Posted on 12/05/2003 10:43:11 AM PST by vannrox
I do. What I can't understand is how any normal, sensible person could accept many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Of course, even many Catholics don't.
Fine. If that were true. I don't believe it is. Dr. Maurice Rawlings, a cardiologist, has written several books about this encounters with death-bed and near-death experiences. Here's a link to some Amazon reviews, pro and con. Now, I've never read Rawlings books so that's not the reason I believe in Hell. I have felt the presence of Jesus which led me to believe the Bible is a true testimony on these things and the Bible describes Hell and a judgement.
Do you remember what it was like before you were born?
I don't remember being an infant either but I certainly was one once. :-)
No, but when you consider these things the conclusions are based on faith, not empiricism. Science does not address them.
It pretty much stands to reason that anybody who makes a career out of being an atheist is going to be a bit whacky doesn't it? You aren't going to see many normal non-pain-in-the-butt atheists on TV talk shows because they wouldn't end up in that position.
You are asking questions whose answers you won't accept. Existance exists. It's axiomatic. You can posit a "Someone must have PUT them there!" answer but all that does is insert one more step before you arrive again at these questions. After all, once you decide there must be a big ghost in the sky, the natural questions return: "What created God? Why does he exist?" Then you get people just making up answers off the tops of their heads, assigning this fictional question-stopper a human personality and spinning out some tale.
Thats totally reasonable! You disbelieve an extraordinary suggestion thats inconsistent with what you know. The amount of faith in thats so miniscule that I dont think its worth mentioning.
In the same sense, an atheist can disbelieve the divinity of the Bibles detailed accounts of events and miracles without any significant degree of faith.
Who said I was attempting to offer proof? Your assumption...well, you know the rest.
So even the assumption that there is "nothing" after death is only a guess, not based on knowledge, fact or truth at all.
In other words, those who assert there is only oblivion after death are, well...operating on faith, not knowledge. It is a faith-based assertion.
No, you'd posted that to me, but playing with the defnintion of "impossible" in relation to God does not do anything to disprove Him.
That's the bit where you were doing a straw man debate with yourself. Since God is omnipotent, then the defintion impossible can not apply to Him, so it's simply a game to attempt to discount God via defintion. In your little monlogue you asked yourself "can God do the impossible?" Your answer to yourself was in error, thus your conclusion was in error. The correct answer is "to God, nothing is impossible", not the "yes" answer your provided yourself. There are, however, things God will not do, such as violate His own nature.
Atheism requires no faith whatever
Those who assert the existence of God have the burden of proving their claim
You continue to make this statement, but I've shown you that it's in error. Firstly, you are misidentifying yourself as an atheist from our previous exchanges. Secondly, it is atheism that makes a claim, that being "there is NO God". That is a claim, and one who makes a claim incurs a burden of proof, which you can not provide, and therefore atheism must be taken on faith.
Anti-theist - One who BELIEVES there is no deity. This is what most of you are (incorrectly) calling an atheist. He believes (is sure) there is no deity. Where he gets this belief, I don't know. It seems to require some faith, as he can't PROVE there is no deity, as you cannot prove a negative.
So, I wish folks would get their terminolgy consistent if they want to be able to discuss such things.
You might start with yourself regarding getting terminology correct...
Main Entry: athe·ist Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist Function: noun Date: 1571 : one who denies the existence of God - 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
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g- Function: noun Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW Date: 1869 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god - ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun
So unless you're going to rewrite the dictionaries, an atheist is one who DENIES the existence of God. That is a claim of fact. An agnostic is one who is likely not to believe in God's existence, but one way or the other believes the truth is ultimately unknowable.
So given the facts of the real defintions, and not your personal ones that we can't all agree to shift to, you are simply incorrect.
Ah, another faith based statement, unless you can prove there is no afterlife. This is one of the dogmas of atheism, further evidence of it being a religion.
You've touched on something I had considered addressing but thought might end up with posts that are too long.
It all comes down, in one respect, to the fact that we all must believe something is eternal. You chose "existence", a deist would say "God". God makes more sense when looked at logically. To believe in God as the "eternal" takes less faith. I will explain...
A belief in existence as eternal requires many assumptions. Firstly, it must be a 100% closed system, if even a fraction of energy/matter is lost then over eternity the whole will wind down, thus making itself non-eternal. (this would be in keeping with the laws of dynamics, but science, to maintain their view must argue that it does not apply to existence) Scientists posit an expanding and contracting universe with periodic explosions as the mechanism for each expansion. What was the cause for the very first explosion? Everything tends to settle to a point of equlibrium and rest unless there is an outside influence.
There is no proof or even evidence that the universe is a 100% closed system, or does science have anything approaching an explanation why the universe, given infinite time would continue to be in motion, these views must be taken on faith. Anther set of dogmas of atheism.
If one believes that there is an eternal God, who is outside of the physical laws (being the creator of those laws), then there is explanation for the appearance of the "wind down" nature of the universe, as well as the prime mover of the universe. This logically makes more sense than the best science can offer, thus requiring less faith.
You still don't get it or you ignore the obvious point. Let me restate #53 with a different noun one more time just for your benefit:
It's like this little commie grad student over in the Education department. "Everybody has a gun! Even not having a gun is having a gun!"
Do you really think that statement makes any sense?
Does substituting "god" for "gun" somehow change the meaning?
No, they just want to be.
Militant atheists ARE the leaders of atheists.
Total bovine excrement. A few idiots with an agenda appear on TV and in court for their own purposes. But they have no "followers", there is no "movement", and they have no meaningful organization or broad base of atheist support.
If I saw other groups of atheists with a different approach in the media, like I see other groups representing many Christian schools of thought, I would have no problem.
There are almost no "groups" of atheists - the concept is an absurdity. And among individuals, how would you ever know they were atheists? After all, most people can honestly say they don't want creation myths in science class without being atheists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.