The Folly of Atheism

[Subduction Zone]

As I understand it Deeje is a JW and Trailblazer is a Baha'i... what happens to you after you die? Will you still be Baha'i and JW and live happily together in Heaven?

They will have very different answers.

 

[ArtieE]

I have a feeling that it won't be long before we all find out......exciting isn't it.....?

Not so exciting for those who do not have a horse in this race though.....

Maybe you should just explain exactly what happens to you after you die and for the rest of eternity so I know what it is I'm supposed to believe in...? And Trailblazer too...?

 

[JJ50]

Maybe you should just explain exactly what happens to you after you die and for the rest of eternity so I know what it is I'm supposed to believe in...? And Trailblazer too...?

No one has any idea, in my opinion the default position is unbelief until there is any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Catholicus]

The ability for something to be demonstrable is not dependent on human reach, it's an objective quality. Whether or not we were where 'god' is, it would either be demonstrable or not. If not, then it really doesn't get to qualify as an existent, because it is indistinguishable from a fiction.


Again, indistinguishable from fiction.

So anything we can't perceive is fiction" ?

Only in the opinion of the (very limited) human brain.

 

[Catholicus]

Projection. I'm not hostile. It is 100% you. YOU would murder people like me, if you could. History taught this lesson very well to non-believers.


Straw Man. And reported for abuse.

History has taught this no less to believers - witness the vast number of Christians, killed for no other reason than their Christian belief, in the Darkest and bloodiest of all centuries, the wonderfully-modern 20th.

 

[Catholicus]

Jesus also said, "whoever is not against us is for us."

But more to the point, the bolded statement above is key, and thank you for saying it. It's a fundamental problem with your view. So many theists simply cannot stand the idea that, "I don't know." When the truth is, "I don't know" is a completely valid, completely rational position to take, on many issues, especially pertaining to the supernatural. If we don't have sufficient evidence for a proposition one way or the other, then "I don't know" is precisely the appropriate response.

Many theists, unfortunately, can't tolerate that kind of ambiguity in their minds when it comes to something that is so important to them personally. Thus they insist that non-believers fit their either/or mold. But the truth is, we often don't.

But if you've been told - in this instance by the Gospel - you DO know.

 

[Catholicus]

Is that really how your brain works? You believe in everything for which there is no evidence?

No - that's what Atheists do.

There is proof of God's existence - the universe.

 

[Catholicus]

Who are these mythical followers of 'scientism' of whom you speak? I've yet to encounter one of these elusive creatures, though some theist have foolishly attempted to slap the label on me, simply because I recognize that the scientific method has by far been the most effective method humans have found thus far for accurately explaining how the universe works.

Who are these people who supposedly worship science as a god and claim that it has ALL the answers?

Most atheists fit the bill; though, very predictably, deny the fact !

It isn't the purpose of religion to discern how the universe works (which is why science and religion aren't in conflict, because they aren't in competition) - the purpose of religion is to discern whether the universe has any sort of purpose; and, even more, whether our lives have any sort of purpose.

Science can't do that; any more than it can give us a code of ethics.

 

[Catholicus]

Depends on the God.

And on the human soul standing before Him.

 

[Willamena]

So anything we can't perceive is fiction" ?

Nothing could be furthest from the case.

My argument was a counter to the OP, which said, "If you cannot prove God's existence, then he does not exist." My argument was more reasonable, because a) it didn't rely on existence to prove itself, and b) it didn't rely on proof.

 

[Catholicus]

Sorry, but that's simply not true. You seem to be confusing a fetus's POTENTIAL TO BECOME a viable individual human being with it actually BEING a viable individual human being. What your saying is like claiming that an acorn is as much an oak tree as an actual oak tree is. It simply is not. An acorn may have the POTENTIAL TO BECOME an oak tree, given enough time and the proper conditions, but unless that time passes and those conditions occur, the acorn will never be an ACTUAL oak tree. The exact same thing can be said about a human fetus with potential. It may have the POTENTIAL TO BECOME a viable individual human being, but that time passes and the proper conditions are met, it will never become an actual viable human being.

The question is not whether a foetus (foitos: "little one" in classical Greek) is "viable"; but whether it is alive.

Science proves that a foetus is alive, from the outset. And how alive ? - as a human being, not as some mythical sort of human acorn.

 

[Catholicus]

He didn't have any problems revealing his backparts to us...? Exodus 33:23 Then I will take My hand away, and you will see My back; but My face must not be seen."

The remark was made solely to Moses, a great and holy prophet.

 

[Catholicus]

He died? Isn't he supposed to be still alive?

Jesus died, then rose from the dead on the third day, then (after 40 days) ascended into Heaven.

 

[Catholicus]

Your life exists by chance. Or do you claim you were personally created by a god? What Are The Odds of You Existing At All?

The odds are irrelevant - as we DO exist.

Yes - my soul (like all human souls) was created personally by God, to fill and direct the body-mind created by one's parents' act of sexual intercourse.

 

[Catholicus]

A random quantum fluctuation. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Quantum fluctuations - random or other - are features of the universe.

Ergo, they didn't exist before the universe did.

Ergo, they didn't create the universe.

 

[Left Coast]

The real Messengers do not compete with each other, they simply bring new information in every age. Some of that information is different but it is not contradictory.

Yes of course. And any "messenger" whose message you do consider contradictory you of course don't recognize as a "true" messenger. Just like virtually every other faith group whose theology differs from yours.

Obviously you do not know enough about God in order to know why God cannot just “show up.”

Whatever the why is, my entire point is that the why is entirely God's problem. He created the game. He invented the rules.

What is absurd is atheists expecting God to show up and speaking to humans directly, just because a mere 7% of the human population do not consider God’s Messengers sufficient.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

That means that 93% of the world population believes in God.

First of all, that's just a giant argument ad populum.

Second of all, I'm sure that a member of a religion that composes something in the neighborhood of 0.1% of the world's population wouldn't be so completely blind to their own bias to try to make an argument ad populum about their religious beliefs.

Third of all, that 93% of theists in the world are wildly divided every way from Sunday on who/what that God is, what its attributes are, and what it expects of us. So if its soooo obvious that there's some God out there, why the hell can't you guys get on the same page about literally anything to do with it?

If God had never used Messengers, hardly anyone would believe in God because the main reason people believe in God is because of one of those Messengers.

Religion appears to have begun as nature-worship/animism. The priestly class of people who claimed to be the legitimate mediators between humanity and the divine evolved later over time.

We know that because very few people in the world believe in God for some other reason. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and most of those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger.

That analysis completely ignores the actual history and sociology of religion. Most people adhere to the religion they do because their parents did. Furthermore, most people adhere to the religion they do because either currently or in the past, their culture/country enforced said religion by rule of law.

There will always be people who do not believe in God because man has free will so man can choose to believe in God or not.

Utter bull. I can no more choose to believe in God than I can choose to believe the moon landing was faked.

Do We Choose Our Beliefs?

 

[Catholicus]

Let's not trade insults.
That also sounds like a cheap shot; in fact I don't worship anything.
But as I've told you, that's not what I'm saying.

Instead I'm saying that while imaginary gods are not problem, they're anything we want them to be, I authentically have no idea what a real god might be ─ and therefore I need you to tell me so that I'll know. Is my neighhbor, my keyboard, the air temperature, God? Or not? What real characteristics does God have that will allow me to distinguish?
Imaginary gods, and Green Lantern, and Superman, can no doubt do anything if the story requires them to. But we're talking about a real god here; or we will be when you tell me what a real god is.

A Real God is a god that can create a universe, then hold it in being.

This distinguishes God from His creations (e.g. a neighbour, the weather) or our sub-creations (e.g a keyboard).

And shows God to be - not a mere concept - but the Living God, as real as, and infinitely more effective and powerful, than (say) a tiger.

Though more benevolent (and not hungry), fortunately.

 

[Catholicus]

I was trying to believe for many years. I was getting tired of God not revealing himself to me.



Sure he has a big ego. Firstly, his death was merely a mild inconvenience for him considering he got up after only 3 days and got back to heaven.

Secondly, I never asked for this human sacrifice. If I were there, It would have been my moral obligation to stop him from getting killed instead of watching it and being thankful. Why would I be obligated to thank him for something I find repulsive and I didn't even ask for in the first place?

"A mild inconvenience" ?? Atrocious and near-fatal mental anguish in Gethsemane, being beaten up and ridiculed by Roman soldiers, flogged half-to-pieces by a Roman flogging, carrying a cross through the scornful stares of a city population, nailed to a cross, then left to die in agony (after three hours), in mental desolation and horror.

It's not whether we WANT this sacrifice - the truth is, like all members of the human race, we NEED it.

 

[Catholicus]

No effort at all to disprove nor prove anything, and by the way not the subject of the thread. In fact the search for Truth is a vain egocentric goal.

Egocentric. No - it's focused on Truth.

And is a more honourable - and honest ! - pursuit than choosing not to seek Truth or pretending that it can't be found.

 

[Left Coast]

But if you've been told - in this instance by the Gospel - you DO know.

I've been told claims. Claims are not evidence.