Hi, Phil!I am a theological noncognitivist, which you would probably call “atheist”, though we differ philosophically from atheists and agnostics. I just wanted to say I really like Pope Francis’ statement: “Atheists who follow their consciences will be welcome in Heaven”.
I think personality is part of our Spirit, but not it’s all.It sounds like you are using spirit as I would use personality.
I’m perfectly fine with the cloth looking like it has an image of a human in it that appears to have crucified. There’s nothing outside the realm of reality in this. It’s like finding the shoe of Jesus. All we can conclude is that this object that manifests in reality is linked to this human being, that also could have existed in reality. It still doesn’t link you to this person having magical powers or if he did, then that we should do anything more than acknowledge that this person had magical powers.Hi, Russell!
…I think this is where the turn of events, well… turn… your supposition must, by default, brings us to a place and time where these two cultures are completely oblivious to what a sitting artifact looks like and to its function…
I return to the Shroud of Turin… the various studies have concluded, amongst other things, that: a) it is not made by any means of technology as we know it; b) it is not a picture, drawing or stain; c) it contains no paint, oil, resin…; d) it cannot conceive how any artist/craftsman could have created such artifact; e) the image is three dimensional, depicting both the front and back of a man; e) there exists enough definition to suggest that the person depicted would have experience crucifixion, with all the gore that it entails… in spite of all the findings (and we must agree at least on the capacity of the investigators–comprehension and vocabulary…) those who reject the supernatural continue to hold the “opinion” that it is not supernatural.
Conversely, culture A and B would study both the chair and the fork and, even if they do not fully converge on the full understanding of these artifacts, they would put the chair to some sort of “comfort” use and use the fork as some sort of tool–regardless of the evolution of their culture (enhanced knowledge/vocabulary) they would adapt the new artifacts into their culture with their own respective understanding and vocabulary.
The question is, without preexisting bias, if these cultures (A and B) were to be brought to par with present knowledge and understanding (science, tech, math…) would they reject the supernatural when it hits them on their face?
Maran atha!
Angel
Hi, Phil!Yes we have consciences that evolution has given us to protect the species. Following the golden rule is the most logical way to have the best life. No, I am unable to believe in anything called “Heaven”. It was nice to hear of the Pope’s ideology that those who follow their consciences are all effectively on the same side.
Then how do I tell the difference between personality and spirit? It sounds like this is heading toward an argument over how two people at a wedding will argue over the event’s significance. The bride and groom will say it was more significant to them than the friend that got out of work to attend it. But they are both viewing an event that happened in reality, but neither of them can claim that the wedding took place with birds and the addition of some supernatural item as well. Because we can not detect supernatural anythings in this reality. They do not come across as anything that manifests in reality in any detectable way. aka the spirit.I think personality is part of our Spirit, but not it’s all.
That’s how I feel when you use “spirit”. That was the point of that example.What is a blibity-bloby?
Hi, Russell!I’m perfectly fine with the cloth looking like it has an image of a human in it that appears to have crucified. There’s nothing outside the realm of reality in this. It’s like finding the shoe of Jesus. All we can conclude is that this object that manifests in reality is linked to this human being, that also could have existed in reality. It still doesn’t link you to this person having magical powers or if he did, then that we should do anything more than acknowledge that this person had magical powers.
Do billions of people express belief in a car’s blibity bloby? Does every culture and age express belief in a blibity bloby? Do car makers claim a blibity bloby and it’s definition and function?That’s how I feel when you use “spirit”. That was the point of that example.
Interesting.Just for sake of being clear of the knowledge of those of you who are participating in this thread, who do not believe in the God of the Catholic faith (Russell_SA, AnlytcPhil, Picky Picky).
Are you aware of the Gospel of Christianity, the events of Christmas and Easter as related in Scripture and understood by the Church?
I want to make sure, since it was suggested in the thread, that most atheists do not know this God, and are actually rejecting a someone they are unaware of.
A professed belief in something does not make that something actually manifest in reality in a detectable way so that we can adjust our current understanding of reality to include this new thing.Do billions of people express belief in a car’s blibity bloby? Does every culture and age express belief in a blibity bloby? Do car makers claim a blibity bloby and it’s definition and function?
The place holder “magic” is a flippant way to say that something occurred, seems to be beyond our understanding of how it was done, but the process was observed. That is why you can make the argument that a sufficiently advanced culture’s technology would be indistinguishable from “magic”. I’m fine using magic as I did because it does describe my feelings towards people’s claim to supernatural events because it’s been my experience that when people use supernatural as an explanation, it seems to stop people from continuing to want to solve the puzzle. But it’s still logically correct to use it that way.Hi, Russell!
…but it is not just personal acceptance of the artifact as an actual artifact… what is in question is the mind of man: accepting the impossibilities of the Shroud of Turin; coming to the conclusion that a burst of energy created it and rejecting the Resurrection of Christ that gives the very definition of what has been concluded: a burst of light (energy) that made man fear for their lives; the removal of the rock from the tomb; the empty tomb; the shroud left behind!
…to simply claim “magic” is only demonstrative of a determination to reject what is not accepted, regardless of the argument/proof against the preconception.
Maran atha!
Angel
Doesn’t look good in your current state, according to the Church. But, fortunately, you are not at the end yet.Interesting.
As to your second paragraph, yes I am aware.
As to your third paragraph, I do not know this God, I am unaware of him.
Difficult to tell just where I’ll end up, isn’t it?
GE
I promise to never claim “a proof” of things that pertain to faith. Unless God chooses to display a miraculous “proof” and manifestation of Himself to you, outside the evidence of His goodness, wisdom, and knowledge which through the Church has been made known.Religious people to claim a blibity bloby is part of the explanation for event A while people not of their tradition claim that event A does not seem to have a blibity bloby due to being able to recreate the event and there does not seem to be any evidence of a bliblity bloby.
I see no difference between faith and wishful/hopeful thinking. It can’t be called “true belief”.
Okay, so are you aware of the Christmas and Easter events? Do you believe they are only a wishful imagination of men?I see no difference between faith and wishful/hopeful thinking. It can’t be called “true belief”.
Yes, I think all we can do is wish and hope them to be true, and behave and speak as though they are. That’s the best anybody can do is. They can tell others that they know for certain that they are, but they can’t possibly know that, so even that is a little white lie. It’s not real knowledge. I wish it were, but it can’t be.Okay, so are you aware of the Christmas and Easter events? Do you believe they are only a wishful imagination of men?
Oh, I think this is very much more positive than the “atheist’s replies” I’ve heard! You are expressing a hope in the Gospel! And I agree that we should distinguish a hopeful belief, with faithful response, from a stubborn assertion that we “know”.Yes, I think all we can do is wish and hope them to be true, and behave and speak as though they are. That’s the best anybody can do is. They can tell others that they know for certain that they are, but they can’t possibly know that, so even that is a little white lie. It’s not real knowledge. I wish it were, but it can’t be.
I can’t believe that anybody can do anything but wish or hope, but never be certain, that that is true. I see Christianity as a bunch of agnostics denying that they’re agnostics, some wishing and hoping harder than others, and declaring that it’s all true and they will live again after they die. However, none can possibly know for sure that there is any way in the end that they’ll do anything but die and rot.But we also believe, that we know the Truth, by believing what the Scriptures and His Church profess.
If someone went to the moon and ONLY told me that the ground is like a powder, but didn’t show any evidence, and I believed it. And later, evidence was shown to me that the ground really is a powder. When did I believe the Truth? Before or after I was shown proof?I can’t believe that anybody can do anything but wish or hope, but never be certain, that that is true. I see Christianity as a bunch of agnostics denying that they’re agnostics, some wishing and hoping harder than others, and declaring that it’s all true and they will live again after they die. However, none can possibly know for sure that there is any way in the end that they’ll do anything but die and rot.