steve_bakr
Christian
- Aug 3, 2011
- 5,918
- 240
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
OK. What I do believe, however, is that we all have a deep religious impulse, however hidden it may be.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What he's referring to is your alluding to the idea that since I'm on here arguing against Christianity, that I must be some kind of Christian in denial.
He was comparing that situation to some other similar ideas... for example, someone fighting against antisemitism does not mean they are a closet nazi. It means they are genuinely fighting against antisemitism.
Somehow Christians get the idea that anyone who argues against their God or religion must be a believer. It's an absurd proposition.
The fact that there are commonalities in religions does not make them meaningless.
Also, with all the amazing discoveries about the universe, I am surprised that more scientists don't beieve in God.
I don't have a problem with your being an atheist, but I do take issue with your apparent belief that your particular mindset--your way of approaching the mystery of existence--is THE valid one, and therefore the religious approach is "meaningless."
BTW, That "deepity" was primarily my paraphrase of some of the thought of Karl Rahner, who was the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th century.
I'm not even sure what you mean by a yearning for the infinite?
Likewise, I have no idea what "transcendent intellectualism" is. However, I don't feel above and beyond. I believe theists are incorrect on their religious beliefs but that doesn't make them bad people, and it doesn't make me better or worse, nor smarter or dumber than them.
What do you mean by "beyond" the objects of daily experience? I have goals and dreams that I want to achieve, however I doubt that's what you are referring to. However, other than that, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Which god am I experiencing, and how do you know that?
And I don't see anything miraculous with what you're referring to.
This entire universe is miraculous and, among those miracles, is consciousness. Go back to before the universe was created and calculate the probability of your existence as a being with conscious awareness. The probability is zero, which makes it a miracle.
Einstein believed in both God and mystical experience. The reason why he did so was the miraculous order of the universe.
You misread my post - I didn't say that religions were meaningless, I said that the deepity (argument) you made is meaningless, precisely because you can say it about any and every religion - and even some forms of irreligion via analogy, so it demonstrates nothing.
You say everyone is having an experience of God? I'll raise you the claim that everyone is really having a naturalistic sense of numinousness at nature. Neither of us get anywhere, but I'm not the one trying to claim that everyone's claims of a similar kind of experience are definitely because of the explanation I believe in.
Yeah, often "great theologian" still doesn't end up being that impressive on an absolute scale. Angels on the head of a pin, and all that.
Your experience of the numinous can be called "natural religion," which speaks to the religious impulse in every person. It doesn't have to be formulated or conceptualized--in fact it is an experience before conception--but it is what it is, nonetheless.
It takes a theology degree to realise that?This is why Karl Rahner--and Catholicism in general--recognize that atheists are human beings in search of the truth--ie., we don't view you as necessarily depraved or immoral persons.
Except you have just conceptualised it, as "natural religion"! "It is what it is" apparently, but why isn't it numinousness at a naturalistic universe instead?
Again, all of this is but assertion, but you seem to under the mistaken impression that yours is somehow more valid than those of other. The only thing that is what it is said assertion.
It takes a theology degree to realise that?
My previous point exactly....
Yes, it is conceptualized as "natural religion" because we have the need to conceptualize our numinous experience. The transcendent finds expression in the categorical. That is why we say that our experience of God is in the daily conscious awareness that we experience.
I'm just saying, you don't need theology to figure out that view. It is entirely trivial if people were to listen instead of pontificate - which makes me concerned if someone apparently does need theology in order to figure out that view.Regarding atheists, sorry if I stated the obvious. The Catholic view of atheists is not necessarily shared by all Christians, and that is why I said it.
As evidence of evolution, I would agree.The fact that there are commonalities in religions does not make them meaningless.
And of those scientists that do believe in a god, are any able to demonstrate its existence?Also, with all the amazing discoveries about the universe, I am surprised that more scientists don't beieve in God.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.I don't have a problem with your being an atheist, but I do take issue with your apparent belief that your particular mindset--your way of approaching the mystery of existence--is THE valid one, and therefore the religious approach is "meaningless."
"Experiential truth illuminates a symphony of fulfilment."BTW, That "deepity" was primarily my paraphrase of some of the thought of Karl Rahner, who was the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th century.
Show your math.This entire universe is miraculous and, among those miracles, is consciousness. Go back to before the universe was created and calculate the probability of your existence as a being with conscious awareness. The probability is zero, which makes it a miracle.
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheismEinstein believed in both God and mystical experience. The reason why he did so was the miraculous order of the universe.
Again, this is about as meaningful to me as asserting that you're feeling a numinousness as a result of observing a naturalistic universe. All such claims are entirely inconclusive, but you still seem under the mistaken impression that it is otherwise.
I'm just saying, you don't need theology to figure out that view. It is entirely trivial if people were to listen instead of pontificate - which makes me concerned if someone apparently does need theology in order to figure out that view.
Show your math.
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism
The time before the universe existed was also before math, so the formulas don't exist yet. The probability is set to "0" until a probability can actually exist. Science doesn't exist yet, either. You can't measure the measureless.
It appears that Einstein was a man of paradox, so to speak. He also said that, "God does not play dice with the universe," that he believed in a God, but not a personal God, and that he regretted not reading more about mystical--ie., religious--experience.
As evidence of evolution, I would agree.
Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As evidence of the supernatural, the lack of consensus would work against them.
And of those scientists that do believe in a god, are any able to demonstrate its existence?
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.
"Experiential truth illuminates a symphony of fulfilment."
- from Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra
Er, no - the probability is set to "undefined" if no information is present.
That.....really isn't what that quote is about.
Not that I'm unused to seeing people mangle what Einstein said in order to prove a point.
You can only have a return of "undefined" if you have a way of determining that information may or may not be present. Such does not exist in pre-existence.
Einstein was an amazing man.
Then your claims of probabilities are nonsense, by your own words.The time before the universe existed was also before math, so the formulas don't exist yet. The probability is set to "0" until a probability can actually exist. Science doesn't exist yet, either. You can't measure the measureless.
Then your implication that Einstein believed in "God" - your "God" - was intellectually dishonest.It appears that Einstein was a man of paradox, so to speak. He also said that, "God does not play dice with the universe," that he believed in a God, but not a personal God, and that he regretted not reading more about mystical--ie., religious--experience.
What boundaries might those be?I have no quarrel with science,sometimes it oversteps its boundaries
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.and makes assumptions that science can't assume, such as the absence of God.
Which were unsuccessful.There have been arguments to prove the existence of God--ie., St Thomas Aquinas
And my experience is that it is not.--but my experience is that God is self-evident.
I feel that you do not have the ability to "prove God".I feel no durden to prove God.
That you cannot demonstrate that dieties are even possible is your present condition.That you don't KNOW that God exists is your present condition.
Then it would not appear to be of any significance.Or,should I say, that you are not aware of your daily experience of God.
Handwaving nonsense. The same applies to the invisible immaterial giant marshmallows I drive though on my way to work. They are everywhere!BTW, God is without boundaries and cannot be measured or contained in science.
No, but I have been unfortunate enough to see a debate or two with him as a participant.You read Deepak Chopra?
Dunno. You may be the only Christian on this site. And I am not sure about you. Poe's law, and all that.Am I the only Christian in the room?
Then your claims of probabilities are nonsense, by your own words.
Then your implication that Einstein believed in "God" - your "God" - was intellectually dishonest.
Go on, tell us more about what he thought.
What boundaries might those be?
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Which were unsuccessful.
And my experience is that it is not.
I guess it is back to science, then.
I feel that you do not have the ability to "prove God".
That you cannot demonstrate that dieties are even possible is your present condition.
Then it would not appear to be of any significance.
Handwaving nonsense. The same applies to the invisible immaterial giant marshmallows I drive though on my way to work. They are everywhere!
No, but I have been unfortunate enough to see a debate or two with him as a participant.
You do realize that the quote was *not* from Chopra, but from an automated phrase generator? Hard to tell from the real thing.
Dunno. You may be the only Christian on this site. And I am not sure about you. Poe's law, and all that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?