Atheist bored at work. Feel free to ask questions


No more special than any thing in this universe would be more consistent. So your life has as much value as a rock, in other words.

Or do you believe in value? What is value?


So how do you determine that it is supernatural in origin if we can not investigate the supernatural in any way? Why not just hold the belief to the data we can investigate and don’t take a step too far? That seems more honest approach to understanding reality. I want to comport my understanding of reality to match reality as close as possible so that I don’t get fooled as much as I used to. I’ll let reality show me what it is instead of what I wish it would be like.


Here is the difference between hope, belief, and faith to me:
Belief is the conclusion about reality that we can not choose. It’s the result of the equation from data of an event we experienced and applying our logic of understanding how reality works to come to a tentative conclusion. Such as believing a value of 1 -6 will appear if your roll a 1d6 dice. Those are the only realistic options as a result in this reality.
Hope is the desire for a specific possible outcome from a known event. Such as hoping a 6 will land on a 1d6 roll since you placed a bet that a 6 will land. It’s a rare possible known outcome, but that’s the key, it’s known to be an outcome.
Faith is the hope for an unjustified result from an event. Such as having faith a 7 will occur from a 1d6 dice roll. It’s not justified to hold to that belief as an option or possibility. Where is the data that justifies the belief in the supernatural? Here is where I see people using the term faith. The assertion of results they hope to be the case when there is no distinguishable evidence that that realm is there at all.


You believe we’re all equel then?


I do the same, until there seems no possibility it would come from natural means. Even clergy do the same, in the case of possessions, for example. The person supposedly afflicted has to first undergo many psychological tests and medical tests to rule out mental disorders and such. Then, if their “symptoms” match up with what is commonly seen in possessions, and their medical and psychological tests come back fine, they can go forth with the exorcism. Many are then cured from their afflictions after having the exorcisms performed.

Supernatural origin is as much a theory as is evolution because neither can be completely, factually proven. Evidence can be gathered and people come to conclusions based on what is most likely.

With the Eucharistic Miracle I described, that is what happened. We are given the facts and we come to a conclusion. Some may disagree with it, but it is all based on likeliness. To deny the possibility of the supernatural in response to an event, is to deny a possible explanation or theory for something previously thought unexplainable.


Does “might make right”? - Might is a tool used to solve the problem. If you can’t stop someone from beating their children through logic and reason, then use might. The might of the many willing to give up their might to be governed is another use of it as well. We as a society, banded together, have might to over through our captors and oppressors if they don’t change through logic and reason. But then again, I keep hearing from the religious that I need to join their religion to appease the strongest being they could imagine for a reward in the here-after. Their deity seems to have a might-makes right to it as well. Every conscious creature that is forced to interact with other conscious creatures has this as part of their interaction. But the might of the individual could beat the other creature, but the combined might of both of them working together can out perform the might of the individual. If that made any since.

Objective anything is always referenced to a subjective zero reference point. Once you pick your reference point you can have objective anything.

Is it wrong to do X? depends on the problem attempting to be solved and the limited understanding of reality by the creatures involved.

From a reference point of me, may things matter.

Is to Ought - depends on the agreed upon terms and use of those involved in the governing rules they are allowing themselves to be subjected to. We have to tools to solve these problems, of logic and reason, if we get them wrong. Divine command theory removes your ability to act as a moral agent and you just become a trained pet that jumps off the couch when the master tells you to but you never understand why sitting on the couch is a moral issue in the first place. Might makes right example here as well.


Russell, when you get the chance, please read C.S. Lewis (not a Catholic but an Anglican) on Miracles. He made many salient points about Nature and the Supernatural. What, I ask you, makes your opinion about the Supernatural and its ‘claims’ ‘true’? Do you not see that you are claiming that ‘your reason’ is 'good enough for everybody else?

Anyway, he really will answer a lot of the questions you ask. You may choose to accept some, many, all, or none of the answers, but he will answer, not with ‘imagination’ either.


Sure but does actually understanding why and how we have emotional connection to each other remove the level of significance to us? Just because you don’t like the current model of existence does not mean you can make one up to make you feel better about it. Your model of explanation of reality has to actually reflect reality. Where’s your supernatural data for solution to the volcano erupting and taking our your village?


To the universe yes, but I don’t care about the universe’s relevance of my life or any ultimate meaning after my experience of this life. Just as my car will ultimately rust away does not diminish it’s importance to me here and now, and even though it doesn’t mean anything to you since my car doesn’t affect your life in any way, it’s still important to me. I can have a career, travel for vacation, go to the hospital faster, etc.


Depends, i need more context here.


You mentioned you are no more special than any other person on this planet,just wondering if you believe we are all equel then.
Thanks for your other reply.


So for you faith is unjustified by definition?


Tonus faith is justified because of our interpretation of reality. For us our very existence is evidence of an intelligence beyond our own. We see a justified belief and call it faith. Atheists do not.


How do you know you have exhausted all known means in reality for that solution? Conjurers and tricksters do this all the time to fool people. They know that people have certain assumptions that they believe they could not be wrong on and play on that. How can you possibly demonstrate that the supernatural is any different than an imagined idea? For example, if someone burns a piece of wood, we can recreate the event, we can see that fire is part of reality, how fire interacts with different matter, etc. How can you make any claim about an event to be from the realm of the supernatural if no one can investigate how the supernatural interacts with reality, what the supernatural can and can not do, etc. It’s like claiming a piece of wood was burned by fire in a reality where no one can investigate fire to be any different than an imagined idea of fire. Imagining a solution to a problem does not mean that imagined solution is the answer until you can actually investigate that imagined solution. The imagined solution can direct you on where to go look for the solution and once we can finally investigate that imagined solution and demonstrate a causal link between the two, only then would we be justified in making that explanation part of reality. Until then, I have to just conclude, “we don’t know” the cause of X.


Christian religious believe the strongest being also thinks it’s wrong to beat children, as well as counteless other demands of love. So if we understand God as the source of all goodness (loving children rather than beating them, etc.) than “appeasing” this strongest being sounds good, almost poetic.

That just kicks the can down the road, not really answering my question. I’m asking if there’s a difinitive reference point for all morality. Like, is it always wrong to beat an innocent child?

Again, using logic and reason, how do you get from a parent is beating their child to a parent ought not beat their child?

If the master in his essence defines that it’s wrong to beat your child, if whatever it is about loving your child that is good is part of the essense of the master, and we have the ability to choose for or against that goodness, how does that remove our moral agency, how would choosing not to beat your child (AKA obeying that master) be a bad thing?


Mehh not really interested in reading apologetics. I prefer to just have a conversation about these ideas or listening to people’s points on it.


I’m special to me and special to people that tell me I am special to them. Or were you wanting more to that, like we are special over other species, as a group, as a tribe, etc?


But “level of significance to us” is in turn electron soup.

According to you, the model of the existence of and significance of love is relative to yourself, so it seems you’re making one up to make you feel better about it. Right?

I don’t understand what you’re asking here.


I’m just letting you know how I see people use the word faith and how I use it. Got a different word to use for the conversation and idea you want to talk about, use what ever you want. When I use it, that’s what I mean by it. I care about communicating more than semantics.


How about consciousness? You undoubtedly see it as an emergent property of matter. It just came about through a long mechanical process?


Your car could have value relative to me, and therefore I could steal it. Would that be wrong? Why/why not?

If someone weighs that you have no value to them and they decide to end your life, would that be wrong? Say it’s not just one person, say it’s most of society, if most of society thinks slavery is ok, is it? Say 90% determine they would be better off by enslaving 10%, would that be ok? If a stronger alien race came and wiped us out we would no longer be around for it to matter to us, so what’s wrong with that? What rational appeal could we make to the alien race to not wipe us out? Would it be a mere utilitarian appeal? Is not beating your child purely a utilitarian constraint? Beating your child would disturb your peace (or electron soup), but what if it didn’t, what if it improved your electron soup, why should someone stop you?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit