it’s always notable when a website decides to call itself an “institute” and tries to downplay accreditation or any other way to validate what it’s selling. Lots of Christians try this, to try to hide their cult under the skirts of education. (memes at the bottom)
Unsuprisingly, their own desires always expose them for what they are. The “Lyceum Institute” seems to be one of those places, along with “The Think Institute” etc, and they are all typically dodgy, often demanding that their baseless claims are accepted blindly, like so many who fancy themselves “philosophers”.
There’s a reason most philosophy has been discarded. Little of it ever has anything to with reality.
Here we have the “lyceum institute” offering a writing about atheists by a Jacques Maritain, unsurpisingly a catholic philospher.
This is what the blog post says as a way of introduction:
“Maritain goes on to argue several points against this form of atheistic thinking, of which I would highlight:
First, that it is an “act of faith in reverse gear”—founded not upon reasoned argument but a moral choice.
Second, that it must treat anything of God or transcendence as a threat; that the contemporary atheist “is bound to struggle against God without pause or respite, and to change, to recast everything in himself and in the world on the base of that anti-theism.”
Third, that, although the rupture with God begins in a pursue of “total independence and emancipation”, the contemporary atheist “ends up in obeisance and prostrate submission to the all-powerful movement of History, in a kind of sacred surrender of the human soul to the blind God of history”
yep, the usual BS about atheists.
These are all easily countered, and as usual, the christians do get upset if their claims are so easily dismissed:
clubschadenfreude
these all fail:
“First, that it is an “act of faith in reverse gear”—founded not upon reasoned argument but a moral choice.
Nope, it’s founded on theists haveing no evidence for their claims. Curious how theists have no one set of morals but each invents their own and then claims their god agrees with them. Unsurprisngly, christains do love to attack each other and are quite sure that what they believe is the only correct moral choice and what god wants; alas not one of them can show that their claims are true. it’s so quaint when you consider each other “practical atheists”.
“Second, that it must treat anything of God or transcendence as a threat; that the contemporary atheist “is bound to struggle against God without pause or respite, and to change, to recast everything in himself and in the world on the base of that anti-theism.””
Nope, no threat since there is no god. I will struggle against the ignorant humans who try to lie to me about this nonsense and control me with it.
“Third, that, although the rupture with God begins in a pursue of “total independence and emancipation”, the contemporary atheist “ends up in obeisance and prostrate submission to the all-powerful movement of History, in a kind of sacred surrender of the human soul to the blind God of history”.”
ROFL. Funny how this is entirely a baseless assertion that is essentially meaningless. Alas, for the theist, we are all subject to what has gone before. Alas for them, no evidence at all that their religion is based on any supernatural nonsense.
It’s impressive you’ve read the entire Bible. Incredible that you’ve seen in it all these difficulties that no one has ever addressed in the entire history of Christianity.
I hope that you realize, moreover, that the purpose of this post was not to demonstrate the falsehood of atheism but to prompt a conversation in our live video discussions about how it is characterized by the philosopher Jacques Maritain, in the essay which is linked several times in the post.
If you’re a serious person, you might try reading it. Otherwise, it’s probably in everyone’s best interest if this is the last message we exchange, since I doubt there’d be much fruitful conversation!
Brian, it’s amusing that yuo think that since some christians have claimed to have addressed these problems, that means what they’ve claimed is true.
Christians do like to pretend that no one has shown their claims to be false. That’s not the case. And it’s always amusing when a christian tries to make false claims and says that they didn’t intent to try to claim atheism was wrong. That’s always a convenient claim when your attempt fails .
The philosopher is wrong in his claims and you seem unable to show that I’ve not demonstrated that. Most philsophers are often wrong since they make assertions with no evdience.
Show I’m wrong my dear Thomist, you can, right?
I’m sorry Vel, but your failure to make anything like a legitimate inference from what I’ve said—a failure of logic exacerbated by your incompetence in using basic English grammar—demonstrates you lack any real historical or present intent to discover the truth, but are here only for the sake of validating your own feelings; indeed, your actions are providing nice evidence of precisely the claims that Maritain makes.
I hope you have a lovely day!
And yet you can’t show I’m wrong or where is this “failure of logic” is. I may have missed some grammar rules. That doesn’t seem to have made you less able to understand what I wrote.
it’s great when christians simply make false claims. It’s hilarious to see you also be such a lovely hypocrite with your lies and your supposedly wishing me to have a lovely day.
do you think you god doesn’t notice this? I know it doesn’t since it doesn’t exist.
Club Schadenfreude 
Up is down, black is white, right is left, fast is slow…
LikeLike
yep, many wannabee philosophers seem to think that they can simply make up what they want, and somehow they control reality.
LikeLike