I’ve been away from CAF for about a year. I left because 1) there were so many snarky atheists (a few whose comments were thought-provoking) and 2) I was putting more time into it than was worthwhile. I’ve come back to promote a blog, and the Pascal’s Wager thread caught my eye. What has struck me about the posts in that thread, is not that there is constructive criticism of Pascal’s Wager; there are, in fact, many valid criticisms of Pascal’s Wager, some based on probability arguments (e.g. the St. Petersburg Paradox criticism) and some based on psychological arguments (e.g. one can not believe by an act of will). However, the arguments used by the atheists in this thread depend essentially on the proposition that there is zero probability that God exists, which I think begs the question. My question is do these atheists frequent this Forum in order to deconvert believers? (That is to say, are they, like Richard Dawkins, evangelical atheists?) Or do they come to justify their own non-belief? If the former, it’s clear they aren’t successful; if the latter…well, what can I say. Just curious.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am here because I am interested in belief and enjoy discussing it.
Good for you! The quest for truth is a vital part of our development as persons…
The Church believes that “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” - CAF then must pay the price for that!
:tsktsk: It’s a happy price!
all are welcome, some may find god, but at least they want to learn, and and not presume to know it all and think we are fantasy unicorn lovers as someone said i was…
Personally, I am here (okay - I identify as a pantheist, but as far as most believers in gods are concerned, I might as well be an atheist) because I enjoy philosophical discussion, and I am interested in honing my decidedly amateur philosophical skills. I don’t expect to “deconvert” anyone, but I would not lament that result if it were to come about. I recall that it was the presentation of - at least equally valid - alternative interpretations of reality that eventually led to my abandoning the Catholic faith, so it’s as well to maintain the balance between believers and nonbelievers. The quest for truth works both ways.
Some of them might want to con vert us.
Or maybe it`s like bees around a honey pot.
Sair: Did you ever read anything by, or about, Saint Thomas Aquinas?
I participate on different threads for different reasons I suppose, sometimes it’s because the topic is just genuinely interesting (usually if it’s philosophical) other times to spar, I guess I am somewhat of an evangelical atheist these days.
I’m sure that, just like Catholics, Protestants, and followers of other faiths, atheists are here for a variety of reasons.
I am disappointed that most of the atheists seem to be of the rationalistic type. I’d like to see more nihilists and post-modernist athiests here. I am often disappointed that there are so few non-theological philosophical questions raised here.
The nihilists and post-modernists probably don’t see any point in discussing philosophical questions, theological or otherwise.
God sent the atheists. The early church fathers mucked up much of what Christ tried to teach, leaving mankind with a pseudo-Christian belief system that is more about what Paul the Roman taught than what Jesus taught. They added globs of unnecessary theological lard, ideas such as omnipotence, omniscience, and virgin birth, swiped from competing religions.
God sent the atheists in hopes of getting Christians to think logically and universally, and to correct silly dogmas that were invented by men who believed in a flat earth, in favor of an alternative understanding which moves concepts of God and soul, etc.,into the realm of science, that science and religion not be separate and conflicting explanations of a single reality.
Please cite your source.
I like a lot of the people here. It’s a forum where you can bounce around some big ideas and the discussions are usually very interesting, with some very interesting and intelligent people who are kind and charitable to talk with.
I don’t think I’ve ever tried to justify my non-belief. I don’t see how I can justify something that simply isn’t there. :shrug:
If I thought for a moment anything I said would cause people to lose their faith, I wouldn’t participate here. I’m glad people have faith, I want people to have their faith.
It’s just not something I understand and I don’t think ever will.
Huh? This is a site sponsored by the Catholic Church. That Church begins with theology. Get that? Theology! There is no more important subject.
The kind of philosophical garbage you seem to miss is all dependent upon theology, and until we get theology right, the rest of philosophical thought will remain irrelevant trash.
The Gnostic scriptures, the early Greek Christian testaments, the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the nonsensical teachings of Augustine and Aquinas.
You did mean “sources,” didn’t you?