A Letter From An Atheist

[AV1611VET]

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.

SOURCE

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

 

[Orogeny]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thus, the infant is an atheistic agnostic.

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?

 

[Orogeny]

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

'My' priest and I disagree on many points.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

'My' priest and I disagree on many points.

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

 

[Orogeny]

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

 

[AV1611VET]

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

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.

 

[Orogeny]

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.

Have the whole desert, AV. You deserve it.

 

[purpledolphin8402]

Read it and weep, Orogeny:

SOURCE

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

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)

​

 

[AV1611VET]

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)

​

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.

 

[russ98]

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.

 

[keith99]

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.

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.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Read it and weep, Orogeny:

SOURCE

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

I have a doctrine now?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a doctrine now?

Are you a Catholic?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Are you a Catholic?

No.

Are you?

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

Are you?

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.

 

[mathclub]

You stated:



Would you like Him to?

I can't 'want' or not 'want' anything from something that I don't believe exists.

What I can say is that i want to know the truth about the world we live in. So, hypothetically speaking, if there was a god that existed that I didn't believe in then I would want him to convince me that he exists.

And in this hypothetical situation, he would have created me so he would know what it would take to convince me of his existance.

 

[mathclub]

You have the burden of proof. It is up to you to prove that it is not true.

This is a strawman. You make up a story and then you falsify your own story. So this amounts to nothing. Science demands evidence and you have to produce a way to verify what you say is true. Others have to be able to verify your results.

Did you know that for 3500 years the scribes have used math to verify that they have been accurate and true to copy the Bible. They actually count every letter in a passage to make sure that they have written the correct number of letters.

The Bible was then read outloud at a assembly. They have to get 10 people together to read the scriptures to them. If they find a letter that does not fit the word, then they send it back to the scribe to correct.

It is amazing how math can be used to verify our Bible is accurate and true to God's purpose and intention. Jeremiah says God actually watches over His own Word to perform it! So we know that the Bible has all the authority of God behind what we read. The very same God that created the Universe that we live in, stands behind our Bible to verify and to perform. What He says He will do you can be sure He will do. This is what you learn if you were to take a covenant theology class. If you do your part of the Covenant, then you can be sure that God is faithfull and true, He will do His part.

Want to know for sure if there is a God or not? Simple, do your part and then want to see if God will follow though to do what He says He will do. Of course this will require you to read the Bible to learn about God, to find out what He has for you and what He wants to do in your life. I will give you a clue, He wants us to prosper so we have hope and a good future. He does give us a choice.

Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV)
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

No, I do not have any burden of proof. Any person making a claim has a burden of proof. You don't need any proof to reject a claim. You have claimed there is a god and he did all these things, and I reject all of those claims without needing any proof. If I made my own counter claims, then I would need to back those up with proof, but I haven't done that.

A strawman is when you create a false version of what the other persons argument is in order to attack it easier. I made an analogy, which you can feel free to disagree with, but it is nothing to do with a strawman.

I'm ignoring the rest of what you wrote, because if we can't even agree on the basics of a discussion, as per above, there is no point.

 

[mathclub]

Dear Mathclub,

It appears you know as little about Christians as you do about Science.


1. A majority of Christians believe in evolution (TE), Big Bang Theory (developed by a Priest) and germ theory.


2. Evolution is a fact. It is not a rung on an ascending ladder of certainty. What scientists may disagree on is the points on certain Theories of Evolution. Sometimes people jump on that as proof that evolution is false.

3. I believe evolution is a fact and it still doesn't prove that the entire Bible is a pack of lies. No historian who deals with the authenticity of documents would agree with you. The Bible has historical events, poetry, historical figures and prophecies. Some verses are meant to be interpreted literally, others not. It is Scriptural text not a science textbook. You are falling into the same trap that IDers and YEC have?

Not sure why you feel the need to say 'I don't care' so often in your post. It is a reflection of your state of mind though. Combative and unconciliatory, I'd say.

Sometimes when you write something in that kind of style like I did to start this discussion, it is hopefully a bit more catching, even if it was a bit less accurate. To be constantly putting in "I know not all christians believe this" and "I understand that disproving or proving one part of the bible doesn't not impact on the validity of another" might be more accurate, but it is less readable. The point of the OP was to get discussion going, and we can weed out the inaccuracies as we go, as I have tried to do. I also wrote that off the top of my head, so put things in a different way than I would if I had the chance to redo it.

I understand all the things you are saying, but to be honest that wasn't really the point, and I hope you can now understand what I was trying to do. I wasn't trying to accurately represent christian beliefs, or even atheist beliefs.

The main point was to show that atheism and science aren't necessarily linked, and the atheistic beliefs aren't based on science the same way theistic beliefs are based on religious text. You can prove anything in science wrong without rocking atheistic beliefs (at least for me) but proving key parts of religious text wrong can rock belief for some (but not all) theists.

To this end, I put "I don't care" so often, and in a separate paragraph, because I really wanted to drive home the point that as an atheist I really don't care about specific scientific theories in relation to my beliefs. It is a common literary tool when you really want to emphasise a point. You are probably the type of christian who understands that message I was trying to put across, and if that's the case then good on you. But there are a LOT around here that don't, so I really wanted to get that message across, which hopefully I did.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

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.

So I have a doctrine now?

Rep to you if you properly describe it.