ignore and keep right on promoting his falsehoods.

Thank you again “mk” for demonstrating such problems for us.

Steve,
One of the great atheist scientist (Lawrence Krauss) claims the universe came from nothing. See his book called “On the Origin of Everything
‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss

Is this absurd or what????

Alvin is your argument about semantics or the success in the last year with the dynamic Casimir effect including a recent patent in Egypt.

Correction, that should be patented by an Egyptian student, I’m not sure where she patented her design at.

My Favorite Quotes by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.
————

A heckler asked Bishop Sheen a question about someone who had died. The Bishop replied, “I will ask him when I get to heaven.” The heckler replied, “What if he isn’t in Heaven?”
The Bishop replied, “Well then you ask him.”

A man told Bishop Sheen he did not believe in hell. The Bishop replied,
“You will when you get there.”. (one of my favorites! ) 

————
If we are to find the source of the life, truth, and love that is in the world, we have to go to a life that is not mingled with its shadow, death; to a truth that is not mingled with its shadow, error; to a love that is not mingled with its shadow, hate.

———-
Our brains today are big enough. Could it be that our hearts are too small?
————-
Everything we do, whether good or evil, goes down into our unconscious mind… So at the end of every human life there will be pulled out of our subconscious or unconscious mind the record of every thought, word and deed. This will be the basis of our judgment.

Posted by Ann Marie on Saturday, Jun 9, 2012 8:00 PM (EST):
@coworker:
“According to these good doctors, the pregnancy-related mortality ratio was only 15.1 deaths per 100,000 live births for the period 2006–2007.”

So what was the death rate from using hormonal contraceptives? Your doctor friends are very unusual if they never prescribe hormonal contraceptive. They seem to have unilaterally decided the question for their patients. Very authoritative of them.

“Re: the video, are you able to interpret an ultrasound and have knowledge of suction abortion medical procedures? How could you possibly know what is you are watching unless a doctor explain what you are seeing? Even a first year resident wouldn’t be able to interpret the video without medical commentary. In my opinion, you are too frightened to watch the video because you don’t want to be proven wrong about your statement that a fetus doesn’t feel anything or fear death!”

I might get around to watching it, but if it needs all that framing, I doubt that it’s that convincing. I saw some of the images and I agree it’s hard to make out what’s happening. But if I have to be told what’s happening by someone with an agenda, that’s not likely to be a game changer.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/more-faith-to-be-an-atheist-than-a-christian#ixzz1xMdZ5A6Y

Just finished watching a really great film starring Denzel Washington - “The Book of Eli”.

Must see movie! How coincidental that it meshes right into the subject at hand. In a word -awesome!

@cowalker:

You are quite adept at getting things wrong. I stated that these doctors do not recommend- never said they do not prescribe.

In any event, these are great doctors who took a Hippocratic Oath:  “First, do no harm.” also:
” If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”

Another thing, so should we avoid reading your postings? After all, don’t you have your own agenda? Funny how everyone else who watches this video has no problem discerning the baby in the sonogram once they have been shown how to view it. Lots of moms keep copies of their babies’ sonogram images - through pregnancy and beyond. My husband still keeps a copy of our daughter’s ultrasound in his wallet to this very day!

But as I predicted, you more than likely won’t watch it because after viewing it, you would have to admit that you were wrong. As if…

“Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the prize.”
~ Dr. Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy, Boston College

Steve, you miss the “facts” as much as you miss the points made in these comments. Perhaps that makes your lack of a point easier to make. Point in fact, Mark, not “mk,” made the comment you refer to at 9:20 PM. Point missed: Atheists have stopped waiting (Jack said atheists are waiting for verifiable conclusions), yet atheists (a + theist), by definition, CONCLUDE (no more waiting there), that there is no God.

Your post at 8:41 misses the point yet again (at least you got the name right this time). Atheists laying claim to “reality” based purely on material “reality” and physical “science” is the precisely the problem with an atheistic worldview. Such a superficial survey of life, limited and constrained to personal logic, is sadly simplistic. It is half-brained, incomplete in thinking, and not fully human. But it is awfully convenient when you get to define the terms and limit which ideas are allowed into the discussion.

Theists attempting to enter into debate with atheists have an unseen and unfair disadvantage. Atheists, by cleverly ignoring, dismissing, rejecting, and distorting the classical philosophical worldview, force upon the world naturalism and secularism as the winning, ‘rational’ default positions. By allowing atheists to define the terms, and by allowing only their definition of “evidence” into the debate, they are sure to “win” every time. They have loaded the metaphysical dice, and we don’t see it. Playing the game on their field, by their rules, is a losing proposition. They figured that out a long time ago, and that is why they had to get off the classical philosophical playing field lest they lose the debate. So they created their own field, limited the rules to using only half the human brain, called that “reason,” and somehow we think we’re obliged to play on it and it alone. 

Mark, Thank you for your gracious concession.

Steve,

<i>
Then “mk” replies, “Contradictory nonsense. Atheists, by definition, are waiting for no such thing.”See, this exactly one of the distinct problems that atheists have with a lot of religious believers. No matter what the facts are, the religious believer is just going to ignore and keep right on promoting his falsehoods.
Thank you again “mk” for demonstrating such problems for us.

And this is exactly what I mean by rude. I did not make those comments.

Mark @132,

BRILLIANT!

Posted by Ann Marie on Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 1:11 AM (EST):
“@cowalker . . . .
But as I predicted, you more than likely won’t watch it because after viewing it, you would have to admit that you were wrong. As if…”

“The Silent Scream” was rather disappointing. The video started with a repetitive five-minute explanation of the history of sonagrams. This included the completely neutral (NOT!) description of an abortion as showing the fetus being “torn apart, dismembered, disarticulated, crushed, and destroyed.” Isn’t that description a bit repetitive, not to mention inflammatory? Yeah, I get it. Nathanson changed his mind, and therefore thinks everyone else should do so. He succeeds in telegraphing his purpose.

Then we get a 2 minute lecture with models on fetal development. Then we get the 3 minute technical explanation on the techniques and tools. Then we get the 3 minute portentous description of what we are about to see. Then we get to the 8 minute analysis of the actual sonagram. That should have been sufficient as a persuader, but frankly, it wasn’t clear at all. Nathanson told me his interpretation of what was happening, but I couldn’t see anything except reflexive reactions by the fetus to movement within the uterus. Also, it’s a fact that at 12 weeks, the fetus measures about 2.5 inches and weighs between three-tenths of an ounce to half an ounce. The image shown in the “Silent Scream” kind of misrepresents the size of the fetus. And the model Nathanson uses to illustrate the procedure of crushing the head is ridiculously disproportionately large to illustrate what is going on in the video.  Then we get 6 minutes of lecturing on how many more abortions have been done since abortion was made legal accompanied by images that show (maybe, who knows?) fetuses aborted later than the first trimester, or miscarriages or stillbirths. There is no explanation of what we are seeing. Oh, and organized crime is probably involved, but no evidence is provided. During this time we get the usual “Women don’t have a clue about what is happening during an abortion. Poor, victimized pregnant women who can’t be held responsible.” I’d insulted if I were a pregnant woman.

Nathanson describes the video as a “real-time videotape.” Wikipedia says “the film compiled a series of still ultrasound images of the abortion.” Do you know which description is true? This is important, because on Wikipedia there is a statement that “John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film’s use of special effects deceptive, a form of ‘technical flimflam.’ He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that ‘the fetus is thrashing about in alarm.’ Hobbins questioned the titular ‘scream’, noting that ‘the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open’, that the ‘scream’ may have been a yawn, and also that ‘mouth’ identified on the blurry ultrasound in the film may in fact have been the space between the fetal chin and chest.”

I get your point about the layman not being sure what is going on in the series of ultrasound images shown in “The Silent Scream.”  But why should I trust Nathanson’s narrative on what is happening?

Hey guys. I just wanted to throw my two cents into this debate.

First of all, everyone is going about this the wrong way. Catholics are using this opportunity to belittle atheists, and atheists are responding with snarky, belittling, and just plain rude comments. It is one thing to disagree with someone. It is quite another to insult their intelligence, their heritage, their belief system, and their persons, based on an honest rebuttal to your commentary. The same goes for Catholics who were less than polite in their comments. Really, can we not act civilised here?

Furthermore, both sides suffer from major weaknesses. The Catholic side fails to realise that these atheists are a different breed, and somehow define themselves as not believing that something came from nothing. The best form of argumentation at this point would be to examine how they justify this belief of theirs, the logic behind it, and the reasonable provability of such a claim, seeing as they define the world as something which can be entirely rationally explained by science, or else not understood at all.

For atheists trying to debate with Catholics… I honestly don’t know what your purpose is here. But, you have a flawed way of getting about it. Assuming you are trying to convert us to atheism, you could start with a basic understanding of Catholic theology, or any theology you attempt to represent in your arguments. You contrast Hindu and Greek mythology, as if they were on equal footing, when the two are plainly fundamentally different to any fool who looks into them. I mean really, have you guys ever opened a catechism? Read the holy texts of Greek mystery religions? Inspected the work of the Brahman priests in Hinduism? No? I thought not. Nor have the majority of you read the Koran, or the Torah, or discussed theology with a major religious figure in any of these religions. So how you make such sweeping statements on all of them is beyond me.

If any of the inaccuracies, ignorances, and all out lies I’ve read you atheists spout are any indication, however, you are clearly clueless about Catholic theology. Therefore, it is a bit hypocritical to criticise us for not knowing the ins and outs of your particular brand of atheism. Your ideas on who God is and how He works are laughable, your ideas on the nature of sin and hell are lacking, and your perception of Catholic teaching and doctrine is, sadly, near sighted. Besides this, your reasoning is flawed.

You make the case that there is no direct physical evidence of God. This has all about the earth-shaking relevance the idea that water is wet. Honestly, I expected better from intellectuals. Catholicism and Christianity in general profess that God is entirely spiritual in nature. To try to measure spirituality with physical tools makes as much sense as trying to record whale songs with a barometer. The tool is basically unsuited to the task, and it’s ridiculous to be surprised or scornful when it doesn’t work.

Point two of this case is that at the center of Catholic theology, God gave the human race free will, to the point where if a man is unwilling to accept God, God will not force Himself upon him. Therefore, to remain with one’s will completely opposed to God, and expect God to pop out from behind a shrub and say “Hey guys, what’s happening?” is almost as ludicrous as the warped idea you possess of what Christianity is. Seeing as you are never open to seeing God, one could reasonable assume that you will never know God. So don’t be disappointed when he remains “hidden” to you.

The final point is that both of the arguments used on each side are generally ineffective. The atheists’ argument is that they have absolutely no argument, but if they refuse to accept our argument long enough we may just give up and do as they do. Our argument is that perhaps something exists outside of what you can reason up, and with a little trust you could realise it’s been revealed already. But seriously, we’re arguing with people whose main argument is “I don’t have to prove anything, you do it.”

This is not to say atheists are all bad. I admit, I have a prejudice. I am, of course, Catholic, and I am prejudiced against the New Atheists who have sprung up in recent times. The Old Atheists, at least realised the social and philosophical implications of atheism. They confronted legitimate proofs for God and denied them for actual reasons, not through scientific fundamentalism.

I suppose, however, that I have been harsh. I apologise for any attack seemingly made against the personal character of any individual atheist, which I cannot claim to know about, and for any inveracities I may have placed here. I hope there are no hard feelings. God bless you all, and have a marvelous day.

I also suggest explaining the reasons why you are a Catholic or atheist, as opposed to attacking each other for being either one.

Cowalker,

But why should I trust Nathanson’s narrative on what is happening?

Because it can be replicated.  Which is why the pro choice side fights so hard against laws requiring a woman to see an ultrasound before aborting.

And because he had nothing to gain by producing it.  You have to ask yourself why the co-founder of NARAL would do that?  WHY would he change his mind? 

It may seem to be old news to us, but in 1984 women didn’t<i> know what those instruments were or how an abortion was performed. 

<i>Nathanson describes the video as a “real-time videotape.” Wikipedia says “the film compiled a series of still ultrasound images of the abortion.”

Both.  I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. 

John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film’s use of special effects deceptive, a form of ‘technical flimflam.’

Why should you believe him?  He has much to gain as the abortion industry is a business, while Nathanson had much to lose.

(maybe, who knows?) fetuses aborted later than the first trimester, or miscarriages or stillbirths.

Are you saying that you doubt that abortions are performed later than the trimester and that this is what they look like? 

Personally, I find the video to have little worth in the abortion argument.  But that’s because I do not think that sentience or the ability to feel pain have anything to do with why it’s wrong.  Once you use that argument you leave wide open the rebuttal that you can remove the pain thereby making abortion morally acceptable.

Human life is sacred.  ALL human life is sacred.  Abortion is one group of people deciding that another group of people have less value than they do.  Period.  That’s what makes it wrong.  If ALL human life is not sacred, then NO human life is sacred.  If one group of people can decide that another group of people has less value then the door is opened to ANY group of people deciding that any other group of people has less value.  Very dangerous territory indeed.  Personhood, viability, pain, sentience…all red herrings meant to take the focus off the real issue.  Human beings killing other human beings. Period. Today it’s the unborn.  Tomorrow it could be you.

If you are skeptical that what Bernard Nathanson is showing is accurate, then please tell me what you think DOES happen in an abortion.

JNdoum,

I would be happy to discuss this and in fact have, in depth, on this very website, many, many, many a time.  My remarks were not about atheism, but about rudeness.  And I apologized for my own insensitive remarks made to someone I mistakenly thought had been rude.

My comments were directed to Steve and Jack (and accidentally to cowalker) and no one else.  And they were directed at the TONE of their comments, not the content.  (because there was no content to address).

It is their loss that they are incapable of having a reasonable discussion without attacking and belittling those with opposing views.  And their nastiness reflects poorly on all atheists.  Which is sad, because most atheists are not nasty trolls attempting to pump up their own egos by trying to sound smarter than a 5th grader. 

Again, if my comments were mistakenly taken to be addressed to atheists in general, I apologize.  I have no quarrel with atheists in general, only rude ones.  I have a problem with rude Catholics also.  I basically have an aversion to rudeness in general.

It is interesting that since my post yesterday, I have had another very strong religious experience, since being in prayer about a very troubling situation.  What can I say?  I don’t dream this up—it is real. I reached out, and God reached back.  I went on faith, surrendering my worries, etc., told God ‘this is all yours; I can do nothing else,’ and this is what I got in return.

  This is the beauty of faith, and I have had enough of such experiences that there is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that God is present and He hears us.  If you have not experienced this, perhaps the answer lies in reaching out and truly trying to trust. Let go and let God is not a trivial statement—it is what is needed.  I recommend it to anyone here, whether you feel you have faith or not.

So let’s not downplay others’ beliefs—many of us have seen things firsthand which we know are God’s work. I’ve seen it throughout my life, beginning with my life being saved by others praying a novena to St. Jude many years ago. I KNOW God is present—there is absolutely no doubt in my mind. Best wishes to all.

Reason alone is not responsible for the advances in science. Almost all great scientists had faith. It took great faith to suppose that energy and matter are related by a universal constant. And yet so it is; E equals M x C-squared - Everywhere in the known and unknown universe. Einstein did not use deductive reasoning, he used inductive reasoning based on faith.

If we sat a million monkeys down at million typewriters for a million years banging on keys one of them might type Hamlet. But if we read Hamlet no one thinks it came from monkeys at a typewriter. The Atheist view is incredulous.

JNdoum - well said. May I copy part of your post for another forum?

What does Mr. Warner describe as faith? The faith which atheists allegedly have more of than theists? He indicates it’s a kind of unsupported belief. I think most epistemologists would be comfortable classifying this as irrational belief. But, then he’s not only misrepresenting the catholic notion of ‘faith’, he’s admitting that his position involves unsupported belief! (albeit less than the atheist’s). But, I don’t think he’s provided any reason to think atheism involves more unsupported belief than Christian-theism, even granting his examples (which I would only do for the sake of argument). As far as I can see then, he’s just admitted his position isn’t entirely rational. Nice.

To the atheists contributing to these discussions: full disclosure: I believe in God the Father almighty…who loves me and you all.  There are several categories of atheists: 1. those who have no idea these discussions are going on here; 2. those who do yet have not chimed in; and 3. those who do and have contributed. Something else I also believe, from [to you} Augustine, to me, St. Augustine:“nos fecisti ad te et inquietem est cor nostrum donec requiscat inthis te.” -God has made us for Himself and our hearts are restless until they reast in Him. And I believe this:  this God, the one that you deny, made you in His image and He loves you with an infinite love…..and at this moment He is using this discussion and all these comments to have you return to Him. I believe this is an almost irrestible force that only human free will can resist; and that He will not give up ‘til you breathe your last breath. Today at Mass, after I confess publicly my sins, I will pray for you all and offer you up to Jesus, whom I also believe is this loving God. guy mcclung rockport texas

Alvin wrote, “One of the great atheist scientist (Lawrence Krauss) claims the universe came from nothing.”

Krauss advocates his hypothesis using certain ideas in quantum mechanics and cosmology, not atheism. Of course, other atheists who are scientists advocate different hypotheses. There are hypotheses based on the concept of “string theory” (e.g., Brian Greene). There are hypotheses based on “loop quantum gravity” (e.g. Lee Smolin). There is a hypothesis called the epkyrotic universe (e.g., Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt). And so on.

Moreoever, in regard to Krauss’ hypothesis in particular, Krauss has been very explicit about the fact that his use of the term “nothing” is NOT the philosophical concept of absolutely nothing that is being used in statements being made here by theists misrepresenting atheism, because in his model there had to be a preexisting quantum field for the Big Bang to develop out of in the first place. (If there was absolutely nothing, then there wouldn’t have been any quantum field.) So when referring to the philosophical concept of nothing in the sense of absolutely nothing, your quote of Krauss is actually completely irrelevant. (If you doubt me on this, you need to check out where Krauss has specifically responded to theists for misunderstanding this point, the distinction between a “quantum void” and absolutely nothing.)

Anyway, the point is that in regard to *atheism* per se, the position of atheism is simply that we do not know what caused our observable universe to come into existence (e.g., in the context of the Big Bang model, we do not know what caused the Big Bang to happen). And different atheists propose different speculations regarding what that may have been, but they’re all speculations, and they all know it.

Finally, atheists many times are hardnosed in pointing out certain criticisms of the errors in anti-atheist rhetoric used by a lot of theists, because, quite frankly, theists do demonstrate an inordinate devotion to misrepresenting atheism in many different ways - the real problem is that we’ve only been explicitly and specifically correcting these misrepresentations for DECADES. What we’ve come to realize is that many theists are *dedicated* to intentionally misrepresenting atheism and atheists to suit their agenda, and we have zero respect for that behavior precisely because such dishonest behavior deserves less than zero respect. (Not to mention the hypocrisy involved with theists who pretend to hold to a “higher standard” of morality!)

This silly nonsense about atheism requiring more religious faith than the religious faith of religious believers (see the original essay at the top of the page) is exactly one case in point. We’ve only been pointing out the obvious nonsense of this specific misrepresentation for at least many decades, so we’re well aware of the fact that anti-atheists have every intention of continuing to promote this lie. We also know that a lot of them love to squeal like pigs when we dare to confront them on the error, and that is exactly what we’ve been observing here and now.

“Anyway, the point is that in regard to *atheism* per se, the position of atheism is simply that we do not know what caused our observable universe to come into existence”

And that is our whole point.  As I pointed out and you rudely dismissed.  There IS a cause.  You claim to not know what that cause is and we believe it is God.  As you have pointed out, God can mean different things to different people, but saying it is God is just naming the “Cause”. 

Your argument is how we define that cause.  We have evidence (which you also rudely dismiss) albeit it isn’t empirical. We have historical records that clearly show a person named Jesus walked the earth and claimed to BE that God.  You do not have to accept this as Truth, but you are also out of line to say that we have no “reasonable” cause to make it. 

It is not that there is NO evidence, it is that there is not ENOUGH evidence to satisfy you.  And you will not accept anything but empirical evidence which eliminates half of reality for you.  Science is good.  Scientism is ludicrous.  You’d have a point if we refused to accept anything scientific because we ONLY believe in the metaphysical, which is that same thing you do in reverse.  What makes us MORE reasonable is that we are willing to look at ALL of the evidence and don’t limit ourselves to one type or the other.

We also know that a lot of them love to squeal like pigs when we dare to confront them on the error, and that is exactly what we’ve been observing here and now.

The only squealing I have heard thus far is from you and Jack.  Perhaps screeching would be a better word.  You don’t listen, you don’t address what is actually written, you insult the person instead of addressing the argument and you can’t seem to post a comment without resorting to rudeness.

Not only aren’t you observing squealing on our part here and now, it is clear by your responses that you aren’t observing anything at all.  No one here is anti atheist although many of us are ant atheism.  The fact that you use the term tells me that you do not know the difference between persons and ideas. 

Not Hard nosed my friend.  Downright RUDE.  There is a difference.

Steve Greene you said, “Finally, atheists many times are hardnosed in pointing out certain criticisms of the errors in anti-atheist rhetoric used by a lot of theists, because, quite frankly, theists do demonstrate an inordinate devotion to misrepresenting atheism in many different ways -”,
and Atheist show much devotion to misrepresenting Catholicism/Christianity in many different ways, along with portraying a rather immature view of God. I was amazed at how immature the late Chris Hitchens’ view of God was, in spite of his apparent intelligence and education.

David wrote, “Reason alone is not responsible for the advances in science. Almost all great scientists had faith. It took great faith to suppose that energy and matter are related by a universal constant. And yet so it is; E equals M x C-squared - Everywhere in the known and unknown universe. Einstein did not use deductive reasoning, he used inductive reasoning based on faith.”

Patently false.

First of all, the word “faith” has different meanings, depending on the context. For example, the sense of the word “faith” in the sentence “I have faith that the sun will set tonight and rise tomorrow” is substantially different from these sense of the word “faith” in the statement “I have faith that God killed everyone on the planet except eight souls a few thousand years ago because that’s what the Bible says”.

Second, most scientists, including “great scientists” do not believe in a god (not even in the deistic sense). A survey of scientists of the U.S. National Academy of Science several years ago shows that over 90% did not believe in a god. You get the same kinds of percentages looking at Nobel laureates in science. (Additionally, Einstein used the word “God” in some of his statements is, in relationship to the Bible God of Christians, merely a metaphorical usage: “God does not play dice with the word”; “God is subtle but he is not malicious”; Einstein idea was “panentheism”, similar to pantheism.)

Finally, and most importantly, in science it doesn’t matter how you come up with ideas. You can eat psilocybin mushrooms if you want. What matters, in terms of being science, is how you go about the process of *testing* the ideas to see how they match up, or don’t match up, to reality, by acquiring relevant evidence and applying rational analysis. Reason is thus the *sine qua non* of science. Without reason, science simply doesn’t exist.

And atheists are always amused when religious believers try to pretend that science requires religious faith, or that religious faith is based on science (take for example, the whole branch of pseudoscience called “creationism”). It’s just another example of religious believers trying to hijack the so-often demonstrated credibility of the scientific process for their religious beliefs which have been developed in ways that are antithetical to the scientific process.

Steve Greene,
For science to work, the scientist must have faith in its principles that in large part can never be proven but assumed.

Take the speed of light. Science must assume that the speed of light is constant in every part of space and at all times. There is no proof for this but it must be assumed to be the case. Same applies for all the laws of nature throughout the universe. One must have faith that these things are constant even though we can’t prove with certainty that they are the same throughout every square inch in the universe.

What the atheist needs to do is make a positive case for his atheism. What facts can an atheist present to show that atheism is more likely truer than a theist?

Mark wrote, “Point missed: Atheists have stopped waiting (Jack said atheists are waiting for verifiable conclusions), yet atheists (a + theist), by definition, CONCLUDE (no more waiting there), that there is no God. Your post at 8:41 misses the point yet again….”

Atheists have indeed concluded that the world revolves around the sun instead of the other way around (actually, about a dynamically produced center of gravity), and so have “stopped waiting” for verifiable conclusions of geocentrism. We’ve stopped waiting for Isis, Zeus, Aphrodite, Thor, Lord Ganesha, and Yahweh as well. Once there’s a considerable degree of falsification of an idea, you accept that it’s just wrong and move on to more productive endeavors.

Mark, if you want to keep on believing in geocentrism, go right ahead and be my guest, more power to you. But you when you start spouting nonsense about the heliocentrists relying on religious faith even more than you do, you’re going to get the blowback you deserve, precisely because you’re flat wrong and you’re nefariously pushing such nonsense according to a corrupt agenda.

You’re right, atheists no longer waste their time on outdated falsified notions, including the general notion that faith, in the context of religious faith, has any epistemological legitimacy in the first place (especially since it deliberately eschews the fundamental concept of testing ideas against relevant evidence acquired from reality itself and denigrates rational thought at any opportunity necessary). The New Testament writer Paul himself described the fundamentally irrational nature of your religious belief (1 Corinthians 1). Paul was just whining because he’d received such a drubbing in the public square of philosophical discussion at the hand of some Greek philosophers at the Areopagus.

An awful lot of Religious believers these days are horribly upset that science just didn’t happen to go their way. So we’ve had a couple of centuries now of all sorts of “metaphoricalization” of turning religious rhetoric into increasingly meaningless gobbledygook on the one hand (in the traditions going the “liberal” direction) in trying to accept and accommodate science in the face of the horrible failure of religious notions in terms of scientific verification of their religious doctrines (i.e., religious doctrines become more and more meaninglessly ethereal word games - take the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation for example, or just the simple notion that “God answers prayer”), or into increasingly ridiculous and bizarre pseudoscience culture (in the traditions going the “fundamentalist/evangelical” direction) in deliberately denying and ignoring genuine science and substituting a fake science in its place in order to cling to religious doctrines that have already been unequivocally falsified instead of “metaphoricalizing” them (e.g., young earth creationism, such as the now known to be quite cartoonish nonsense that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and the universe and the earth didn’t even exist more than about 6,000 or so years ago). (There’s also the point that a lot of atheists are former religious believers - religious believers who chose the third path of “taking the red pill”.)

I find it amusing how religious believers accuse atheists of not paying attention to context, and not comprehending nuance, even while they themselves completely ignore context and seem blind to nuance when engaged in their anti-atheist rhetoric (like the silly nonsense that atheists have more religious faith than religious believers do; and failing to even comprehend the simple fact that a word like “faith” has different meanings in different contexts in the first place, and it’s wrong to pretend one sense of the word is the same as a different sense of the word - it’s called the fallacy of equivocation). I find it amusing how you erroneously portray me as having missed the point - your claim being based, of course, on you missing the point that atheists have only pointed out to you, oh, I would guess/daresay at least over a hundred times. (Gee, where have we seen that kind of behavior before?) Knowing that the notion of Yahweh is just as primitively nonsensical as the notion of Aphrodite or Lord Ganesha, does not imply that atheists think that they know that godlike beings don’t have anything to do with our currently observable universe. The general sense of “atheist” is in the sense of a person who does not possess a belief in any god, simply because he doesn’t see any good reason to.

So thank you again for demonstrating by example the manner in which some theists like to spout anti-atheist rhetoric based on misrepresenting atheism.

Dear Steve,
The U.S. National Academy of Science may be populated with atheists or not but that does not mean that the majority of scientists and engineers (myself included) do not believe in God. Any more than the NAACP voting for gay marriage means that people of color no longer believe in marriage between a man and woman.

Einstein believed in an ordered universe. And I’m sure he believed in God. Maybe not the God of the Bible, but God.

Your arguments are riddled with inconsistancies and prejudice.  I have great respect for atheists in search of the truth as reason alone,, but little for those who are not honestly in search for the truth.

I have great respect for atheists in search of the truth as reason alone,, but little for those who are not honestly in search for the truth.

Can I get an Amen?

Rude.  That is all.

“No Maam. Just the facts.” If you want to debate facts, we’re there. Otherwise its a colossal waste of time.

There’s much more I could respond to, but there’s only so much time in the day, and other things to do, so this will be my last response this day.

I had written, “We also know that a lot of them love to squeal like pigs when we dare to confront them on the error, and that is exactly what we’ve been observing here and now.”

“mk” replied: “The only squealing I have heard thus far is from you and Jack…. Not only aren’t you observing squealing on our part here and now, it is clear by your responses that you aren’t observing anything at all…. No one here is anti atheist although many of us are ant atheism. The fact that you use the term tells me that you do not know the difference between persons and ideas.”

Yes, of course, anti-atheists engaged in their agenda of misrepresentation are compelled to misrepresent everything in sight to perpetuate it. When we actually look at the responses to the original essay (see the original essay at the top), we see atheists directly responding to such obviously nonsensical remarks such as the one that atheists have more religious faith than religious believers do. Atheists in general not only find rhetoric like that just amusing in its patent silliness, but those of us atheists who are former Christians are also very well acquainted with it due to familiarity with that rhetoric’s popularity with preachers in their sermons anytime they happened to refer to atheism.

And then came the squealing by “mk” and Ann Marie about atheists “trolling” and other silly remarks and attacking atheists for *daring* to speak up in a PUBLIC discussion forum on the internet to point out the obvious errors, based on the ridiculous premise that we’re not on the internet in a public forum and Google News doesn’t exist.

And now we’re subjected by “mk” to the obviously ridiculous claim that he and Ann Marie (and any others?) never even wrote all that ridiculous nonsense, that, no sirree Bob, they never made any of those remarks they wrong, and so they’re not spouting any anti-atheist rhetoric.

And he wonders why his remarks aren’t taken seriously. He’s demonstrating the obvious problems people have when you have a system of philosophy (religious faith) that inculcates in you the habit of denying reality and just making things up whenever you feel like you need to try to support the agenda of your religious belief. The habit bleeds over even into tangential matters.

“mk” also replied: “You don’t listen, you don’t address what is actually written, you insult the person instead of addressing the argument and you can’t seem to post a comment without resorting to rudeness.”

Demonstrating that habitual misrepesentation and denial of reality some more. “Don’t address what is actually written.” Right. Like I didn’t address that silly nature of the remark that atheism relies more on religious faith than religious believers do.

It’s always amusing observing a religious believer so desperately trying to pretend his religion-based criticisms of atheism are “reasonable”, even while he’s demonstrating that he gets most of what he says about atheism wrong, and even tries to pretend he never wrote the anti-atheist remarks he’s been making only a day or two after he wrote them. This is the kind of nonsense we’re dealing with.

I’m not going to sit here and point out the dozens of times where you have twisted or ignored words and where you have presented yourself as a pompous ass.  One only needs to read your comments.  You make the case yourself.  There is a difference between addressing what is said and what you think is said.

I am so done with you.  You are like a snotty 4 year old who is crying out for attention with tantrums.  Until you can speak civilly (I wont’ hold my breath) you won’t be getting anymore attention from me.  As they say, don’t feed the trolls.

Here are twenty arguments:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

I loved his argument from “Desire”. Wrote a paper on it.  You and I are obviously reading the same books.  Aren’t you the one who recommended the arguments from Cosmology?  Good taste good sir.

And might I add that you are doing a bang up job of showing the virtue of Christian Patience.  You are a great example of how these arguments SHOULD be presented.  Not one insult in any of your comments.  kudos.

I feel that Matt Warner is enjoys riling up the base with blogs like these. For regular commenters here, you will note that he rarely takes the time to defend his blog posts or respond to commenters as many of the other bloggers here do. It’s encouraging that bloggers like Matt explore the differences in thought between the faithful and atheists, but I must say, that the “dinner on the table” analogy is a coherent argument for the truth of Christianity over atheism is very disappointing.
-
From a fellow atheist who still enjoys reading the NCRegister (despite being labelled a troll frequently), here a just a few observations that led me to reject my Catholic faith, for what they’re worth.
-
Christian: the universe must have been created by something, so there must be a God.
Atheist: but then this suggests that something created God. Every religion teaches that their God created the universe. Even if we agree that a supernatural being created the universe, it in no way suggests that the Christian God is true.
-
Christian: I just know there’s a God, I’ve felt his presence.
Atheist: the faithful in every other religion report the same experiences. Muslims have identical stories about hearing voices, feeling consoled in the presence of death, and witnessing miracles. They are no more invalid than yours, yet you have no problem discounting them as delusional.
-
Christian: what about the finely tuned physical constants, complexity of DNA, that the earth is habitable, etc. - we would not exist without these.
Atheist: then we would not exist, so what?
-
Christian: God loves us and cares about us.
Atheist: If so, he has a terrible way of showing it. As Sam Harris said, “Why rig a silly game in which only the poorly educated and mentally unbalanced are perfectly tuned to glimpse the truth of your existence, while smart, well-adjusted, and well-educated people must wrestle with doubt, barricade themselves behind euphemism, and cling to spurious ‘mysteries’ to keep from tumbling into unbelief?”
-
Christian: I just know Christianity is true:
Atheist: then by sheer accident of birth, you were raised and culturally conditioned to believe the one true faith. Is it not more likely that you just happen to subscribe to the religion into which you were born because of social pressure, emotional consolation, attachment to tradition, etc.?
-
Christian: atheism is a form of religion, and you simply refuse to believe in God.
Atheist: it would be remarkably easy for me to be to be convinced that there is a God. I would accept any number of proofs or real evidence of God, and would admit I was wrong. Could you say the same thing?
-
Christian: The Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God.
Atheist: Then why do you disregard all the bad stuff (genocide, God-ordered murder, the death sentence for any number of actual or imagined slights against Him)? How do you reconcile the numerous things it gets just plain wrong, according to 21st century knowledge of astronomy, biology, genetics, geology, and archaeology?
-
There will be no agreement with any of this by the Christians here, I understand that. But if Mr. Warner wants to truly explore the chasm between Christianity and atheism, it would be helpful to begin with a better (or at least less juvenile) premise. The logic that atheist disbelief in God is analogous to concluding that nobody prepared a meal found on a table may pass for brilliant thought among those who believe that a cracker is routinely physically transformed into the body of their Savior. That would be like an atheist claiming that many Christians believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, that God created a flood that wiped out most of humanity, and he indeed hates fags. Wait…..

Zeke,
You wrote: “Christian: the universe must have been created by something, so there must be a God.
Atheist: but then this suggests that something created God. Every religion teaches that their God created the universe. Even if we agree that a supernatural being created the universe, it in no way suggests that the Christian God is true.”
Since the universe had a beginning there must be an adequate cause that could cause it. We know via science that the universe is fine tuned i.e. the laws of nature then what could account for this? Christians believe the only adequate cause must be God. Only an intelligent, all powerful being could create a universe like this one that is designed all the way from the atom to the massive galaxies. Even before science discovered the origin of the universe and its fine tuning it had not only the night sky and this world to observe but Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 clearly shows that God alone in the beginning created the universe. 
It does not necessarily follow that God has a beginning. The God of Christianity has been revealed to us is eternal. No beginning. No one, no thing created God because He has always existed. What this does is to solve the infinite regress problem. No need to postulate indefinitely who created the god who created the god etc.
The mere existence of the universe itself would not prove that the God of Christianity is true. To know which God created the universe, would require some kind of revelation from that God. That is what the Bible is. It is a revelation from this God that He alone created this universe. It claims in its pages that He did indeed create the universe. Its statements about the universe do line up with what we even know scientifically to be true such as the universe having a beginning. Genesis 1:1 is a case in point. Before the 1920’s it was thought that the universe was eternal but Einstein and Hubble proved otherwise.

Zeke,
You wrote:
“Christian: I just know Christianity is true:
Atheist: then by sheer accident of birth, you were raised and culturally conditioned to believe the one true faith. Is it not more likely that you just happen to subscribe to the religion into which you were born because of social pressure, emotional consolation, attachment to tradition, etc.?”
Christianity or any belief system is not true just because someone is raised in it. It might be true a person will believe the belief system they are raised in but that does not mean the belief system is true. For a belief system to be true it must have facts and sound reasons to support it. It must accurately explain a number of things that comport with reality. Christianity does this better than any other belief systems. It explains why the world is messed up. It resonates with our deepest desires that give us hope. It is based in the historical facts of the gospels and the rest of the New Testament. It offers us a far better way to live. It answers the big questions of life such as what happens after death. It gives meaning to every aspect of our lives. There is no better belief system in the world.

Let me ask you: how does atheism answer the tough questions of life and give you hope?

it is great to see the emotions God-talk has generated thus far. It only goes to show that peoples everywhere are thinking about God and His existence. Thus even when churches or worship places are filled to capacity like the stadiums and theatres, they are are crying to be heard. Experiences will ever be different but each person’s faith is ensentially about his or her recognition of his journey through life and God’s presence or absence along the way. It is my opinion that the atheist is a believer afterall. He is a seeker and has a strong faith presently in the fact that the faith of the christian is wrong. Maybe those who have a problem with the existence of the Christian God simply want proof and all we can say is, everything in creation simply points to the fact that He is, including you!

Thanks MK. I noticed there was another David earlier in the discussion… Cant say that I did recommend that book. I hope I’ll acquire Patience in speech as well as writing. Not always good there.

Peter Kreeft does an excellent job of explainIng these arguments and truth. There is only one real argument against believing in the existence of God. It is the existance of evil. He does a good job in explaining that one as well. Oddly that argument is the first reason that I believed in God from a theological perspective: “There is no such thing as absolute evil, absolute evil cannot exist.”  it’s that simple.

I’ve long had these sorts of discussions with atheists, and, while most scientists are atheists, most “Internet forum posting” atheists are not scientists, but rather are intellectuals who simply do not believe in God and make odd arguments that they think support their non-belief.  I once asked one of them why the percentage of theistic mathematicians and physicists was higher than other disciplines, particularly biologists, and, not knowing anything about maths or physics, the answer he came up with was “Because they’re smarter?”  Had a good laugh with him over that one.

When you press one of these “Evangelical Atheists” (the sort who “googles atheism news” and then goes to argue with people over their system of non-belief (that isn’t a system, of course, it’s just non-belief) on really hard issues like human nature, intrinsic morality, the origin of the Universe, etc, they typically have one of three responses - 1) They ignore the question or deflect it into something else; 2) They provide a natural law “God of the Gaps” response (“That’s just the way that nature did it”); 3) They grant something characteristics that are pretty much the same as God, but they just aren’t God.

Matthew’s “Who made dinner” thing in the OP demonstrates (perhaps unintentionally) one of the key flaws in the atheistic argument.  Science itself says that, while inferences can be made, an absolute conclusion cannot be drawn from non-absolute observations.  Yes, it is INCREDIBLY unlikely that your dinner popped into existence through any means other than someone making it, but if you didn’t observe it, and you have no way of finding someone who did, your conclusion that someone else prepared is all well and good, but is not a valid one, not with 100% certainty anyway.

In reality, these issues are as much about philosophy as they are about science, and it’s unfortunate that most people involved in such discussions are so ill-informed in both fields.  From my experience, most atheists who post in Internet forums tend toward the “Old white guy with a long beard sitting on a cloud” view of God, and, without exposure to Catholic theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas (personally, I believe that supplementation with non-Christian Western thinkers such as Plato, along with non-Catholic Christian theologians, such as Wesley and Calvin, can be helpful, at least in thinking through some issues,) that’s where they will remain, and that’s a large part of the reason for their three responses listed above.

Adjensen,
I have met a young friend, also an engineer, who’s parents were Bible only Christians - creationists. He appears to have rejected the notion of Christianity all together and has started to embrace atheism. Do you know of any good catholic book that I might hand him?
Thanks beforehand,
David

David,
Have him read the Case for a Creator or the Case for Christ. Both by Lee Strobel. There are also DVD’s for these 2 books. They are both excellent.

David - it isn’t Catholic, and some of his arguments are a bit soft, by C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” is a good read for a rational Christian perspective, and though he’s a bit tricky and hard to read (so people who aren’t particularly interested in a reasoned view of faith usually won’t stick with it,) G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy” is a solid resource.

I just converted to Catholicism this past year, after a long time of being a Catholic-leaning Methodist, so there are likely better or more recent Catholic works that I’m not aware of.  I’ve seen a couple of the Lee Strobel documentaries (streaming on Netflix - I just checked and “The Case for Christ” is still on there) and remember them being good, but with some holes that the typical atheist is going to jump right on.  Just like an alcoholic isn’t going to stop drinking until they decide to, an atheist isn’t going to change their perspective unless they are looking to do so—I suspect handing your friend a book and hoping that he reads it and changes his tune on that basis is unlikely to happen.  (And, for the record, I’m not equating atheists with alcoholics :-)

Joanp62,
Yes, you may.

Cowalker:

I am an OB/GYN, practicing medicine in Columbus, Ohio for over 12 years. I am outraged at your incredibly dim-witted & crass remarks in regard to: 1) abortion - “An unborn embryo or fetus is not conscious of its situation and is not distraught that it will not be born. It does not have a fear of death”  2) “Women don’t have a clue about what is happening during an abortion. Poor, victimized pregnant women who can’t be held responsible.” I’d insulted if I were a pregnant woman.”. 

Let me tell you about some of these poor, victimized women. In the past 5 months, my colleague and I have treated 12 post-abortion patients - some nearly bled to death;  some had raging cases of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease; others had uterine infections. These patients are now at high risk for cancer, facing a high probability of infertility, not to mention post-abortion stress syndrome. I cannot begin to tell you the number of times I have been called by area hospital ERs to consult on botched abortion cases. Litigation is pending against the butchers of our local abortion mills - the conditions in these facilities are straight out of a horror film. 

As to the YouTube video, I viewed it several times and have no reservations whatsoever that the fetus in the series of sonogram images was aware of the horrid assault on his/her life. The fetus was clearly visible in the ultrasound. The sonogram may have been sped up a bit, but only in the interest to spare the viewer prolonged exposure to act of brutality. Your Wikipedia “information” is really dated - back to the mid 80s!  Drs. Berkowitz and Hobbins later retracted their 1985 criticisms of the film after the many advances in fetal and  neonatal imaging, including 4D sonograms. Dr. Bodian’s 1985 opinion has long since been proven to be without merit. 

With regard to an unborn baby’s capacity to feel pain, it has been clearly demonstrated that an 8 week fetus has already developed face skin receptors (fetal age based on last menstrual period date). I submit for your review - hopefully, this incontrovertible evidence will disabuse you of your lame-brain opinions!  

On Thursday, members of a U.S. House subcommittee heard graphic testimony on a bill (H.R. 3803) prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy within the District of Columbia, explaining the extent to which preborn children have the capacity to feel the pain of being aborted. 

Three doctors, including a former abortionist, testified.

“In the neonatal intensive care unit, we can witness firsthand the change in vital signs associated with pain,” said Colleen Malloy, Assistant Professor, Division of Neonatology/Dept. Of Pediatrics, Northwestern University. Her statement: Http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Hearings 2012/Malloy 05172012  

Dr. Anthony Levatino, a gynecologist who estimates he performed more than 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, described in graphic terms abortions performed at the twenty-second week. Watch his compelling,  chilling 5/17/12 testimony on YouTube. 

Dr. Byron Calhoun, a professor and vice chairman in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at West Virginia University-Charleston, testified about cases where abortions were performed because the mother’s life was in danger. 

“I have had to deliver patients prematurely and had babies die from prematurity, but never had to take the life of a fetus to save’s the mother’s life,” he said. His testimony is also viewable on YouTube. 

And before you go mouthing off again with your warped pre-conceived notions of my “agenda”, I am not a Catholic! 

adjensen- “(And, for the record, I’m not equating atheists with alcoholics :-)”

I do take your point. Over the last two years of following this site and several others, the Catholic Register regulars display the most disdain for logic, reason and intellectualism.

Uh- oh, didn’t notice that last sentence. It was unintended - my 14 yr old son added it, unbeknowst to me.

But what I did forget to address was your appalling criticism of OB GYNs “very authoritative” care of their patients by not recommending class one carcinogens for their patients. You blithely ignore the list of side-effects of these non-therapeutic drugs; they are not intended to cure disease. Ultimately, we physicians end up treating the patients who suffer from these side-effects. Bravo for these ethical doctors! We do not & will never take bribes from the pharmaceutical companies - no matter how many free ski trips, “educational grants”  and other favors the drug reps hustle.

Cowalker, I must say, I feel sorry for your wife!

@Columbus OB/GYN:

That was amazing! Well said!

mmk @ Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 6:28 AM (EST)
Cowalker:But why should I trust Nathanson’s narrative on what is happening?

mk:Because it can be replicated.  Which is why the pro choice side fights so hard against laws requiring a woman to see an ultrasound before aborting.

Cowalker: I don’t doubt the mechanics of what happens in an abortion. I’ve seen the pictures of fetal remains. However the narrative attributes emotions, goal-oriented behavior and sensations of pain to a 12-week fetus that are highly unlikely. The actual video of the sonagram is surrounded by propaganda. If the video alone were persuasive, this wouldn’t be necessary. 

Cowalker: Michale Gazzaniga is a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Dartmouth College and director of the College’s Center for Cognitive Neuroscience.

http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=774

“By week 13 the fetus has begun to move. Around this time the corpus callosum, the massive collection of ?bers (the axons of neurons) that allow for communication between the hemispheres, begins to develop, forming the infrastructure for the major part of the cross talk between the two sides of the brain. Yet the fetus is not a sentient, self-aware organism at this point; it is more like a sea slug, a writhing, re?ex-bound hunk of sensory-motor processes that does not respond to anything in a directed, purposeful way. Laying down the infrastructure for a mature brain and possessing a mature brain are two very different states of being.”

mk: And because [Nathanson] had nothing to gain by producing it.  You have to ask yourself why the co-founder of NARAL would do that?  WHY would he change his mind?

Cowalker: I don’t know. He could have sincerely changed his mind. That still doesn’t mean he is right. Or maybe he thought he had more to gain by being lionized by pro-lifers. 

Cowalker:Nathanson describes the video as a ‘real-time videotape.’ Wikipedia says ‘the film compiled a series of still ultrasound images of the abortion.’

mk: Both. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.

Cowalker: It could be a combination of stills and video, or on or the other. If any of it were a series of stills, it would be important to display them at the correct rate to show the abortion happening in real time. This could be manipulated to support or debunk one’s particular perspective.

mk: Are you saying that you doubt that abortions are performed later than the trimester and that this is what they look like?

Cowalker: Lets face it, one couldn’t even be sure they were real. Where did the pictures come from?  I don’t deny that late term abortions take place, but they are rare and usually done for serious medical reasons. For me to believe that there is a problem with many late term abortions I need to know the source of the photos, and why the remains are being treated so disrespectfully, and what was the outcome of public display of the pictures.

mk: Personally, I find the video to have little worth in the abortion argument.  But that’s because I do not think that sentience or the ability to feel pain have anything to do with why it’s wrong.  Once you use that argument you leave wide open the rebuttal that you can remove the pain thereby making abortion morally acceptable.

Cowalker: I agree with you. That is why I didn’t want to spend the time watching it. I was a little surprised to find the presentation so very blatantly partisan, when I had always heard that the video spoke for itself. The slippery slope argument is not particularly persuasive to me in the case of abortion. Pregnancy is a unique conflict of rights—if you rule out the case where you wake up sharing your vital organs with a world-famous violinist. During pregnancy, one human has to live inside another human to survive. Does the fetal right to survive trump the right of the mother to control her body? I think Roe v Wade gets it about right by allowing abortion for any reason during the first three months, and making it more difficult after that. The baby acquires social rights along the continuum of pregnancy, just as it is acquiring the ability to survive outside the uterus. It’s not perfect, but it’s not a perfect world.

Alvin,
I appreciate the respectful tone of your reply. These comment boards often get out of hand, sadly. You wrote: “Genesis 1:1 clearly shows that God alone in the beginning created the universe”
-
C’mon dude, I accept that you believe that the Bible is true, but surely you realize that anyone who doubts the truth of what the Bible claims will hardly be swayed by a claim within that very book.
-
“The mere existence of the universe itself would not prove that the God of Christianity is true. To know which God created the universe, would require some kind of revelation from that God. That is what the Bible is. It is a revelation from this God that He alone created this universe. It claims in its pages that He did indeed create the universe.”
-
This is the same reasoning. You can’t state the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible. All other holy books make the same claims, based on similar “revelation”. That’s no more valid than if I were to quote a scientific publication showing errors in the Bible, and insisting that it must be true because it says so in the book. Despite the fact that scientific publications are typically written by highly-educated 21st century individuals, not bronze-age semi-literate peasants.
-
“Its statements about the universe do line up with what we even know scientifically to be true such as the universe having a beginning. Genesis 1:1 is a case in point.”
-
Alvin, even Christians can’t agree on Genesis. Nuance it all you wish, call it allegorical, invent new meanings for the word “day”, but other than the fact that it makes the unimpressive claim that the universe had a beginning, as does virtually every other pre-Christian creation myth, it gets everything else we know to be scientifically true wrong. This is observable by anyone with a basic understanding of biology and geology. The rest of Genesis, with its embarrassing timelines and accounts of a global flood, not only have given gullible Christians reasons to believe that the earth is mere thousands of years old, but also places the creation of the heavens and the earth at a time about 2000 years after the Sumerians learned to brew beer.
-
You completely missed my point about being born into a Christian culture and belief system. You believe in its absolute truth and superiority to all other religions (which are by definition false if Christianity is true). Do you doubt that had you been born in an Islamic society, that you would be a Muslim and possibly be making the same arguments about the Koran, if for no other reason that you would know nothing about Christianity? Fact is, you are a likely a Christian through sheer accident of birth, not because you started life as an atheist, examined all the world religions, and found Christianity the most compelling.
-
You ask how atheism answers the tough questions of my life and gives me hope. Hope for what Alvin? That death is an illusion? That if I live my life right I’ll reunite with dead friends and relatives in heaven one day, rather than end up in hell?  I feel that the way I live my life is indistinguishable from that of a typical Christian. Of course I was also born and raised in a Christian family and culture, so there’s little mystery to the source of my moral code. In fact, I think the Christian moral code, and teachings of Jesus, are truly wonderful and admirable. But I live this way, as do most atheists, without the necessity of being commanded to do so or spend an eternity in hell.

To Columbus OB/GYN on Sunday, Jun 10, 2012 8:51 PM (EST):

“I am an OB/GYN, practicing medicine in Columbus, Ohio for over 12 years. I am outraged at your incredibly dim-witted & crass remarks in regard to: 1) abortion - ‘An unborn embryo or fetus is not conscious of its situation and is not distraught that it will not be born. It does not have a fear of death’”

Please see my reply to mk above about the brain activity of a 12 week fetus.

“Let me tell you about some of these poor, victimized women. In the past 5 months, my colleague and I have treated 12 post-abortion patients - some nearly bled to death;  some had raging cases of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease; others had uterine infections. . . . Litigation is pending against the butchers of our local abortion mills - the conditions in these facilities are straight out of a horror film.”

Those women were not victimized by not understanding abortion. They were victimized by receiving substandard health care. I am all for shutting down abortion clinics with lousy doctors. By all means, document the atrocities and prosecute the offenders. I would note, however, that more good doctors would be inclined to become abortionists if pro-lifers stopped putting their pictures on “Wanted” posters, sending them death threats, putting their home addresses online, picketing their homes and actually murdering several of them.

“As to the YouTube video, I viewed it several times and have no reservations whatsoever that the fetus in the series of sonogram images was aware of the horrid assault on his/her life.”

Again, see my answer to mk above.

“The fetus was clearly visible in the ultrasound. The sonogram may have been sped up a bit, but only in the interest to spare the viewer prolonged exposure to act of brutality.”

That would be a bizarre tactic, if the purpose of the video is to persuade the viewer of the brutality of abortion.

“Your Wikipedia “information” is really dated - back to the mid 80s!  Drs. Berkowitz and Hobbins later retracted their 1985 criticisms of the film after the many advances in fetal and neonatal imaging, including 4D sonograms. Dr. Bodian’s 1985 opinion has long since been proven to be without merit.”

If you have data disproving the wikipedia information you should update the wikipedia entry. A lot of people go to Wikipedia for a quick overview of a subject. You could be enlightening them.  I would also appreciate knowing your sources for this information.

“I submit for your review - hopefully, this incontrovertible evidence will disabuse you of your lame-brain opinions!

Nothing convinces me more than being called a lame brain! ;)

 
“On Thursday, members of a U.S. House subcommittee heard graphic testimony on a bill (H.R. 3803) prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy within the District of Columbia ....Dr. Anthony Levatino, a gynecologist who estimates he performed more than 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, described in graphic terms abortions performed at the twenty-second week. Watch his compelling,  chilling 5/17/12 testimony on YouTube.”

I agree that abortion becomes a more serious matter after the first trimester. It is appropriate to put some limitations on it, and to consider using methods that would spare the child pain. I believe that the youngest preemie to survive was 23-weeks, and 22-weeks is too close to that to ignore. However the fact remains that some medical conditions of the fetus might make abortion the best choice even after the first trimester.

“And before you go mouthing off again with your warped pre-conceived notions of my ‘agenda’, I am not a Catholic!”

OK. But I have to ask, given your rhetorical style, are you Ann Marie?

If atheists think that theism is so ridiculous, then why do they waste so much of their time on ostensibly orthodox religious websites and blogs? Why are they so vociferously obsessed with rhapsodizing their false hegemony on reason which is nothing more than the result of a cultural hijacking, and an excuse not to think deeper about those nuances of the universe which do indeed make it not in any sense of the term ridiculous to believe that it is a result of deliberation instead of arbitrary nothingness?

So many intellectually dishonest atheists try to hide behind science as some sort of pretense of a foolhardy shield under the assumption that it opposes and even makes seemingly ridiculous what the religious call the existence God, not realizing that science does nothing at all to serve such a purpose in the first place. In fact, science is totally unrelated to any claims, whether in affirmation or denial, regarding to that which cannot be measured by it in the first place. To say there is a God and there is no God is literally identical in the context of science alone. That is, identically disinteresting. Thus, if one of them in this context would happen to be ridiculous by some strange shot, so would the other be equally so.

The failure in bigoted atheists to realize this embarrassingly simple facet is intellectual dishonesty number one. These self-professed “scientific” thinkers are some of the most unscientific people in the world. They have no idea how to properly taxonomize intellectual endeavors into those which are scientific and those which are metaphysical, both of which are wonderful intellectual categories with incredible and even correlating contributions to the human spectrum. Science is not everything. Metaphysics is not everything either. All of this Dawkinsesque diatribe is neither reason nor science. It is an embarrassment to both.

A true scientist realizes that to make any commentary on the state of metaphysical beings or elements with the intention of scientific competence, i.e., in this case to affirm or deny the existence of God, is totally outside the realm of science. Both claims, from a scientific point of view, are unsustainable (thus, equally “unreasonable” and I put this in quotes because for something to not be scientifically unsustainable does not mean it is unreasonable or untrue though bigoted atheists seem to claim this), at least in the epistemological sense through the scientific method particularly. Thus, from a scientific point of view it is not at all ridiculous, superstitious, or whatever other slander levied against a theist that a man should come to the philosophical proposition that indeed the universe is most likely by an impressive margin a deliberate creation, and thus, both intelligible as a creation and the result of an intelligent instigation.

It is not ridiculous from a scientific point of view simply because science is a disinterested discipline in regard to this stuff. One cannot impose incredulity in that which it cannot even address by its own standards. Science itself, by the way, shows how intricately interesting creation is. It does not and cannot show the face of God, albeit it certainly shows that we live in an environment, world, and universe that is intelligible. Something that is intelligible begs the next question of whether it was a fluke or it was intended. Creation is either deliberate or not deliberate. It cannot be both deliberate and not deliberate at the same time. Either there was an intelligent Creator, or there was not. By measuring the extent to which this universe’s intelligible attributes exist in cohesion (however likely or unlikely) in certain areas, we can come closer to a reasonable proposition (albeit not proven in and of itself) as to whether this kind of thing comes about whimsically or wisely. This is how we understand science, know where to stop with it, and where to begin in the realm of metaphysics and reason.

But, we are outside the scope of science right now although that does not make it any less reasonable to debate. Reason itself cannot be proved by science, and yet we use reason in conjunction with science all the time. In fact, we cannot approach science unreasonably. We must reasonably conclude (though we cannot prove, by basis of empiricism, the existence of reason itself), certain things concerning these tested experiments and epistemological observations we call the utilization of science. The scientific method is meaningless without rational agents to both conduct the experiment and analyze the results competently. And there is no “evidence” for reason.

A true atheist also would not waste his time consistently and tirelessly arguing against what he already believes is comprised of copious amounts of uselessly insurmountable and merely fantastic claims. I sure don’t waste my time on atheist blogs and websites. If religion is so ignominious, then stop talking to religious people. Why try to reason with who you (falsely) believe are unreasonable people? If (bigoted) atheists cannot show intellectual honesty with regard to the proper definition and limits of science, then it behooves them to at least show it with regard to this humorously simple situation.

I’ve met atheists before who are not arbitrarily bigoted against religious thought, who are actually honest with themselves to a significant degree.

I don’t see much of that here at all. I see the same regurgitated atheist diatribe that is mass produced in a modern world desperate to find any medium whatsoever through which to usurp the throne of the contributions of Christian Western Civilization (which includes modern science by the way - yes, Christian Civilization gave you that long before the “Enlightenment”), and throw out the profound obligation to live under an Eternal Law that defies our inordinate passions and calls us to greatness beyond our concupiscence.

=If atheists think that theism is so ridiculous, then why do they waste so much of their time on ostensibly orthodox religious websites and blogs?

For me its more about understanding the psychology of those professing metaphysics and bigotry.

Cowalker: I wanted to comment about your comment here: “I am all for shutting down abortion clinics with lousy doctors. By all means, document the atrocities and prosecute the offenders. I would note, however, that more good doctors would be inclined to become abortionists if pro-lifers stopped putting their pictures on “Wanted” posters, sending them death threats, putting their home addresses online, picketing their homes and actually murdering several of them.”

Why do we still have lousy abortion doctors and clinics with deplorable conditions since abortion is legal? The abortion advocates always claim that if abortion were made illegal again, then poor women would have to resort to the bad old days when they were having unsafe abortions in back alleys. Tell me, cowalker, why when abortion is legal, there are still these same unsafe, unethical doctors performing abortions? I don’t buy your explanation that ‘good’ doctors are afraid to perform them because of ‘violent’ pro-lifers (which are very rare). I wonder if the reason is, by its very nature, abortion attracts greedy, unethical, less-skilled doctors. I would think that a really skilled doctor would want to use their talents for a lot more than aborting babies.

Psy,

I was wondering what experiences caused you to pre-suppose bigotry was a trait shared by all Christians, universally. I would understand you saying something less sweeping, such as some, many, or even most theists were bigots, but find all to be a bit harsh. Unless, of course, you have substantial evidence to back up this claim, or else know every theist on the planet personally. Or, you could have a certain understanding of bigotry, which naturally includes all theists. I am curious to know what the case is.

Ryan,
The article on this orthodox religious website is titled More Faith To Be An Atheist Than a Christian. The atheists posting here are simply defending this ridiculous statement. Sure, some comments are intolerant and bigoted, but you will note that the Christians here are not immune to that type of behavvior either. We should all try to be more civil.
-
Point taken that scientific thought and empiricism is not the best tool to examine metaphysical claims such as the existence of a God. You would probably find much fewer belligerent atheists if that’s where the claim stopped. I personally don’t find the claim that the universe was designed by a God ridiculous, as there are several compellng arguments for this position. But these arguments do not lend any validity to the truth of the Christian God, or the divine source of the Bible, or other parts of Christian doctrine that leads to beliefs like using a condom is a sin, or that homosexuals deserve death, or that Original Sin is the cause of all the problems in the world.

Psy’s answer merely proves my point. I am eternally grateful for these examples that, in their attempt to issue a shorthanded pretense of wit that is actually a display of abject idiocy, help me highlight precisely what I’m talking about. Note also that I gave appraisal to atheists who do not think this way, so this is merely about those who are stripped of the capacity to competently think.

If Psy, or any one like Psy, actually reads the Catechism, which is ubiquitously inundated with pretty much nothing but reason and love utterly opposed to anything of the nature of bigotry, it would become obvious that there is nothing bigoted whatsoever about Catholicism. I understand actually taking the trouble to learn the Catholic Faith before acting like you know it is quite a task. After all, it’s 2,000 years and we are what… 20, 30, 40, 50, 80-100 years old at most? But, let’s not confuse bigots with the facts.

Zeke, I appreciate your intentions and input regarding discussion. I receive these well as intended. However, there is nothing wrong with taking even a slightly polemical approach to these kinds of discussion. The cultural demand to be “civil” in this way is actually just an extension of the politically correct agenda. It is often (though I’m not stating this is the case with you right now) simply an obfuscation tactic designed to filter down the vigor of the opposition, and perhaps disarm it if possible of those deliberate statements that often need to be said. True civility means not disrespecting the personhood of someone, i.e. not disparaging their name or debasing their dignity as persons.

Ideas in and of themselves, however, are not persons. Ideas that are defunct need to be vigorously opposed. Sometimes a polemical approach is appropriate for this. I am merely following the example of Jesus and the Saints, who on several occasions used a polemical approach. Just look at Jesus’ scolding of the Pharisees (Matthew 23), or St. James calling certain individuals fools (James 2:20). And these examples go on in both the Bible and throughout history. In both cases they were actually verbally harsher than I have been here, and with right reason.

Where arrogance and pretension exist like a tower, discussion must assess like an uncompromising wrecking ball.

There is nothing ridiculous about Matthew’s statement. The point is, given the intricately complex order and cohesion with which our reality is forged, it actually does take a greater leap of faith to say this happened for no reason at all without any tinge of deliberation whatsoever from chance event after chance event after chance event (all of which just happened to develop for no reason at all into copious amounts of species and organisms, weather patterns, profound planet orbits and a moon carefully prospecting the direction of tides, precise pressure designations making it conveniently possible for life to exist and for lungs to breathe, etc for absolutely no reason with no initial intelligent impetus by an intelligent designer whatsoever) than it does to say that it is likely this was deliberately designed, and thus, God more likely exists than doesn’t.

Notice how I don’t state this either proves God or refutes atheism, but rather, that it more strongly suggests a worldview of some sort of intelligent design that demands reasonable and honest analysis. Not disparagement and ridicule when actually those doing the disparaging are the ones who are not quite so sharp themselves. Again, they’ve just hopped on atheism’s false hegemony on reason and are hiding behind what has already been conveniently established for them for decades and possibly more by now at the behest of much of popular academia (and media); that is, that atheism is somehow automatically reasonable and religion automatically unreasonable. This is far from the case. It is actually intellectual cowardice and they only have a voice because the “intellectual” elite have conveniently paved a paradigm for them to do so. It’s much easier to be an atheist these days than it is to be a theist. No rules to order yourself toward and a comfortable artificially established paradigm so that you don’t have to spend a lifetime refuting the nonsense of what is accepted by much of the intellectual mainstream everywhere you go. I know, I once was an atheist. But again, let’s not confuse bigots with the facts.

Notice also how nowhere did I say atheists were stupid, rather, that to say Matthew’s statement is ridiculous (merely a reflection of a host of these false intellectual hegemonies superficially placed against otherwise thought provoking ideas by vitriolic atheists that actually do have merit if one bothers to think deeply enough about it, which they don’t because they don’t actually care about truth) is far off track.

By the way, it is NOT the Christian position that homosexuals deserve death. The sin of using a condom, likewise, is tied into a profound sexual economy of self-giving and total relinquishing of self to the spouse including an openness to life which is impossible in a sexual act which is by its nature deliberately closed to life and utterly hedonistic in its end. This is also one reason why masturbation is wrong. This is also connected to the dignity of marriage between a man and a woman (since all homosexual acts are deliberately closed to life and contrary to natural law, and all heterosexual “contraceptive” acts are likewise hostile to life).

Now that we are on that note, to slightly divert into a phenomenon similarly connected, Catholic sexual teaching has nothing to do with arbitrary bigotry and whimsically singling out groups of people. All of it is interconnected in a very profound way for those who actually bother to learn more about it. More on that in… the Catechism (which no one appears to read). The idea, for example, that we are merely bigoted against homosexual people because we teach against homosexual actions, which often gets touted (though it was not touted by Zeke), is also utterly stupid. Following that logic we also hate alcoholics, drug addicts, thieves, and criminals because we teach against the sin of all these groups of people. How that figures with the fact that a deluge of Catholic religious orders, priests, nuns, and laymen dedicate their lives to serving precisely these people is beyond me.

This [misinterpreting and misunderstanding Christianity] is exactly the kind of stuff I’m talking about. We also need to read the entire Bible, not just one part. Remember that Christian means followers of Christ not followers of the Mosaic law. We are not Mosaitians. You cannot interpret the Bible correctly without arriving at Jesus and the subsequent New Covenant established by Him (where death penalty for sin is NOWHERE espoused anywhere in the New Testament, and under which we currently live). Christ, who was God, was Himself a victim of the Mosaic death penalty. The Mosaic law was a mere archetype, comprised of many judicial laws (which demand specific legislation for nothing more than a specific time and circumstance only) reflecting what is the eternal moral law for all time that cannot change (i.e. Ten Commandments), of the greater Covenant to come.

JNdoum- “I was wondering what experiences caused you to pre-suppose bigotry was a trait shared by all Christians, universally.”

I find it interesting that this is common on many religious sites, misrepresenting what I actually said. I never mentioned and specific religion or used an all encompassing statement, the word was “those” as in individual people. So, do you often read more into what was said than what was written or was it intentional on your part to misrepresent my statement?

Ryan, don’t feel you need to justify your beliefs to me, I’ simply curious as to why many feel they need to belittle and-or misrepresent others in order to prop up their position regardless of their faith or lack of?

Here’s a beautiful example of the anti-atheist closed-minded tripe that some of the Christians here like to use (which is precisely what proves how so many of the remarks made by “mk” are utterly hypocritical):

“...you [atheists] are not here for the purpose of edification or spiritual growth, but that your real reason for trolling about here is to sow discord on a website that is designed to provide the faithful with a perspective on the news of the day. The majority of the persons who comment on this website are here WITHOUT a selfish axe to grind. Your pointless, specious remarks usually lead the reader away from truth, not toward it. Do you really expect us to take your sophomoric sophistries seriously?” [Posted by Ann Marie on Friday, Jun 8, 2012 5:51 PM (EST)]

Atheists love the hypocrisies embedded in rhetoric such as this as used by many of the Christians right here in the comment responses to the main essay. Ann Marie’s paragraph here is just one example among numerous other examples in posts after that. I just happend to pick it because it was the first one. All you have to do is read the first several posts, by atheists, in response to the main essay to see that every statement in the quoted paragraph here is completely bogus. The remarks she made bear no relationship to the posts by atheists that preceded it.

“...you [atheists] are not here for the purpose of edification or spiritual growth, but that your real reason for trolling about here is to sow discord on a website that is designed to provide the faithful with a perspective on the news of the day.”

Now, we atheists, at least a lot of us, certainly do know that the main essay was written by a (Catholic) Christian, on a Catholic website, directed toward fellow Christians who already buy into the anti-atheist propaganda.

The facts that Ann Marie ignores and some of the other Christian respondents here is that it was posted on a PUBLIC site, on the INTERNET, with PUBLIC access, and containing a PUBLIC comment response system. Some atheists saw the link through the aegis of modern internet search engines, read the headline, noticed the typical religion-promoting balderdash about atheism being promoted, and chose to respond specifically to point out exactly why what the rhetoric used in the main essay about atheism is just plain wrong.

(Bear in mind that a number of *other* topics have been raised in subsequent discussion, but the main point here is obviously the specific argument made in the main essay, and everything else is tangential or irrelevant to that.)

I realize that a lot of Christians take offense that real live atheists would actually dare to speak up and correct the error, correct the misrepresentation, but when atheists dare to do such a thing, people like Ann Marie absolutely hate it because the correction of error simply isn’t edifying or progressive for her when it involves an atheist pointing out a critical flaw in the rhetoric she likes being promoted by a fellow Christian. No, specifically addressing the argument and specifically explaining why it’s wrong is merely “trolling”.

Now, in reality, what this demonstrates is how people like Ann Marie like to use the rhetoric of substanceless denigrations to merely insult what they want to close their eyes to and distract attention away (red herring) from dealing with the facts and the relevant points. An atheist correcting the obvious error of statements made by a fellow Christian against atheism? NO! Don’t do it atheists! You evil atheists shut up and go away!

At least 50% of the anti-atheist rhetoric some of the Christians have used in the responses here all comes from this basic silly premise that the atheists should just shut up and ago away and stop talking about these fallacies in the Christian rhetoric that the Christians want to turn a blind eye to. And how dare any of the atheists actually take notice of and point out the sheer hypocrisy going on. Daring to point out the hypocrisy and the fallacious nature of the rhetoric makes you a “pompous, egotistical brute” (“mk"s words; that’s just one example, of many). How dare any atheist actually confront the rhetoric and make the person using it eat his own words!

This is why I just laugh at so much of the rhetoric used, because so much of it is irrelevant, meaningless, or false red herring.

The purpose of the main essay is to promote a piece of popular Christian anti-atheist propaganda that’s only been used for many decades - and which has been known for just as many decades to be complete garbage by anyone who really thinks about it for more than a few seconds (no, not just atheists, but religious believers as well who are a little more reflective and less anti-atheistic) - that atheism requires more religious faith than religious belief in Christian religious doctrines does and that one example of this is that atheists think the universe came from nothing at all (no cause). Of course, within a day or two I think, several atheists immediately demonstrated that that argument is nothing more than a standard piece of anti-atheist propaganda used by a lot of Christians which is actually complete horse pucky. That argument, and indeed the fact that it’s being promoted on a public National Catholic Register blog site, just provides additional proof for the atheist criticism of religious believers’ strong inclination to rely on fallacious rhetoric to try to prop up the irrationality of their belief in the fact of critical scrutiny, including by so many Christians showing that they have every intention of continuing to push such false statements about atheism no matter what the facts are. And showing how they have every intention of continuing to try to tell atheists to just shut up and go away and stop bothering them for promoting these falsehoods.

Thank you for participating in the demonstration. Thank you for showing the supposed superiority of the Christian morality. We atheists really appreciate it.

Let’s make a deal: If you want us to shut up and not openly express criticism of this false argument, this blatant misrepresentation of atheism, we are certainly very glad to do so, as soon as you stop promoting it. I.e., we’ll shut up when you do, but not before.

In other words, try not to be such hypocrites.

@Ryan,

While I obviously disagree with many of your conclusions, I write here merely to express agreement on two of your points, along with a simple clarification in regard to the second point.

In regard to your remarks such as “Where arrogance and pretension exist like a tower, discussion must assess like an uncompromising wrecking ball” and “It is often…simply an obfuscation tactic designed to filter down the vigor of the opposition, and perhaps disarm it if possible of those deliberate statements that often need to be said”. Hear, hear! Exactly.

Second, you wrote, “There is nothing ridiculous about Matthew’s statement. The point is, given the intricately complex order and cohesion with which our reality is forged, it actually does take a greater leap of faith to say this happened for no reason at all….”

Of course, atheists AGREE (at least all the ones I’ve ever read or talked with) with the idea that ‘The universe did not come into existence for no reason at all’ - which is precisely why we disagree with the misrepresentation of the matter used by Matthew Warner (and some of the other Christians here). It is the misrepresentation we criticize, and if you read the first several posts written by atheist respondents that is exactly what you see. (Obviously, in subsequent discussion numerous other tangential topics have been discussed.) Atheists do not generally say the universe came from nothing. Saying “We don’t know what caused our currently observable universe to come about” (say, for example, in the Big Bang model, saying “We don’t know what caused the Big Bang to occur”) is simply NOT the same thing as saying “The universe came from nothing” or “The universe came into existence for not reason at all”. These latter are thus obvious misrepresentations of atheism.

(Additionally, a lot of atheists, including myself, find it useful to also point out the inordinate fondess a lot of Christians have to determinedly promote such misrepresentations despite their erroneous nature.)

Now I do realize that your term “for no reason at all” you have subsequently applied in the context of your post to really mean “with no intelligent design by God”. But that’s a different discussion.

Steve,
Long discourse doesn’t win a argument.

@Zeke,

You wrote, “I personally don’t find the claim that the universe was designed by a God ridiculous, as there are several compelling arguments for this position.”

Indeed, I would argue that the only good argument for the existence of a god would have to be an argument that relies on genuine real world evidence, and so a design argument, being a subset of that, is the only kind of argument that could hold any legitimacy. Here’s another way to put this same point, in fact: The only arguments for the existence of a god must be based on real world evidence, which is exactly the realm of science, why is why any good argument for the existence of god would be a scientific argument.

However, unlike you, apparently, I have not seen any compelling arguments. I have yet to see any good, professional scientific research articles providing good evidence for the existence of a god. This is indeed why belief in a god, and especially belief in God, is religion, not science. Belief in a god relies on faith (which is why religious believers promote faith to begin with), not the results of scientific research, because there aren’t any scientific research results giving good evidence of any god.

@David,

You wrote, “Steve, Long discourse doesn’t win a argument.”

Thank you very much for this inane and utterly pointless remark.

@David, why do you assume its about winning?

Posted by on Monday, Jun 11, 2012 6:00 AM (EST):
“Tell me, cowalker, why when abortion is legal, there are still these same unsafe, unethical doctors performing abortions?”

Because this issue has become so politicized, it seems to be impossible to get accurate numbers on the actual rate of abortion complications. I would be glad if you could point me to a neutral source for such figures. Since the medical community as a whole has not expressed particular concern over health problems resulting from abortions, I have to assume that despite occasional instances of bad outcomes and bad clinics, there is nothing alarming about the overall picture. There are unsafe, unethical doctors performing all kinds of procedures. My father barely escaped undergoing seriously wrong treatments twice in his life.

I think it’s rather amazing that we have any competent doctors willing to deal with the hostility abortionists are subjected to in most communities.  Maybe “only a few” abortionists have actually been shot to death by people inspired by extremist pro-life propaganda, but death threats are common. Of course you also know that pro-life groups make it as difficult as possible to finance, open and maintain a clinic. They throw up every possible obstacle to prevent it, and then work to close it down. This is done on principle, regardless of the quality of the clinic. How many people who could do something else would choose instead to run an abortion clinic? Many abortionists take pride in providing safe, respectful care to women. But I have to think that the hatred and ongoing opposition discourages doctors who would otherwise offer abortion among other medical services.

If I live my life believing there is a heaven and hell and (for the sake of argument) atheists are correct, nothing is lost as I face the same loss of consciousness or existence as anyone else. On the other hand, If I live my life disbelieving in heaven and hell and Christianity is correct about their existence, then I suffer eternity in hell. Who is the fool gambling away his eternal happiness and life for the sake of his own stubborn pride? The atheist.

Tony, do you believe because you don’t want to look foolish or suborn or is it the promise of reward or threat of punishment?

I’m not a collectivist by nature so its difficult to understand why you think these are compelling points.

Psy,
No - my point is that at the very least, an atheist should take into consideration that they have more to lose from being an atheist than a Christian ever has from being a Christian.

Thanks for the discussion! Just to clarify - as it appears some people missed this - this was quite obviously not a complete refutation of atheism, nor was it a proof of God and/or Christianity. Sorry for any confusion there.

It was to make one simple point.

Atheism is defined as:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

And, I, based on reason, believe it takes a lot more faith [i.e. belief that is not based on proof] to believe that than to believe there is a God. For lots and lots of reasons too numerous to post in a blog combox and which have been documented in many, many books throughout history.

You may disagree with that. I respect that and I respect you.

The “meal” illustration is not a proof of God either. Never claimed it was. Never pretended it was. It’s to make the simple point that it is not unreasonable to believe that this fine meal we experience everyday (the substance of existence in all of its forms and throughout all of its history) is the result of an intelligent being that transcends all of its laws and dimensions.

And - that even believing in nothing is still believing something. Whatever we believe, we base it upon whatever evidence is available. Some atheists seem to have a different standard for believing something vs believing nothing. In the end, we may have reasons and questions or even doubts for either. But ultimately, we choose to believe something based upon what we know about it. Even if that something is that we’re still not sure and trying to understand (which would be more akin to agnosticism than atheism - though I know some atheists think of themselves that way).

Maybe you call theism a theory, since you see no scientific, repeatable evidence of God’s existence. But maybe you are also willing to admit that it’s a viable theory. Well then you’ve reached a really great place. The next step is faith. A faith that lets you test this theory in a way that yields mind-blowing results IF you’re willing to jump in. It’s not something you can test well from the outside. But if you fully try it, by truly believing and living according to it, then the experiential evidence begins to dwarf the philosophy and reason that got you there - not that those weren’t and aren’t still important. They were pivotal. But the rest is more of a love affair than a theory.

That’s why Aquinas says, in speaking on Christian faith: “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

Tony, If I ever turn to a belief system it won’t be for selfish reasons.

Psy,
Obviously one shouldn’t turn to faith for purely selfish reasons, but if the message of the love of God and neighbor evade some people, a basic logical argument appealing to one’s basest instincts towards self-preservation (into the next life) ought to be something of a wake-up call.
All good has a source, and its source is God, the Creator. It therefore follows one should pay attention to what He has to say through the ages, to follow and worship Him.
And if I die and atheism is correct - guess what? My eternity is the same.
But if I did and my faith is correct - I can rest assured I’ve made the right choice.

Hey cowalker:
Hope you don’t mind hearing from me. I am Columbus OB’s son filling in for my dad because he’s pretty busy with his patients. I read your post to him at breakfast this morning and he asked me to let you know you that he ‘s the “real mccoy”.  He also told me to tell you that he doesn’t have the time to spend rewriting someone else’s Wikipedia propaganda and that his sources of information come from his medical journals (and their email updates) & the medical conferences he goes to (many).
Dude, do you actually rely on Wikipedia for reliable information? We aren’t even allowed to cite Wikipedia in any research paper – sure way to get an “F” and a long lecture from our teachers about how Wikipedia is unreliable, full of error, and because Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us.”
I am really sorry that I dragged my dad into this. I was on this website doing research for a paper on atheism.  Couldn’t believe what I was reading – are these guys for real? I was really ticked off when I saw all of the crap you wrote that a fetus cant feel pain and that abortion doesn’t harm women because I know that you are wrong – dead wrong . This isn’t what I learned in biology and health classes. 
So I read your posts to my dad and asked me if he had any medical journal or research papers that I could use to prove that you are mistaken. My dad took over and posted a response - he has so little free time and I feel really guilty about cutting into his rest time. Even so, he took the time to show you how wrong you are and still you make these ridiculous arguments. You are misleading others, bro – and that isn’t moral or ethical. But then maybe you don’t care about that and will continue to argue no matter what the evidence. I just learned a valuable lesson like you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.   
I started out in my research not knowing much about atheism. I approached it with an open mind. What I’ve learned is really ugly! My research shows that about 1.6% of our population call themselves atheists. So how is it that the atheists posting here outnumber the believers on this blog? I don’t get it, what do you hope to gain?  – I don’t see much here that puts atheism in a positive light.
I did quite a bit of research for my paper using credible sources. So here is what I have learned about atheism:
- It seems that many atheists are on a quest to free the rest of society from the bondage of religion, so that we can live “enlightened,” “scientific” lives. 

- Atheists, for the most part, will deny that people have produced their greatest civilizations and achieved their greatest humanity through religion. 

- Many people view atheists as “intellectually dishonest”

- Angry militant atheism seems to be on the rise. Many are extremists who are frequently “attack” mode and show arrogant disdain for the opinions of others.

- A lot of militant atheists seem to be driven by a desire to “free” the world from the cruel bonds of religion.

- Militant atheists deny the beliefs held by people who are happier than they are and do not want to see humanity improve.

- Aggressive atheists seem to believe that the only legitimate response to those who practice any form of religion is a relentless assault on the credibility of their beliefs.

- It would seem that militant atheists are unhappy because they deny God; It also seems that the reason they deny God is because they’re unhappy. 

- Atheists are not motivated by a love for their fellow human beings. Their loud, arrogant and belligerent clamoring reveals an obvious contempt for humanity.

Hey, but what do I know?  I’m just a kid!

Tony,
I don’t see why a packaged belief system is necessary for neighborly love, what I do see is religions often exploiting human weaknesses to gain membership such as the many fallacious arguments in this thread, your implication of Pascal’s wager for example. I’m not saying religion isn’t a good thing for those who have these weaknesses but you may try another approach for those of us with overly analytical minds.

Ryan,

That. was. AWESOME.

Pascal’s wager is not a fallacious argument.  It may not be an argument that can convince you, but it is not fallacious.  There are all kinds of things that appear to be good for you but haven’t been proven to have beneficial effects.  Like taking vitamins.  Maybe they don’t really help.  But better safe than sorry.

It’s also one of the arguments used for legal abortions.  We can’t know if it is a human being with a soul/sentience/feeling/, so we err on the side that it is.  (our argument).

Pascal’s wager was simply ones man view of why he chose to believe in God.  It doesn’t have to be yours.  But why do you guys do that?  Put people down instead of just stating your case?  It’s so mean spirited. Why do you just HAVE to get in those little digs?  And then turn around and accuse us of being the monsters?  Tony’s comment was so nice, so without any animosity and you just couldn’t let it go.  Why?  I just do not get it.

In the next sentence you imply that we only believe because we are weak, or have weaknesses.  Isn’t it enough to say that you don’t personally feel the need for religion?  Man, you guys are exhausting.

MK, I don’t get it either. Some of the atheists posting here, and I said some, seem very arrogant and angry, as though they simply hate the idea that there are people who believe in a Supreme Being, and the fact that more people believe in some form of Supreme Being than not.

MK & Joanp62

Out of the mouths of babes oft times come gems.

I think that the kid who posted above has shown remarkable insight and courage to post his observations.

=Pascal’s wager is not a fallacious argument

Its based on assumptions followed by ‘believe or burn in hell’.

The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it implies that a deceptive “faith” is better than no faith at all, and I’m not sure that’s the case.  Surely God would see through the pretense, right?

I’ve had enough relationships with atheists through my debates that I can tell that some certain percentage of them are sincere in their claims that they’ve tried to find God, tried to find faith, and are atheists simply because they called and called and nothing came back.  I’ve tried to sort that out, and it really makes a compelling argument for Calvin’s Doctrine of Double Predestination and that kind of disturbs me.  The other way of looking at it is that atheists play a part in God’s plan and it all works out in the end (setting aside “angry atheists” and anti-theists, which are another animal altogether.)

In the end, I just figure God will sort it out, and I pray every day that my friends will be open to the Holy Spirit, and there isn’t much else to be done, at least with those who are so firm in their non-believe that nothing of this world is going to change it.

“Posted by Columbus OB/GYN on Monday, Jun 11, 2012 2:23 PM (EST):
Hey cowalker:
Hope you don’t mind hearing from me. I am Columbus OB’s son filling in for my dad because he’s pretty busy with his patients.”

Hmm. Does it take more faith to believe this is Columbus OB’s son, or more faith to not believe this is Columbus OB’s son? Oh what the heck, I can spare the faith.

“My dad took over and posted a response - he has so little free time and I feel really guilty about cutting into his rest time. Even so, he took the time to show you how wrong you are and still you make these ridiculous arguments.”

I can understand that your Dad didn’t have time to look for sources and such on “The Silent Scream.” He is not obliged to weigh in on random blog debates. But unfortunately lack of sourcing leaves me unconvinced. This whole thing originated because one of the people who post here was bugging me to watch it. I decided it was only fair to check it out. But I found the actual video was bracketed by outright propaganda, and during the video the narrator was telling me I was seeing what I WASN’T seeing. There was no way to tell by observing whether fetal movement was purposeful, and impossible to say whether the fetus had the emotion of fear. I wanted to find information about how the film was made, but I didn’t plan to initiate a major research project. So I looked on Wikipedia.  Your Dad asserted that the doctors’ comments have been disproved or retracted, but did not say when or where, so I have no more solid information about those comments. I also found this:

http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=774

Michael Gazzaniga is a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Dartmouth College and director of the College’s Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. The whole article is interesting.

“The frontal and temporal poles of the brain are apparent during weeks 12 to 16, and the frontal pole (which becomes the neocortex) grows disproportionately fast when compared with the rest of the cortex. The surface of the cortex appears ?at through the third month, but by the end of the fourth month indentations, or sulci, appear. (These develop into the familiar folds of the cerebrum.) The different lobes of the brain also become apparent, and neurons continue to proliferate and migrate throughout the cortex. By week 13 the fetus has begun to move. Around this time the corpus callosum, the massive collection of ?bers (the axons of neurons) that allow for communication between the hemispheres, begins to develop, forming the infrastructure for the major part of the cross talk between the two sides of the brain. Yet the fetus is not a sentient, self-aware organism at this point; it is more like a sea slug, a writhing, re?ex-bound hunk of sensory-motor processes that does not respond to anything in a directed, purposeful way. Laying down the infrastructure for a mature brain and possessing a mature brain are two very different states of being.”

Tonight I watched a couple of YouTube videos of sonagrams of fetuses at the same stage of development, and they made random, jerky movements like the fetus in “The Silent Scream” when there was nothing inserted into the uterus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFno5iOm84A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Og6ofuHaZc&feature=fvwrel

Also, it is very unconvincing to argue that the film was speeded up to spare the viewer a scene of brutality, when the whole point of the video is to showcase the brutality of abortion. Not to mention the multiple views of unexplained fetal body parts.

“I started out in my research not knowing much about atheism. I approached it with an open mind. What I’ve learned is really ugly! My research shows that about 1.6% of our population call themselves atheists. So how is it that the atheists posting here outnumber the believers on this blog? I don’t get it, what do you hope to gain?  – I don’t see much here that puts atheism in a positive light.”

I hope you have also looked other places than on internet blogs for atheists.

http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/101-famous-atheists
Did you know The Mythbusters are atheists?

Internet blogs are the go-to places for loud, arrogant and belligerent clamoring from all types of believers. Here are some words to live by:

    If you post an article with “atheis” in the title, and let Google grab it, the atheists will come.
    If you allow open commenting,  they will comment.

Most of us just like to argue for our worldview, hoping to influence someone to believe it. That is what you hoped would happen with me, isn’t it? And you weren’t able to resist being belligerent, just like one of us atheists. Many other believers can’t resist it either. It’s important for your mental health not to take online exchanges personally. And in doing your research paper, you would be well-advised to omit the name-calling and insults. They distract and detract from your facts and argument.

Lux: I don’t understand this comment of yours addressed to me and MK:
MK & Joanp62

Out of the mouths of babes oft times come gems.

I think that the kid who posted above has shown remarkable insight and courage to post his observations.

If you are speaking of the comment by Columbus OB/GYN, we were not. As far as our comment about some atheist posters, if they are arrogant and rude, I do not think insight and courage is shown.

Cowalker,’

And in doing your research paper, you would be well-advised to omit the name-calling and insults. They distract and detract from your facts and argument.

Ant THAT is why I apologized to you.  Thank you for stating your case, whether or not I agree with it, in a manner that promotes conversation instead of verbal war.  We are as rude as some atheist posters sometimes.  EVERYONE needs to remember that a real human person is at the other end of these comments.

That said…this is not a great argument for criminalizing abortion, but I have always found it interesting.  A kangaroo embryo/fetus, at the approximate same as a 7 week old human fetus, will crawl from it’s mother cervix(?) to her pouch.  It can’t see, doesn’t resemble the kangaroo it will become and by any other account would be considered non viable and non sentient.  Don’t know about it’s frontal lobes, but it DOES makes it way a very long distance and attach itself to it’s mother’s teat.  A woman pregnant with a human fetus of the same age often doesn’t even know she is pregnant. And that is around the age that most abortions take place.  After the first period is missed.

My point is not to compare kangaroos and humans.  My point is to show that we simply do not know what a human baby in utero feels or does not feel.  Thinks or does not think.

Which is why I said it isn’t about whether or not the child can feel, or hear or be self aware.  It is human.  It is a alive.  That is enough.

We cannot place value on people based on their usefulness or abilities.

The only real argument that I see for abortion is that it is indeed a human being but that given it “location” and ONLY it’s location, it loses the right to live, thereby granting the right to the mother to kill said human being.

Any other argument is dishonest.  Abortion takes a human life.  Period.  If you want to argue that sometimes it is okay to take a human life (innocent of any wrong doing other than being in the right place at the wrong time) then that is fair.  Anything else is is just rationalization.

Earlier I think you said that saving a mother’s life in a late term abortion was understandable.  But did you know that there is never any reason to take a viable child from it’s mothers womb by killing it?  Never.  If you can take it dead, you can take it alive.  I have a source to show you if you’d like, where an abortion doctor admits as much (and pro life doctors have said so all along)in a Supreme Court hearing.  Gonzales vs. Carhart.  It’s a PDF so I can’t just pull up quotes from it.  But the whole thing is an eye opener.  Listening to Supreme Court Justices and Doctors discussing the difficulty of killing a viable child before it is expelled from the womb and debating on whether it should be legal to allow it to come out to the navel or the neck, is stomach turning.  So is abortion.  Stomach turning I mean.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/photogalleries/in-the-womb-animal-pictures/

As with all marsupials, the young are born at a very early stage of development – after a gestation of 31–36 days. At this stage, only the forelimbs are somewhat developed, to allow the newborn to climb to the pouch and attach to a teat. In comparison, a human embryo at a similar stage of development would be about seven weeks old, and premature babies born at less than 23 weeks are usually not mature enough to survive. The joey will usually stay in the pouch for about nine months (180–320 days for the Western Grey) before starting to leave the pouch for small periods of time. It is usually fed by its mother until reaching 18 months.

http://animalwebguide.com/Kangaroo.htm

Gonzales vs. Carhart transcripts:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

mk, you are quite right about the kangaroos. It is very interesting. I agree that we simply disagree about the ethics of abortion—not on what it is.

I also agree that it is probably almost always possible to perform an emergency C-section rather than abortion, even when the doctor knows (say at 20, or even 10 weeks)that the fetus cannot possibly survive. Is it right to subject the mother to a major operation just so the doctor can say, “I didn’t directly kill the fetus?” I would hope a doctor wouldn’t do that.

Late term abortions are rare, and usually based on serious medical reasons. They must be decided between the woman and her doctor within legal guidelines. But I do not think they should be prohibited. I’m sure we disagree over the medical conditions that would allow such an abortion. I think this is just another area where we simply cannot agree.

mk, I’m sorry I missed the qualifier “viable” in your first post. So never mind about my first paragraph. Not applicable.

Definition of “militant atheist”: “An atheist who won’t keep his mouth shut but actually dares to speak out and openly criticize errors and fallacies in rhetoric commonly used by religious believers in trying to justify their religious beliefs and with the whole idea of religious faith (believing in the conjured-up beliefs of their religious despite not have a good evidential basis) in the first place.”

Christians want atheists to shut up and stop criticizing their errors openly and stop explaining their rejection of the whole concept of religious faith in principle, and the term “militant atheist”, or as one respondent recently put it to overexaggerate the already overexaggerated, “angry, militant atheist”, is just another one of the typical rhetorical tactics a lot of Christians and other religious believers use to denigrate atheists for not shutting up.

It’s like an atheist ad that was rejected by bus company in some town in Pennsylvania three months ago. Rejected why? For being “controversial or otherwise spark public debate”. And why was the ad considered to be so controversial? Because the ad had ONE SINGLE WORD on it (besides the contact information), and that single word was: “Atheists.”

Incredible!

An atheist who even dares to reveal his presence, showing that there’s someone who doesn’t buy into the basis of religious belief of believing in the made-up things of religious doctrine without any good real world evidence for them, is a militant atheist. An atheist who even dares to openly express criticism of an argument being made by a religious believer promoting a religious belief is an “angry, militant atheist”.

So to those of you here who’ve used that term - Columbus OB/GYN, in particular, with his recent tirade of anti-atheist bigotry - you are to be thanked for openly exposing the rhetorical agenda. Now, in some cases it’s certainly true that at times an atheist genuinely does get mad about the ridiculously bigoted crap that a lot of Christians, as we’ve observed right here in some of the responses, like to throw out (it’s wrong, you know, for anyone to actually get mad about irrational bigoted nonsense and the ceaseless stream of dedicated misrepresentation; that’s one of the inherent and false premises of the “angry, militant atheists) - but in fact most of the time we’re merely laughing at its ridiculous nature and laughing at the people spouting it for exposing how they really feel and thus unwittingly substantiating one major aspect of the atheist criticism of the nefarious attitudes inculcated by religious faith in the first place. And after all, it’s a delicious irony that the mere act of openly ridiculing such rhetorical silliness worsens the apoplexy of the promoter of the “angry, militant atheists” rhetoric.

But Steve, that you are criticizing our “errors” is the point. You have no proof that we are in error, nor do we have absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is real. Why can’t you respect the fact that we believe what we believe and you believe differently. So far, and I have looked into various atheist arguments and references, there has been no atheistic argument against the existence of God that is irrefutable. Since you cannot prove to anyone that it is a fact that God does not exist, respect that we differ. Now, if someone on here was claiming the earth was flat, well, that’s another matter.

Psy,
You are probably correct and I absolutely did read too much into it. Clearly, this is not what you meant, and I apologise. However, your tone and the idea behind what you said were what offended me, and this is not the first time I have heard people make such assumptions, which I, rather unfairly, assumed you were making. Once again, I apologise for misreading your intentions, but would appreciate it if you made your intentions a bit clearer next time.

@Joanp62,

You reply to me that, “You have no proof that we are in error.”

We most certainly do. And I always have to laugh when statements like that are made in the exact context in which atheists have just finished pointing out the errors in a misrepresentation of atheism. Apparently you haven’t read the main essay at the top of this page and the several posts of atheist responses immediately following it.

“Why can’t you respect the fact that we believe what we believe and you believe differently.”

Hey, I suppose when you can respect atheists for believing what they believe by granting them the respect of not twisting and distorting atheistic ideas to serve your own agenda (such as misrepresenting atheism as relying on religious faith even more than religious believers do, and straw-manning atheists in general as saying that our currently observable universe ‘came from absolutely nothing’ or that it ‘can’t have spontaneously popped into existence for no reason at all’), then I suspect most of us will be more than happy to do so.

Of course, the kind of response your remarks represent are just another manifestation of the false premise a lot of religious believers work under, which is ‘We want to use false arguments against our critics in public’ (such as straw man arguments) ‘and have critics of those arguments remain silent and just give our false arguments a free ride’.

As I’ve pointed out previously, that is not going to happen. Indeed, it in fact immoral to expect otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong. We all have every right to believe whatever we want to believe, even if it’s wrong and completely bone-headed. With that aspect of your comments I totally agree. What’s wrong is the intent to “silence the opposition” by pretending that the opposition should remain silent and give you a free pass when you promote your claims in a public forum. And it’s particularly silly to pretend that there is something wrong for atheists to dare to specifically respond to the promotion of obviously false statements specifically about atheism. Why is why all such remarks based on promoting that intent are looked at as being somewhat hypocritical.

As I stated previously in regard to the usage of the term “militant atheist”, I’m sure we’ll shut up when you shut up. But I think you know that ain’t gonna happen.

By the way, just to get you step outside of your own particular context for a moment and consider your own words from a different perspective, I can tell that I’ve been in discussions with young earth creationists (those who push the religious doctrine that the universe and the earth have not existed for more than about 6,000 years or so and who typically push the pseudoscience crap associate with that) in the past who have made comments to me very similar to yours. So my question to you is this: If a young earth creationist is promoting his erroneous claims in a public forum, wouldn’t you agree with me that you not only have every right to speak up and criticize the errors, but that if appropriate you should do it? Or do you think he should just get a free pass?

cowalker,

Late term abortions are rare, and usually based on serious medical reasons. They must be decided between the woman and her doctor within legal guidelines.

I know that you are referring to late term in the above, but I feel I must comment on the statement that abortion should be between a woman and her doctor.  Right now, on some college campuses, you can buy the abortion pill in a vending machine.  When I read that, all I could think was “Ahhhh…so now abortion is a private matter between a woman and her vending machine”. 

As I pointed out, there is NEVER any reason why a late term abortion must be performed to save the life of a mother, so there should be no reason to perform them at all.

Of course, from my viewpoint, late term and early term are meaningless phrases.  Is a 5 year old any more human than a 95 year old?  We are talking about stages of life.  Fetus, embryo…these are simply stages.  They are not different “things”, they are still humans.  Saying the word embryo tell you nothing about the thing itself, except it’s stage of life.  When I say embryo, I could be talking about a dolphin, a human or an ardvark.  All you know when I say embryo is that it is a young animal of some sort.  So I see no difference between a human embryo, a 10 year old or a 53 year old.  Except in their development.  They are all human beings at different stages of their life.

Abortion simply says that some stages are less valuable than others.  Euthanasia says the same. 

85% of down syndrome children are aborted simply because they have down syndrome.  This is a value judgment.  So if we are going to say that abortion is morally acceptable, we must acknowledge that it is because some human beings have less value than others.  I’m not willing to do that.  In my opinion, ALL human beings are equally valuable, not based on their usefulness, or consciousness, but by virtue of being a human being at all.  To say that it is a matter between a woman and her doctor, or that the woman shouldn’t be forced to use her body as a womb, or any of the other reasons people give, is just rationalization.

The only reason abortion happens is because some people have decided that other people do not have the right to live.  It doesn’t matter which people are the deciders and which are chosen to die.  It is always (or as we say in the Catholic Church) inherently wrong.  In other words, there are never any circumstances in which it can be viewed as “right”.  Which is not the same as other sins.  When a thing is inherently wrong, it is ALWAYS wrong.  Taking another innocent life (and I emphasize innocent) is always, always wrong.

Now in those instances where a pregnancy has occurred in the fallopian tube, you make take the tube to save the mothers life, but your intention is NOT to kill the child.  That is a consequence of a different act.  You have not placed a value on that childs life.  You know the child cannot survive.  That is God’s choice, not yours.  But a child dying due to a procedure meant to save the womans life, is not the same as an abortion to do so.  Do you see the difference? 

Now I understand that not all woman are Catholic, and without great Faith, asking a woman to give up her fallopian tube (or have another serious procedure)is a lot to ask…BUT even if we were to change the law to allow abortions ONLY when the woman’s life is in IMMEDIATE danger, abortion would practically disappear.  So I would suggest that for now we end abortion for reasons other than the life of the mother, and look at the extreme situations afterward.  Focusing on the extremes only insures that a million and half children who are NOT threatening the life of their mother will continue to die annually in this country.  And that is a tragedy.

Steve, I repeat that you have no proof we are in error. You cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist, whereas we can prove that the world is round, not flat. Regarding the age of the cosmos, I basically go along with the claim that scientists make, however, unlike the shape of the planet, I am not able to verify the age of the earth so easily myself, so no, I would probably not speak out against someone claiming the earth is 6000 years old. I would let that one go.

But as to whether or not God exists you cannot state so arrogantly that the debate is over.

Oh, and I have not made a comment claiming to know what atheists believe - and I did not write the article so don’t attribute the writings and comments of others to me, thank you. What I have expressed is the astonishment I have found with the inaccuracey of atheists’ ideas of what we Christians believe and teach.

Oh and Steve, I never used the term militant atheist. You are addressing comments to me directly, then attributing to me what others have said.

Steve - I’ll refer you to my previous comment in the combox above here. In the writing of this post I did no “twisting and distorting atheistic ideas” nor any straw-manning. The atheists who made such accusations and treated this post as some kind of refutation of atheism or proof of God or took the meal analogy to some broken conclusion are the ones that look a bit silly. They missed the point. The rest I addressed in my previous comment so I won’t repeat it here.

Thanks.

Matt,
Here’s another analogy. On the same hypothetical dinner table we find a book called the Bible. It was written thousands of years ago, and contains historical inaccuracies, bizarre genealogies, savage tales where God commanded the massacre of those he supposedly created, conflicting statements, and contains no knowledge of geology, mathematics, biology or physics beyond what was known by the semi-literate people at that time. We reasonably conclude that it was written by mortal men thousands of years ago who were trying to explain their existence. Yet Christians would have us conclude that this is indeed the true word of God.
-
Ryan,
You emphatically claim that the Bible does NOT make the case that homosexuals deserve death, but what do you make of this passage from Leviticus:
-
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
-
Of course I’m not suggesting that you believe homosexuals should be killed, or even that this is the Christian position. But there it is in the Bible, for anyone to read, claiming to be the word of God. The truly zealous Christians need to look no further than their holy book to find support for such barbarity, and their numbers are not insignificant. You can shout down such wing-nuts and tell them they’re wrong, but are they really, according to the Bible? Yet pointing out such things usually elicits deep sighs from the faithful, despairing that we are misrepresenting Christianity, and that one needs to read the entire Bible. So we cannot take seriously the parts of the OT where God demanded death for homosexuals (and numerous other offenses such as lying about virginity, blasphemy, cursing your parents, or practicing magic) but it’s rational to accept the parts that proclaim that He created the heavens and the earth and Adam and Eve?
-
Hey “Columbus OB/GYN kid”,
Good luck with your “research paper on atheism”. Since you don’t trust Wikipedia, you won’t be swayed by looking up major religious groups on that site, where you would learn that the 3rd largest religious category is “no religion”, which greatly conflicts with your claim of 1.6%.
-
You learned through research that “Atheists are not motivated by a love for their fellow human beings. Their loud, arrogant and belligerent clamoring reveals an obvious contempt for humanity.” While you’ve got your laptop open, you may want to look up “stereotypes”. Give my regards to your “dad”, Ann Marie.

Zeke,

No religion is not the same as “atheist”.  A purist like yourself should understand that.  No religion means no particular church or affiliation.  It doesn’t mean no belief in a supernatural being.  I can’t tell you how many people have told me that they “believe in God but don’t belong to any particular faith” or that they don’t belong to an organized religion but consider themselves to be “very” spiritual.  1.6% refers not even to agnostics, but to those who claim that God does NOT exist.

Well Zeke, considering that it was Christians, ie Catholics, that put the Bible together, choosing which Hebrew scriptures to include based on their importance with the Jewish people, and then what books to include in the New Testament,and that it was Christians who wrote the New Testament, don’t you think they would have a better idea of what the Bible was?

With regard to Old Covenant Levitical laws, on this very website, Jimmy Akin, has a wonderful podcast explaining the differences between ritual laws and civil laws which would not be binding on Christians, and those moral laws that are everlasting. For example, the sin of homosexual activity would be a moral law, still binding. Executing homosexuals was a civil law and most likely in accord with civil customs of the time, something that would have been looked at as a fitting punishment by the people in those times, but not something that is binding on us today. And besides, Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and instituted the New Covenant, of which we Christians try to live by today. In the story of the adulteress, the men of the Old Covenant wanted to stone her to death in accordance with their Mosaic civil laws, but Jesus, establishing the New Covenant, turned that around to “Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone.”

@Joanp62, you wrote, “Oh and Steve, I never used the term militant atheist. You are addressing comments to me directly, then attributing to me what others have said.”

Just a quick clarification. In fact, I did not attribute the term “militant atheist” to you. I have no idea why you would even think that, based on what I wrote, which was: “As I stated previously in regard to the usage of the term ‘militant atheist’, I’m sure we’ll shut up when you shut up.” Where did I say that *you* had used the term?

@Matthew, you wrote, “In the writing of this post I did no ‘twisting and distorting atheistic ideas’ nor any straw-manning. The atheists who made such accusations and treated this post as some kind of refutation of atheism or proof of God or took the meal analogy to some broken conclusion are the ones that look a bit silly. They missed the point.”

Okay, Matthew, my bad, for missing the point.

Obviously I was wrong when I thought that you had argued that “atheism requires much more of a leap of faith than my Christianity” because “it would be quite a leap of faith to believe that *nothing* put [the universe here]” and “it would be far more reasonable to believe that something must have” caused the universe to exist.

It was wrong for me to attribute that argument to you. And you’re quite right, no one who wanted to represent atheism correctly instead of just using a straw man to make a fake attack would ever make an argument like that.

Steve - I do enjoy sarcasm. And I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough in the post. You can call the simplicity or crudeness of the short illustration a straw man. But if you read my comment I explain that the simple point of the post is this:

Atheism is defined as:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
And, I, based on reason, believe it takes a lot more faith [i.e. belief that is not based on proof] to believe that than to believe there is a God.

So I think it’s fairly evident to anyone who doesn’t want to just start arguments for the sake of starting arguments that the “something” i’m referring to is the intelligent being we call God. And the “nothing” is the absence of such a being that could create everything and that exists outside of creation itself. I should have been more clear there.

I didn’t mean to misrepresent atheism in the process and I fully realize that many atheists believe in something causing everything, but don’t believe it is God. My point is not one of a proof or disproof of either theism or atheism (as I said in my previous comment). It’s to make a positive point about theism…that it is not unreasonable to believe that this fine meal we experience everyday (the substance of existence in all of its forms and throughout all of its history) is the result of an intelligent being that transcends all of its laws and dimensions.

That’s it. And I think it’s a more reasonable belief than atheism (therefore taking less “faith” - faith being a belief in something without proof).

@Joanp62, you wrote, “I repeat that you have no proof we are in error. You have no proof that we are in error, nor do we have absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is real.”

Nice bait-and-switch maneuver there. That was interesting to watch.

Of course, I never even said anything about that all. Not saying you should, but if you were to read all of my posts on this page in connection with the main essay at the top, you would notice that even while occasionally addressing something tangential brought up by others I’ve been pretty consistent about trying to stay on top in regard to the main argument of the main essay at the top of that page.

I have never once said, implied, or even intimated that atheism is, or that atheists claim, that we have the proof that no godlike being exists anywhere. What I have consistently pointed out is the specific errors some of you have used in specific arguments used here, and especially, in the current context, the fact that the argument used in the main essay is a false argument. It is both false in the particular claim that atheism is based on the idea that the universe doesn’t have any cause and came from absolutely nothing (that’s false, because as has already been shown atheists don’t promote that idea; someone even quote the atheist Lawrence Krauss to that effect, yet when we looked at the full context of what Krauss was actually saying we saw that his reference to “nothing” was in fact a reference to the background energy of quantum fields, aka a “quantum void” - which is not absolutely nothing, and is indeed an idea he promotes on a hypothetical basis as being the cause of the universe, under certain conditions), and false in the general claim that atheism requires more religious faith than the religious faith that religious believers rely on (which is absurd).

This latter claim is an example of the kinds of word games that an awful lot of religious believers like to play, where they change the genuine meanings of words to mean whatever they want them to mean to serve their religious agenda; indeed, from a different context, we often see creationists for example spouting the argument that they don’t have to take biological evolution seriously because, after all, it’s “just a theory” - which is an obviously fallacious argument based precisely on the fallacy of equivocation, using a different meaning of the word to deliberately ignore the meaning of the word in its context, since “theory” in the context of “scientific theory”, such as “the theory of quantum mechanics” or “the theory of relativity”, has a substantially different meaning than the colloquial sense of mere “conjecture”).

You don’t get ignore the facts that these particular errors have already been pointed out by trying to change the subject.

Um, well, Steve when you stated and I am pasting here: I have no idea why you would even think that, based on what I wrote, which was: “As I stated previously in regard to the usage of the term ‘militant atheist’, I’m sure we’ll shut up when YOU shut up.” Where did I say that *you* had used the term?

Now I capitalized the YOU that gave me the impression you meant me and others. It’s right there in what you quoted back to me.

“Therefore, (so goes the popular illogic) it is much more reasonable to conclude that nobody prepared the meal until such proof presents itself.”

As always, the person making the “it takes more faith to be an atheist” claim has made the unwarranted assumptions that a) atheists must necessarily believe that there couldn’t have been a cause of the universe, & b) that since we know intelligent beings are necessary to create meals, one must be necessary for the creation of the universe.

Different atheists will make different claims, but I think we would all agree on this: there is no evidence of any kind to suggest that a thinking being created the universe. We would definitely NOT all agree that it is certain an intelligence wasn’t behind it or that some event couldn’t have preceeded & caused the big bang.

Strawmen aside, no matter how many times & ways I hear it, I’m always baffled that anyone could utter the phrase “I find atheism requires much more of a leap of faith than my Christianity” with a straight face. Though I would disagree, I could see how someone might think it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist…but a Christian? There are a lot of VERY dubious & totally unsubstaniated claims one must believe in order to be a Christian; not buying that mountain of crap doesn’t take any faith at all.

Steve, no bait and switch. I meant what I said in the first comment and in the one that you just referred to. In your post of Tuesday, Jun 12, 2012 11:35 AM (EST):I took you to mean that you were saying that you were refuting the errors of Christianity. If that was misinterpreted by me then I apologize for that. Here is the paragraphs I’m talking about:

<<Definition of “militant atheist”: “An atheist who won’t keep his mouth shut but actually dares to speak out and openly criticize errors and fallacies in rhetoric commonly used by religious believers in trying to justify their religious beliefs and with the whole idea of religious faith (believing in the conjured-up beliefs of their religious despite not have a good evidential basis) in the first place.”

Christians want atheists to shut up and stop criticizing their errors openly and stop explaining their rejection of the whole concept of religious faith in principle, and the term “militant atheist”, or as one respondent recently put it to overexaggerate the already overexaggerated, “angry, militant atheist”, is just another one of the typical rhetorical tactics a lot of Christians and other religious believers use to denigrate atheists for not shutting up.>>

I don’t know, in re-reading your above comment, it sure sounds to me like you are speaking of the errors of Christians regarding Christianity, our beliefs. Are you sure you are not the one switching? To me I don’t read it that you are talking about our errors regarding what Atheists believe.

@Matthew, thank you for the recognition of the sarcasm. Even better, thank you for taking it in the right way. Maybe we’re getting somewhere.

I’ll get back to you. I want to address your latest comments properly, and I don’t have the time to do that at the moment.

Joan,
You wrote “Well Zeke, considering that it was Christians, ie Catholics, that put the Bible together, choosing which Hebrew scriptures to include based on their importance with the Jewish people, and then what books to include in the New Testament, and that it was Christians who wrote the New Testament, don’t you think they would have a better idea of what the Bible was?
-
Well that’s pretty much my point, Joan, that ordinary people wrote and assembled these books.
-
In fact, you suggest watching the Jimmy Akin podcast (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/how-to-respond-to-dan-savage-on-homosexuality-and-the-bible/), which I did. If other readers here are willing to sacrifice about 12 minutes of their life that they’ll never get back, they should watch it. You will note that he conveniently abridges the Leviticus statement to omit the part commanding death to homosexuals. Skip to the 8:30 mark where he ponders the question of whether it applies today. Prepare to be unsurprised that he finds NT passages to confirm that this is indeed still the case.
-
Christians eventually realized that it was highly unlikely that God really wanted homosexuals killed and ignored the evil Leviticus passage. Faint praise indeed, I suppose, but this moral/ritual/civil law nuanced reading appears to be little more than men realizing the insanity of taking the OT as God’s word.
-
Joan, I understand that you believe that the Bible is true and the word of God, and you feel that atheists have no proof that you are in error. I’ve said earlier that most atheists really don’t care about people believing that the universe has supernatural origins, but they do object to the specific baggage associated with that belief, such as the Bible is his infallible word on how we should live. These beliefs have social, political and scientific repercussions that affect even non-believers. You mention that if someone claimed the earth to be 6000 years old you would probably “let that one go”. Only by reading the Bible could anyone get this absurd idea, and millions of people do. These are the people trapped by their belief that the Bible is the word of God, and as such willfully ignore even high-school textbooks on biology, geology, astronomy, and any modern science regarding the age of the earth.

Zeke, watch Jimmy Akin’s podcast from 8:30 on- he is saying that prohibitions against homosexuality continue into the New Testament.Which is a moral law, which is why we still believe homosexual activity is a sin. The New Testament DOES NOT, however, proscribe the killing of homosexuals. Akin was not conveniently abridging anything. I think you missed his point.

We know that ordinary people compiled the Bible. We just believe that these people were inspired by God. The moral/ritual/cival law is not something being read into the Old Testament. It is how the Jewish people categorized their laws. We have differing levels of crimes and laws today as well.

No where in the bible does it say how old the earth or the universe is. It does not say ‘when’ God began His creation, so reading the Bible will not give you that absurd idea, I’m not really sure I know where it came from. Probably based on how the Jewish people number their years, I guess.

I find secularists, atheists and the governments actions have more repercussions on people of faith. How many times I have heard of one, lone, atheist winning a case to have a prayer or the word God taken off a sign on the wall, when the rest of the people apparently either were fine with it or couldn’t care less.

Joanp62
“I find secularists, atheists and the governments actions have more repercussions on people of faith. How many times I have heard of one, lone, atheist winning a case to have a prayer or the word God taken off a sign on the wall, when the rest of the people apparently either were fine with it or couldn’t care less.”

Do you have a legal argument against removing the sign?

Yes, I do. It’s called the First Amendment.

Wow. You might want to read that First Amendment carefully Joan, and what the establishment clause means regarding the relationship between government and religion. The First Amendment is why people have been successful in removing references to God in public institutions.

Joanp62,
“Yes, I do. It’s called the First Amendment.”

Can you be more specific?
What are these alleged repercussions on people of faith?

As for the single person winning in court the Bill of Rights was designed to protect individuals from religious sects and-or political factions.
I’d like to suggest reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and specifically those written by James Madison to get a better understanding of the First Amendment.

Okay, from a logical standpoint, we have this:

1) Atheist position that there is no God - an absolute statement based on non-absolute observations
2) Atheist position that there is no evidence of God - an absolute statement based on non-absolute observations
3) Theist position that they have personal experience that supports God’s existence (I’ll affirm that, if no one else will :-) - a non-absolute statement, based on non-absolute observations

With that in mind, we have two illogical statements (#1 and #2) and one logical (though refutable) statement (#3) so, from a logical standpoint, Matthew is correct.  A non-theist who declares that there is neither God, nor evidence of such is on a par with a theist who asserts that there is, in the absence of any evidence, while any theist who claims that Gods exists, based on personal revelation, trumps them all.  So a contrary position would require more “faith” (belief in the absence of evidence) than a standard position would.

adjensen.

:)

Adjensen,
I like your approach to examining the 2 opposing positions from a logical point of view. (1) is simply the logical conclusion of (2) but that’s not really important I suppose, and it fairly represents the atheist point of view. But to be fair to what the atheists are arguing here, I think (3) should be rephrased to:
-
The theist position is that they have personal experience with one of the hundreds of past and present Gods, and that others who claim the same personal experiences with another God are mistaken.
-
I doubt there is an atheist alive who does not preclude the possibility that evidence may be discovered that would convince them of the existence of a God. If you discovered evidence that you were wrong, would you be able to change your beliefs?

Psy- sorry I forgot about your post. I base it on the very wording of the first clause of the First Amendment.<< Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;>>
Congress is not establishing a religion when a public school places a sign or poster in a classroom or hallway that has a prayer on it. Period. Yet, the courts try to prohibit the free exercise of it when there is any hint of anything regarding God in a public space. And then you have the free speech clause. Yet, we have public schools teaching about Islam or other religions and having the children “practice” certain observances of these other religions. I’m speaking of a public school I read about over a year ago where the teacher had the students wear hijabs and learned about their prayers. Yet, if it’s Christian, it is banned. Also, in the incidents involving the Christian God, it involved a sign or a poster, not even any specific religious activity.
Yet, as a Catholic, if I am offended and speak out against a GLBTQ sign in a public place, then I would be labeled a bigot.

Zeke, that’s due to various Courts interpretation of the Amendment and their interpretation of the Due Process clause, which if I understand correctly, went from applying only to Congress but to States as well.  We have many laws that are due to someone’s ‘interpretation’ such as Roe V. Wade and the legalization of abortion. That doesn’t mean they are morally or ethically correct. Many people due not agree with how the courts interpret the Constitution.

I realize that the rights of the individual matter, but yet, it sure seems silly in some circumstances to trump the rights of the majority over one. Yet it takes a majority in a court to decide these cases. It all seems to matter just what that one person is offended by, and that is not right.

Joanp62, your lack of understanding of the Fist Amendment is impressive.

“Yet, as a Catholic, if I am offended and speak out against a GLBTQ sign in a public place, then I would be labeled a bigot.”

Well, YEAH!! Just change “GLBTQ” to “short people” or “black people” to understand why.

Well, YEAH!! Just change “GLBTQ” to “short people” or “black people” to understand why.

From your point of view that would make sense.  But see it from ours.  What if it was a sign that promoted pornography or rape?  (And please don’t tell me that rape and homosexual ACTS are not equivalent…either are murder and theft…but from where we sit, murder, rape, homosexual ACTS and pornography are all morally wrong).

There is no morality involved in being short or black.  (Which is why slavery was objectively wrong).  In fact, there is nothing morally wrong with be homosexual.  Homosexual ACTS, however, do have a moral component.

-
The theist position is that they have personal experience with one of the hundreds of past and present Gods, and that others who claim the same personal experiences with another God are mistaken.

But you see, there is only One God.  A rose by any other name…There are very few religions that tout a God other than the one we speak of anyway.  The God of the Jews, Muslims and Christians is the same God.  There are some pagan religions that believe in minor gods/goddesses but do not speak of God at all.  Pretty much the Hindus are the only major religion that believes in a multitude of gods.  But I think we would say that it is the same God, expressed differently.  Or understood differently.  You are correct that we would say their understanding is wrong, but God is who He is no matter what you call Him or how you understand or express Him.  If you accept Anselms definition of God (“God is that, more than which cannot be conceived.”), you don’t really have a conflict at all about Who/What God is.  The Hindus lesser gods would not be “GOD” at all.  They would be supernatural beings that affect the natural world, but they would not be God…by virtue of the fact that there a “many” of them.

mk, I don’t care how you justify your bigotry, its still bigotry.

Psy,

You’d have to show that then.  What you are saying is that it is bigotry to be offended by a sign promoting child molestation.  If that is your definition, that bigotry is being offended by immoral acts, then okay.  But I don’t think that is most peoples definition.

mk, thanks for confirming your bigotry by equating gays with child rape.

Psy, your argument is unimpressive. MK responded before me, but he’s right. While homosexuality can be compared with being black or short, you cannot compare a person’s behavior to something morally benign as skin color or height. As Catholics, we see homosexual sex as gravely sinful,so anything posted in public proclaiming the opposite, would be offensive to me, as I know they are proclaiming a lie which only hurts and does not help. That may be my opinion, but as an individual, don’t I have a ‘right to demand the removal of what is offensive to me, just as the atheist apparently had the ‘right’ to demand a sign be removed? Double standard anyone?

Psy,

lol…I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist.  I find it telling that many atheists here have been up in arms because they claim we are misrepresenting what atheists believe, yet you have no problem doing the same thing to us…

I really did go out of my way to clarify that there is a difference between an act and a predisposition, that there are degrees of immorality and that in no way was I saying that child molestation and homosexual acts were equally wrong, morally speaking.  The only thing they have in common is that they are all immoral.  Not their degree of immorality.

I may, by your definition (which you still haven’t given by the way), be a bigot, but by your definition, so are you.  You are offended by public displays of Christianity.  According to you, anyone who finds anything another person does as offensive, proves them to be a bigot.  If you disagree, then you are a hypocrite.  And of course, this being a free country, if you were to publicly display a sign promoting a special group for the uniting of hypocrites, I would respect your right to do so. ;)

mk, Over the years my daughter and I have taken many children into our home at my personal expense, ever teenage girl had been molested by a parent or relative the two boys were kicked out of their home as early teens because their religious parents were ashamed of their gay children. One of the gay boy’s parent was a priest so you will hopefully understand why this is a sensitive issue for me.

Psy,

I can understand that.  However, anyone who molests small children is despicable and certainly not a representative of Christian values, no matter what “color” they were.  In fact, if one of the molesters was a priest it is all the more despicable.  But there are police officers, teachers, doctors…who also commit despicable acts.  You wouldn’t hesitate to call a cop if your house was robbed, a doctor if you found a lump in groin or send your children to school. 

My point is that you wouldn’t judge an entire group based on the aberrant behavior of a few who belonged to that group.  There are many people who claim to be Christian yet act in decidedly unchristian ways.

I would even go so far as to say that you, a non Christian, acted far more Christ like by taking in those unfortunate children, than the Christians who harmed them.

Still, your animosity towards Christians is no less bigoted than what you claim mine is towards homosexuality.  YET, I have stated that there is nothing morally wrong with BEING homosexual any more than there is something morally wrong with BEING Christian.  There is, however, something morally wrong with homosexual acts and/or Christians molesting children.  That’s the only point I am trying to make.  I have not, and have gone out of my way to show that I have not, grouped all homosexuals together as “bad”...which would be the true definition of bigotry.  I have lumped certain acts together, which has nothing to do with bigotry at all.  Until that is understood I think real conversation is blocked.

It is bigoted, I agree, to dismiss homosexual persons as morally wrong, and it is also bigoted to lump Christians into the same sort of stereotyping.  It is not bigoted to point to homosexual ACTS and claim that they are disordered any more than it is bigoted to point to child molesters, Christian or otherwise, and point out that their acts too, are morally reprehensible.

I have 5 sons.  2 of them got their girlfriends pregnant before marriage.  I love my sons.  But I do not love their behavior.  I view their acts as sinful…morally wrong…and have told them so.  I also continue to have a relationship with them.  A deep and meaningful relationship.  I can separate their acts from their persons.

I also would not equate their acts with a child molestors. Or a rapists.  But that doesn’t mean their actions were not wrong.  I hope you can see the difference.

mk= “You are offended by public displays of Christianity.”

Surprise, another strawman in this thread, the issue is government endorsement of any particular religion above others. Either all or a variety should be represented or none, its would be the same if they put a Chevrolet emblem on city hall but not a Ford emblem. Its about equal representation.

BTW,

Steve Greene put the idea that I am a male into everyones heads…I am not. I am a 54 year old mother of six and grandmother of 5.  Probably doesn’t make a difference, but it feels weird to keep being referred to as “he”.  ;)

Psy,

I thought the dispute was about a publicly displayed GLBT sign versus a publicly displayed Christian symbol, both viewed as offensive by relevant opponents.  Are you saying that you are not offended by Christian representation is public places?  Or are you saying that there should not be GLBT promotion unless ALL sexual preferences are represented?

I have no problem with an atheist putting up a sign for a “club” in a school.  Or a Buddhist.  BUT, religious views or lack thereof are also not moral issues.  Promoting something that is harmful is.  I would not want signs promoting drug use, or premarital sex, or birth control, or pornography in a public place either, although I would probably have to put up with it.  But it is the MORAL component that makes the difference in our stances.

mk= “There is, however, something morally wrong with homosexual acts and/or Christians molesting children.”

There you go claiming your view of homosexuality should be adopted by those who are not members of your faith.

Psy,

Let me ask you this…if you were in a courthouse or a school and you saw a sign promoting pornography or drug use, would you think that was a fair representation of freedom of speech?

There you go claiming your view of homosexuality should be adopted by those who are not members of your faith.

Well, Christians think that murder is immoral.  Does this mean it is a Christian view?

<<Surprise, another strawman in this thread, the issue is government endorsement of any particular religion above others. Either all or a variety should be represented or none, its would be the same if they put a Chevrolet emblem on city hall but not a Ford emblem. Its about equal representation.>>

But Psy, that is the problem. Putting a prayer on the wall of a public school is not government establishing a religion. The first amendment says nothing about endorsements. And when public schools stop having students practice Muslim customs in order to teach about another religion, while at the same time refusing to have anything to do with the Christian religion, then your comment makes sense. As it stands now, it is not all or a variety as you claim it should be, but biases in favor of one religion or idea over another.

And tell me this:

There you go claiming your view of homosexuality should be adopted by those who are not members of your faith.

When my tax dollars are used to fund abortions here and in other countries, or to provide condoms…when the marriage laws are changed to included homosexuals…am I not being asked to adopt the view of those who are not members of my faith?

mk= “But it is the MORAL component that makes the difference in our stances.”

Who are you to dictate morality? Or as the translation of my last name implies: “Who is like God?”

mk “When my tax dollars are used to fund abortions here and in other countries, or to provide condoms…when the marriage laws are changed to included homosexuals…am I not being asked to adopt the view of those who are not members of my faith?”

You are free to choose not to have an abortion an free not to marry a person of the same gender. But when you insist on oppressing the rights of others to choose as they will you are advocating oppression.

Psy, our rights are oppressed if we are forced to pay for abortions, fund and/or administer contraception, or as may happen soon, when priests and ministers are forced to perform marriage ceremonies to gay couples. It’s much more than just not choosing to have an abortion or use contraception ourselves. There is that double-standard again.

Joanp62, other people pay taxes too, the US is a secular democratic republic. I didn’t like paying for the invasion of Iraq with my tax dollars either so quit claiming special privileges as a right.

=when priests and ministers are forced to perform marriage ceremonies to gay couples.

Who keeps feeding you this nonsense, ministers are protected by the Constitution to decline marrying gays as part of their beliefs, its those in the public market like caterers or professional photographers who are not free to practice bigotry or exclusionism.

Joanp62= “And when public schools stop having students practice Muslim customs in order to teach about another religion, while at the same time refusing to have anything to do with the Christian religion, then your comment makes sense.”

You have not supplied a link or the actual details of this particular case so I can not comment without knowing all the facts.

Psy: Here is one link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/11/cstillwell.DTL&ao=all

And below is one paragraph from the article:

<<While groups such as People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the ACLU express outrage at any semblance of Christianity in America’s public schools, very little clamor has met the emergence of Islam in the same arena>>

mk= “Let me ask you this…if you were in a courthouse or a school and you saw a sign promoting pornography or drug use, would you think that was a fair representation of freedom of speech?”

I don’t see the reliance of this question or what it has to do with your disgust of groups of people. Instead of playing “leading questions” why don’t you simply make your point?

Psy regarding your other question/comment: no one is ‘feeding’ me anything. It is a realistic conclusion based on everything else that has been happening over the years. I will not be surprised when one of these days soon, a gay couple sues a priest or minister because he would not perform their marriage ceremony.
Also,if this does not apply to a Catholic/Christian/Muslim photographer or caterer, then that is wrong also. I am a Catholic businesswoman, who runs a very small business with no employees. But if I did have employees, to be forced to pay for insurance that covers abortion or contraception would be wrong and I would try to fight that. What about the Religious freedom conscience clause that is supposed to protect the faithful from taking part in any way in something that is against their conscience? When I was a medical assistant, I was told to administer a DepoProvera shot (contraception) to a woman. I could not in good conscience do that and it was not a problem, another MA gave it.

I really wasn’t talking about taxes. While I may not like where some of my tax dollars go, with regard to my faith, it is a different matter because we are not directly sending that money to say Planned Parenthood. The government is doing that and we are not directly responsible. Now if I were able to vote as to where my tax money went, and I voted for PP, that would be going against my faith. Just because your tax dollars may have gone to fund a war you were against, would you say that you were directly responsible for that war?

BTW, Psy, since when is Marriage a Right? Whether gay or straight, it is a privilege, just as contrary to popular belief, driving is a privilege and not a right. There are laws that say we can’t just marry whatever or whoever we want. I also think it is insulting to blacks when gays equate their choice in behaviors (note I did not say being homosexual was a choice)with being black or some other minority.

Joanp62, I don’t think you could have found a more bias link if you tried.
In any case the principle was removed from his position and moved into a more appropriate position due to his poor judgment. The system works despite being slow. Below is a less bias article with more facts and the outcome.

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pearland-news/article/Friendswood-principal-leaves-after-Islam-101-1767048.php

Really??!! I am completely unfamiliar with SFGate, but seeing that it was coming from San Francisco, I thought it might be biased on the very liberal side. Are you sure you’re reference isn’t biased as well. My sister is ultra-liberal and she has told me about sites that she considered to be unbiased, when in fact they were liberal/progressive. She just couldn’t see it. She thinks her liberal/progressive/socialist views are unbiased and middle of the road.

Joanp62= “Psy regarding your other question/comment: no one is ‘feeding’ me anything. It is a realistic conclusion based on everything else that has been happening over the years. I will not be surprised when one of these days soon, a gay couple sues a priest or minister because he would not perform their marriage ceremony.”

Much Ado About Nothing, religions have the same rights as private clubs and it isn’t going to change, they are not going to force private white supremest groups to accept other races as members any more than they are going to force churches to preform gay marriages or force the local car club to accept members who don’t own cars. Save your fear mongering for real issues.

-“Also,if this does not apply to a Catholic/Christian/Muslim photographer or caterer, then that is wrong also. I am a Catholic businesswoman, who runs a very small business with no employees. But if I did have employees, to be forced to pay for insurance that covers abortion or contraception would be wrong and I would try to fight that.”

If you don’t want to abide by the laws of the public market you are free to close up shop.

=“What about the Religious freedom conscience clause that is supposed to protect the faithful from taking part in any way in something that is against their conscience? When I was a medical assistant, I was told to administer a DepoProvera shot (contraception) to a woman. I could not in good conscience do that and it was not a problem, another MA gave it.”

Regardless of you belief the shot was given just the same. I have also refused tasks that I found unethical without repercussions, I have also chosen to quit jobs that I found unethical. I don’t see a problem here.

=“your tax dollars may have gone to fund a war you were against, would you say that you were directly responsible for that war?”

I could have withheld my tax dollar or ran for political office, as it was all I did was rant on the internet over it.

Joanp62= “Really??!! I am completely unfamiliar with SFGate, but seeing that it was coming from San Francisco, I thought it might be biased on the very liberal side.

The author was editorializing, not reporting.

Joanp62= “There are laws that say we can’t just marry whatever or whoever we want.”

As for a brother-sister relationship they are already related and have pretty much the same rights of inheritance and visitation in the hospital as married people, therefore marriage would be redundant.
Also those laws you mentioned are open for revision in legislation and court with different predictable outcomes depending on the details of each case.

=“I also think it is insulting to blacks when gays equate their choice in behaviors (note I did not say being homosexual was a choice)with being black or some other minority.”

I think you need to deal with your prejudices.

If you say so Psy it must all be true. But I wouldn’t hold my breath. Priests and ministers would very likely be forced to do that. There is a woman on another combox, an atheist, who, if she had her way, would like to eradicate Christianity completely because she believes it is the cause of all societal ills. And there are more and more people who think that way. In time I wouldn’t be surprised, based on the behavior of humanity over the course of its’ history, if Christianity and perhaps all religion was not at some point banned completely, it’s been done before in other countries, and those who refuse to go along with it will be marginalized, oppressed and have their rights taken away. If it was wrong to do it to African Americans in the past, it is wrong to do it to any other group in the future. And we are not trying to take rights away from homosexuals. Last I checked, they have free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to get employment, etc, etc. This weekend there are Gay Pride parades and festivals. I wonder what the outcry would be if we had a Catholic Pride weekend.

There was nothing prejudiced in what I said. Although I can think of numerous times in my life when I was pre- judged. I don’t buy the claim that gays have to get married or they can’t inherit property or visit their loved ones in the hospital. Wow, I’ve visited friends and acquaintances in the hospital, you don’t have to be married to be allowed to do so.
With regard to property, inheritances- you can name whomever you wish to be a joint tenant with rights of survivorship, beneficiary, you can give them Power-of-Attorney, etc. There may be some instances where a spouse is the automatic recipient of some things, but then what about cases where the person is single, no children no spouse? Again, in these situations, you can make certain stipulations and appointments. The one case where it may be a problem is with Social Security in the event of the death of a partner.

Joanp62=“There was nothing prejudiced in what I said. Although I can think of numerous times in my life when I was pre- judged. I don’t buy the claim that gays have to get married or they can’t inherit property or visit their loved ones in the hospital. Wow, I’ve visited friends and acquaintances in the hospital, you don’t have to be married to be allowed to do so.”

You stated it was insulting to blacks, how is that not putting one group above another whether it is black, white, gay or whatever?
I was denied visitation to a former fiancee while she was in critical condition as I was not married to her or an immediate blood relative.

Joanp62=“If you say so Psy it must all be true. But I wouldn’t hold my breath. Priests and ministers would very likely be forced to do that. There is a woman on another combox, an atheist, who, if she had her way, would like to eradicate Christianity completely because she believes it is the cause of all societal ills. And there are more and more people who think that way. In time I wouldn’t be surprised, based on the behavior of humanity over the course of its’ history, if Christianity and perhaps all religion was not at some point banned completely,”

Even if the Senate, Congress and President pass and sign a bill banning religion it will get tied up in the Supreme court and eventually thrown out as unconstitutional. Last January when Obama signed an important bill that McCain slipped in that unconstitutional National Defense Authorization Act to arbitrarily detain American citizens, it was quickly found unconstitutional by the supreme court and thrown out.

Should I have said African American instead of black? Fine, but white people are continually called white, not European American. Many African Americans have been outraged over homosexual’s comparing their ‘plight’ with that of African Americans. I’m simply stating what has actually happened.

<<Even if the Senate, Congress and President pass and sign a bill banning religion it will get tied up in the Supreme court and eventually thrown out as unconstitutional. Last January when Obama signed an important bill that McCain slipped in that unconstitutional National Defense Authorization Act to arbitrarily detain American citizens, it was quickly found unconstitutional by the supreme court and thrown out.>>

And yet the Supreme Court decided that it was Constitutional to deny certain Americans the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, when they legalized abortion on demand.

Visiting a non family member at the hospital is permitted as far as I know. In a critical, emergency situation, I don’t think anyone is allowed to be right there while they work on a patient who is in trauma. If the patient is conscious wouldn’t they be allowed to permit anyone they wished to come in as long as there weren’t too many people in the room? I used to bring Holy Communion to patients in the hospital, those who indicated they were Catholic. I was allowed into ICU’s and critical patient’s rooms, and I was a complete stranger to the patient. I was even permitted into labor rooms. Of course I used common sense.

Joanp62= “And yet the Supreme Court decided that it was Constitutional to deny certain Americans the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, when they legalized abortion on demand.”

You really go out of your way to misrepresent the outcome, the ruling was for freedom of choice and ownership of the woman’s body by the woman. You are not a legal person in this country until you are born, that is the issue that you need to focus on legally to have any means of overturning roe vs wade instead of rhetorical nonsense. Its no wonder atheist are so effective in court and it will be the same with the contraceptive health care issue if the religious expect to walk into court with irrelevant rhetoric.

If the patient is conscious wouldn’t they be allowed to permit anyone they wished to come in as long as there weren’t too many people in the room?

Its up to the doctor and hospital policy, the first priority is the patients rest and healing and not too much unnecessary commotion.

<<You really go out of your way to misrepresent the outcome, the ruling was for freedom of choice and ownership of the woman’s body by the woman.>>

I thought the ruling was for a right to privacy issue? No matter how it was spun by the courts, it doesn’t change the fact that they made it legal to kill another human being, simply because they were not out of the womb yet. They and you cannot deny that it is a human being, so they play word games and claim that it’s ‘personhood’ that matters. The state deciding who is a person and who is not, and making the claim that they can decide who gets to have the right to life is another notch in the belt of Atheists. Deny a Creator as the One Authority who endows us with the most basic of rights, then give the State the authority to give and take rights away. And the elderly will be next. But of course, Psy, according to you those things will never happen. If they hadn’t already happened in the past, maybe I might believe you.

Joanp62, How is this a notch in the belt for atheist? You will find don’t approve of abortions personally. Their argument is with the nonsense religious people spew to demonize everything and declare everyone enemies. On the other hand they also understand the right of choice the church disapproves of. Quit thinking in Us vs. Them bigoted terms.

http://www.antiochian.org/node/16950

Who’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.

Psy,

I don’t see the reliance of this question or what it has to do with your disgust of groups of people. Instead of playing “leading questions” why don’t you simply make your point?

For a minute there I actually thought you were capable of actual conversation.  But it’s back to the old games.  Conversation works best when each party actually reads what the other party writes and comments on that.  Instead you ignore what I write, twist it to say the same things over and over and cannot even see that you are doing and claiming exactly the same things you are accusing us of doing, yet we aren’t doing them to begin with.

I’m sorry this has happened.  I’ll take the time to have a real conversation with anyone who wants, but I won’t waste my time with this nonsense. 

Psy, us vs. them? The courts/state vs. the People. Bigoted?  Re: a notch in the belt for Atheists, because as soon as we take God out of our public lives, which is what Atheists want, then the State has more power to decide who has those basic rights that we used to believe were God-given, therefore inalienable. I did not say anything about who has abortions and did not imply that it is atheists. Our culture has been heavily influenced by the secular for decades now, it shows when supposedly Christian women not only have abortions, but think it should be a woman’s right. They can believe what they want about abortion, but then I wouldn’t call them Catholic or Christian. And BTW, I had one 31 years ago, I know what I’m talking about. Sure wish someone at least tried to show me support and alternatives to the very bad choice I made.But instead, abortion was pushed and no one gave me any reasons to rethink what I was choosing to do. Guess it was legal for a minor to have a surgical procedure, but not legal to tell me what was really happening at the time.

Anyway, you atheists who post here are quite adept at twisting what we say and feigning to misunderstand.

mk, are you upset because I didn’t do things your way? If you have a point why not just state it instead of asking a leading question comparing apples to oranges?

Good God, Psy!! That’s it, I apologize for ever thinking that Atheists could possibly be intelligent, mature,and reasonable. Between you and the 2 nutty ladies posting on an other article here, you have convinced me that, as MK so eloquently stated, that a real conversation with an atheist is not possible. Oh, and your reply to mk just proves again her point.

Joanp62, do the phrases “We the people” or “of the people, by the people, for the people” mean anything to you?

=“They can believe what they want about abortion, but then I wouldn’t call them Catholic or Christian.”

Doesn’t your faith teach that you are all sinners, yet you stand in judgment of your fellow believers. I don’t care what your faith is, we are all human.

“Sure wish someone at least tried to show me support and alternatives to the very bad choice I made.But instead, abortion was pushed and no one gave me any reasons to rethink what I was choosing to do.”

I’m sorry about that situation, for my daughter it’s a little more complicated do to a major back injury, she wants children but she will most likely never walk again if she does. What do I tell her?

=“Anyway, you atheists who post here are quite adept at twisting what we say and feigning to misunderstand.”

From my perspective it is you who are spinning everything, perhaps its simply the difference between those who filter their thoughts through the right amygdala and those who think directly through the anterior cingulate cortex?

mk, if I misread your intentions, I apologize, leading questions is something I run into on this site occasionally but quite often on Mormon sites. If I misinterpreted your intent I sincerely apologize.

Of course we are all sinners, I go to confession once a month because I know that I have so much to correct in myself. The very people who cry do not judge, do a very good job of judging the people they don’t agree with, and you are one of them. How I wish the very people who cry “do not judge” would stop judging my heart and motives, yet cry foul when we judge an action. We can and certainly do judge people’s actions, all the time whether we admit it or not- a person who calls themselves a Catholic while voting for a pro-abortion politician, or helping someone else procure an abortion (instead of maybe helping them thru a crisis pregnancy) are going against the very teachings of the church they claim to belong to. There are some matters that are not optional if you profess to be a practicing Catholic. But I would never dare to judge their motives or state of their soul or standing with God. Yet I have recently had Atheists, no less, do that very thing to me.

Life is not fair and we don’t get everything we want in life. I wanted more than one child, but am grateful for the child I have, I wish my husband had not divorced me after 23 years because “he just wasn’t happy anymore”. I would tell your daughter to be absolutely sure that what she was told is correct. A second, third or 4th medical opinion maybe? Otherwise, she needs to be mature about it and accept the hand she was dealt and maybe consider adopting a child. But doctors have been known to be majorly wrong in their prognoses.

Joanp62, she has seen several good doctors and a few quacks and they agree on the danger to her though they disagree on the potential of surgery to fix her back. The better doctors we found in Seattle advised against surgery.

=“Of course we are all sinners, I go to confession once a month because I know that I have so much to correct in myself.”

Many nonbelievers are overly analytical and continuously question themselves which has the same results, the funny part is watching the introverted types who are so awkward and uncomfortable in social situation squirming to get by because they are overly self-aware.

Psy,

Apology accepted.

Here’s the thing tho.  You can’t just keep calling me a bigot without showing why you think that I am.  As I pointed out, it’s hypocritical to claim I lump groups of people together and hate them, then turn around and lump Christians together and call them/us bigots, hateful and a few other choice insults.  I’ve explained my point a number of times.  The question was just a way to clarify why you weren’t understanding it.

So here is the point again…I realize that unless you take the time read the Catechism or learn the Faith, that the actions of many Catholics seem to indicate that we hate certain groups of people.  But we do not.  We are reacting to actions, not persons.  That is a HUGE distinction.  Sadly, actions are performed by persons and the two can easily be confused.

There are evangelical groups out there that are so extreme they actually DO hate the persons.  But Catholics are not those evangelicals.  They are not evangelicals at all. 

A poster in a public school advocating GLBT ACTS is morally offensive. Just as a poster advocating pornography or drugs would be.  Rather than put words in your mouth or make assumptions, I asked first, if you would be offended by posters in a public school advocating drug use or pornography.  I think that you would, but I didn’t know.  By asking, I was simply respecting your right to tell me yourself how you would feel.

So I’ll say again.  The Church teaches (which is NOT the same as all Catholics believe) that there is NOTHING immoral in being homosexual.  NOTHING.  But Homosexual ACTS are immoral.  Until you understand that, you will continue to call me/us bigots.

Furthermore,  it is dishonest to claim that we want to shove our religious views down everyone’s throats.  As AMERICANS, not CATHOLICS, I have the right to speak up and out against what I view as injustice.  Just as you do.  I do not respect many of your opinions, but I DO respect your right to have them and express them.

You say it can never happen, but right now in America, the Catholic Church is being forced to pay for things DIRECTLY that it finds morally objectionable.  The right to follow ones conscience is a constitutional right.  It is being overridden.  So not only CAN the government in America ignore the constitution, today, it IS. 

In Canada, ALL schools, Catholic or not, MUST, by law, have “clubs” for practicing GLBT students.  If it can happen there, it can happen here.
In Denmark, clergy must, by law, solemnize gay marriages.  Not perform them, but solemnize them. This is our future.

Right now, in OUR OWN public schools, sex education classes (mandatory) take place, that promote values that are directly in conflict with my own values.  Right now, in our own country, I am forced to pay for abortions.  I am forced to donate to Planned Parenthood.  My fifteen year old daughter can have an abortion and the law says no one has to tell me.  Yet I will have to pay any medical bills if something goes awry.  Unborn human beings are being experimented on with embryonic stem cell research. 

To say that WE are the ones trying to shove our values down other peoples throats is just plain dishonest.  YES, we want things a certain way, and are willing to use the same legal channels that others use, to get them. That is NOT the same thing as “forcing them down other peoples throats”.  What it IS, is the American Way.  Sometimes you will win, sometimes we will.

But we BOTH have the right to try and make things go our way…by voting, by protesting, by speaking out.  That does NOT make us, or you, bigots. 

In all the posts on this thread, I have not once called you (or anyone else) a name.  The most I have done is point out that Steve Greene was behaving rudely.  It IS possible to have a conversation without resorting to insults. 

If you truly still think I am bigoted, or exhibiting bigoted behavior, then you will have to show me how.  And you will have to show it along with showing that you are actually reading what I have written and not just what you THINK I have written.

To recap.  We do not hate persons.  We do hate certain behaviors.  We have the right as Americans, to try to change those behaviors.

Peace.

MK, very well put. Thanks!

MK I would also add to your second paragraph that the Catholic church in her teaching on homosexuality cares more about the homosexual person and their dignity than any pro-Gay group does. Because gay sex and the lifestyle can be very harmful, as an analogy just replace smoking with gay sex. Yet, everyone knows smoking is harmful so it is okay to try to pass laws against it, tax it higher and have programs to get people to change their behavior. But anyone who tries to do anything similar with regard to gay sex, we are screamed at, silenced and ostracized. And that’s because the pro-homosexual lobbyists have been so successful in changing people’s minds about the behavior. Changing people’s minds about the homosexual person is good, but when they have given the stamp of approval on the behavior, they are condemning so many people to suffer. Imagine if that was done with regard to smoking or obesity!

joan,

Good points.  Problem is, that what we consider harmful, others do not.  We recognize the harm done to the persons involved, society in general and souls.  But if you don’t believe in the soul or an afterlife, don’t believe in objective moral truth and don’t understand or accept Natural Law then I’m afraid our arguments fall on deaf ears. 

I was surprised to see Psy (I think it was him…if not mea culpa) that a brother and sister don’t need to get married as they already have all of the benefits a family union would procure.  I was surprised because you can get those legal benefits sans actual marriage.  I thought marriage was being changed to include any two consenting adults who LOVE each other, but this argument makes it sound like a commodity exchange.  That is changing the definition of marriage even more than I thought.  It’s the same way we changed the idea of having children…sex without procreation and procreation without sex.  The greatest danger to these changes (as well as with homosexual marriage) is that they completely ignore the humanity of the persons involved.  Marriage and procreation become no more important than buying a new car.  It’s simply an exchange of goods, not a commitment of persons.

In demanding that homosexual and heterosexual be viewed equally, we actually render both irrelevant.  Homosexual marriage does not raise marriage to a higher standard but rather lessens all marriage to a baser act.  And now I find out that it isn’t even about a misconception of what love is, but rather a business transaction.  How sad.

Thanks, MK. What we consider harmful, others do not. But it works both ways. Why is it, primarily on the left it seems to me, that what they consider harmful is correct, but what someone else considers harmful is wrong? As long as it’s something they think is not harmful then it isn’t harmful, but we think something is harmful in contrast to them, and they just blow it off. There are medical and scientific studies that show not smoking to be harmful, but also the Pill for example. Yet, people on both sides will dismiss this.

MK, you wrote, “Steve Greene put the idea that I am a male into everyone’s heads…I am not.”

And I’m supposed to know that beforehand, how exactly? In lieu of knowing I use “he” in the grammatical context, generically, because that’s the way the English language is. Trying to implement “he or she” and other grammatical conjugations of that begins to look ridiculous very quickly. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I’ll be sure to use “she”, where relevant, now that you’ve mentioned it.

mk =“To recap.  We do not hate persons.  We do hate certain behaviors.  We have the right as Americans, to try to change those behaviors.”

Of course you are a bigot, you admit it right here that you have some divine fascist conformist right which you falsely label as being “Americans” to tell gays how to live because you are personally offended about their personal lives which is none of your business. It’s pretty sad that your pursuit of happiness is controlling and oppressing the lives of others.

Joanp62 =“MK I would also add to your second paragraph that the Catholic church in her teaching on homosexuality cares more about the homosexual person and their dignity than any pro-Gay group does. Because gay sex and the lifestyle can be very harmful, as an analogy just replace smoking with gay sex. Yet, everyone knows smoking is harmful so it is okay to try to pass laws against it,”

How exactly is demeaning and being offended by gay peoples personal lives caring about their dignity?
While your trying to keep gays from supposedly harming themselves why don’t you consider outlawing my potentially harmful lifestyle? Take away my private pilots license, tell me I can’t go skydiving anymore or rock climbing or high diving, ect. Yes I have had righteous busybodies like your self judge and condemn my life style and try to tell me how to live my life.

MK writes, “The most I have done is point out that Steve Greene was behaving rudely.”

Based, of course, on the obviously false premise that no atheist should ever dare to response to the numerous snide remarks that MK (and some others) apparently enjoys using in regard to atheists. If an atheist confronts such obnoxious antagonism (not to mention false remarks, or some of the naked hypocrisy) openly and forthrightly, well, that’s “behaving rudely”.

But in fact, as another respondent here - Ryan (who, I believe, is Catholic) - pointed out, “Where arrogance and pretension exist like a tower, discussion must assess like an uncompromising wrecking ball” and “It is often…simply an obfuscation tactic designed to filter down the vigor of the opposition, and perhaps disarm it if possible of those deliberate statements that often need to be said”. His point is exactly right.

We fully realize that a lot of religious believers want to enjoy a free ride in expressing their antagonism against atheism and atheists, and want atheists to just shut up and let the false, arrogant misrepresentations and pretensions slide - we realize how much you want that, and we seriously don’t care. Erroneous rhetoric, and sometimes the nefarious attitude(s) of the people promoting it, deserve criticism, even forthright criticism, because of their corrupt nature.

So please MK, you keep throwing out your false and snide remarks about atheism and atheists, and I, and I’m sure others (as we’ve been observing), will just keep “rudely” “assessing them like an uncompromising wrecking ball” because the false nature of remarks such as yours need the “vigor of the opposition” they deserve. I make no apology for doing so. The truth is the truth, regardless of how offensive you pretend it is. (Or, rather, “offendedness posturing”, as I call it, is irrelevant to the truth but is often used as a rhetorical tactic to try to ward off criticism.)

It’s like the Christian woman in Texas who… Well, give me a minute, I’m going to look this up again, to get the reference and the quote… Yes, here it is… Check out “B/CS Christmas Parade Brings Holiday Delight and Some Controversy” at the KBTX (local news) website in Bryan/College Station, Texas, from Dec. 5, 2010. An atheist organization marching band was in the parade - identified, of course, by a banner they carried showing their name, which has the word “Atheist” in it. Now here’s the money quote:

“‘Wasn’t exactly happy about the Christmas Parade this year, I spent many years teaching my children to love and respect other people and to love the fact that they were children of God and I don’t feel that they should be influenced in any other way especially not at a Christmas parade,’ said Tina Corgey, who is a lifelong Bryan resident.”

“Corgey brings her three kids to the B/CS Christmas Parade every year.”

“She said she was disgusted by what she saw on Sunday.”

Of course, what is genuinely disgusting is her sheer anti-atheist bigotry and her naked hypocrisy. She has the gall to use rhetoric about “love and respect other people” while in the very act of demonstrating the opposite.

This is a distinct manifestation of “offendedness posturing”, which shows up in various forms of rhetoric, and which is exactly what I encountered in some of the early response comments here, such as by Ann Marie and you, and I addressed it forthrightly. I will continue to do so, because I consider offendedness posturing to be rude and offensive.

@Joanp62, you wrote, “...in re-reading your above comment, it sure sounds to me like you are speaking of the errors of Christians regarding Christianity, our beliefs. Are you sure you are not the one switching? To me I don’t read it that you are talking about our errors regarding what Atheists believe.”

Context is important. Sometimes context is the whole point.

I hate retreading what seems obvious to me, but…

I had stated: “An atheist who won’t keep his mouth shut but actually dares to speak out and openly criticize errors and fallacies in rhetoric commonly used by religious believers in trying to justify their religious beliefs and with the whole idea of religious faith (believing in the conjured-up beliefs of their religious despite not have a good evidential basis) in the first place.” I’m making the point that that is the underlying (and obviously false) premise of the “militant atheist” moniker. If a dirty atheist dares to speak up and write about the errors found in arguments religious people use, that makes him a “militant atheist”.

You had written, in response, “I repeat that you have no proof we are in error. You cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist.”

But we do indeed have numerous examples (“proof”) of specific errors and fallacies of specific arguments used by religious believers - in the current context (see the main essay by Matthew Warner at the top of the page) especially in regard to the argument that “atheism requires much more of a leap of faith than my Christianity” because atheists think the universe came from “nothing” (nothing caused our currently observable universe to come into existence) and “it would be quite a leap of faith to believe that”.

Yes, it WOULD be quite a leap of faith believe that - but *atheists don’t believe that*. Which is exactly why we’ve been point out that it’s nothing more than a fallacious straw man argument.

Why does that simple fact seem so difficult for some to recognize?

But then, *in addition* to atheists “speaking up” here and pointing out the obvious (the obvious error of the rhetoric), some of the respondents also chose to do so “offendedness posturing” and whine about atheists “trolling” the site (a blatantly silly remark, since it’s merely a few atheists having responded directly to an essay that specifically refers to atheism, on the internet, in a public forum which because it’s public showed up in search engines’ link references to recent articles about atheism - an offendedness tactic that is premised on the idea that atheists should just shut up and go away and give the false rhetoric a free ride - as if the obvious error should not be exposed, or if anyone should mention the error at all it certainly shouldn’t be actual live atheists doing it (atheists are such rotten scum, you know - just “trolls”, just “militant atheists” which by working definition of the phrase means atheists who dare to speak up openly and express such criticism).

Which part of these specific factual examples of nefarious rhetoric is so difficult for some to acknowledge?

Of course, this ‘atheism requires more religious faith than religious believers do’ rhetoric is merely one example out of a whole cornucopia of false arguments religious believers use not only to attack atheism (in this particular case, by blatant misrepresentation) but to support all sorts of religious beliefs they have. Indeed, this particular piece of rhetoric is used specifically to try to pretend that atheism is merely equivalent to religious belief (‘atheism is based on religious faith just like our religious beliefs are’) by pretending that the fundamental difference between religious faith and atheism doesn’t exist.

In fact, I’ve stated in not quite correctly, because while “atheism” per se is merely the conscious rejection of claims of a god because of a lack of good evidence, atheism as a philosophical position is the explicit rejection of the concept of religious faith itself - which is what “because of a lack of good evidence” is all about. The epistemological consideration of assent (belief) requiring good evidence (evidential testing) is the antithesis of faith. This is why atheists hold science, for example, in such high esteem, because the scientific process is such a beautiful example of the meaning of taking the principle of requiring good evidence seriously. (Conversely, creationism, with its pseudoscience tactics and anti-science attitudes, is a great example of the inherent contradictions between religious faith and the principle of evidential testing.)

@Joanp62,

You use the phrase “You cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist”. Seriously? Which god would that be? Isis? Lord Ganesha? Yahweh? Aphrodite? Quetzalcoatl? Thor? Are we talking about the Yahweh who supposedly ordered a primitive desert tribe to go on a campaign of territorial conquest and engage in the mass slaughter of the children, women, and men who happened to be in the unfortunate circumstances of living in the towns and villages in the area that the tribe wanted? Perhaps you should open your eyes and read the book of Joshua in the Old Testament sometime. That’s almost the definition of a primitive, anthropomorphized, and barbaric god.

Oh, no, I see, we’re really just talking about the abstract speculation (“speculation” being not my word but the word used by a Catholic respondent here) of the idea that a godlike being created our currently observable universe - with the problem being, of course, that this “speculation” is being used deliberately to underwrite everything else in the Yahweh/Catholic-rendition-of-Yahweh-and-Trinity-man-god mix, a spirit world, with angels and demons and other spirits, and the ghosts of the dead, and notions about cosmic “sin”, and “absolute morality dictated by God”, and Transubstantiation (forget the 100% lack of scientific substantiation, just play word games and make up anything with words you need to make up to ignore the simple fact that the notion of Transubstantiation is completely meaningless), (not to mention the religious myths of Adam and Eve and a worldwide flood wiping out all humankind except for eight people on a big wooden boat), and on and on the fundamentally fallacious results of religious faith go.

But, as a lot of theists like to pretend, it’s the atheists who “have more religious faith”, precisely because we don’t accept claims about reality that are not determined by the results of scientific research (i.e., the objective examination of reality and rational analysis of the empirical data thus acquired) and we purposely reject the fundamental concept of religious faith precisely because it itself is based on rejecting this principle of evidential testing in order to cling to such faith-based notions in the first place.

After all, we “cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that” some godlike being(s) “does not exist”. Which is completely backwards (and thus - ta da! - another example of a piece of rhetoric - used often by religious believers - that is a fallacy). Because the point - this is what atheism really is, all the misrepresentations of religion proponents notwithstanding - is this: You cannot produce good evidence to substantiate the idea.

Religion is religion, not science. And relying on the principle of evidential testing - which science is just a preeminent example of - is not religion. It is not religious faith. So it’s utterly false to pretend it is. And it’s precisely the fact that belief in God is not the results of scientific research about reality that explains why there’s no reason to accept it in the first place. There’s a huge difference between metaphors and reality, and some people just don’t seem to be able to understand this.

Psy commented: How exactly is demeaning and being offended by gay peoples personal lives caring about their dignity?

Where do you get off saying that the Church demeans and is offended by the lives of gays? The Church in no way demeans homosexuals, please give evidence. Saying that sodomy and all that goes with the gay lifestyle is harmful is caring about the dignity of that person just as saying that smoking is harmful. And what about the self-righteous busybodies already working to get smoking banned and outlawed everywhere? Oh, but you’ll come up for some excuse to say it isn’t the same.

Everyone of the you atheists who have been commenting here use name calling, you ridicule and demean us, and you all have an excuse that what you are doing is different from what you accuse us of doing, when have not name called, demeaned or ridiculed you. Your very comments are only convincing me more and more that Atheism is not a good thing, and that Atheist may have some serious emotional issues.

In response to Steve’s comment: If a dirty atheist dares to speak up and write about the errors found in arguments religious people use, that makes him a “militant atheist”.

No, but if a believer does the same, they are called bigots, demeaned and ridiculed. And why are you calling yourself a ‘dirty’atheist? I certainly never used that term.

Once again, do I have to repeat myself? I was not speaking about whether you or we are in error- I said you cannot say we are wrong about God existing because you have no proof he doesn’t. You are speaking of our supposed errors in what we think you believe. I told you, and showed you the para. in question, where I had thought you were saying that we Christians were entirely wrong about believing in God.

“Why does that simple fact seem so difficult for some to recognize?”

Why does that simple fact that I was not referring to errors of what we think you believe, seem so difficult to get? And don’t ask me why the author of the article thinks what he thinks because I did not write it. It is his opinion, just because we are both Catholic, does not necessarily mean we agree or hold the same opinions on every possible subject under the sun.

And why do atheists have a hard time admitting that they are more bigotted, demeaning, rude, arrogant, etc. than the very people that they label as such??

Atheists are just as guilty of being in error when they try to claim that we believe what we do not believe about Christianity. But, if I must explain it one last time- my response to you was not about any error we may have about the others’ beliefs, but that you cannot prove 100% that there is no God.

Joanp62, first off keep your hands of my cigarettes.
Second your church is telling people who don’t belong the your faith they are evident sinners, sin is part of your faith and yet you impose it on others along with your view of what gays should and shouldn’t do. There is also the issue of the topic of this fallacy filled thread lying about what athiesm is and the irrational fallacious argument and denial of the obvious in an attempt to artificially elevate your religious self esteem. All of this designed to create excessive growth of the right amygdala and neuron growth of the hypothalamus inhibiting rational thought and more reliance on the primitive reptilian part of the brain thereby lowering your IQ.

If gays or others choose to join your church then by all means they are free to choose to do so if they find joy and meaning there.

Steve Greene,
Do you realize that science itself is faith based? The scientific method and most of the conclusions of science must be accepted by faith.
BTW- scientific discoveries do point to God.

Steve you are beginning to sound unhinged as you grasp at straws. This is a Catholic website, you know exactly what God I’m talking about. Your view of the old Testament God is not the view that billions of Jews and Christians have had over the last few thousand years.
There is NOT a 100% lack of scientific substantiation for Transubstantiation- I have mentioned before on one of these comboxes that we have numerous examples that can still be seen today, where the consecrated host bled and was tested and shown to be heart muscle and the blood was AB in all instances.
Perhaps you could read some of the Saints writings and hear their beautiful, sane, intelligent accounts of their own personal experience of God.
All these other gods mentioned- how many have come to earth in human form, died for our sins and rose again? Why is it that it is the God of Abraham that is worshiped by what is considered the Three Major World religions? Why do these other gods not have billions of followers? Why is the Bible the most published book instead of other ‘sacred texts’?

My guess is because of all the other gods that humankind has come up with, none of these gods is very Personal. As far as I know, only the God of Abraham claims to care about each one of us individually, created us out of Love not because He needed us, and wants us to have eternal happiness with Him. It just seems to me that Christianity offers so much more than these other religions have, and the numbers seem to prove it.

Psy, I’m a smoker and I use it as an analogy also when I try to put myself in a homosexual’s shoes. I compare the two because both are unhealthy lifestyle choices, yet I do not get anywhere near the respect and concern for my ‘happiness’ to do what I want, that gay people get from society.

You are again showing your lack of knowledge about what the Catholic Church teaches. Have you read the Catechism yet? It does NOT say that those not belonging to our faith are sinners because they do not belong to our church. The Church teaches that we are all sinners, and based on history and my experience with human nature, the Church’s doctrine on Original Sin makes a lot of sense.

I have not lied about what Atheists believe and think, I haven’t even tried to express what Atheists believe. You however and the other atheists on here continue, over and over again, to claim to know what we believe and none of you have gotten it right so far. But you all deny that and continue doing it just the same. It is really getting tedious.

Alvin =“Do you realize that science itself is faith based? The scientific method and most of the conclusions of science must be accepted by faith.”

Personally I don’t see science as gospel, I have several issues with the big bang theory and place it as 3rd likely as having potential to to pan out over time while my personal favorite theory would be 4th but provides great mental stimulation for my analytical nature and need for mental complexity.

Science does make assumptions in order to make theories testable which are helpful in providing evidence towards their validity. Sure there are those who have faith in science but it varies from person to person, myself being an INTP with the adrenalin addiction of an INTJ personality types am not as prone to faith as other personality types would be. You on the other hand are most likely one of the 4 guardian personality types which find happynes and meaning in faith.

=“BTW- scientific discoveries do point to God.”

Could you explain this in more detail.

Steve Greene,
I too was an atheist until learning from Joan that science confirms transubstantiation and we have numerous examples that can still be seen today. It’s a mystery to me why the church keeps these important facts quiet, but I have faith that there is a good reason. Pick you up for mass about 7:30?

=“Psy, I’m a smoker and I use it as an analogy also when I try to put myself in a homosexual’s shoes. I compare the two because both are unhealthy lifestyle choices, yet I do not get anywhere near the respect and concern for my ‘happiness’ to do what I want, that gay people get from society.”

There you go again demeaning gays as having unhealthy lifestyles that are none of your concern or mine. Can you try to talk about them without imposing your judgment on them?
I as for respect or you following your dreams and pursuit of happiness I defiantly support you in this endeavor as much as I would support gays perusing their dreams, it is you who do not seem to respect the rights of others to live their life on their own terms. I have also been on another form in the past few day where people were talking about there summer goal from skydiving to continuing their education.

=“You are again showing your lack of knowledge about what the Catholic Church teaches.”

I’ve read the Bible, the Catechism, the Book of Mormon, the Qumran and many others and these authoritarian ideologies conflict with my independent inquisitive nature. Don’t claim I don’t understand simply because I don’t agree as I have no problem accepting that you find fulfillment and a purpose with your beliefs. The problem is when you choose to impose your sconce of happiness on others where it doesn’t apply results in misery and depression of others.

=“The Church teaches that we are all sinners, and based on history and my experience with human nature,”

Exactly my point. Sin is a religions term here and for me its an archery term. I don’t include everybody in my archery discussions as your church does.

=“the Church’s doctrine on Original Sin makes a lot of sense.”

Not to me, I find much more sense in psychology than religion.

Psy,
Our whole world is designed not only in its components such as a cell to a man but the earth in its location in our solar system and the rest of the galaxy all point to God. None of these things could be accounted for by the forces of nature alone. Take the molecular motors in cells that are composed of over 30 parts and must be put together in a precise manner or they will not work. If they don’t work, you don’t have a cell. If you don’t have a cell, you don’t have life.

PS- how does psychology explain evil? Why is mankind so evil and has to struggle to do good?

=“PS- how does psychology explain evil?”

That’s a black-white, bi-polar, binary religiously oriented question.

Why is mankind so evil and has to struggle to do good?

What a pessimistic, negitive way to see the world? Its true that man is not a civilized as the bonobo but the majority of us get along peacefully just fine. Why is it so hard for you to do good?

Atheists belittle beliefs that are based on faith.

That is the very first line of Matthew’s post.  Could it be any more clear that he is right on the money????

Psy,

I said “We have the right as Americans, to try to change those behaviors.”

I think you misunderstood what I meant, and I can see how that would have happened.  I wasn’t very clear on what I meant by “change those behaviors”...I was specifically speaking of marriage, and using the public school system to push the GLBT agenda.  And before you get your knickers in a knot, I don’t think public schools should address sexuality AT ALL.  If the need is there and parents want it, then it should be done on a voluntary basis, AFTER SCHOOL.  The absolute BASIC biology would be acceptable, but how to put on a condom and where to get birth control is NOT academia!  I don’t want my kids hearing that sex outside of marriage is okay no matter what kind of sex it is. 

I am in no way advocating that we should crack down on gay couples.  That is their choice, obviously.  That said, things like the Folsum Street Fair, gay pride parades and gay days at Disney are simply not necessary and back up my claim that there is in fact, an “agenda”.  What two people do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business, but when you take it to the streets and expose it to children, then I feel that I have the right to speak up. I would feel the same way if there were heterosexual pride parades or Disney days and heterosexual couples were riding half naked on floats.  Our society is hyper sexual, like 14 years olds who can’t keep their hands out of their pants, and it is really offensive to those of us who think that the sexual act is a private one.

I am not a prude and enjoy sex very much, but I have no need to display it in public, nor do I wish to observe others doing the same.  We all need to grow up a bit.

To recap again, because I know that your response will be, yet again, to call me a bigot (can anyone say Thesaurus?):

I am NOT advocating sticking my nose into the private lives of gay men and women.  We ARE talking about public vs private acts. You have a problem with Religion being touted in public/government places, and I have a problem with Gay sex doing the same.

Sadly, and I cannot believe you don’t see this, there is no moral component to religion unless it oversteps it’s bounds (like radical Islam, not like fighting the HHS mandate), but 90% of the world would agree that there IS a moral component to sex.

Psy,
It is true that I am pessimistic about man. Just look at the last century and see how many died in all the wars in that century. Or take crime in the USA. If man was good there would be no need to lock your car when you get groceries or when you go to sleep at night you lock the doors.

Posted by Zeke on Friday, Jun 15, 2012 3:52 PM (EST):

<<Steve Greene,
I too was an atheist until learning from Joan that science confirms transubstantiation and we have numerous examples that can still be seen today. It’s a mystery to me why the church keeps these important facts quiet, but I have faith that there is a good reason. Pick you up for mass about 7:30?>>

Oh the arrogance. The Church does not keep it a secret, the main stream media just doesn’t want to bother reporting it. It doesn’t suit their agenda. Here’s one link. Look up Eucharistic Miracles, you’ll find it.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/emw_intro.htm

Psy: “There you go again demeaning gays as having unhealthy lifestyles that are none of your concern or mine. Can you try to talk about them without imposing your judgment on them?” And people, sometimes rudely, trying to tell me about the unhealthiness of my smoking is their concern? They’re not imposing their judgment on me? Come on, give me a break. Also, I am not talking ‘about’ homosexuals, just their activities. Why can’t I talk about that when people discuss the dangers of drug use, obesity and smoking? Please, caring about someone’s lifestyle is not demeaning them, saying it is unhealthy is not demeaning them, unless you will admit that the Anti-smoking advocates are guilty of the same.

Then you say “I’ve read the Bible, the Catechism, the Book of Mormon, the Qumran and many others and these authoritarian ideologies conflict with my independent inquisitive nature. Don’t claim I don’t understand simply because I don’t agree” All the atheists on here continue the lie that we claim you don’t understand because you don’t agree. Not true, comments have been made by atheists about the bible and church teaching that are wrong- I don’t care that you don’t agree with it, just get a correct understanding of it before you disagree. Instead, you all spout false things and then say that’s why you don’t agree or believe. Get it?

*sigh*...Joan, I think there is a serious disconnect on what we mean by moral.  I’m not sure Psy or Steve believe in objective right and wrong. 

I have to laugh tho, at Psy’s jab about our brains atrophying causing us to be less intelligent because we believe in the Supernatural.  I’d like to see him take on JPII or Benedict!  Or Fr. Barron.  Or Peter Kreeft.  Or Chesterton.  Or Lewis.  lol

Sure there are those who have faith in science but it varies from person to person, myself being an INTP with the adrenalin addiction of an INTJ personality types am not as prone to faith as other personality types would be. You on the other hand are most likely one of the 4 guardian personality types which find happynes and meaning in faith.

Talk about a pseudo-science!  And you think we’re wacky???  ;)

I have all the respect in the world for Psychiatry (hard science) and little or no respect for most Psychology (soft science).  Regardless of what I think, believing in “personality types” like the “guardian types” DOES take a greater leap of faith than belief in God!  *still chuckling*

lol again Psy,

I just took your ridiculous Keirsey test and I came out RATIONAL.  So much for I must be a guardian type.  Not even close.

And Psy, I’m only ribbing you, ‘kay?  that last post was all in fun…

See MK, I just can’t laugh about that stuff. It’s not okay to accuse people of being stupid, it’s not necessary and it’s not conducive to a civil discussion. I am being ripped apart by two ladies, on another comment box,I really want to call them a bunch of Harpies, who twist what I say, accuse me of doing what it is they themselves are doing, and when another poster tells them this very thing, they blow it off. They claim the Church teaches things it doesn’t teach and say that is why they are atheists, and when I tell them that the church doesn’t teach such and such, they claim that I am telling them they are wrong just because they don’t believe what I believe. Telling them to at least learn what Catholicism really is before rejecting it goes nowhere with them.

Oh my gosh…

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/print.html?entry=/2012/06/pentagon_marks_june_as_gay_pri.html

but there’s no gay agenda.  They just want the same rights as everyone else and to be left alone to their private business…right.

Wonder what the reaction would be if this the PENTAGON named July “Catholic Pride Month” and dedicated an entire month praising the contributions that Catholic Service People have made to our country. 

hahahahahahha…stick that in your amygdala…. ;)

Joan,

If you can’t keep your sense of humor, then they win.  Honestly.  And I don’t find the issues funny, only the idea that Catholics are dumber than the rest of the enlightened atheistic society.  And that IS funny precisely because it’s so ridiculous.  But if Psy wants to waste his time on pop psychology, have at it.  I just found it hilarious that in one breath he says we’re nuts because we believe in God and in the next his braggin’ about his genius when it comes to the equivalent of new age mumbo jumbo! 

Where are you posting?  What’s the topic?

Telling them to at least learn what Catholicism really is before rejecting it goes nowhere with them.

Sweetie,
That’s because they know everything.  Remember?  We’re just dumba** hicks who worship Zeus and eat cats.  Guardian personality types…good one.

MK, I used the analogy of a Catholic Pride weekend. We think alike sort of.

Exactly, we are just uneducated idiots.

Joan,
I’ve joined you over on the other post.  It’s hard to jump in in the middle but I’ll try to help.

Keirsey test? I haven’t tried that one, I’ll check it out. I had to take the Myers-Briggs test in collage they require it in the local high schools and collage.
Yeah. I’ve taken a lot of IQ and aptitude test too, I think they are fun.

Joan,
I am of course well aware of these so so-called “eucharistic miracles”. If anyone plans to click on the link you posted, they should prepare to be underwhelmed. They are neither numerous, nor very impressive, and of course none have occurred within 200 years of the invention of modern photographic and video technology. Only one describes what you are referring to, which happened in the 8th century. You will also find that if you google Prof. Odoardo Linoli, who investigated this phenomena 1300 years later, you will find nothing about his credentials or other papers he may have published, yet he is consistently described by the Catholic publications as “illustrious” or “eminent”.
-
It should also be pointed out that you seem to misunderstand the doctrine of transubstantiation, which does not claim that consecrated hosts are physically any different than they were before the magic words are applied. The Church teaches that the “accidents” of the host remains and are therefore indistinguishable from unconsecrated ones. Thus Catholic doctrine makes the extraordinary claim that although the substance of the host substantially and truly is Jesus Christ, it is immune to our senses. Yet you believe that this actually happened. 700 years ago. And that the mainstream media here fails to report on what you claim to be true evidence of the suspension of natural laws. In a country where about 80% of the population is Christian. Oh the gullibility.

Zeke, thank you for pointing out the doctrine of Transubstantiation. However you did not explain it completely.

Transubstantiation is when God transforms the host and the wine, at the Priests words of consecration, to the Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Christ. The “accidents” do remain, the host looks the same, the wine looks like wine, but the substance has changed. Eucharistic miracles have taken place, I believe, as God’s way of ‘pulling aside the veil’ so to speak, by showing us the substance of what’s really there behind the ‘accidents’.

I’m addressing an “old” post here, tying up a loose end…

MK wrote (6/9/2012 12:45 PM EST), “you don’t see me on an athiest site do you?”

I see, so Christians never engage in discussion on skeptic/atheist sponsored sites.

Oh wait, that’s completely wrong, so your remark is a bogus insinuation.

MK wrote, “The point is that you made a CHOICE to troll here.”

Denigration of atheists daring to speak up and point out the erroneous nature of religious rhetoric as merely being “trolling” noted.

MK wrote, “I’m sure Mr. Warner knew that putting the words ‘More faith to be an atheist than a Christian’ out on the internet in an open forum would get lots of hits and comments from atheists.” Perhaps he did. So why would MK denigrate atheists for daring to criticize Warner’s argument? Especially since it’s a false argument (as already demonstrated profusely)?

MK wrote, “Incidentally, I admire the NC Register for being open to comments from non-believers.”

Of course, a person who denigrates non-believers who actually do comment as merely being “trolls” is demonstrating a serious lack of admiration “for being open to comments from non-believers”. It’s amusing to see a person contradict herself within four sentences.

To Zeke: Regarding your discussion of the irrationality such religious beliefs as Transubstantiation, you obviously grok why I used the example reference in my comments. Kudos.

MK wrote, “*sigh*...Joan, I think there is a serious disconnect on what we mean by moral. I’m not sure Psy or Steve believe in objective right and wrong.”

I have very deliberately NOT discussed “morality” or “abortion” or “gay rights” vis-a-vis Catholic doctrine (or fundamentalist Christian doctrine), not because I don’t ever discuss those subjects, but because I consider them simply not “on topic” for discussion here.

That being said, I have one response to MK’s comment here: Objective right and wrong is and can only be objective if it’s reality based. This by definition automatically excludes any system of morality based on beliefs in religious doctrines, based on religious faith. You don’t get to just willy-nilly use a word you want to use for rhetorically strategic purposes while actually contradicting the meaning of the word.

MK wrote, “‘Atheists belittle beliefs that are based on faith.’ That is the very first line of Matthew’s post. Could it be any more clear that he is right on the money????”

Matthew is right on the money that atheists belittle (criticize) beliefs that are based on irrational thinking. For example, atheists belittle (criticize) beliefs based on the religious doctrine of young earth creationism. Atheists also belittle (criticize) beliefs based on the pretension that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel and used magical power from God to translate “Reformed Egyptian” (which doesn’t even exist) on some golden plates which were subsequently, quite conveniently too, whisked back to heaven by the angel. Atheists also, by the way, belittle the obviously illogical argument that the deliberate rejection of believing things on the basis of religious faith relies on religious faith even more than religious believers do. Word games which are obviously nonsensical are supposed to be criticized, precisely because of their illogical nature.

MK is to be thanked for recognizing one substantial way in which atheists are doing things right.

Steve wrote: <<I have very deliberately NOT discussed “morality” or “abortion” or “gay rights” vis-a-vis Catholic doctrine (or fundamentalist Christian doctrine), not because I don’t ever discuss those subjects, but because I consider them simply not “on topic” for discussion here.>> And yet, here you go bringing these subjects up now.

<<That being said, I have one response to MK’s comment here: Objective right and wrong is and can only be objective if it’s reality based. This by definition automatically excludes any system of morality based on beliefs in religious doctrines, based on religious faith. >> But, Steve, you do not know for sure that our religion is NOT based on reality. You may be pretty sure it’s not, but you cannot be absolutely sure, so you can’t just dismiss objective right and wrong coming from the Church. I know you don’t believe this, but we believe that if God is the Creator of all things, He is the Creator of the ‘owners manual’ for human beings,He knows what is best for us, is the Truth personified in Jesus Christ,and if He founded a visible Church on earth it is the Catholic Church and that Church was founded to protect and impart that Truth to the world. Not impose it, just state it and then it is up to the world to accept or reject. I hope that wasn’t too muddled:)

Steve you wrote: <<Denigration of atheists daring to speak up and point out the erroneous nature of religious rhetoric as merely being “trolling” noted.>> Again, that is YOUR opinion that religious rhetoric is erroneous. It’s one thing to not agree with or believe something, but if you are being honest, there are some things that we cannot be completely certain of in life, and one of these is whether or not there is a God, and if so, Who is He and did He start a Church, which religion, and so forth. No matter how certain you may be that there is no God, and no matter how certain I may be that there is, we cannot be 100% sure, which is why it’s called faith. However, there a persons in the world who do claim to have had physical encounters with Jesus and the Blessed Mother, I believe them, and for them, they know for a fact that He is real. Not having been there when these things happened, like Lourdes and Fatima, there is always that tiny, .0000005% that I am wrong about all this, so why do you write as if you are 100% absolutely positive about your beliefs?

Alvin wrote, “Our whole world is designed….”

Unfortunately, you don’t have the results of scientific research to back up that belief. It’s a common religious argument based on religious faith.

Alvin wrote, “None of these things could be accounted for by the forces of nature alone.”

However, what we DO actually know, as the result of scientific research, is all sorts of things about the real world which are accounted for the forces of nature. We also know that saying “If we don’t know how X is caused, through study and research and rational analysis, then God did it” (god-of-the-gaps argument) is merely a meaningless fallacy. In fact, per one of your examples, in regard to what we do know about cellular processes through biology and chemistry research, we see all sorts of natural processes, and not one shred of evidence of supernatural forces of some god. In regard to the earth’s position in the solar system, your argument is in fact a misapprehension of the anthropic principle. First of all, the planet has “shaped us” in the sense that we have evolved on this planet according to the conditions that it has, and if the planet was not conducive to organisms with big brains such as ours in the first place then we obviously woudn’t be on this planet. (Of course, this last point actually shows why you argument is exactly backward, because what would actually be a good evidence for the notion that there is something incredibly unusual about us being on Earth would be if the planet had the *wrong* conditions for us and yet somehow we were on a planet completely wrong for us.)

Alvin wrote, “Do you realize that science itself is faith based? The scientific method and most of the conclusions of science must be accepted by faith. By the way - scientific discoveries do point to God.”

The problem, of course, is precisely that the results of scientific research are not based on religious faith. (And religious beliefs are based on religious faith, not the results of scientific research.) Religion is not science, and science is not religion. As I already pointed out previously, the scientific process is a preeminent example of the epistemological principle of evidential testing, and this principle of evidential testing, which is a fundamental aspect of science, is the antithesis of religious faith and the very idea of believing in religious doctrines.

This fundamental distinction shows why any rhetoric used to try to pretend science is religion or religion is science is simply wrong. Belief in God is not the results of scientific research (and the results of scientific research are not based on belief in God and not based on religious beliefs about the supernatural, whether from Hinduism, Mormonism, or Christianity). If it was, you’d be citing relevant scientific research articles for me from, say, the *Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics* or the *Journal of Chemical Physics* or the *International Journal of Quantum Chemistry* or *The Journal of Biochemistry*, or the like. The fact that religious believers pushing the “Religion is science” line never actually do this, while so often trying to pretend they are, is precisely because no such science research articles exist. There aren’t any research articles showing any conclusion about “God did this” as the result of rational analysis of the empirical evidence studied. None exist. So atheists just laugh when religious believers try to pretend otherwise.

Joanp62 wrote, “And yet, here you [Steve] go bringing these subjects up now.”

False. I did not bring *any* of those subjects up.

Moreover, I *quoted you* (i.e., *you* brought it up), and then responded with a single, brief general point. Apparently you completely missed my quotation of your comment, in which you named me specifically.

You wrote, “you do not know for sure that our religion is NOT based on reality”.

False, again. I have in fact been citing various specific examples of religious beliefs, which are specifically known to be false precisely because they are falsified by scientific investigation of reality, in the relevant context.

You wrote, “you can’t just dismiss objective right and wrong coming from the Church”.

Every claim of “objective right and right” based merely on religious belief certainly can and should be dismissed because it cannot be substantiated by objective examination of reality (this is in regard to that principle of evidential testing that I keep referring to, which is a critical component of science) precisely because it doesn’t have an objective basis, by definition. That’s why it’s called “religious belief”. It’s religion, and therefore is not objective. Making things up and then constructing ideas based on those made up things are not objective, by definition.

Joanp62 wrote, “that is YOUR opinion that religious rhetoric is erroneous”.

This statement is made by arbitrarily ignoring the fact that we’ve already pointed out specific examples of religious rhetoric being wrong - such as, specifically, the rhetoric used in the main essay at the top of the page. It has only been demonstrated ad nauseum how that argument about atheism relying on religious faith more than religious believers do is not only wrong, but absurd, including showing how the more specific claim that atheists think our currently observable universe came from nothing (i.e., was not caused by anything) is also false. In the process of discussion, we have already pointed out a number of other specific errors in the rhetoric being used to try to justify religious beliefs. These conceptual errors (i.e., examples of illogical argument) are matters of fact, not merely my subjective opinion.

Therefore, your (continued) attempt to completely ignore the errors already pointed out and pretend they don’t exist is noted.

Joanp62,

I should have looked again at my own post, I was quoting MK who specifically mentioned me by name, not you. Still, it is not me who brought up the topic. I never even would have mentioned it if MK had not referred to it and refer to me in connection with it, because it is not “on topic” to the argument being promoted in Matthew Warner’s main essay at the top of the page and the criticism of it.

Steve, I was thinking of the teachings and claims of the Church when you spoke of religious rhetoric. I suppose anyone writing something that is their opinion in a religious matter would also be rhetoric. The Church makes certain claims as Truth, as mentioned in my post at 12:18 pm. today, that whether or not they are true are arguable. For example, I believe the Church’s teaching on contraception to be spot on and verifiable based on just some basic facts of life and what we see going on in the world. It’s possible the Church doesn’t have it right, although I think it does, yet you claim 100% certainty that the Church is completely wrong, never even conceding the smallest possibility that she could be right. It’s not as though it has been proven that God does not exist, and there is plenty of evidence from personal experiences and testimony, miraculous images (Our Lady of Guadalupe on the Tilma in Mexico City, the Shroud of Turn), that strongly point to the existence of Him, and the Judeo/Christian one at that. I mean we are not arguing about the shape of the earth here.

Steve Greene,
Is a flower the result of the mindless forces of nature or of design? Can the mindless forces of nature account for a complexity and design of a cell?

Did you know that there are over 100 characteristics that just happened to be just “right” for us to be here. If just one or 2 of them was not in the right position and at the right speed we would not be here. Take the moon. If there was no moon that orbited our earth we would not be here. Or if our orbit was slight different it would be either to cold or to hot for complex life. The best explanation for these conditions just being right is a Creator. It takes far more faith to believe otherwise.

The results of scientific research is based on unprovable faith assumptions. It assumes that experiments in a lab equal exactly was is going on the universe at large.  Take gravity. It is assumed that gravity works the same way through out the universe at all times even though it cannot prove this.

Science is limited in what it can tell us. There are things that it cannot tell us. It cannot tell us what our purpose is in this world or what is the nature of the afterlife for example.

What we have not seen in science is how the mindless forces of nature could create a living cell from inorganic material. Nor can it tell us how the information of the first DNA came about by these same processes. In fact, the more we study the cell and DNA the more reasonable explanation is that their is an intelligence behind it.

BTW- the resurrection of Christ is based on historical data that proves He was raised from the dead by God. No other explanation makes sense.

Joanp62, you wrote, “there is plenty of evidence from personal experiences and testimony, miraculous images (Our Lady of Guadalupe on the Tilma in Mexico City, the Shroud of Turn)”.

To be quite frank, if “personal experiences and testimony” and so-called “miraculous images” is what constitutes the “evidence” for your religious beliefs (and, don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that this is exactly the kind of “evidence” that religious beliefs are based on), this not only demonstrates that atheists have nothing to worry about, but that atheists’ criticisms of religious beliefs and religious faith are quite correct. So thank you for bringing that up.

Incidentally, Mormons, Hindus, and Moslems also have their “personal experiences and testimony” as “evidence” of their religious beliefs. So obviously their religious beliefs - which are contrary to yours - have equal credibility.

Alvin wrote, “Is a flower the result of the mindless forces of nature or of design?”

In the recent words of A. C. Grayling, “I would not be writing this on a laptop if computers had not been invented, but this does not prove that computers were invented so that I could write this.”

It’s like the water puddle in the middle of the sidewalk proclaiming, “This sidewalk was made just for me, because if things were not just the way they are I wouldn’t be here.”

In regard to flowers, these are studied in biological science. And there’s been a great deal of scientific research on biological and biochemical processes, including on flowers in particular, and no scientist has ever once discovered supernatural forces or supernatural components. If I’m wrong about this, I look forward to religious believers producing for me the citation(s) of the science research articles from professional peer-reviewed science journals which show the discoveries of such supernatural components or forces (knowing ahead of time that religious believers will not only not even attempt to do this but will try to argue that they don’t need to produce any such scientific evidence).

In other words, the god-of-the-gaps fallacy is just that - a fallacy (it always has been and always will be, because that is the fundamental nature of an illogical argument) - and, I have to admit, I always immediately reject rhetoric which is premised on such fallacies.

You also wrote, “By the way - the resurrection of Christ is based on historical data that proves He was raised from the dead by God. No other explanation makes sense.”

Yes, the resurrection of Christ is based on historical data like Mohammed was the Messenger of God is based on historical data and Joseph Smith translated “Reformed Egyptian” from golden plates pointed out to him by an angel is based on historical data. In other words, according to the rhetoric of religious belief, the phrases “based on historical data” with “no other explanation makes sense” are a great example demonstrating how religious believers enjoy manufacturing meaningless rhetoric to try to conjure up fake credibility for their religious beliefs. Not surprisingly, I already knew this.

Oh, please Steve. Science has not been able to explain the Tilma or the Shroud. There was an excellent documentary on the Science channel last month called “The Real Face of Jesus?” It was wholly secular, but well done. As to the carbon dating on the shroud, dating it to the 14th cent. and then declaring it a forgery is silly, since at the same time they assert that the technology to create such an image was not known back then. How was it made in the 1300’s?  Can you also give examples of actual miraculous images from these other religions you mentioned?
Personal experience and these images(which are concrete examples of something extraordinary and unexplainable by science), are just a small amount of the evidence for the God of the Bible. They do not constitute the entire amount of evidence. But I believe they are compelling.

Lets say for the sake of argument that it was conclusively and demonstrably proven that the world Universe was created by some being — would that automatically make it/him/her a God? And, if yes than how would we know whose God?

Because He sent us His Son.

Joe,

What is it with the Abrahamic God and this amazing fascination with making the son bear the burden and suffer? Why was Abraham ordered to kill his son? Imagine how traumatic it must have been for Isac — you father about to stick a knife in your chest because he is hearing voices in his head. Could scar you for life. Luckily we institutionalize people like that today.

I also don’t get why God would choose a guy without a shed of common sense of moral backbone. If God even showed up in person and told me to kill my son because of all the nice thing he would do for me later I would tell him to f—off.

Now with God’s Son who is really not separate but just one third of God himself why exactly did he need to suffer for the mess the other 3 thirds created and 90% of the world population at the time didn’t know or care about?

All this seems like another case of magical thinking to me.

“There was an excellent documentary on the Science channel” — you do realize that the Science Channel is owned by Discovery Communications which as an entertainment company has to cater not only a predominantly scientifically illiterate audience but also to advertisers who would rather see it put on shows like “An Idiot Abroad” or “Punkin Chunkin” than anything that even resembles real science. You did know this when you posted, right?

“extraordinary and unexplainable by science” — under the Turin protocol of 1986 3 independent labs at Oxford, Zurich and Tucson were given a sample of the shroud for carbon dating as well as 3 other ancient cloth samples with know provenance. The results were as follows:
  Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
  Oxford: 750 ± 30 years,
  Zurich: 676 ± 24 years old
  the weighted mean was 689 ± 16 years, which corresponds to calibrated ages of CE 1273-1288 with 68% confidence, and CE 1262-1384 with 95% confidence. This corresponds roughly to when the shroud became know and started to be displayed (makes sense).
These results are generally accepted by the scientific community. The Vatican has not permitted further radiocarbon dating (wonde why).

The rest is just the entertainment community pulling some chains and pushing buttons that they know will get people all worked up and advertisers exited enough to place some ads.

If you are truly interested in the science you can check out the full report at Nature Scientific Journal.

I do expect that you will continue to believe the charlatans that have over the years produced enough sacred remains of John the Baptist that we can today build at least 2 complete skeletons. Believers have in every religion been susceptible to fraud and there have always been more than enough people to take advantage of that.

Cich: this is an excellent, brief article that asks how the Shroud, if it is an 800 year old forgery, could have been made, without the technology that we have today. Even with today’s technology, science has only been able to replicate it somewhat, but not exactly, so how was it made 800 years ago?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100126480/the-shroud-of-turin-forgery-or-divine-a-scientist-writes/

__
And another article in 2008: They are so confident of the now 26 year old tests dating the Shroud only 800 years, yet, do not consider other inexplicable findings on the Shroud, such as that it was definitely not painted, that there is human blood, that if man-made, they still cannot explain how it could have been made back in the 13th cent. since scientists do agree that the Shroud is a technological wonder.

The article:

The original carbon dating at Oxford was duplicated at the same time in Zurich and at the University of Arizona in Tucson, officials said. Yet the newspaper reported Jackson has assembled evidence contradicting an age of only 800 years or so.

Among the findings he cites:

  Bloodstains on the shroud are real, and the blood has not been degraded by heat.
  Historians say the stains are consistent with crucifixion, including puncture wounds from thorns and scourge marks from a Roman whip.
  A puncture wound in the man’s side is consistent with a Roman spear. And the wound marks showing nail holes through the wrists and heels are consistent with Roman crucifixion.
  A textile restorer, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, in 2002 announced the stitching found in the material had been seen in material from only one other source: the ruins of Masada, a Jewish settlement destroyed in A.D. 74. And the herringbone weave was common in the First Century but rare in Middle Ages.

Further, the newspaper reported, historians note the shroud’s onetime owner, de Charney, was married to a direct descendant of a crusader from France who participated in the sacking of Constantinople.

On Jackson’s website, he also notes that tests have revealed pollens on the shroud from plants that grow only in the Middle East. He also addresses the carbon-dating issue.

“We presently think that the most fruitful avenue of research is that inspired by some scientists in Russia who have reported seeing major shifts in the radiocarbon date of linen samples that have been incubated at modest temperatures… This research is interesting because we know that the shroud endured a significant thermal event during a fire in 1532 while in Chambrey, France. The entire cloth has yellowed and in some places scorched and burnt.”

The research site continued, “Thus, based on the Russian studies, it is logical to suspect that the 1532 fire altered, perhaps significantly, the radiocarbon date of the shroud.”

Joanp62,
All they need to do is release more parts of it for another set of radiocarbon dating — but even than there would be another crop of defenders. The fact is no amount of real scientific evidence is going to convince believers and the real scientists can’t be bother with something so amazingly trivial.

Italian chemist Luigi Garlaschelli and his team made a reproduction of the shroud. “We have now shown that full-size Shroud-like images can indeed be produced by a rubbing technique on a human body.”

Would this convince the believers? Garlaschelli says he doubt it:
“Many still believe that the shroud has unexplainable characteristics that cannot be reproduced by human means. But the result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure. If they don’t want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world’s best laboratories they certainly won’t believe me.”

There are photos and details here: https://sites.google.com/site/luigigarlaschelli/shroudreproduction

I’m sure if you Google you can find more about it and a lot more believers explaining how it’s not the same thing.

To me one of the most convincing aspects is if you cover your face with paint and put a cloth over it you will not get the image you have on the shroud — because the clothe will wrap around the face the image captured on the cloth will be much wider — try it, you will see what I mean. Also from what we know the body would have been warped in the cloth not placed in it like a stiff bas-relief so you would expect a lot more distortion and warping in the image. In the time period the shroud “came to light” there was a whole industry producing relics and several shrouds were venerated as the “real” burial cloth.

It is also amusing to note that the shroud depiction of Jesus matches so well the established portraiture of him at the time of its production. We in fact have no idea what he looked like and the earliest depictions, before Christianity became the official religion of Rome, are not at all like the current depiction.

Well, here’s another take on the faked shroud created by Garlaschelli:

http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/italian_shroud_of_turin_fake.htm

Of course, you need to be open-minded.

Also see below for more info. on problems with the C14 dating:

http://www.innoval.com/C14/

http://shroudstory.wordpress.com/

Joanp62,

Like I said getting a believer to except that this is a fake is next to impossible. It’s just like the moon landing is a hoax believers, bigfoot believers or Orly Taitz — they will be relentless.

Even if the Vatican allowed for more radiocarbon dating and it showed again that the cloth was made several hindered years ago you would still have believers finding some way to question the results. Faith is faith and fighting it at this level is not worth the effort.

Then why do you try?