Agnostic versus Atheist

[ffg]

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

They DID fall apart… look at the number Christian sects and factions.

They did, and the “explanation” is that they are wrong in their interpretation, they take something literally, when it should be taken allegorically. But the “correct” interpretation is never presented.

God is silent, and the church does not issue an annotated text where the “wheat” is separated from the “chaff”. The catechism does not do it. Is the Genesis to be taken in a literal fashion, with talking snakes, fashioning humans out of clay and then from “ribs”? If not, then what were the actual events that took place? The “original sin” is the central tenet of all Christianity… what actually happened then? If it is just a fable, then the whole shebang is based upon a tale? These are not irrelevant, unimportant questions.

As far as Jesus is concerned, this name was very widespread in that age. Crucifixion was a horrible, but not rare method of execution. Even if one accepts it, the supporting “evidence” of all the “miracles” which are supposed to establish his “divine nature” are summarily missing. No outside sources corroborate those miracles.

There is a general “excuse”, that the role of the church is not to interpret its basic “holy writ”, rather to evangelize and bring everyone to God. But for the skeptics the best tool would be an unambiguous enumeration of the ancient texts, along its proper interpretations.

---

Returning to the OP, I am amazed that many people still do not understand the difference between the concepts of “theism vs. atheism” and “gnosticism vs. agnosticism”. Theism are atheism are metaphysical terms, they pertain to the question: “what exists?”. Gnosticism and agnosticism are epistemological terms, they pertain to the question: “how do we know it?”. One is not supposed to use a microscope instead of a litmus test… just like physics is not chemistry.

That is why the “agnosticism” is NOT a third alternative to theism and atheism. How many times this has explained, I can’t even count the numbers. But some ignoramuses will bring it up again and again.

Feeling comfy and cozy about the explanations (or not) doesn’t change who holds the answers and what the details mean.

Anyone who reads anything and concludes on their own, leaves open the probability of not being correct in understanding meaning.

What’s evident many times in such cases, is that meaning is not of interest.

In the same way Bradski seems to be a known entity happening now with his story, so is the Church, it’s not hiding the details or the meaning.

Not liking the meaning - that’s not the Church’s issue.

People get advanced degrees focused on specific areas, yet so many of those people (as well as others) think they can conclude properly about God by reading the Bible.

There is so much more, including that meaning has to be explained.

Just as when they delve into their life’s work and learn there is information in the textbook that needs to be explained to understand meaning.

To read the Bible is one thing, to understand it, is to ask the Church for answers.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Returning to the OP, I am amazed that many people still do not understand the difference between the concepts of “theism vs. atheism” and “gnosticism vs. agnosticism”. Theism are atheism are metaphysical terms, they pertain to the question: “what exists?”. Gnosticism and agnosticism are epistemological terms, they pertain to the question: “how do we know it?”. One is not supposed to use a microscope instead of a litmus test… just like physics is not chemistry.

That is why the “agnosticism” is NOT a third alternative to theism and atheism. How many times this has explained, I can’t even count the numbers. But some ignoramuses will bring it up again and again.

Again and again?

Agnosticism IS actually a third alternative. Epistemic and metaphysical terms may converge.

The agnostic to all intents and purposes agrees with the atheist in that God plays no significant role in his life and, so it would seem, may be safely ignored. He disagrees with the atheist in that he has no definite knowledge that God does not exist, whereas the atheist holds that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

You could only take that view, that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if you had evidence that there is no possibility of evidence. That seems an impossible stretch of the epistemic muscles.

 

[PRmerger]

Again and again?

Agnosticism IS actually a third alternative.

Of course it is. You are correct.

There’s only 3 answers to the question: Does God exist?

Yes (Theism)

No (Atheism)

and

I don’t know (Agnosticism)

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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.

How well do you speak French? That might have something to do with it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is the Genesis to be taken in a literal fashion, with talking snakes, fashioning humans out of clay and then from “ribs”? If not, then what were the actual events that took place? The “original sin” is the central tenet of all Christianity… what actually happened then? If it is just a fable, then the whole shebang is based upon a tale? These are not irrelevant, unimportant questions.

Since there was no one present at the Creation to record the events as they happened, and since the Fall happened, there was no way for the biblical writers to express the truth of these events without resorting to the power of imagination that would appeal to a scientifically illiterate people. Several things are reasonably certain. That the ingredients of the earth were assembled by God to create life; that one sex appeared first, followed by another; and that a convincing image for rank malevolence is the mesmerizing serpent.

The poetry of Genesis does not really sabotage the truth of Genesis unless one is a literalist without imagination.

 

[Solmyr]

You could only take that view, that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if you had evidence that there is no possibility of evidence.

That is sheer nonsense. How would one know if there is insofar undiscovered evidence, or not? One always makes a decision based upon the available evidence. If the evidence is insufficient, then the hypothesis needs to be discarded - with the proviso that one is ready to re-open the case, if and when new evidence is presented. That is how real skepticism operates.

There’s only 3 answers to the question: Does God exist?

Except that this is not the question. The actual question is: “Do you BELIEVE that God exists?”. And there are only two honest answers to that:Yes, I believe that God exists - theism.
No, I don’t believe that God exists - atheism.
There is no third alternative… according to the elementary law of the excluded middle.

The word “theism” means: “the belief that some god or gods exist”. It says nothing about “knowledge”. That is why the terms: “agnostic theist” and “agnostic atheist” are both correct and meaningful.

Since there was no one present at the Creation to record the events as they happened, and since the Fall happened, there was no way for the biblical writers to express the truth of these events without resorting to the power of imagination that would appeal to a scientifically illiterate people.

Except it was supposed to be revealed to the authors - by God himself! Why couldn’t God “reveal” the actual events? And if those people were intellectually unequipped to understand the real events (though why wouldn’t they be?) then why isn’t there a “Revelation 2.0”?

The poetry of Genesis does not really sabotage the truth of Genesis unless one is a literalist without imagination.

Imagination is not an epistemological method. The whole story reeks of mysticism, like all the other creation stories. The real problem is not the “creation” myth - of “let there be light” - it is the “fall”. That is where all the so-called problems started. A “perfect” world, then one little disobedience, then God cursing the whole creation… which part is supposed to be literally correct? Because if there is no sequence of literally precise events, then the whole Christian mythology becomes a “fairy tale”.

You cannot wiggle out of the problem. There is no rational, literal enumeration of the alleged actual events, which form the absolute cornerstone of Christianity.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is sheer nonsense. How would one know if there is insofar undiscovered evidence, or not? One always makes a decision based upon the available evidence. If the evidence is insufficient, then the hypothesis needs to be discarded - with the proviso that one is ready to re-open the case, if and when new evidence is presented. That is how real skepticism operates.

You cannot wiggle out of the problem. There is no rational, literal enumeration of the alleged actual events, which form the absolute cornerstone of Christianity.

Real skepticism is open minded, so the atheist is not even a skeptic. He is an absolutist without one shred of evidence for his absolutism.

The problem you cannot wriggle out of is that no one (including any scientist) knows how exactly the Creation was accomplished since no one was there to witness it. It’s absurd for you to expect that God would reveal anything to wandering Jews that they could not understand as we might understand Evolution or the Big Bang; and if God chose to reveal through poetry rather than science, who are you to challenge God’s method of revelation?

Gerald Schroeder’s book *The Science of God *is one you could read with profit if you are not at the point where the only books you read are the books you know you agree with before you read them.

 

[PRmerger]

Except that this is not the question. The actual question is: “Do you BELIEVE that God exists?”. And there are only two honest answers to that:Yes, I believe that God exists - theism.
No, I don’t believe that God exists - atheism.
There is no third alternative… according to the elementary law of the excluded middle.

Really?

Here’s someone who answers it with an…agnostic answer:

“I don’t believe god exists, and I don’t believe he doesn’t exist. He may and he may not. Think of it this way. You’re inside a windowless building for six hours. The weather forecast for the day was “occasional showers.” Now, without any evidence either way can you say you believe that at present it is raining?”
religiousforums.com/threads/plain-agnostics-do-you-believe-in-god-or-not.125784/

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I think that PR needs more than personal claims. Were there any witnesses? Four preferably. Any written testimony that you didn’t slip in a quick prayer? Polygraph? Did it last for some time? You weren’t saving a small child from drowning at the time?

 

[Solmyr]

The problem you cannot wriggle out of is that no one (including any scientist) knows how exactly the Creation was accomplished since no one was there to witness it. It’s absurd for you to expect that God would reveal anything to wandering Jews that they could not understand as we might understand Evolution or the Big Bang; and if God chose to reveal through poetry rather than science, who are you to challenge God’s method of revelation?

You don’t get it. I am not interested in the details of the “creation” myth (let there be light), I am interested in the story of the “fall”. What was the reality behind that “tree”, the talking serpent, the rib-woman… etc. No big deal. You can only take two positions:

1. the whole creation story is mythology, without any reality behind it, or
2. there are some events literally true in Genesis…

if so, what are those? And how would you know it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You don’t get it. I am not interested in the details of the “creation” myth (let there be light), I am interested in the story of the “fall”. What was the reality behind that “tree”, the talking serpent, the rib-woman… etc. No big deal. You can only take two positions:

1. the whole creation story is mythology, without any reality behind it, or
2. there are some events literally true in Genesis…

if so, what are those? And how would you know it?

Faith that God revealed to the author of Genesis something vitally important about our first parents.

They began in innocence and ended in sin.

We inherit their fall.

That is certainly believable, since it is what happens to all of us.

 

[Solmyr]

"I don’t believe god exists, and I don’t believe he doesn’t exist. He may and he may not.

Nonsense. Whoever said it did not know what he was talking about. Beliefs are not under volitional control.

Think of it this way. You’re inside a windowless building for six hours. The weather forecast for the day was “occasional showers.” Now, without any evidence either way can you say you believe that at present it is raining?"

Sure you can. You may be wrong. But belief and lack of belief are the equivalents of A and ~A. Just like knowledge and ignorance are B and ~B. There is no third alternative.

I suggest you ponder the “agnostic theist” and “agnostic atheist” phrases.

 

[Solmyr]

Faith that God revealed to the author of Genesis something vitally important about our first parents.

They began in innocence and ended in sin.

We inherit their fall.

That is certainly believable, since it is what happens to all of us.

I am NOT interested in faith and beliefs. I am interested in the FACTUAL parts of the “fall”… if any.

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t get it. I am not interested in the details of the “creation” myth (let there be light), I am interested in the story of the “fall”. What was the reality behind that “tree”, the talking serpent, the rib-woman… etc. No big deal. You can only take two positions:

1. the whole creation story is mythology, without any reality behind it, or
2. there are some events literally true in Genesis…

if so, what are those? And how would you know it?

Catholicism looks at the first chapters of Genesis as epic poetry.

Perhaps you forgot you were on a Catholic forum?

 

[Bradski]

Actually, no. You just believed that website.

I keep having to repeat this, but no-one has difficulty in believing inconsequential matters. That is, inconsequential to the person who is receiving the information. If you do demand more evidence it is obvious that you have a reason for not believing it. Whereas matters that impact on us in a major way are treated with more scepticism and require more evidence. But you seem to work completely backwards.

If you don’t accept written testimony from dozens of people in regard to their beliefs, then one must ask: Why? You can’t think that they are mistaken. You must think that they are lying. For the life of me I can’t think why that would be so and for the life of me I can’t think of any other reason. If there is another reason or you don’t think that’s it’s inconsequential then I would like to hear about it.

‘I just saw two mangled bodies reanimate and walk about’. Really? Gosh, who would have thought.
‘I have never called to anyone’s god in times of great stress’. What? Where’s the proof? I demand 4 witnesses!

And what happened to: ‘I would believe, and then investigate’ in the second case?

In passing, one wonders what would happen if someone wrote that the two men in that accident were seen by 500 people after they had come back to life. Would you ‘absolutely reject the written testimony’ and demand ‘empirically-sound, reproducible, peer-reviewed data’?

 

[Aloysium]

I am NOT interested in faith and beliefs. I am interested in the FACTUAL parts of the “fall”… if any.

I am not interested in any such facts, but rather the meaning of Genesis which illuminates the purpose of existence and the reality of my being. It forms an essential component in the dialogue between mankind and God. If you want to know God, the conceptual framework you use to organize your encounter with reality, will be turned topsy-turvy. I don’t think you can do it yourself. It will happen, or it won’t, but is more likely to do so if you pray. I don’t know why you are here; if it is to grow spiritually, I would point you towards Jesus. All that now sounds like nonsense will there make sense.

.

 

[Solmyr]

Catholicism looks at the first chapters of Genesis as epic poetry.

Perhaps you forgot you were on a Catholic forum?

Do, I did not forget. As a matter of fact I EXPLICITLY asked if there is ANY factual underpinning behind the story of the Garden, the snake, the rib-woman (was she a “prime-rib” ), the forbidden tree… etc - explicitly the fall - because that is the most important part of the whole Bible. Without the fall the whole story of Jesus, the sacrifice, the resurrection is just a “ho-hum” irrelevance.

If it is just a mythology, then the whole Christianity is based on an “epic poetry” (according to your own words). As such no one should take it seriously. So think about it… is there anything FACTUAL there… and if there is, how do you know what is it, and where did it come from?

 

[PRmerger]

If it is just a mythology,

Nope.

Not “just mythology”.

Please read up on Catholicism a bit more before you post about Genesis.

I don’t feel like reviewing my grade school theology here.

 

[Solmyr]

Nope.

Not “just mythology”.

Please read up on Catholicism a bit more before you post about Genesis.

I don’t feel like reviewing my grade school theology here.

Whatever… no surprise. I expected nothing better. Maybe someone will be able to give an actual answer, but if that is not the case, I will not be surprised.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am NOT interested in faith and beliefs. I am interested in the FACTUAL parts of the “fall”… if any.

So what would you accept as facts? A videotape of the encounter between Eve and the Serpent?