Two atheist arguments that cancel each other out.

[mgoforth]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

I have not one ounce of anger towards the Church, the Catholic church or any other Church, faith, or belief.

I defy you to go through my posts and find even one post where I was even disrespectful, never mind angry.

I can't help but feel you saw the word atheist, and just assumed anything said must be infused with anger at your Church, but I would gladly be wrong on that.

Sarah x

I'm sorry I misread you. I took your statement at it's face value...which to me sounded quite angry:

"...but not before all those parents of babies and children went through the anguish of thinking their innocent baby was in Limbo and no in heaven, as taught by so many bishops and priests of the Church."

When I saw an emotionally charged word like "anguish", and then saw the blame for that anguish being laid on "so many bishops and priests of the Church", then I assumed anger or frustration toward the Church was your motive.

You say it wasn't meant in anger so please accept my apology. There were no hurt feelings on my side, I just wanted to make sure you were ok.

[mgoforth]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

But which Being?

The God of the Jews, the Christian God, the Muslim God, the version of God Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons believe in?

It seems to me, if such a Being could be established, there still remains the problem of exactly what Being it is.

Could it be that if such a being existed, none of the current versions of religion have it right, and it is a completely different kind of being altoghther?

Seems to me there is still a ton of work to do from establishing that this being exists, to establishing it the personal, interventionist God of Christianity.

Sarah x

What sort of work could be done to establish that God exists or who He really is? I can't imagine that such a thing is "testable" in any science outside logic. Of course, many don't see logic as a true science, but that's another thread entirely...

[cranster]

Originally Posted by mgoforth

to choose to leave Heaven would be pure insanity.

leaving heaven would be separating from God who is life itself. It would literally be choosing to be dead because there is no life without God, but with an immortal soul that would persist for ever only capable of experiencing God's justice because it had forfeited God's mercy in this life. It wouldn't be like... hey I want to go do something else, I want to do my own thing... after this it's only life or death which we are determining for ourselves now.

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by mgoforth

I'm sorry I misread you. I took your statement at it's face value...which to me sounded quite angry:

Not a problem. And thank you for your concern.

Originally Posted by mgoforth

What sort of work could be done to establish that God exists or who He really is?

I think answering prayers in a manner that could be predictable and consistent to the extent that prayer would be confidently part of the medical toolbox would be a start, or at least give me pause for thought.

Sarah x

[Hokomai]

With reference to the OP, is the argument about heaven very common among atheists? I am not sure I have come across it in that context. I have heard it discussed between theists, wondering about the nature (eternal or not) or free will, and about the relationship of God and those in heaven. Can anyone cite some atheist references on this?

Also I agree with the point already made that atheists do not use the existence of phenomena that could not result from the actions of an all-powerful and all-loving God who intervenes in our lives as proof that there is no God - just that the God of Christians (and Muslims, and Jews) does not exist.

[mgoforth]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

I think answering prayers in a manner that could be predictable and consistent to the extent that prayer would be confidently part of the medical toolbox would be a start, or at least give me pause for thought.

So that would make God a "medical tool"? It seems a bit condescending for us to ask our Creator to jump through hoops like that. And who's to say that He doesn't answer prayers consistently? Perhaps "consistency" to a Being who's outside of all time and space - who sees the interconnection of all people and events - wouldn't be recognizable as such from our point of view. What if God knew that the medical miracle we were praying for was not in the best interest of thousands of other people?

If you're saying God should prove himself to us, I say that He does, but only to those who already believe in Him. Sounds silly from "outside" the Faith, I know, but it makes perfect sense from "inside". What you might call a contradiction, I call a beautiful mystery.

[mgoforth]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

With reference to the OP, is the argument about heaven very common among atheists? I am not sure I have come across it in that context. I have heard it discussed between theists, wondering about the nature (eternal or not) or free will, and about the relationship of God and those in heaven. Can anyone cite some atheist references on this?

Also I agree with the point already made that atheists do not use the existence of phenomena that could not result from the actions of an all-powerful and all-loving God who intervenes in our lives as proof that there is no God - just that the God of Christians (and Muslims, and Jews) does not exist.

I don't know how common the argument is, but I have heard it before as an argument against God's existence.

To the second point, since as a Christian I believe that THE God is the only one that makes sense it's hard for me to consider "lesser" possibilities, such as a god who's not all-powerful or not all-loving. I would always end up saying that a god like that is illogical. For me, it's either the Christian God or none at all...and I know that none at all is just as illogical.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by mgoforth

So that would make God a "medical tool"? It seems a bit condescending for us to ask our Creator to jump through hoops like that. And who's to say that He doesn't answer prayers consistently? Perhaps "consistency" to a Being who's outside of all time and space - who sees the interconnection of all people and events - wouldn't be recognizable as such from our point of view. What if God knew that the medical miracle we were praying for was not in the best interest of thousands of other people?

If you're saying God should prove himself to us, I say that He does, but only to those who already believe in Him. Sounds silly from "outside" the Faith, I know, but it makes perfect sense from "inside". What you might call a contradiction, I call a beautiful mystery.

The claim that prayer works when applied to sick people is a scientific claim. It predicts an outcome. Your point that prayer is not always answered does not alter this, as the claim is that, on average, over time, if we pray for sick people they will recover better, or suffer less. If not, why pray? And it is clear merely from reading CAF that this is exactly what many CAFers believe. It is a proposition that matter (peoples' bodies) can be and is changed by something that is not material (prayer and God). This can be tested. those have tried have not produced any positive replicable results. when you say it "Sounds silly from "outside" the Faith, I know, but it makes perfect sense from "inside", you should consider first the possibility of whether it sounds silly from outside because it is silly.

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by mgoforth

So that would make God a "medical tool"? It seems a bit condescending for us to ask our Creator to jump through hoops like that.

No, I wouldn't see that as being reduced to a mere ''medical tool'', rather, as demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt, for the unbeliever at least, that the claim that you can ''ask in My Name, and it will be granted'' holds consistently.

As for the jumping through hoops, well, again no, because Jesus did say whatever you ask in His name, will be given.

Now, I understand that there could be qualifiers implied in that, in the sense that given the overall context of Jesus' message, asking for your neighbor to be struck down because he borrowed your mower and didn't return it would be ignored.

But how about good Catholic families like that of Madeleine McCann, who've had the whole world, including the Pope praying for the safe return of their daughter, who have Mass offered every day, and who, 5 years later, are still in anguish for their missing little girl.

I can't for the life of me see what lessons are being taught, or learned, from this families suffering and pain.

Sarah x

[Equites Christi]

Aha! I see it very clearly now.

Our differences spring from the definitions of "love" and "mercy", especially how they relate to suffering.

ASimon, atheistgirl, care to take a stab?

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by Equites Christi

Aha! I see it very clearly now.

Our differences spring from the definitions of "love" and "mercy", especially how they relate to suffering.

ASimon, atheistgirl, care to take a stab?

I will have a go. "Love' means wishing for, and acting for, the good of other living things. If there is an all-powerful God, he does not do this, since animals, incapable of sin and without free will, have been suffering severe pain and distress for hundreds of millions of years. this includes time before there were eople, and therefore before the sin committed by the adam and Eve the church teaches were historical, real people. Therefore if there is an all-powerful God, he does not love all other living things.

[Equites Christi]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

I will have a go. "Love' means wishing for, and acting for, the good of other living things. If there is an all-powerful God, he does not do this, since animals, incapable of sin and without free will, have been suffering severe pain and distress for hundreds of millions of years. this includes time before there were eople, and therefore before the sin committed by the adam and Eve the church teaches were historical, real people. Therefore if there is an all-powerful God, he does not love all other living things.

Noted. Other submissions from the atheist court?

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by Equites Christi

Noted. Other submissions from the atheist court?

I second Hokomai's statement. My snarky definition of Love and Mercy would be - "The exact same definition that everyone else uses in every other context except this one."

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by Equites Christi

Noted. Other submissions from the atheist court?

I don't think we have a 'court'. It is more a loose anarchist collective, but not so organized as that.

[Equites Christi]

Alrighty then

Originally Posted by Hokomai

I will have a go. "Love' means wishing for, and acting for, the good of other living things.

Land ho! We've found common ground.

Originally Posted by Hokomai

If there is an all-powerful God, he does not do this, since animals, incapable of sin and without free will, have been suffering severe pain and distress for hundreds of millions of years.

To wit, you posit that love does not allow severe pain and distress in living beings, correct?