RE: Atheists, tell me, a Roman Catholic: why should I become an atheist?
December 10, 2016 at 9:35 pm
(This post was last modified: December 10, 2016 at 10:06 pm by Balaco.)
Operator, I plan on responding to your points in more detail, but I feel like I should do a little more research before responding to some of them. For now, I will say that the "test of faith" has come up many times through my research over the weeks, and I can definitely understand the atheist point that it's just used to "justify" otherwise unexplainable events and keep people faithful. Growing up believing in God, my mind is obviously conditioned to believe that these "tests of faith" are valid, but I'm trying to think on it objectively.
As for this,
Sorry if I phrased it oddly, but I meant that, if my parents were hypothetically atheist – meaning that I wouldn't have necessarily been raised following a faith/religion – then I don't know if that hypothetical version of me would ever follow a religion (or take any religion seriously).
As I wait for some theist responses to some of my questions, I'm finally looking into the ontological argument. From what I've read so far, atheists feel like it can be used to show that a maximally being doesn't exist – because it's possible for it not to exist. I also feel that even if a maximally great being exists in one "possible world", it doesn't necessarily have to exist in every possible world...it could just be maximally great to that world. The argument doesn't seem to define a "maximally great" being as a being that is "maximally great" in all possible worlds. "Maximally great" seems to have subjective definitions as well.
I did come across a theist argument that nonbelievers have to maintain that it's impossible for God to exist due to the logic of the argument. What're your thoughts on this, guys? I think my point about how a maximally great being existing in one possible world doesn't necessarily mean it exists in all possible worlds (among other things) would negate this.
As for this,
(December 8, 2016 at 5:30 pm)operator Wrote:(December 7, 2016 at 7:36 pm)Balaco Wrote: Basically, yeah. Though I've followed and tried to grow stronger in the faith myself, of course. Obviously I can't say whether I'd even take religion seriously if my parents were atheists.You can't say whether you take religion seriously yet you have tried to grow stronger in 'the faith?' How so?
Sorry if I phrased it oddly, but I meant that, if my parents were hypothetically atheist – meaning that I wouldn't have necessarily been raised following a faith/religion – then I don't know if that hypothetical version of me would ever follow a religion (or take any religion seriously).
As I wait for some theist responses to some of my questions, I'm finally looking into the ontological argument. From what I've read so far, atheists feel like it can be used to show that a maximally being doesn't exist – because it's possible for it not to exist. I also feel that even if a maximally great being exists in one "possible world", it doesn't necessarily have to exist in every possible world...it could just be maximally great to that world. The argument doesn't seem to define a "maximally great" being as a being that is "maximally great" in all possible worlds. "Maximally great" seems to have subjective definitions as well.
I did come across a theist argument that nonbelievers have to maintain that it's impossible for God to exist due to the logic of the argument. What're your thoughts on this, guys? I think my point about how a maximally great being existing in one possible world doesn't necessarily mean it exists in all possible worlds (among other things) would negate this.
