Atheism: What's the point?

[Psooindok]

Questions:

Do you really believe you would have adopted Roman Catholicism if you'd been born in India?

What scientifically unexplained miracles have happened in the Church? How many of them happened when they could be examined by scientists?

How much of your reasoning happened to coincide with what your parents told you? How much of a chance was there that you might have decided they were wrong? Do you really believe you would have come to the same conclusions if they'd told you something else?

[/quote]

Q1: That's a matter of if I knew what Catholicism was. If I knew what it was, and learned about it, I would be a Catholic.

Q2: Most miracles that happen are miracles that happen over and over again. They're on the news. They are almost all examined by scientests.

Q3: My parents actually don't talk about religion that much. I learned the stories about Jesus and the Bible through Church and such. No one really tells me what I have to believe. A lot of it is me sitting in my room, thinking what makes sense.

[Farnhamia Redux]

Questions:

Do you really believe you would have adopted Roman Catholicism if you'd been born in India?

What scientifically unexplained miracles have happened in the Church? How many of them happened when they could be examined by scientists?

How much of your reasoning happened to coincide with what your parents told you? How much of a chance was there that you might have decided they were wrong? Do you really believe you would have come to the same conclusions if they'd told you something else?

Q1: That's a matter of if I knew what Catholicism was. If I knew what it was, and learned about it, I would be a Catholic.

Q2: Most miracles that happen are miracles that happen over and over again. They're on the news. They are almost all examined by scientests.

Q3: My parents actually don't talk about religion that much. I learned the stories about Jesus and the Bible through Church and such. No one really tells me what I have to believe. A lot of it is me sitting in my room, thinking what makes sense.

Q2: Please provide a link or a source. Just saying "they're on the news" doesn't make it. You're making the extraordinary claim, you have to do the work and provide sources.

[Gift-of-god]

....

A staircase that was made by a man resembling Saint Joseph created a spiral staircase with no central support with tools that were used 2000 years ago. No modern tools. To this day, scientests have not explained it.....

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/loretto.asp

[Psooindok]

http://www.katolik.nu/now/html/mirac.htm

Here's some miracles I forgot to talk about. There's many instances of the Eucharist actually turning into flesh on the scene. Creepy, but true.

[Enadail]

Yes. Many.

Miraculous healings at Lourdes. People who are crippled, have cancer, etc. have been immedeatly healed after being dipped into a spring of water at Lourdes. (There's a story behind the water.)

A staircase that was made by a man resembling Saint Joseph created a spiral staircase with no central support with tools that were used 2000 years ago. No modern tools. To this day, scientests have not explained it.

Instances of cement statues of Mary, Jesus, etc. crying blood. (This happens quite often. I've seen it on the news every once and a while.)

There is much historical evidence that the miracles Jesus performed, actually happened.

There's instances where Jesus's face has appeared on toast and such, but that's a little iffy.

This is just to name a few. I can tell you more, if you'd like.

Not to be an ass, but references? To any of this?

Often with miraculous healings, people feel better, think they're cured, then a few years later, relapse and neglect that they had the condition the entire time.

The crying blood thing has been debunked more then a few times.

There is no historical evidence of Jesus's miracles.

Faces in toast is like shapes in the clouds. Doesn't mean anything.

Regardless, lack of a scientific explanation doesn't make it miraculous. At one point, people couldn't figure out how things became cold... but cold isn't a miracle.

I looked at your link and there's nothing to show there were actual miracles. No more then hearsay. Why is it miracles only happen to people who already believe in religion? And why are miracles always doubtable?

[Minnas]

I looked at your link and there's nothing to show there were actual miracles. No more then hearsay. Why is it miracles only happen to people who already believe in religion? And why are miracles always doubtable?

Why do you use the word 'heresy' so freely?

[Enadail]

Why do you use the word 'heresy' so freely?

Because I didn't? I said hearsay...?

[Minnas]

Why do you use the word 'heresy' so freely?

Because it's a typo, sorry. It meant to say "hearsay". Talk about a bad typo...

I see. No problem then.

[Treznor]

Q1: That's a matter of if I knew what Catholicism was. If I knew what it was, and learned about it, I would be a Catholic.

You say this now, as a Catholic. So, how come millions of Hindus, Baptists, Buddhists, Lutherans and Muslims haven't converted to Catholicism? What can you tell me to convince you that you'd really convert once you learned about it?

Q2: Most miracles that happen are miracles that happen over and over again. They're on the news. They are almost all examined by scientests.

That doesn't quite match the definition of miracle I was thinking of. Certainly there are many wondrous things being examined by scientists all the time, but which ones are of a supernatural nature?

Q3: My parents actually don't talk about religion that much. I learned the stories about Jesus and the Bible through Church and such. No one really tells me what I have to believe. A lot of it is me sitting in my room, thinking what makes sense.

Okay, same question. If you hadn't been spoon-fed Catholic dogma at an early age, can you really convince me you would have arrived at the same conclusions later on?

http://www.katolik.nu/now/html/mirac.htm

Here's some miracles I forgot to talk about. There's many instances of the Eucharist actually turning into flesh on the scene. Creepy, but true.

Hmm...officially recognized miracles by the Catholic Church. I don't suppose the irony of this has occurred to you, has it?

[Enadail]

I see. No problem then.

Actually, I assumed you caught a typo, when in actually, you misread my wording... I promise, i didn't fix it, you can look at your own quote above

[Minnas]

I see. No problem then.

Actually, I assumed you caught a typo, when in actually, you misread my wording... I promise, i didn't fix it, you can look at your own quote above

It's fine. I saw that you didn't fix anything and that perhaps I did misread your words.

I don't see why ask what's the point of something, like atheism. The point of a set of beliefs or a lack thereof has only one explanation, it's what meaning or not you give to them.

[Psooindok]

Not to be an ass, but references? To any of this?

Often with miraculous healings, people feel better, think they're cured, then a few years later, relapse and neglect that they had the condition the entire time.

The crying blood thing has been debunked more then a few times.

There is no historical evidence of Jesus's miracles.

Faces in toast is like shapes in the clouds. Doesn't mean anything.

Regardless, lack of a scientific explanation doesn't make it miraculous. At one point, people couldn't figure out how things became cold... but cold isn't a miracle.

I looked at your link and there's nothing to show there were actual miracles. No more then hearsay. Why is it miracles only happen to people who already believe in religion? And why are miracles always doubtable?[/quote]

Apparently, you didn't read the refrences that were given. I'll give some more later.

Actually, in many cases, people are entirely cured of their diseases. Like recently, a woman in Florida got cancer and the doctors told her she wouldn't surive. They didn't give her very much chemo. She prayed to a soon-to-be-saint every day. (Did you know, that to become a saint in the Catholic Church, you must perform or have a miracle happen to you?) It was in the newspaper back in February. Like other miracles, I can't find the sources because I forgot the peoples' names.

The cying blood has been proven as many times as it has been debunked. They are video-taped, and the statues examined. It's sad that people need so much attention, they will make fake miracles. (The ones that get debunked as opposed to the ones scientifically unexplained.)

Exactly. They're as reliable as clouds. That was a pretty pointless one for me to say.

So one day we'll find out how blood came out of pure cement, how a spiral staircase has no central support, and how bread turned into flesh?

Maybe my link wasn't so reliable, but God's Gift had a good one. All you need is a picture for that one. I'd find more links but I forget the people's names in the miracles.

Only God knows. Some miracles have happened to atheists that changed their life.

[Enadail]

(sorry, I don't like big quotes)

Again... things that can't be explained are not automatically miracles. Nor does it prove any one religion over another if it is a miracle.

And no, I read your site, just like a hundred others before it. They provide a nice biased view on the subject. I haven't yet read an article from an unbiased source mentioning miracles.

[Gift-of-god]

Apparently, you didn't read the refrences that were given. I'll give some more later.

Actually, in many cases, people are entirely cured of their diseases. Like recently, a woman in Florida got cancer and the doctors told her she wouldn't surive. They didn't give her very much chemo. She prayed to a soon-to-be-saint every day. (Did you know, that to become a saint in the Catholic Church, you must perform or have a miracle happen to you?) It was in the newspaper back in February. Like other miracles, I can't find the sources because I forgot the peoples' names.

The cying blood has been proven as many times as it has been debunked. They are video-taped, and the statues examined. It's sad that people need so much attention, they will make fake miracles. (The ones that get debunked as opposed to the ones scientifically unexplained.)

Exactly. They're as reliable as clouds. That was a pretty pointless one for me to say.

So one day we'll find out how blood came out of pure cement, how a spiral staircase has no central support, and how bread turned into flesh?

Maybe my link wasn't so reliable, but God's Gift had a good one. All you need is a picture for that one. I'd find more links but I forget the people's names in the miracles.

Only God knows. Some miracles have happened to atheists that changed their life.

Um, it's Gift-of-god. And my link showed that the staircase mentioned is not, in fact, miraculous. It is currently inaccessible to the public, most likely due to safety reasons as a consequence of its very weak structure.

[Kamsaki]

Gah!!!
Atheism is not a religon. It is not a system of beliefs.
What atheism is, is a lack of belief.

I'm curious about something here.

You (and others) are evidently having difficulty with the fact that the word "atheism" can be taken to mean one thing by atheists and another thing by others. Obviously, you assert that the others that take the differing meaning are incorrect. However, let's try a thought experiment.

If it were to be commonly accepted by the english speaking world that atheism did, in fact, refer to state where one holds a belief that God does not exist, rather than (as you say) a lack of belief about the nature of God, would you cease to call yourself an atheist, or would you try to change peoples' minds about the meaning of the word?

[Letat]

Except atheism has no beliefs. This isn't a positive or negative scale. Its 0% to 100%. How empty is a full bucket? How full is an empty bucket? An empty bucket doesn't have 0 fullness to it... it simply lacks water. To say how full it is, is nonsensitive, as fullness is a relative amount.

I've made most of the arguments I can for what I was trying to explain. I'll try to refrain from text-walling this time:

Atheism is a label for a conspicuous absence (belief in God). It is not a religion or a belief system, it is an opinion - or, if you like, the lack of an opinion.

Nonetheless, those who describe themselves as "atheists" have beliefs about the world.

These beliefs about the world constitute something that one can engage with argumentatively. Theists believe that the universe's observed phenomena are best explained by the inclusion of some variation on the proposition "There is a God." Thus, the atheist's belief that observed phenomena are sufficiently explained without this proposition must be wrong, or is not completely justifiable. This is what a theist is trying to articulate in claiming that atheism is a religion - that the beliefs that are held by atheists do not sufficiently account for the universe of observed phenomena.

[Dyakovo]

Gah!!!
Atheism is not a religon. It is not a system of beliefs.
What atheism is, is a lack of belief.

I'm curious about something here.

You (and others) are evidently having difficulty with the fact that the word "atheism" can be taken to mean one thing by atheists and another thing by others. Obviously, you assert that the others that take the differing meaning are incorrect. However, let's try a thought experiment.

If it were to be commonly accepted by the english speaking world that atheism did, in fact, refer to state where one holds a belief that God does not exist, rather than (as you say) a lack of belief about the nature of God, would you cease to call yourself an atheist, or would you try to change peoples' minds about the meaning of the word?

If Atheism did mean "the belief that that is no god (or gods) then no, I would not be an atheist.

[Treznor]

Gah!!!
Atheism is not a religon. It is not a system of beliefs.
What atheism is, is a lack of belief.

I'm curious about something here.

You (and others) are evidently having difficulty with the fact that the word "atheism" can be taken to mean one thing by atheists and another thing by others. Obviously, you assert that the others that take the differing meaning are incorrect. However, let's try a thought experiment.

If it were to be commonly accepted by the english speaking world that atheism did, in fact, refer to state where one holds a belief that God does not exist, rather than (as you say) a lack of belief about the nature of God, would you cease to call yourself an atheist, or would you try to change peoples' minds about the meaning of the word?

A little bith of both. Some atheists include a bit about "weak" atheists and "strong" atheists. "Weak" atheists like myself acknowledge that we can't prove there are no gods, but that by itself is insufficient to convince us to believe. "Strong" atheists assert that there positively are no gods, that the lack of evidence precludes even the possibility of gods.

But mostly it's about reminding people that we do not believe, and that it is the believers who bear the burden of proof regarding their claims. Until they fulfill that burden, we have no reason to take them seriously.

[Enadail]

These beliefs about the world constitute something that one can engage with argumentatively. Theists believe that the universe's observed phenomena are best explained by the inclusion of some variation on the proposition "There is a God." Thus, the atheist's belief that observed phenomena are sufficiently explained without this proposition must be wrong, or is not completely justifiable. This is what a theist is trying to articulate in claiming that atheism is a religion - that the beliefs that are held by atheists do not sufficiently account for the universe of observed phenomena.

Being an atheist says nothing about what you believe. You can be an atheist and believe the world was seeded by aliens, or that we're all hooked into a large machine, or that none of this is real. An atheist does not have to believe in science.

I always ask this and never get a response. I'm an atheist, what does that tell you about me (besides what I've stated on this thread/forum)?

[Dyakovo]

I always ask this and never get a response. I'm an atheist, what does that tell you about me (besides what I've stated on this thread/forum)?

That you don't believe in a god or gods

[Enadail]

That you don't believe in a god or gods

But I already said that on this thread!

You could say that I think there's nothing after death, but I said that too

[Dyakovo]

That you don't believe in a god or gods

But I already said that on this thread!

You could say that I think there's nothing after death, but I said that too

Well, I said it already in this thread as well, that would be the real reason I knew the answer.

[Kamsaki]

If Atheism did mean "the belief that that is no god (or gods) then no, I would not be an atheist.

A little bith of both. Some atheists include a bit about "weak" atheists and "strong" atheists. "Weak" atheists like myself acknowledge that we can't prove there are no gods, but that by itself is insufficient to convince us to believe. "Strong" atheists assert that there positively are no gods, that the lack of evidence precludes even the possibility of gods.

But mostly it's about reminding people that we do not believe, and that it is the believers who bear the burden of proof regarding their claims. Until they fulfill that burden, we have no reason to take them seriously.

Pretty much instantly, my curiosity is satisfied. See, I was wondering whether there would be a distinction between "implicit 'Implicit Atheism'" and "explicit 'Implicit Atheism'" - identifying as an implicit atheist as a matter of linguistic necessity and identifying as an implicit atheist in part as a statement of itself.

The thing that bothers me about all this, you see, is that there does seem to be such a language issue. This is in part precisely because atheism is not an organised movement - there is no Atheist PR officer, and never can be. With no central representation, how can the outside world be expected to learn what it is when its (adherents? non-believers? not-members-but-would-be-if-it-had-a-membership? argh! another language problem!) have varying attitudes towards what they think about theistic beliefs? What's more, if atheists need to constantly correct people on what atheism means, but there is no central structure for atheism, then are atheists really doing so appropriately? Does atheism really mean what the loose atheist affiliation take it to mean if they differ with everyone else over it?

[Treznor]

The thing that bothers me about all this, you see, is that there does seem to be such a language issue. This is in part precisely because atheism is not an organised movement - there is no Atheist PR officer, and never can be. With no central representation, how can the outside world be expected to learn what it is when its (adherents? non-believers? not-members-but-would-be-if-it-had-a-membership? argh! another language problem!) have varying attitudes towards what they think about theistic beliefs? What's more, if atheists need to constantly correct people on what atheism means, but there is no central structure for atheism, then are atheists really doing so appropriately? Does atheism really mean what the loose atheist affiliation take it to mean if they differ with everyone else over it?

There is a language issue, but the one thing all atheists agree on is that we do not believe. The whys and the wherefores are less interesting to us than what to do about the people who do believe, and insist that we have to as well. Because right now, the theists outnumber atheists by a large degree. If you think we're disorganized, you should see how they get along.

Oh wait, you have. We're fighting wars over it.

[Dyakovo]

The thing that bothers me about all this, you see, is that there does seem to be such a language issue.

What some people don't seem to get is that the defintion of atheism is "a lack of belief in a god or gods", some atheist do go farther than that and believe that there are no gods.
Just because some believe that doesn't mean that all do. To give an example to try to make sure that the point is understood:
Some theists believe that jesus christ is the savior, this does not mean that all do.