Agnostic versus Atheist

[PRmerger]

I don’t know any of the four evangelists, nor their mothers, and we’ve already covered the emprirical proof.

Holy Mother Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years, and I know her quite intimately, so I can have faith that the…testimony provided…is trustworthy.

 

[PRmerger]

Why not? The contradictions and inconsistencies are simply explained away… generally by saying that they are not contradictions, only “mysteries”.

Nope. They are explained away by saying that they are…not contradictions.

For something to be a contradiction one text would have to say: A is true.

And another text would have to say: A is not true. Or A is false.

Can you offer some examples of contradictions?

 

[PRmerger]

Am I lying in recounting what the French couple said? If I am genuinely and accurately reporting what they said, does it lend any credence to what they said they believed they saw?

I have no reason to think that they would lie to me about such a thing. So should I trust what they said? If I do, should you my account?

Oh, I believe you, Bradski.

Because I have faith in you, and in your testimony, based on our relationship and my experience with you, and our virtual friendship.

But can you answer this question please: are you asking all of us to believe in an unfalsifiable, premise?"

 

[Bradski]

But can you answer this question please: are you asking all of us to believe in an unfalsifiable, premise?"

If I tell you I was in an accident, you believe me. If I had been the one to say that two men that were definitely dead came back to life, then you wouldn’t. Both statements are unfalsifiable. One is a reasonable thing to believe. People have accidents all the time. It’s no more of a stretch to believe it than if I said I didn’t call on God for help when the accident happened.

But two dead guys walking about? No, that’s on another scale. You wouldn’t believe it at all. Either I’m lying, or I’m misinformed, or they weren’t really dead or you’d formulate another reason for not having to believe it.

The reason for that would be that you would be considered gullible if you did believe it. The accident? They are a dime a dozen. No call for divine intervention? No big deal: ‘Hey, this guy on that forum I was talking about said…yadda yadda…’ and no-one would blink an eye. But dead men walking? ‘Yeah, I read it on the web. Honestly. Apparently this car hit a bus and…’.

PR, you use the same criteria for believing things as we all do. Except when it comes to things that you want to believe happened. And then there are different standards.

 

[Aloysium]

A mind conjures up scenario after scenario, disconnected from the truth, which can never be more than a matter of probabilities. There is something greater.

 

[PRmerger]

If I tell you I was in an accident, you believe me. If I had been the one to say that two men that were definitely dead came back to life, then you wouldn’t. Both statements are unfalsifiable. One is a reasonable thing to believe. People have accidents all the time. It’s no more of a stretch to believe it than if I said I didn’t call on God for help when the accident happened.

Fair enough.

So we can conclude that you do indeed ask folks to believe some unfalsifiable ideas.

Incidentally, if my husband had told me that 2 dead men came back to life, I would believe him.

But if I read about it on the internet, I wouldn’t.

That’s the difference between using reason alone and using faith AND reason, which is the Catholic mantra.

 

[PRmerger]

But two dead guys walking about? No, that’s on another scale. You wouldn’t believe it at all. Either I’m lying, or I’m misinformed, or they weren’t really dead or you’d formulate another reason for not having to believe it.

So here’s where your reasoning is circular, as it applies to Christianity.

“I don’t believe in the Bible because it is filled with miracles” and “There are miracles in the Bible, so therefore the Bible is not to be believed”.

If you presuppose that God exists, then the idea of a man dying and resurrecting is, of course, possible.

The atheistic paradigm is untenably circular: “God doesn’t exist therefore miracles can’t happen and when a miracle happens it actually didn’t because God doesn’t exist.”

PR, you use the same criteria for believing things as we all do.

Yes!! That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to get you to see…just using the Socratic method and rhetoric to get you to see this conclusion.

We ALL use faith and reason to come to our understanding of reality.

…“except when it comes to things you don’t want to believe happened. And then there are different standards”.

Except when it comes to things that you want to believe happened. And then there are different standards.

 

[PRmerger]

…“except when it comes to things you don’t want to believe happened. And then there are different standards”.

The more I dialogue with atheists the more I come to an understanding that there is an emotional resistance to theism, rather than a rational resistance.

There is some reason, (based on childhood experiences? issues below the belt? relationship with authority? being snubbed by a parishioner or priest? I dunno…and I won’t comment on this further) that is primary in directing the atheist’s recusance.

For if one really evaluated the theist’s arguments using the rational intellect alone, there would be no reason for an atheist to reject those arguments. It is the most logically sound, intellectually astute, reasonable conclusion to make.

Of course, this doesn’t apply to all atheists.

But…

 

[Bradski]

Fair enough.

So we can conclude that you do indeed ask folks to believe some unfalsifiable ideas.

Incidentally, if my husband had told me that 2 dead men came back to life, I would believe him.

But if I read about it on the internet, I wouldn’t.

That’s the difference between using reason alone and using faith AND reason, which is the Catholic mantra.

I’m not sure if anyone has suggested anything otherwise regarding unfalsifiable claims. Whether we believe them or not is often related to the liklihood of the claim being true or not.

We have difficulty, for good reason, in trusting information that has implications over and above the simple facts of the matter. If I say that I have a cat, then it has no implications for you so why would you doubt what I say?

But if I say that two men were mangled beyond recognition in a crash but then came to life and chatted with people shortly afterwards, then it has very serious implications indeed. This simply doesn’t happen. It casts serious doubts on the finality of death itself. It would test your gullibility at the very least.

So you wouldn’t believe it.

Incidentally, if my wife had been delayed at the scene and I spoke to her later and she said that the two men walked from the wreckage then I would be worried about the effects of the accident on her mental health. And you would feel exactly the same if it were your husband.

Because which would be more likely? A traumatic event causing a possible temporary disconnection with reality or an event that breaks all the rules of physics and bilogy?

That’s why people would have no problem in believing the written testimony of someone which has no implications other than the fact of the matter. Unless there is a reason why you would prefer not to believe it.

Why that would be the case, I have no idea. Unless you really feel that there are no ‘real’ atheists and when it comes to the crunch, we all ‘so called’ atheists revert to believers.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure if anyone has suggested anything otherwise regarding unfalsifiable claims. Whether we believe them or not is often related to the liklihood of the claim being true or not.

Oh, I don’t think *you *have claimed, “I only believe things which are falsifiable” or “I won’t believe things that are unfalsifiable”…

but there certainly have been atheists who have done so.

We have difficulty, for good reason, in trusting information that has implications over and above the simple facts of the matter. If I say that I have a cat, then it has no implications for you so why would you doubt what I say?

But if I say that two men were mangled beyond recognition in a crash but then came to life and chatted with people shortly afterwards, then it has very serious implications indeed. This simply doesn’t happen. It casts serious doubts on the finality of death itself. It would test your gullibility at the very least.

So you wouldn’t believe it.

Of course.

Incidentally, if my wife had been delayed at the scene and I spoke to her later and she said that the two men walked from the wreckage then I would be worried about the effects of the accident on her mental health. And you would feel exactly the same if it were your husband.

Really? You would think she was lying about it?

Because which would be more likely? A traumatic event causing a possible temporary disconnection with reality or an event that breaks all the rules of physics and bilogy?

Well, now you’re adding something to this discourse which I hadn’t mentioned: a head injury.

But if my husband, a rational man with all of his faculties, came home claiming something extraordinary happened, I would certainly believe him.

That’s why people would have no problem in believing the written testimony of someone which has no implications other than the fact of the matter. Unless there is a reason why you would prefer not to believe it.

Yep. Egg-zactly.

And one has to wonder why there is the preference not to believe it.

Why that would be the case, I have no idea. Unless you really feel that there are no ‘real’ atheists and when it comes to the crunch, we all ‘so called’ atheists revert to believers.

I am agnostic on this.

 

[Bradski]

So here’s where your reasoning is circular, as it applies to Christianity.

“I don’t believe in the Bible because it is filled with miracles” and “There are miracles in the Bible, so therefore the Bible is not to be believed”.

I don’t like using the term, but that is another straw man.

I have never read anything remotely like that in all the the years I have been involved with Christian forums. Or in any other context. And neither have you. Except from other Christians who copy it from other Christians who think that they are making a zinger of an argument.

I’m at a loss as to why you are repeating it here.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t like using the term, but that is another straw man.

I have never read anything remotely like that in all the the years I have been involved with Christian forums. Or in any other context. And neither have you. Except from other Christians who copy it from other Christians who think that they are making a zinger of an argument.

I’m at a loss as to why you are repeating it here.

Really? You’ve never heard an atheist declare the Bible to be a book of myths because it talks about things which could never happen?

 

[Bradski]

But if my husband, a rational man with all of his faculties, came home claiming something extraordinary happened, I would certainly believe him.

No need to change the ground rules. If he said what I hypothetically suggested the French guy said, then you would worry about his mental health.

I think that I have a duty of care to my wife and if she told me she saw something that I know could not have happened (without all laws of physics and bilogy being broken), then I would be failing in that duty to not consider that, in all probabilty, considering all the facts, then she was suffering from some psychological trauma.

In fact, I think that any reasonable person would consider me lackng in care if I simply accepted what she said and didn’t insist on her being checked out.

Some things as too incredible to be taken at face value. But if she said she’d seen a cat crawl from the wreckage, I’d be amazed but not concerned.

It’s all to do with the implications. As to your ‘agnosticism’ re written testimony (I’m sure you originally rejected it)’ again I have no idea for the reason. So again…

…do you think there are no ‘real’ atheists?

 

[Bradski]

Really? You’ve never heard an atheist declare the Bible to be a book of myths because it talks about things which could never happen?

It’s the second time you have conflated two arguments so that they appear as one.

Taken as an individual statement, I don’t think that anyone would claim, or has claimed, or is likely to claim, that the bible is just a book of myths.

Some things are factually true. Others are not. That in itself has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

 

[PRmerger]

No need to change the ground rules. If he said what I hypothetically suggested the French guy said, then you would worry about his mental health.

Uh, no. I would not worry about his mental health.

I would certainly believe him, and then seek understanding.

Fides quarens intellectum.

In fact, I think that any reasonable person would consider me lackng in care if I simply accepted what she said and didn’t insist on her being checked out.

Or, you could believe her and then investigate further why she said what she said.

Some things as too incredible to be taken at face value.

Sure.

No one is saying to take it at face value.

Believe, and then investigate.

That’s the Catholic mantra.

It’s all to do with the implications. As to your ‘agnosticism’ re written testimony (I’m sure you originally rejected it)’ again I have no idea for the reason. So again…

Oh, no. I absolutely reject the written testimony of the link.

Not until you provide the empirically-sound, reproducible, peer-reviewed data that these guys never cried out to God will I believe.

…do you think there are no ‘real’ atheists?

I am agnostic on this.

sigh.

 

[Bradski]

I would certainly believe him, and then seek understanding.

Oh, no. I absolutely reject the written testimony of the link.

Not until you provide the empirically-sound, reproducible, peer-reviewed data that these guys never cried out to God will I believe.

I’m not sure I should comment on your claim that you would accept a loved one’s testimony of an impossible situation occurring following their involvement in a traumatic experience. That’s your call. Although I think that you are claiming it to avoid admitting what surely must be obvious to anyone else.

And on the assumption that we would tend to reject claims that would negatively affect us in some way, I am still not sure what the implications would be for you accepting written testimony that appears to have no implications for you whatsoever.

Unless you would like to explain the implications.

If there are no implications, we are back to you denying trivial testimony unless there is some sort of confirmation.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s the second time you have conflated two arguments so that they appear as one.

Taken as an individual statement, I don’t think that anyone would claim, or has claimed, or is likely to claim, that the bible is just a book of myths.

Some things are factually true. Others are not. That in itself has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

This was what I actually presented as the circular argument by atheists: “I don’t believe in the Bible because it is filled with miracles” and “There are miracles in the Bible, so therefore the Bible is not to be believed”.

I never said that the atheists says that the Bible is “just a book of myths”, in the sense that atheists don’t believe that some things are factually true.

In fact, that was my argument to you, a few years ago, if you recall:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12458895&postcount=112

It was YOU who said you “don’t trust anything that He has effectively written”.

Anything.

That’s what you wrote.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure I should comment on your claim that you would accept a loved one’s testimony of an impossible situation occurring following their involvement in a traumatic experience. That’s your call. Although I think that you are claiming it to avoid admitting what surely must be obvious to anyone else.

As I said, I would believe, and then investigate.

Just like I do with Catholicism.

And on the assumption that we would tend to reject claims that would negatively affect us in some way, I am still not sure what the implications would be for you accepting written testimony that appears to have no implications for you whatsoever.

Because, as I said, I take great delight in playing the atheist to atheists.

 

[Bradski]

As I said, I would believe, and then investigate.

Yeah, I do the same. Just not in the same order.

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah, I do the same. Just not in the same order.

Actually, no.

You just believed that website.

Based. On. Nothing.

You haven’t done a single bit o’ investigation, of that I am quite sure, that these stories are true.

(Otherwise, I am quite certain you would have offered some sort or corroboration. Especially since I have asked for this NO LESS THAN 4 TIMES on this thread.)