Grief For Athiests

[Era Might]

A Christian is one who has hope. That is what makes a Christian a Christian. I guess non-Christians can put things delicately for children, but that's all just beside the point. We assume that non-Christians have no hope, whether they phrase it in stoic bravery or secular realism. All Christians can do is witness to the hope that is in them, which is Christ and nothing else. We do not hope in an afterlife, which is a hopeless hope where we project ourselves, a sort of Life pt. 2. Instead, we hope in Christ the man.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Era Might

[HisChildForever]

Just out of curiosity, would you consider that a Catholic wasn't being honest if they had answered with a flat out yes, there is an afterlife? Because after all, there's no way you can be 100% positive. Do you think Catholic (or Christian of any stripe) parents should tell their children, "we believe there is an afterlife but some don't and it's what you believe in your heart that's important."

 

I would focus on "we believe" statements. And if questions ever arose about someone else's religion (or non-religion), I'd tell them that it's important to understand not everyone shares our faith. Then when the questions come about why are they different from us, I'd tell them not to focus so much on the other person's faith but about the joy we get from ours.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

A Christian is one who has hope. That is what makes a Christian a Christian. I guess non-Christians can put things delicately for children, but that's all just beside the point. We assume that non-Christians have no hope, whether they phrase it in stoic bravery or secular realism. All Christians can do is witness to the hope that is in them, which is Christ and nothing else. We do not hope in an afterlife, which is a hopeless hope where we project ourselves, a sort of Life pt. 2. Instead, we hope in Christ the man.

 

It's interesting to see the different perspectives on this topic. Btw, when were you a mod? How did I miss this?

Edited July 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Era Might]

It's interesting to see the different perspectives on this topic. Btw, when were you a mod? How did I miss this?

 

When laws were stern and justice stood, and people were behaving like they ought to: good.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I would focus on "we believe" statements. And if questions ever arose about someone else's religion (or non-religion), I'd tell them that it's important to understand not everyone shares our faith. Then when the questions come about why are they different from us, I'd tell them not to focus so much on the other person's faith but about the joy we get from ours.

 

Lol, that would be harder to say verbatim as an atheist.

 

Statements like, "we believe there is no afterlife" or "there is no afterlife" will have similar effects on a child. There are better ways to go about explaining that there's no afterlife. I don't know if sugarcoating it is a better option. This brings me back to the Dawkins thread. I can see parallels, though I think the idea of eternal hellfire is more damaging than that of nonexistence. I'm mainly conflicted because I would prefer to let my children read a bunch and come up with their own conclusions about such questions. 

[Anomaly]

I'm mainly conflicted because I would prefer to let my children read a bunch and come up with their own conclusions about such questions.

Why would you just abandon your children to other people's opinion and supposition? In reality, individuals know little for sure. Scientists operate under reasonable theories and suppositions. Have you seem an electron or proton? You accept others work in theory as reasonable and worthy of acceptance. An atheist is exactly like a Christian, accepting the unprovable as a fact to believe.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Why would you just abandon your children to other people's opinion and supposition? In reality, individuals know little for sure. Scientists operate under reasonable theories and suppositions. Have you seem an electron or proton? You accept others work in theory as reasonable and worthy of acceptance. An atheist is exactly like a Christian, accepting the unprovable as a fact to believe.

 

Hey there! This is a good question. In my opinion, the question of the existence of a divine entity is a very important one. Ideally, I would want my children to read through various religious texts and views on the existence of God before they make a decision. I'd prefer that they explore this issue for themselves instead of have me tell them what to believe. 

 

I don't know if we can say that not seeing an electron or a proton is the same as not seeing a God. We can see the effects of an electron and our knowledge of protons and electrons has real world applications. Also, our understanding of science can change. If a bunch of new findings come out suggesting that what we know about gravity is wrong, we won't hold on to the same old ideas. Here's a portion of an article because I'm too lazy to summarize:

 

 

Ernest Rutherford fired alpha particles (other tiny things you can’t see!) at gold foil and looked at the pattern the particles made after hitting the foil. This pattern indicated that the atoms of gold had a closely packed, positively charged nucleus. The reasoning behind this picture of an atom had to do with the fact that alpha particles are positively charged and would be repelled by a positively charged nucleus. Although most alpha particles went straight through the gold foil, some “bounced off” at sharp angles, even to the point of heading back in the direction from which they came. Only a closely packed, positively charged, nucleus of a gold atom could accomplish this.

 

This experiment, plus many others like it, plus observations of chemical reactions, nuclear reactions, and the light that substances emit, all combine to give us a particular picture of what atoms look like. Just as with that dark room in which you can’t turn on the lights, though, we cannot isolate a single atom and look directly at it to see if our drawings are correct.

 

The important thing is that everything we observe is consistent with our current view of atoms. The same statement goes for all sorts of other scientific models, such as quarks, electric and magnetic fields, and black holes. They’re useful models because they explain our observations and help us predict new observations.

 

http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=51054

 

I wouldn't say an atheist necessarily accepts unprovable facts. As we discussed earlier, labels can be misleading. My definition of an atheist is merely someone who doesn't believe in a higher power. I would never claim that a god doesn't exist. My answer is simply, "I don't know". 

Edited July 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Era Might]

I would want my children to read through various religious texts and views on the existence of God before they make a decision. I'd prefer that they explore this issue for themselves instead of have me tell them what to believe. 

 

What room does that leave for surprise in life? Life's too short, in my experience, to be afraid to enter it. Everyone needs a community to grow into, and maybe to grow out of. All religions grow out of some community context, and even within Christianity, there is no such thing as a "general Christian." Christians are shaped by their particular communities, particular saints, particular historical circumstances, etc.

 

To put all this another way, St. Paul could never have been knocked off his horse if he had never gotten on one with his pre-existing zeal. Love, too, does not exist in a vacuum. Love is the result of relationship, not the creator of one.  You grow to love a person because you know them already, because you have decided to go on the journey with them already.

 

Personally, I think science is a very poor model for life. Scientists chase facts, not meaning. And even scientists are only able to find facts once they enter the community of science, with all its rituals, sacrifices, relationships, guiding principles, etc.

 

It's unfortunate when we don't have a soil to grow into: cultural soil, literary soil, religious soil, family soil. You only get about 100 years if you're lucky, why waste it trying to be a "generic person."

[Guest]

It's not a lie if you believe it. Judging the "harshness" of what she said is impossible without knowing the context of the entire conversation.

It's a lie if Catholic adults say mom is in heaven with God and angels looking down on you when the Catholic "truth" is:
-Few get to heaven.
-Only God knows His final judgement.
-Mom may be in hell regenerating flesh that will be burned away for eternal agony.
-Mom may be in suffering in Purgatory for a million years in agony for temporal imperfections.
-Grandson faces the same agony that will last much longer than imaginable in the best case scenario when he inevitably dies.
-Odds are slim if grandson will ever see his mom again even if there is an afterlife.

hahha word....what hope !

[Anomaly]

Hey there! This is a good question. In my opinion, the question of the existence of a divine entity is a very important one. Ideally, I would want my children to read through various religious texts and views on the existence of God before they make a decision. I'd prefer that they explore this issue for themselves instead of have me tell them what to believe.

I don't know if we can say that not seeing an electron or a proton is the same as not seeing a God. We can see the effects of an electron and our knowledge of protons and electrons has real world applications. Also, our understanding of science can change. If a bunch of new findings come out suggesting that what we know about gravity is wrong, we won't hold on to the same old ideas.

I wouldn't say an atheist necessarily accepts unprovable facts. As we discussed earlier, labels can be misleading. My definition of an atheist is merely someone who doesn't believe in a higher power. I would never claim that a god doesn't exist. My answer is simply, "I don't know".

Agnostic is not atheist. The human experience of life is more than energized matter interacting in sophisticated and measurable reactions. My happiness in my children's laughter is more than a carbon based entity physiologically reacting to vibrations in the atmosphere. Just because I, and they, will eventually cease to exist, doesn't make it meaningless to us now. That meaning and value to our current (temporary) existence does not require or lend itself to scientific physical measurement and "proof" to be real. Reason, rational logic, and observation provides self aware individuals to means comprehend and experience our shared existence of things that can't be distilled in apparatus.
If a tree falls in a forest without witness, does it mean it never stood previously and grew from a sapling? Human intellect can imagine and appreciate the beauty of its leaves many summers previously without ever sitting in its shade or counting its leaves.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Agnostic is not atheist. 

 

You're right. Agnosticism answers the epistemological question of whether we can, or ever will be able to, know whether God exists. Atheism answers whether one believes in a god. That's why one can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. 

 

 

 

The human experience of life is more than energized matter interacting in sophisticated and measurable reactions. My happiness in my children's laughter is more than a carbon based entity physiologically reacting to vibrations in the atmosphere. Just because I, and they, will eventually cease to exist, doesn't make it meaningless to us now. That meaning and value to our current (temporary) existence does not require or lend itself to scientific physical measurement and "proof" to be real. Reason, rational logic, and observation provides self aware individuals to means comprehend and experience our shared existence of things that can't be distilled in apparatus. 
If a tree falls in a forest without witness, does it mean it never stood previously and grew from a sapling? Human intellect can imagine and appreciate the beauty of its leaves many summers previously without ever sitting in its shade or counting its leaves.

 

Very well written. Agreed.

Edited July 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

What room does that leave for surprise in life? Life's too short, in my experience, to be afraid to enter it. Everyone needs a community to grow into, and maybe to grow out of. All religions grow out of some community context, and even within Christianity, there is no such thing as a "general Christian." Christians are shaped by their particular communities, particular saints, particular historical circumstances, etc.

 

To put all this another way, St. Paul could never have been knocked off his horse if he had never gotten on one with his pre-existing zeal. Love, too, does not exist in a vacuum. Love is the result of relationship, not the creator of one.  You grow to love a person because you know them already, because you have decided to go on the journey with them already.

 

Personally, I think science is a very poor model for life. Scientists chase facts, not meaning. And even scientists are only able to find facts once they enter the community of science, with all its rituals, sacrifices, relationships, guiding principles, etc.

 

It's unfortunate when we don't have a soil to grow into: cultural soil, literary soil, religious soil, family soil. You only get about 100 years if you're lucky, why waste it trying to be a "generic person."

 

Lol, I must really suhck at expressing my views because so far I've gotten two responses that I mostly agree with. 

Edited July 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

What room does that leave for surprise in life? Life's too short, in my experience, to be afraid to enter it. Everyone needs a community to grow into, and maybe to grow out of. All religions grow out of some community context, and even within Christianity, there is no such thing as a "general Christian." Christians are shaped by their particular communities, particular saints, particular historical circumstances, etc.

 

To put all this another way, St. Paul could never have been knocked off his horse if he had never gotten on one with his pre-existing zeal. Love, too, does not exist in a vacuum. Love is the result of relationship, not the creator of one.  You grow to love a person because you know them already, because you have decided to go on the journey with them already.

 

Personally, I think science is a very poor model for life. Scientists chase facts, not meaning. And even scientists are only able to find facts once they enter the community of science, with all its rituals, sacrifices, relationships, guiding principles, etc.

 

It's unfortunate when we don't have a soil to grow into: cultural soil, literary soil, religious soil, family soil. You only get about 100 years if you're lucky, why waste it trying to be a "generic person."

 

I reread your post and I think I might understand it more now. I still don't really disagree with it. It's a valid point. I believe a child can still grow in a non-religious community. I'm not opposed to taking my child through religious schooling. The way I was brought up was Catholic, true, but I didn't actually take it seriously until I made the decision. I think the reason why great Christian writers like Chesterton were so sure of their faith was because they went through a spiritual journey. It'll be hard for me not to influence my children with my belief system, mainly because I can't answer every question with, "some people say this, others say this". However, I would prefer that I help them learn about many religions at an age when they can actually decide for themselves. Whether my children end up as Hindus, Christians, Atheists, or Muslims, they'll be sure of their beliefs and understand how they relate to the beliefs of others. 

Edited August 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Guest]

Have your children believe in Love...Its a good start...If they have that they will be ok...

[Era Might]

I reread your post and I think I might understand it more now. I still don't really disagree with it. It's a valid point. I believe a child can still grow in a non-religious community. I'm not opposed to taking my child through religious schooling. The way I was brought up was Catholic, true, but I didn't actually take it seriously until I made the decision. I think the reason why great Christian writers like Chesterton were so sure of their faith was because they went through a spiritual journey. It'll be hard for me not to influence my children with my belief system, mainly because I can't answer every question with, "some people say this, others say this". However, I would prefer that I help them learn about many religions at an age when they can actually decide for themselves. Whether my children end up as Hindus, Christians, Atheists, or Muslims, they'll be sure of their beliefs and understand how they relate to the beliefs of others. 

 

I think is probably more an issue of what it means to be a man and a father than what it means to be a Christian. I look at it the opposite way...I don't think fathers should be hands-off and let their kids grow into a life, but should hand on what is essential in themselves, and let their children move away if necessary, because you can always call them back.

 

One way to look at this is what are the important things in life (from the perspective of being a father)? I'd say it's teaching your kids what it means to have obligations, what it means to be faithful, what it means to be humble, what it means to suffer, what it means to live and die. Religions do not create these things, they are ways of experiencing them. I don't see how these things can be delayed...that one day, your children can decide if they are going to suffer like a Christian or an Atheist, if they are going to be faithful like a Muslim or a Hindu.

 

Without a father who passes on a concrete "way of being" in the world, I don't think it creates more freedom or openness, just secularizes ways of being in the world, and makes us think that our ways of being are our own, when in fact, everything is received: in school, on TV, in the institutions we participate in, in the neighborhoods we live in.

 

Will your children really be able to relate to the beliefs of others? What does someone who grows up in a generic middle class American neighborhood know about Hindus in Bangladesh or Atheists in Russia? He could potentially immerse himself in one of those communities, but more likely than not he'll just create some kind of doctrinal hodgepodge in his middle class American context.

 

That's the way I look at it, anyway. I don't believe in authoritarianism, trapping kids in their father's way of doing things, but I think a father has to live and die for something, because whether he likes it or not, everything he does will shape his kids' lives, whether he does it intentionally or not. His kids live in the world like him, even more than they look like him.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Era Might