Atheism

[rcwitness]

Seems to me that’s what Christian leaders did, too, as they formed their religion. Selected which teachings from Judaism were agreeable to them (Ten Commandments, specific prophecies, etc…) and put aside ones that were not (circumscision, ban on shellfish, etc). It took centuries and centuries to add, subtract, define, decipher, and choose what the teachings and beliefs were and became.

Kinda. The big difference, is we do it as a people/Church, not as an individual. Our Church has real connection to Jesus through succession.

That’s all it takes to be a God?

What is "a god? It’s more of a figure of speech. What is meant, is that oneself is the only, or highest ruler and authority.

There were many varied groups of Christianity in the first several hundred years with a lot of followers, each group having different beliefs about what Jesus said and did and taught. This is nothing new.
Readers of the bible and Christians have been trying to define this for 2000 years and I imagine will most likely continue for a while more.

That’s why the Catholic Church has order and authority. That’s why we adhere to the judgment of Church decree. That’s why we hold to the Nicene Creed as so fundamental, etc.

 

[rcwitness]

Really?
Why do you say that?
I mean, there are more than just two choices here. Why are you limiting them?

Just because one doesn’t believe in any of the specific creators or gods that have been presented so far in the religions we have seen, it doesn’t mean they would deny another creator.
Anything can happen:
Evidence may show up that shows solid proof of another creator.
There may be a whole team of creators that have nothing to do with the “gods” of religions we know of today.

In fact, the followers of todays religions–by believing in them and closing themselves off to new or different thoughts and ideas–may be actively denying the actual, *true *creator/creators of humans and the universe.

After all…there would be no Christianity if people 2000 years ago were not open to changing their beliefs and following a totally new kind of god or messiah and his (at the time) radical message.

I was saying, in regards to belief in our origin and a Creator, we either believe in a Creator, or an alternative concept. The alternative concept can have millions of various concepts within it and there can be variations within belief of One Creator, but in regard to a Creator, there either is belief that there is one or belief that there is not one (or its fine to alternatively express it like you did, there is not a belief in the Creator).

Now, I realize there are undeveloped children and mentally challenged, who do not have the reason or capacity to accept or reject the concept of Creator or an alternative (rejection of creator). They are in a different different “category”.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

Father Rolheiser says this about the “ineffability of God”. I won’t copy and paste it. But go here:

angelusnews.com/articles/the-ineffability-of-god

Here’s a quote by St. Augustine. I’ll copy and paste it:

What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.

Here’s what a Jesuit priest says, and, as you know, Pope Francis is one of those:

*God can be known, but never imagined or captured in a thought, because God is infinite and our minds are finite. Infinity cannot be defined. For example, if we try to imagine the highest number possible, we immediately realise that this is an impossible task because numbers are infinite and there is always one more. It is impossible to conceive of a highest number. This is even truer in terms of any imaginative picture we try to form of God and of how we try to imagine God’s existence. God is infinite and infinity cannot be captured or imagined in finite thought. This is important for our understanding of faith. We tend to identify a weak faith with a weak imagination, just as we tend to identify atheism with the incapacity to imagine the existence of God. Take two different scenarios in our life, for example: In the first instance, we have just experienced a religious high. Through prayer or some other religious or human experience, we have a strong, imaginative sense of God’s reality. At that moment, we feel sure of God’s existence and have a firm sense that God is real. Our faith feels strong. Then imagine a different moment: We are lying in bed, restless, agitated by some current problem, unable to imagine the existence of God, and unable to think of ourself as having faith. Try as we might, we cannot conjure up any feeling that God exists. We think we must be an atheist.
Does this mean that in one instance we have a strong faith and in the other our faith is weak? No. What it means is that in one instance we have a strong imagination and in the other our imagination is weak. Faith in God is not to be confused with the capacity or incapacity to imagine God’s existence. Infinity cannot be circumscribed by the imagination. God can be known, but not pictured. God can be experienced, but not imagined. The ‘God’ that atheists reject is often an idol of their imagination. Most of our contemporaries refuse to believe that there exists ‘a person without a body who is eternal, free, able to do anything, knows everything, and is the proper object of human worship and obedience, the creator and sustainer of the universe.’ If, however, by ‘God’ we mean the mystery, announced in Christ, breathing all things out of nothing into peace, then all things have to do with God in every aspect of our being, whether we notice this and suppose it to be so or not. Atheism, if it means deciding not to have anything to do with God, is thus self-contradictory. When the prophet, Isaiah, glimpsed God in a vision, all he could do was stammer ‘Holy, holy, holy! Holy is the Lord God of hosts!’ But we misunderstand his meaning if we take ‘holy’ in its moral sense, that is, as virtue. Isaiah meant the word as referring to God’s transcendence, God’s otherness, God’s difference from us. Isaiah is saying in effect, ‘How completely different, how utterly ineffable, is the Lord God !’ Accepting that all of our thoughts and ideas of God are inadequate helps us in two ways: We stop identifying our faith with our imagination, we stop creating God in our own image and likeness. And remember that Christ shows us what God is like and what we can be with his help. – Peter Knott SJ *

Now, if it’s as these well-known Catholics say, nobody can imagine themselves sensing anything to call “God”, what can there be to “God” besides just the three alphabet letters “G”, “o”, and “d” plus the “gut sense” that Father Rolheiser speaks of in the site mentioned above? Is that it? It’s all ‘gut sense’?

 

[rcwitness]

You can choose all you want for something to be true, but choosing for something to be true will never make it true. That’s the cold hard fact of reality.

The same applies for someone who rejects trusting that something is true. It does not mean that it is not true. That’s also a fact.

People are unable to truly believe in anything by choosing for it to be true. So what they do is develop an illusion of belief and call it ‘belief’. The best anybody can be is agnostic. You simply cannot know that the Bible is 100% true. You can at best have the illusion that you believe it is. But that’s not really believing. Somebody on here recently said we can’t have perfect belief, as only Jesus had that. I can only see that as labeling the illusion of belief ‘imperfect belief’. I’m quite sure that they would label the belief that Trump got elected president as “perfect belief”. People fool themselves with words like that.

The choice of word “illusion” is negative. Illusion implies a deception. If what we believe is not a deception, it is Spiritual sight. You do not assent to this Spiritual sight. But it is available to you. Free will has a place in the decision to believe in the Creator or reject the belief.

The Christian God does not give room for pasivism. There is either active belief, which accepts Baptism, or there is denial. Yet, as I showed before, there are levels of belief.

Certain beliefs cannot be rejected to be a Christian. The nicene Creed represents these.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

The same applies for someone who rejects trusting that something is true. It does not mean that it is not true. That’s also a fact.

I suppose I am what you probably label an ‘extreme skeptic’. I say “Anything imaginable that is not disproved might be true and it might be false”. Is that what you say?

No. I am skeptical of the fact that it is an illusion/deception. I am simply unable to believe that it is possible to choose belief. I admit that I am also unable to believe that it is impossible to choose belief. However I do fully believe that no amount of choosing to believe something has even the slightest effect on its actual truth.

I know of no reason to believe (or disbelieve) that “Spiritual sight” is anything other than two words in a row. I understand ‘sight’ but not ‘spiritual’, for I am unable to imagine anything it could refer to.

I can’t reject anything that hasn’t been disproved. But I do not know how to imagine anything for “Creator of the universe” to refer to. I have only learned to interpret “creator” (as all nouns and verbs in my vocabulary) in terms of the already existing universe. Thus I don’t know how to get any sense out of “Creator of the universe”. I can only see four words in a row there.

 

[rcwitness]

I suppose I am what you probably label an ‘extreme skeptic’. I say “Anything imaginable that is not disproved might be true and it might be false”. Is that what you say?

No. I am skeptical of the fact that it is an illusion/deception. I am simply unable to believe that it is possible to choose belief. I admit that I am also unable to believe that it is impossible to choose belief. However I do fully believe that no amount of choosing to believe something has even the slightest effect on its actual truth.

I know of no reason to believe (or disbelieve) that “Spiritual sight” is anything other than two words in a row. I understand ‘sight’ but not ‘spiritual’, for I am unable to imagine anything it could refer to.

I can’t reject anything that hasn’t been disproved. But I do not know how to imagine anything for “Creator of the universe” to refer to. I have only learned to interpret “creator” (as all nouns and verbs in my vocabulary) in terms of the already existing universe. Thus I don’t know how to get any sense out of “Creator of the universe”. I can only see four words in a row there.

Hmmm… I’m not sure then. To us (Christians), we believe it is the Spirit who convicts us of these things. We grow in the faith. We begin as babies, no matter how old we are. Our spiritual life and formation does not neglect reason, but “looks beyond” flesh and blood (carnal senses). The Gospel is quite simple and profound. But I might not be of anymore help, if you are determined to remain with what you have said here.

I guess the only question I would have is why are you here, in this forum?

 

[Reuben_J]

I can’t reject anything that hasn’t been disproved. But I do not know how to imagine anything for “Creator of the universe” to refer to. I have only learned to interpret “creator” (as all nouns and verbs in my vocabulary) in terms of the already existing universe. Thus I don’t know how to get any sense out of “Creator of the universe”. I can only see four words in a row there.

Using your own word, then you can’t reject God because it hasn’t been disproved.

The rest is easy - Creator of the universe is ‘Maker of the universe’. The universe was made; it then existed after it was made.

 

[jcrichton]

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.

How does the left behind shroud conclude that that was what happened? I have an empty wallet, does that mean a fundamental change in the reality has occurred?

Hi, Russell!
…it seems that determination to reject what is “in your face” goes well into a vocabulary infused with euphemisms (as women’s health, and “not knowing” when life begins); I find that you continue to project what you want to find at the end of the tunnel/rainbow… we are not talking about a preexisting technologically advanced society (though that argument has been suggested more than once–including in sci-fi scenarios) who left behind a few disposable trinkets that would cause homo erectus to build religions around them… we are talking about a “tech backwards” culture “creating” things that our “modern tech” homo sapiens cannot but scratch their heads and go “doh?” …then cover their heads with a blanket “it’s magic!”

…as for seeking understanding… God Created man in His Image and Likeness… the source of man’s knowledge and thirst for it comes right from the Great Vine; however, searching for knowledge/answers can bring man to the Truth which he desires not to find–hence the rejection and euphemisms…

…as the ole adage goes… ‘…you can lead a horse to water…’ however, what would happen if one leads a donkey, instead, to that same water?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Why shouldn’t I take communion? I label myself a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Christ – and it doesn’t matter that you don’t label me a Christian. I consider myself just as much of a Christian as you are. I’m just honest enough to admit that nobody, not even you, can possibly believe what you claim to believe. You can’t possibly believe the supernatural stories in the Bible. Like Satan disguised as a snake talking Eve into eating an apple or fruit, and that caused men to all be born in sin. I certainly don’t believe that any Christians believe that, nor that Noah put all animals on board. Now I do believe that you and most Christians are deluded that you believe that and all the other, but I cannot believe that you or anybody really believes it and knows it to be true. So again, why shouldn’t I take communion? I’m honoring Jesus like they are and you are when you take it. I’m just like you or anybody else. The only difference is that I don’t have the illusion that I am able to believe something when there is no way a person can really know with absolute certainty that it is true. The reason I stay in the closet is for fear my friends will turn on me and say mean things like “You hate God!”, “You deliberately chose not to believe!” “Your pride is going to cause you to go to hell”. I’d rather hear that from you than from my good church friends. If they found out they would believe that I chose to believe – that I could believe if I wanted to, but that I chose not to". Nothing could be farther than the truth than that anybody could really choose belief. I can only believe that it is possible to have the illusion of belief of certainty of what you claim to believe. Can you believe that I didn’t choose to doubt all this stuff? I don’t think most Christians can. They believe that people can choose belief. Actually that’s what I disbelieve in – the ability to choose belief. However I do believe in the illusion of choosing to believe and believing that you believe in the certainty of something.

Hi, Phil!
…wow… you are conflicted!

I Believe so when I receive Communion I accept Christ at His Word; you do not believe but you think you could somehow offer something in your disbelief…

Deception can be subtle… you are deceiving yourself and you do not even realize it.

…the reason someone would partake of the Bread and Wine is to Be in Communion with Christ, the Eternal Word, the Immanuel… Being in Communion with the God-among-us presupposes that everything that He Spoke (Brought into Being) is True.

…now, if what your philosophy entails is the fact that we Know not God… well, I must fully concur with you! We only Know what God has Chosen to Reveal to us; since we are imperfect beings, we cannot but understand that Revelation imperfectly (partially):

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Really?
Why do you say that?
I mean, there are more than just two choices here. Why are you limiting them?

Just because one doesn’t believe in any of the specific creators or gods that have been presented so far in the religions we have seen, it doesn’t mean they would deny another creator.
Anything can happen:
Evidence may show up that shows solid proof of another creator.
There may be a whole team of creators that have nothing to do with the “gods” of religions we know of today.

In fact, the followers of todays religions–by believing in them and closing themselves off to new or different thoughts and ideas–may be actively denying the actual, *true *creator/creators of humans and the universe.

After all…there would be no Christianity if people 2000 years ago were not open to changing their beliefs and following a totally new kind of god or messiah and his (at the time) radical message.

.

…wow… you do have an interesting take on history and Salvation… so being tortured to death was a choice people made to inherit a different form of belief?

…so a young girl being burned to death because she was a Christian is an enlightened path to a new form of belief? …and her steadfast Belief that we must Emulate Christ is closing her mind to “new” gods/creators?

…and what of the obamanation new world order where the poor are subjugated to relinquish their procreation… is that a new path to a new belief system where the gods/creators bless the world with plenty by removing the unwanted (poor, old, sick, disabled)?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I suppose I am what you probably label an ‘extreme skeptic’. I say “Anything imaginable that is not disproved might be true and it might be false”. Is that what you say?

No. I am skeptical of the fact that it is an illusion/deception. I am simply unable to believe that it is possible to choose belief. I admit that I am also unable to believe that it is impossible to choose belief. However I do fully believe that no amount of choosing to believe something has even the slightest effect on its actual truth.

I know of no reason to believe (or disbelieve) that “Spiritual sight” is anything other than two words in a row. I understand ‘sight’ but not ‘spiritual’, for I am unable to imagine anything it could refer to.

I can’t reject anything that hasn’t been disproved. But I do not know how to imagine anything for “Creator of the universe” to refer to. I have only learned to interpret “creator” (as all nouns and verbs in my vocabulary) in terms of the already existing universe. Thus I don’t know how to get any sense out of “Creator of the universe”. I can only see four words in a row there.

…I think your imagination is quite limited!

…a whole bunch of people imagined a rocket to the moon… then a whole mess of people orchestrated the rocket that not only left the earth’s sphere but also reentered it…

…these were all creators using knowledge loaned to them from the Mind of the Creator.

…to not be able to make a distinction is simply refusing reality… though a single family house is a building, to hold the belief that a one/two-story house is just as the empire state building is flawed critical interpretation/explanation.

You must allow your vocabulary to grow beyond the limits you have placed on it!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Using your own word, then you can’t reject God because it hasn’t been disproved.

The rest is easy - Creator of the universe is ‘Maker of the universe’. The universe was made; it then existed after it was made.

Hi, Reuben!
Excellent point!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AnlytcPhil]

rcwitness:>>I might not be of anymore help, if you are determined to remain with what you have said here.<<

I am not determined to remain any way. I am here to learn what I can. Tell me what you believe you are talking about when you say “God”, or “creator of the universe” or “the Spirit”.

rcwitness:I>> guess the only question I would have is why are you here, in this forum?<<

I am here in hopes of learning just why you guys believe that you do something labeled “believe in God”. Like you, I’m interested in all truth. Do you want me to leave? If so, why? Is it because you don’t believe you can get me to believe something without any reason to believe it? If so, it’s true you can’t. But surely you don’t believe that you believe without any reason to believe what you believe that you believe, do you? I know that sounds funny, but analyze it. That’s what I want to know. So please tell me what you believe that reason is?

 

[rcwitness]

I am here in hopes of learning just why you guys believe that you do something labeled “believe in God”. Like you, I’m interested in all truth. Do you want me to leave If so, why? Is it because you don’t believe you can get me to believe something without any reason to believe it? If so, it’s true you can’t. But surely you don’t believe that you believe without any reason to believe what you believe that you believe, do you? I know that sounds funny, but analyze it. That’s what I want to know. So please tell me what you believe that reason is?

Of course I don’t want you to leave. And I will do my best to examine my faith if it might help. You do have to show some effort too, that’s all. If you were determined to dig in your heels, then I will respectfully decide it’s better not to loose charity with each other. I’ll try to answer these questions when I have some time.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

I will do my best to examine my faith if it might help. You do have to show some effort too, that’s all. If you were determined to dig in your heels, then I will respectfully decide it’s better not to loose charity with each other. I’ll try to answer these questions when I have some time.

Of course I’ll “dig in my heels”. I’m a truth-seeker; however, I’m incapable of leaps of faith.

 

[rcwitness]

Of course I’ll “dig in my heels”. I’m a truth-seeker; however, I’m incapable of leaps of faith.

Then I will bow out of the thread. I’ve shared quite a bit. Less is better sometimes. Take care, and I hope you find Truth.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

It is a fact that a supernatural miracle has never been confirmed through a scientific review.

Neither have the characteristics of matter. No one can really say what matter is. Indeed, in physics, matter is very different depending on whether “mind” is aware of it or not.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

Then I will bow out of the thread. I’ve shared quite a bit. Less is better sometimes. Take care, and I hope you find Truth.

Then I will bow out of the thread. I’ve shared quite a bit. Less is better sometimes. Take care, and I hope you find Truth.

You say you’ve shared quite a bit. I don’t know of anything you’ve shared with me but that you have made leaps of faith about words that make no sense to me, and I have shown you why they make no sense to me. But you have not told me why they make sense to you – you’ve only implied that they do.

The Jesuit Peter Knott and Father Ronald Rolheiser, (Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, president of the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas), in the links I’ve given you, which are:

catholic-chaplaincy.org.uk/atheism-and-belief-2/

and

ronrolheiser.com/the-ineffability-of-god/#.WDENuhma_-Y

have both essentially said in those articles that “God” refers to ‘something that cannot be imagined’. That’s also essentially what the St. Augustine quote at

ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PNI6-5.TXT

(scroll down to sermon number 16)

says. Then how can anybody claim to know that “God” refers to anything at all? Father Rolheiser mentions “gut sense”. What is that?

I’m very sorry you’re bowing out. Would anybody else on here like to discuss this matter with me?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

I’m asserting that it’s impossible to believe anything by choosing to. Belief relies on knowing reason to believe that the source is true. You say belief doesn’t rely on proof. But without a good reason to believe it, you can only be agnostic. Even a burning desire for something to be true, is not a reason to believe it.

Christians have this banal and illiterate view of faith, that it is somehow a matter of gritting your teeth and producing it, like magic. Which as you rightly point out, is absurd.

But to me, doubt is not antagonistic to faith, it is just it’s negative correlate.

The task for me is to apply a measure of doubt, not faith, to my own beliefs, and see if they can withstand.

Everyone believes something. Most atheists are materialists. But these days, materialism is impossible.

Atoms are not merely mostly empty space, they are entirely empty space. In the 1960s Murray Gell-Mann discovered that neutrons and electrons (whose size was measured) consisted of smaller ones, quarks. The quarks are point particles. They are infinitesimals.

But now, if atoms, and so all matter, are entirely empty space, this produces, not a Democritean world of Atoms and Void, but something exactly the opposite: a world where absolutely everything looks like it is fundamentally Not-Being.

There’s also the psychological reality to consider.

As the certainty of faith collapsed, so did the certainty of unbelief. Today’s godless world – unlike the cosy world of Enlightenment atheism, protected by a friendly and benevolent Nature – is perceived as a dark abyss of eternal chaos, with no meaning or direction, no structure or signposts to show the way. Thus spoke Zarathustra. Ever since Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God a hundred years ago, there have been no more happy atheists. The world in which people relied on their own powers and considered themselves unconstrained legislators on questions of good and evil, the world where, freed at last from the chains of divine bondage, they could hope to recover their lost dignity – that world was transformed into a place of endless anxiety and suffering. The absence of God became a permanently festering wound in the European spirit, even if it could be forgotten with the aid of artificial painkillers. Compare the godless world of Diderot, Helvétius and Feuerbach with the godless world of Kafka, Camus and Sartre. The collapse of Christianity so eagerly awaited and so joyfully greeted by the Enlightenment turned out – to the extent that it really occurred – to be almost simultaneous with the collapse of the Enlightenment. The new, radiant anthropocentric order that was to arise and supplant God once He had been deposed never appeared.

Leszek Koakowski, “Anxiety About God in an Ostensibly Godless Age,” 1981, Is God Happy?

 

[AnlytcPhil]

PuerAzaelis:

quarks are point particles. They are infinitesimals.<<

No they’re not. Scientists claim that quarks have a mass of 9.109×10^-31 kilograms and have a diameter of about 1 femtometer.

Why say atheism is a dark abyss of eternal chaos? I’m not an atheist, simply a theological noncognitivist. People make their own structure, their own direction using their own reasoning powers. Why believe atheists aren’t happy? But even if they weren’t happy, how would that prove that they are wrong? Or that they are right?