Hah!  The church got rich with their bullshit and women died in droves from childbirth.

You need to fire your agent and get someone better!

So... God was there, going around interacting with people, and they weren't taking women seriously? Why did he put up with that? We apparently only figured out that women should be take seriously a very long time after God, Jesus and whatever that other thing is fucked off and left us alone. They were a bad influence.

Yeah, you wonder why these motherfuckers wrote the book that way, huh?

(November 22, 2016 at 6:44 pm)Balaco Wrote: Before I begin, I ask that you please avoid being hostile or anything. I'm a Roman Catholic, but I feel like many people of faith immediately jump to degrading atheists as people, rather than trying to understand their mindset. I'm heavily confused right now, and am asking both Catholic and atheist sites for their mindsets. Obviously, Catholics are going to defend Catholicism, while atheists are going to defend atheism. I ask that you please be civil about it, as this could be life-changing for me.


I've been questioning how to improve in my Roman Catholic faith lately...but this morning I came to the realization that I never really questioned my faith itself. I was lightly raised Catholic and recently took it upon myself to grow closer to God. Now, for probably the first time in my life, I feel like I'm genuinely considering atheism as a possibility.

From what I understand, atheists do not accept the possibility of a supernatural being, and restrict themselves to our "natural" human thinking. Previously I thought that atheists are simply conditioned by society to the point where they are unable to "rationally" believe in a supernatural being...God doesn't allow us universally undeniable proof of his existence as a test of faith. Now, though, I feel like it's impossible to tell whether that mindset is correct, or whether atheists are correct in their focusing on our natural human mindsets. I do feel like I've felt something while praying throughout the past. 

The other night, for example, I was planning on praying for about fifteen minutes, but felt oddly calm and ended up taking about an hour. Now I feel like that could have just been because I was comfortable, and my mind was "making things up" as I was more convinced in my faith.


Atheists, why do you reject the idea of God, and why should I? I know that your answers will include "there's no evidence" and all that, but please try to explain.

Hi! I am sorry for chiming in late. Welcome to this site! I am currently an agnostic, but I feel that I can still somewhat try to answer your question.
I was also raised Catholic and went to a Roman Catholic elementary school and secondary school. I woke up every morning, prayed a Hail Mary, an Our Father with my classmates, we would often have religious posters around the school, and we would have religion class. In Religion class we would talk about God and how God loves us very much. We would talk about heaven (a place you go if you are good) and a place called hell (where you go if you are bad). We also read some kids versions of bible stories. Until I got to my first year of high school, I never really thought about the validity of religion. That is what I was taught, so I accepted it. I believed that God created the world in 7 days, that Jesus lived about 2000 years ago, that Adam and Eve were the first people, etc. In my first year of high school, we took a trip to a science museum. We happened to pass a section on the evolution of some animals. I remember in particular being fascinated by the evolution of the sloth. Our tour guide told us what evolution exactly entailed, and how humans evolved too. Then, she told us that there are numerous theories about how life came to planet earth. One theory that stuck with me was the theory of a meteor hitting the earth with bacteria on it. Essentially, this bacteria would populate the earth and slowly evolve to the life that exists today. Suddenly, I realized that it didn't in fact make sense that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. If evolution is in fact true, that means that the start of earth according to the bible was not true... not fully true at least. Then, I realized that if I could not accept certain parts of the bible, that it did not make sense to accept the bible at face value as a whole. Learning more about science and the scientific theories caused me to be skeptical about the existence of a creator. However, I am still not fully convinced that there is no creator, and neither is any true atheist. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean that you believe that no creator exists. According to Matt Dillahunty, it essentially means that you have a lack of a belief in a creator. Some people dismiss science as "too materialistic". I get it. However, science is the only reliable method we know of at the moment to come up with answers about the world around us and the cosmos. That is not to say that there is no such thing as a creator, but according to Matt Dilahunty, it kind of goes along the lines of: we can't prove that something exists,  we cannot disprove it, so why believe it if we have no way to verify that it in fact exists?
Also, with regards to prayers, I am skeptical about those. I think the reason people feel good when they pray is because it is psychological. People like the idea of imagining that a supernatural being with a loving personality is listening to them and their griefs, problems, etc. I don't think praying works in general. Think about this, one person may pray and survive a deadly disease. Was that because the prayer worked, or was it a coincidence? What about all the people in the world who are living in countries going through war who pray for the war to end and it does not? What about all the people who starve and pray for food?
The point is, praying is good in the sense that it can make one feel better, but I feel it is not reasonable to assume that it has an affect on anything in reality.
Being a Catholic, you don't have to dismiss the idea of a creator if you don't feel comfortable in doing so. I don't know your age or your knowledge when it comes to science, but I think it may be a good idea to research some of the scientific explanations the world and the universe, and how it came to be. If you are not that familiar with religion, read the bible. See which one makes more logical sense to you.
All the best,
Violeta

(November 28, 2016 at 10:03 pm)Catholic_Lady

Simon Moon Wrote: First of all, simply stating that god' has always existed, adds nothing. [b Wrote:It has no explanatory power, and creates more questions than it answers.[/b]

What sort of realm did your god exist in before he created the universe?

If existence did not exist, what was your god acting on when he created the universe? Causation requires time and space. What time and space existed for your god to cause something to exist?

What sort of leap am I taking by positing that existence always existed?

Sorry, but your tu quoque fallacy is unconvincing. Neither is your argumentum ad ignorantiam.

My bold. 

Of course. But so does saying that anything in nature has somehow always existed.

Except we know the Universe exists.

(November 29, 2016 at 6:17 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(November 28, 2016 at 10:03 pm)Catholic_Lady

Simon Moon Wrote: First of all, simply stating that god' has always existed, adds nothing. [b Wrote:It has no explanatory power, and creates more questions than it answers.[/b]

What sort of realm did your god exist in before he created the universe?

If existence did not exist, what was your god acting on when he created the universe? Causation requires time and space. What time and space existed for your god to cause something to exist?

What sort of leap am I taking by positing that existence always existed?

Sorry, but your tu quoque fallacy is unconvincing. Neither is your argumentum ad ignorantiam.

My bold. 

Of course. But so does saying that anything in nature has somehow always existed.

Except we know the Universe exists.

That's a very important point because it renders God an unnecessary additional assumption on that level of the discussion.

(November 29, 2016 at 6:22 am)Alex K Wrote: That's a very important point because it renders God an unnecessary additional assumption on that level of the discussion.

I agree that it is a very important point, but it only seems to render a particular set of god conceptions as unnecessary additional assumptions. There is at least one concept of 'god' that would still be a "necessary additional assumption", i.e. god as metaphysically necessary "being". According to that metaphysic, nothing could "be" at all, even a universe understood as an infinite series of change ("beyond" the big bang even), unless "being, itself" is. Of course, you might find this metaphysic inadequate, just throwing it out there as a possible view of reality that can not only account for both an eternal universe and god, but logically concludes the relationship as necessary rather than presuming it is so.

(November 28, 2016 at 11:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: God doesn't have a sex.

Referring to God as Father and using male pronouns probably has more to do with human culture than anything else. God as a human (Jesus) was a man out of practicality because women weren't taken seriously back in those days.

I like my theory better.

Some time before the people in there thought of the god Yahweh, the god An (or Anu) was already around in Mesopotamic people's minds. An, the father god, King of the gods, supreme ruler.

The passage of this king-leader-father-god to a monotheist mindset unwittingly maintained the maleness of the character.
Believers also maintained the deference with which you feel you should address this king-leader-god.
To me, it makes no sense to kneel before an omniscient being. It also makes no sense that one would need to appease an all-loving entity with prayer and worship. It's as if believers are treating the ultimate good, loving, powerful entity as a petty human king.

But it does make sense, if you look at where the concept of this god comes from - An.

(November 29, 2016 at 7:54 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(November 28, 2016 at 11:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: God doesn't have a sex.

Referring to God as Father and using male pronouns probably has more to do with human culture than anything else. God as a human (Jesus) was a man out of practicality because women weren't taken seriously back in those days.

I like my theory better.

Some time before the people in there thought of the god Yahweh, the god An (or Anu) was already around in Mesopotamic people's minds. An, the father god, King of the gods, supreme ruler.

The passage of this king-leader-father-god to a monotheist mindset unwittingly maintained the maleness of the character.
Believers also maintained the deference with which you feel you should address this king-leader-god.
To me, it makes no sense to kneel before an omniscient being. It also makes no sense that one would need to appease an all-loving entity with prayer and worship. It's as if believers are treating the ultimate good, loving, powerful entity as a petty human king.

But it does make sense, if you look at where the concept of this god comes from - An.

Huh, thanks for the wiki link. I've heard bits and pieces of ideas like this before, but I haven't researched too deeply into it. I'm going to read into this more now.

(November 28, 2016 at 9:30 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 28, 2016 at 7:22 pm)Tonus Wrote: I just want to point out that the flaw in this explanation is that god is not accounted for.  Claiming that he is eternal confirms that something as powerful and complex as god --who is often defined as all-powerful and as complex and intelligent as it is possible to be-- can exist without a beginning and simply "always be."  If this is the case, then it seems that something far less powerful or complex could also exist without a beginning.  Such as a universe that renews itself in a cycle of expansion and contraction, or a bubbling multiverse of realities that constantly spit out new realities through black holes or any of a number of other phenomena that are nowhere near as complex as a god and which are therefore more likely to be the case.

If we reject an infinite regress because we cannot fathom the concept of eternity and can only accept things that begin, then god is a non-starter.  He is introduced into the equation with exactly those properties that created the conundrum in the first place.  It's the lazy way out.

The difference between saying God has always been here and saying something in nature has always been here is that God is supernatural. That's the whole point of God - a being that is beyond our natural world and its laws. The laws of nature, as far as we know, state that everything has a beginning. Just as there is no "proof" of God, neither is there "proof" that anything in nature can be infinite, having no beginning. Either way you're taking somewhat of a leap of faith by making either claim.

So because there is no way to prove god is real and no to differentiate between a godless universe and godawful one, ye christers get a free pass? Why ye and not Shiva cultists?

(November 28, 2016 at 10:41 pm)Balaco Wrote: Good to see a few pages' worth of posts since my last. I don't have too much time on my hands and only got to skim so I'm planning on responding to some tomorrow. On a quick note, though,

(November 28, 2016 at 8:59 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Balaco, why is your god referred to as a "HE/HIS/FATHER"? Why does your god have a sex?

I remember questioning this myself, finding the answer to be that God is sexless, but "Father" and masculine terms are apparently associated with giving, while feminine terms are associated with receiving. Don't know much about the origins of this though.

Misogyny. Remember in christianity, as in judaism women are considered to be things to be possessed, not people in their own right.