Atheism: how can you be so sure?

CerebralCortex · 23-06-2008 8:50pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Sounds like you know very little about saints and the levels of perfection they can reach through God's grace.

You may not like the dreaded word "faith" but it's very pleasing to God. That leaves you in a difficult situation.

How so?

Dades wrote: »

I still don't get why the architect behind all matter and time would really need to be 'pleased' by earth people doing stuff for him. I mean, shouldn't a mind like that have something more intellectual to occupy him?

Ya it would almost seem us atheists have more respect for "God" than you kelly1 :P

kelly1 · 23-06-2008 11:05pm

axer wrote: »

How do you know so much about saints?

I don't claim to be exceptionally knowledgeable about the saints but I have read several (auto)biographies. They excelled in all the virtues to an amazing degree.

axer wrote: »

How do we know faith is pleasing to god?

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.

Galatians 3:26 For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;

Matthew 9:22 But Jesus turning and seeing her, said: Be of good heart, daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole.

Dades wrote: »

I still don't get why the architect behind all matter and time would really need to be 'pleased' by earth people doing stuff for him. I mean, shouldn't a mind like that have something more intellectual to occupy him?

God wants us to do good because it's good for us and because it leads us towards eternal life with God. The good we doesn't actually make God any happier because His own happiness is infinite.

God is pleased with the good we do, not because we have produced good but rather that we have co-operated with His grace. All good comes from God. Doing good in in harmony with God's plan for creation and sin upsets the harmony.

Dave! · 23-06-2008 11:45pm

I hope that cleared up any concerns, Dades!

Dades · 24-06-2008 10:22am

Dave! wrote: »

I hope that cleared up any concerns, Dades!

Strangely, no.

I understand that God is supposed to have this great plan and everything, it just doesn't seem that great at all. At least not for a being responsible for the entire universe. Why doesn't he send a bit less rain to Burma and bit more to the Sudan instead of bothering himself about whether people think he's there or not?

God seems more like someone who has 'user' rather than 'admin' rights to the universe.

pH · 24-06-2008 10:44am

Dades wrote: »

I understand that God is supposed to have this great plan and everything, it just doesn't seem that great at all. At least not for a being responsible for the entire universe. Why doesn't he send a bit less rain to Burma and bit more to the Sudan instead of bothering himself about whether people think he's there or not?

God is far too busy monitoring what we do with our genitals to worry about minor details like floods, droughts and earthquakes.

robindch · 24-06-2008 11:20am

pH wrote: »

God is far too busy monitoring what we do with our genitals to worry about minor details like floods, droughts and earthquakes.

Too busy? Don't think so -- as far as I can see, he lost interest in this place a long time ago, and outsourced almost everything to his self-appointed reps on earth, save the occasional appearance in a piece of toast or chunk of concrete.

Unfortunately, legitimizing, if not organizing too, the persecution of gay men is much easier than preventing a flood or an earthquake, or sorting out the mess afterward, so it's perhaps understandable why his reps have concentrated their efforts where they have.

Galvasean · 24-06-2008 11:44am

You don't suppose God died and now teh universe is running a muck in his absence?

pH · 24-06-2008 12:54pm

robindch wrote: »

Unfortunately, legitimizing, if not organizing too, the persecution of gay men is much easier than preventing a flood or an earthquake, or sorting out the mess afterward, so it's perhaps understandable why his reps have concentrated their efforts where they have.

It's not just gay men he's concerned with, he has convinced his followers (at one time or another) to be obsessed with mutilating their children's genitals, masturbation, homosexuality, contraception, menstruation, celibacy and pre-marital heterosexual sex.

I mean how obsessed about sex do you have to be to argue that protecting women from cervical cancer is bad?

A spokesman for the Catholic Church said: "Our concern would be that this vaccine is seen as giving the green light to promiscuity on the grounds that the vaccine protects young people from developing the virus that is the main cause of cervical cancer."
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Controversial-Vaccine-Raises-Fury-of-the-Church-13635-1/

It's pathetic, and yet we still get posters in A&A posting the "Oh why do you atheists care about religion tripe".

Zombrex · 24-06-2008 12:58pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't claim to be exceptionally knowledgeable about the saints but I have read several (auto)biographies. They excelled in all the virtues to an amazing degree.

Indeed.

You might want to read a biography of Chairman Mao or Stalin ... there virtues made the saints look like prostitutes addicted to crack

.
.
.
.
.

Do you believe everything you read Kelly, or just books from Catholic sources?

robindch · 24-06-2008 4:32pm

Wicknight wrote: »

You might want to read a biography of Chairman Mao or Stalin ... there virtues made the saints look like prostitutes addicted to crack

Not sure if anybody's ever read chairman Mao's Little Red Book? Lots of meaningless prose, random thoughts, pointless stories, self-aggrandizing nonsense, unwarranted assumption, unjustified conclusion, the occasional ringing phrase or good piece of poetry, and of course, the support of a very large number of people who think it's the greatest book ever written because it changed so many people's lives. Any similarity with any other Good Books must be a coincidence

Galvasean · 24-06-2008 5:29pm

pH wrote: »

and yet we still get posters in A&A posting the "Oh why do you atheists care about religion.

And to which we always reply, "Because their lobbying directly affects my life!"

toiletduck · 25-06-2008 12:12pm

Dades wrote: »

God seems more like someone who has 'user' rather than 'admin' rights to the universe.

Brilliant! :pac:

axer · 04-07-2008 10:54pm

I am now no longer a Catholic. I received back word today from the bishop. I haven't seen what came in the post yet since I am out of the country.

steve-hosting36 · 11-07-2008 6:05pm

You should have a read of Richard Dawkin's 'The god delusion' - excellent, logical 'proofs' for the non existence of a god.

kelly1 · 11-07-2008 6:21pm

axer wrote: »

I am now no longer a Catholic.

I'm sorry to hear that Axer

Flamed Diving · 11-07-2008 6:23pm

axer wrote: »

I am now no longer a Catholic. I received back word today from the bishop. I haven't seen what came in the post yet since I am out of the country.

yay axer! Now you can live the rest of your life free of dogma and shame!

Congratulations!

YAY!

eoin5 · 11-07-2008 6:48pm

axer wrote: »

I am now no longer a Catholic. I received back word today from the bishop. I haven't seen what came in the post yet since I am out of the country.

I know you have good reasons axer but I hope the irony of the bishop telling someone theyre no longer a catholic at the persons request is not lost on everyone. Its a bit like a woman getting the doctor to tell her shes no longer a virgin after shes had a few rolls in the haybarn

Malari · 14-07-2008 10:57am

eoin5 wrote: »

I know you have good reasons axer but I hope the irony of the bishop telling someone theyre no longer a catholic at the persons request is not lost on everyone. Its a bit like a woman getting the doctor to tell her shes no longer a virgin after shes had a few rolls in the haybarn

Not if the doctor didn't already know that and was treating her as a virgin! Better analogy?

It's making sure they are no longer counting you as a catholic. And proof to busy-bodies who say you are still a catholic cause you were baptised.

Well done Axer.

axer · 14-07-2008 11:14am

eoin5 wrote: »

I know you have good reasons axer but I hope the irony of the bishop telling someone theyre no longer a catholic at the persons request is not lost on everyone. Its a bit like a woman getting the doctor to tell her shes no longer a virgin after shes had a few rolls in the haybarn

By receiving word from the bishop I meant that I received word that my official defection has been fully officially recorded and thus I am officially no longer a catholic.

thebaldsoprano · 23-07-2008 8:43pm

Hi

I'm also an agnostic. There seem to be two kinds of Atheists replying, most of who don't know which category they fall into.

a) People who believe there is no God
b) People attempting to rationally conclude there is no God.

For those kind of arguments misusing analogies like "there's a lion in my attic" etc, the answer's simple:

"I believe there is no lion in my attic at present but I can verify this by checking".

Or

"It's highly unlikely there is a lion in my attic at present, since there have been no reports of lions in the area, but I can verify this by checking".

Now if someone believes in the scientific method and based on this believes there is no God, I can understand and "get" that - but it's still a belief.

Any rational argument based on available evidence, as far as I can see, can only lead to probabilities, which by definition falls into the area of agnosticism, and not atheism.

Comments welcome

Flamed Diving · 23-07-2008 8:48pm

So a non-belief in a three headed, five arsed pink elephant, flying through the sky is a belief?

Regarding the probability assessment. If you knew that it was 99.9999999% certain that you would die if you crossed the road, what would you do?

thebaldsoprano · 23-07-2008 9:00pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So a non-belief in a three headed, five arsed pink elephant, flying through the sky is a belief?

...

It is.

I believe there are no three headed, five arsed pink elephants, flying through the sky.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Regarding the probability assessment. If you knew that it was 99.9999999% certain that you would die if you crossed the road, what would you do?

Decide that the risk of crossing the road isn't worth it. What relevance does this have?

Flamed Diving · 23-07-2008 9:09pm

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

...

It is.

I believe there are no three headed, five arsed pink elephants, flying through the sky.

Thats equivalent to a belief in god/s then?

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Decide that the risk of crossing the road isn't worth it. What relevance does this have?

So you made a firm decision based on the probability that lay before you, even though you were not 100% sure.

thebaldsoprano · 23-07-2008 9:28pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Thats equivalent to a belief in god/s then?

Yeah, God, pink elephants, whatever. This is the trouble with using an an analogy to structure your argument rather than clarify it.
I used the analogy to illustrate the difference between a belief and a rational conclusion and now you're trying to use it to draw equivalence between a five arsed pink elephant and God.

I always had my suspicions about those athiests

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So you made a firm decision based on the probability that lay before you, even though you were not 100% sure.

I did. I'm really having problems seeing where you're trying to go with this one.

Flamed Diving · 23-07-2008 9:32pm

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Yeah, God, pink elephants, whatever. This is the trouble with using an an analogy to structure your argument rather than clarify it.
I used the analogy to illustrate the difference between a belief and a rational conclusion and now you're trying to use it to draw equivalence between a five arsed pink elephant and God.

I always had my suspicions about those athiests

So a belief in god is the same about the non-belief in anything. Thats fine then. I guess I am atheist as well as a-pinkelephantist. Maybe I should put in a forum request.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I did. I'm really having problems seeing where you're trying to go with this one.

Well you said...

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Any rational argument based on available evidence, as far as I can see, can only lead to probabilities, which by definition falls into the area of agnosticism, and not atheism.

I would assert that some people would base their non-belief on probability, and make a firm decision based on that, even though they would admit that no-one can really say for sure. Therefore they would become atheists based on such probabilities, although one could also decide to be agnostic given this scenario.

thebaldsoprano · 23-07-2008 10:16pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So a belief in god is the same about the non-belief in anything. Thats fine then.

Oh my good God! You nearly turned me into a believer

No, a belief in God is not the same as a non belief in anything.
Again, I used an analogy to illustrate the difference between a belief and a rational conclusion.

Attempts to build and structure an argument from an analogy will likely result in a fallacy since an analogy is for the purpose of illustration and is unlikely to be logically equivalent to the argument.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I would assert that some people would base their non-belief on probability and make a firm decision based on that, even though they would admit that no-one can really say for sure.

So some people believe there is no God based on probability.
These people admit that noone can really say for sure.

I'd agree with that assertion.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Therefore they would become atheists based on such probabilities, although one could also decide to be agnostic given this scenario.

Okay, so they believe there is no God, and when asked if they can 'say for sure' they drop this belief.

Well, that's up to them I guess...

Dades · 23-07-2008 10:42pm

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hi

I'm also an agnostic. There seem to be two kinds of Atheists replying, most of who don't know which category they fall into.

a) People who believe there is no God
b) People attempting to rationally conclude there is no God.

You left out

c) "Practical Atheists" who realise it is impossible to disprove god, but realise there is nothing to be gained by entertaining philosophical guff such as "we can't know that there isn't a five arsed pink flying elephant, so I must conclude it is only a belief I have".

That kind of talk is strictly for agnostics.

thebaldsoprano · 23-07-2008 11:01pm

Dades wrote: »

You left out

c) "Practical Atheists" who realise it is impossible to disprove god, but realise there is nothing to be gained by entertaining philosophical guff such as "we can't know that there isn't a five arsed pink flying elephant, so I must conclude it is only a belief I have".

That kind of talk is strictly for agnostics.

Oh come on, where would we all be if it weren't for the five arsed pink elephants? There'd probably be a load of meaningless wars and inquisitions and stonings and...

That's really interesting, I hadn't heard the term "practical atheist" before or the reasoning behind it, thanks

Flamed Diving · 23-07-2008 11:04pm

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Okay, so they believe there is no God, and when asked if they can 'say for sure' they drop this belief.

Well, that's up to them I guess...

Right, but when the chips are down, neither you nor I would 'cross the road'. Did you declare crossing the road to be unknowable, or did you make a decision based on the evidence. That is all that matters. We make decisions every day based on probabilities, do we sit on the fence each time and say that it is unknowable, or do we make a firm decision? People need to make decisions in life, fence-sitting is both a useless and imaginary activity.

IMO

:P

Dave! · 23-07-2008 11:20pm

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

So some people believe there is no God based on probability.
These people admit that noone can really say for sure.

I'd agree with that assertion.

Okay, so they believe there is no God, and when asked if they can 'say for sure' they drop this belief.

Well, that's up to them I guess...

Shenanigans.

We can't know anything for sure, so 'atheism' is a technically incorrect term, but it's a practical term.

You seem to be trying to convince us all that we really think that there IS a god, subconsciously.

Do you believe in godzilla? No? But you don't know there's no godzilla, so you're an ag-godzilla-stic.

What about Zeus, do you believe in Zeus? No? But... surely you're open to the possibility. You're an ag-zeus-stic.

If you drop an apple, do you think it will travel towards the ground or towards the sky? The ground? But you don't know for sure... Let's call you an ag-[insert relevent word here]-stic.

Do you believe we're in the Matrix? But you can't know for sure.........

If you're okay with me calling you an ag-godzilla-stic (I'll try to think of a catchier term, don't worry) then I'm an agnostic.