Answers to Atheism

[Leo Volont]

Answers to Atheism

There are only a few basic Atheist arguments, all of which the Marian Catholic has an answer for.

The First Atheist argument is a cute little syllogism: Theists say God is Absolute; Nothing is Absolute, so there is no God. Well, as a matter of Fact, Religions of Revelation refer to a Relative God… only the God of Philosophy is Absolute… and regarding such an Invented Absolute God… who cares? You see, this Philosophically Created Absolute God was a product of the Greek Schools of Rhetoric – the kids had to become familiar with the Arguments for and against the Proposition that God is Absolute. They would study the Chapter, split up into groups and have a few quasi-formal debates, take the Quiz and then forget all about it. At the onset of the Christian Era, yes, some Christians thought it was a point of honor to defend the Proposition; however, it should have occurred to them that their Traditions of Revelation were quite contrary to their Arguments. The Divide between Heaven and Earth, the Existence of Satan, the Truth of Free Will – all these things in having Power in themselves, remove Power from God. No Partially Powerful God is Absolute. Therefore, the Atheist’s Demonstration that there are no Absolutes and so no Absolute God, becomes a big “So What!” Our Reply is that a Relative God is probably still strong enough to kick their Butts.

Second: We can’t Prove that God exists. We can. God is known through His Miracles and there have been many Miracles in History… some in rather recent history. They respond that such Miracles can’t be proven. This is more an assertion then an argument. The same assertion can prove that the Sun does not exist… for instance, a single person seeing the Sun proves nothing because he is delusional; two or more people seeing the Sun proves nothing because it is obviously Mass Hysteria; Scientific Instruments prove nothing because it is more likely that something else is the source of Heat and Light then an Entire Star being placed up in the Sky; the Amazing Randy says he saw a Sun Worshipper put something hot and bright up in the Sky; Scientists that say their Data proves the Sun must certainly be biased in favor of The Church of Sun Worshippers, because no Real Scientist would vindicate the superstitious notion that there is a Sun in the Sky. So, this argument always hits an impasse, when Our Own Scientific Evidence is rejected with the simple assertion that they refuse to believe it. It’s no longer an Argument when they are satisfied to duck the Evidence, declare victory and run home.

Third: Your God is Mean and Evil and so Shouldn’t Exist. This argument rests on the Notion that Humanity is the Eschatological Center of the Universe. It is a very Atheist Notion that Humanity is the Be All and End All… that even God should have reference only to the interests of Humanity. It should be obvious to anybody who thinks for a moment that God may have designs of His Own. But why did God create Humanity if He was only going to be Mean to it. Well, God, not having Absolute Powers, perhaps did not have a Choice to Create Restrictively. God was compelled by some Divine Necessity into Creating All Things whether Good or Bad… Humanity being one of these things. And Now God is in the Process of Sorting out the Good from the Bad. God is only Mean to the Bad, or Mean to the Good who are in the midst of the Bad, in order to drive them towards the Good. In short, God is behaving in such a Way as to further His Own Interests.

The Purpose of a Good Religion is to instruct and conduct Society in also furthering the Interests of God.

 

[Alpha]

Funny, I'd only use the 3rd argument against specific religions such as Christianity, but it's not really an argument against the possibility of God creating the universe, only against specific versions of God such as the Christian version.
I've seen the second argument, though personally I don't normally use it.
The first argument I've never seen or heard of before and sounds like utter nonsense.
Further, those refutations for all three are nonsense as well. Try a real argument.

 

[Leo Volont]

Funny, I'd only use the 3rd argument against specific religions such as Christianity, but it's not really an argument against the possibility of God creating the universe, only against specific versions of God such as the Christian version.
I've seen the second argument, though personally I don't normally use it.
The first argument I've never seen or heard of before and sounds like utter nonsense.
Further, those refutations for all three are nonsense as well. Try a real argument.

I forget the name of the Page... "Atheist Something or Another Forum" but they were always attacking the existence of an Absolute God by showing the Relativity of Everything. I thought it was ridiculous too, but Theists would get sucked into it as a Matter of Honor. However, if you really pay attention, many objections to God are based on the tacit assumption that God, in some way or another, should be Absolute but isn't.

Yes, True Religion is attacked by both Atheists and by Heretics who would prefer Humanly Designed Religions. Now, to a certain extent Religions should be somewhat open to the Idea that Petition Through Prayer may indeed convince God to adjust certain Doctrines and Dispensations. But some Religious Innovations are infact Anti-Religions. Christ teaching that we will be Judged by Our Works is a Fair Religious Innovation. But Paul teaching that it is Okay to Sin because we Killed the Messiah is NOT a fair Innovation, but rather an idea inimical to True Religion ... an Anti-Religion. So, yes, it is fair for impartial individuals to question the validity of Religions which are proposed to them for consideration. What else can you do?

"Try a real argument". Hmmmm. Okay. Against what?

 

[Alpha]

Athiest Discussion Forum? That's the closest match on Google...
What exactly do you mean by "absolute God"? The argument is nonsense because there are absolutes. Any necessary truth (not contingent truth) is absolute. The very claim that there aren't absolutes is self contradictory: "There are no absolutes" is itself an absolute.
Most things are relative, but not all.

True Religion is attacked...

True religion? That's an oxymoron.

"Try a real argument". Hmmmm. Okay. Against what?

You're arguing that atheism (no capital) is false, are you not?

 

[Leo Volont]

Athiest Discussion Forum? That's the closest match on Google...
What exactly do you mean by "absolute God"? The argument is nonsense because there are absolutes. Any necessary truth (not contingent truth) is absolute. The very claim that there aren't absolutes is self contradictory: "There are no absolutes" is itself an absolute.
Most things are relative, but not all.
True religion? That's an oxymoron.
You're arguing that atheism (no capital) is false, are you not?

Most absolutes are mathematical conventions. Eternity. Infinity. The extension required of such Absolutes makes them impossible.

then there are the Absolute Ideals, in the sense that some things must be 'absolutely' perfect, or in total conformance to an Imaginary Ideal. Again we return to the imaginary. In a Universe where all Real Things are Particulars, there are no Absolute Ideals.

I take it that when you talk of necessary absolutes, again, you are referring to mathimatical conventions: 2 plus 2 is 4 is some Absolute Truth. But it is Conceptual. Intellectual Models do not REALLY exist. When you speak of Necessary Absolutes you are only refering to Concepts -- the building blocks of Intellectual Models. Yes, Mathematics have a correspondance to Reality. Indeed, every intellectual should strive to construct an Intellectual Model of the Universe which allows him to operate in and anticipate the contingencies that the World does present and shall present. But those who have shown the most success in assessing the Big Picture, have not relyed on Absolutes so much as they have balanced on the Razor's Edge of Generalized Expectations regarding very particular events.

 

[Alpha]

Most absolutes are mathematical conventions. Eternity. Infinity.

If you say so. Any statement whose negation is self contradictory is a necessary truth, and therefore absolute. Eternity & infinity are not absolutes.

The extension required of such Absolutes makes them impossible.

Not sure what you mean by this.

then there are the Absolute Ideals, in the sense that some things must be 'absolutely' perfect, or in total conformance to an Imaginary Ideal. Again we return to the imaginary. In a Universe where all Real Things are Particulars, there are no Absolute Ideals.

Yes, perfection is mostly relative or subjective as well.

I take it that when you talk of necessary absolutes, again, you are referring to mathimatical conventions: 2 plus 2 is 4 is some Absolute Truth. But it is Conceptual. Intellectual Models do not REALLY exist. When you speak of Necessary Absolutes you are only refering to Concepts -- the building blocks of Intellectual Models. Yes, Mathematics have a correspondance to Reality. Indeed, every intellectual should strive to construct an Intellectual Model of the Universe which allows him to operate in and anticipate the contingencies that the World does present and shall present. But those who have shown the most success in assessing the Big Picture, have not relyed on Absolutes so much as they have balanced on the Razor's Edge of Generalized Expectations regarding very particular events.

What I meant was explained above. I wasn't referring to math, which is an abstract thing. In many ways it doesn't accurately conform to reality.

 

[Leo Volont]

If you say so. Any statement whose negation is self contradictory is a necessary truth, and therefore absolute. Eternity & infinity are not absolutes.
.

Eternity is NOT forever contradicts itself. Infinity is NOT All Expansive contradicts itself. This would make them Absolutes to you, but you still can't demonstrate in any Real Way that Eternity is Forever, or Infinity All Expansive. Absolutes rest on Imagination.

The idea of Absoluteness rests upon unlimitedness, unconditionality, purity -- in all instances Absolutes represent some form of the Ideal, the imaginary.

Give one concrete example of a real absolute, and then I am sure that I will be able to tell how we must be talking about two different Absolutes.

 

[James R]

Leo:

I think your have quite a bit to learn about what science is. Your second argument in your opening post makes no distinction between science and religious notions. In fact, there are some very important differences.

 

[SkinWalker]

Being agnostic, those arguments meant little to me. In number two, I'd only argue that evidence for a god appears non-existent, though the possibility of one cannot be discounted for the same lack of evidence.

I'd think that most atheists wouldn't make those arguments, though. A better argument would be that everything we know about gods can be linked to cultural tradition and that, therefore, gods are created by man. At least the concepts that we have of gods.

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo:

I think your have quite a bit to learn about what science is. Your second argument in your opening post makes no distinction between science and religious notions. In fact, there are some very important differences.

Oh, Good! Another moderator who speaks cryptically while never really saying anything.

I think all Moderators are really the same guy... they just change their name from Page to Page.

 

[Leo Volont]

Being agnostic, those arguments meant little to me. In number two, I'd only argue that evidence for a god appears non-existent, though the possibility of one cannot be discounted for the same lack of evidence.

I'd think that most atheists wouldn't make those arguments, though. A better argument would be that everything we know about gods can be linked to cultural tradition and that, therefore, gods are created by man. At least the concepts that we have of gods.

The Miracles of the Major Catholic Saints are all well within the Historical Period. Vincent Ferrer was roughly a contemporary of Christopher Colombus. The same way we know that Colombus sailed to the Americas we know that God is Real.

Oh, that reminds me of Our Lady of Guadalupe -- the Supernatural Picture done on the coarse burlap-like material that could not have been expected to last beyond 20 or 30 years; that shifts in color; that has no evidence of pigment or paint stroke; and which survives miraculously -- at the turn of the 20th Century a Mexican Revolutionary put a sack of dynamite at the foot of the Glass Case the held the Picture. The Basilica was completely destroyed. But when they dug it out, the bomb did not even break the glass. The heat of the fire did not even singe the material.

So, if any scientist would actually go over any empirical information you would readily see that Marian Catholicism is not a legendary Religion that is simply a perpetuation of a ossified Tradition. New Saints and New Miracles, as well as New Apparitions, arise to support it. Every Generation has something.

You science types simply don't know about it because you never poke your heads outside the Lab. The Zionist protestant Masons who control the Media aren't going to send you a News Letter about the Truths of the Catholic Religion. Sometimes you need to look beyond what Big Brother is willing to tell you.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Answers to Atheism

There are only a few basic Atheist arguments, all of which the Marian Catholic has an answer for.

The First Atheist argument is a cute little syllogism: Theists say God is Absolute; Nothing is Absolute, so there is no God. Well, as a matter of Fact, Religions of Revelation refer to a Relative God… only the God of Philosophy is Absolute… and regarding such an Invented Absolute God… who cares? You see, this Philosophically Created Absolute God was a product of the Greek Schools of Rhetoric – the kids had to become familiar with the Arguments for and against the Proposition that God is Absolute. They would study the Chapter, split up into groups and have a few quasi-formal debates, take the Quiz and then forget all about it. At the onset of the Christian Era, yes, some Christians thought it was a point of honor to defend the Proposition; however, it should have occurred to them that their Traditions of Revelation were quite contrary to their Arguments. The Divide between Heaven and Earth, the Existence of Satan, the Truth of Free Will – all these things in having Power in themselves, remove Power from God. No Partially Powerful God is Absolute. Therefore, the Atheist’s Demonstration that there are no Absolutes and so no Absolute God, becomes a big “So What!” Our Reply is that a Relative God is probably still strong enough to kick their Butts.

Second: We can’t Prove that God exists. We can. God is known through His Miracles and there have been many Miracles in History… some in rather recent history. They respond that such Miracles can’t be proven. This is more an assertion then an argument. The same assertion can prove that the Sun does not exist… for instance, a single person seeing the Sun proves nothing because he is delusional; two or more people seeing the Sun proves nothing because it is obviously Mass Hysteria; Scientific Instruments prove nothing because it is more likely that something else is the source of Heat and Light then an Entire Star being placed up in the Sky; the Amazing Randy says he saw a Sun Worshipper put something hot and bright up in the Sky; Scientists that say their Data proves the Sun must certainly be biased in favor of The Church of Sun Worshippers, because no Real Scientist would vindicate the superstitious notion that there is a Sun in the Sky. So, this argument always hits an impasse, when Our Own Scientific Evidence is rejected with the simple assertion that they refuse to believe it. It’s no longer an Argument when they are satisfied to duck the Evidence, declare victory and run home.

Third: Your God is Mean and Evil and so Shouldn’t Exist. This argument rests on the Notion that Humanity is the Eschatological Center of the Universe. It is a very Atheist Notion that Humanity is the Be All and End All… that even God should have reference only to the interests of Humanity. It should be obvious to anybody who thinks for a moment that God may have designs of His Own. But why did God create Humanity if He was only going to be Mean to it. Well, God, not having Absolute Powers, perhaps did not have a Choice to Create Restrictively. God was compelled by some Divine Necessity into Creating All Things whether Good or Bad… Humanity being one of these things. And Now God is in the Process of Sorting out the Good from the Bad. God is only Mean to the Bad, or Mean to the Good who are in the midst of the Bad, in order to drive them towards the Good. In short, God is behaving in such a Way as to further His Own Interests.

The Purpose of a Good Religion is to instruct and conduct Society in also furthering the Interests of God.

First argument - Never heard of it. It seems incoherent to me.

Third argument - Never heard of it. To 'believe' in factual 'good' and 'evil'
is a result of the same thinking that leads one to 'believe'
in a factual 'god'. The concept and utilization of 'belief' is
the root of this type of thinking.

Second argument - The claim of 'God's existance is a fantastic claim and
would require a fantastic proof. A 'miracle' that defies
the known laws of physics / nature (e.x. a flying badger
with glowing rainbow wings singing a Michael Jackson
song while shooting out cosmic fanfare from it's right
paw) would be a great piece of information supporting
the claim; however, this type of event would need to be
recorded by various impartial meachanism otherwise
people are left being asked to accept a fantastic claim
without a fantastic proof. The reality is that nobody
has proved the claim (let alone supported it); however,
if you are aware of some kind of empirical evidence
supporting the claim then please share it.

 

[Leo Volont]

Second argument - The claim of 'God's existance is a fantastic claim and
would require a fantastic proof. A 'miracle' that defies
the known laws of physics / nature (e.x. a flying badger
with glowing rainbow wings singing a Michael Jackson
song while shooting out cosmic fanfare from it's right
paw) would be a great piece of information supporting
the claim; however, this type of event would need to be
recorded by various impartial meachanism otherwise
people are left being asked to accept a fantastic claim
without a fantastic proof. The reality is that nobody
has proved the claim (let alone supported it); however,
if you are aware of some kind of empirical evidence
supporting the claim then please share it.

So the 75,000 People at Fatima are dismissed because they weren't stuffed in a Laboratory. This is simply Science doing some stonewalling. Is it really the Goal of Science to dismiss Known Empirical Phenomena because it has been too lazy to Verify it.

By the Standards of Legal Evidence, Fatima Happened, as well as hundreds of Miracles that have all Passed by the Standards of Legal Evidence.

Science is stonewalling.

The 75,000 People in the Field of Fatima know what they saw.

 

[SkinWalker]

The Miracles of the Major Catholic Saints are all well within the Historical Period. Vincent Ferrer was roughly a contemporary of Christopher Colombus. The same way we know that Colombus sailed to the Americas we know that God is Real.

Pope Sixtus IV was roughly a contemporary of Colombus as well. And yet he approved the Spanish Inquisition that led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people accused of being 'witches.' I'd say the belief-systems of the times were flawed. Indeed, it was believed by most that the Earth was flat and sea monsters dwelled at the edge.

Oh, that reminds me of Our Lady of Guadalupe

The Guadalupe "miracle" is one easily understood unless you are one easily taken in by superstition. Humans have innate abilities to see patterns in just about everything, and faces always stand out. Its coincidence. It was bound to happen on something at some point (a random pattern on a cloak). The church was very fortunate that it occured when and where it did, since this was the catalyst used to convert many Aztecs to the catholic faith. Juan Diego may even have been a completely made up character...

So, if any scientist would actually go over any empirical information

There is no empirical information. Only anecdote. Anecdote is not evidence.

You science types simply don't know about it because you never poke your heads outside the Lab.

I'm an anthropologist. You are my lab.

 

[SkinWalker]

So the 75,000 People at Fatima are dismissed because they weren't stuffed in a Laboratory. [...] By the Standards of Legal Evidence, Fatima Happened,

Something probably happened, but it probably wasn't a miracle. A few thousand of those "75,000" were probably convinced on the spot that there was a sign from some god, since their belief-systems allowed for few other possibilities and their level of knowledge and understanding permitted no critical thinking. The rest simply went along with the crowd.

Mass hysteria is nothing new to Homo sapiens.

The 75,000 People in the Field of Fatima know what they saw.

I think it's quite the opposite. Those "75,000" people believe they know what they saw.

 

[Leo Volont]

Pope Sixtus IV was roughly a contemporary of Colombus as well. And yet he approved the Spanish Inquisition that led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people accused of being 'witches.' I'd say the belief-systems of the times were flawed. Indeed, it was believed by most that the Earth was flat and sea monsters dwelled at the edge.

You must have read the English Protestant Histories of the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition were Trials. Most of the Trials ended in acquital or with repremand to reform. You see, all Muslims and Jews were expelled from Spain. If they Converted they could stay. But the People were aroused to Violence when they would catch the Muslims or Jews practicing their Old Religion while ignoring the new -- you see it was in clear Violation of their Immigration Contract. The People were resorting to Self-Help violence. This is when the Church came in and Reestablished Peace with its Legal Courts -- the Inquisition. As I said, the offending Muslims and Jews would be arrested before the Crowds could hurt them. Everything would cool off. There would be a fair trial and in most cases the defendents would be let off with an order to do Penance.

At least People were getting Trials. The United States does not even extend that right anymore, no?

You need to remember to not put too much credence into a History book if it is regarding a traditional and much hated enemy. Unfortunately, if English is your only Language, then you are caught in a bind, since England has been the Traditional and much hated enemy of so so many Peoples.

 

[Leo Volont]

The Guadalupe "miracle" is one easily understood unless you are one easily taken in by superstition. Humans have innate abilities to see patterns in just about everything, and faces always stand out. Its coincidence. It was bound to happen on something at some point (a random pattern on a cloak). The church was very fortunate that it occured when and where it did, since this was the catalyst used to convert many Aztecs to the catholic faith. Juan Diego may even have been a completely made up character...

The Image of Our Lady of Guadlupe is on display. Its History is documented. Regarding Juan Diego -- with relatively few Clergy in the Field in Mexico, Juan Diego almost single-handedly arranged for the Conversion and Baptism of 10 Million Mexicans in 10 years. He had to exist. The Catholic Clergy by themselves simply were not that persuasive. The same Religious Orders then sent Missionaries to Mexico sent missionaries to all other parts of the Americas and only in Mexico was there the Tidal Surge of Conversions. The difference was Juan Diego.

So, you are an Anthropologist. That means that you kept paying the University System until they gave you a swell piece of paper. But it didn't give you any Common Sense, did it?

 

[Nasor]

Oh, Good! Another moderator who speaks cryptically while never really saying anything.

I think all Moderators are really the same guy... they just change their name from Page to Page.

It's probably just that he's tired of explaining it to different people, over and over again.

He was probably referring to the fact that you can't ever really prove anything absolutely, unless you're able to use pre-defined axioms that limit your universe, like with mathematical proofs. Any trained scientist would be very unlikely to ask you to 'prove' that God exists, because science isn't about finding absolute proof of things; it's about weighing the available evidence and trying to examine how well propositions or theories conform with the observable universe.

An atheist who was also a scientist probably wouldn't complain that you can't prove God, but rather would complain that your evidence was insufficient. In the second paragraph of your first post you try to compare doubting the existence of God to doubting the existence of the sun, but that's silly; there is a vast body of evidence that the sun exists, it's readily observable, and its existence fits in well with everything else that we know about the universe. So yes, it would be pretty silly to doubt the existence of the sun - but similar overwhelming evidence for God's existence isn't readily available.

 

[mario]

You have to agree that ol' leo sure has a way with words, eh? I think that one of his favourite ploys is to make you challenge your sources of info. That somehow everything we've read was biased and untrue. Confuse and conquer. Cheeky devil that leo.

 

[Leo Volont]

In the second paragraph of your first post you try to compare doubting the existence of God to doubting the existence of the sun, but that's silly; there is a vast body of evidence that the sun exists, it's readily observable, and its existence fits in well with everything else that we know about the universe. So yes, it would be pretty silly to doubt the existence of the sun - but similar overwhelming evidence for God's existence isn't readily available.

That is where we differ. The Catholic Church has amassed huge Libraries full of Evidence regarding God, Miracles, Revelations, Angels and Apparitions. The dismissal of All of this Evidence is exactly along the grounds that I have indicated. They require a burden of Proof that nothing can meet, if confronted with the same objections they make.

Especially the Argument that "A Scientist who proves a Miracle is no longer a Scientist". Is that not a difficult one to get around?