Taking Sides: Atheism vs. Christianity

Well, there are two "main" kinds of nonreligious atheists. Strong and Weak. She's a strong one. So am I. There has to be some degree os separation because of the disagreement between the two (otherwise there would be no division). But separating her into a different "camp" of atheist does not suddenly make her not athiest, just as separating theistic Satanists and Zorostranians does not suddenly make either non-theistic.

>there's a diversity in opinion you seemed to allow for then immediately ignore. If you want to say 'some people who are athiests' disagree with my mom, great.<

Which is exactly what I stated. Atheists do not agree on everything, or even a basic set of tenets. That's what I've been saying all along. This doesn't discredit your mother or the buddhist or the weak atheist from being an atheist, just as saying that someone is Hindu or Muslim precludes them from being theistic. In and of itself, neither is a belief system. Calling someone a theist tells us only that he believes..not what and why. Calling someone an athiest tells us only that he doesn't have belief in a god/gods...not the reason as to why. However, being a Christian does explain why you are a theist and what you believe. This, therefore, is a "belief system", whereas theism as a whole is not. Hopefully that clarifies that.

-
Alan

Many agnostics are, unwittingly, atheists or theists of a sort, whether or not they want to acknowledge it. Agnosticism, remember, is not dealing with faith, but with knowledge (see root "gnost").

Many Agnostics basically state that because God cannot be quantatively studied/measured due to his state outside human sensory experiences, and therefore, it can never be known for sure as to whether or not god exists. These people are "atheistic agnostics". On the other hand, there are "theistic agnostics" who believe that there is a god, but that we'll never know his true identity. Neither, therefore, is a true middle ground.

Both actually diverge from Thomas Huxley's original position (he created the term) that he had not made a final decision on the existance of god, and therefore had no position on the matter. It was more about the suspension of judgement. This, is, of course, in stark contrast to the "finality" of the previous two types of "agnosticism" as well as to atheism and theism, and does, to some extent, provide a middle ground.

-
Alan

And Dan is still OTM.

What about the people who say "well I don't know about never, but I don't know right now"? What sort are they? I mean that's not really knowledge based all the time.

Second paragraph about Huxley Agnosticism.

-
Alan

is atheism a belief system?

my answer is...it depends (may or may not be semantics, but belief in no god is a belief, i'm unsure how 'lack of belief' can be classified as a belief system though, if i don't believe in pink caribou that doesnt make a 'non pink caribou believer' does it? or does it? in which case, i must have a lot of belief systems!)

diff between agnosticism and weak atheism (defined not as belief system): i would say with agnosticism theres more of an openness about agnosticism, a kind of, well maybeism. i think its a mistake to characterize weak atheism as fence sitting or wishywashy or unsure.

an infinite amount

-unless you meant the other Alan-
Alan

http://www.hypocrites.com/pictures/animals/cat_smoking.jpg

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarghhh

I realise this is a breezy low key forum and my style is not really the go(ie not street-savy witty one liners) nevertheless I want to attempt to provide a few reasons for the Trinity concept from a Catholic viewpoint.

The Trinity is one God, who is three divine Persons. In a divine mystery, these Persons are truly different, yet one in being. The Father is the one who begets the Son, the Son is the one who is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Bible, Sacred Tradition, and Church all teach this wonderful truth.

It might be asked in all humility, though, why the nature of God would be so "specific." What is the reason for having three rather than simply one?

Suppose we start with the idea that there is simply one God, who is not three divine Persons. He is simply one. He creates humanity, which has free-will. Humanity turns against Him, through sin. He decides that the best thing to do is for Him to become a human, then. There are many reasons for this, such as His thereby showing solidarity with the humans by going through their own difficult experience, and His being able to teach them in person with a human voice, and His giving them a perfect model of how to live a human life, and His going through an experience on the cross where he can be restored to friendship with humans by truly being one with them despite their sin, and so on. For many powerful reasons, any one of which would suffice, God wants to become a man. But how? If He truly becomes a man, and gives men a model, He has to do something very important and very strange: He has to worship God. That is what Jesus says before he ascends into heaven:
John 20:17 "Jesus said to her, 'Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
Jesus says this even though He is God Himself:
John 1: 1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father."
John 20: 27 "Then [Jesus] said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.' 28 Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'"

Thus we already have a rationale for why there would need to be a Duality, at least, in the divine nature, of two divine persons who are one God. God needs to remain God yet worship God. He has to be two who are one.

But where does the Holy Spirit come from?

When God, as these two divine Persons, loves, that love of His is so unbelieveably wonderful it is actually a divine Person, too. We call Him the Holy Spirit. As Pope John Paul II writes,
"In His intimate life, God 'is love,' [36] the essential love shared by the three divine Persons: personal love is the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Father and the Son. . . It can be said that in the Holy Spirit the intimate life of the Triune God becomes totally gift, an exchange of mutual love between the divine Persons. . . It is the Holy Spirit who is the personal expression of this self-giving, of this being-love" (John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem 10; cf. CCC 850).
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and He is a divine Person to be worshipped just like they are.

Overall, this is why we have a Trinity.

I will add that faith and reason are both very important to Catholics, although the perception is often just faith alone.

It is the nature of the human being to seek
the truth. This search looks not only to the attainment of truths which are partial, empirical or scientific; nor is it only in individual acts of decision-making that people seek the true good. Their search looks towards an ulterior truth which would explain the meaning of life. And it istherefore a search which can reach its end only in reaching the absolute.
... Such a truth is attained not only by way of reason but also through trusting acquiescence to other persons who can guarantee the authenticity and certainty of the truth itself".

For a full copy of the John Paul II encylical "Faith and Reason" below

http://www.cin.org./jp2/fides.html

Your questions on the effectivness of prayer comes from mans continual judgement of God and another (groan) mystery this time suffering. As a mystery there is no *rational* answer to why we suffer. Indeed, when Job asked God why the righteous people suffer, God did not give Job a *rational* answer either. Above all, we understand the meaning of suffering spiritually, by prayer.

I will attempt to provide a few ideas for you to laugh at.

Catholics would argue that God created man as rational and free and thus that all the man made evil in the world can be atrributed to mans free will. The question has to be asked could God have justified himself before mankind, so full of suffering without placing his son to death? Or even why does God feel the need to justify himself to humans. Love is the answer here(as strange as it may seem) it is the proof of a God that is with us when we suffer by God placing himself besides man. Im probably confusing people or sounding completely illogical- try this link for a better answer to why evil exists etc

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/evil_cause_of.htm

I wont bug you any more but would appreciate some good tough questions I can throw at Catholics on other forums. At the end of the day if believing in a God makes someone happier in themselves and towards others... whats the harm :) I promise no more half baked home cooked answers to provide amusement.

So I guess I'm saying, what was the point of your initial post?

I think this is semantic hogwash (and I'm a lawyer, well versed in semantic hogwash!), but there you go.

However, I will admit that I'm a bit prejudiced on this point. I have long suspected that is almost always "weak" atheists who act in the unbearable way that Dan was so OTM about upthread, since they are the ones who feel that everybody else has to prove something to them rather than admitting that this issue is simply not susceptible of proof either way.

"The cosmogonic cycle is now to be carried forward not by the gods, who have become invisible, but by the heroes, more or less human in character, through whom the world destiny is realized. The archetypal heroes become less and less fabulous, until at last, in the final stages of the various local traditions, legend opens into the common daylight of recorded time"
---- Joseph Campbell

According to Joseph Campbell, the Christ Story was simply a re-telling of the archetypical Hero's Journey. More on the heroes journey here: http://www3.cerritos.edu/fquaas/resources/English102/archetypalhero.htm

Carl Jung was of the belief that the True Self was god -- what some religions refer to as the godspark of divintity within each of us. I have to admit, this idea warms my cockles. More here:
Archetypes as defined by Carl Jung: http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~davisct/nt/jung.html

And here's yet another insightful take on the use of archetypes and religion: Examples of the archetype in the Gospel of Mark:
http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~davisct/nt/arch-examples.htm

I'm really not clever enough to discuss these concepts in great depth -- I just know that they resonate for me. I'm going to call that resonation "faith" although I really don't think anyone else should have too. I like to believe (perhaps just because it's a pretty story), that each of us is here to complete some task of spiritual evolution and the further we evolve, (who decides what spiritual evolution is? I don't know.), the more we start to tune into this idea that within each of us is the ability to not just get into some distant place called heaven if our knickers are pure as the driven snow, but to actually become God (and thereby create our own heavens as we would prefer them to be). In my likely biased opinion, there is no one bearded guy in a robe waiting to rain down on us with his wrath. I think that ultimately, "we" (in the most collective sense) are god. So when people say things to me like, "Did you hear about that war in _____? How can people believe in a god when things like this happen?! What kind of god would allow it?" And the answer that tends to cross my mind these days is: The "we" kind of god. We created it out of our own free will. We made it happen. If we wanted to apply ourselves, "we" could probably make it unhappen too, although it would be a big job. Maybe like trying to get everyone in the world to jump up at the exact same time.

Anyway, there's no brimstone in my version of events, but it works for me. Naturally, it doesn't have to work for anyone else. Religion may belong to the masses, but faith is personal.

(It makes sense to me -- after all, we're born and then we grow up to become that which birthed us. Yes -- I know it's a simple concept.)

Apologies for being a bit "blunt". Its the alt.atheism lurker in me. I knew that no matter what, I was gonna have to explain the strong/weak atheism thing. I think I did that.

Christianity is a bit different from Atheism, in that in addition to the fact that you believe in a god, you believe in a particular god (Yahweh) and that Jesus was in some way related to him. You also believe that Jesus was of Jewish descent, you believe that the Old and New Testaments are part of your doctrine (maybe minus a few books here and there), etc. There's lots here...enough to certainly constitute a "belief system". With Atheism, you can be a weak atheist and that's it. You're still an atheist. With Christianity, if you deny that Christ was in any way meaningful (whether he be the son of god, god himself, etc), then you're not a Christian.

And to comment on the mention about how the Bible myths are simply cop offs of the Torah stories, there's a lot of truth in it. But then again, both Jews and Christians borrowed a lot from other regional mythology (stuff like Lazarus and the Great Flood being prime examples).

-
Alan

With Christianity, you can be a weak Christian and that's it. You're still a Christian. With Atheism, if you admit that God is in any way meaningful (whether he be the son of god, god himself, etc), then you're not a Atheist.

I'm not particularly sure what a weak Christian would be (perhaps believes certain tenets of one of the various churches and then prays/worships independently?), but yes, an Atheist who acknowledges the existance of god would no longer be an Atheist, as he would then believe in god.

-
Alan

Alan apologies if you were the Alan I was to rude to on the gun control thread. Do you have any thoughts on extra-sensory truths or even truth itself? Do you believe there any universal truths across the world?

Its been a few days. Its also the internet. I'm pretty toughskinned. No big deal.

>>Do you have any thoughts on extra-sensory truths or even truth itself?<<

You're going to have to define "truths" for me. If you "what happens when we die" or something to that effect, my answer is that our brains cease and we decay. I don't personally believe in ghosts (though I have friends who have sworn to seen them) just as I don't believe in UFOs (friends of mine have claimed to see them as well).

And stuff like "Crossing Over"? Dude...don't even get me started on cold/hot readings.

>>Do you believe there any universal truths across the world?<<

I think what "universal truths" that we see that have been brought through law and various religious code exist in all societies because I believe that there are certain guidelines by which a society must exist otherwise it will collapse (IE, don't steal, don't kill people, etc). People, irregardless of religion, pick up on these, and that's why you see them in basically every civilization around the world from several thousand years BC to the present. I don't think they're "divinely inspired".

-
Alan

"Truth (Anglo-Saxon tréow, tryw, truth, preservation of a compact, from a Teutonic base Trau, to believe) is a relation which holds (1) between the knower and the known -- Logical Truth; (2) between the knower and the outward expression which he gives to his knowledge -- Moral Truth; and (3) between the thing itself, as it exists, and the idea of it, as conceived by God -- Ontological Truth. In each case this relation is, according to the Scholastic theory, one of correspondence, conformity, or agreement (adoequatio) (St. Thomas, Summa I:21:2)." Catholic Encylopedia

When I say "extra sensory truths" I refer to the thought do we know of any other knowledge other than emperical (colours tones forms etc)? Do we not also know objects "globally"- extra sensory?

eg you know all the different parts to your body as an object. These can be measured scientifically mathmatically etc but do you not also know yourself(man as a person). do you deny a spiritual element to yourself? if you know yourself then you must be able to regonise extra sensory stuff like good, evil, beauty, truth. In addition it is not possible to affirm that when something is extra sensory it ceases to be emperical.

Prince, stop hanging around on the Internet and release a knock-your-sox-off album that blows everyone away.

(I admit I'm not in the mood for a serious answer but regrettably it seems you're not looking for a serious one either.)