Atheism

[AnlytcPhil]

rcwitness:>>when it comes to God, or something that is believed to exist apart from our imagination, it’s just a speculation of what He might be like.<<

How do you know there’s anything you’re labeling “God”, if there is nothing you can imagine that “God” could refer to?

rcwitness:>>Eternity is the mysterious timelessness.<<

“Eternity” is the abstract noun form of the adjective “eternal”. Why do you know “eternal” isn’t just a word that some people long ago coined to tell about processes that we have no reason to believe will ever stop? That’s what it seems like to me. When I see a word like that, the first thing that enters my mind is that some human or humans must have coined it. The next thing that enters my mind is the question “For what purpose did that human or those humans coin it?”

rcwitness:>>Kinda loosing “losing” has just one “o” ] me here.<<

I can assure you that you’ve lost me a lot more with your “God”-talk and “Spirit”-talk than I’ve lost you.

rcwitness:>>Time is what we know. It the measurement of elapsement. Lol, I know that’s not a word."<<

We say "time elapsed because somebody coined that word. There’s no reason why you can’t coin ‘elapsement’. But coining aside, what could time be but a number that we read off a clock? That’s what I use the word “time” to speak of, and I think you do too.

(rcwitness, previously):>>He [God] is outside of time.<<

(me, previously): I really can’t think of any way to make any sense out of those words.

rcwitness:>>Cuz it’s a mystery.

When I look at “outside of time” I stop and think about how we could have come to learn how to use and interpret phrases of the form “outside of X”. Then it occurs to me that everything I’ve ever put for X that I understood was something that we said occurred at some particular time. So when you put “time” for “X” it just sounds just as crazy to me as if you had spoken “the taste of blue”. How can you know that it makes any sense, rather than ‘refers to a mystery’? But then, would you say “The taste of blue is a mystery”?

rcwitness:>>I believe the testimony, that you adamantly reject.

Whoa here! I deny rejecting anything. That’s what atheists do. I’m no atheist. The testimony you speak of may be something very true. How can you know that it is? I certainly don’t know that it is or isn’t.

 

[jcrichton]

I may not stay in here much longer, but before I go, there is one thing I’d like to find out about Catholics. I think that the Jesuits, including your Holy Father Pope Francis, all say “God is ineffable”. [Correct me if I’m wrong about that]. I am of the impression that what that means is that you believe that if you take anything that you have ever thought of or imagined, then what that thought is or was of – is not or was not a thought of anything – or even a thought of part of anything – that you would label “God”.

I think I might need to clear something up. I’m not talking about imagining Jesus, for everybody can imagine Jesus. I’m talking about “God the Father”, or “The Holy Spirit (Ghost)”. I have to make that distinction because I don’t know whether Catholics use the speaking mode “God is 1 holy entity made up of 3 persons” or the speaking mode “There are 3 holy entities and ‘God’ is one of them”.

I do want to know if you Catholics subscribe fully to St. Augustine’s quote which I copied and pasted earlier. With apologies, I’ll copy and paste it here again in case you don’t want to bother looking up past posts. (I hope reposting is not against the forum rules.) But I would appreciate your answer. Here’s the quote:

***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.

—St. Augustine***

Is that what you say? I don’t think all Protestants would say they agree with the above quote. I know atheists don’t for they think “God” stands for the bearded man that Michelangelo painted on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Thanks in advance for letting me know your answer.

Hi, Phil!

…here’s your issue: man cannot Know/Imagine God.

Correct! That is exactly what St. Augustine is stating!

Here’s the problem: God Revealed Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit–you got stuck with the understanding that man cannot Know/Imagine God.

In deed man cannot Know/Imagine God, but man can Know/Imagine what God makes Known to man.

We must move past our finite understanding of things. We must allow God’s Revelation to fill in the blanks (unknowns) and we must limit our understanding to what God has Revealed!

May the Holy Spirit Guide and Convict you!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AnlytcPhil]

jcrichton>>…here’s your issue: man cannot Know/Imagine God.— Correct! That is exactly what St. Augustine is stating!<<

Then how can man know that the row of 3 alphabet letters “God” means anything at all? [BTW I agree that man also does not know that the row of 3 letters “God” doesn’t mean anything either.]

jcrichton>>Here’s the problem: God Revealed Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-<<

How can I know of anything that you could be meaning by that?

jcrichton>>-you got stuck with the understanding that man cannot Know/Imagine God.<<

I got stuck with the understanding that man cannot Know/Imagine anything that the row of 3 letters “God” could represent. *

jcrichton>>Indeed man cannot Know/Imagine God, but man can Know/Imagine what God makes Known to man.<<

How does man know whatever you label “what God makes known to man”?

jcrichton>>We must move past our finite understanding of things.<<

As I see it, we can only have learned to use words of the form “move past X to Y” from cases of usage of it when X and Y were both things we were able to understand with our “finite” understanding. So I can’t see how that can make any sense. I’m not claiming that it doesn’t. However it does seem that you’re saying “move past our finite understanding to our finite understanding of something we can’t understand”, which seems like a contradiction.

We must allow God’s Revelation to fill in the blanks (unknowns) and we must limit our understanding to what God has Revealed!<<

How can I know that you are speaking of anything when you say “God’s Revelation”?*

 

[eddie_too]

anlytcphil,

it is obvious you cannot understand what catholics here are writing. your responses to comments from catholics that make perfect sense to other catholics make that obvious.

fyi, i also cannot understand anything you are writing. i find it incoherent to an extreme.

engaging in fruitless dialogue is something along the lines of doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

ciao.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

anlytcphil,

it is obvious you cannot understand what catholics here are writing. your responses to comments from catholics that make perfect sense to other catholics make that obvious.

fyi, i also cannot understand anything you are writing. i find it incoherent to an extreme.

engaging in fruitless dialogue is something along the lines of doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

ciao.

You’re complaining because I can’t understand what you yourself admit that no man can understand. How is that fair?

 

[eddie_too]

your comment just confirms my point.

i cannot understand anything you write. you cannot understand anything i write.

i am not complaining about you or anyone else. i am just stating what to me is the obvious about your writing.

 

[rcwitness]

You’re complaining because I can’t understand what you yourself admit that no man can understand. How is that fair?

Nobody is telling you that you need to “understand God”. We are telling you “who” He is, and that you can know Him and not just know about Him. When you believe on Him, you put your trust in the Person Abraham trusted on, and Moses communicated with, and King David served, and Isaiah Prophesied about, and Mary received bodily, and Peter and the Apostles lived with, and Filled men’s hearts and minds at Pentacost.

What you don’t understand is not the problem. You understand Who God is, but you reject Him because you do not acknowledge Him. And so, you do not know Him.

But I have been patient with you, because I am obligated to be. I am a stubborn sinner. He is patient with me, so I must be patient with who He is calling. He is calling you, because you are hoping to see Him. You cant, because you are not opening your heart. You are trying to understand Him. I would get no further than you.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

You cant, because you are not opening your heart.<<

I know you don’t mean that literally, as in “open heart surgery”. I suppose you mean this particular Merriam-Webster definition of “heart”: “the emotional or moral as distinguished from the intellectual nature”.

Now I’m pretty moral. I give to my church and to charities and the homeless. I’m considered a pretty loving person. What do I have to do to do whatever you call “opening my heart”? Give up analytic philosophy? Stop analyzing words and how we come to learn them? That’s what you guys seem to complain most about me doing.

 

[rcwitness]

You cant, because you are not opening your heart.<<

When it comes to God, yes. He cannot be analyzed by us. All good works do not earn “knowing Him”. Knowing Him convicts us of Truth. And loving Him produces goodness in our hearts.

Your good works have not brought you knowledge of Him. His goodness is eternally higher than your works. He loved who was killing Him (or trying to).

I do not love very much, because I do sin often. I am forgiven much, so I should love Him more.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

To: rcwitness

What do you have besides words and feelings about them? You only seem to get away from word constructions that make no sense to me when you speak of Jesus. I understand Jesus. He was a man who probably existed and who preached good morality. I support his moral teachings. But I am unable to believe he did the miracles attributed to him in the Bible. I don’t say he didn’t do them either, but I can’t put much stock in the truth of that. How are you able to? Is it more than wanting it to be true so hard that you believe that you believe it? What more can there be to it than that?

 

[jcrichton]

jcrichton>>…here’s your issue: man cannot Know/Imagine God.— Correct! That is exactly what St. Augustine is stating!<<

Then how can man know that the row of 3 alphabet letters “God” means anything at all? [BTW I agree that man also does not know that the row of 3 letters “God” doesn’t mean anything either.]

jcrichton>>Here’s the problem: God Revealed Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-<<

How can I know of anything that you could be meaning by that?

jcrichton>>-you got stuck with the understanding that man cannot Know/Imagine God.<<

I got stuck with the understanding that man cannot Know/Imagine anything that the row of 3 letters “God” could represent. *

jcrichton>>Indeed man cannot Know/Imagine God, but man can Know/Imagine what God makes Known to man.<<

How does man know whatever you label “what God makes known to man”?

jcrichton>>We must move past our finite understanding of things.<<

As I see it, we can only have learned to use words of the form “move past X to Y” from cases of usage of it when X and Y were both things we were able to understand with our “finite” understanding. So I can’t see how that can make any sense. I’m not claiming that it doesn’t. However it does seem that you’re saying “move past our finite understanding to our finite understanding of something we can’t understand”, which seems like a contradiction.

We must allow God’s Revelation to fill in the blanks (unknowns) and we must limit our understanding to what God has Revealed!<<

 

[jcrichton]

You’re complaining because I can’t understand what you yourself admit that no man can understand. How is that fair?

…no, Phil!

…he is stating that your reason differently… and that you engage differently… it is futility to hold on to the ‘I’m rubber, you’re glue’ principles…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

To: rcwitness

What do you have besides words and feelings about them? You only seem to get away from word constructions that make no sense to me when you speak of Jesus. I understand Jesus. He was a man who probably existed and who preached good morality. I support his moral teachings. But I am unable to believe he did the miracles attributed to him in the Bible. I don’t say he didn’t do them either, but I can’t put much stock in the truth of that. How are you able to? Is it more than wanting it to be true so hard that you believe that you believe it? What more can there be to it than that?

There you go again, acting as though you “understand Jesus” when you neither understand Him or agree with His moral Teaching. You might understand some of His human nature, and maybe agree with some of His moral teachings, but you do not understand Him and agree with His teachings as a whole.

What do you understand about John 6 when He Teaches about His body and blood? What do you agree with, when He gives the foundation of all rule in the great command to Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul?

 

[AnlytcPhil]

rcwitness>>There you go again, acting as though you “understand Jesus” when you neither understand Him or agree with His moral Teaching.

I don’t believe you can name anything about Jesus that I don’t know. I’ve read the Bible from cover to cover.

rcwitness>>You might understand some of His human nature, and maybe agree with some of His moral teachings, but you do not understand Him and agree with His teachings as a whole.<<

I’ll bet you can’t name anything about Jesus that I don’t know, or if I’ve forgotten it, I can easily look it up to jog my memory.

rcwitness>>What do you understand about John 6 when He Teaches about His body and blood?<<

All of it.
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

I don’t eat Jesus’ flesh or drink his blood. That’s a symbol of Jesus’ body and blood dying on the cross. I’ve heard that you Catholics believe you’re actually eating and drinking his body and blood. I think it’s called “transfiguration”. You believe that the wine magically changes into the actual blood of Jesus, and the wafer into meat from Jesus’ body… Have you ever had the wine and wafer tested afterward to see if it rally has changed? I bet you would find that it had not changed at all, and was still wine and wafer. Actually I don’t believe that you believe that it actually changes its chemical makeup. Honestly, now do you? If not, then you agree with me that it’s just a symbol.

This is what happens in my UMC church. I’m in the choir. The choir marches around the sides of the church and up the center aisle. One of the pastors has a loaf of bread in his or her arm. We don’t use communion wafers in my church. He or she tears off a little chunk of bread, dips it in a cup of grape juice and hands it to me, and I eat it. Then I kneel at the altar with my head bowed, and I think about how good a man the Bible says Jesus was. Then I go back to the choir loft and we sing some more things softly while the congregation comes up and does what we did.

What do you agree with, when He gives the foundation of all rule in the great command to Love God with all your body, mind, and soul?<<

I agree that the Bible says that Jesus says that. But since I can’t understand what “God” means, all I can do is just remember how fine a man the Bible says Jesus was, and how cruel the Jews were to crucify him.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Have you ever had the wine and wafer tested afterward to see if it rally has changed? I bet you would find that it had not changed at all, and was still wine and wafer. Actually I don’t believe that you believe that it actually changes its chemical makeup. Honestly, now do you? If not, then you agree with me that it’s just a symbol.

I’ll just leave these here…

churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/

catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

dowym.com/voices/5-incredible-eucharistic-miracles-from-the-last-25-years/

Keep in mind when viewing these that most of them have been subjected to blind tests which have concluded that what we’re seeing is indeed human flesh and blood. When enough evidence has been present, it is usually concluded that the flesh is that of a heart muscle which has recently undergone a severe trauma.

As for the rest of this “argument,” it displays a complete lack of understanding as to what the Church teaches on the subject Here’s a brief introduction: (By brief, I mean that they are a cursory introduction to a very deep topic with roughly 2 millenniums of theological thought behind it…)

catholic.com/magazine/articles/this-is-a-hard-teaching

catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-to-defend-christs-presence-in-the-eucharist

catholic.com/magazine/articles/does-paul-teach-the-real-presence-of-christ

 

[AnlytcPhil]

I’ll just leave these here…

churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/

catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

dowym.com/voices/5-incredible-eucharistic-miracles-from-the-last-25-years/

I even heard about the Virgin Mary appearing in a grilled cheese sandwich:

cbsnews.com/news/see-the-virgin-mary-on-toast-no-youre-not-crazy/

It sold for many a grand on E-bay.

Keep in mind when viewing these that most of them have been subjected to blind tests which have concluded that what we’re seeing is indeed human flesh and blood. When enough evidence has been present, it is usually concluded that the flesh is that of a heart muscle which has recently undergone a severe trauma.<<

I know that you Catholics, like the Mormons (whom I think you have no use for), and the Muslims, claim that yours is the “only true” church, and all the others are wrong But so what if you do have the original one?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I know that you Catholics, like the Mormons (whom I think you have no use for), and the Muslims, claim that yours is the “only true” church, and all the others are wrong But so what if you do have the original one?

So what if we do have the original Church founded by Christ, to whom He guaranteed protection and guidance?

Are you seriously asking that?

The “so what” is that, if we are that Church, then you should be a part of it because that is the Church which Jesus Christ Himself founded…

Or do you not think that’s that big of a deal?

As to your comments on the Eucharistic miracles, we HAVE had scientists test it… that’s literally what I was saying…

Beyond that, you casual dismissal of those things betrays the fact that, rather than being someone interested in learning, you are little more than an obstinate child looking for a place to grandstand. You asked it we have evidence for the Real Presence, I presented you with evidence, and rather than address or consider it, you made stupid little quips comparing the actual, physical presence of our Lord and Savior in the Eucharist to a grilled cheese sandwich.

 

[eddie_too]

this may not help, but our belief in eternal life and Perfect Being is a gift from that same Perfect Being. it is a belief that comes supported by all of the evidence we have encountered during our lives. since we have not all encountered the exact same evidence, it follows that it is not the evidence itself that causes our faith. accordingly, evidence that satisfies one person may not affect another person at all.

for me, there is overwhelming evidence that reality makes sense. i have never encountered any evidence that would indicate otherwise.

i have never encountered any evidence to support the idea that reality came from nothing. from that i concluded that reality is eternal without beginning or end. the idea that reality comes from nothing is, to me, completely nonsensical. why? because anything that originates something cannot reasonably be called nothing.

the rest of my RC beliefs are equally supported by the facts and right reason.

Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus fulfilled the promises God made to the Chosen People. Jesus raised others from the dead. Jesus taught us the meaning and laws of the kingdom of God which culminates in eternal life with Perfect Being. etc. etc. etc.

i get that phil cannot understand any of this. most likely his/her incomprehension is related to his/her not having the same information and experiences i have and had i use to support my conclusion.

so long as phil denies the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, he/she will never be able to converse with me on an equal level. i get that. i am ok with that. my duty to phil is to pray that he receives the gift of faith.

i see nothing in his/her writings that indicate he/she wants to learn what i know and believe. instead i perceive from him/her a desire to promote his/her understanding of reality. since i already have a God-given understanding (which makes it the fullest and most accurate understanding possible and available) of reality through my RC faith, i am really not interested in exploring the shallow and inaccurate understanding of someone else who appears to want only to proselytize their own understanding or lack thereof of reality.

if phil wanted to learn about my catholic faith, i would be happy to oblige him/her. i see no reason to believe that is what phil wants. i find phil’s post to be incoherent. blame me for that if it makes you feel better. i am fine with that. whatever the cause, i am unable to probe the incoherence that i perceive. i wish i could, especially if it would help phil gain a better understanding of reality.

most of what phil provides is entirely conceptual and has nothing to do with all of the physical and historical evidence that the world provides in its history, geology, physics, literature and other sources.

the jewish people are real. that abraham founded the jewish religion is real. the jewish prophets are real. Jesus is real. the twelve apostles are real. the RCC is real. its history is real. the effects on the world of all of these real people are real. all of this must be taken in to account when trying to understand metaphysical concepts which are primarily intangible.

 

[rcwitness]

I know that you Catholics, like the Mormons (whom I think you have no use for), and the Muslims, claim that yours is the “only true” church, and all the others are wrong But so what if you do have the original one?

We certainly don’t say “all the others are wrong” about everything. The Catholic has the fullness of Truth (concerning faith and morals). Discerning and understanding the Truth, revealed through Scripture and Tradition, is dependant on how one accepts the Spirit’s guidance. He gives understanding. She has the episcopate of the Apostle Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

eddie too>>the person who posts under the screen name AnlytcPhil appears to me to be nothing more than an internet troll.<<

No I’m not an internet troll. Trolling is no fun. I’m serious. I envy your ability to believe that people can live forever in bliss. I can’t believe that, but it’s not at all because I wouldn’t like to. I certainly would love to believe that.

eddie too>>nothing personal, just based on my observations and reading of his/her posts. there is nothing in them that indicate he/she wants to enter in to a serious intellectual discussion.<<

I certainly do want to enter into a serious intellectual discussion. My screen name “AnlytcPhil” stands for “analytic philosophy”. My name isn’t “Phil”. I am into analytic philosophy. Most everybody into philosophy is into serious intellectual discussions. I’m no exception. I’m not here expecting to get converted to Catholicism or even to Christianity, although it would be nice if I could believe that people can live forever in bliss after they die. I’m curious to know how you are able to believe that. It seems impossible to me.

AP-

I’m not going to rehash (or even read) the entire thread, but if you are interested in discussing the arguments and evidence for God and Christianity, then I’m game.

First question: Are you a former Christian? Did you grow up in a “Christian” home but never really believed? In a few words, what’s your background?

Second: , What’s your primary objection to the concept of God (or Jesus if you want to be more specific)?

Or (since this is an “atheism” thread), you could propose something in keeping with your (dis)beliefs.