I’m an atheist.  I will concede you Yawhee if you show me any evidence.  Everything is my world is reasoned and physical.  If you have an all powerful, all knowing, eternal being, there should be some evidence.  I could believe in unicorns before I could believe in God.  There are some things “like” unicorns i.e. horses, horned ibex, goats.  There is nothing like your omnipotent God in my world.

Please show me beyond just Faith.

Thanks in advance,
Rover.

Thank you so much. What a blessing it is to hear this message of hope! I believe that the young are receptive to this message. I think they are disgusted by the cynicism and emptiness of atheism and are open to our message of hope and faith and true reason. We just need to find a way to keep it in front of their eyes. We need a way to make our message heard. We need to pray that God will raise up someone to speak to the young people in a modern way and perhaps in the language of science and technology.

There is no such thing as an Athiest their position is intellectually dishonest. Perhaps if they drop out of the sky or maybe camr from outer space they might have something to talk about.

Brilliant! Very well reasoned, thought out. The atheists have never been able to prove that God doesn’t exist. They attempt to try and prove that he doesn’t exists. But, they haven’t been able to up to now. And they never will. This is just their feeble attempt at trying to push for a “subjective morality,” because “If God doesn’t exist (according to them), then there are not morals and therefore there is no right and wrong: I can do whatever I want.”

And let me add, treat them as their philosophy would have us treat all people - as lumps of flesh, as bags of water and chemicals, without any real dignity but only temporarily useful but ultimately inert and dead things.  This is the way the great atheistics cultures treated its members:  the Nazis and Soviet Communists.  An example, as an atheist to give you his wallet and say you wish to look at it.  Then, take out all its money and pocket it.  When he objects, tell him that since there is no such thing as right and wrong or theft or honesty or fairness (mere illusions) you can keep it.  Why should he object?

Keith,

Or, how about if we take all their scientific and techonological equipment? They shouldn’t have any problem with that either since there is not right and wrong.

Ultimately, this is about right and wrong for them: What THEY deem right and wrong. No matter what science discovers, it will still never DISPROVE that stealing is wrong or that abortion is wrong. These moral and spiritual absolutes don’t jive with their “relative morality.” They might come up with more “technologically sophisticated” means of killing ans stealing through scientific discoveries. But, it will never be “humane” - a term they love to use - because it does not fall in line with being a good “humanitarian.” Aftet all, isn’t it more “humane” to eliminate people before they come to this “impoverished” world because we don’t have enough “resources” to feed them or take care of them? They say that “over-population” is a problem. But, they don’t seem to have a problem with advancing science because it’s such a “good thing.” I guess that’s why they want to discover if there is life on another planet so they can move there….

Very well done!  Other intangibles are the love of beauty through art, music, theatre, dance, photography, and even human relationships.

Rover, prove to me there isn’t a God. I would contend that if you can’t conclusively prove that God does not exist, then atheism is false and by default God must exist. I feel compelled to bring this example to your mind: If we were both to die tomorrow and we found out that God does exist, then you would be proven wrong. If God does not exist, then nothing happens after we die; we would both cease to exist, and again, you would not be able to prove to me that God did not exist. So, I would argue with you that is more reasonable to believe in God than to deny His existence. To believe that He, the master creator, created this earth and everything in it is beyond any reason you could muster. You will be in my prayers as God and His beauty moves constantly around you.

Rover Serton,

Can you prove that “intellect” exists? Or how about “freedom,” like in the “freedom of speech” you are exercising now? Or what about depression and anxiety and schizophrenia? Are these also “non-existent” because you can’t see them? You better tell the scientific community about that, like, you know, PSYCHIATRISTS - medical doctors. Oh, right, but they’re not probably “real” doctors.

Oh, yeah, and what about the “planet” Pluto? What has “science got to say about that: “Oops! Sorry.” I guess because they couldn’t “see it” they just decided to call it a “planet.”

You show a picture of Richard Dawkins, I have read his book “The God Delusion”. In it he presents some good science. He also trumpets intellectual laziness, while demonstrating that at times he is foolish, as well as being stupid. (If one accepts that to not know is ignorance but to not learn is stupid.)
To rover’s comment, and still using Dawkins, can you show me a meme? Do you have one in a box or a bottle? Do you have one lanced by a pin and stuck to a board next to a butterfly? If not then would you not have to agree that the idea of a meme is flying spaghetti monster science?
Why is it that when some scientists have shot their wad on the science they turn to writing on religion? Why is that they turn into, and I am going to coin a word here, shamantists? (Note: To say that you don’t have to read theology before you comment on theology is intellectual laziness. To quote a quantum physicist on how quantum physics in not understandable foolishly allows me to make the claim the God is not understandable. To claim that Catholics are polytheists while not reading Catholic theology or even just glancing through the catechism, on the communion of saints, on Mary or on the Trinity is stupid.
And again to rover, is scientific reasoning the only valid form of reasoning?

The best definition of science I ever read in any science textbook was “Science is man’s way of explaining God’s creation.” This was in a textbook for a science class in a state run institution of higher learning. I feel sorry for atheists. They are such sad, disgruntled, little people.

Rover do you claim that scientific reasoning is the only valid form of reasoning?
BTW you should be looking for proof of God not Yawhee. I have noticed that many vocal atheists have decided to value wit over wisdom, it fits you well.
Richard Dawkins is pictured; I have read his book “The God Delusion”. In it he presents some good science. He also trumpets intellectual laziness, while demonstrating that at times he is foolish, as well as being stupid. (If one accepts that to not know is ignorance but to not learn is stupid.)
Again to rover, and still using Dawkins, can you show me a meme? Do you have one in a box or a bottle? Do you have one lanced by a pin and stuck to a board next to a butterfly? If not then would you not have to agree that the idea of a meme is flying spaghetti monster science? Why is it that when some scientists have shot their wad on the science they turn to writing on religion? Why is that they turn into, and I am going to coin a word here, shamantists? (Note: To say that you don’t have to read theology before you comment on theology is intellectual laziness. When an author writes a book about how there is no God quotes a quantum physicist on how quantum physics in not understandable foolishly allows me to make the claim the God is not understandable. To claim that Catholics are polytheists because we worship the saints, Mary and the Trinity while not reading Catholic theology or even just glancing through the catechism, on the communion of saints, on Mary or on the Trinity is stupid.
  Nice piece, but it won’t change the mind of rover. Hopefully young people will read it before they face a rover so they can have a few tools with which to evaluate roving claims.

Keith, you bring up a VERY good point .... “treat all people- as lumps of flesh,” is a very good argument. You are so right.  Great addition to a well thought out article presented here.

This is something I have never understood about the Atheist Philosophy.  If the universe is only comprised of what we can see or scientifically prove, then how do you explain the order within the universe?  They say it is all just an accident.  Really?  That is no explanation.  That’s a dodge.  Prove it.  They can’t.  Big hole there in their worldview.

Then there is thought.  So far the only proof they will accept of thought is neuron activity.  This is a byproduct of thought not thought itself.  MRI’s and CAT scans cannot see the actual thought that the neurons are facilitating.  Most of us can also control what we think and when we think it.  This is not a product of a physical reality.  This is a product of willpower.  Also not something that can be physically seen.  We can see the byproduct of willpower but not willpower itself.  We cannot see someone’s imagination, or love, or hate or any other emotion.  We can only see the BYPRODUCT of such actions. 

So now it is up to the Atheist’s to prove that reason is physical only.  I bet you they cannot do that either.

Oh and for them to claim victory is a laugh!  I suggest they go to Eastern Europe, Africa, The Middle East, South America, Cuba, The Heartland of the U.S., and China and they will find out just how wrong that assumption is.  Just witness WYD!  For every one young person that attended there are at least ten or more who would have loved to have been there but could not attend!  There is a growing dissatisfaction with the Atheist argument.  They just don’t seem to recognize that fact yet.

This article goes to great lengths to define reason as intangible, and therefor transcendent of the physical world. But why claim reason as a thing strictly spiritual?

I thought the definition of reason was the ability to make the best decision possible given the knowledge and abilities at your disposal.

Reason could be explained in a non-spiritual sense as a biochemical, neurological process that initiates a pattern of thoughts that achieves this.

God is being qua being, not a being. You can see this from Genesis, to eastern and western metaphysics. Atheist are using mass-educated opinions to fight academic theology, and the funny part is that they are missing the point.

The real atheists with somewhat more intelligible arguments as Derrida and Heidegger are not even read by most atheists. You have Dawkins, Hawkings and Hitchens, who fail miserably to abstract in the 3rd level of abstraction, which is known as metaphysica. These men posses a strong understanding of their own fields, but they don’t even understand the foundations of thought, nor the foundation of science as scientia. They have these false dogmatic claims that Modern Science is the only science. It is ridiculous, illogical and suffers highly from a lack of sufficient reason (the logical proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason).

The worst thing about atheists is that they raise children who are completely solipsistic, having no sense of a moral reference not centered in themselves. This is not intellectual freedom; it is moral blindness. All the ancient schools of philosophy concerned themselves with the MORAL life, and they all withered away in the face of Christianity because its moral structure was more rigorous and more supportive of a good life than theirs. Atheism provides us with a cadre of self-centered, intolerant, narrow-minded and half-educated pedants who comprehend nothing beyond physical reality - just like a donkey.

“The worst thing about atheists is that they raise children who are completely solipsistic, having no sense of a moral reference not centered in themselves.”

The worst thing about theists are people like Mary Elizabeth Williams.

From looking at these comments it is clear to me that you do not understand or do not want to understand the atheist’s point of view. For one it is not an atheist’s job to disprove the existence of God, but the theists job to prove it, if I were to make a claim about anything you would want me to prove it you would not let me say that because you can’t disprove it it must be true, that is nonsensical. And as to the point that LAJ raised about where a lot of the most religious people are, did you notice a theme running through that list, these are the places where the people are either poor or uneducated, yes including the U.S. Also what the hell is Keith on about, you realise that is actually highly offensive saying that atheists are incapable of thinking more about people than just lumps of flesh, we do have morals you realise but we just don’t take them in tablet form (10 commandments), and your example doesn’t make sense because the atheist thinks that you taking the money is wrong so surely that shows they have a moral compass and presumably you could get away with that by saying you were doing it in the name of God. As for the Nazis and Soviets get your facts straight, Hitler was a christian and signed a pact with the catholic church to help him into power and in Russia Stalin used theChurch to tell people what they should be doing and they were both really ‘state religions’. As for Maggie don’t patronise me darling otherwise i might become sad and disgruntled although reading all the false views and uneducated views as to what atheism is I guess I am slightly disgruntled. One last thing for LAJ non belief is the largest and fastest growing minority in the U.S so yes we don’t recognise it because it is not fact.

“It may well happen that what is in itself the more certain may seem to us the less certain on account of the weakness of our intelligence, “which is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun” (Metaph. ii, lect. i). Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of human intelligence; yet the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things, as is said in de Animalibus xi.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologica”

Reason is the result of brain processes. It is intangible in the manner of software, but it is not mystical.

We need no mystical magical super being to explain reality and I can see no evidence of such, so why waste your one life in adoration of a magical tyrant?

Reality is all there is, and that is enough for me.

Alexander Cullen

“From looking at these comments it is clear to me that you do not understand or do not want to understand the atheist’s point of view.”

So, we’re the closed minded ones? The author of the article is a convert from “atheism.” I think he is TRULY aware of the “atheist’s point of view.”

“For one it is not an atheist’s job to disprove the existence of God, but the theists job to prove it.”

Yes it is the atheists job to prove it. The burden is on them. They’re the ones making the claim that He doesn’t exist. So it IS their job to do so. This is a Judeo-Christian nation, with God all over the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. If you want to start your own atheist countrt go ahead and do so. It’s not the first time that’s happend.

You DO need to prove it because otherwise you have NOTHING to stand on. The theists DON’T “need the proof.” That’s why it’s called “faith.”

“...if I were to make a claim about anything you would want me to prove it..”

Yes.

“...you would not let me say that because you can’t disprove it it must be true, that is nonsensical.”

If you claim “sense,” then it’s based on what: reason?

“Also what the hell is Keith on about, you realise that is actually highly offensive”

Offensive to whom? I thought all morality was subjective?

“...saying that atheists are incapable of thinking more about people than just lumps of flesh, we do have morals you realise but we just don’t take them in tablet form (10 commandments)”

That’s called “subjective relativism”: Truth is whatever you want it to be.

“...and your example doesn’t make sense because the atheist thinks that you taking the money is wrong…”

No, because there is no “objective morality” according to the atheist. So, it would only be “wrong” if the atheist found it to be offensive - according to him/her.

“...so surely that shows they have a moral compass”

Where is the compass pointing to, a universal truth?

“...and presumably you could get away with that by saying you were doing it in the name of God.”

Why would that matter to the atheist whether I did in the name of God or in the name of secular humanitarianism? According to them God doesn’t exist. So, the motive is irrelevant.

“As for the Nazis and Soviets get your facts straight, Hitler was a christian.”

He might have been “baptized” a Christian. But, that doens mean he WAS a Christian. Big Difference. Besides, Nazism is Atheist as is Communism. If he was so “Christian,” why didn’t he build more churches instead of destroying them?

“...and signed a pact with the catholic church to help him into power and in Russia Stalin used theChurch to tell people what they should be doing and they were both really ‘state religions’.”

Right. That’s why the Catholic Church had to hide the Jews from the Nazis, which, BTW, Pope Pius was WELL aware of.

“One last thing for LAJ non belief is the largest and fastest growing minority in the U.S so yes we don’t recognise it because it is not fact.”

Exaclty! Just ask the near 2 million youth that attended World Youth Day. THAT is a FACT!

Regarding morality and atheism: look at prisoner statistics. Very few atheists in jail. When an atheist does good, they do it just to be good, not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward.

This guy is great at building and tearing down straw men.

“Yet for these atheists, the supposed champions of science, brain activity is all there is. Nothing more. Reason for them is an illusion. For them, reason is intangible; it can’t be seen regardless of the instrument employed. And, if it can’t be seen, then it does not really exist.”

Reason is observable.  We can plainly see effects of reason, take this piece of tripe I’m commenting on… It would not be possible without some reasoning involved…although flawed reasoning.

Better yet, what is your motivation for being dishonest?

“The presence and importance of reason to human nature and human living is part of the evidence for the reality of intangible things.”

Nope.  There is *evidence* of humans capacity to reason.  Being atheist only means there is not sufficient evidence to merit a belief in deities.

There is evidence many intangible things and ideas.  Take gravity it’s an intangible thing, but there is evidence for it’s existence.

In any event the presence of intangible things and ideas doesn’t add any merit to the supposition of the Christian God. 

“We must show them we do not inhabit a universe that is empty, silent, meaningless, purposeless, without order or structure, rhyme or reason.”

I doubt you would have to convince an atheist of these things, because they have nothing to do with atheism.  Nice straw man.

Classic argument from ignorance.  If we don’t know why something works, then god exists.  A few hundred years ago it would have been “well if you can’t tell me how lightning works (or why the sun rises and sets), then god exists”.  As to reasoning, science is narrowing in. MRI results show that reasoning activates the occipitoparietal-frontal network of our brain. I don’t doubt in a few years that neuron network mapping in realtime will be feasible, and someone will switch to yet another unknown.  Tell me Mr. Cronin, if you are so certain that reason is not material, why not volunteer for a lobotomy to prove it?

As a child growing up in the Catholic Church, I was told many of the things above (atheists aren’t capable of intelligible thought, they are intellectually lazy, they have no moral compass, etc.).
As a questioning adolescent, I experienced many atheists as loving and caring, often moreso than many of the Catholic Christians I had known in my life; and many of whom were intellectual marvels and more capable of reason than almost anyone else I knew.
As an adult Christian, I see little value in treating an atheist in any other way than as a fellow human being who likes to ask questions, has perfectly capable reasoning abilities, and who happens to draw different conclusions.  I see much value in listening to them with attentiveness and respect just as, for the most part, they have done with me.

“I would contend that if you can’t conclusively prove that God does not exist, then atheism is false and by default God must exist.”

The stupid, it burns!

As I always say, if a Damascus Road experience is good enough for Paul, it should be good enough for me.

Richard G, “Scotty from Oakland,” “Yeah, Right,” Walter,

One does not have to be a Christian to do “good.” But then again, how does one define good? You cannot seperate ethics from morals. God is the author of all good - even if you do not believe it. “Good” comes from somewhere.

What is language if not for the conglomeration of symbols that on their own have no meaning except for the one we give it? The “words” are abstract, by definition something you can’t see.

Reason is not observable: typing is observable. Behaviors are observable, not thoughts. Behaviors are the results of thought.

Does “Freedom” exist? Does “intellect” exist? These are intangibles. Gravity does exist by proof that we will come down if we jump. But, can’t God do what He wants? The problem with science divorced from God is that it’s not objective. Isn’t the goal of science to be objective and discover truth - no matter where it is found? And the discoveries of science will NEVER disprove the objective morality of stealing and murder: Those are still wrong, even if we are more “advanced” in our methods.

rafeal.  I am sorry but you are not even on the same planet with your comment about this being a Judeao-Christian country and that god is all over the Declaration of Independence andthe Constitution.  First, the words ‘gof’ or ‘Jew’ or Jesus’ are Never mentioned in either document.  The only time religion is mentioned in the Constitution is in the First Amendment where it restricts the government getting involved in religious matter.  This is a Secular country with a majority Christian population.  You wouldn’t call this a white country or a white female country?  The Declaration of Independence mentions a Creator.  This was common language used by the Founders who were at best deists.  Jefferson was likely an atheist and so was Thomas Paine.

Sergio:
“Atheist are using mass-educated opinions to fight academic theology, and the funny part is that they are missing the point.

“The real atheists with somewhat more intelligible arguments as Derrida and Heidegger are not even read by most atheists. You have Dawkins, Hawkings and Hitchens, who fail miserably to abstract in the 3rd level of abstraction, which is known as metaphysica.”

You know, most atheists are like most believers. Most atheists don’t feel the need to delve into highly abstract theological treatises to feel comfortable with rejecting the claim that a supernatural being who created the universe expects to have a personal relationship with them. They probably assume that such a powerful creator would meet them more than halfway in the non-intellectual realm if this relationship was critically important.  Nor do most believers feel that their belief can only be justifed if they can personally refute Derrida, Heidegger, Dawkins, and Hawkings based on their own expert knowledge of metaphysics, biology and quantum mechanics. Their belief is usually inherited—structured into their brains unfiltered and untested before they are able to think for themselves. Everything they learn later is packed in around these emotion-based assumptions about the nature of the universe. Believers never, ever advocate a religiously neutral education for children, because they know that if the chance to indoctrinate children into the concept of the supernatural is missed before they learn critical thinking, it is an exceedingly hard sell.

The difference between studying biology or quantum mechanics, and theology, is that biology and quantum mechanics are bodies of knowledge that can be applied to achieve results in the tangible world, where we see medical treatments that work and technology that works. Theologians have nothing to say to anyone except those who already assume the existence of an intangible realm.

This article is a complete joke.  It might have been worth reading if the author would have produced at least 1 or 2 pieces of evidence to back Frank’s dislusional views, but he didn’t and for good reason, he doesn’t have any evidence.  When you live in fairly land, making up stuff comes naturally. If you’re a fiction junky, the bible can inject you with all the drugs you need so you can feel all goody inside.
If we can help “wing you off” the drug of the bible, maybe you can finally have a good life and not worry about trying to save us, we’re just fine with our social morals.

You could replace every instance of the word “reason” with “the number three” and he would be making the same argument. Accept using “the number three” exposes his argument for what it is, a straw man. Atheism allows for a whole slew of intangible things.

Good grief.

“We must show them we do not inhabit a universe that is empty, silent, meaningless, purposeless, without order or structure, rhyme or reason.”

Well, “empty” - obviously not.  “silent” - obviously not.  “meaningless” - humans are capable of having meaningful lives, but the “universe” is “meaningless”.  “purposeless” - ditto.  “without order or structure” - obviously not.  “Rhyme or reason” - ditto.

This seems to be very confused thinking about what humans are capable of and what the properties of the “universe” are.  Typical for a theologian?

So how are you going to “show them” certain proposed “properties” of the “universe”?  Have Zeus or Odin re-arrange some stars to spell out “Hello”?

Frank Cronin writes, “For the tools of reason and the weapons of rhetoric are indigenous to a world and a cosmos that includes intangible dimensions, that blends and harmonizes the tangible and the intangible.”

Well, I’m an atheist, and Cronin’s statement here is exactly correct. The universe INCLUDES the “intangible”, such as the emotions and thoughts of the human mind produced by the operation of the human brain. Cronin’s argument against atheism relies on nothing more than a ridiculous straw man misrepresentation of atheism in the first place, pretending that our problem is that we deny the existence of the intangible.

But that has nothing to do with it. Atheists don’t have a single problem with the existence of intangible things. What atheists have a problem with is people who just make things up and pretend they exist when in fact there isn’t any good evidence for them. Pretending this is some kind of argument about accepting the existence of intangible things is nothing more than a red herring used to sidestep the real issue: Producing good evidence to substantiate what you claim. This is a fundamental aspect of epistemology.

Theists claim the existence of a god (or gods). Christian theists claim the existence of a particular sort of god, but the problem they have is that they are incapable of producing good evidence to back up that belief. But since they want to believe it anyway, despite the lack of good evidence, they like to fake people out, such as using rhetorical tricks to try to pretend that the problem atheists have is that they deny the existence of the intangible, despite the fact that the tangibility or intangibility of it isn’t even the issue.

Nice try, Frank. Kudos for playing a good trick.

Rafael
You clearly don’t know the constitution very well then seeing as the U.S is one of the only countries in the world with a secular constitution which very clearly states the need for separation of church and state I suggest you read it.

Why must the existence of God be scientifically provable before it is believable? We don’t apply the same criteria to lots of other things in life. Did DNA only begin to exist once we could see it? Did bacteria only begin to live once we theorized their existence and built microscopes to look for them? 

Is any created thing equal to it’s creator? The fatal limitation of atheism is a pride which says if we can’t see it or understand it it doesn’t exist. By that rationale, science is creating the world rather than discovering it.

We can’t prove the existence of gravity directly, we can only see indirect evidence of it when things fall, yet we believe.

In this life we don’t see God directly either, but we can see indirect evidence of His existence. This is most clearly evident in selfless acts of love. For example, consider a person who gives his life to save a stranger. There is nothing objectively human about such behavior - in fact it goes against all inate drives toward self-preservation and is completely illogical since the person sacrificing their life gains nothing (if there is no God that is :). The motivation to do such things can only come from a power (love) outside the animal self which believers know comes from God.

As I said before Atheism, if one claims they can have any ethics or moral compass is intellectually dishonest. If you drop out of the sky or perhaps came from another planet maybe.’ however somewhere along the line you inherited from those they came before you who gave you your rights to think. I will bet there traditions were based in some form of a religious compass. You do not exist in a vacum you have really no original thout and if you did you owe that ability to reason to those that came before you. Unless if you are a morfal Alien ?????  God bless Thomas

Some self-proclaimed atheists in this thread demand that we “prove” that God exists. Do they say what are the terms of their proof?  If it is merely whatever can be sensed and, hence, measured, they show themselves to be silly children.  Better thinkers than amongst history’s philosophers have shown the vast difference between sensed and/or measured “reality” (which is a very small world, indeed) and full, true reality.  They reveal how shallow they are.

Even simple logic would show that the existence of God (as he would be defined by any serious and intellient person) cannot be “proven” in the same sense as the existence of that rock I just threw at your head.  God is not just one piece of creation.

These so-called atheists can exist only in a society of believers who will treat them as the silly children they are.  Just as the “pacifists” in this world can exist only because of those in our society who will defend them from violence by dealing with it.  Accept my invitation to treat those who claim atheism consistent with their inevitable “morality” - meaning, no morality at all. Treat them as if there were no right or wrong and as if they were simply animated bags of water and chemicals.

I would like to make 2 points. First, some posters here make the assertion that an atheist cant prove god doesn’t exist. That is absurd as you cant prove a negative, but interestingly, the theist cant prove god DOES exist. They apparently do not know the distinction between inductive and deductive logic. Whatever.

Second, the author, Mr. Cronin, asserts the validity of christianity as opposed to atheism. Does this mean that all religions are valid as long as they presuppose there is something outside of reason that exists without need of reason to suppose it? -)

Your logic is circular, oh wait isn’t logic intangible? Cant use it sorry, but then isn’t illogical intangible? Also, what is unreasonable, tangible or intangible? Ack..the number 2, is that tangible?.....hmmmm….guess there is a god, dammit….

It seems the take home message, for all your theists in waiting, is that you must be unreasonable, illogical and irrational to believe. if that’s what god is, then it is not a god I can relate too.

Many people write, “Atheists try to prove God doesn’t exist.  You can’t “prove” the unicorns don’t exist.  You can’t prove anything doesn’t exist.  I simply say, the onus of proof is on those that say something is.  You say you have a pony, then show me the pony.  If you have a God (whats wrong with Yawyee btw?), I would like to see him or any evidence. 

There are atheists out there, I’m one.  Subject to change with evidence.

Rover.

Question: Why does God need for me to believe in Him? What does he gain when someone accepts the proposition that He exists? What’s in it for him? I don’t demand other people believe in me. If you question my existence, I’m not perturbed. I certainly wouldn’t punish you for it. Your non-belief in me would not affect me in the least. So why does it bother God?

Abby - If you contend that if you can’t conclusively prove that God
exists then that means God exists, then you must also believe Loki, Thor,
Krishna, and about 5000 other gods also exist. Along with Santa Claus
and unicorns.  As per your argument that it is more reasonable to
believe in God, that is known as Pascal’s wager, and it is full of holes. For example, It isn’t just God you have to worry about. What if Islam is right and you didn’t agree Mohammad is the only path to God? Or what if you were worshiping Yahweh (your god by the way) and Isis actually exists? Again, you have a few thousand gods to choose from, most of which will damn you to hell or whatever if you pick wrong.  Finally, I can’t just make myself believe. Either I do or I don’t. Don’t you think if there is a God he would figure out I was faking it?b

Scotty,
“Classic argument from ignorance.  If we don’t know why something works, then god exists.  A few hundred years ago it would have been “well if you can’t tell me how lightning works (or why the sun rises and sets), then god exists”.”

Flip your statement around and you have the classic atheist arguments: if you can’t prove the existence of God, then God doesn’t exist. Or, (for example) we know how the universe began so we have no need for God as Creator.

All are ridiculous arguments.

Isn’t the cause-and-effect universe evidence for the existence of God? It doesn’t make sense to believe in what amounts to a line of dominoes falling in sequence that never started falling, a beginningless line of dominoes.

@Thomas. Given that atheists exist, don’t you think it’s bordering on insane to claim that they don’t? You might want to think that through a bit more, my child.

“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.” Carl Sagan

Oregon: “Flip your statement around and you have the classic atheist arguments: if you can’t prove the existence of God, then God doesn’t exist.”
Atheism just means that we don’t BELIEVE, not that we know or prove something. I can’t say God doesn’t exist - no one can. However I don’t believe it God as I haven’t seen any evidence.

“Or, (for example) we know how the universe began so we have no need for God as Creator.”
We don’t know how the universe began however. That doesn’t mean “God did it”. You have to prove it as well.

If I say “I have a tiny monkey in my shirt pocket that is very good at hiding”. You could look and say “I don’t see it, it isn’t there”.  I’d say, “he’s hiding”. 

Most people would say, “Well, if you can’t show me proof, I don’t concede you have a small monkey in your shirt pocket”.

That is why I am am Atheist, If there were something, we could talk. Atheists are nothing except not belivers in any of the 3,000 ruffly equivalant Gods.

“Isn’t the cause-and-effect universe evidence for the existence of God?” No, although Thomas Aquinas thought so. The problem is then you have the problem of who created God. And if you claim God is a special case then there is nothing stopping me from saying the universe is also a special case and created itself (which is very likely given observed quantum behavior where particles pop in existence from nowhere). Although Aquinas was by all measures a genius, he couldn’t foresee quantum mechanics.

Rille’s Granddaughter writes, “Given that atheists exist, don’t you think it’s bordering on insane to claim that they don’t? You might want to think that through a bit more, my child.”

No more insane than saying that the universe is self-created and/or the product of some sort of completely meaningless and accidental cosmic flatulence.

Perhaps Thomas’ point was that they’re not truly atheists in that they have reached a completely rational conclusion based purely on logic.  They’re basically angry and/or confused children who in their anger and confusion have made a largely emotional choice to deny the creator while covering that emotional choice with a cloak of rationality.

Kyle,you said:
“Question: Why does God need for me to believe in Him? What does he gain when someone accepts the proposition that He exists? What’s in it for him? I don’t demand other people believe in me. If you question my existence, I’m not perturbed. I certainly wouldn’t punish you for it. Your non-belief in me would not affect me in the least. So why does it bother God?”

Why do you assume God would think like you do? You are anthropomorphising God - which is irrational!

Rover, you said:
“There are atheists out there, I’m one.  Subject to change with evidence.”

1.)your position is more consistent with agnosticism. Atheism is a positive belief, very much akin to religious belief, that God does not exist.

2.)Do you honestly believe that all reality is limited to what you know and understand? That would be irrational!

“No more insane that saying that the universe is self-created and/or the product of some sort of completely meaningless and accidental cosmic flatulence.” Mike, not sure if a link will go through, but:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
If the link it stripped out, just search for “A Universe from Nothing” and the youtube link will show up near the top. A quantum physicist explains how stuff is created from nothing all of the time, and a possible way the universe could have popped into existence as well. Feel free to skip over his introduction by Dawkins ;-)

The entire debate between Dr. Craig and atheist Christopher Hitchens is well worth watching, but this snippet is at least interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9NlRKJBKt4

http://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/B002Z9JJXS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314395760&sr=8-1

Same old typical atheist responses “who created God?” really? A first year philosophy student can answer that question.

William Lane Craig has debated and defeated the best atheism has to offer for the past 20 years. I would put him up against any atheist. Atheism as a worldview is incoherent. A good Christian apologist can easily show this. The type of arguments you see from youtube and message board atheists show me that they don’t understand many of the arguments for the existence of God. Every argument brought up on this thread by atheists has been dealt with. Many of you atheists need to step outside of your little world of like minded folks and do some honest researching. Go to William Lane Craig’s website and debate on his message board. The arguments you presented here would be refuted in no time.

Let’s get some terms straight:

Agnostic = doesn’t/won’t/can’t believe in God without some ‘evidence’.

Atheist = believes God does not exist.

There are a lot of agnostics calling themselves atheists these days. The arguments for and against are different. The agnostic argument is more about science and proofs and the atheistic argument is more (anti)religious / philosophical.

“Perhaps Thomas’ point was that they’re not really atheists in that they have made a reached a completely rational conclusion based purely on logic.  They’re basically angry and/or confused children who in their anger and confusion have made a largely emotional choice to deny the creator while covering that emotional choice with a cloak of rationality.”
Mike F: is your anger and confusion why you have denied Vishnu, Nanook, and Benzaiten (all currently worshiped deities, by the way). You are an atheist too in regard to these deities, I expect. I just go one god farther.

My goodness, I am so offended by so much of this discussion.

First of all, in my experience, athiests do not come by their ‘faith’ blindly.  Most, including myself, were once Christians or some other God-believing faith.  However, after very deep and painful soul-searching, came to the understanding that this (Christianity - as the Bible presents it) simply cannot be. 

For me, Leviticus 12:1-5 was the deal breaker.  Women are unclean for giving birth?  And they are punished for twice as long for giving birth to girls?  Didn’t God know that the fathers determined the sex of the children? 

It is this kind of thing that made many of us question the validity of what the Bible teaches. 

I don’t know what anyone’s actual experience is with athiests, but in my experience they are some of the most kind and compassionate folks I’ve met.  Someone below (presumably Christian) said,
“Atheism provides us with a cadre of self-centered, intolerant, narrow-minded and half-educated pedants who comprehend nothing beyond physical reality - just like a donkey.”  I am astounded by that, because, again, in my experience, this just is not the case.  Again, in my experience, athiests have not come upon their understanding of the universe lightly - and certainly not blindly.

If there is God, He/She/It gave us everything we need to live moral lives, because morality is to the benefit of mankind.  We athiests/agnostics get that.  We volunteer in our communities, raise responsible children, and feel a sense of humility for our place in the universe. 

And love ... (believe it or not) we have that, too.  Even for those of you who think we see our fellow humans as ‘lumps of flesh.’ Again, in my experience, no atheist I know thinks like that, but so be it. 

Love to us all,

Patty

Alexander Cullen,

“You clearly don’t know the constitution very well then seeing as the U.S is one of the only countries in the world with a secular constitution which very clearly states the need for separation of church and state I suggest you read it.”

Nice try! If it a secular constitution, then why does it mention “Creator?” By the way, have you read the Federalist Papers? Also, it does NOT say there is a seperation between Church and State. It says that Congress shall not establish a religion. I think maybe you need to polish up on the Constitution.

Also, why is Michale Newdow continously trying to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?

Atheist 4 35 yrs writes, “This article is a complete joke.  It might have been worth reading if the author would have produced at least 1 or 2 pieces of evidence to back Frank’s dislusional views, but he didn’t and for good reason, he doesn’t have any evidence.  When you live in fairly land, making up stuff comes naturally.”

The title of the piece is “The Blind, Irrational Faith of Atheism… And nothing but the Truth: the audacity of the Catholic worldview, PART ONE.”

Again…PART ONE.  Does that logically suggest that more is forthcoming?  I think so.

Should we conclude then that atheists naturally suffer from an inability to read and comprehend?

“Reason could be explained in a non-spiritual sense as a biochemical, neurological process that initiates a pattern of thoughts that achieves this.”
—-
## The only problem there, is that the definition states the issue, but does not resolve it. “It just happens” - which is what the definition amounts to - is like the Christian insistence that God is without origin, a conception on which many atheists have poured much scorn - quite understandably, *if* the only reality they acknowledge as real is that perceptible to the sciences.
** And “Reason just is” or “Reason just happens” would be an unscientific sort of answer - this Christian wants to know “But why is it?”. The sciences spend endless time & energy trying to answer questions about why things are as they are - Christian theologians OTOH begin knowing that all questions cannot be answered, because they know that God is not within the natural order (the province of the sciences) but is strictly supernatural (which is not within the province of the sciences). A method appropriate, even essential, to good science, is wildly out of place in theology, & contrariwise - each has to be studied by methods suited to its subject-matter. 
**
Knowing what a thing is made of, does not give one its identity, or its value.
**
In addition, reason may be perceptible as a biochemical, neurological process, but it is certainly not the only one: an epileptic grand mal convulsion is also a “biochemical, neurological process” - but it doesn’t exactly help the epileptic in reasoning :) The perceptible signs of X, by which its presence can be traced, are not the same as what X is. This last point is very relevant to the medical care of those incapable of helping themselves.

All a Lie,

“I am sorry but you are not even on the same planet with your comment about this being a Judeao-Christian country and that god is all over the Declaration of Independence andthe Constitution.”

If you’re trying to declare that they practices “secularim” or “atheism,” show me the proof that they mean that because it’s CLEARLY not there. What we can deduce - besides the fact that it mentions “Creator” ALL over - is that they were Judeo-Christian. And so were the documents. What religion did the Founding Fathers practice? We have proof of that, too.

“Jefferson was likely an atheist and so was Thomas Paine.”

You have no concrete proof of that and if it’s true - which it’s not - they were only 2 people. Sorry, nice try.

Scotty from Oakland says,  “As to reasoning, science is narrowing in. MRI results show that reasoning activates the occipitoparietal-frontal network of our brain. I don’t doubt in a few years that neuron network mapping in realtime will be feasible, and someone will switch to yet another unknown.  Tell me Mr. Cronin, if you are so certain that reason is not material, why not volunteer for a lobotomy to prove it?”

You don’t seem to realize that your statement above implicitly acknowledges that “reasoning” and the activity of “the occipitoparietal-frontal network of our brain” are two distinct things.  You write that “reasoning ACTIVATES the occipitoparietal-frontal network of our brain.”  How does that happen, Scotty?  An engine doesn’t start itself up.  Someone turns a key and a whole set of reactions occur that result in the engine firing up.  And, in your materialist universe, exactly how do those neurons become self-aware, aware that they’re even reasoning, Scotty?

Maybe we see here evidence that you adhere to the age-old Irish Philosophy of Mr. Guinness?  “I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.”

I think I’ll drink to that!

Scotty writes, ““Isn’t the cause-and-effect universe evidence for the existence of God?” No, although Thomas Aquinas thought so. The problem is then you have the problem of who created God. And if you claim God is a special case then there is nothing stopping me from saying the universe is also a special case and created itself (which is very likely given observed quantum behavior where particles pop in existence from nowhere).”

????

“which is very likely…”  Very likely that the universe created itself based on that?  Wow.  That’s quite a quantum leap of faith you made there, Scotty.  Maybe Frank Cronin missed it.  Atheists are just a competing faith community.  Now, where may one donate to your religion?

Walter writes,  “Regarding morality and atheism: look at prisoner statistics. Very few atheists in jail. When an atheist does good, they do it just to be good, not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward.”

First, there are no real statistics that would enable you to make that statement.  Second, considering that there are so few self-identified atheists in the general population, it’s common sense that there would be few atheists in jail.  The following might be worth reading:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4149

http://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/lies-damned-lies-and-atheists-in-prison/

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

And in the world of the materialist atheist, the concept of “good” is relativistic mumbo jumbo.  What IS “good” if there is no objective standard for good?  If the atheist is to be consistent, he must admit that there is no real “right and wrong” or “good and evil” in the objective sense.  To the extent that an atheist does good, he follows what Catholics call the “natural law” that is written on all men’s hearts by God.

@Mike F “Very likely that the universe created itself based on that?  Wow.  That’s quite a quantum leap of faith you made there, Scotty.  Maybe Frank Cronin missed it.  Atheists are just a competing faith community.” Mike, did you bother to watch the link I posted above before commenting? I at least can show you actual, observed evidence that particles pop out of nothing. Where is your evidence, any evidence at all, that this is supernatural?
@Oregon: Agnosticism is defined as “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable” which makes sense, as Gnostic means knowledge. Atheism and Theism concern belief, while Gnostic and Agnostic concern knowledge. Since I don’t belief in gods, I am an Atheist, but I am also Agnostic since I don’t profess any knowledge about it either.

“What IS “good” if there is no objective standard for good?  If the atheist is to be consistent, he must admit that there is no real “right and wrong” or “good and evil” in the objective sense.  To the extent that an atheist does good, he follows what Catholics call the “natural law” that is written on all men’s hearts by God.”

Morals probably evolved.

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

Posted by Mike on Friday, Aug 26, 2011 1:39 PM (EDT):

Reason is the result of brain processes. It is intangible in the manner of software, but it is not mystical.
—-
## Reason is intangible, but it is more than “the result of brain processes”. The BPs that show up on a scanner are not reason, any more than the formula H20 is water: a formula can’t satisfy a thirsty man - the water it points to, can. The BPs aren’t reason, but point to it; it can be traced, only because they are its “footprints” that show its presence. But in itself, it’s imperceptible, except to the intellect that thinks about it. There is nothing “mystical” about any of this. 
—-
“We need no mystical magical super being to explain reality and I can see no evidence of such, so why waste your one life in adoration of a magical tyrant?

Reality is all there is, and that is enough for me.”
——-
## God is (strictly speaking)the only Reality - so I sort of agree.

As for - “We need no mystical magical super being to explain reality”:
**
1. God is not magical
2. God is not a super-being
3. God is most certainly not an explanation for any of the realities studied by the sciences. That is a pre-scientific & unChristian idea; it’s equivalent to explaining thunder as being caused by Zeus throwing his thunderbolts. *Material* realities aren’t explained by “God-talk”, but by using the methods proper to the sciences; any others are totally illegitimate, and produce a hybrid monstrosity which is neither scientific nor theological, nor good for anything. (Which is why Intelligent Design is a bad thing, an abortive mixture of the two, and a disgrace to both; this is also why Christians who want Genesis 1 to be used in science teaching are wrong to want this).
**
“[W]hy waste your one life in adoration of a magical tyrant?”
**
1. God is not magical (see above)
2. We are not wast[ing] our lives - to adore God is why people exist in the first place. There is no greater privilege than to adore God - it is what all men are created for. 
3. God may be a “tyrant” in the original sense of the word, but certainly not in the bad sense the word has acquired.
4. Our lives are not “ours” at all - if they were, we would not be accountable for them to God. Nothing we have or use is ours.
5. We do have just one life - and this life we live in the body, is only the beginning of a much “fuller” life which cannot be adequately lived on earth. Human beings are meant, intended, designed, invited, even commanded (but never forced) to become God-like; gods, as it were. To be “merely” human is to be far too easily satisfied. In a world (& a universe) that is wearing out, such a life cannot be lived to the full; it can only be begun. So it begins on earth, but is fully realisable only in Heaven.

Mike F. writes, “Perhaps Thomas’ point was that they’re not really atheists in that they have made a reached a completely rational conclusion based purely on logic. They’re basically angry and/or confused children who in their anger and confusion have made a largely emotional choice to deny the creator while covering that emotional choice with a cloak of rationality.”

Which is a pretty amusing argument, seeing how it is religious people who are all the time telling us how much their religious beliefs are undergirded by emotion. They need the comfort of a big Sky Daddy. They need the comfort of meeting their dead parents, or dead spouse, or dead child or children again in the afterlife. They want a god that meets out justice, or vengeance, in the afterlife, for evils that happen in this life. They feel they need to believe in a god to “give their life meaning”. And so on.

The language of emotional desires is extremely pervasive in religious rhetoric, so it’s incredibly ironic for Mike F. to attempt to criticize atheists for allegedly relying on emotional appeals.

Of course, the reality is that when you actually look at what atheists talk about and discuss in regard to these issues, you find the opposite of what Mike F. is pretending. Isn’t it sad how so many religious believers feel so threatened by those who refuse to accept their religious beliefs without having good empirical evidence to substantiate those beliefs that religious believers feel they must attack them with blatant misrepresentation?

@Atheist responders:
You are wasting you time trying to convince these catholics that you have a logical mind—they don’t recognized logic even when it bites them where the sun don’t shine!

So where did you get those beliefs,  Pax Thomas

Gee guys all I said that all that knowledge does not evolve in a vacum withouit influence i doubt there are any original thingers here . Luv ya Thomas

See I told you all men seek God or at least wonder that is good keep trying. Pax Thomas

OMG I mean Thank God   Pax Thomas

By the way Mike F, a “quantum leap of faith” would be an infinitesimally small leap. But if you don’t want to watch the video, here is a summary: 1) Particles pop in and out of existence all of the time. This can be observed. This doesn’t violate conservation of energy since the net energy is zero. 2) The universe has a net energy of zero. 3) there are mathematical models that show it is feasible that a universe can pop into existence,as long as the net energy is zero. All of this is evidence, although far from proof.

@ Scotty from Oakland:

I saw your new post only after I had already made my comment.  Comments are being moderated and so they don’t always appear immediately.  When I get a chance, I’ll try to get to it. Dawkins has never impressed me.  But the idea of ex nihilo creation atheism seems humorously intriguing.  I’d like to get to that one.  And by all means, why don’t you take a look at William Lane Craig’s materials.  They’re well done.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

Also, re Vishnu et al -  you don’t seem to understand what atheism is.  Atheism isn’t disbelieving a particular understanding of God, it’s disbelieving entirely in any God at all.  Choosing the most reasonable understanding of God is of a completely different essence than completely ruling God out.  So, we’re not just doing the same thing but to different magnitudes, Scott. 

IMO, complete atheism takes more faith than theism.  A self-creating universe that’s completely material and yet generates sentience just isn’t reasonable.  After personally experiencing/being aware of love, reason, sentience etc the idea of an accidental, meaningless universe (which is what materialist atheism posits) isn’t reasonable.  I don’t believe that sentience, love, reason etc. are solely physical realities that merely give the impression of being something more.

Gee they were both Diests very spiritual I believe Jefferson even wrote his own Bible and had something to do with the Origins of the Unitarian Church. There is so much History um where do you begin.  Pax Thomas.

Oh by the way Science without religionis lame,Religion without science is blind.  Albert was way cool

Scotty from Oakland-Since I don’t belief in gods, I am an Atheist, but I am also Agnostic since I don’t profess any knowledge about it either.

How can you believe something when you profess you have no knowledge about it????

@Scotty from Oakland:

By the way, it turns out that Laurence Krauss (the guy you think has shown how the universe popped out of nothing) debated William Lane Craig.

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/03/william-lane-craig-vs-lawrence-krauss.html

http://jwwartick.com/2011/04/01/krauss-craig/

And yep, I know what quantum means, I was just making a word play on your previous statement using it.

Mike F. “Also, re Vishnu et al -  you don’t seem to understand what atheism is.  Atheism isn’t disbelieving a particular understanding of God, it’s disbelieving entirely in any God at all.”

While we can disagree on what “atheism” means, I am more curious about why exactly you don’t believe in Vishnu. How did you go about “choosing the most reasonable understanding of God” exactly?

a self claimed atheist on this board said that their are no atheists in jail or prison….uuummm yeah that is b/c our Lord is there to comfort them and that is where he meets us in our suffering….now if an atheist wants to suffer well go right ahead and when he raises christians up and you want to stay among your supposed most kind and compassionate atheist friends well when you are in hell with them lets see how kind and compassionate they are….then

I hope every atheist finds our Lord b/c you are blind and if you choose to see him he will be there to love you b/c that is what it is all about how much he wants us all to know him b/c he loves us and he wants to walk beside us thru good times and bad.  he wants to shower us with his graces but we must know him to receive…..I feel so sorry for atheists b/c they lose the comfort and love of our Lord by choice…so sad for them

I am anxious to see Part 2 of this article. 

Moderator, thanks for letting me play here.  I was persona non grata and I don’t have a clue why earlier.

“A self-creating universe that’s completely material and yet generates sentience just isn’t reasonable.”

Because it’s so much more reasonable to assume that a magical being created it?  This line of reasoning does more to discredit the idea of a Christian god than it does to support it.

@ Steve Greene,

You missed my point, Steve.  Let me spell it out more.  My point is not that Catholics/Christians are immune to emotion in relation to their beliefs.  One of the main differences I’ve noticed between devout/active atheists and devout/active Catholics that I’ve encountered is that the devout atheists seem to operate under the illusion that they’re somehow above emotion - they think that their beliefs about existence are completely based on brute logic and reason.  The reality is that we are all psychological, physical, emotional and spiritual creatures -  at all times.  As a result of their practical denial of this fact, these individuals are inevitably much more easily manipulated and affected by the underlying emotional factors that exist in their lives— including their conclusions about existence, creation and faith, etc.  Conversely, the many devout Catholics I know are much more integrated and self-aware.  Therefore, they also tend to be freer as individuals than devout atheists.  And, perhaps paradoxically, I think they’re are in a better position to make more rational and reasonable conclusions about deep and enduring questions like the meaning of life and its genesis.

IMO, the devout/active atheists I have met are angry at Dad for various reasons.  Anyone who can look at the universe and ultimately conclude that it is meaningless is suffering from an emotional trauma of one sort or another, often related to parental interaction or loss.  It all seems to come down to:  if there’s a God, how could He allow these bad things to happen?

And for an answer to that question, one can try these as a start:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/suffering.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892832193/theofficiapet-20

If this reaches you (whoever you are that may be reading this), please don’t believe the lie that you’re alone in your sufferings and that they’re ultimately meaningless.  They’re not.  Neither is your life meaningless.  You don’t have to make up meaning.  You matter.  Really.

God bless.

@ Scotty from Oakland

My journey to the Catholic faith has been a long one.  In a nutshell, I’ve spent time studying many of the various world religions through college and beyond and concluded that the Catholic understanding of history and creation was the most reasonable.

Now, I have to go and finish reading to my to youngest before bed and then prepare with my oldest two for the arrival of a rude and blustery lady name Irene.  I’d ask for your prayers, but I guess that would only be insulting to you.  ;-)

God bless you, Scotty.

Peter F:

Christians suffer as much as Atheists. 

My wifes mother died when my wife was 10, with 8, 6, and 3 year old siblings.  A good Catholic said “Well, God needs your mother in heaven with him”.  My wife thought “God needs mom more than we do?”.

If god causes suffering to people because of origional sin, he causes the same death, disease, and starvation to all other animals. 

A god that allows suffering is either incapable of stopping it or can’t. Choose 1.  If there were proof of Yawyeh, I could not follow him or “praise him” for this very reason.

I would prefer hell to heaven it praising god was the only activity there.

Rover.

@Thomas

You never explained why there are no atheists. Since I know this to be false, I’m curious about why you made this claim.

Rover,
You are not alone in your inability to understand suffering or how a loving God could allow it. But consider this - many, many people do understand and if others can, it is certainly possible for you to come to understand as well. It’s just very hard to do when one is so angry at God.

Here is William Lane Craig’s response to any scientist who claims that partciles can appear out of nothing. One of you mentioned laurence Clauss. He went home with his tail between his legs after his debate with Craig but once he got to his side of the fence he started barking again like he was a champ once safe behind his fence. This quote should shine some light on the subject.
“Sometimes skeptics will respond to this point (nothing comes from nothing) by saying that in physics subatomic particles (so-called “virtual particles”) come into being from nothing. This skeptical response represents a deliberate abuse of science. The theories in question have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of energy contained in the vacuum. The vacuum in modern physics is not what they layman understands by “vacuum” namely, nothing. Rather in physics the vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by laws and having physical structure. To tell a layman that on such theories something comes from nothing is a distortion of those theories. Properly understood, “nothing” does not mean just empty space. Nothing is the absence of anyting whatsoever, even space itself. As such, nothingness has literally no properties at all, since there isn’t anything to have any properties! How silly then, when popularizers say things like “Nothingness is unstable” or “The universe tunneled into being out of nothing”! -William Lane Craig

You cannot redefine what I am to mean what you want it to mean.  Strong atheism and weak atheism have been defined for nearly a century.  Strong atheism is the belief that there are no gods.  Weak atheism is the rejection of any gods without evidence.  Agnosticism is the belief that there is no knowledge of a god.  Gnosticism (in this context) is the belief that there is knowledge about the state of god.

You can be:
Gnostic Xtian - You know there is a god.
Gnostic Atheist - You know there is no god.
Agnostic Xtian - You don’t know there is a god, but you believe. (Pascal’s Wager generally.)
Agnostic Atheist - You don’t know if there’s evidence for god, but you reserve judgement unti evidence is given.

All of you trying to redefine what I am is dishonest.  I don’t define what you are.  I don’t look up at Teddy and see that since he said to treat all atheists like “bags of chemicals and water” that he’s an idiot?  Teddy may be educated, I don’t know.  I don’t treat him like a lesser just because I have more morals than he does and he’s in a religion that supposedly gives you morals.  How do I have more morals?  I wouldn’t treat him less than a human being. Maybe you’re going to church for all the wrong reasons.  Maybe it’s the threat of hell that keeps you out of prison.  But you’re not a good person.  Your man Jesus and God would be disappointed in you.  You don’t need to reply with rhetoric with me.  You’ve laid yourself bare.  You are an evil person.  Go, repent.  When you learn “Do unto others” and “Judge not lest ye be judged” then come back and have a conversation.  Until then, you cannot speak for your establishment by violating the tenets you proclaim to value.  You’re a hypocrite.  An angry one at that.  Shame on you.

Noone will be convinced of God’s presence or absence through intellectual debate.  It is a personal decision, and this sport of arguing God’s existence is futile.  Openmindedness allows for others to have differing beliefs.  Trying to sway others on this topic with a pen or a hammer is wasted energy.  The vast majority of those on both sides of this issue are beneficial to society, the small percentage who try hardest to “win” this debate are where the trouble lies.

You have built yourself a straw man here. Most atheists will believe in anything, including the intangible, so long as sufficient evidence is forthcoming.

When scientists do experiments, they believe that the results they obtain reflect the “real world”. But what if it’s all an illusion? If you were existing in some kind of dream state that you never woke up from, you could do all the experiments you like in this dream state and never prove anything about the real world, because the experiments are just part of your dream. Even if those experiments produced results that appeared to be coherent and consistent, they still haven’t proven anything about the real world outside of the dream world. Western science developed from a Judeo-Christian culture that believed the world really existed, that what their senses perceived reflected reality and that the natural world had an order and worked according to laws created by God. Without that underlying belief, they wouldn’t have done science. Scientists today maintain the underlying belief that what they are measuring is real, without realizing that it is a belief which cannot be proven through the scientific method. No experiment done by the dreamer will prove that his understanding of the “world” around him isn’t a house of cards built upon an illusion. G. K. Chesterton said “All sane men, I say, believe firmly and unalterably in a certain number of things which are unproved and unprovable”—-  and so do most scientists.

Um, Rover, did you even read the entire article?  It appears you have managed to miss the author’s point, entirely.  You might want to check out the last half, in particular.

Science in the realm of the “physical world alone” view has plenty to say about the how and what of the world we live in, but lacks completeness (in other words is empty) because there are no answers to the the really important questions: why the world is the way it is, why we are even here, or what is our ultimate destiny. Too bad philosophy and theology, once the “Queens of Science,” have been relegated to the back of the classroom. Articles like this one can help bring some sanity back to the world we live in and possibly even some sanctity.

Objections against the existence of God often are explicitly or implicitly based on the need for tangible proof, as if that is all there is. many of the “heralds” in the article are just such atheists.  This viewpoint arises sometimes by distorting, overlooking or misapprehending what science is and the philosophy upon which it is based.  This article intends to provoke reflection about the objective nature of human reasoning and the objective and lawful nature of reason itself.  Reasoning is a typical human experience.  It is comprised of a tangible dimension (brain activity), but it is more than that.  Also the laws and principles of reasoning are present in human reasoning, but transcend it in a manner that allows for an evaluation of a case or argument against inherent objective standards of reason.  It is to this standard that is by nature intangible that theists can appeal.  Because the laws of reason are inherent, objective, intangible phenomena which human beings believe and use, it is reasonable to recognize the possibility of a God who also claims intangible objectivity.  In addition, if reason is only physical, it has no real reality and loses its real power.  But, if reason is intangibly objective, then how does such a thing come about?  Natural selection will not account for it, nor does the idea of an eternal physical universe because reason is again bound to physicality, to tangibility.  Given that the laws of cause and effect (a law of this inherent, objective, intangible reason) require a first cause for the cosmos that is eternal, either an eternal, physical universe or some type of eternal, intangible being, it leaves atheists and agnostics, of a variety of persuasions, something to ponder as they try to comprehend life and as they attempt to go about living their daily lives. And, for Christians, this type of understanding can only enhance their comprehension of their faith and their facility in explaining it to their families and to others who are curious.

I don’t worry whether there was a god or a big bang. That is a matter for physics. All I know is that innocent people get killed whenever god wrath is expressed—in natural disasters or terrorism—and that is not just. I don’t think that a god or religion based on such a god to guide my thoughts or morals.

Frank Cronin - Why do you believe that reason is “intangibly objective”?

Natural selection would dictate that our powers of reason only stretch as far as is necessary to promote the survival of our genes. Just as our senses are limited and, as you point out elsewhere, we have to assume, axiomatically as it were, that they return a reasonable facsimile of reality so it may well be with our powers of reason.

Mr. Cronin,

You response is an attempt to “set things right” with the people that can not understand your notion. That being that we dont have an explanation about how consciousness(this is really what your talking about) came about because a reductionist approach will not answer the question.

Consciousness does not rest upon one reducible premise. It is the sum greater than its parts. Is there an adequate answer? No, but if you stop investigating you will never get there. You should familiarize yourself with the cargo cults to get an idea of how religion compensates for ignorance without science.

All you’re doing is trying to repackage god of the gaps argument. Because we dont have a tangible explanation there must be a god format. If that’s the case, why not vishnu, as someone mentioned, or zeus, or allah? seems anything that can wave its magic wand and produce consciousness would fit your explanation. Of course, you would still have the cosmological argument to deal with. (who caused god)

Why does anything exist at all? Can omniscient science give you that answer to that question? It cannot, yet it is a completely rational question. How can a contingent world, both in its parts and in its whole, come into existence (as science itself attests to) apart from a cause? For many very intelligent people something’s coming into existence without a cause is even less logical than believing that unicorns exist. But we do live in a contingent world that is very much real, did indeed come into existence. So what’s its cause? The only explanation for any contingent existent or series of contingent existents’ coming to be must be some cause that exists necessarily. This necessary existent is what philosophers and theologians for centuries have called God—a being whose essence is his existence and so who exists necessarily. There is nothing irrational about believing in God, the necessary being that is the cause of all that is. What is amazing is that anyone would think that this contingent world simply popped into being out of nothing. This claim is what startles many people as being incredible. Unfortunately, we live at a time where critical philosophical thought has atrophied under naïve empiricism along with its metaphysical partner in crime, materialism.

All this wonderfull intellectual rhetoric. Can one really know God os see God or is God an experiece?  To experience the transendant and to wonder wonder wonder, oh such a big sigh and breath open your arms wide and recieve the Spirit.  God bless pax Thomas

Ah yes Thomas so agrees metaphysics being the first science gave our ability to begin to understand the first sce=iences are so much part of the the first ability to imagine and wonder which gave us the physical sciences which are just another part of the equation.  Pax Thomas

Of course there are atheists but they are not being honest unless they evolved in a vacum with no experience of others around them that helped guide them in their ethics or morals. Those values were passed on to you and because of that you choose to wonder wonder wonder. But credit comes from somewhere else. All men seek God or debate him, how sad because God is an experience that I pray you rediscover. God bless you.  Thomas

Posted by Scot on Friday, Aug 26, 2011 7:31 PM (EDT):

@Atheist responders:
“You are wasting you time trying to convince these catholics that you have a logical mind—they don’t recognized logic even when it bites them where the sun don’t shine!”
—-
Logic - that stuff that Copi & Cohen have written an entire textbook about - is fine; crudities like that final remark, OTOH, add nothing to the discussion; nor do they when Catholics, other Christians, or other theists use them.

“This quote should shine some light on the subject. “Sometimes skeptics will respond to this point (nothing comes from nothing) by saying that in physics subatomic particles (so-called “virtual particles”) come into being from nothing…The theories in question have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of energy contained in the vacuum. The vacuum in modern physics is not what they layman understands by “vacuum” namely, nothing. Rather in physics the vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by laws and having physical structure… Properly understood, “nothing” does not mean just empty space. Nothing is the absence of anyting whatsoever, even space itself. As such, nothingness has literally no properties at all, since there isn’t anything to have any properties!

Actually, the math doesn’t discount virtual particles appearing with a zero energy vacuums as well. We wouldn’t necessarily know if the virtual particles we observe were from a zero energy state or what he calls a “flucuating energy” state. But in any since Craig’s definition of “nothing” means “literally no properties at all”, he has boxed himself into a corner. That means there is no God either, so God could not have created the universe as he wasn’t around to do so. God has properties. Two ways out of this - you can say (as Aquinas argued) that god exists outside of time (and presumably space as well), and therefore was not part of the “nothing”, but are a number of physically theories that say basically the same thing, that our universe was created from another universe (example - as a bubble spun off from another universe, or from two branes colliding). Plus, if God was outside the nothingness then having God create the universe is just an extra unneeded step - why not have the universe create itself, which is more parsimonious. You also wouldn’t have that nagging problem of who created God. The other way is you can say the universe has always existed, in which case you don’t need God either. Again, a number of physical theories also state this (example, big bangs are continual, or that time as a dimension wraps around the universe such as with Hawking’s No Boundary proposal).
.
About debates - one reason scientists usually don’t like the debate format is that is very unlike the scientific process, and doesn’t necessarily determine the truth. Whoever wins a debate doesn’t have to be correct, just a better debater. If Craig asks a question that the scientist can’t immediately answer, then the scientist loses. A good debater (and Craig is of course an excellent one) knows this. Why do you think debate teams practice with arguments they don’t agree with? However in science if someone can’t immediately answer a question it is not a problem. Indeed, it is expected. The answer might be there but takes a little bit of time (or experimentation) to find. You can find out the answer 300 years later, it doesn’t matter. The goal of science is to find out the truth, not to score short-term points.

@Wayne: “For many very intelligent people something’s coming into existence without a cause is even less logical than believing that unicorns exist.”
So what was God’s cause?
“The only explanation for any contingent existent or series of contingent existents’ coming to be must be some cause that exists necessarily. This necessary existent is what philosophers and theologians for centuries have called God—a being whose essence is his existence and so who exists necessarily.”
Again, you can just call God “Universe” and you you get the same thing, but without anything divine.

“Objections against the existence of God often are explicitly or implicitly based on the need for tangible proof, as if that is all there is.”
—-
If atheism today is based on pragmatism or empiricism or positivism or materialism, the only way to shake the idea that, (so to put it) “WYS is all there is”, or some similar position, is to refute the positions that are foundations of the atheist positions, and to validate our positions; or at the very least to show our positions are worth taking seriously. I don’t think we are even close to showing atheists that our ideas are worth taking seriously - the question then becomes, “Why not ?”.
**
Within its own terms of reference, a position is very often impregnable: Fundamentalism is entirely convincing, if one is a Fundamentalism looking at Fundamentalism with Fundamentalist positions in mind; to an outsider, it is not remotely convincing, because the outsider has a different view of the universe & different terms of reference. Do most atheists work out their positions in detail, or do they often reject a form of theism instinctively ? It would be interesting to know, given that atheism is a spectrum of non-theisms, and not a unified system of belief. It seems to be a bit like Protestantism, in that what one Protestant believes is not necessarily a good indication of what other Protestants believe. It’s not as though there were an atheistic counterpart to the CCC.

“..[O]ne reason scientists usually don’t like the debate format is that is very unlike the scientific process…”

## That is a really useful thing to be reminded of :) OTOH, IIRC, the Huxley-Wilberforce collision over human evolution was at a debate at Oxford in 1860. Granted, the sciences have changed a good deal in 150 years, but why should the many serious issues raised by them not be capable of discussion by means of debate ? It sounds a bit like the idea that poetry is an impossible medium for ideas and argument.
—-
“The goal of science is to find out the truth, not to score short-term points.”
—-
## But isn’t debating also for finding out, and vindicating, truth (& many other moral ends) ? What would be the point in scoring points for nothing more than(apparently) the sake of scoring points ? That would be really childish (or should that be, “grown-up” ?).

Why is it easier for an atheist to believe, without evidence, that the non-sentient universe created itself or existed for all eternity, than it is to believe an all powerful sentient Being created the universe or existed for all eternity?

Makes about as much sense as comparing the creative power/ability of an inanimate object and a human and declaring the object is more creative.

IMO, atheists don’t really find it hard to believe a god creator exists, but they find it really hard to submit to a God Creator who has the Authority to make moral rules that constrain them in any way. So they simply declare He doesn’t exist - problem solved!

“Why is it easier for an atheist to believe, without evidence, that the non-sentient universe created itself or existed for all eternity, than it is to believe an all powerful sentient Being created the universe or existed for all eternity?”
.
Because it is more parsimonious.
Because an “all powerful” being creates logical contradictions.
Because you still have to determine what created god.
.
In any case, I DON’T believe that a non-sentient universe created itself or existed for all eternity. I also don’t believe in a god. Either one would require more evidence. The point is, you don’t necessarily need a god to explain the origin of the universe. Of the possible solutions above, however, a god seems less likely because of the problems above and many others.

Manicore, you nailed it perfectly! My non belief:

“WYS is all there is”, or some similar position, is to refute the positions that are foundations of the atheist positions, and to validate our positions; or at the very least to show our positions are worth taking seriously. I don’t think we are even close to showing atheists that our ideas are worth taking seriously - the question then becomes, “Why not ?”.

Well done!

Oregon, you completely miss the point.  “Was life possible on earth?  Yes, we’re here”. “Is the earth perfect? perfect enough, we’re here”.  You can’t imagine life happening with a god, that is your trap. My son lost God when he realized Santa wasn’t real.  Mom and Dad told us all about Santa and God, later they told us Santa wasn’t real (or we found out). I deduced Santa and God were the same except if you were bad, Santa would give me coal, God would burn me forever.  If you were good Santa gave presents and God gave eternal life, or 70 virgins depending on your version of god.

Oregon, sorry to post again so soon but “the Authority to make moral rules that constrain them in any way”?  Killing a child as a test?  Stoning non virgins on their wedding nights? Not eating pork or shrimp? Clean vs. Unclean?  Your god gave you lots of rules YOU ignore.

My rules come from evolving into social creatures.  Good is what is good for the herd.  Not killing, stealing, adultery, and lying etc.

You write, “IMO, atheists don’t really find it hard to believe a god creator exists”. You are incorrect, I find it very very hard. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I see none (and, yes, I am looking for some).

Rover.

Scotty asks:
“So what was God’s cause?

God doesn’t need a cause. God is not limited to the physical world and it’s laws. He created them so it makes sense that He is greater than His creation and is not constrained by it. As an eternal Being He exists outside time and space which are also His creation.

“the Huxley-Wilberforce collision over human evolution was at a debate at Oxford in 1860. Granted, the sciences have changed a good deal in 150 years, but why should the many serious issues raised by them not be capable of discussion by means of debate?”
.
Yes, the sciences have changed a good deal. For one thing, peer review for the sciences didn’t start up until the 20th century. And your “debate” was not actually a debate. It was a discussion with many people weighing in. No one is stopping people from debating scientific issues, but no one is going to get published based on the outcome of one either. In a debate you can leverage emotion, fail to respond or change the subject (happens a lot in political debates), be called out on a mistake in one but use the same bad argument in the next, misuse words so that your opponent spends their time correcting them instead of on putting towards their argument, etc. Since the famous question from the “Huxley-Wilberforce” debate was which of Huxley’s did he think was descended from a monkey, I am glad this style is not used to determine the truth.

“God doesn’t need a cause. God is not limited to the physical world and it’s laws. He created them so it makes sense that He is greater than His creation and is not constrained by it. As an eternal Being He exists outside time and space which are also His creation.”
.
If he exists outside of time, then there is no causality possible, which means couldn’t “create” anything. He would also be static and incapable of change. Without time, God can’t do anything. If by believing something impossible like this is the only way you can rationalize God though, go for it. Aquinas and Augustine developed this idea to circumvent the omniscience vs. free will problem, by the way.

My rules come from evolving into social creatures.  Good is what is good for the herd.  Not killing, stealing, adultery, and lying etc

Why should you or anyone else care about what’s “good for the herd”?  Where did this concern come from?  Why is it important?  Why is it “good”? What does it matter?

@ the Catholic responders:
Will you make up your minds? You say nothing could have been created without a first cause—then you say god does not need a first cause. You don’t need god to make the universe—you’re doing fine.

@oregon
“God doesn’t need a cause. God is not limited to the physical world and it’s laws. He created them so it makes sense that He is greater than His creation and is not constrained by it. As an eternal Being He exists outside time and space which are also His creation.”

So, logical step, there’s nothing to stop someone from saying that I created god before god created the universe and dictated to god to create me within the universe that he created which is within the universe I created.  Or that you did it.  Or that someone else did it.  If it happened before time and space and are not constricted by the laws of physical reality and are above the constraints of mortality, I’ve just figured out a way to have both a creator of god and a terminator by creating a looped paradox.

Congrats, I’m God’s God.  You can’t prove me wrong.  Blah blah logical fallacies abound.

If there is no God and no right or wrong, is it okay if I find an atheist’s car and flatten all the tires, steal the battery, and pour sugar in the fuel tank?

Something to ponder regarding the article: “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

—C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

You are all still at it. All that is seen and unseen, and experience we can never really know just sense. Oh we can try but it will never end,Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Imagination is more important then knowledge.  God bless Thomas

@Frank: “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking.”
.
Science shows the mind was NOT designed; instead it evolved.
.
“It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?”
.
Because if your thinking was NOT mainly true you could die (“oh, here comes a lion, it looks fuzzy and friendly so I think it is harmless”) and would not pass on whatever problematic thinking genes you have.
.
“It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London.”
.
Here Lewis assumes evolution is random. It is not. Note Lewis wrote this before DNA was even discovered, much less finding actual molecular evidence that genes evolve.
.
“But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else.”
.
Funny thing is he is somewhat correct here. I did my BS in Cognitive Psyc; while you don’t learn much from a BS I did learn from running experiments (sticking people in isolation booths and not letting them out til they solved something is fun!) that you CAN’T trust your own thinking. People fool themselves all the time. Which is why logic and critical thinking were invented, experimental controls like the double-blind method, etc. My favorite Richard Feynman quote is “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself.”
.
Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
.
Exactly. You shouldn’t believe in plain old thought. To either believe or disbelieve in God. You would think we would have learned that from the mistakes that were made by Socrates.
Of course, Lewis responded to arguments against his “Naturalism is Self-Refuting” chapter by changing the title to “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism.” He was honest that way to respond to his critiques. Not quite like you since you have presented the same argument he used before the revision in your original post and didn’t bother discussing the many critiques of Lewis’s “Argument from Reason” that have come out since.

See also Lewis’s biography, by his friend and trustee of his estate:
“Jack [C.S. Lewis] argued that…human reason cannot be explained by rational or naturalist causes; rather, it must come from a self-existent reason, a supernatural reality that can be called God… His argument from the existence of God soon got him into trouble…Elizabeth Anscombe..read a criticism of Jack’s argument..Jack thought he had been defeated…He told me that he had been proven wrong, that his argument for the existence of God had been refuted…”  Link to a page of the actual book http://goo.gl/g17Rn

Babble perhaps I am quite sure that we will prove that the soul end spirit have measurable matter .. It is the spirit that gives us life geist I believe the Greeks called. It is spirit that gives life flesh and blood are of no avail. I beleive this is a Catholic web site so perhaps you are in the wrong house. I do find all the intellectuall banter n
interesting but it is nothing new.  God bless Pax Thomas

@“Mike F.” - you wrote, “You missed my point, Steve.”

Well, I read your response, and I see that I not only did not miss your point, but you certainly did miss mine.

“IMO, the devout/active atheists I have met are angry at Dad for various reasons.”

Wow, you don’t get out much, do you? Maybe you could actually produce some sociological studies backing up that false, puerile assertion?

I never questioned the fact that all human beings possess emotions. What I pointed out is that your anti-atheist rhetoric was/is based on nothing more than a simplistic denigration of atheists by straw man ad hominem (thanks for throwing that “angry at Dad” remark out there to prove my point), used as a red herring to try to divert attention away from the general point of atheism, that theists have not adequately justified their religious belief in a god with good evidence in the first place.

Of course, if you actually had good evidence to substantiate the belief, then it wouldn’t be religious belief. Your understanding of the position of atheism appears to be incredibly lacking, at least from what I’ve observed so far. I’m not just picking on you, either, Mike, I’ve seen the same lack of basic understanding of atheism in numerous posts made here.

@“Mike F.” - you wrote, “Atheism isn’t disbelieving a particular understanding of God, it’s disbelieving entirely in any God at all.”
In fact, Christians in the Roman Empire early on were called atheists becaused they didn’t accept the Roman gods. Also in fact, in connotation you are correct that “atheist” has come to refer to a person who doesn’t accept belief in any god, but in concept you are just as much an atheist in regard to Vishnu as I am an atheist in regard to Yahweh.

You wrote, “IMO, complete atheism takes more faith than theism. A self-creating universe that’s completely material and yet generates sentience just isn’t reasonable.”

But a “being that requires no explanation” and for which there isn’t any good evidence of its existence and the existence of angels and demons and a spirit world and heaven and hell in the first place is just so much more reasonable.

You wrote, “After personally experiencing/being aware of love, reason, sentience etc the idea of an accidental, meaningless universe (which is what materialist atheism posits) isn’t reasonable. I don’t believe that sentience, love, reason etc. are solely physical realities that merely give the impression of being something more.”

Which isn’t a reasoned argument. You assert that purposeless natural processes cannot produce sentience (i.e., you deny biological evolution), and then you argue that a god must exist because natural processes can’t produce sentience. You use a phrase that doesn’t have a coherent meaning: “merely give the impression of being something more”. Something more than what?

It all boils down to the fact that theists cannot produce good evidence for their god belief (including the fact that this book - the Bible - that is alleged to have come from the god not only does not obviously demonstrate the knowledge of an obviously superior intelligence, which it clearly should if it genuinely came from a god, but does obviously demonstrate false primitive notions about reality, such as a universe and earth created in six days at the same time as the first man and woman - Adam and Eve - and this only around 6,000 years ago, and a worldwide flood covering the highest mountains and wiping out all mankind around 4,300 years ago). Everything else is word games. Religious believers are fond of retreating into the argument that belief in God is not a matter for scientific research. What they don’t seem to realize is that that very statement gives away the store. God is not a matter of examination and analysis of the real world precisely because all actually empirically testable claims made by religion have been shown to be false, so religious believers in order to cling to their beliefs about the supernatural have been forced to retreat further and further into complete subjectivism.

Steve Green,

excellent points.  I wish I had the bravery to use my real name.  Atheists being so hated, I have to be brave an soon “come out”. If I were gay, it would be safe. Not so with Atheists right now.

Plus, my wife is very big into religion so I don’t want to embarrass her.

You are doing so well defending logic, I’m completely outclassed.

Someday, I’d like to buy you a beer.

Rover.

@ Scotty
Anscombe, an analytic philosopher and a student of Wittgenstein, pressed Lewis from the perspective of the precision of language and concepts, as analytic philosophers are wont to do.  When he rewrote the chapter from “Miracles,” he changed the emphasis making the distinction between the versions a shift between materialism and naturalism.  While there are certainly arguments to be made from a more naturalistic perspective, or from both, I chose to deal with one aspect of the mind-body problem from a materialist standpoint rather from the more holistic and functional frame of naturalism.  Materialism is certainly a deliberate and functional belief or presupposition for many scientific people and is certainly an assumption of many atheists, particularly the “heralds.”  My perspective is an interactive dualism, though it is different from the dualism theorized by many secular scientists today, as you might imagine.  If the mind-body problem today in scientific circles yields essentially three choices: materialism/naturalism, functionalism and dualism (quantum & philosophic), it seems reasonable to mention these schools of thought when referring to science and including the ambiguity in the actual fields of inquiry today.  Science doesn’t know the answer/s to even the most basic and crucial questions, but it continues to investigate in the areas it can.  And, its realm is the tangible/material world by definition.  And, it is reasonable to recognize this and still believe in the viability of science and the intangible and in God.  The methodological aspects of this dualism is inherent in the article.  Science, including its presuppositional epistemology grounded in reason, examines things of the tangible world and reason/philosophy/theology examine things in the intangible world.  Science, for the most part assumes the viability and reality of reason.  So do I.  I just want to bring that inherent trust in reason to the fore and show that such trust is shaky at best if reason is wholly biochemical/tangible.  It sounds as if you have faith that science will one day prove that this is all physically explainable.  I have faith that one day it will be explainable too but as a form of integrated dualism.  And, as a Catholic, like Anscombe the analytic philosopher mentioned above, I understand the need for reasonable evidence and rigorous reason for much of my beliefs, just as she did.  But, I also recognize I am limited in my knowledge and abilities and need an element of faith in the face of incomplete knowledge and personal limitations inherent in me and in my species.  I am sure given the complexity of even the scientific fields, you too must have a faith in the certainty of science as your comments seem to demonstrate.  You appear to be certain all the answers will be found in the physical realm.  I think there are and will be answers that science provides.  But, I don’t believe all answers will be found in the physical realm.  And, the article I wrote to Catholics was to inform them and remind them, that some answers are there in the physical realm, but not all are.  And, reason can demonstrate that as well as science.  For reason as reason and the sciences and their foundation in reason provides evidence and answers.  I just believe that reason can give us many answers just based on its lawful nature and that that lawful nature reflects and points to a fundamental intangible dimension of life as we experience it, as we think about it and as we live it. Thanks for taking the time to comment on the article and to read this.  I think we could have a great discussion over a couple of beers.

On both sides you can over intellectuallize the existence or non of God, Think all you want you will both never be satisfied. God is all that is seen and unseen but only by experience. Etheir you have it or not. An experience, clearly there is a spirit can touch us all from time to time,I even hope that my Atheist brothers and siters are touched and I am sure they have been. Oh, and so much of our humanity is wrapped up imn the simple and loving teachings of Jesus. Never stop to wonder and remember imagination is greater then knowledge.  God bless Thomas

are you assuming or do not want to consider in the gospel of John that jesus was discussing the physical elements of the spirit. Read it and get back to me

Oh Rover Oh Rover send Rover I hope soon to come over.  Never stp always wonder Imagination is greater then knowledge open your arms wide and seceive the spirit God bless Pax Thomas

@Frank, No, I am not certain that all the answers will be found in the physical realm, but only because the physical realm might be structured in such a way that it is impossible. For example, we probably can never know what is happening in other areas of the universe because the universe is or will be expanding faster than light can travel. It could be we can never know what happened before our standard physics break down at the Big Bang as it might not have left any trace. But unlike you, I don’t need “an element of faith in the face of incomplete knowledge” as I think it is OK to say “I don’t know” and not fill in the blanks with magic. In my opinion, I have found that is the biggest difference between atheists and theists. . While I think we could have a good discussion over a couple of beers, you would have to agree to tone down the rhetoric of future columns (like comparing atheists to con artists) and cut out the straw man attacks (like saying reason doesn’t exist for atheists). You seem to be very knowledgeable and logical, and these cheap tricks are beneath you.

@“rover serton”, I appreciate your kind remarks. I have to agree that there’s a widespread anti-atheist bigotry that an awful lot of Christians like to perpetuate. I suspect it has to do with a response to feeling threatened, as well as to the bigoted anti-atheist rhetoric that is commonly used in Christian rhetoric that they are raised with. On the other hand, many of the Christians I’ve met personally, who knew I was an atheist, have no problem with it, because they knew me, know who I am, and know “where I’m coming from”, even while they disagree with me (because their belief is religious faith, not reasoned argument based on scientific evidence).

For myself, I have less than zero problem with people who need religious belief to get through their lives. More power to them (except I obviously oppose some of the nefarious attitudes taught and promoted by fundamentalist religious believers, such as the violence by fundamentalist Moslems). I come at this from the direction of critical thinking, and science, despite the fact that I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian myself, and literally thought myself out of it through studying and determining the errors of my beliefs, and it is precisely when religious believers falsely claim that their religious beliefs are justified by science or reason that they must be taken to task for the errors of their ways. Don’t get me wrong, because (part of) their motivation is certainly correct, in the sense that claims about reality must be substantiated in some way with actual evidence (which requires rational analysis of relevant data), but Christian religious rhetoric has a long record of not actually justifying belief in a god with good evidence, but merely using one bad argument after another and one bad scientific claim after another (take the pseudoscience of “scientific creationism” for example) to make their belief in a god have an appearance of “reason” without the actual substance.

Religious faith is religious faith, not reason and not science. (Paul calls the belief in the resurrection of the Christ foolishness to the “wisdom of man”, and argues that God chose to do that precisely because of it being consided foolishness - “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.”). If a person has the faith to believe in a god despite the lack of good evidence or rational justification (if there was good evidence, then of course you wouldn’t need faith to accept what the evidence shows, like accepting the fact that the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way around because of the relevant evidence that indicates something considerably different from the personal perception), then more power to him I say. We have the right to believe whatever we want to believe, even if it’s completely wrong (and young earth creationists - who believe the universe and the earth haven’t even been in existence more than about 6,000 or so years - certainly do abound, here in the U.S. where I live). But it is when those who believe things because of their religious faith start falsely pretending that faith, or the beliefs they hold because of their faith, is “reason” or “science”, then it’s time to confront them with the errors of their ways.

It would be like putting Kool Aid in a beer bottle and calling it beer. It just doesn’t work that way. By the way, I’ll take a Molson Golden, please.

@Scotty
Thanks for the taking time.  If you remember from the article, I addressed these remarks to the “heralds” and, by implication, their followers.  For the most part these “heralds”, who wrap themselves in the mantle of science and reason, fail to justify how they can use reason as they do and still wonder if it has any actual validity beyond the personal experience level.  To me this is, at times, rhetoric without honesty, rhetoric without fairness, rhetoric without accuracy, and even rhetoric without kindness.  It is a form of semantic sleight of hand.  And, it is a way of masking their faith in the monistic certainty of the physical realm.  I think the presence of reason, its inherent validity and utility and its experienced certainty is a significant clue to the nature of the cosmos and to God.  And, that this view is in direct opposition to a monistic, materialistic perspective that is the inevitable finality of this monism.  The only way out of this for monism is to try to distinguish reason as an intangibility distinct from the material, the tangible.  But, this distinction sees intangibility not in a dualistic sense, but maintains the contingent/dependent relationship with material.  Even the quantum dualists see it much the same way, as consciousness is completely matter/energy bound/derivative.  I want fellow Catholics to be informed about these complex, yet crucial issues and to not be taken in by such rhetoric.  I want them to be able to understand, to explain and to defend their “faith” in light of these views.  You have an understanding and belief that all answers that can be found will be found in the physical/tangible world or are derived or contingent on them.  By defining your criteria for evidence you are being very clear and consistent.  But, this view has a way of ignoring the appeals to reason inherent in science and in discussions with others.  To monists, reason is an experienced reality and can be used, but is not an actual, factual reality in and of itself because it is wholly contingent on and/or derivative of the material realm.  Your faith is in the material realm and your belief that science will one day answer as many questions as is possible given human ingenuity and persistence.  And, to a point I share both this confidence and hope, but with additions inherent in a dualistic worldview.  I think experienced reason and reason itself is evidence that requires reflection and re-examination of material monism.  I think morality and beauty are other significant clues that led me on a rather tumultuous intellectual path to my current faith.  For me, the idea that God is intangible, though the maker of all things tangible, means, if there is such a being, I should suspect I will find clues/evidence of His existence, presence and nature in both areas of this integrated dualism.  It does not mean there are no challenges.  I have much to exam and to think about in science as you might expect.  But, you have much that is challenging in the areas of reason, morality and beauty too, if you are to deal with them not just as experiences or from a utilitarian perspective, but from trying to comprehend their very nature.  I think my faith is not “magic,” but it is most definitely not just material, and I am very upfront about that.  It includes the intangible and does not mask it under rhetoric.  But, with some atheists, the “heralds” in particular, they use reason to persuade, but don’t openly and clearly declare their inherent and inevitable problems/distrust with the very nature of reason, morality and beauty in light of their monistic beliefs.  This would place their idea of science, its methods and its findings in a very different light and reveal their implicit faith in materialistic monism.  I would prefer, in fairness and honesty, that they would state this faith explicitly, rather than burying it so often under the guise and power of science, as if all people of faith were opposed to or disbelieved in science and its applied technologies. I hope this explains a bit further my thinking about the issues and my intentions for the article.  At this point, I leave the beer thing up to you.:)

@Frank Cronin - you write, “fail to justify how they can use reason as they do and still wonder if it has any actual validity beyond the personal experience level.”

That statement is simply not correct. I’m not familiar with Christopher Hitchens enough to know, but I know for a fact that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and so on have specifically addressed issues relevant to this topic in quite some detail, and the point is that “reason” - which is an aspect of our cognitive abilities - is a development of the evolution of our brains. In the areas of psychology and neuroscience we’re also familiar with shortcomings in our reasoning processes as well as outright failures (fallacies) that are yet found to occur commonly, and in certain studies related to “evolutionary psychology” in particular a number of concepts have been explored regarding what kind of natural selection pressures would drive the development of the particular features of our cognition.

It would clearly be rhetoric without honesty, without fairness, without accuracy, and even without kindness to use remarks based on ignoring all that these people and many others have discussed regarding the evolution of our cognitive abilities and the nature of those cognitive abilities. “The only way out of this for monism is to try to distinguish reason as an intangibility distinct from the material, the tangible.” Of course, in science the only way to establish a hypothesis is to do the observational/investigative work and acquire the relevant data to corroborate your hypothesis (and in scientific research there’s always the possibility that the results of your work will require revision or outright falsification of your hypotheses, taking you in a different direction). Yet the thrust of religious discussion seems to be to just make things up and believe them without any actual evidence at all, and to ignore and even disparage the results of scientific research.

It’s just very, very odd to see you making completely wrong statements like “with some atheists, the ‘heralds’ in particular, they use reason to persuade, but don’t openly and clearly declare their inherent and inevitable problems/distrust with the very nature of reason, morality and beauty in light of their monistic beliefs”, since we know for a fact that they discuss all of these topics in detail.

Awesome work Frank!  Your position paper pulls the rug out from underneath the atheist arguement.

Carolyn Bean,
This position paper pulls the rug out from under an absurd, arguably non-existent philosophy that Frank Cronin insists on calling “atheism.” It makes me wonder if he knows that there’s already something called atheism, and that by calling this strange philosophy he despises “atheism,” he risks confusing his readers into thinking that he’s talking about the less exotic and more commonly encountered kind.

Scotty writes:  “Science shows the mind was NOT designed; instead it evolved.”

False dichotomy, Scotty.  Even evolution has rules by which it proceeds.  Rules imply logic and reason which implies intelligence -  there’s is still design.  The only question is by which methodology did the designer design.

You might read the work of Dr. Kenneth Miller on evolution (which he fully embraces).

Steve Greene wrote, “I never questioned the fact that all human beings possess emotions. What I pointed out is that your anti-atheist rhetoric was/is based on nothing more than a simplistic denigration of atheists by straw man ad hominem…”

How can I denigrate anything, Steve?  And why should you care (or think you care)?  It’s all just neurons firing and neurotransmitters transmitting.  I am where I am and who I am and so of course I wrote what I wrote.  The idea of will or intentionality in anything posted her is just evidence theistic myth.  I have no intentionality.  What is written is written.  :-)

@ Steve Greene

You write:  “In fact, Christians in the Roman Empire early on were called atheists becaused they didn’t accept the Roman gods.”

I didn’t know that today’s atheists believed in (and could accomplish) time travel.  Do you normally operate, debate under and live by all the definitions and linguistic usage of the ancient Roman Empire?  ;-)  The point was and remains, Scotty’s definition is not applicable….today.

You write:  “I have to agree that there’s a widespread anti-atheist bigotry that an awful lot of Christians like to perpetuate. I suspect it has to do with a response to feeling threatened, as well as to the bigoted anti-atheist rhetoric that is commonly used in Christian rhetoric that they are raised with.”

Now, would that qualify as a puerile, straw man based on your ignorance?  Can you back that up with any sociological studies, Steve?  (Take a look back at your rhetoric on Aug 29, 8:29 pm)  One standard for me, another for thee, eh?  ;-)

Listen, if you can look at the universe, at the love between parents and their children and everything else as one big, accidental, meaningless cosmic flatulence, you’re free to do that and I have less than zero problem with it.  Really.  Now, I honestly think it’s illogical and suggestive of emotional trauma, but it’s a free world. 

I’m not sure how you can convince someone by logic alone who looks at the world and everyone around him and comes to that cold, dark conclusion.  That’s all.  You say there’s no evidence.  I say it’s all around you, but you have no eyes to see, ears to hear, nor heart to feel it.  No rational argument alone can breach such an impediment.

“The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God.’”  Ps 14:1

“The heavens declare the glory of God….”  Ps 19:1

“Even evolution has rules by which it proceeds.  Rules imply logic and reason which implies intelligence” Lots of “imply"s there. So why do snowflakes have 6-fold radial symmetry? What is the “rule”? It is because water ice is hexagonal. Why is it hexagonal? Because 2 hydrogen atoms connect to 1 oxygen at a 104.5 degree angle, which is v-shaped. They are v-shaped because of valence bonds. Does any of that need a “designer”?
“The only question is by which methodology did the designer design.” At that point you have a tautology. Problem with your theory is that all the evidence you have of design are those characteristics NOT found in nature. How can you say there is evidence of a designer WITHIN nature? You can’t.

@“Mike F.” - you wrote, “Do you normally operate, debate under and live by all the definitions and linguistic usage of the ancient Roman Empire? ;-) The point was and remains, Scotty’s definition is not applicable….today.”

That’s an amusingly ironic statement, seeing how it’s being stated by a member of the Roman Catholic Church. When was it the priests quit conducting Mass in Latin?

The point was and remains that according to the *concept* of atheism you’re an atheist to the idea of the gods Vishnu or Thor just as much I’m an atheist to the idea of the gods Vishnu, Thor, and Yahweh. Unless, of course, you actually do believe in Thor, in which case I’m mistaken. Or maybe it’s your secret worship of Aphrodite that’s tripping up my point? I do realize that an awful lot of Christians are more interested in merely playing games with words rather than in a actually dealing with the relevant meanings and concepts under discussion, but that doesn’t mean atheists have to let the sophistry slide.

I previously wrote, “I have to agree that there’s a widespread anti-atheist bigotry that an awful lot of Christians like to perpetuate.” You respond with, “Now, would that qualify as a puerile, straw man based on your ignorance? Can you back that up with any sociological studies, Steve?” Hey, Mike, I’m glad you asked. I just have to laugh at how what you mistakenly think is a rhetorical question that’s supposedly showing my hypocrisy instead does exactly the opposite and thus destroys the point you’re trying to make with it. Thank you for giving me the perfect segue to show the distinction between the empty insults Christians like to use based on false statements of misrepresentation to perpetuate their anti-atheist bigotry (such as the absurd fabrication that “atheists are atheists because they’re angry at their dads”) on the one hand, and my factual statement of the existence of the anti-atheist bigotry on the other. For example, there’s the 2006 study by sociologist Penny Edgell at the University of Minnesota showing that there’s a higher level of bigotry against atheists by Americans than against any other group. You wrote, “One standard for me, another for thee, eh?” No, Mike, it’s the same standard: I stick to the facts, and I expect you to do the same. (Not really, though, because when I’m dealing with the sheer bigotry as well as the irrational anti-atheist rhetoric so commonly used by an awful lot of Christians I don’t actually expect they’ll follow the same standard of sticking to the facts. Pardon my cynicism - it’s due to having dealt with the defiant anti-fact attitudes of creationists for so many years.)

You wrote, “I’m not sure how you can convince someone by logic alone who looks at the world and everyone around him and comes to that cold, dark conclusion. That’s all. You say there’s no evidence. I say it’s all around you, but you have no eyes to see, ears to hear, nor heart to feel it. No rational argument alone can breach such an impediment.” Well, I’ll just point this out again: Arguments based on emotional appeals aren’t rational evidence-based arguments. Your personal desire that there be a god isn’t evidence of anything at except for the existence of this emotion in you. This is an important point that yet I find an awful lot of Christian just cannot seem to comprehend.

And then, Mike, you end with this brilliantly rational argument: Atheists are fools, because the Bible says so. Uh… I hate to break it to you, but rational arguments and circular arguments are two different things. I suppose the next rational argument you’ll be presenting is that atheists are going to hell (because the Bible says so). And you pretend to wonder why atheists are not impressed by the rational stature of your statements.

By the way, this Bible is the same book that for example tells an empirically false story about a worldwide flood destroying all humans on the planet, except for eight of them, around 4,300 years. Now, I don’t actually happen to have any problem with the fact that the story is factually wrong, because it’s just a story of religious mythology, because we don’t expect religious myths to be empirically true (any more than we expect Aesop’s fable about the donkey wearing a lion’s skin to fool the fox to be talking about an actual donkey) - except the problem with the ‘atheists are fools’ remark is that you’re using it as if I’m supposed to be impressed by the manifestation of the rationality of a superior intellect.

Well, I guess now I can understand why you feel so strongly motivated to try to absurdly pretend that atheism is merely based on irrational impulses such as being “angry at dad”, because when it comes to the logical criticisms atheists have of religious belief you appear to have great difficulty addressing them in a rational manner.

Nice straw man argument.  For those of you who are not familiar with the straw man fallacy, it’s when someone misrepresents an opponent’s position in order to create the illusion of having easily refuted it. 

Atheists, just like everyone else, accept the existence of the physical and the conceptual (which you mistakenly call “intangible” so that you can include “reason”, “morality”, “love”, etc. into the group of things we supposedly don’t believe in).  We simply require some evidence first.  You could tell me that there’s a tiny tea cup (a physical object) floating at some precise position in space or buried deep under ground, but if there’s no way for anybody to detect that tea cup, why should I believe you?  All we’re saying is “First, demonstrate God, THEN I will believe in God.”  Better yet, let your God do it himself.  If he really exists and really is all-powerful and all-knowing and really wants everyone to believe in him, then he knows exactly what it would take to convince each and every atheist of his existence.  If those things never happen, we have only two options to consider:  1) He doesn’t exist; or 2) He doesn’t want us to believe in him.  And before you say that people have to believe before God reveals himself, keep in mind that your own holy book is full of examples to the contrary (most notably Saul on the road to Damascus).

And people, please get over the idea that there must be an “objective morality” in order for there to be any workable moral code in society.  It’s pretty easy to demonstrate that “objective morality” doesn’t exist by simply observing the world around you.  Refusing to accept such an absurd concept does NOT mean that atheists have NO morals or ethics.  When compared to the vast majority of Christians, I would argue that my own moral code differs in only two ways:  1) I value truth over comfort; 2) I don’t pretend to feel guilty or dirty about sex between consenting adults.  Just like you, I don’t think murder, rape, theft, lying and a whole host of other things are morally correct, no matter how many times the Bible tells me otherwise.  ;-)

I should probably read the whole thread before commenting on other people’s comments, but I can’t resist the urge to respond.  Sorry if other people already covered this stuff.

@oregon from Friday, Aug 26 at 5:45 p.m., If anthropomorphising God is irrational, then isn’t all of religion irrational?  God is anthropomorphised throughout the Bible.  He is referred to as “He”, is he not?  In Genesis, it is claimed that Adam and Eve could hear God walking through the garden while they were hiding from him.  Almost all of the traits ascribed to God in the Bible anthropomorphise him.  And yes, it is reasonable to believe that God, if he exists, thinks like we do… at least if you use the Bible as a guide.  It clearly describes God having the same kind of thoughts and emotions that we do.  I don’t consider this strange, because the authors of the Bible likely were not capable of imagining a God who was not just an ultra-powerful version of themselves.

Perhaps a clearer definition of atheism is in order.  I’ve often considered it improper to simply claim “atheist” or “agnostic” as self-contained descriptors.  Theism/Atheism is about what you believe.  Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about what you know.  “Atheist” is only “a positive belief” if it is claimed as “gnostic atheism” or “positive atheism”.  I, myself, am an “agnostic atheist”, meaning that I am not 100% positive that no gods exist, but I have not yet seen any reasonable evidence to support the claim that any god exists.  Someone claiming to be simply “agnostic” is, in my opinion, being intellectually dishonest, because he’s just saying “I’m not 100% sure” without telling us what he thinks.

Atheists are not claiming that reality is limited to what they know, and thinking that they are making such a claim is irrational (you see what I did there?).  Someone else made the ridiculous claim that atheists think science is creating reality.  To that, I ask everyone to please quit reaching for hyperbole and have an honest debate about the topic.

@oregon, from Aug 26 at 6:02 p.m.,

Corrections:
Atheist = does not believe in the existence of any gods.  There’s a big difference between that and “believes God does not exist.”
Agnostic = is not 100% certain about the topic of discussion.

There are a lot of people who, when asked whether or not they BELIEVE in the existence of a god, incorrectly respond that they are “agnostic”.  My response is “Agnostic what?  Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist?”. In my humble opinion, nobody can reasonably claim to be a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist, which makes the “agnostic” descriptor pretty meaningless in this debate.

@psalm from Aug 26 at 6:01 p.m., the “who created God” question simply serves to demonstrate that theists rely on the Special Pleading logical fallacy in order to believe in God.  They are willing to accept that an infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, and complex being has just “always existed”, but they think atheists are being ridiculous for believing something as complex as the universe, or even a single cell could possibly exist due to a natural process.  The easiest way to demonstrate the Special Pleading fallacy to Christians is to do exactly what Bobby Henderson did in “The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster”... attribute God’s abilities and creations to some other entity, then watch Christians stumble over themselves to explain how ridiculous that is.

@Mike F from Aug 26 at 6:11 p.m.,

OK, I read part 2.  Still no evidence to support the author’s absurd claims about what atheists believe.  I question whether or not he was ever truly an atheist, since he doesn’t seem to understand even the most basic principles of atheism.  At times, it sounds like he’s really talking about solipsists (at least strongly hinting at it).  Both articles are nothing more than a straw man argument; misrepresenting atheism in a riduculous manner so that it will be easy to “refute” it.  He’s not being intellectually honest.  I wish I could attribute it to ignorance, but the tone of his articles leads me to believe it’s intentional.

@ Mike F from Aug 26 at 7:54 p.m.,

I would take your final point a step further and say that any explanation that any person can provide for our existence is “unreasonable” (as well as highly improbable).  That doesn’t make it untrue or unreal.  The fact that an accidental, meaningless universe is not a comfortable idea for you has no bearing on whether or not it is true (of false, for that matter). 

I have often struggled with the theistic need to feel that there is a purpose to life.  I don’t get it.  Really.  I’m not being facetious here.  Why does there need to be some purpose behind it?  Do all life forms have a higher purpose, or is it just humans?  What is the higher purpose of the flu virus or the guinea worm or the termites I recently found in my front yard?  If they don’t have a higher purpose, why do they exist?

@Henrietta from Aug 26 at 8:59 p.m.,

Nobody said that there were no atheists in prison.  That poster was referencing an interpretation of data reported by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons in 1997 (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm).  The breakdown went like this:
Catholic = 39.164%  (highest)
Protestant = 35.008%
Muslim = 7.273%
...
Atheist = 0.209%
...
Krishna = 0.009% (lowest)

The Catholic and Protestant percentages roughly match up with their percentages of the total population in the U.S., but atheists were considered “underrepresented” in prison because they made up a much higher percentage of the general population than .209%.

Now, it does take a bit of spin to turn that into a statement like “atheists are more moral than theists”, because our laws are largely NOT based on morality (is possession of marijuana “immoral”?  not smoking or selling it, just possessing it), and the study does not account for conversion to religion after incarceration.  These numbers may show correlation, but they don’t show causal correlation.  It’s simply a counterpoint to the claim that atheists are inherently immoral or “have no morals”, as if we’re running around the country in packs, raping, looting, and killing.  It’s a way of pointing out that belief in God does not confer any observable moral superiority to the believer.  Ultimately, we all behave the way we want to.  Theists can credit God for it (or blame their supposed inherently sinful nature), whereas atheists can only credit or blame themselves.  Some people posit that atheists don’t end up in jail at the same rate as theists because we do not believe in an afterlife.  Given that we have just one life to live, we do not want to waste it in jail, so we avoid committing crimes that might land us there.  That may be nothing more than a rationalization, but it’s something theists should consider before asking us stupid questions like “if you don’t believe in God then why don’t you just murder and rape people?”  By the way, I used to work with a guy in the mid-90s who is now a Christian minister (I don’t recall which sect).  Back then, he told me that if he found out there was no God that he WOULD murder people.  I think that if a belief in God is the only thing that keeps you from murdering people, then maybe you’re the one who lacks morality.

Finally, Henrietta, please pray that God will bless you with a stronger ability and desire to use proper punctuation in your posts.  It will make them much easier to read.  Thanks.

@oregon on Aug 26 at 11:33 p.m.,

Atheists, by definition, cannot be “angry at God” as so many theists have fooled themselves into believing.  I cannot be angry at something I do not believe exists.  That would be like being angry at leprechauns because I can never find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  It’s silly.  Please stop thinking it is a motivating factor for atheism.  It isn’t.

Now, sometimes we agree to play “what if” with theists, and make claims about the horrible nature of God based on what’s written in the Christian Bible.  That’s not the same as being angry at God.  We’re simply saying that if such a being exists, and is accurately represented by the Bible, he seems like a bit of a prick, so we wouldn’t be very likely to worship him even if we did “believe in him.”

@Roberta Young from Aug 27 at 7:57 a.m.,

Please, don’t bring solipsism into this debate.  It’s pointless, Freshman-level Philosophy.  It is not worth the effort, so I’ll stop now.

Also, please understand that the idea that observable reality is indeed “real” did not come from Judeo-Christian culture.  It existed long before either of those religions.  It very likely influenced Judeo-Christian culture, but was not a product of it.

And finally, a minor point that comes out of your statement that “the natural world had an order and worked according to laws created by God.”  I frequently see theists conflating terms like “laws of physics” or even “laws of logic” to indicate that there must have been some “law giver” in order for us to have a “law”.  What they don’t understand is that the “laws of physics” are nothing more than human explanations of observed reality.  Reality is not molded to fit the laws.  The laws explain our observations.  If we make observations that don’t fit the current laws, it is the laws that will change, not the natural world.  If we didn’t have any of these “laws” to explain reality, the universe would still behave the same way it always has.  We just wouldn’t understand how.  Don’t confuse defining something with creating something.

@studentLB from Aug 27 at 11:20 a.m.,

To say that science “lacks completeness” because it doesn’t explain things that are philosophical rather than scientific in nature really shines a light on the crux of the debate between theists and atheists.  You are comparing apples to oranges, but you think you’re comparing apples to apples.  This is what atheists find so frustrating.  To equate philosophy and theology with science simply because people once (mistakenly) categorized those disciplines as science is ridiculous.

I must disagree with your characterization of “the truly important questions”.  I don’t see anything important about the last two, and I think science does explain the first one.  I have long struggled with the theistic need to have a “why” behind existence.  I don’t believe there’s some higher purpose for our existence, or that there is such a thing as “destiny”, and I don’t understand why people think those things are so important.  Perhaps that’s one of the reasons I don’t feel the need to worship any deities.  I don’t have any philosophical or emotional holes to fill.  I am a complete being without the need for a higher purpose or an understanding of “why I’m here.”

@Wayne Lott from Aug 27 at 4:20 p.m.,

I always find it humorous when theists mischaracterize the Big Bang Theory as something like “this contingent world simply popped into being out of nothing.”  It tells me right away that they do not understand the theory even a little bit.  It also tells me that they are blind to their own religious beliefs, because it is actually the Genesis creation myth that claims the world simply popped into being out of nothing (as God commanded).  The Big Bang Theory says that an extremely dense singularity expanded very rapidly, ultimately resulting in the universe we observe today.  The formation of planets, stars and galaxies is also explained, and not by saying that they “popped into being out of nothing.”

The only people who I ever hear talk about science as “omniscient” are theists who are trying to show atheism as irrational or claim that atheists “worship science.”  Oddly, those same theists will also complain loudly about the wishy-washy nature of science whenever new evidence leads to an updated theory.  The scientific method necessarily leads to new or updated theories, since all theories are based on an incomplete understanding of observed reality.  They are not, however, as so many theists characterize them, “guesses”.  By contrast, it is religion that is unwavering; unwilling to admit that it doesn’t accurately explain everything.  As I stated in an earlier post, “why” does not fall into the realm of science, which exists to explain “how”.  You’re blaming science for not being philosophy.

I’d be surprised if you found any atheists who would argue that there is no “cause” behind the physical universe.  What atheists would disagree with you on is the nature of the cause.  We simply don’t see any reason to believe that the cause is supernatural or intelligent.  Your comments seem to be based on the Cosmological Argument, which, at best can claim that the First Cause is something that never “began” to exist, exists outside of what we call the universe (length, width, depth, time, and matter/energy), and caused something to happen that resulted in the universe we see today.  I have no problem with those claims.  My problem starts with the claims that such a cause had to be intelligent and purposeful in order to achieve the effects we see today, because they’re largely based on misleading word-play or misuse of statistical probabilities.  People will claim that the parameters for a universe just like ours coming into existence by chance are so tight, and the probability of it happening is so minute, that it must have been controlled by an intelligent being.  Not true.  If the precise conditions weren’t met, we simply wouldn’t be here to debate how improbable the event was.  Part of the reason people come to the conclusion that some intelligent being was behind it is because of the aforementioned word-play that apologists use when talking about the “laws of physics”.  People need to understand that the “laws of physics” are nothing more than human explanations of observable reality, not pre-defined rules that the universe is forced to follow.  The universe would behave exactly the same way if we were not here to define the “laws of physics”.

@oregon from Aug 27 at 8:20 p.m.,

Nope, you don’t get atheism at all.  It’s not too surprising though, as theists display this line of reasoning on other topics as well (for instance, accusing homosexuals of choosing to be gay for some reason or other).

The whole “atheists just don’t want to be constrained by rules” argument is silly since most theists don’t follow the rules either.  I could believe in a god and still think his rules were ridiculous then not follow them (especially when I know it’s possible to be absolved of my sins later).  Christians do it all the time.  I happen to personally know two Catholics who were cheating on their respective spouses with each other last year (something I would never consider doing, BTW).

We have a similar reaction of incredulity when reversing the point of view.  We find it hard to imagine a worldview that thinks our universe and everything in it is so complex that it couldn’t possibly have come into being by natural causes, but has no problem accepting an infinitely more complex being that never began to exist, can’t be detected in any way, and thinks infinte torment is a justifiable punishment for finite rule-breaking.

@Frank Cronin from Aug 28 at 1:39 p.m.,

It appears C.S. Lewis also fell victim to the God of the Gaps fallacy.  Thanks for pointing that out.  :-)

@Mike F from Sept 1 at 5:38 p.m.,

Wow, it took a whole 6 days for someone to throw the “a fool says in his heart there is no God” verse out.  That was about 5 days longer than expected, so I applaud your restraint.

As for looking at the universe and seeing evidence all around you, I’ve had some interesting discussions on that topic.  The most puzzling was with my brother who is a partner in a law firm.  I expected him, because of his profession, to provide reasoned evidence for his belief.  Instead, I got “look at the trees.”  It was disappointing, to say the least.  The idea that people require more evidence to convict someone of a crime than they do to accept the existence of God is baffling to me.  I think the universe behaves exactly as one would expect it to behave without the influence of an intelligent creator.  Things happen in predictable, repeatable ways.  If the universe were created by some divine being, I would expect to see things that don’t behave in predictable ways, like some of the planets revolving around the Sun in the other direction or on different planes, or some of the planets shaped like pyramids or cubes rather than spheres.  Instead, we only get planets shaped like spheres, and we only get planets revolving around the sun in the same direction on roughly the same plane.  Those are just a few examples, but I hope you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

Excellent article and some revealing comments here.  Well done, Mr. Cronin.  Much appreciated.

Looking forward to the rest of the series.  It’s very interesting and encouraging to read an article like this from a former avowed atheist.  It was a real work of God’s grace to open his mind, heart and eyes.  And I appreciate that he’s helping Catholics to see that the intellectualism of the atheists isn’t what it appears to be.  Like Protestants who try to use the Bible against the Catholic Church (it’s our book), the atheist tries to use reason against God (reason and truth is God’s).

It’s a bit like this story many of us have heard:

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, “Lord, we don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.”

“Oh, is that so? Tell me…” replies God.

“Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”

“Well, that’s interesting. Show me.”

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.

“Oh no, no, no…” interrupts God, “Get your own dirt.”

just got back and I see you all are still bickering. Anyways the point is even atheist contemplate God all men seek God or try to understand,Gee isn’t that special.. Pax and God bless Thomas

@ Steve Greene

you wrote:  “Pardon my cynicism - it’s due to having dealt with the defiant anti-fact attitudes of creationists for so many years.”

Previously, you stated that I “deny” evolution as well.

I don’t deny evolution and I’m not a creationist.  So I just wanted to set the record straight on that.  I’m not sure where you got that idea.

God bless.

@ Steve Greene


Dear Steve,


Your response about the meaning of the word “atheist” and the rest kind of settled the question for me as to why you searched out and came here to a Catholic blog in the first place, so I probably won’t be spending any more time replying to you after this.  I doubt it would do either us any good.  But for what it’s worth…

You cut off the rest of the quote that I provided from your previous comment regarding supposed anti-atheist bigotry and the reasons you think so many Christians are supposedly bigoted against them.  I think you’d have a pretty hard time establishing that the rest of your statement was proven by Edgell, Gerteis and Hartman’s study.  So, it still looks to me as though you were doing essentially the same thing about which you complained so stridently when I wrote,“IMO, the devout/active atheists I have met are angry at Dad for various reasons.” You called it “puerile” and a “straw man” based on “ignorance.”

Here’s your full quote:  “I have to agree that there’s a widespread anti-atheist bigotry that an awful lot of Christians like to perpetuate. ** I suspect it has to do with a response to feeling threatened, as well as to the bigoted anti-atheist rhetoric that is commonly used in Christian rhetoric that they are raised with.**”

You cut that last sentence off in your answer to me.  And two quick related notes:  1) when I wrote that the atheists I had met seem angry at “Dad”, I meant God the Father, not your biological dad and 2) notice that I was speaking about my personal experience rather than speaking generically and purely theoretically—I spoke specifically about avowed atheists I have actually met and interacted with through my life with…and yes, they seemed manifestly angry at “Dad”—virtually all of them as the result of some significant personal sufferings they had endured.  One atheist on this board already mentioned the role suffering played in choosing atheism for him. 

You might also review Edgell, Gereis and Hartman’s study a bit more dispassionately and consider whether there are different ways to interpret the responses to the study in regard to the generalized reactions to atheists.  In fact, the study itself presents much less ideological conclusions than you and sees the dynamic in a much more complex and nuanced way, for example, it puts particularly significant weight on the cultural context (for example, they state, “We believe this indicates that the boundary being drawn vis-à-vis atheists is symbolic, a way of defining cultural membership in American life, and not the result of a simple, irrational unwillingness to tolerate small out-groups”).

That being said, there were some conclusions drawn by Edgell, Gerteis and Hartman that strike me as unjustified and/or unduly narrow regarding the implications of certain negative reactions engendered by atheists.  Their interpretation of respondents indicating whether or not they would want their child to marry an atheist is one example.  Regarding the responses to this question about marriage, Edgell, Gerteis and Hartman say, “We interpret it here as a measure of personal trust and acceptance, an evaluation of who is thought to be capable of being caring and moral, able to make one’s child happy, and to treat other family members well.”

This almost entirely temporal/secular interpretation is overly simplistic and misses what I consider to be the most obvious and fundamental reason why a person of devout Christian faith would not want their child to marry an atheist.  For a Christian, faith in God is an integral part of our sojourn to heaven.  An atheist may adversely affect their child’s journey to heaven and subsequently adversely affect any children born of such a union.  Personally, that is far and away the most important reason why - all things being equal -  I would not want any of my children to marry and atheist.  That’s not prejudice in the common, negative sense of the term.  It’s just common sense.

Also, did you notice that African-Americans and women had the most negative opinions of atheists?  I thought that was interesting.  Should we follow your line of logic about Christians and assume it’s just because they feel more threatened by atheists and have heard more anti-atheist, bigoted rhetoric in their homes than white males?  One last observation -  it doesn’t strike me as shocking or irrational that theists would tend to distrust the judgment and compass of atheists.  This is such a fundamental question.  The idea that one can look at the universe and say “I see no evidence of anything beyond chance and the material, no evidence at all for God” would naturally tend to suggest to a theist that such an individual is having serious trouble with basic perceptions of reality.  (Hence, btw, my reference to the psalms above:  “The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God.’”  Ps 14:1 “The heavens declare the glory of God….”  Ps 19:1)

A few other things quickly popped into my mind about the methodology and variable interpretations of this study as I read it through and I’m sure you could think of some as well, if you had a mind to.  But, while it’s interesting and of some relevance, I think your reference to this study is mostly digression and deflection from the point I was making about your personal judgments about Christians.

On a related line, you might be interested in this study of atheism and read some of the reviews of it. (Full disclosure:  I haven’t read the book but have heard that it’s interesting and worth a read).


http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Groundbreaking-Study-Americas-Nonbelievers/dp/1591024137



I’d also read this before, but thought you might find it interesting:


http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/03/are_atheists_am.html

I particularly found the story about Professor Robert Jastrow, “one of the greatest living astronomers, head of the Mount Wilson Observatory, formerly head of NASA’s Goddard Space Center, and an agnostic”, to be very revealing.  In that story he explained why the atheist scientists were so unhappy about the evidence for the Big Bang and why they resisted it.  In a nutshell?  It implied a beginning and a beginning implied a creator…something they found abhorrent.  Logic?  No.  Emotion.


But, like I said, if you insist that the evidence in front of your eyes leads you to believe that life is essentially one, huge, accidental, meaningless cosmic flatulence, I think that this suggests that something besides pure logic is at work.  Committed atheists are in a tiny minority of the population both now and historically (less than 1% in America, according to a study cited by Edgell, Gerteis and Hartman).  The vast majority of people look around at their lives and the universe see plain evidence of intelligence, design, order, purpose, meaning ...God

In fairness, perhaps asking someone who is so actively committed to atheism to reconsider the evidence in front of his eyes for God’s existence is a bit like asking a color blind person to see color.  They just don’t have the tools to perceive it -  no cones in those retinae.  Either you can see it, or you can’t.  For certain reasons, your mind is currently wired to see mere accidents and meaninglessness all around you where most everyone else easily perceives evidence of intelligence, purpose, order and design.


But thankfully, there’s good possibility that your inability to see the evidence for God’s existence is temporary -  as it is for many.  Many people pass through rebellious phases or periods of crisis and loss that become healed over time.  And then they’re able to see more clearly again.

I’m sure you’ve experienced times in your life where you had some crisis or hurtful thing happen and everything seemed dark and hopeless.  Then something happened later to lift your mood and suddenly you perceived the world very differently.  Everyone wasn’t against you really and objectively…it just seemed that way under the circumstance…that sort of thing.  Our ability to perceive certain evidences fairly and objective is significantly affected by our emotional states.  Some emotional states persist longer than others for various reasons. In my lived experience, the difficulty committed, avowed atheists face is most often with the heart and not the head.  The wounded heart clouds the mind just a sin deadens moral sensitivity and reason.


I believe you matter, Steve.  Objectively and really.  Not in some “I’ll find a way to make up meaning out of a meaningless/accidental universe” kind of way.  But really and truly.  And I believe that God loves you.


Listen, I’m sure you’re a fine guy and I’d probably enjoy having a cold one with you.  So, if I said anything that offended you or set you off, please accept my apologies.  Also please believe me when I say that I pray we both meet in heaven one day. 


God bless you.

A few corrections/notes to what I wrote, above:

“I spoke specifically about avowed atheists I have actually met and interacted with through my life with”

delete the last “with”

......

“Hartman” should be “Hartmann”

.......

“The wounded heart clouds the mind just a sin deadens moral sensitivity and reason” should be “The wounded heart clouds the mind just **as** sin deadens moral sensitivity and reason.”

........

This morning, I took another look at the study, because I thought it was interesting.  It’s probably worth clarifying that Edgell, Gerteis and Hartman’s study was about *all American’s* attitudes toward atheists, not just Christian attitudes toward atheists (that may not have been clear in what I wrote above because I focused on Christians).  Attitudes toward atheists weren’t all that different, imo, across the board (church-goer or not).  And while the study did make sure to include a certain number of Catholics in their sampling, it did not break Catholics out from Evangelical Protestants in terms of attitudes and responses, so it doesn’t seem possible to determine the general “Catholic” reaction.

Although, in fairness to Protestants, the study interestingly states, “It is notable that having a conservative Protestant identity does not emerge as one of the stronger predictors of attitudes toward atheists in our final models, which include specific items that measure attitudes toward religion’s role in public life.”

........

Another study was cited in addition to the one indicating that less than 1% of the population identifies themselves as being “atheist”.  In the other, 2000 study, 3% indicated that they “don’t believe in God.”  While these are two slightly different questions with different implications, the number of atheists in America remains a very small minority, regardless.

........

This statement in the the study’s conclusion seems worth repeating:

“If we are correct, then the boundary between the religious and the nonreligious is not about
religious affiliation per se. It is about the historic place of religion in American civic culture and the understanding that religion provides the “habits of the heart” that form the basis of the good society…It is about an understanding that Americans share something more than rules and procedures, but rather that our understandings of right and wrong and good citizenship are also shared (Hartmann and Gerteis 2005).”

While I agree that it is possible that rhetoric from the extreme, fundamentalist right about atheists (Jimmy Swaggart types)  may play a role in creating exaggeratedly negative views of atheists for some, this study doesn’t support lumping all Christian groups together and to portray the dynamic in America vis a vis atheists as emanating from irrational Christian bigotry and fear.

I may not be able to get back to this, so no offense intended if I don’t respond to anyone.  I think the horse has probably been more sufficiently beaten anyway. 

God bless.

To Frank Cronin,

Thanks for a great article and praise God for your faith and witness.  I really enjoyed it.  Coming out of the black hole of atheism is no small miracle!  Keep up the good work!

Just a suggestion, but have you ever thought of writing up your conversion story?  I’ve read about converts from Protestantism and Judaism but I’m not sure if there are many stories about atheist conversions.  You’ve got a nice writing style and I bet it would be interesting.  It might also help atheists to see the path.

Just a thought.

To Mike F.:

Thanks for all the effort and the Cliff Notes on the atheist study.  And I agree with you completely about the marriage to atheists part.  That’s exactly why I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry an atheist, not at all because I don’t think an atheist can be caring or treat others well.  I have a family member who married an atheist and they thought all that mattered was “love”...until the baby was born and they had to decide how the child would be raised.  Ugh.  Not pretty.  Very sad.

And I noticed the missing second sentence about Steve’s beliefs about Christians, too.  Actually, I thought you missed something in his first sentence about Christians that was as bad or worse than the second.

Steve said, “I have to agree that there’s a widespread anti-atheist bigotry that an awful lot of Christians LIKE TO PERPETUATE.”  Christians LIKE TO PERPETUATE BIGOTRY?  Really?  Was that in the study about reactions to atheists, too?  LOL   Even if he resented you saying that the atheists you’ve met seem angry at God, at least you didn’t say they ENJOY it for goodness sake.  LOL

What an interesting article that was at the All Things Beautiful blog.  This last section was well put:

“Sadly, many people come to doubt God’s existence because so many intellectuals are atheists. But it was a major scientist, Professor Robert Jastrow, one of the greatest living astronomers, head of the Mount Wilson Observatory, formerly head of NASA’s Goddard Space Center, and an agnostic, who best explained the atheism of many scientists.

In his book “God and the Astronomers,” Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. In fact, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it. Why? Because the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe, and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject.

This led Jastrow to the sobering conclusion that many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs, especially the non-existence of God. For some psychological or emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, many scientists prefer to believe that given enough monkeys, one will type out a psalm.

But neither math nor science argues that all came about randomly, without a Creator. Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief, a belief that should be laid to rest beneath a large pile of monkey pooh at Plymouth University, England.”

http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/03/are_atheists_am.html

It doesn’t appear that anyone has yet linked to the reply to this essay by Greg at Atheism Resource on Sept 2nd, so I’m doing so here: http://www.atheismresource.com/2011/deep-intangible-pool

I may post a longer set of my own thoughts on reading Mr. Cronin’s work at a later time.

In conclusion:

1) The atheist unbelief will not change the reality that God exists. The atheist’s opinion of the non-existence of God is irrelvant to whether He exists or not. An atheist’s unbelief will NOT cause God to stop existing - as much as they would probably love that to happen. God will continue to exist, despite the “faith” of atheism. In fact, I dare say that it requires more imagination to believe that God does not exist. If I pour a glass of water and tell you that it’s Coca Cola, my believing it to be Coca Cola will not cause it to become Coca Cola: It will continue to remain water.

2) The burden of proof will ALWAYS be on the atheist to prove that God does not exist, not the other way around. Believers are the majority, atheists are the minority. If I commit murder and I say, “I didn’t do it,” the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. The prosecution has to provide enough evidence. And up to now, the professional atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins, et al) have not been able to provide enough convincing “proof.”

3) I’m glad that I’m NOT God and I don’t have to decide how God chooses to reveal Himself. God is God and I am not. The atheists want to decide the criteria by which God reveals himself. If God chooses to reveal Himself by means that are not visible to the naked eye (or senses), then I accept that. But, the atheists DEMAND how God should reveal Himself. And that’s NOT my job: that’s Gods!!!!

I have a headache. There are so many fine Catholic and known Catholic intellectuals out there .  I think we give God no service when we think to much about what is or what of. God is an experience to be had I find it said that the Atheist does not sence the trancendant and the all knowers of god talk way to much about and existence that can never really ever be explained . Open your arms and hearts and have the experience. Imagine imagine and wonder. Then perhaps you will be touched by spirit and through an understanding of the humanity of jesus understand ad love better. We are all so smug and way to smart sometimes . Rest my friends.  God Bless,  Tom Cuddy

The atheist unbelief will not change the reality that God doesn’t exists. The atheist’s opinion of the non-existence of God is irrelvant as is the theist opinion of gods existence to whether He exists or not. An atheist’s unbelief will NOT cause God to exist - in the same way the theist belief will not cause god to exist- as much as they would probably love that to happen. the question of whether god exists or not will continue, despite the “faith” of atheism.

Btw, there is no argument that the earth is round, or the sun is hot, or 2+2=4. Why does there need to be an argument whether god exists. Is that because his pending reality may be in question?

Here we go again.  One does not know God or it is pretty difficult, heck we can all make an intellectual proposal for and the other? However one must first experience God to begin to know. how about sharing that with me or perhaps you have no feeling.  God bless you and Love to all.  Dr. Thomas

“Btw, there is no argument that the earth is round, or the sun is hot, or 2+2=4. Why does there need to be an argument whether god exists. Is that because his pending reality may be in question?”

The earth is round - even if I think it’s square. But, my beliving it to be square will NOT change its dimensions: It will remain round. Likewise, an atheist believing or “questioning” the reality of God’s existence will not change whether God exists or not: God will go onexisting. The unbelief of God will not change that. To “question” the existence of God is not tragic: To believe He doesn’t exist is tragic.

so smart can anyone that claims to know God tell me how you experienced the transendant

Rafael wrote:
“The earth is round - even if I think it’s square. But, my beliving it to be square will NOT change its dimensions: It will remain round. Likewise, an atheist believing or “questioning” the reality of God’s existence will not change whether God exists or not: God will go on existing.”

Of course, you can SAY that about anything. But here’s the difference: I can USE the theory that Earth is round in ways that gets me results I wouldn’t get if it weren’t. I can point myself east and keep going until I get back to where I started. I can fly a plane in a parabola instead of a straight line and get to where I’m going faster.
There is nothing you can do with the idea that God exists that you couldn’t do with the idea he doesn’t exist.

As a lost atheist in the herd of the the bewildered, why MUST there be an argument for god? If it was obvious, it wouldn’t need to be an argument.

The fact that god needs a constructive series of phrases put together in an arranged order to create the concept of god seems weird. “Well, i believe this god, but not that god, or the god that doesn’t wear those robes, but one that wears crown.” It is a nightmare of cognitive fallacies.

Science deals in observable facts. the god argument deals in literary methods, i.e. what type of god is represented in the literature and how best to express it, him, she….whatever.

The fact that there needs to be a so called “god argument” should give all pause. Semantic debates get us nowhere.

Go with Loki…....

Eric said:

“Of course, you can SAY that about anything. But here’s the difference: I can USE the theory that Earth is round in ways that gets me results I wouldn’t get if it weren’t. I can point myself east and keep going until I get back to where I started. I can fly a plane in a parabola instead of a straight line and get to where I’m going faster. There is nothing you can do with the idea that God exists that you couldn’t do with the idea he doesn’t exist.”

If God chooses to make the world round and flying in a parabola to get to where I’m going is more expedience, that’s just confirmation that God made the world round. But, that STILL DOESN’T change the fact that God exists. Again, you believing that He doesn’t exist will not STOP him from existing. In your example there’s STILL NO proof that He doesn’t exist. You’re just telling me that you can prove the world is round and that you can fly a “C-route” to get from point “A” to point “B” quicker. It still requires “faith” - and imagination, I might add - to believe God into non-existence. And that’s the point: It requires “faith,” which is the point of the article. Your “faith,” whether you believe you have a faith or not, is irrelevant. And the majority of the people living in this country DO NOT ACCEPT your “religious” practices and beliefs. Your religious “leaders” (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc…) are trying to spread their/your belief system and attempting to make it parallel with all world religions. It even has a name: Atheism. You bow down to the altars of “scientific proof.”

Hey Loco i mean loki one must experience God to know God, Hey i am sure you have intellectual thought patterns just like your counterpart the so called knower of God. God is not known it is experienced then you will know.  God Bless you and much love..  Dr Thomas

Rafael wrote:
It even has a name: Atheism. You bow down to the altars of “scientific proof.”

You really should stop trying to tar atheists with your own irrational traits. It’s tantamount to admitting that the best you can do is claim atheists are as silly as yourself.

Gordon Hide said:

“You really should stop trying to tar atheists with your own irrational traits. It’s tantamount to admitting that the best you can do is claim atheists are as silly as yourself.

Are you being “judgemental,” calling my argument “silly”? I thought the religious people were the “judgemental” ones? And by what standards are you defining irrationality? You atheists have yet to still make a rational arguement for your position. You have YET to prove that God doesn’t exist. So, if anything, your arguments are “irrational” and based purely on “faith”.

Dana stated:

“As a lost atheist in the herd of the the bewildered, why MUST there be an argument for god? If it was obvious, it wouldn’t need to be an argument.”

There is no argument for God - at least not by the believers. That’s the point: We don’t need the proof. You’re the ones “looking for proof.” We accept that we don’t need visible proof. You don’t accept. Yet, you are able to accept His laws of physics, biology, etc… You’re the ones making the arguement, not us.

“The fact that god needs a constructive series of phrases put together in an arranged order to create the concept of god seems weird. ‘Well, i believe this god, but not that god, or the god that doesn’t wear those robes, but one that wears crown.’ It is a nightmare of cognitive fallacies.”

I agree that there is a lot of confusion about WHO God is and HOW He has revealed Himself. But, that does not mean that He doesn’t exist. But, like all believers we kept searching until we arrived. There is only ONE TRUTH about God. Not all religions are equal. I realize that this statment might cause MORE confusion. But this revelation will come to you after a personal encounter with Him, like Thomas said.

“Science deals in observable facts. the god argument deals in literary methods, i.e. what type of god is represented in the literature and how best to express it, him, she….whatever.”

Science doesn’t ALWAYS deal in observable facts. That’s not ocrrect. It’s part of the reason why things are always changing in science. Take for instance the “planet” Pluto. For years we were told it was a planet. What happened there? Depression and anxiety are mental/emotional illnesses that are invisible. And God deals ONLY PARTIALLY in literary methods. He goes beyond something “written.” The written word is only a possible passageway to God. But the written word is NOT God. As Thomas says, you must experience it. It’s kind of like a movie that you haven’t seen that someone tells you, “You gotta go see that movie” (pardon the “seeing” metaphor). Until you see experience that movie, you will never understand.

“The fact that there needs to be a so called “god argument” should give all pause. Semantic debates get us nowhere.”

You’re right: Semantic debates get us nowhere. There IS NO God arguement. You need the proof, we don’t. You need to prove it, we don’t. No argument. Unitil you experience what is seen AND unseen, you will never understand. But, that does not mean that He does not exist. He’s not just limited to the 5 senses. People have SEEN God, they have HEARD Him, they have FELT Him, etc… ASk those people who have had a near-death experience, or who died and then were brought back.

Wrong Gordon God is to be experienced not ever really known.  Perhaps you will have this some day you will know him when it happens. God Bless and love.  Dr Thomas

Rafael wrote:
Are you being “judgemental,” calling my argument “silly”? I thought the religious people were the “judgemental” ones? And by what standards are you defining irrationality? You atheists have yet to still make a rational arguement for your position. You have YET to prove that God doesn’t exist. So, if anything, your arguments are “irrational” and based purely on “faith”.
—————————————-
Yes, I am judging your argument to be silly. You are accusing me of displaying traits, such as faith, which you display yourself. By doing this you are showing what you really think of the “faith” argument and are thus undermining your own position.
I don’t know about “irrationality standards” but I find it irrational to denigrate your opponent’s argument by accusing him of the traits you freely display yourself.
As for proving the non-existence of gods, I don’t need to do that. I merely don’t believe in their existence because I see very little evidence for them. Do you believe there’s an invisible ephemeral dragon under your bed? Can you prove he’s not there?

Dr Thomas, can you describe your experience of god?

Gordon said:

“Yes, I am judging your argument to be silly.”

Isn’t judging a moral criteria? Where do you get your morals from? Do you just create them? Do you just think that whatever YOU think is RIGHT? In essence, you are playing god: You’ve made yourself god. That’s faith: Beliving that YOU know everything.

“You are accusing me of displaying traits, such as faith, which you display yourself. By doing this you are showing what you really think of the ‘faith’ argument and are thus undermining your own position.”

Here’s the point: You’re the ones claiming NOT to have faith. You DO have faith. I am displaying faith. I DON’T hide it. But, to make that claim tha I have faith and you don’t because you DON’T practice any ESTABLISHED faith is calling the kettle black. Faith is based on beliefs. And your BELIEFS are based on the faith of Atheism. Not all faiths are equal. Just because you and I have DIFFERENT faiths does not mean that BOTH are equal in virtue. Everyone has a belief system based on their own positions, understandings, judgments, etc… What bothers atheists is ORGANIZED faith. 

“I don’t know about ‘irrationality standards’ but I find it irrational to denigrate your opponent’s argument by accusing him of the traits you freely display yourself.”

It’s not irrational if it’s TRUE. Rationality comes from logic, which is based on truth. I AM accusing you of practicing faith, a FALSE faith. But, faith nonetheless. You BELIEVE that God does not exist. That requires faith.

“As for proving the non-existence of gods, I don’t need to do that.”

I don’t need to prove the existence of God either. In this country we have that luxury: freedom of religion. You practice yours and I practice mine. Freely. I don’t impose it on you and you don’t impose it on me.

“I merely don’t believe in their existence because I see very little evidence for them. Do you believe there’s an invisible ephemeral dragon under your bed? Can you prove he’s not there?”

Ask a paranoid schizophrenic if they see people chasing them, or if they hear voices that you and I don’t hear. Are you going to tell them that it’s not “real” (to them) because YOU can’t see it?

Rafael wrote:
“Isn’t judging a moral criteria?”
Well, I don’t know about criteria but making decisions can be moral acts if they have effects on one’s fellow man. In this case my assessment of your argument as silly will have little effect one way or another. So if my assessment has a moral dimension it was a very small one.
Rafael wrote:
“Where do you get your morals from? Do you just create them? Do you just think that whatever YOU think is RIGHT? In essence, you are playing god: You’ve made yourself god. That’s faith: Beliving that YOU know everything.”
I think it likely that we have entirely different ideas about the origins and purposes of morality. Especially as my views on this matter are likely to be quite upsetting to you, and also because they are quite extensive, perhaps we should leave them for another time.
Rafael wrote:
“Here’s the point: You’re the ones claiming NOT to have faith. You DO have faith. I am displaying faith. I DON’T hide it. But, to make that claim tha I have faith and you don’t because you DON’T practice any ESTABLISHED faith is calling the kettle black. Faith is based on beliefs. And your BELIEFS are based on the faith of Atheism. Not all faiths are equal. Just because you and I have DIFFERENT faiths does not mean that BOTH are equal in virtue. Everyone has a belief system based on their own positions, understandings, judgments, etc… What bothers atheists is ORGANIZED faith.”
I don’t claim not to have faith in anything but I do claim that my atheism which is a lack of belief in gods is not a matter of faith. After all faith is belief without sufficient evidence. Lack of belief cannot be a faith. If it were you could be accused of having faith in the fictional nature of every fairy tale you’ve ever read. Now if you think your lack of belief in fairy tales can be described as a faith then I accept that in your concept of the idea of what faith means I have faith.
But I think you missed the point of my criticism. If you think faith is such a good thing why is it an issue for you whether I have faith or not? Why does it matter to you whether I believe my position on the existence of gods does not involve faith? I think it can only be because you think faith is a suspect position and when it comes to many important things you’re right of course.

Gordon wrote:

“Well, I don’t know about criteria but making decisions can be moral acts if they have effects on one’s fellow man.”

How so, unless there is an established criteria? And why should we care about one’s fellow man?

“In this case my assessment of your argument as silly will have little effect one way or another.”

That’s to be decided because maybe it DID have a bigger impact than you think. Unless there is a moral criteria that determines the level of effect. This brings us back to how one decides what is right or wrong.

“So if my assessment has a moral dimension it was a very small one.”

The degree of the effect is also subject to the moral dimension. In other words, for you to decide it was “small” requires a moral judgment.

“I think it likely that we have entirely different ideas about the origins and purposes of morality. Especially as my views on this matter are likely to be quite upsetting to you, and also because they are quite extensive, perhaps we should leave them for another time.”

In actuality, they’re not upsetting to me. Again that requires a revelation of some kind of moral code on your part which says that something “offensive” has happened. But, the point is that you DO have a moral code as evidenced by your concern that you might have offended me. And all I’m saying is that morality comes from somewhere. The definition of what is right and wrong comes from somewhere. We believe it has already been revealed. I believe atheists - and other non-Judeo/Christian faiths - believe that it’s relative, meaning that YOU decide what it is.

“I don’t claim not to have faith in anything but I do claim that my atheism which is a lack of belief in gods is not a matter of faith. After all faith is belief without sufficient evidence.”

That’s also not correct. According to Merriam-Webster, one of the definitions of “faith” is “something that is believed especially with strong conviction.” It does not specify that it has to be a belief in God. It can be. But, your strong convictions would qualify as faith. And everyone has “faith” in something - even oneself - which is typically the case for most atheists.

“Lack of belief cannot be a faith.”

If you did not have faith in something, you would not be able to function. You have faith in money when you go to a grocery store or purchase something. You have faith that even when you type your keyboard, the words will appear on the screen. You have faith when you drive a car and you go through a green light without hesitating because you “know” that the opposing traffic is stopped. You can see money, but you can’t “see the faith you have in it. You can “see” the cars stopped, but you can’t see that which cognitively allows you to keep driving. I can “see” behaviors, but I can’t see the “reason” or the motive which makes someone do soemthing. I can “see” behaviors. But, I can’t see will.

“If it were you could be accused of having faith in the fictional nature of every fairy tale you’ve ever read. Now if you think your lack of belief in fairy tales can be described as a faith then I accept that in your concept of the idea of what faith means I have faith.”

If I had faith in fairytales, then it would be a false faith - according to me - but faith nonetheless. Again, lack of belief is a false concept. Lack of belief in God is something. But, you still direct your faith either to yourself, science, etc…

“But I think you missed the point of my criticism. If you think faith is such a good thing why is it an issue for you whether I have faith or not?”

It’s not important to me that you share MY faith, or the Christian faith. That would be great for your sake. I think it would benefit you and all atheists. But, to DENY that you have a faith is the point I’m getting at. I have a particular faith. And so do you. I wish that you would share in my faith because I think it would be better for you. But, I’m not going to impose it upon you. I think the “faith” of atheism” is misguiding for your soul. But, you need to discover that.

“Why does it matter to you whether I believe my position on the existence of gods does not involve faith?”

That’s the point: Your position on the existence of God DOES involve faith as does the belief that God does not exist. BOTH require faith. It does not matter to me that you choose to follow your own personal belief about God’s non-existence. I just think it’s not wise. But, it’s still a strong conviction, which nakes it “faith.”

“I think it can only be because you think faith is a suspect position and when it comes to many important things you’re right of course.”

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “suspect position.” If you mean to say that my faith is “suspicious,” I could make the same claim about atheism. If you meant to say that it’s a subjective position, then your statement would also be based on a subjective morality, meaning that you decide what’s right. And that goes back to what I said earlier about a moral code of right and wrong.

Rafael wrote:

“How so, unless there is an established criteria? And why should we care about one’s fellow man
—
Perhaps I should have said more accurately that any action we take has a moral dimension if it affects our fellow man. We care about our fellow man because as social animals we are genetically programmed to do so and also because it is to our long term personal advantage to do so.
—
Rafael wrote:
“That’s to be decided because maybe it DID have a bigger impact than you think. Unless there is a moral criteria that determines the level of effect. This brings us back to how one decides what is right or wrong. The degree of the effect is also subject to the moral dimension. In other words, for you to decide it was “small” requires a moral judgment.”
—
Well we can only do what we can do. I made that judgement. I assessed it to have little effect.
—
Rafael wrote:
“In actuality, they’re not upsetting to me. Again that requires a revelation of some kind of moral code on your part which says that something “offensive” has happened. But, the point is that you DO have a moral code as evidenced by your concern that you might have offended me. And all I’m saying is that morality comes from somewhere. The definition of what is right and wrong comes from somewhere. We believe it has already been revealed. I believe atheists - and other non-Judeo/Christian faiths - believe that it’s relative, meaning that YOU decide what it is.”
—
My advice is don’t generalise about atheists. Actually many atheists will get their morals from the same sort of place you do. It’s just that you are probably under a false impression about how you make moral decisions.
—
Rafael wrote:
“That’s also not correct. According to Merriam-Webster, one of the definitions of “faith” is “something that is believed especially with strong conviction.” It does not specify that it has to be a belief in God. It can be. But, your strong convictions would qualify as faith. And everyone has “faith” in something - even oneself - which is typically the case for most atheists.”
If you did not have faith in something, you would not be able to function. You have faith in money when you go to a grocery store or purchase something. You have faith that even when you type your keyboard, the words will appear on the screen. You have faith when you drive a car and you go through a green light without hesitating because you “know” that the opposing traffic is stopped. You can see money, but you can’t “see the faith you have in it. You can “see” the cars stopped, but you can’t see that which cognitively allows you to keep driving. I can “see” behaviors, but I can’t see the “reason” or the motive which makes someone do soemthing. I can “see” behaviors. But, I can’t see will.
—
You seem to have failed to read my post. I specifically did not claim that I have no faith in anything. I only claim that lack of belief in gods does not require faith. I agree that faith has more than one dictionary definition. I was using the definition: belief that is not based on proof.

—
Rafael wrote:
If I had faith in fairytales, then it would be a false faith - according to me - but faith nonetheless. Again, lack of belief is a false concept. Lack of belief in God is something. But, you still direct your faith either to yourself, science, etc…
—
I will take your failure to confirm or deny that your lack of belief in fairy tales amounts to faith to be at least uncertainty that my lack of belief in gods is a question of faith.
—
Rafael wrote:
That’s the point: Your position on the existence of God DOES involve faith as does the belief that God does not exist. BOTH require faith. It does not matter to me that you choose to follow your own personal belief about God’s non-existence. I just think it’s not wise. But, it’s still a strong conviction, which nakes it “faith.”
—
Ah well, if you believe my lack of belief in gods is a matter of faith, presumably along with your lack of belief in all the things in which you don’t believe, that’s fine with me. But for other purposes I will continue to use faith in connection with beliefs rather than lack of beliefs as per dictionary definitions.
—
Rafael wrote:
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “suspect position.” If you mean to say that my faith is “suspicious,” I could make the same claim about atheism. If you meant to say that it’s a subjective position, then your statement would also be based on a subjective morality, meaning that you decide what’s right. And that goes back to what I said earlier about a moral code of right and wrong.
—
I meant that having belief without proof is going to get you into trouble more often than only believing that which can be demonstrated to be factual.
Before you decide to nit pick about definitions again, I was using “suspect” as meaning of doubtful value or unwise.

Gordon said:

“Perhaps I should have said more accurately that any action we take has a moral dimension if it affects our fellow man. We care about our fellow man because as social animals we are genetically programmed to do so and also because it is to our long term personal advantage to do so.”

How does one “care about our fellow man”? How do I know what’s good for your fellow man? Caring involves some sort of awareness of evil. How can you prove that we are “genetically programmed”? According to Darwin, it’s survival of the fittest.
 
—

“My advice is don’t generalize about atheists. Actually many atheists will get their morals from the same sort of place you do. It’s just that you are probably under a false impression about how you make moral decisions.

I don’t generalize in the sense that I see that everyone is unique. But, a denial of God is the common factor, common denominator. Many people tend to generalize Jews and Catholics and Baptists, etc… Their beliefs are common. But, not all individual Catholic/Jewish/Baptists are alike. I also understand that there are many reasons WHY someone would be an atheist: Anger with God, never introduced to a particular faith, etc… But, the end result is still the same: Denial of God’s existence. And to say that “many atheists will get their morals from the same sort of place you do,” is contradictory because if there is NO God – which is where we get our morals from – then you are admitting that morals do come from somewhere: except for God. And you cannot separate the two. The morals we follow are good BECAUSE they come from God. They’re not self-contrived rules of good and bad behavior. According to you, then atheists high-jacked our moral codes and threw out God. It’s kind of like looking at the beauty that exists in nature and not recognizing the artist. 

—

“You seem to have failed to read my post. I specifically did not claim that I have no faith in anything. I only claim that lack of belief in gods does not require faith. I agree that faith has more than one dictionary definition. I was using the definition: belief that is not based on proof.”

But, it’s still belief. And belief is rooted in conviction. And that’s the point: Whether you believe you have no faith or not, you DO have faith – even if it’s “belief that is not based on proof.” Even if your belief is based on proof, it’s still a belief. Your faith needs the proof, we don’t. Let me put it to you this way: You Believe because you see. That’s your criteria for believing: You have to see it. So if you see it, then you believe. That’s a belief system. And you put your faith in that. But, to deny it’s NOT faith is the point. It is faith, faith based on being able to measure something. I’m curious: if the objective of science is to be objective, how come they are not willing to explore the possibility that the world could have been created by God? Yet, it seems that they are so eager to not count God as part of the equation. That’s NOT being objective. Objectivity means that you search for truth wherever you may find it – even in Christianity or Judaism. It seems that science has already rules out the possibility - and make it a point to continue doing it.

—
“I will take your failure to confirm or deny that your lack of belief in fairy tales amounts to faith to be at least uncertainty that my lack of belief in gods is a question of faith.”

I would believe in fairy tales – if they were part of the faith. And many fairy tales are used precisely to teach a moral lesson. The bible utilizes a lot of “stories” sometimes called “parables” which were used by Jesus to teach a moral lesson. They were situations completely contrived by Jesus for that point. You also have to look at the artistic quality in fairy tales. If someone depicts a painting of a person – or a monster, alien -  out of their creativity, then it’s an artistic expression of something – maybe from a dream or an imagination. If a person is completely logical, then how can they explain “beauty” or a “musical symphony”? How is beauty measured? Yet, does it cease to exists because we can’t measure it, particularly its meaning? All artists have imagination. And it’s from here that fairy tales and movies are created. And imagination is a gift from God that cannot be seen either. So, if imagination can’t be seen, can we conclude that it doesn’t exist?

—

“Ah well, if you believe my lack of belief in gods is a matter of faith, presumably along with your lack of belief in all the things in which you don’t believe, that’s fine with me.  But for other purposes I will continue to use faith in connection with beliefs rather than lack of beliefs as per dictionary definitions.”

Lack of belief in gods does not mean that you have no faith: It just means that you don’t believe in God. But, you believe and put you faith in something/someone – even if it’s observable science.

—
“I meant that having belief without proof is going to get you into trouble more often than only believing that which can be demonstrated to be factual.
Before you decide to nit pick about definitions again, I was using ‘suspect’ as meaning of doubtful value or unwise.”

Thank you for the clarification. As for doubtful value, the atheists – generally speaking – have yet to give proof as to God’s non-existence. They are the ones trying to create doubt. They are the ones trying to decide the criteria by which God MUST reveal himself. In other words, they are the ones setting up the rules of the game. But, who made them rulers of the universe? Who put them in charge? Are they self-appointed? Other than the “seeing” argument, is there any other proof that you can come up that is 100% proof that He does not exist? And whatever criteria you use will STILL recognize some kind of understanding of God. For example, if you say that “God does not exists because there is suffering in the world,” well then you have an understanding of God that says that “God does not allow suffering.” If you believe that God does not exist because you can’t see Him, then you have a definition of God that says “He must be seen in order to exist.” It’s kind of like this: “I have decided that in order for God to exist. He must be available to the senses. Therefore, since I cannot see/feel/hear/taste/touch Him, then I must conclude that He does not exist.” The point being is that you have a belief about God – that He must be seen. That’s a belief. Therefore, you live your life according to that belief and you put your faith in things that confirm your belief: That which must be seen.

@Rafael:
“How does one “care about our fellow man”? How do I know what’s good for your fellow man? Caring involves some sort of awareness of evil. How can you prove that we are “genetically programmed”? According to Darwin, it’s survival of the fittest.”
 
—
In order to care about your fellows you need only surrender to your natural empathic tendency gifted to you by the evolutionary process. The fact that you may have a false idea about what would be best for your fellow man doesn’t prevent you caring. Why don’t you ask him what he thinks would be best? As for proof of genetic programming, well I never had a biology lesson but I guess that if a whole human being can grow from a single microscopic fertilised egg that shows that the instructions, (that is the program), must be there.
As for the phrase “survival of the fittest”, it’s catchy but unfortunate. A better, (though less catchy), phrase might be: “survival of the most suited to the local environment”. For a social animal the environment includes the social group. Those most suited to that environment are more likely to survive I guess.
—
“A denial of God is the common factor, common denominator.”
—
Most atheists merely lack belief in gods. They don’t deny them. They have no way of proving their non-existence. They just think they’re very unlikely because of the lack of evidence. Just think of your own lack of belief in Zeus or Shiva then you’ll have the idea.
—
“And to say that “many atheists will get their morals from the same sort of place you do,” is contradictory because if there is NO God – which is where we get our morals from – then you are admitting that morals do come from somewhere: except for God. And you cannot separate the two. The morals we follow are good BECAUSE they come from God.”
—
I understand you believe you get your morals from God but I don’t believe this is so. Think back. Are you sure there was a time when god handed you your moral code? I suggest you got your code from other people the same as I did. You may have modified it slightly to improve its facility in your own circumstances based on your experience but you got it from other people.
—
“But, it’s still belief. And belief is rooted in conviction. And that’s the point: Whether you believe you have no faith or not, you DO have faith – even if it’s “belief that is not based on proof.” Even if your belief is based on proof, it’s still a belief. Your faith needs the proof, we don’t. Let me put it to you this way: You Believe because you see. That’s your criteria for believing: You have to see it. So if you see it, then you believe. That’s a belief system. And you put your faith in that. But, to deny it’s NOT faith is the point. It is faith, faith based on being able to measure something.”
—
I see I have been unable to convince you that lack of belief is not faith. I certainly have faith in the efficacy of evidence and the principle of only believing in things for which there is a good deal of empirical or deductive evidence. And I have never denied that I have this faith.
—
“I’m curious: if the objective of science is to be objective, how come they are not willing to explore the possibility that the world could have been created by God? Yet, it seems that they are so eager to not count God as part of the equation. That’s NOT being objective. Objectivity means that you search for truth wherever you may find it – even in Christianity or Judaism. It seems that science has already rules out the possibility - and make it a point to continue doing it.”
—
I believe the objective of science is knowledge about the nature of everything. However, I can’t speak for scientists. I don’t know whether they have investigated the possibility of gods or to what extent they have rejected the possibility. Atheistic scientists are like other atheists, they tend to believe in the efficacy of evidence.
—
“If a person is completely logical, then how can they explain “beauty” or a “musical symphony”? How is beauty measured? Yet, does it cease to exists because we can’t measure it, particularly its meaning? All artists have imagination. And it’s from here that fairy tales and movies are created. And imagination is a gift from God that cannot be seen either. So, if imagination can’t be seen, can we conclude that it doesn’t exist?”
—
Nobody is completely logical. We have all been gifted with emotions and instincts by the evolutionary process. Aesthetics do appeal mainly to our emotional side. The products of imagination can be observed so the existence of imagination can be deduced. This is probably deemed sufficient proof of its existence.
—
“Lack of belief in gods does not mean that you have no faith: It just means that you don’t believe in God. But, you believe and put you faith in something/someone – even if it’s observable science.”
—
Again you don’t seem to read what I wrote. I never claimed to have no faith in anything.
—
“Thank you for the clarification. As for doubtful value, the atheists – generally speaking – have yet to give proof as to God’s non-existence. They are the ones trying to create doubt. They are the ones trying to decide the criteria by which God MUST reveal himself. In other words, they are the ones setting up the rules of the game. But, who made them rulers of the universe? Who put them in charge? Are they self-appointed? Other than the “seeing” argument, is there any other proof that you can come up that is 100% proof that He does not exist? And whatever criteria you use will STILL recognize some kind of understanding of God. For example, if you say that “God does not exists because there is suffering in the world,” well then you have an understanding of God that says that “God does not allow suffering.” If you believe that God does not exist because you can’t see Him, then you have a definition of God that says “He must be seen in order to exist.” It’s kind of like this: “I have decided that in order for God to exist. He must be available to the senses. Therefore, since I cannot see/feel/hear/taste/touch Him, then I must conclude that He does not exist.” The point being is that you have a belief about God – that He must be seen. That’s a belief. Therefore, you live your life according to that belief and you put your faith in things that confirm your belief: That which must be seen.”
—
My scepticism is not confined to gods. There are few things I believe in without evidence. I do not conclude that gods don’t exist. I merely conclude that it’s very unlikely due to lack of evidence.

Hear ye, Hear ye, all comers of faith.

Rom 10:17 (NIV) Faith comes by hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Rom 10:17 (Phi) Faith, you see, can only come from hearing the message, and the message is the word of Christ.

Rom 10:17 (Wey) And this proves that faith comes from a Message heard, and that the Message comes through having been spoken by Christ.

All these arguments about debating atheism is a rabbit trail for theists. You cant prove faith, your not required to question faith, and it is a message that can only be heard. It is individualistic and personal.

As an atheist, I simply have not heard the message yet, so what is the debate?

Yes morality is found only within the confines of Catholicism. That is why there are children and adults forever scarred by child molestation by someone that they were told they should trust. That is why Popes have led soldiers to war, had papal “nephews”, and chose not to speak out against the Nazis. Or was it from the book that tells us that slavery is ok, that demonstrates incest, that has God commanded that babies be dashed to bits, the one that says to stone a woman to death in her fathers doorway if on her wedding night it is found she is not a virgin, the book that says that God sent bears to kill children for making fun of a bald man?

Morality is not morality because God says so. If this is what you actually believe then your morality is forced from fear rather than fostered out of respect for your fellow man.

I am fine with Catholics believing as they choose. That is a right we should all have. I know some good people who are Catholics. They cherry pick the bible and your doctrines as they see fit of course but they still claim to keep the faith. When I start having a problem with any group is when they have horribly uninformed spokespeople like you attempting to claim morality as your sovereign property. The Atheists I know (which is more than a few) are good moral people who care more about their fellow man and the plights of those who have little power to defend themselves than the majority of Christians I know. They are well educated and have read more about religion than most of their friends who believe. We read your book. We read it put it down and picked up another again and again. We will continue picking up and reading, and studying, and learning about everything we can because as important as you think your book is there are myriad religions which believe the same, come of which predate yours.

I know the Catholic church has amassed wealth, and land, and treasures throughout history. You’ve sold tickets to heaven to fleece the public out of countless millions. But do you really find it necessary to attempt to grab the idea of morality (which BTW existed in places that had never heard of Judaism or Christianity long before Yahweh made his covenant with man) from the rest of us?

More apologetic nonsense.  Wake me up when a Christian makes a falsifiable claim.

Curious as to why atheists read a Catholic article in a Catholic
magazine. Was this an assignment? From what kind of institution?
In what subject?

“Wake me up when a Christian makes a falsifiable claim”. So a god that we could perform experiments on. Take his temperature. Measure his width and height and depth. Take his pH. Measure his electrical potential. That is a god athiests would believe in. But it would not be God. It would not be beyond us. It would not be able to create everything. It would not be omniscient. Nor omnipresent. Nor the source of all truth and beauty and love and morality and reason. God though his infinite love revealed himself to us in creation and more directly though the Jewish people and then finally through Jesus his Only Son and his Church. I believe in this God and not in a god that we could put in a centrifuge and measure the various parts. For God has no parts. He is pure spirit. Hard for our finite brains to comprehend and it always reamin hard to comprehend for our brains will always be finite. Yes scientists have made wonderful discoveries and will continue to do so but we should humbly realize that we are finite and always will be.

@ Liddy,
I saw the story on a news feed. I’m guessing that’s where a lot of other atheists saw it.

@ Morriec,
A falsifiable claim just is just a claim that could be proven wrong under some practical circumstance. It doesn’t mean that you should be able to give us something to put in a Bunsen burner that we can boil down into God; it just means that if you want us to take your claims seriously, then it should be a claim that we can test. We should be able to say, “If that’s true, then X should also be true,” where X is something that we can actually verify. If you can’t think of an X that you would accept in that statement, then there’s really nothing to discuss.

@Liddy
“Curious as to why atheists read a Catholic article in a Catholic
magazine”.
—-
Speaking for myself, I have a job of surfing for news stories that might be of interest to atheists. This news story contained the word “atheism” in the title and so came up in my search.

I found both the story and the comments interesting but misguided sufficiently to join in the conversation.

Atheism is intellectually dishonest, perhaps misguided. They can not know which they do not know or have the ability the transendant. God bless.
Thomas

@ Dr. Thomas
Atheism is not a claim of certainty of God’s non-existence. It is possible that God exists, but his existence is so unlikely that I would find it foolish to base any of my decisions on that possibility.

I have to wonder, though, why you think that atheism is a claim to know that God does not exist. Where does that come from?

“Dr Thomas” writes, “Atheism is intellectually dishonest, perhaps misguided. They can not know which they do not know or have the ability the transendant.”

So says the man who refuses to believe in Quetzalcoatl, Lord Krishna (avatar of Vishnu), Isis, Ra, Thor, Zeus, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ishtar, or another of hundreds of other gods and goddesses.

Here’s the deal, Dr. Thomas, atheists don’t buy your claims for your god for the simple reason that you’re not producing the goods (that’s all “atheism” means). I wish I’d written the following statement, but I picked it up from an atheist’s (Brian Westley) response in another discussion, and it puts the point so clearly and concisely: “All you (or anyone else) needs to do is show that your god exists; everything else is misdirection.”