Can One Decide To Be An Athiest?

[Deb]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='1584253' date='Jun 26 2008, 08:47 PM']the precise revealing evidence of God.
its obvious you 'tried' the 'Catholic' thing, hence, your insight.[/quote]

[JustJ]

[quote name='Deb' post='1582904' date='Jun 25 2008, 12:12 PM']I think you can find whatever argument you want to prop up your atheism. You haven't said anything that lead anyone to believe that God does not exist.[/quote]
Except the fact that there is no real evidence in favor of your god's existence. As such, it would be silly to waste all the time, money, and effort on that when you could be getting together and helping your community in other ways that will impact their lives on Earth.

[JustJ]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='1582917' date='Jun 25 2008, 12:29 PM']you use Catholicisms own argument to testify against it.[/quote]
This was on purpose. I wanted you (as in everyone on this board) to see the logical errors in your own arguments, and the best way to do that is generally to turn it around on you. It helps you think for yourself better. My aim here is not to de-convert you all. It's really just to get you to think for yourself rather than relying on religious dogma. Take claims into account, but give them weight based on the evidence for and against it.

[JustJ]

[quote name='Deb' post='1583736' date='Jun 26 2008, 11:19 AM']If you go through this thread you will note that J doesn't really ever debate anything that has been put to him, he just repeats the same stuff over and over. He will not address anything that he does not have a response to. It is called ignoring any information that may challenge his opinion. The reality is that God exists and he just can't see it.[/quote]
I don't address things I don't have answers to, and sometimes just because I don't take forums seriously enough to devote enough time to writing out some of these. I post enough as is.

But as I was saying, I don't address the things I don't have answers to often by saying that I simply don't have an answer for it. However, I would be willing to wager that there were natural causes behind it, or it was a fake, and one of the two can be proven scientifically at some point. Obviously, too vague, and the "at some point" makes it a lousy real bet, but the real point is that I'm very much convinced of the fact that a purely naturalistic approach will work is because it's worked in the past as much as I can remember, except perhaps in the case of a god who is hiding from us and then damning us to hell when we fail to detect him. I would think that if he's truly an all-loving god, he would reveal himself in a way so unmistakable that no one could dispute it.

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1585870' date='Jun 28 2008, 07:12 PM']Except the fact that there is no real evidence in favor of your god's existence. As such, it would be silly to waste all the time, money, and effort on that when you could be getting together and helping your community in other ways that will impact their lives on Earth.[/quote]

Hahn and Wiker would beg to differ. Check out 'Can God's Existence be Demonstrated", chapter 4 of Answering the New Athiesm.

Plus, the Church is the biggest philanthropic society on Earth, so I think we're off to a pretty decent headstart by being a member of it and likely contributing our efforts to it.

[JustJ]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1585881' date='Jun 28 2008, 08:49 PM']Hahn and Wiker would beg to differ. Check out 'Can God's Existence be Demonstrated", chapter 4 of Answering the New Athiesm.

Plus, the Church is the biggest philanthropic society on Earth, so I think we're off to a pretty decent headstart by being a member of it and likely contributing our efforts to it.[/quote]
I'm talking about donating the money instead to organizations that are [i]entirely[/i] concerned with those things as their primary focus.

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1585891' date='Jun 28 2008, 08:24 PM']I'm talking about donating the money instead to organizations that are [i]entirely[/i] concerned with those things as their primary focus.[/quote]

Sometimes we also choose to do that, just not charities that run contary to our morals, such as ones that support Planned Parenthood.

[Ash Wednesday]

I view atheism, at least my interpretation of it, as being a much more active choice or effort of belief (or lack of) than, say, agnosticism.

I saw a discussion with Robert Spitzer, S.J., president of Gonzaga University on EWTN a few years back and his eloquent way of describing the universe, particularly the way it's been fine tuned the way it is, especially concerning the existence and nature of our planet and the life on it -- to be so compelling, I would be hard pressed to view it as anything but the result of something with Intelligence acting behind it.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/series/healingculture/index.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/series/healingculture/index.htm[/url]

And I just have two words: Pascal's wager.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1585873' date='Jun 28 2008, 07:16 PM']It's really just to get you to think for yourself rather than relying on religious dogma. Take claims into account, but give them weight based on the evidence for and against it.[/quote]

I think the fallacy of your position is that you seem to maintain that those of us expressing religiosity and adherence to dogma have somehow not taken the time to reflect on that dogma but simply blindly accept it. This is an erroneous supposition that I have faced again and again in scientific academia...and it is somewhat humorous in its irony considering the many, many scientific 'a priori' positions that we scientists must take in order to begin to build our knowledge-base. Reflecting upon the many constants (which are almost entirely non-terminating decimals that we must round-off) required to make mathematics work, non-parsimonious theories in biology, and the almost unusable simplicity of introductory-course chemistry/physics equations in real world application can be a sobering experience for a scientists...and these are all concepts which are [i]dogmatized [/i] as cold-irrefutable facts to our grade-school, high school and college students. Now, I'm not trying to completely discredit the scientific community (heck I'm part of it), but everyone must recognize the potentially prejudiced nature of ALL knowledge whether it be matters of faith, science, society, etc. To single out the religious as if their adherence to dogma is retrogressive or intrinsically a shutdown of self-cognition is unfounded stereotyping by elitist erudites in modern academia. An academica which is becoming increasingly atheistic and therefore inherently biased in its opinions.

Peace,

Todd W.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1585876' date='Jun 28 2008, 07:28 PM']I don't address things I don't have answers to...[/quote]

Yet you speculate that...

[quote name='JustJ' post='1585876' date='Jun 28 2008, 07:28 PM']I would think that if he's truly an all-loving god, he would reveal himself in a way so unmistakable that no one could dispute it.[/quote]

You do not have the facultive capacity to offer insightful speculation concerning what an all-loving God would or would-not do because you have no prior experience with anything that is all-loving. Therefore you cannot use your inferences concerning what God would or would not do as any basis for an argument for or against the existence of a God. So please desist from statements like I quoted above. Thank you.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1585876' date='Jun 28 2008, 07:28 PM']However, I would be willing to wager that there were natural causes behind it, or it was a fake, and one of the two can be proven scientifically at some point...
...but the real point is that I'm very much convinced of the fact that a purely naturalistic approach will work is because it's worked in the past as much as I can remember...[/quote]

If you peruse my previously post, you will recognize my criticism of atheistic modern academia. There is an a priori assumption w/i the modern scientific approach that a naturalistic explanation [i]exists [/i]for all observable phenomena. While I will not argue whether I agree or disagree with your supposition, I must note that this is the precise assumption underlying the [i]entire [/i]modern scientific approach. It must be admitted that this position is still based upon an assumption...which in reality is placing faith in the capacity of science to provide truth in the past, present, and future in a way that is self-perfecting. I also have faith that the scientific method is capable of providing strong proof to explain observable phenomena...I accept the assumptions and understand the limitations of science as a means of acquiring truth and I resist attempts to too strongly dogmatize any scientific knowledge because all practical knowledge is potentially prejudiced. If I had a nickel for every fossil that was labeled 'the missing link' this or that which turns out to be nothing new. If I had a nickel for some of the weak arguments for specific evolutionary trends discussed in my comparative chordate anatomy course. If I had a nickel for every non-parsimonious theory posited on how immunology works at the genetic level... Scientists have biases too and they are concerned with their own professional endeavors and reputation and notoriety. I hate to admit it, but I have recognized that in the scientific field sometimes bad evidence and shoddy inferences are preferable to a complete non-understanding of a phenomenon...scientists are willing to accept weak arguments so long as no one is positing a stronger argument to overturn it. The problems arise when these week arguments become the basis for larger theories. What we scientists blindly accept as fact to day may easily be overturned in 50 years by new evidence which completely obliterates our current understanding of the universe...look at quantum physics!! Science is perfecting, not perfect. No one should forget that.

Peace,

Todd W.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Veridicus

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1585891' date='Jun 28 2008, 08:24 PM']I'm talking about donating the money instead to organizations that are [i]entirely[/i] concerned with those things as their primary focus.[/quote]

Don't kid yourself buddy: Everyone has an agenda, for better or worse...so words like "[i]entirely[/i]" are superfluous.

[reyb]

[indent]Why there are atheist in the first place?[/indent]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='reyb' post='1588957' date='Jul 2 2008, 06:00 AM'][indent]Why there are atheist in the first place?[/indent][/quote]

People angry with the father figures in their lives sublimating their rage and redirecting it toward the invisible Father whom they are not [i]immediately[/i] accountable for the way they behave. Just a thought.

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1588981' date='Jul 2 2008, 09:17 AM']People angry with the father figures in their lives sublimating their rage and redirecting it toward the invisible Father whom they are not [i]immediately[/i] accountable for the way they behave. Just a thought.[/quote]
[indent]It is possible but they will not agree with it because it seems they do not become atheist because of anger or rage toward God whom they do not believe.[/indent]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='reyb' post='1588991' date='Jul 2 2008, 08:34 AM'][indent]It is possible but they will not agree with it because it seems they do not become atheist because of anger or rage toward God whom they do not believe.[/indent][/quote]

I don't think it [i]is [/i]actual anger toward God. I think it is sublimated anger from other things finding a convenient outlet in an atheism that the modern educational system and academia is quick to offer.