A Letter From An Atheist

Read it and weep, Orogeny:

Becoming Catholic is one of life’s most profound and joyous experiences. Some are blessed enough to receive this great gift while they are infants, and, over time, they recognize the enormous grace that has been bestowed on them.

Click to expand...

SOURCE

Your idea that infants are atheists just got pwned by your own basic doctrine.

All of that is just fine, AV. Whatever label is bestowed upon the child does not change the fact that the infant does not BELIEVE in a god nor is of the OPINION that a god exists. Thus, the infant is an atheistic agnostic. Faith is a choice, and the infant has not made it. The church may recognize whatever it feels, and may bestow whatever gifts it feels, but this does not in any way affect the opinions and beliefs of the child.

Orogeny said:

Thus, the infant is an atheistic agnostic.

Click to expand...

I could not disagree more with this; and I have a gut feeling your deonomination couldn't, either.

Does your priest agree with you on this?

This isn't a matter of opinion, AV. It's a matter of developmental biology.

'My' priest and I disagree on many points.

Orogeny said:

This isn't a matter of opinion, AV. It's a matter of developmental biology.

'My' priest and I disagree on many points.

Click to expand...

So you're speaking ex sensus fidelium when you say that infants are atheists?

In the sense that I don't blindly follow every position of the church, yes.

Orogeny said:

In the sense that I don't blindly follow every position of the church, yes.

Click to expand...

I think I'll just take your point with a grain of sand and let it go at that.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

AV1611VET said:

I think I'll just take your point with a grain of sand and let it go at that.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

Click to expand...

Have the whole desert, AV. You deserve it.

AV1611VET said:

Read it and weep, Orogeny:

SOURCE

Your idea that infants are atheists just got pwned by your own basic doctrine.

Click to expand...

Your idea that they can be Christian just got pwned by yours,

Source

"The above states: "The first 'profession of faith' is made during Baptism." But the Catholic Church Baptizes at infancy, what "profession of faith" can an infant make? Nowhere in the Bible were infants Baptized. In fact, cognizant belief was required BEFORE one could be Baptized:"

purpledolphin8402 said:

Your idea that they can be Christian just got pwned by yours,

Source

"The above states: "The first 'profession of faith' is made during Baptism." But the Catholic Church Baptizes at infancy, what "profession of faith" can an infant make? Nowhere in the Bible were infants Baptized. In fact, cognizant belief was required BEFORE one could be Baptized:"

Acts 8:36-37
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (KJV)

​

Click to expand...

I agree with you, dolphin -- I do not believe in infant baptism, myself.

It's even in my profile (credobaptist).

Orogeny's faith icon is "Catholic", but he seems to be speaking against what the Catholics believe.

In short, I'm using his own doctrine against him.

Hi Mathclub,

As Einstein put it, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." And he wasn't saying that "comprehending" meant throwing away scientific inquiry simply because he did believe in some sort of intelligence behind it all that he called "God." Not looking for answers was not an option for him nor should it be for us.

The key is that we have to be willing to look, listen and learn. What adherents of one or another mythology won't do is modify their particular story in response to evidence. Nor are they willing to admit that their particular dogma of choice has been modified over the years for political or other arbitrary reasons. Many of Prof. Hawking's ideas have been prescient, yet scientists don't refer to him as "God's messenger" and simply download his pronouncements as some sort of absolute truth.

Physicists and astronomers are quite comfortable admitting that we are still learning about the universe, about the brain's ability to comprehend the universe, and about how what we observe may affect what is "real" in ways that we can't possibly (now) fully comprehend. Debates, disagreement and discovery are all part of the learning process. But the point is that scientists are ready to modify predominant theories in response to evidence such as experimentation, observation and mathematical proof. What they are not willing to do is throw away progress because someone claims to know it all, is speaking on the authority of an omnipotent being, or threatens to send all heretics to "hell" whether it's a place of eternal torment or some sort of non-consciousness or whatever.

Scientific and mathematical progress, while arguably creating new problems, has also formed the very basis for the technologies and societies that make this forum possible (and legal) in the first place. Had religionists had their way, progress would have been forbidden and our society would probably look like Afghanistan's.

Your breakfast was brought to you by science, technology, stable governance, a moderate climate and a supply chain that largely operates as a free market. It was not brought to you magically by a mystical all-powerful being. If it were, then the prayers of millions of starving people who also want to eat breakfast would be answered RIGHT NOW... unless you believe that the starving deserve their fate. I don't believe that anyone deserves to starve, except possibly some terrorist who believes that his "faith" gives him a right to kill me to serve his deity. That person can starve to death.

Religion makes a series of fantastic, wondrous claims that based on "evidence of things not seen." That is exactly why hundreds of people willingly drank Kool Aid to serve the God of Jim Jones in Guyana. They had total faith in God. They believed they were doing God's will. So did Martin Luther when he essentially declared Copernicus to be a heretic for having the temerity to claim that the earth revolved 'round the sun. Yet TODAY, no preacher or other "religious leader" would ever declare anything but. After all, we can all SEE that the earth revolves 'round the sun and not vice-versa. Praise Copernicus! The point is that religionists RESISTED THE TRUTH and many would have gladly executed the truth-teller and used the Bible ("God's truth") to justify it. We know about Copernicus, but how many other truth-seekers and freethinkers were burned to death as demons because they claimed that the evidence showed that the earth revolved 'round the sun?

I actually am a person of faith. But I admit that it's faith. If I am looking to convince the collective that this faith is justified or that others should join me in my particular faith then it's up to me to provide the evidence of that. Rational, verifiable evidence. Not an assertion, not a claim of the "authority of the Bible", not the age of my religion, number of adherents, the fact that it was the predominant religion in the Colonies, the advisability to "listen up or be sent to hell", or worse yet, readily debunked nonsense from the Creation Museum (come on, people).

Hundreds of millions of hardworking, kind, generous and everyday decent people from all over the world report feeling spiritually blessed and having their prayers answered. They follow myriad religions and denominations. They have all arrived at spiritual Truth with a capital T. And yet they are lined up against each other with bombastic rhetoric, claims of infallibility, suicide bombers and even advanced weaponry. You can argue that scientists are all "worshiping the gospel of science" but that gospel brought your breakfast and prevented your child from developing diptheria, tetanus, smallpox and whooping cough. If you reject science, then please have the moral consistency to stop eating, visiting doctors, navigating via GPS, taking airline flights and using the Internet.

Today's relgionists need to stop their faith as a pretext for assaulting rationality and progress. Such behaviour speaks volumes about the weakness of faith and not the strength of it. Consider this: Perhaps there's a clear message from a Creator that no one can deny, as clear as the fact that earth revolves, that we will only see when we make enough scientific progress to find it! The way forward is to stop claiming divine knowledge and be willing to seek observable, measurable and replicable truth. We cannot make progress by turning off our brains, rejecting scientific and mathematical thought and indulging in magical thinking or any claim of "godly" authority.

Orogeny said:

People: Unless you are wholly ignorant of the evidences for evolution, the big bang, and gravity, then you don't BELIEVE these things, you ACCEPT them based on a PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

Using the word 'believe' when you mean 'accept' makes it much easier for the less honest among the creationist movement (AV) to make a stupid semantic argument against science. Please take advantage of scientific vocabulary; it is there for a reason.

Click to expand...

Well put.

And having read a few pages of this thread leads me to accept based on the evidence that there are both athiests and Christians can be fools or wise. Or really more correctly has served to once again confirm what I laready accepted based on a preponderance of evidence.

AV1611VET said:

Read it and weep, Orogeny:

SOURCE

Your idea that infants are atheists just got pwned by your own basic doctrine.

Click to expand...

I have a doctrine now?

FrenchyBearpaw said:

I have a doctrine now?

Click to expand...

Are you a Catholic?

AV1611VET said:

Are you a Catholic?

Click to expand...

No.

Are you?

FrenchyBearpaw said:

No.

Are you?

Click to expand...

No, but Orogeny is, and he is the one I was addressing.

I don't recall saying you had a doctrine -- although I do believe atheism is a doctrine.

AV1611VET said:

No, but Orogeny is, and he is the one I was addressing.

I don't recall saying you had a doctrine -- although I do believe atheism is a doctrine.

Click to expand...

So I have a doctrine now?

Rep to you if you properly describe it.