How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet

Frank Lee Seaux said:
No, that's bullshit.

One can be Catholic(non-orthodox), or one can commit to dogmatic orthodoxy. Both are equally Catholic.

Obviously, this is a source of division. It is the divisive tactic of orthodoxy to excommunicate non-orthodox Catholics, and or claim they are living in sin because of their heresy. But, heresy is only a sin by authority of the magisterium. Heresy is against the church, but not against the religion as a whole, or against the deity.

Christ was purported to have been tried as a heretic and a blasphemer.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand Catholicism. You cannot be Catholic if you reject the infallibly declared Dogmas and doctrines of the Church. To be Catholic is to accept those.

There are many things Catholics may disagree on and have "non-orthodox" views, but dogmas may not be rejected. For example, all Catholics must believe in the Assumption of Mary, however Catholics may disagree on how that happened; whether Mary died or whether she was assumed into heaven without having passed through death. Catholics must also believe in predestination, but may hold different views on it, for example Thomist or Molinists views on it.

And no, it is not a "divisive tactic" to say that heretics are living in sin and to excommunicate those who are preaching heretical views on the Truth. That is called defending the Faith. To allow distortions of the Faith, regardless how small, is to allow the destruction of the Faith. Once you start altering the Truth, it ceases to be Truth.
 
otherone said:
I think a mistake that many theists make when trying to understand atheists is that they believe atheists have a positive argument for the non-existence of deities. I don't, nor do many other atheists. What we are simply saying is theists have not provided adequate proof to cultivate our belief in a deity.
Click to expand...

Its still wrong to say "atheists have no beliefs about deities though" wouldn't you agree at least? Believing that they do not in reality exist is still a belief about them.

I still have beliefs about bigfoot, even though I think he probably doesn't in reality exist. I don't have any positive scientific evidence against his existence either.

I also agree that atheists have don't any positive evidence against God's existence because I don't believe that's even possible.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you could say atheists have unbelief. Which is kind of redundant because atheist is basically Non-Theist.
 
eduardo89 said:
You obviously do not understand Catholicism. You cannot be Catholic if you reject the infallibly declared Dogmas and doctrines of the Church. To be Catholic is to accept those.

There are many things Catholics may disagree on and have "non-orthodox" views, but dogmas may not be rejected. For example, all Catholics must believe in the Assumption of Mary, however Catholics may disagree on how that happened; whether Mary died or whether she was assumed into heaven without having passed through death. Catholics must also believe in predestination, but may hold different views on it, for example Thomist or Molinists views on it.

And no, it is not a "divisive tactic" to say that heretics are living in sin and to excommunicate those who are preaching heretical views on the Truth. That is called defending the Faith. To allow distortions of the Faith, regardless how small, is to allow the destruction of the Faith. Once you start altering the Truth, it ceases to be Truth.
Click to expand...

Again, subjectivist truth does not a universal, or absolute truth make. There is no threshold at with subjective truth become universal or absolute. And, there are a great number of Catholics who do not hold to all the orthodoxy and dogmatism of the orthodox church view. There are, for instance, Lutheran Catholics, Roman Catholics, and Apostolic Catholics.

They are all different versions of the same thing... Kinda like a red Ferrari, v blue Ferrari, v yellow Ferrari.
 
Frank Lee Seaux said:
Again, subjectivist truth does not a universal, or absolute truth make. There is no threshold at with subjective truth become universal or absolute. And, there are a great number of Catholics who do not hold to all the orthodoxy and dogmatism of the orthodox church view. There are, for instance, Lutheran Catholics, Roman Catholics, and Apostolic Catholics.

They are all different versions of the same thing... Kinda like a red Ferrari, v blue Ferrari, v yellow Ferrari.
Click to expand...

Lutheran Catholics are not Catholics. The Catholic Apostolic Church is not part of the Catholic Church, despite its name. To be Catholic means to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome and to submit to the Church's authority. Catholics must accept all the dogmas and doctrine of the Church, without exception. That's what makes the Church "catholic," which means universal. The same teachings are accepted by those in the Latin Rite, Byzantine Rite, Coptic Rite, Syriac Rites, etc.

Those "Catholics" who reject Church dogmas and doctrine, such as prohibition on the use of contraception or divorce, are not Catholics in good standing. They are in defiance of fundamental, infallible, non-negotiable Church teaching. Those Catholics may not receive the Eucharist.
 
eduardo89 said:
For example, all Catholics must believe in the Assumption of Mary, however Catholics may disagree on how that happened; whether Mary died or whether she was assumed into heaven without having passed through death. .
Click to expand...

That's right. And all Christians must reject this because it is not Biblical.
 
My mom would identify as Irish Catholic whatever that means. She observes the Assumption also.

I was actually raised Catholic and I still find the Mary veneration kind of confusing. I'm surprised there isn't a break off that says She is part of a Quadrinity God.
 
matt0611 said:
Its still wrong to say "atheists have no beliefs about deities though" wouldn't you agree at least? Believing that they do not in reality exist is still a belief about them.
Click to expand...

That's the tooth fairy argument. I believe ancient Greeks believed Zeus hurled thunderbolts. That is not a positive statement of belief or disbelief that Zeus hurled thunderbolts.
 
Last edited:
eduardo89 said:
Those "Catholics" who reject Church dogmas and doctrine, such as prohibition on the use of contraception or divorce, are not Catholics in good standing. They are in defiance of fundamental, infallible, non-negotiable Church teaching. Those Catholics may not receive the Eucharist.
Click to expand...

LOLZ. What word is the adjective "cafeteria" modifying?
 
otherone said:
That's the tooth fairy argument. I believe ancient Greeks believed Zeus hurled thunderbolts. That is not a positive statement of belief or disbelief that Zeus hurled thunderbolts.
Click to expand...

No, but it is a belief about Zeus though, is it not? You do have a belief on the matter don't you? Even if your belief is that "you don't know if he existed or not".
 
Last edited:
There is Adequate Proof Before Persuasion

otherone said:
I think a mistake that many theists make when trying to understand atheists is that they believe atheists have a positive argument for the non-existence of deities. I don't, nor do many other atheists. What we are simply saying is theists have not provided adequate proof to cultivate our belief in a deity.
Click to expand...

Otherone, you (and all other atheists in this thread) need to understand that there is a difference between proof and persuasion. A person can provide proof of something, and that proof can be true and conclusive. However, if someone is not persuaded of the proof, then that does not make what the proof points to any less truthful nor conclusive. If there were no proofs or evidences for the existence of God, then I would not be a Christian. But there are lots of evidences that point to the existence of God.

As an atheist, your job is not to examine the evidences and just shout, "I'm not convinced...I'm not convinced...I'm not convinced." Your perspective and interpretation of the evidences are not religiously neutral, after all. We are dealing with philosophical worldviews here, and worldviews always have presuppositions embedded in them, by which evidence are interpreted based on those precommitments. Atheism is a worldview filled with a network of presuppositions that have not been tested by empirical methods (thus, taken for granted), and are the starting point by which all of the universe is interpreted and human experience is made sense of.

So, when you say that Christians have not provided "adequate proof," it is what you define as "adequacy" which is reflective of your assumed atheistic, naturalistic expectations of what evidences ought to show in order to be convinced. You must change your worldview before you can understand the evidences of the Christian theist.
 
matt0611 said:
No, but it is a belief about Zeus though, is it not? You do have a belief on the matter don't you? Even if you belief is that "you don't know if he existed or not".
Click to expand...

No. It's a belief about the ancient Greeks.
 
Frank Lee Seaux said:
You are arguing semantics.
Click to expand...

Only as a concession to you.

Before you took issue with me over the definition of "atheist" I merely used the term according to the normal definition. Only after that did I say anything about one definition of it versus another.
 
otherone said:
That's the tooth fairy argument. I believe ancient Greeks believed Zeus hurled thunderbolts. That is not a positive statement of belief or disbelief that Zeus hurled thunderbolts.
Click to expand...

Right. But once you make a positive statement that you believe the thunderbolt-throwing Zeus never existed, then you're expressing a belief concerning Zeus.

Seriously, to dispute that is just trolling.
 
otherone said:
No. It's a belief about the ancient Greeks.
Click to expand...

It's a belief about the ancient Greeks as well as Zeus because you just made a statement about who you believed worshiped him.

You believe something concerning Zeus.
 
Theocrat said:
You must change your worldview before you can understand the evidences of the Christian theist.
Click to expand...

Of course. My worldview doesn't include talking snakes, talking bushes, virgin births, resurrection of the dead, walking on water, seas parting, sticks turning into snakes, or magic boats that can accommodate two of every animal that "somehow" were collected from the four corners of the globe, all based on an anthology collected for the purpose of creating Rome's state religion.
I don't define myself in opposition to your beliefs, no more than I define myself in regards to a paranoid-schizophrenic's claim that they have bugs crawling over their skin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top