Why I Am No Longer An Atheist

[Nihil Obstat]

That comment wan't worthy of your own intellect Nihil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It was not an argument. If I wanted to make an argument it would have been longer than one sentence.

Or else I would have just cut and pasted some Summa Theologica. That always works.

[Nihil Obstat]

It was worthy of his ego.

:smile3: What ego? You must have me confused with somebody else. 

[PhuturePriest]

Ya I just had this conversation with my dude I play poker with out here in Vegas. He's agnostic and we talk about God. He says he's agnostic because he doesn't know. He says he chooses to live a moral life because the possiblity exist that God could be real.

 

Anybody see the contradictions?

Edited December 12, 2012 by FuturePriest387

[theculturewarrior]

Most people on the planet do not believe in the Christian god. From an evolutionary perspective does this mean the Christian god does not exist?
 Rather than becoming a theist because of belief in a god, you choose to believe in god because you think there are health benefits?The Catholic Church's theory of god comes from 2,000 years of interpreting and reinterpreting some very old books (which hundreds of other churches interpret differently), the old testament of which has many stories of war, rape, incest, murder and much of this coming from the supposedly all loving, incapable of evil god. Concepts of free will, morality, good, evil, original sin, eucharist, judgement, heaven, hell, ... not convoluted at all :-)
 

 
 

 

 

 

Please note that the title of this thread is not why I am Catholic or why I am a Christian.  Rather, it is why I am no longer an atheist.  So, my original post was not an argument for a Christian God, although I am Catholic.  Theism is the foundation of that.  Moreover, I do not consider Ockham's Razor to prove much of anything except in an intuitive, personal way.  And I am satisfied with that.

 

In regards to your first point, I don't think that your question really relates to this.  The point in my first post was that humans are fundamentally religious animals.  My evidence for this was that people of faith show several health benefits.  That in itself is not an argument for theism.  The balance of prehistory to history makes your question irrelevant.  Christianity is not a trait like a bipedal gait or prehensile hands.  The predisposition to faith is though.  That is one reason why I chose to believe in God, and the health benefits are a very nice fringe benefit of that.

 

The predisposition to fiath in itself is also not an argument for theism.  It is evidence that faith is an adaptive trait.  Case in point, I am sure that Buddhists enjoy the same health benefits and Buddhism at its core is an atheistic religion. And before your ask, note that the title of this thread is not "Why I am not a Buddhist"

[theculturewarrior]

A clumsy nutshell; but sufficient for succinctness.

 

Innocents’ suffering is an obstacle in reality to the version of a Just God proffered by Christianity.

 

 

Lots of very good points, but I think we need to move the problem of suffering to another thread.

[Anomaly]

culture,

I'm not speaking for stevil, but I'm confused about what response you were expecting when you chose the Debate Table.  Maybe you meant to post on Transmundane Lame? :)  :)  It's been a relatively good convo tho.  Would have been brilliant if we were kicking it by the pool w/ beer, chips, and hummis.

[theculturewarrior]

We are talking about the choice in believing in the existence of a God.  Atheists and agnostics have to deal with the version of God that is explained and justified to them by Theists. 

 

Catholics say He is involved and active in our lives and loves us all unconditionally.  Where is he when a child was swept from a mother's arms in the Japan tsunami?  Where is he when a child molestation victim screams for oblivion from their torture?  Where is he during the countless agonies innocent humans suffer through no fault of their own and beg for peace or release?  Theists rely on an unprovable and completely undetectable fantasy of another plane of existence where everything is made right for the "believers".  Theists believe those who chose to not believe in this mythical construct called God will be tortured for infinity.   Hasan made a joke days ago saying something like "Love and worship me or suffer torture for eternity."

 

I look around and see many loving good people who are avowed aethiests or agnostics, rejecting religion and their version of a God, but expending their human energies to comfort a greiving mother, swim for a lost child, fight for a victim.  They 've chosen to do good in this reality as opposed to waiting for God's revenge for the injustices they've suffered in another "reality".  Just as clearly, I see Catholics do as much to feed, clothe, and comfort the unfortunate because they think they're doing God's work. 

 

We all can produce stories of Christians killing in God's name or His cause.  We all can produce stories of atheists inflicting murder and mayhem by right of their ability to do so.  It's doesn't matter to me whether you have an imaginary buddy, or just your inner whims that directs your actions. 

 

So what's the difference in the effect, other than the motivation?

 

 

 

My point when I originally addressed this is that the human suffering argument ignores human potential to alleviate suffering.  I recognize that suffering exists, very terrible things that I have seen with my own eyes.  The question for me is not what do I believe but how do I respond?  I do believe that there are very moral, generous, and compassionate people who have rejected theism and organized religion.  I have no doubt about that.  However, Christianity is largely a response to the problem of human suffering, in an active and thoughtful way.  I think that the reason that this is not widely discussed is because many people have forgotten what the Cross means.  It is the fault of Christians largely.  I hope to post about that when I get my focus back.

[theculturewarrior]

culture,

I'm not speaking for stevil, but I'm confused about what response you were expecting when you chose the Debate Table.  Maybe you meant to post on Transmundane Lame? :)  :)  It's been a relatively good convo tho.  Would have been brilliant if we were kicking it by the pool w/ beer, chips, and hummis.

 

 

I posted this here because I do want it to be discussed, and it would be debated no matter where I posted it.  To a certain extent, because of my academic background, I find debate somewhat cliche.  It is my own character flaw.

 

I posted this here to show that Christianity does have an intellectual foundation, and hopefully to get people thinking.

 

I think I did answer stevil's questions though.  If I did not, please let me know where.

Edited December 12, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[Papist]

A clumsy nutshell; but sufficient for succinctness.

 

Innocents’ suffering is an obstacle in reality to the version of a Just God proffered by Christianity.

 

ok. Then if God does not exist, what drives the person to do good and avoid evil?

[Fidei Defensor]

ok. Then if God does not exist, what drives the person to do good and avoid evil?

 

That's not a good path to take because what is considered "good" is usually things that preserve survival, and vice versa with 
"evil." It is very reductionist to think of it that way, but there is no need for a deity for that system to work. 

[theculturewarrior]

Are you familiar with Kierkegaard's views on faith?

 

What I liked most about Kierkegaard was the colorful imagery he used.

[Nihil Obstat]

What I liked most about Kierkegaard was the colorful imagery he used.

 

I was really struck by his depiction of the Knight of Faith.

[theculturewarrior]

I should reread him but my brain is tired.

[stevil]

I posted this here to show that Christianity does have an intellectual foundation, and hopefully to get people thinking.

I’m not sure what the intellectual foundation could be.
Christianity proclaims faith and belief as important foundational traits.
It proclaims god as the authority that must be obeyed.
The Catholic church proclaims the church as the authority via proxy from god.

At no point does any Catholicism nor Christianity in general state that intelligence is a requirement.

Atheism for that matter has no intellectual foundation either.
The most unintellictual people (case in point – new born babies) can be lacking a belief in gods.

The claim to god is unclear and unfalsifiable. There is nothing currently presented within the definition of god (and all that it entails) that is observable, measurable or testable.

The religious claim that god created everything, the scientists show how planets and stars formed (without need for a god), they say it is based on the laws governing existence and how it determines the behaviour of energy and matter.
The religious claim that god created the laws and created energy and matter.
The scientists say how quantum fluctuations may have created energy and matter.
The religious claim that god created the quantum vacuum which defines quantum fluctuations.

One side looking for evidence via observations, the other defaulting to “what ever it was, god did it”

Intelligence has nothing to do with belief. Many people chose to believe regardless of the lack of evidence. In fact belief requires a lack of evidence, otherwise it would be fact.

[BigJon16]

Intelligence has nothing to do with belief. Many people chose to believe regardless of the lack of evidence. In fact belief requires a lack of evidence, otherwise it would be fact.

 

 

 

I would argue that lack of belief takes a bit of faith too. To look at a work of art and say that there was no artist who created it takes a bit of faith. To go even further and say that the art was created by a one in a million chance of specific things lining up in a perfect way takes even more faith.

 

 

But to look at that art and say rather, "well obviously, someone created that" is quite simple. It's quite logical. No, it doesn't involve the most intelligent of minds to understand it. I mean, even I can understand it. :P   

 

 

 

As for all the science stuff, I suggest you check out a not so well known yet highly influential physicist. Meet Father Georges:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

And meet his brothers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists

 

 

:)