Eudaimonist

Nonsense. If atheists call God not-God, then to affirm not-God is to affirm one's own self, and so there is no contradiction.

joedad

But to what end, Amos? That's what I wish to know, and that is my question to Gemma as well.

Exactly what are you personally trying to achieve by practicing Roman Catholicism? Now if you're not sure or if you do it simply because you presently enjoy doing it, I find that an acceptable enough response. That would be no different than my enjoying backpacking.

joe

Amos

Fair enough but that also means that theism is a valid position because it is a concept created with a purpose in mind. Yes, religion is man made. However, and this is where we differ from most protestants who claim righteousness through rational understanding, we, as Catholics worship through intimate adoration and divine participation (communion with the saints).

So I think it is raining on atheism today.

Amos

Nothing, I am trying to achieve nothing. I did it because my parents did and we were not allowed to out at night if we did not go to church on sunday. So soon we found entertainment in church. Now I go because my wife likes to go and I want to be support for her. Our children do'nt go(?), but always seem to know where to go for moral support.

faustuz

Amos,

I think you misconstrued my post. I simply said I can’t understand how people can believe. At the same time I acknowledged that others feel the opposite equally strongly. I made no value judgment at all. I, in fact, am not an atheist who thinks that it is better not to believe than to believe. I’m just an atheist. I am not angry about my religion, I’ve never had one. I have nothing to be angry about. I am confused about other peoples religions, and I honestly try to understand their point of view. I will keep trying to do this, although I must confess that I find certain points of views completely baffling.

Also, I certainly didn’t come to II to be converted. Where did you get that idea? Has anybody ever come to II to help them become a believer?

I’ve heard I don’t know how many times the assertion that all one needs to do to become a believer is to open their heart (or some variation of that). Well, I’ll make this promise to you and all the other believers who have ever said this. I’ll continue to do my utmost to make sure my heart is open. When one day something flies in, perhaps I’ll become a believer. Until then I remain, yours truly, atheist.

Amos

Not all atheists are angry at religion. Some are just impoverished Catholics or protestants who seem to have outgrown their simple faith. Not all are chosen and there is nothing wrong with that.

I would say that it is wrong to keep "your heart open" because that would expose you to marauding protestant who will suck you right into hell if they get a chance. You saw above how angry some of them are and maybe this is how wars come about.

rdalin

Some like me have never been anything other than atheists, and have no desire to change that fact.

From an outsider's standpoint, there's no difference between Catholics and Protestants except for meaningless sectarian squabbles.

Edited to add a missing apostrophe.

faustuz

Actually, in my case, I never had a faith to outgrow. I’ve been a non-believer all my life.

I find that extremely improbable. My heart may be open, but my mind is extremely skeptical. I’m skeptical by nature, I don’t have any control over it. I think I’m skeptical in much the same way that I’m blond (although I do seem to be getting less blond and more skeptical!).

This is almost certainly the case, although I believe that most wars through history have actually been started by angry believers. In my experience believers have a much higher predilection to become angry over matters of faith than non-believers. That’s not to say that there are not angry believers. There are many. There are also a great many calm believers. But the impulse towards angry dogmatism seems to be, on balance, stronger among believers than among non-believers.

To be honest, I don’t see the anger you are referring to in this thread. It looks to me like good, firm debate. There certainly are some non-theists on IIDB who are angry towards religion, some have some good personal reasons to be. Most seem to be non-theists who are comfortable with their beliefs and want someplace to come where people understand their point of view (I know that’s why I’m here). Most don’t spend their time bashing religion so much as questioning it, defending their own views and maybe sometimes having a good, fun argument while they’re at it. It seems to me that theists often have a hard time having their beliefs questioned, and automatically see the questioning as an attack. Of course people on a message board dedicated to secular views are going to question religious belief. Does questioning automatically correlate with anger?

Amos

So you can't really have any bitterness towards religion. For one, you have no time or money invested in it while others have spend many years and sometimes the best years of their lives trying to be good against their own carnal desire. Now they are atheists and feel ripped off, and in some cases rightfully so.

You may observe that religious people are motivated and wonder why they are so deeply convinced that they are right and others are wrong. Good point, and as an unbeliever this is difficult to comprehend. You may also wonder why so many died for their faith . . . even if, as we Catholics hold, they were wrong and deserved 'the stake' (obviously or it would no thave happened).
As a side note, I can defend the reason but would not come to the same conviction at this time.

A good salesman likes to hear those words because according to him you are already sold and only a mind game is needed to convince you otherwise. I think a good evangelist will zap you so fast that it will make your hair turn white as it did to Moses back then on that mountain there. You'll be on the same high and will be praising Jesus until eternity but die nonetheless despite it all.

Well of course there is anger towards dogmatism because that is put in place to protect [Catholic] believers against the raving wolves that are disguised in sheeps clothing. These are the war mongers you see because they have no peace within their own soul and feel the need to reform others, first in their own family, then their parish, their nation and finally the rest of the world. They'll never stop until they die because such is the nature of the second beast of Rev. 13.

The "calm believers" are the peace makers who have found favor with God in their own soul. They have drank from the wine that Jesus made (as suggested in the Cana wedding), while the others have "drank from the cup of Gods anger" and therefore have no rest by day or by night (Rev.14:10). About the anger, I was pointing to the words from Mr. Barker that were cited earlier.

Yes, these here are mostly good people. It is always the others that are the bad ones, shall we say, but let me assure you that many here know exactly what I am writing you here.

As for me? I do not care if others believe or not believe because each one of us has their own life to live and yours is yours and mine is mine. I sometimes stretch my points to make them better known and do this while trying to remain polite. Personally I have nothing invested in religion and God owes me nothing. This also means that I am untouchable by criticism.

Perchance

Good morning, Amos.

I was trying to choose an incident that was comfortably far back in history, but what about accusations going on in the present day? Do you believe that the Catholic Church has done nothing wrong by shielding child-abusing priests?

So the essential message is okay even though its messengers suck at telling it?

Why do you accept that for the Catholic Church? Would you accept that defense for any other institution that tried to use it- for example, some Protestant churches who say that Fred Phelps is just a really bad messenger?

-Perchance.