[veritas]

Sadly, this is true ; a lot of them don't. And I think this is what causes people to take issue with Christianity.

Logically, one would take issue with the Christian, not the Christianity. Unless the Christianity supported a change in one's outward self and not one's inward self. But we know quite the contrary how outspoken Jesus was with the Jewish leaders who cared more about outward appearances. Jesus took issue with the Jewish leaders but he didn't conclude that since they were hypocrites that therefore their God didn't exist.

My point is, if anyone is waiting for every Christian to straighten up their act in order to accept what it is that they believe, then I'm suggesting that you might be waiting until eternity. Once I got past my own hypocrisy , I was a bit more tolerant with the hypocrisy of others.

Imagine if we all came down on the atheist for demanding equal rights for woman? If God doesn't exist, then there is no basis for equal rights. The term, "All men are created equal" is absolutely absurd unless there is some absolute, objective, and eternal moral law for equality. And if there exists a moral law, then there has to be a moral law-giver. Therefore, how hypocritical for an atheist to believe in no absolute, objective, and eternal law for equal rights while maintaining that woman should have equal rights.

Let me be clear. Just because the atheist cannot point to an objective moral law does not mean that they cannot live a moral life. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the atheist has no object point of reference for that moral law.

[spitvenom]

I went to catholic school for 9 years and I do respect the TEACHING'S of Jesus. But the Church itself is full of nothing but hypocrites and lairs. I do not call myself a catholic anymore nor do I believe in the church or go to church anymore. With the way I saw priest in 3 different churches act and all of the stories of priest touching kids and never going to jail for I just have no respect for the church. But I do give thanks everyday for being health and alive and I do thank god and Jesus for that. But you will never find me in a church not even when I Die. Until God strikes down the Catholic church for it's sin's like Sodom and Gomorrah I will continue to pray in my own way and I don't think God or Jesus will have a problem with that since they don't seem to have a problem with priest touching children.

[veritas]

I went to catholic school for 9 years and I do respect the TEACHING'S of Jesus. But the Church itself is full of nothing but hypocrites and lairs. I do not call myself a catholic anymore nor do i believe in the church or go to church anymore. With the way i saw priest in 3 different churches act and all of the stories of priest touching kids and never going to jail for I just have no respect for the church. But i do give thanks everyday for being health and alive and i do thank god and Jesus for that. But you will never find me in a church not even when i Die. Until God strikes down the Catholic church for it's sin's like Sodom and Gomorrah I will continue to pray in my own way and i don't think God or Jesus will have a problem with that since they don't seem to have a problem with priest touching children.

My heart aches for you. I'm so sorry you had to go through all of that, especially when you trusted these folks with your soul. The hearts of men often are very wicked. Please know that those that took advantage of young children like that will be held accountable for their actions, if not here on earth, then when they meet their Creator. So you can be certain about that. On the other hand, don't hold back on what God requires of you just because some sick priests did what they did. Remember too, "the church" is not exclusively the Roman Catholic Church. There are many different churches out there that uphold essential Christian doctrine and don't have leaders that are sexually sick. May you find peace, forgiveness, and a healthy church home someday.

[Wondergirl]

the Church itself is full of nothing but hypocrites and lairs.

A church is not a museum for saints -- it's a hospital for sinners.

[jillianleab]

You said, "I think he was a powerful speaker and manipulator, if he existed." My apologies, I guess one could read that you weren't including yourself in that sentence. Therefore, I'm sorry for coming down hard on you for denying his existence.

Not a problem, I was unclear in my post. Like I said, I haven't researched enough to form a solid opinion one way or the other. Also, his existence isn't that important to me, since I don't think if he existed it means he was who he said he was (or who others said he was). But that's another topic!

I too was unclear. In addition to believe that no God existed, then that I believed one couldn't know if a God existed, I also didn't want there to be a God.

I think this is one of the things that differentiates atheists who were once believers and atheists who have always been non-believers. I'm of the latter; so replace "God" with "unicorns" and you will get my perspective! :) But it's OK, we are all unclear in our posts at one point or another.

No, I'm saying that we must NOT check our brains at the door, nor should we only rely on feelings. My point was that atheists and agnostics often claim that Christians do that but that in reality, we must use our brains to seek and review the historical evidence.

And here's proof that I need to read my own sig... you did say we should not check our brains at the door, I mis-read, sorry! I think you have a point in a way - some Christians use their brains and actively search for and pursue their religion and it's history, but there are many out there who simply say "It's in the Bible, it's true" or, "God did it" to justify anything/everything. Many forget that citing the Bible as evidence to an atheist is like citing Star Wars as historically and scientifically accurate!

[Fr_Chuck]

I went to catholic school for 9 years and I do respect the TEACHING'S of Jesus. But the Church itself is full of nothing but hypocrites and lairs. I do not call myself a catholic anymore nor do i believe in the church or go to church anymore. With the way i saw priest in 3 different churches act and all of the stories of priest touching kids and never going to jail for I just have no respect for the church. But i do give thanks everyday for being health and alive and i do thank god and Jesus for that. But you will never find me in a church not even when i Die. Until God strikes down the Catholic church for it's sin's like Sodom and Gomorrah I will continue to pray in my own way and i don't think God or Jesus will have a problem with that since they don't seem to have a problem with priest touching children.

the bible is clear that there will be the wicked mixed along with the faithful, and what others do should not be the judgement of what we believe or not believe. There always will be sinful people in all churches.
As for as the priests, of course while there is some, all of the news is priests over 30 years, few are current or new issues. And as a percentage, there are issues with boy scouts, with karate teachers, and school teachers, but I don't see you saing you have lost faith in the scouts, in public schools and so on.

And in General the Church is full of faith, and I see you have confused the lost sin of a few with the faith of millions.

[veritas]

Not a problem, I was unclear in my post. Like I said, I haven't researched enough to form a solid opinion one way or the other. Also, his existence isn't that important to me, since I don't think if he existed it means he was who he said he was (or who others said he was). But that's another topic!

I think this is one of the things that differentiates atheists who were once believers and atheists who have always been non-believers. I'm of the latter; so replace "God" with "unicorns" and you will get my perspective! :) But it's ok, we are all unclear in our posts at one point or another.

And here's proof that I need to read my own sig.... you did say we should not check our brains at the door, I mis-read, sorry! I think you have a point in a way - some Christians use their brains and actively search for and pursue their religion and it's history, but there are many out there who simply say "It's in the Bible, it's true" or, "God did it" to justify anything/everything. Many forget that citing the Bible as evidence to an atheist is like citing Star Wars as historically and scientifically accurate!

As Dennis Prager says, "I prefer clarity to agreement." While we may disagree, we are clear about each other's positions and that is sometimes as far as it gets.

However, if I may be so bold, I tend to think you would fall into the category of an agnostic rather than an atheist. An atheist would assert that there is no God, which would require knowledge of the entire universe in order to sustain that argument and is therefore untenable. An agnostic would assert that one can not know whether God exists and that seems to be more in line with what you've written so far. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[excon]

An atheist would assert that there is no God, which would require knowledge of the entire universe in order to sustain that argument and is therefore untenable. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hello veritas:

You're wrong. I can assert that there's no tooth fairy, and it doesn't require knowledge of the entire universe in order to do so. Asserting there's no God is no different.

excon

[Capuchin]

Firstly, it's certainly not untenable. We must assume things don't exist and then prove that they do. If we were working the other way, then we can assert that there are flying teapots around pluto, after all we haven't proved that there aren't. That isn't how discovery works.

Furthermore, an omnipresent God only needs to be disproved in the tiniest portion of the universe. If he's not there, then he's not omnipresent. You don't need knowledge of the whole universe at all.

[jillianleab]

As Dennis Prager says, "I prefer clarity to agreement." While we may disagree, we are clear about each other's positions and that is sometimes as far as it gets.

Works for me!

However, if I may be so bold, I tend to think you would fall into the category of an agnostic rather than an atheist. An atheist would assert that there is no God, which would require knowledge of the entire universe in order to sustain that argument and is therefore untenable. An agnostic would assert that one can not know whether God exists and that seems to be more in line with what you've written so far. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh, the number of times we have been through this on this site... :) Due to rising tempers with others on this board, I have a tendency to make it clear my assertion there is no god is my opinion, because when I don't, people seem to get up in arms about it. I prefer to try and sidestep the argument, as saying "this is my opinion, that is your opinion" goes over better most of the time. Stating otherwise tends to get into a flamewar and I get accused of telling people there is no god and squashing their belief. So I clarify it - I think there is no god, you think whatever you want.

You don't appear to be one who will turn this into a flamewar, so I'll say it, there is no god. If you would like to believe in a god, I support your right to do so, as long as you support my right not to (which you seem to do).

We've also been through the "no one can be an atheist because no one can know with absolute certainty there is no god". Most of those people say that, but then say they know there IS a god. Some have said they don't know there is a god, but they think there is, to which I tell them they are actually agnostic, but since I say, "there is no god" I am an atheist. Also, see excon and Cap's posts above; one can make assertions without all knowledge in the universe; if we couldn't, we'd ALL be agnostic about EVERYTHING.

[veritas]

Hello veritas:

You're wrong. I can assert that there's no tooth fairy, and it doesn't require knowledge of the entire universe in order to do so. Asserting there's no God is no different.

excon

It certainly would require knowledge of the entire universe to assert there's no tooth fairy. To assert the non-existence of anything would require knowledge of the entire universe. That's what makes atheism so problematic.

[Capuchin]

It certainly would require knowledge of the entire universe to assert there's no tooth fairy. To assert the non-existence of anything would require knowledge of the entire universe. That's what makes atheism so problematic.

You must live in a scary scary world where everything you can imagine, and then more stuff you can't, exists, then?

[veritas]

Works for me!



Oh, the number of times we have been through this on this site.... :) Due to rising tempers with others on this board, I have a tendency to make it clear my assertion there is no god is my opinion, because when I don't, people seem to get up in arms about it. I prefer to try and sidestep the argument, as saying "this is my opinion, that is your opinion" goes over better most of the time. Stating otherwise tends to get into a flamewar and I get accused of telling people there is no god and squashing their belief. So I clarify it - I think there is no god, you think whatever you want.

You don't appear to be one who will turn this into a flamewar, so I'll say it, there is no god. If you would like to believe in a god, I support your right to do so, as long as you support my right not to (which you seem to do).

We've also been through the "no one can be an atheist because no one can know with absolute certainty there is no god". Most of those people say that, but then say they know there IS a god. Some have said they don't know there is a god, but they think there is, to which I tell them they are actually agnostic, but since I say, "there is no god" I am an atheist. Also, see excon and Cap's posts above; one can make assertions without all knowledge in the universe; if we couldn't, we'd ALL be agnostic about EVERYTHING.

As everyone on the board as my witness, I will never turn any argument into a flamewar. I respect the dignity of each person on this board but every idea, opinion, or argument is up for debate, including my own.

What I often hear is a miscategorization of one's "right to say or believe something" versus defending one's position with evidence or logical reasoning that could be shown as reasonable. I support anyone's right to believe or say anything... of course. I wouldn't bother if that's all we would come to agreement on. What's more important to me is to dialog with atheists and agnostics about their philosophical assertions and logical arguments that cause them to arrive at the position that there is no God.

I cannot prove with absolute certainty that there is a God. What I can do is to demonstrate that the evidence for the existence of God is reasonable and available if anyone is willing to discuss it.

[veritas]

You must live in a scary scary world where everything you can imagine, and then more stuff you can't, exists, then?

Please explain. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

[Capuchin]

Please explain. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Well, you must surely believe that there's a doomsday squad of fighterships coming to earth to destroy us all, since we can't say for certain that there isn't? You would need all the knowledge in the universe to say there isn't, wouldn't you?

Or... How about Zeus? You can't possibly say that he doesn't exist. He'd be angry if you did.

If you follow your argument to absurdity, then pretty much anything you imagine actually exists.

[veritas]

Firstly, it's certainly not untenable. We must assume things don't exist and then prove that they do. If we were working the other way, then we can assert that there are flying teapots around pluto, after all we havent proved that there aren't. That isn't how discovery works.

Furthermore, an omnipresent God only needs to be disproved in the tiniest portion of the universe. If he's not there, then he's not omnipresent. You don't need knowledge of the whole universe at all.

That's as silly as assuming that things do exist and then proving that they don't. It seems that the proper methodology would be to examine the evidence available and go from there.

About an omnipresent God...

Your concept of omnipresences is not Biblical. God is aware and has knowledge of all things at all times, that's omnipresence. He is not physical and therefore does not occupy space or time. William Lane Craig does a great job of describing the attributes of God. I would highly recommend reading up on God's attributes. A lot of misunderstandings can be resolved with an accurate understanding of those attributes.

[veritas]

Well, you must surely believe that there's a doomsday squad of fighterships coming to earth to destroy us all, since we can't say for certain that there isnt? You would need all the knowledge in the universe to say there isn't, wouldnt you?

Or... How about Zeus? You can't possibly say that he doesn't exist. He'd be angry if you did.

If you follow your argument to absurdity, then pretty much anything you imagine actually exists.

I've never asserted that those things existed. Are you?

It's the atheist that says with absolute certainty that there is NO God. I don't recall making any negative assertions about fighterships or Zeus.

[Capuchin]

That's as silly as assuming that things do exist and then proving that they don't. It seems that the proper methodology would be to examine the evidence available and go from there.

This is my point?

[Capuchin]

An atheist never says that there is no God, he believes that there is no God, that's all. All good scientists know that the universe could have been created by a God. The reason why God isn't given in science textbooks as the creator of the universe? Because there's no evidence.

Just like there's no evidence for Zeus, or the battleships coming to destroy us, or the teapots around pluto. So we can say these things are not there, until evidence tells us otherwise.

This is the way that logical reasoning demands it must be. We cannot say "You cannot say for certain that x does not exist, therefore we must assume that x does exist". Down that road insanity lies.

[jillianleab]

As everyone on the board as my witness, I will never turn any argument into a flamewar. I respect the dignity of each person on this board but every idea, opinion, or argument is up for debate, including my own.

Well that's refreshing!

What I often hear is a miscategorization of one's "right to say or believe something" versus defending one's position with evidence or logical reasoning that could be shown as reasonable. I support anyone's right to believe or say anything... of course. I wouldn't bother if that's all we would come to agreement on. What's more important to me is to dialog with atheists and agnostics about their philosophical assertions and logical arguments that cause them to arrive at the position that there is no God.

I cannot prove with absolute certainty that there is a God. What I can do is to demonstrate that the evidence for the existence of God is reasonable and available if anyone is willing to discuss it.

If you say you can't prove there is a god, then I say you are agnostic.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods

From: Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as your evidence for the existence of a god, feel free to share. I have never seen/heard anything which has compelled me to believe, but perhaps you have new information.

Regarding having a dialogue with atheists/agnostics on how they arrived at their conclusion, did you read through the link I gave you earlier to the other thread about atheism? It explains a lot. Some people lost their faith, some people never found it, some people don't have it. I don't have it, that's how I arrived at my conclusion. When I hear about the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, my brain instantly goes - "No way" My brain won't LET me believe. I'd have the same reaction if you told me if you concentrate hard enough you can make yourself disappear.

There are terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" which drive me nuts, and I avoid using them. It seems their definitions vary from site to site for one, but for two, it doesn't matter much. To me, they are essentially the same thing and one becomes one or the other depending on the conversation. There is also the term "apathetic atheism" which again, I think anyone who is an atheist can be depending on the time and conversation.

EDIT: That should say, "If you can't assert there is a god"