# C.S. Lewis and Atheism



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
I was reading a fascinating tome which compares Sigmund Freud and CS Lewis head to head. It is written by a Harvard psychiatrist. Its such an enriching read, that I may have to buy this one. What struck me in the chapter which compares Sigmund Freud's religious beliefs to CS Lewis's religious beleifs, was that they were both markedly the same until Lewis hit his mid-30's. Both of them were adamant atheists. CS Lewis reminds me of a young Martin:

"When I was an atheist, if anyone asked me, "Why do you not beleive in God?" my reply would run something like this..." First the starkness of the universe : "the greatest part of it consists of empty space completely dark and unimaginably cold...all the forms of life live only by preying upon one another...The creatures cause pain by being born, and live by inflicting pain and in pain they mostly die." Next, in the "most complex creatures. Man, yet another quality appears, which we call reason, whereby he is enabled to foresee his own pain which henceforth is preceded with acute mental suffering, and to foresee his own death while keenly desiring permanence." This human history is a " record of crime, war, disease, and terror with just sufficient happiness interposed to give...an agonized apprehension of losing it." In short, " If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction."

Because of his pessimistic view of reality, he suffered from an extreme depression most of his early life :

He had a "settled expectation that everything would do what you did not want it to do. Whatever you wanted to remain straight, would bend; whatever you tried to bend would fly back to the straight; all knots which you wished to be firm would come untied; all knots you wanted to untie would remain firm. It is not possible to put it into language without making it comic, and I have indeed no wish to see it now except as something comic. But it is perhaps just these early experiences which are so fugitive and, to an adult, so grotesque, that give the mind its earliest bias, its habitual sense of what is or is not plausible. "

Lewis realized that through his atheism, he was in reality expressing his own frustration and anger:

"I was at the time living, like so many Atheists...in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained God did not exist. I was also angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world."

After his conversion, the lifting of his depression he attributed to several things. I find most interesting his change of view of people. He no longer considered them temporary aquaintances - since all were given immortal souls, the people he passed by and chatted with on a daily basis were immortals, and not to be snubbed or thought less of.

"There are no ordinary people, " Lewis remarked at an address given at Oxford. He encouraged the audience" to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship." No one ever talks to " a mere mortal...it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors...your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses."

And before his conversion, he often thought the greatest moments of his life would be acheived by doing something great. In this passage, it reminds me of the daydreams of people with DP, who are also of a philosophical ilk :

"Dreams of success, fame, love, and the like....I have had dozens of them...dreams in which I said clever things...fought battles, and generally forced the world to acknowledge what a remarkable person I was."

But he realized that these acheivements became emptier the more were won.

" A proud man is always looking down on things and on people: and of course, as long as you are lookin down, you can no see something above you."
"Pleasure in being praised is not pride. The child who is patted on the back for doing a lesson well, the woman whose beauty is praised by her lover, the saved soul to whom Christ says "Well done", are pleased and ought to be. For here the pleasure lies not in what you are but in the fact that you have pleased someone you wanted, and rightly wanted to please. The more you delight in yourself and the less you delight in the praise, the worse you are becoming. When you delight wholly in yourself and do not care about the praise at all, you have reached bottom. "

I thought that some of these quotes were spot on for my life, and for some people on here. I hope they enlighten you as much as they have me, and I hope you all have a great Sunday. God Bless, and

Peace
Homeskooled[/i]


----------



## Guest

Actually, that was a PBS special awhile back, and I'll put the link to their site below. It has lots of articles about the on camera discussions and the bios of the two fellows, their ideas, concepts, etc. It's an excellent program - if you get a chance to watch it (in re-runs) I highly recommend it!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/why/


----------



## Guest

> CS Lewis reminds me of a young Martin


Martin IS a "young Martin" lol....we just think he's old because he's such a curmudgeon!

:lol: 8) :wink:


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Janine, 
Haha...that is so true. I dont think anyone expected his photos to look quite so baby-faced. Yes, thats right Martin, I just said you have a baby-face. I took that into account in my post, though, and since Martin is 33 and CS Lewis's atheist writings were done mostly in his 20s, I'm figuring a younger Martin may well have written the same things. Although obviously not as rationally and well researched as CS Lewis. Hee-hee.....I have to go to confession for that bit of elbowing now. Later!

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

Why you evil little temptresses... :evil: I am really such a curmudgeon ? At this rate I'll be nurturing a new obsession about it in no time. Sob.

Regards your quotes Homeskooled; I agree, Google is a wonderfull thing. :roll: What would we do without it I ask thee ?

I must say it's a novel approach to paint us atheists as angry, raging cynics, who really, deep down, are little mummy's boys thirsting for a spiritual elixir to fill the void in our soulless lives. I've never heard that one before. You win a small prize for inventiveness. Without question however, everyone on this planet who hasn't got an imaginary friend to look after them is as you describe. Every single one of them. It is impossible to be an atheist and live a happy and fulfilling life. And if, for instance, one of these atheists dares to criticise the imaginary friend and his/her/it's followers, then I for one heartily endorse locking them up in a small room, blasting them with gospel and force feeding them some nonsense from a 2000 year old book, until they get 'better'.

My 'anger' at religion, however, has a slightly more visceral foundation. Much like, I guess, someone who has lost a loved one through lung cancer might despise cigarettes. I.e, I have seen, at first hand, how religion has destroyed the lives of people close to me. Before that, I regarded religion as little more than an irritation in my otherwise dismal, godless life. I wonder, are atheists allowed to show displeasure at anything ? God/s forbid I ever choke on a toffee. The entire confectionary industry will FEEL MY WRATH ! 8)


----------



## Homeskooled

I'll be back later to add more to this, but I think you have an interesting analogy to toffee there Martin. Its not real accurate, though. You see, what if toffee were imaginary, and then you choked on it? Then what would occur? What if they sold Imaginary Toffees by the Imaginary Toffee Company? People were buying their little empty, brown boxes at the checkout counters in England, and putting their fingers in them, pulling out little pieces of nothing which they stuffed down their gullets with expressions like " Thats the dog's bullocks!" and " So sweet and satisfying!". If you choked on this imaginary toffee, what would you do? A) Berate yourself for beleiving in Imaginary Toffee by the Imaginary Toffee Company and laugh hysterically about it B) Berate the "manufacturers" of Imaginary Toffee, or C) Curse that piece of Imaginary Toffee up and down for all the misery it caused in your life. Now, if its imaginary, I'd be choosing A). And if my friends choked on it, I'd tell them to do the same thing, and get their heads checked out. Unless, of course, I had doubts about whether imaginary toffee really didnt exist. Then I would B) Curse the "manufacturers" of Imaginary Toffee or more than likely C) Stare at the brown box "full" of Imaginary Toffees, and curse at it, and stomp on it, and kick it, and whenever people mentioned Imaginary Toffee, instead of laughing about it, I'd feel sore about what it did to me and my friends, and get a little bit heated whenever someone said how sweet it tastes. But , then again, thats just me.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

If you want to see something funny, give an especially sticky toffee to a dog. Hours of fun I can tell you.

Is anything I say accurate Homey ?

Aha, but this toffee wouldn't be imaginary, would it. This toffee belongs to the consensual reality that you, me, and everyone not suffering from a psychotic complaint accepts. There is no 'first' premise here that we have to accept on grounds of 'faith'.

But I an see what you're getting at. You're suggesting that because I do not accept your insistence on blindly accepting your 'first premise' and disregarding reason, then why do I get so angry with religion and toffees, when I don't accept the 'first premise'. Well, it's not 'faith' or toffees, a personal spirital belief, that I'm attacking, it's dogmatic organised religion and all the harm that it causes. I couldn't give a rats scrotum if someone believes in god/s, if fact, if it makes them happy, then super. Great. Fandabadosey.

I'd be interested to know your view on this: The Church (all of them) who condem homosexuality, as an employer and supposed defender of human rights, why should they be allowed to actively discriminate again homosexuals ? Why are they immune from prosecution ? And you must remember, 30% (excluding communist china) of the worlds population are atheist, at the latest reckoning, and a sizeable remained are agnostic or simply don't give a damn...so, as hard as you may find it to believe, a fairly hefty proportion of people don't believe the way you do. So why should we, and everyone else, put up with it ?


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
Sure your accurate about things. I think you said that China was a communist country. See, I'm not _that_ hard on you.

Getting mad at organized religion was option B) Cursing the purveyors of Imaginary Toffee. I'm just pointing out that either religion is as obviously ridiculous as you say, or it isnt. If it IS, then you have to ask yourself why you get stuck on it. And if it isnt, then you have to ask yourself how something so imaginary can have such a grasp on people. In all truth, my toffee allegory wasnt very accurate either. You couldnt convince most of the world's population that imaginary, invisible toffees were satisfying, real, or worth buying. Because you dont have an innate need for imaginary toffees. Even Freud saw that people who beleive in God, no matter how misguided, were filling a need. In recent brain imaging which was covered in National Geographic magazine, a control group of people was compared to a Buddhist monk. The doctor noticed that people who rated lowest on depression scales had the most activity in their far left cortex, and people who were unhappy had the most activity in their right. By this standard, the monk after praying had the furthest left scan the doctor had ever seen, making him the happiest man in the world. Again, in a double blind placebo controlled study done 3 years ago, groups of sick people were divided into groups. One group was told they were being prayed for but actually werent. Another was being prayed for and wasnt told. Another was told they were prayed for and were, and the last wasnt prayed for at all and knew it. I beleive that the groups being prayed for had a 20 percent increase in healing time and no deaths. This was conducted at Harvard and later repeated with the same results. Regardless of why these things work, the effects seem to be real. No imaginary toffe at work here. There has never been an agnostic civilization, or an atheist one, and there never will be. For some reason, needs for these things are hard-wired into the human being. Whether you beleive them to be psychological, evolutionary, or truly spritual. This is why atheism has to use theisms arguments against itself - atheism is a void. It doesnt have anything itself to offer. It can only offer discontent with something that exists, and it cant fill the void it leaves behind or that natural urge which people have. It just doesnt satisfy - alot like imaginary toffees.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
How do you mean "discriminate"? If you mean deny employment, then yes, that is illegal. My church organist is gay. To tell you the truth, most church choir directors are. To ordain them? Hmmm....if they arent practicing, probably allowed to get ordained anyways. To marry them? Well, technically, that isnt legal yet. Although most relgions are given exceptions if their religious values conflict with local law. The amish people who live near me do not have to participate in a military draft, go to school, get a Social Security number, or vote. Is that bad? The answer depends on if you agree with the amish. But, then again, most of the atheists I know dont agree with the law of the land either - they tend to be libertarians, who are a bit like anarchists. So I guess if you mean by not marrying them, no, that shouldnt be illegal, and isnt. Its up to the churches and private individuals. I dont think its a very good idea for building a sound social order upon, but that doesnt mean that gays shouldnt participate in things. Some of my best church friends are gay. Which leads me to another point - I think we do "homosexuals" an injustice when we classify them only according to their sexuality. I am not just a "heterosexual". People are the sum of many things, not just their orientation. Later

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

Hey Homeskooled,

I'm not denying for a minute that people who are absolutely convinced by their faith, their faith that is outside skepticism, derive comfort and happyness from it. Not at all. And in those cases, I'm glad for them. Sure, maybe even a little jealous. But I am incapable of fooling myself in this respect. I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I don't believe in god. Not because, neccessarily, that I dont want to, but because to me it's ludicrous, crazy, something that flys in the face of reality and evidence. To me, it's more likely that there is a prawn that is Professor of Geology at Cambridge university.

As to why millions of people believe in god, well, as you know there are hundreds of reasons. I don't need to tell you, do I. Even most people who are religious realise that their belief is founded on a 'need', despite the reality. So they shun the reality to retain their faith...blindly accepting your 'first premise' if you like. And if they are comfortable with this bizarre dichotomy, then so be it.


----------



## person3

Martin, if those people had not had religion to fall into would they not have chosen an equally faulty crutch?


----------



## person3

actually Martin reminds me of a far more refined Dakota Joe


----------



## Martinelv

You've hit the nail on the head Person3. Why do people need this kind of crutch in the first place ? There are crutches all around you, if you look hard enough. No need to look towards 'heaven' for a helping hand. IMHO.

And I'm honoured to be compared with Mr D. Joe.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
I agree. Why settle for belief in God when one can choose other more attractive crutches for their insecurities? Why choose religion, the opiate of the moral but weak, when you can choose atheism, the opiate of the reckless? To be honest, I dont beleive that insecurity is a bad thing. There are good kinds of insecurity. Vulnerablility means that you are still open to having feelings, like loving or being hurt by people you love. I pity the invincible "island" of a person. People choose the crutch which they feel most comfortable with- which makes them feel good. Unfortunately, most people do not choose a crutch because it is logical - they choose it because it fills a need. This can lead to a dishonest crutch, but I tend to beleive that human beings have a natural longing for what is true, and that what is true is also what is good, so this tendency can lead to greater and better things. Life has a way of throwing our mistakes back in our faces until we get it right. I think this is why until we work through an issue, it haunts us for years. Theologically, I'd say its an expression of Natural Law.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

Please explain - how is Atheism the opium of the weak, the wreckless ? And how do you define this wrecklessness ? From your assumption that all Atheists are Anarchists ? That's a pretty outrageous generalisation, and even so, is that a bad thing - if you understand anarchy in the philosophical, non-conventional sense. Even I don't make that assumption about the religious, on a personal level.

Atheists, by definition, do not NEED a supernatural power to provide them with a crutch. And again, by definition, because of this they are strong in their unbelief. They don't need an imaginary friend to look after them and assure them that everything will turn out ok. They accept the universe for the pityless indifference displays, and look inside theselves, and sometimes more importantly, around to fellow man for help. Sure, we all need crutches from time to time, but to allow ourselves to fool ourselves into a lifelong submission (or whatever it is) to an unknowable god/s seems straightforwadly and entirely weak. It's deemeaning.

And this natural human longing for 'truth' that you mention. You seem unable to accept any truth other than your own first premise, which is based on blind acceptance of YOUR belief, YOUR faith. This is the truth ? There is as much truth in that as there is that David Koresh was god. Your use of the word 'truth' is an astonising assumption that the black box of your religion, the black box that you cannot and are unable or unwilling to negotiate, is the universal truth.

Pop-religion, the unseemly amalglimation of eastern mysticism is the latest 'faith' in vogue at the moment, or other such nonsense as Kaballha or Scientology, so it's seems. Does it make you wonder why ? More and more people are shaking their heads in disgust and walking away from the conventional 'western' religions, sensing the absurdity they dictate, and the bloodshed they have, and continue to have, caused. If religion were anything else than the 'sacred' taboo that it unfortunately continues to be, it would be a class A drug. Think about it.

To quote Hardy again...'Religion, after two thousand years of opportunity, I'm afraid it's time is up.' You know it, I know it, in spite of yourself. Save occassional tragedies such as 9/11 and the Tsunami, when the screaming hoards (somewhat understandably) rush for the bible or the koran, people are not as blinkered as you imagine.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
As I said above, everyone needs a crutch. Human beings are needy, insecure creatures. There isnt anything wrong with that. Sociopathology and narcissism occur when you lack them. Its just a question of whether you've chosen the right crutch, or if there even IS a right crutch.

I imagine you view the atheist as Neitsche's ( thats got to be the wrong spelling) quintessential "superman" - words he penned as he was succumbing to the ravages of his diseases, alone in his attic apartment. Its interesting to note that he penned the term "survival of the fittest" and not Darwin, as is commonly thought. Atheists, by definition, do not BELIEVE in a supernatural power to provide them with a crutch - whether they NEED one is a different argument. I'm looking through your posts - you've used the words cruel and pityless to describe both God and the world. But when you describe God you also use words like eternal punishment, anger, judgement, and revenge. I dont truly beleive that you see the world as pitiless and cruel - these are some of the reasons you've given for disbeleiving in God. But I beleive, and this goes back to my previous post, that the world is LESS pitiless and cruel to you than God. In other words, you find your solace and comfort in the fact that no matter how wreckless your life is, at least you do not have to contend with a God who deals out eternal punishment, anger, or judgement. Of the two crutches you can choose, this provides the most comfort and the most logical rationalizations. Indifference is the laudanum which dulls your pain, and a belief that things are meant to get better is the opium of the theist. We are all weak, so I dont accept that as an argument to disqualify a philosophy. The question is which drug is the placebo, and which is the real deal?

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
Ah, I see you've edited your post. Pop religion? I like that...I think I'm rubbing off on you. Yes, I think New Age religion takes philosophy and just wholeheartedly chucks it out the window. There isnt even a rationalization for why crystals are supposed to heal people - they just have energy. Who told them it does? They dont know. I dont even think you can call it a belief system - it has nothing systematic in it. I think that eastern religions ideas of prayer are excellent - churches of the Catholic Eastern rite, and books of St. John of the Cross, both exemplify constructive east-west crossovers - but if your going to beleive something, at least dont believe in it because its fashionable. Of all the reasons to beleive, that has to be the most shallow. I honestly think that Hardy is spitting in the wind. Like I've said before, not only do tests show that belief in God is incredibly healthy and prolongs ones life, its actually hardwired into the brain. The only atheistic argument I can think of to counteract this is that we may one day evolve out of a need for these thought patterns. Its possible, but if history is a good track record to run on, not likely.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

> I imagine you view the atheist as Neitsche's ( thats got to be the wrong spelling) quintessential "superman" - words he penned as he was succumbing to the ravages of his diseases, alone in his attic apartment


Here we go again, have you any generalisations left ?. All atheists are immoral nazis's who detest the weak and yearn for a super-race of men who strive for perfection, is that right. Thus Spoke Zarathustra eh ? If you remember, although Zarathustra said that 'God is dead', he also said that he loved 'all men'. Before Neiztche went insane (another consequence of Atheism, I imagine !), his intentions were the advancement of humanist nature, not the destruction of it. He saw religion as a hindrance to the undeniable abominations of the prevailing dogma.



> I dont truly beleive that you see the world as pitiless and cruel


Correct. The world is utterly indifferent to us.



> In other words, you find your solace and comfort in the fact that no matter how wreckless your life is, at least you do not have to contend with a God who deals out eternal punishment, anger, or judgement.


So, I actually choose not to believe because then I wouldn't have to account for my 'sins', is that it ? Is that why you think I'm an atheist ? Quite insulting, but I'm used to it, other most other forms of piety.

[/quote]


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
If you are implying that Nietzsche advocated immorality or Nazism, you would be misreading him. He did, however, advocate the self-reliant man as the perfect man. Actually, his insanity was a by-product of atheism's toxic negative energy effects on his brain and the karmic.....Just kidding.

I cant answer as to why you dont beleive, Martin. In my mind, you have mixed motives. Which isnt unusual - very few times do humans have "pure" motives for doing something. Even parents care for their children because they get something back from it. I think you have a genuinely hard time beleiving, but as I've said in a previous argument, your rationalizations seem to have been arrived at reductively, not deductively. You chose what you are comfortable with, and have justifications for doing so. But the fact that you would rather get your privates caught in your zipper than spend an afterlife with the Divine, tells me you DO have a hierarchy which places atheism as more comfortable and better for you than religion. You may not have chosen atheism because the afterlife scares you, but it might be a nice by-product. I dont know. As some other observant soul said on here, atheism gets you through your day.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

> If you are implying that Nietzsche advocated immorality or Nazism, you would be misreading him.


No, I wasn't implying that at all, I thought you were !  It was the Nazi's and other unsavoury types who twisted his work.



> I cant answer as to why you dont beleive, Martin


This is a loaded question, and unfortunately tinged with pious sympathy. It implies that I am spiritually defunct, that my unbelief is inherently at fault, as I suppose you believe. But I never asked for answers as to why I don't believe. I don't believe in your or any other gods because, and I'm going to say this for the final time, because I SEE NO REASON OR EVIDENCE to believe in them. It's like asking me to believe in sincere, intelligent evangelists.



> your rationalizations seem to have been arrived at reductively, not deductively.


This is quite a bold statement, considering that your conclusions are based on a black box, your first premise that must be accepted without scrutiny. Anyway, I'd like some examples of my reductive method. And please remember, I have never believed in god, even when I was a child. It just seemed ridiculous to me. I may at some point have been agnostic, before I (attempted to, at least) read about Evolution, Cosmology, Google Philosophy, Geology, Biology, Physics and such. There is nothing left in defence of religion except subjective experience.



> But the fact that you would rather get your privates caught in your zipper than spend an afterlife with the Divine


When I said that - I meant that if there is an afterlife, and the afterlife is the product of the nasty, vengeful god depicted in the bible, forever with the threat of going to hell if you step out of line, then I'd rather not bother, thanks all the same.



> As some other observant soul said on here, atheism gets you through your day.


I'm afraid that observant soul (?) was wrong. My atheism is a lack of belief in god/s, which despite what you think does not give me carte blanche to live an immoral life. It's quite funny that you think my recklessness is due to the fact that I think I won't have to face the big man when I die. Are there no reckless religio ?  I forget that the religious have all the answers, but oh...if only it were that simple.


----------



## Guest

I know better. I really do. I'm very intelligent. I know not to get into this with these two, grin.

yet...

See, here's my two cents: Martin, religion will always be. It serves a fundamental human need. It ain't going anywhere. Ever.

One of the most interesting points raised during the Lewis/Freud program was about morality. The atheist types were making what I consider an excellent point: humans should not NEED to rely on any religious coda in order to develop moral actions. We are profoundly empathic (although also highly aggressive creatures), and as such we can trust ourselves to act humanely - we can CHOOSE to exhibit goodness, with or without any fear/awe of divine intervention. Alas, most people don't trust themselves to do that.

In all honesty, I'd trust my longterm welfare to Martin before I'd entrust it to a fundamentalist of any religion. Heavily religious persons (in organized religion) can turn on a dime if their belief system so dictates. If they believe one day that God has demanded the death of all women, I'm done for. Martin himself would have to invalidate his OWN core self's beliefs in order to murder me.

I'll trust myself to the madman of London, any day.
grin


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 


> No, I wasn't implying that at all, I thought you were ! Very Happy It was the Nazi's and other unsavoury types who twisted his work.


Uh-oh...Better watch those generalizations and stereotypes. They're reserved for the unintelligent religious, Martin. Tut-tut.

Martin, I answered your question "Is that why you think I'm an atheist" not with pious sympathy, but with the statement that A) You have mixed motives and B) That you have a genuiniely hard time beleiving. Okay, the next comment is interesting, considering you belonged to a debate team.



> This is quite a bold statement, considering that your conclusions are based on a black box, your first premise that must be accepted without scrutiny.


Martin, ALL first premises must be accepted. The fact that you exist must first be accepted for anything to be argued with a definitive conclusion about you. Thats not that far-fetched considering this site is made for people who dont believe they, other people, or the world, exists. If we want to argue about the definition of time, there will be a first premise. This is not just reserved for the atheist, it works for you too. I didnt just make this up - all proofs begin with a premise which must be accepted. Its a law of proofs - geometric, philosophical, newtonian. Its how proofs work.
I guess you can try to make it look dumb that this is a law of proofs, but I dont think that I'm the one who will be looking unintelligent.



> Anyway, I'd like some examples of my reductive method.


Martin, your following statements are exactly what I mean. Reductive reasoning means you start with the conclusion, then work backwards. Sherlock Holmes used deductive reasoning to trace the mud on a boot to the correct quarter of London. If it was reductive, he would know the quarter of London and then justify why the boot looked like it had been there. I remembered from previous posts of yours spanning about a year that you have not beleived since you were a child. A reductive case for atheism would be made by a man who first believed in atheism, just because (incidentally, this is how a first premise works, Martin), and then reductively figured out why it was a good idea. Ask alot of relgious people if they have beleived in God since they were a child. Most of them will say absolutely. And yet, of course, it makes their arguments that much weaker because you know they had their mind made up all along. They are theists because they LIKE the idea, not because it is necessarily true, although they have justifications. You are an atheist because you like being one. You've actually gone so far as to say that if the truth contradicted your belief, you would then reject it, which further convinces me that you are an atheist because you LIKE it and it comforts you. It is at least far more comfortable than the only other conclusion one can arrive at. 


> When I said that - I meant that if there is an afterlife, and the afterlife is the product of the nasty, vengeful god depicted in the bible, forever with the threat of going to hell if you step out of line, then I'd rather not bother


Which brings me back to my original post, and my original point. To point out that because theism brings comfort to someone is not a rational way to discredit. That would, from above said argument, discredit most of the atheists who exist as well. But most of all, the fact that one is insecure or derives comfort from something does not mean it is not so. Kleenex do not fail to exist because they make me feel better. Going against the grain of Nietzsche once again, superiority and absolute independence are not necessary for happiness and in the end, work against it. I dont know if you are wreckless because you are an atheist, an atheist because you are wreckless, or whether the lack of an afterlife shifts your motivations in any way. But judging from your statements, you seem to find it quite comforting, in a reductive kind of way. Much like most theists.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled

While we are on the subject, here is a link to the magician we had spoken of earlier. He espouses the same view on why most people beleive what they beleive, and over time while performing he sees it played out again and again. I recommend the voodoo doll video clip for an example.

http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/home.asp

Like I said, this philosophy helps with tricks that use cold reading and hypnosis. I havent really done any hypnosis, but I recommend picking up a book on cold reading.

And Janine, if someone beleives something just because they want to, I think you can call that person a fundamentalist. Because everything is perceived in relation to the core belief which cannot change. But if one continues to change with new information, I would hope it would lead to a better informed, more refined believer or atheist. And I do in fact believe that humans are naturally good, and that this law is part of nature. This is part of Natural Law theory. Of course from an evolutionary standpoint, it has been postulated that altruism is indeed beneficial for the species and has been seen in colonies of chimpanzees. Either way you slice it, I think humans tend towards the true and good, even if it is hampered at times by our imperfections.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## agentcooper

Homeskooled said:


> I cant answer as to why you dont beleive, Martin. In my mind, you have mixed motives. Which isnt unusual - very few times do humans have "pure" motives for doing something. Even parents care for their children because they get something back from it.


homeskooled, 
i agree that not many people have "pure" motives for doing things...that is one of the reasons i have a major problem with organized religions. these religions tell their followers to do "this and this and that" because if they don't, they'll recieve some sort of awful punishment after they die. this is really encouraging people to follow blindly instead of thinking about the REASONS why doing "this and this and that" is bad. there usually are very good reason for not doing or doing certain things. instead of explaining the reasons, organized religions just make certain things "moral sins". this is why most of the atheists i know are much better people (and much more moral, as well) than most people that are just "good" because they don't want to go to hell or get reincarnated as a slug. the atheist's reason for doing or not doing things that religion deems as "sins", is much more "pure" than the religious person's. let's face it, it is a ton harder to be an atheist than to follow an organized religion because the atheist has to do a lot more thinking.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear agentcooper, 
Wow, this is awesome. We have some more people weighing in on Martin and I's narrow-minded debates. Stir things up a bit.

I agree with you in a sense, cooper. The proverb goes " The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. " Notice, it isnt the end, it isnt the goal, it is the _beginning_ of a wise man. I agree with that. But Christ said "Be not afraid." And St. Paul said that "The truth shall set you free". Doing what is right only to avoid punishment is considered in Catholic theology to be _imperfect_ contrition. It is an impure motive for doing what is right. The best way to teach a young child not to have self-damaging behaviours is by using mild punishments. My younger brother and sister get "time-outs" in their room. It works. But hopefully they wont need time outs by the time they turn 10 to keep them from touching a hot stove. Hopefully by then they wont do it because they realize that in and of itself, touching the hot burners is bad for them. And they might even realize that there are more constructive things they can do for themselves. Hopefully, people will pursue the truth and pursue good not because they are forced to, but because they are in and of themselves goals worth pursuing. If you paint people in organized religions as cringing hell-fearers without rational minds, I think you use too broad a brush. Many of them are sheep. But many of them have arrived at this conclusion independently, and these are always the strongest beleivers. So, no , I cannot agree that an atheists reasons for doing what is right is more pure than that of a relgious person. It depends whether they arrived at these conclusions just because it is a comfortable beleif for them, or because truth was a goal which they thought was worth pursuing in and of itself. The same goes for atheism. As for atheists being "better", I guess that depends on ones criteria for "worse". But as for being moral, I cant concur from my personal experience. Because they dont have a code of morality, the concept becomes much more fluid and open to individual interpretation and, sometimes, abuse. Of course, their advantage is that while they can be accused of being immoral, unlike the religious, they cant be accused of hypocrisy.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## agentcooper

i didn't mean to sound like everybody in organized religion are "cringing hell-fearers without rational minds." i know a bunch of people who aren't that way at all. my family certainly doesn't fit that description.

i suppose what it comes down to, is that if someone is an inherently strong person, they will be much more likely to think and draw their own conclusions about everything...religion and spirituality included. i think, however, that the reason atheists are atheist, is that they are able and willing to think about, and consider more possibilities than most people. it is much more culturally, and socially acceptable to belong to an organized religion. atheism is not a popular belief and most atheists have done quite a bit of thinking and reasoning in order to defend their position.

i don't know why you would say that atheists don't have a code of morality. being a moral person just means that you have a set of standards of right or wrong conduct. of course atheist, same as religious people, have a set of standards to which they adhere. the difference is, the atheist has come up with their moral standards on their own...where as, the religious person has had their morals told to them by someone else.

i shouldn't have used the word "better"...i meant stronger...and i certainly am using massive generalizations! i do realize that there are plenty of atheists and religious people that do not fit into the molds i just layed out.


----------



## Guest

"There was a professor that was teaching a class at a university. He was teaching the class evolution and how the bible is totally wrong.

The students that wanted to say something, did not due to the intelligence level of the professor.

Then one student stood up and opened his backpack, and pulled a green apple out and took a bite, then another as he said "professor"....all the students thought this to be rude since he was addressing the professor while chewing..... the student took another bite and said "professor, is my apple sweet or sour"? .... the professor replied, "i dont know, as i do not have your apple." The student then replied, "You do not have my God either, so how can you comment on its taste?"


----------



## grandma-stole-my-wheels

> He was teaching the class evolution and how the bible is totally wrong.


You know, that talks on Evolution don't even mention the bible once, as far as I remembered, it is taught/explored as a 'theory'. Meaning you have a choice in how you interpret it. (Unless that professor was a fundamentalist evolutionist of course.)



> the student took another bite and said "professor, is my apple sweet or sour"? .... the professor replied, "i dont know, as i do not have your apple." The student then replied, "You do not have my God either, so how can you comment on its taste?"


The student, says 'so how can you comment on its taste?'. The professor never 'did' comment on the taste of the apple/metaphor for religion in the first place in the text before, the student put words into his mouth, by using ...

spiritual sarcasm. Why is the professor neccesarily anti-religion also? He isn't following you around on a sunday, with evolution papers, to replace your bible.

"this colour is right, this colour is right, this colour is right, this colour is right, this colour is right, this colour is right, this colour is right, this colour is right, this colour is right, this colour is right.'

What if the professor, was eating a sweet apple whils't teaching? Would that help robbie?

The professer then says...
"Student you missed the right door for your own choice of class,
the professor 'apple eating' evolution class, or even just the apple 
eating lesson, is next door if you would like, its up to you, i'm not 
forcing you or indoctrinating you in anyway, do what you want 
with it."

But please don't steal my papers, and print bibles on them. 
(NOOOOOOOOOO! arrrrrrrgh, bllleuruurg!.)

Grandma-stole-my-wheels.


----------



## Martinelv

Big up !



> A) You have mixed motives and B) That you have a genuiniely hard time beleiving


Wrong. Firstly, I don't have any motive in my unbelief itself. It is simple atheism, no motive there. Secondly, I don't have a 'hard time' believing, it comes naturally to me. As naturally as breathing. And again, the implication comes through once again - that since I have a 'hard time' believing, I must be somehow struggling with some inner turmoil against the spiritual truth, denying myself the inevitable ?. No. Any motives I have against organised religion, not personal faith (I couldn't care less) are based on observation and experience. I have no 'motive' to be angry at god/s, because I don't believe they exist.



> Martin, ALL first premises must be accepted


As I've said before, there are limits to this. Do you accept Father Christmas as a 'first premise' ? I doubt you do. In the same way, I deny religion as a first premise, because, like Father Christmas or the Boogey Man, there is absolutely nothing to prove it. Why don't you understand that ? Do you close your eyes when you cross the road because of the first premise that you've never been knocked over before ? We live in a consensual reality I'm afraid, whether you like it or not.

You seem to think that there is an objective transcendent truth in your first premise, as we all do in, let's say, physical sciences. Inverted commas are needed when you talk of your inner mystical 'truth', otherwise we have no alternative but to proclaim them as lies.



> A reductive case for atheism would be made by a man who first believed in atheism, just because (incidentally, this is how a first premise works, Martin), and then reductively figured out why it was a good idea.


I don't believe you can say this, really I don't. You talk of proofs and reductive method like it was a game played with marbles. As you well know, even Aquinas shared the view (along with Kant, Hume...) that there is no mileage in the conventional 'proofs' for the existence of god. In fact, he very specifically rejected the so called 'Ontological Proof' (a pale attempt at religious reduction), that is, the idea of god is a neccessary truth.



> Atheists... Because they dont have a code of morality


Do you really believe this ? We need a god/s to be moral ? It can't be taught by our parents, or perhaps be hard-wired (like your precious religious experience) from birth ? 'Heavens' no, of course not. We need to 'fear' god to be moral. Your statement is so repugnant it almost doesn't dignify a response, and shows you (in this respect) for the mind-buggering bigot you are. It's astonishingly insulting to the 25%+ of the planet who don't believe in your god, and I demand an apology. And besides, the 2000 or so years of following the sanctified biblical moral code has achieved a lot hasn't it...oh yes, no bloodshed or bigotry or hatred at all......jesus.... :roll: But I expect that's just a human failing...or...hmmm...perhaps another thing to add to the long list of things that the religious fail to accept responsibility for.

Now, back into the foxhole for me.

Oh, incidently, yes - I edited this post as well. I'm human you see, prone to error.


----------



## Guest

Cripto, start reading more carefully man..... the professor made the comment on how the bible was wrong...

right/wrong=bible

sweet/sour=apple

dude....your negative emotion towards Christianity is hilarious to me. Maybe I Should talk about ghandi or buddah?lol./..then maybe i would be a intelligent/starbucks going , trendy guy! yeah to new age!...lol :roll:


----------



## grandma-stole-my-wheels

I have never been to Starbucks, drinks taste sour to me, but having said that, I therefore cannot comment on their taste.

I completely understand the passage that was written, the apple was a metaphor for religion (sweet/sour), i just don't agree with it, and do you think that evolution teachers, spend all day cursing the bible? or even mention it once. They don't even talk about genesis being wrong etc., they don't put christianity down either. 
Its just a 'theory' of science.

Nor am I a buddhist/christian/muslim/ etc.

Grandma.


----------



## Guest

I dont think anything about evolutionists.....

Having said that, you are a perfect example of the professor
Green Apple<<chomp chomp


----------



## Guest

Just kidding man, I still love you!  How is the withdrawal going along man? I hope well for you. I went and applied for a job, but i dont think i am gonna get it  Oh well, at least i got out there and tried.....


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
Dont get so defensive! You'd think that you were afraid you were wrong or something....You see, I'm actually in _agreement_ with you for a greater part of that post. I'll even use your own words to show it :

Sure, maybe I'm even a little jeaous [of the religious]. But I'm incapable of fooling myself in that respect

Would it be more to your liking if I said you had a _hard time _ fooling yourself in that respect? I dont think that the use of that adjective makes it more likely that you have inner turmoil over your atheism. Actually, I think you extrapolate alot on my statements based on generalizations you have of "religious" people, which is so ingrained into your thoughts that I get your reflex reactions to them. But its interesting that atheism needs no motive for beleif in your mind. Amazingly, you are using a first premise in this debate, that atheism is the truth. And you are actually doing the unthinkable - contradicting yourself , ahem - because you dont allow for questioning or denial of your first premise. I'm actually allowing for those in regards to mine, but I think its only because I, as a religious person, am so incredibly open minded. Your rationalization for demanding answers but giving none is your re-engineered definition of atheism (reductively engineered, however). But we'll come back to that fallacy later...

Okay Martin, now to deal with the Kant, Aquinas fiasco found later in the post. First of all, which Ontological Proof are you referring to? This proof has been restated, re-engineered, and mangled more times than, well, you've misquoted philosophers. Which one are you referring to ? The weaker and lesser known St. Anselm version? The convuluted but elegant Descartes proof? I dont want to print them here, but to say that Aquinas was not fond of proofs is a little like saying that atheists havent caused genocides. Try reading the first volume of the Summa, and then let me know if he doesnt beleive in proofs of God's existence. Now for Kant. Your in luck (depending on your point of view). I actually happen to have a compendium of his works on the bookshelf behind me. Funny how people interpret him. Lets take a direct quote :

In religion the knowledge of God is properly based on faith alone .... it is not necessary for this belief [ in God] to be susceptible of logical proof.... [For] sophistication is the error of refusing to accept any religion not based on a theology which can be apprehended by our reason.... Sophistication in religious matters is a dangerous thing; our reasoning powers are limited and reason can err and we cannot prove everything. A speculative basis is a very weak foundation for religion...

Kant was of the opinon that proper knowledge of God would be based on faith and not reason, the powers of which are limited. His philosophies were correct to a large extent. It is convenient for me that you reference him, because he would be telling you te beleive in the leprechaun which is under the bed, or to ante up an argument for disbelief.

To rebut your last quote, I'll just use some previous ones of mine. Its much easier to repeat myself.

And I do in fact believe that humans are naturally good, and that this law is part of nature. Of course from an evolutionary standpoint, it has been postulated that altruism is indeed beneficial for the species and has been seen in colonies of chimpanzees.

As long as you are of the opinion that atheists are part of the species Martin, which I guess _is_ dubious, then I do agree with you that altruism and moral goodness are hard-wired into them. Unless you consider the code of Martin a system of belief, however, I still beleive that you adhere to no codified moral principles. But just be happy, that once more, we agreed about something. And about your "carroting". When I was on the debate team, and even now, the opposition would often "carrot" his opponent into a confusing detour debate. It tended to be veiwed as a last ditch effort on their part to confuse the opposition. Its based on the premise that if you dangle something tasty like a carrot in front of a donkey, he'll follow it wherever it leads. Stop carrotting me. A mad German atheist killed most of Europe's Jewish population. A mad atheist purged Russia during the 1930s. Another mad atheist purged China during the Cultural Revolution. What religion is North Korea's ruler? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two dont count. The faulty behaviour of a beleiver does not imply a lack of integrity in the belief system. If 2.4 percent of the world is atheist, this would make the ratio of people killed by atheists to actual atheists astronomically higher than people killed by religious dictate versus actual beleivers this century, discounting petty crime on both sides. According to Amnesty International, while religious conflict outside of the middle east has been practically nonexistent this century, religious purges and persecutions have been on the rise, China and Russia still being two of the worst offenders. And yet although these statistics are powerful, I cannot use them to impugn your belief system. Unless I consider myself too weak to argue the merits based on principle alone. Then I, too, may end up carroting you. So tell me, why doesnt that leprechaun exist, Martin?

Peace
Homeskooled[/quote]


----------



## Martinelv

Hello my pearl !

I'm not being defensive at all. As you know, for an atheist, it's our natural state. We have to be on our guard all the time - be it threats of eternal damnation, or simple kiddy fiddling accusations.

Anyway, out of my foxhole and back to the fray.



> generalizations you have of "religious" people, which is so ingrained into your thoughts that I get your reflex reactions to them[/u]


I have no qualms whatsoever with the vast majority of 'religious' people who's faith has no negative impact on mine, or anyone elses life. However, like your generalisation that atheists, de facto, have no moral code, I am unfortunately forced to generalise about the rest of the 'religious', or more importantly, 'religious domga', because that does and has, and continues to impact on our lives.



> Amazingly, you are using a first premise in this debate, that atheism is the truth


No, no, no, no, I am not !! ARGGGGGGGGGGGGH. ! I am quite happy to accept that I cannot know anything for sure. I can even admit that I might be wrong about your god/s. My atheism isn't based on a first premise...how many times do I have to say this...it's based on evidence and an acceptence of consensual reality. See, isn't that big of me ! Mirable dictu, wouldn't you agree ? Actually, it's not big of me, it's simple honesty - something which (Martin engages generalisation mode) the religious are unable to do.



> I, as a religious person, am so incredibly open minded.


You're teasing me now, aren't you. Hee hee. Well, at least, I'm laughing at the joke. 



> Okay Martin, now to deal with the Kant, Aquinas fiasco found later in the post.


Actually, can I just stop you there for a moment while I engage defensive mode again. It's getting a little boring, not to say conceited of you to continue to slyly insinuate my paucity of knowledge regarding matters of philosophy, or my inexact references to ancient philosphers who (as long as it fits into your belief system) you cherish. I admit when I'm wrong, otherwise it makes us look a little foolish. But anyway, please continue..



> Kant was of the opinon that proper knowledge of God would be based on faith and not reason, the powers of which are limited.


Yes, you're absolutely right. But according to Google, he also said:

"..that I wish to believe in a Supreme Lawgiver, in Duty, and Morality, and in a personal Guide to Life. But I look into Christianity and find it to be false. My heart cannot subscribe to it."

However, he went on to say...

"The God and the Religion of Revelation are incredible to me, so I cannot rest in unbelief".

So, is it suprising that he, and others such as Aquinas, could not leave it at that, and therefore created a first premise, their 'moral imperative' that was beyond scrutiny ? No, not suprising at all. As I said before, it's like an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. With Aquinas as his principal guide, he presses on towards a rather wooly hope that _awe_ in the face of nature will somehow cancel out the essential nihilism of the human condition. Being so terrified of the implications of scientific materialism and Unbelief, he (and you, and others) hudlle for shelter beneath the arms of Orthodoxy. I grant you - it's an attractive, yet dishonourable, position.

And yes, you're right again - it is funny (sic) how people interpret things.



> atheists are part of the species Martin, which I guess is dubious


Now you're denying my humanity !!! Ye gods, what next ! :lol:



> A mad German atheist killed most of Europe's Jewish population. A mad atheist purged Russia during the 1930s. Another mad atheist purged China during the Cultural Revolution. What religion is North Korea's ruler? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two dont count


Hitler wasn't an atheist, neither was Stalin - check your creaking shelf of volumes. And besides, is your knowledge of human history confined to the last 100 years ? These were times of revolution, so again, it's not particualy surprising. Would you, could you stretch your mind back to the atrocities commited in the name of religion before the evil that was atheism was unleashed on the earth ? If we are talking numbers, I reckon the stats are on my side. But, and I'm surprised at you, it's a little distasteful to argue the 'truth' depending on which side has killed the most, even though I'm prepared to use it as a last resort. 8)



> So tell me, why doesnt that leprechaun exist, Martin?


I can't be 100% sure, but I've never seen him, heard him, touched him, smelt him, seen evidence of his presence, and neither has he (could be a she I suppose) interfered with me in anyway. So I hedge my bets, and I sleep easy at night.

[/i]


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
Hmmm....I've been so busy this week that this thread had completely passed out of my memory. I see you posted a rebuttal, however. I also see we've been having a little _too_ good a time at robbie's expense . Well, all good things must come to an end, Martin. Really, I love the give and take of debate. The problem is, your constantly making me walk over to my creaking bookshelves of philosophy tomes. In this way, its more like servile labor. I'm just hobbling over now with a copy of Tabletalk with Hitler....By the way, you still have time to recant your claim that Stalin is a theist. Or back it up. Although you may hold this position to the same standards you hold arguments about leprachauns to. More to come in the morning, pearl....

Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

I ain't been taunting Robbie. Have I ?



> By the way, you still have time to recant your claim that Stalin is a theist


Or what ? Eh ? Eh ? You going to send around the heavy mob if I don't?  Did I say he was a theist ? Did I ? No.


----------



## Phill

Remarkable post Homeskooled! That is, your second last post in this thread.
For me to even begin to understand it i'd have to go and look up these words in the dictionary- extrapolate, premise, convulute, compendium, postulated, altruism, codify, servile. 
I'm so amazed with the way you string words together. I'd have to read that second last post of yours at least 10 times (maybe more) to understand it.
Are you a rocket scientist or expert philosopher or something? 
I definitely would lose a debate with you! Lol!
Way too smart for me.
Just making an observation.


----------



## Martinelv

Phill, you cannot comment on such matters until you've been upgraded to 'Great Contributer' at the very least.

You see, I am at a disadvantage, as Homeskooled is a Moderator...with Mugabe-like powers.


----------



## Homeskooled

Thanks Phill. You know, we need more highly intelligent, amazingly observant posters like you around. You're being upgraded to "Great Contributor".

Peace
Homeskooled

PS- Just kidding. I cant actually upgrade it, as you get it after something like 400 posts.


----------



## Sojourner

LOL. I was wondering about that...

Great thread.

The misconceptions that many people have about the Christian faith makes me want to cry.

Martin, Christians believe that all things exist IN Christ. That you do not explicitly believe in God, for reasons that are not your fault (you never actually were presented with the truth), is not something God holds against you. God knows why you do not believe. He does not need our love. He offers Himself to us for OUR good.

Sojourner


----------



## Martinelv

Are you taking the piss Sojourner ? :?

I may be ill, but I'm not stupid. But I'm asking that because there was so much piety and presumption crammed into your post that I'm almost tempted to believe you _are_ taking the piss.

Yes, the misconceptions about Christianity want to make me cry as well. For different reasons than your's, I expect.


----------



## Sojourner

I do not understand "taking the piss" (never heard it before).

I was addressing something in particular that I thought you said, but perhaps I misremembered. It was something to the effect that, well, at least *someone* asked if because people weren't believers in God, they were doomed, or something like that. I was trying to explain that God takes into account our histories, our actual exposure to the truth, and what's in our hearts. I'm just stating what Christians actually believe about the matter. Now, some crazy fundies may tell you that you are going to Hell because you haven't put your faith in Christ, but the Catholic Church will never say that to you.

I was an agnostic (which is what you seem to be, not an atheist) -- an atheist means a person who *believes* there is no God. You are an agnostic, you "don't know," the literal meaning of "agnostic." Anyway, I was an agnostic, and I understand your point of view perfectly.

There is really nothing more damaging to humanity as a whole than the putting down of others because they don't agree with us about God. God honors our devotion to the truth, to not accepting things just because we are told them, not blindly believing something like a brainless toad believes his dinner is on the next leaf. No, God honors the heart of a man or woman who seeks the truth.

Bottom line: people who don't believe in Christ are considered by the Catholic faith to be just as likely to be "saved" as St. Paul, because God understands the reasons for your rejection of Him.

Did you ever hear of "The Hound of Heaven"?

Best wishes,

Sojourner


----------



## Martinelv

> I do not understand "taking the piss" (never heard it before).


Er, well, it means - are you, er, er, taunting me, er, sort of.



> Now, some crazy fundies may tell you that you are going to Hell because you haven't put your faith in Christ, but the Catholic Church will never say that to you.


You're kidding, right? The Catholic church is just about the *only* religion that continues bang on about hell ! Most of the others have watered it down to something less than a metaphor. Almost without exception, every Catholic school, in between molesting and abusing them, puts the 'fear of god' into the children with tales of hell and damnation. Here, now, in this modern age! Oh, that and refusing contraception to the AIDS ravaged, over-populated countries of Africa.



> I was an agnostic (which is what you seem to be, not an atheist)


Wrong. I am an atheist.



> an atheist means a person who *believes* there is no God.


Wrong. Atheism means 'lack of belief'. A-Theism = Lack of theism.



> You are an agnostic, you "don't know," the literal meaning of "agnostic."


Wrong. The literal meaning of 'agnostic' is that we can 'never know', so they suspend judgement. I'm as sure as I can be that there is no god, I lack the belief, therefore I am an atheist. But if you think about it, agnostics are atheists too, because they lack theism as well.



> Did you ever hear of "The Hound of Heaven"?


Nope. I've heard of the Hound of the Baskervilles though, and he ended up being a fake too.


----------



## Sojourner

I'm afraid you are mistaken, Martin:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... va=atheist

Main Entry: athe?ist 
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe?is?tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe?is?ti?cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe?is?ti?cal?ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, you need to read Church documents and learn the truth of what the Church actually teaches. If you talk to only to people who are deviant, you are going to get a deviant's view of the Church. That is what you have; a distorted view. If you are sincerely interested in learning the truth, I hope you will do your own research instead of believe what a small subset of people who call themselves "Catholic" tell you.

And I wasn't taunting you. I was explaining to you that your idea of Christ is not true.

Sojourner


----------



## Sojourner

Actually, far from taunting you, I was trying to tell you that I thought you were like the ones God will save even if they don't explicitly believe -- because it seemed to me that you were sincerely searching for the truth.

Soj


----------



## Martinelv

Sorry chum, your dictionary is wrong, and it's a common misconception. 'A' means 'lack of' and 'Theism' means theism. Put it together and what have you got. Lack-of-theism. Lack of belief.

True, there are some so called atheists that assert that there 'is no god', but that is a faulty premise. They are making a claim like the religious are, which is open to rebuttal. A 'proper' atheist is one who has a lack of faith, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Sojourner

You are mistaken. Try consulting the OED if you don't like American dictionaries.


----------



## Homeskooled

Sorry chum, I'll put my money on the experts. You're either an atheist who believes there is no God, or an agnostic who lacks any belief. From my vantage point, you're looking more like someone who doesnt know if leprechauns exist, than one who's sure they're as fake as Darby O'Gill. I'll meet you on the flipside (that being the "proof that God doesnt exist" thread).

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

Sigh. I will repeat this for the last time.

Atheism = 'a' 'theism'. 'Lack of belief'. Atheism itself does NOT assert that there is definately no god. I am also an Aleprachaun, Asantaclaus, and Atoothfairy. Do you understand ? I can't absolutely, definately disprove god/s, Leprachauns or the Tooth Fairys existence, but I lack the belief. Therefore, I AM AN ATHEIST. I have made my mind up, to the greatest degree possible, therefore I am NOT an Agnostic.

I don't know if you're teasing me or not. I'm so tired I want to cry.


----------



## terri*

( we pause for a quick intermission )

Don't cry Martin. You must stay strong to fight off the bugs in your body and continue your battle against whether you are an athiest or agnostic. I check out this section all the time to make sure you are still up to your fighting weight. Now get back in there and curse the One that made you!

It is better to curse the darkness and all that rot, isn't it?



:wink:


----------



## Martinelv

As one Senior Dpselfhelp member to another, I only wish others were as pure at heart as you Terri. Although we fundamentaly disagree, the kindness that shines from you blinds me, on occassion, from my rage.


----------



## terri*

back to you.

I bow to the Ambassador-Athiest-at-Large.

Here's wishing you an excellant weekend.


----------

