My Journey From Catholicism To Atheism And Back

[Winchester]

Theism and atheism does require a leap of faith. But God as a moral law giver exist as a matter of fact or does not exist as a matter of fact, and which belief is true is true with or without faith in which ever is true. If God in fact exist then there is objective moral truth, if He in fact does not exist there is no objective moral truth. Our inability to prove one is true and the other false doesn't make it all subjective. 

I speak at the human level. Just like everyone else in here. Objectivity may exist, but humans interpret.

[KnightofChrist]

I speak at the human level. Just like everyone else in here. Objectivity may exist, but humans interpret.

 

Human interpretation still has no effect on whether or not God and objective moral law exist and it does not make it all subjective. Before science proved the Earth to be round there were two (at least) apposing views or human interpretations of the Earth's shape, flat or round. Human interpretation did not effect the fact that the Earth was round, nor did it make the shape of the Earth subjective. 

[Dr_Asik]

No, that's a clear statement of personal experience. It's anecdotal. I did not imply that it justified a position. Note the qualifications in my statement.

 

Here's the page you should have used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal

You're welcome.

So it's "clearly true" but only by appeal to popularity based on anectodal evidence, and only in your personal experience with no real justification? Well that's an interesting use of the term "clearly true". Thanks for sharing I guess.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Winchester]

So it's "clearly true" but only by appeal to popularity based on anectodal evidence, and only in your personal experience with no real justification? Well that's an interesting use of the term "clearly true". Thanks for sharing I guess.

 

Not appealing to popularity. Not claiming the outlook is true. 

[KnightofChrist]

Not appealing to popularity. Not claiming the outlook is true. 

 

Then avoid absolutes like 'all',' always', and 'ultimately'.

[Winchester]

Then avoid absolutes like 'all',' always', and 'ultimately'.

 

Do you feel those words indicate an appeal to popularity or a belief that a particular way of looking at the universe is correct?

[Dr_Asik]

 

Not claiming the outlook is true. 

"it's clearly true"

 

Not appealing to popularity. 

"insofar as people do, in fact see the world this way."

 

Qualifying the claims with "In my experience" doesn't change their logical structure or the nature of the claims being made.

[KnightofChrist]

Do you feel those words indicate an appeal to popularity or a belief that a particular way of looking at the universe is correct?

 

You said "Rule of law (divine or man made) is ultimately illusory." That is a particular way of looking at the universe and it appears you feel this is correct because you made an absolute. 

[Winchester]

 

 

"it's clearly true"

 

"insofar as people do, in fact see the world this way."

 

Qualifying the claims with "In my experience" doesn't change their logical structure or the nature of the claims being made.

 

 

 

Are you intentionally taking the position that you know what I was attempting to communicate and I don't? 

[Winchester]

 

 

 

You said "Rule of law (divine or man made) is ultimately illusory." That is a particular way of looking at the universe and it appears you feel this is correct because you made an absolute. 

 

You quoted a response to Dr Asik. It wasn't directed at you, and I wasn't talking about my statement that amounts to: "People interpret." If you care to prove that people don't interpret, I'll be happy to read your interpretation of the data that proves it.

[Dr_Asik]

Are you intentionally taking the position that you know what I was attempting to communicate and I don't? 

I'm taking the position that your statements contradict each other. Everyone makes mistakes.

[Winchester]

I'm taking the position that your statements contradict each other. Everyone makes mistakes.

I'm not everyone.

[Anomaly]

I'm referring to what New Advent calls "Materialistic Naturalism", i.e. the belief that the only thing that exists is matter and laws governing its behavior.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see any convincing reason for holding that it's true. It seems like a convenient device of the "imagination", as you suggest, to keep holding unto our intuitive ethical norms despite the failure of our metaphysical worldview (in a naturalistic perspective) to support them. Saying "I feel that XYZ" is all well and good, but feeling is subjective and not communicable. What if someone comes around and says "well I don't feel that XYZ"?

The claim that purpose is being determined be an omniscient Gid works only aim a macro relationship with humanity, but falls short as an "objective" principle on personal relationship. At that point it relies on "Faith" and turning to tihe mysterious and unfathomable nature of God and /or a developing relationship with humanity. The is no consistent and rational principle that is recognizable.

Where is the Catholic God that knows every hair on everyone's head, all providing, omnipotent, all loving, creator of all, when people are born, raised, live, and die in an anti-Christian culture, doing what they feel is the right and best thing according to their knowledge, experience, and conscience?

If God judges intent and desire, then why the requirement and restrictions based too much on physical acts as the very limited means of salvation within a sociological cultural construct if a specific religion? The logical outcome is the continued splintering and evolving irelevancy of the religions.

[Fidei Defensor]

The claim that purpose is being determined be an omniscient Gid works only aim a macro relationship with humanity, but falls short as an "objective" principle on personal relationship. At that point it relies on "Faith" and turning to tihe mysterious and unfathomable nature of God and /or a developing relationship with humanity. The is no consistent and rational principle that is recognizable.

Where is the Catholic God that knows every hair on everyone's head, all providing, omnipotent, all loving, creator of all, when people are born, raised, live, and die in an anti-Christian culture, doing what they feel is the right and best thing according to their knowledge, experience, and conscience?

If God judges intent and desire, then why the requirement and restrictions based too much on physical acts as the very limited means of salvation within a sociological cultural construct if a specific religion? The logical outcome is the continued splintering and evolving irelevancy of the religions.

You're right, God does judge intent and desire. Where is He? The same place he always is, with humanity.  People who live good lives based on what they know are not condemned for it.

[Socrates]

Atheism requires a leap of faith the same as theism.

 

 

 

It's all subjective, anyway. It always comes down to your interpretation. Rule of law (divine or man made) is ultimately illusory.

 

You dodged the question, though it appears your view would best be described as agnostic.

It's certainly not Catholic, as stated in your profile.

Truth is not subjective.  Divine law is not illusory.

 

 

The Golden Rule is problematic if the person living by it is a masochist, isn't it? Do you consider that a flaw in the rule itself, or in mankind?

 

 

The problem would be with the masochist, as this is disordered.  Seems you're playing sophistical games here, though.  Most reasonable people understand what the Golden Rule means; you've hardly proven all morality subjective.

 

I really don't know how to deal with what I see as grossly oversimplified criticisms. OP created a simplified, stupid atheist and then proceeded to argue against him. I didn't make happiness a goal in my arguments, so I'll let whomever you're arguing with there defend against your slippery slope fallacy.

 

 

As I understood, Dr. Asik didn't create anything.  He was simply telling the story of his own personal intellectual journey from lack of religious belief to the Catholic Faith.

 

If all human experience is illusory and subjective as you suggest, then you have absolutely no basis for judging Dr. Asik's subjective personal mental journey towards religious faith any less true or valid than your own journey away from faith.

 

You can google Dr. Peter Singer to learn about the views I am referring to.  He's head of the Bioethics department at Princeton.  I didn't accuse anyone here of agreeing with him, just pointing out that his logic is hard to refute if one begins with the premise that there is no God, and human beings are ultimately nothing more than accidental pieces of matter.  These views aren't a slippery-slope fallacy.  Plenty of people actually hold these views.

 

 

 

A lot of atheists have a superstitious view of when humanity is bestowed. Some believe in might makes right (so do many, many Christians. I know because they extoll the virtues of mob rule democracy) There are any number of reasons why atheists might believe that. 

 

 

Atheists of Singer's ilk claim that the idea that the humanity of a life makes it sacred to be a superstitious religious belief.

Why not kill a human fetus if it's simply a piece of matter?

 

Who was arguing that is overall tended to increase respect for human life?

 

 

You did speak of your loss of faith somehow increased your desire to protect human life.  I was pointing out that this sentiment is far from universal.