Agnostic versus Atheist

[Solmyr]

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

:tsktsk: It is not what I would like… it is what can YOU offer… PR has already bowed out, because she has nothing to offer (what a surprise )… do you have anything? The point is that Christianity stands or falls on the idea of the “original sin”.

 

[PRmerger]

I keep having to repeat this, but no-one has difficulty in believing inconsequential matters.

Surely you can see the cognitive dissonance this generates in us, right?

It seems so random (and, in fact, skewed): I believe on faith some things, but other things I will demand such weirdly high standards.

(And by “other things” I mean “ONLY theological things”…Every other thing…like the multiverse–which has NOT A SHRED OF EMPIRICAL DATA TO SUPPORT IT–, or some phantom atheist who’s allegedly given his life out of love for someone, sure, I’ll believe it/he/she exists, WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=308312

 

[Aloysium]

:tsktsk: It is not what I would like… it is what can YOU offer… PR has already bowed out, because she has nothing to offer (what a surprise )… do you have anything? The point is that Christianity stands or falls on the idea of the “original sin”.

Fact is bud, it’s you who has absolutely nothing to offer. I wish there were something in what you say. It’s empty. You stand for nothing and have nowhere to fall. The nonsense that you see lies in the lens through which you gaze out into the world. If you took the time and made a bit of an effort you would have read that Christianity stands on Love, eternal and at the very Core of existence. You may come to know this, but not this way.

 

[Bradski]

Surely you can see the cognitive dissonance this generates in us, right?

It seems so random (and, in fact, skewed): I believe on faith some things, but other things I will demand such weirdly high standards.

I will repeat, yet again…it is no problem to believe in things that are inconsequential and have no personal effect on you.

Bradski says he likes pizza. Yeah, sure. Why not. Would you need actual proof? Do you need a sworn affidavit? For pizza?
Bradski says he has never called on God in times of trouble. Well, OK. Sure. If he says so. Big deal. Doesn’t affect me in any way and why would he lie about that anyway?
Bradski says he can travel into the past. He what? Well, that can’t be true. Who the hell can do that! I don’t believe him. What proof does he have?
Bradski says dead men reanimate and walk around chatting to people. Well, hang on a minute. No way, Jose. What is this…the Zombie Apocalypse? If that is true, then it changes a lot of things that I currently believe and if it’s not true I don’t want to appear gullible in accepting such an amazing statement at face value. So let’s check this out…

I’m sure that sounds entirely reasonable to you. Well, I’m sure it does to most people, in any case.

Meanwhile, could you explain why you won’t accept something as trivial as a statement that someone has remained an atheist whilst putting themselves in harm’s way? Do you think that they are lying? Why would they do that?

The question keeps being asked but still no response.

 

[PRmerger]

I will repeat, yet again…it is no problem to believe in things that are inconsequential and have no personal effect on you.

Bradski says he likes pizza. Yeah, sure. Why not. Would you need actual proof? Do you need a sworn affidavit? For pizza?
Bradski says he has never called on God in times of trouble. Well, OK. Sure. If he says so. Big deal. Doesn’t affect me in any way and why would he lie about that anyway?
Bradski says he can travel into the past. He what? Well, that can’t be true. Who the hell can do that! I don’t believe him. What proof does he have?
Bradski says dead men reanimate and walk around chatting to people. Well, hang on a minute. No way, Jose. What is this…the Zombie Apocalypse? If that is true, then it changes a lot of things that I currently believe and if it’s not true I don’t want to appear gullible in accepting such an amazing statement at face value. So let’s check this out…

I’m sure that sounds entirely reasonable to you. Well, I’m sure it does to most people, in any case.

Meanwhile, could you explain why you won’t accept something as trivial as a statement that someone has remained an atheist whilst putting themselves in harm’s way? Do you think that they are lying? Why would they do that?

The question keeps being asked but still no response.

Ian Matthews

Mechanical Draftsperson
Wood & Grieve Engineers
D: (02) 8484 7000 | T: (02) 8484 7000

Albany | Brisbane | Busselton | Melbourne | Perth | Sydney
www.wge.com.au | WINNER: 2016 Financial Review Client Choice Awards | Disclaimer

Did you know you put some personal info on this post?

 

[Bradski]

Did you know you put some personal info on this post?

Ah yes. Can you delete my quote above thanks? Cheers…

 

[Bradski]

Thanks…

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Would you mind addressing the above post, Bradski?

It was the last one on the page, and sometimes I miss those when the dialogue continues on the next page.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Fact is bud, it’s you who has absolutely nothing to offer. I wish there were something in what you say. It’s empty. You stand for nothing and have nowhere to fall. The nonsense that you see lies in the lens through which you gaze out into the world. If you took the time and made a bit of an effort you would have read that Christianity stands on Love, eternal and at the very Core of existence. You may come to know this, but not this way.

Aloysium, the main thrust that several people here have been trying to impart is that what someone believes is not the same as whether what someone believes is true (or the very least can be proved). In your conversation with Solmyr, he is looking for something – anything – that a person who is coming at this from a neutral position can look at it and think The Fall is possible.

The response to Solmyr could have gone in one of three ways:

1. Presenting something that shows a possibility of some change (whether in the earth, DNA, or something else) from pre-Fall to post-Fall.
2. State that such evidence is simply not possible, that there are some things which by their very nature can not be proven, and so you believe despite a lack of hard evidence.
3. Ascribe negative characteristics to those who express doubts about The Fall (e.g. stating they stand for nothing).

Bradski says he can travel into the past. He what? Well, that can’t be true. Who the hell can do that! I don’t believe him. What proof does he have?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

[inocente]

Meanwhile, could you explain why you won’t accept something as trivial as a statement that someone has remained an atheist whilst putting themselves in harm’s way? Do you think that they are lying? Why would they do that?

I’ve not read the thread as very busy, but if the claim is there are no atheists in foxholes, then the claim must be that not even one of the millions of men who have gone to war through the ages came out of battle an atheist. This would seem an impossible claim to prove, as there’s no way of knowing what was in their minds, and there only needs to be a single exception and the claim is disproved. An ancestor worshiper or animist, for instance, would have no conception of any deities at all, and it would seem disrespectful to question the veracity of the beliefs of any of those who sacrificed their lives in WWI, WWII and more recent wars just to make a debating point.

The point is that Christianity stands or falls on the idea of the “original sin”.

In the (Ana)baptist tradition there is original innocence rather than original sin. We are each born free of sin, but inevitably commit sins as we grow up. There is no collective fall, no transmitted original sin, we each fall individually. So we don’t baptist babies as there is nothing to forgive, and no need to think Genesis is an historical account instead of what it appears to be, which is a monotheistic version of Mesopotamian myths full of symbolism, some of which had meaning only to the original audience but much of which still speaks truths to us.

 

[Bradski]

In the (Ana)baptist tradition there is original innocence rather than original sin. We are each born free of sin, but inevitably commit sins as we grow up. There is no collective fall, no transmitted original sin, we each fall individually. So we don’t baptist babies as there is nothing to forgive, and no need to think Genesis is an historical account instead of what it appears to be, which is a monotheistic version of Mesopotamian myths full of symbolism, some of which had meaning only to the original audience but much of which still speaks truths to us.

I was baptised as a baby. But as we were Anglicans (Church of England), it didn’t have the same meaning as it does for Catholics. As far as we were concerened, it’s was just something one went through to ‘join up’. Original sin wasn’t something that would have rung any bells with anyone I knew at that time.

In fact, I’m pretty certain it would have sounded as weird to my parents and their friends then as it does to me now. The more I learned about it, the more I thought that it might have sounded like something that might have been seen as a good idea at some time. Back when Genesis was treated more literally.

But now…I keep thinking - hey guys, you should have dropped this waaaay back. I mean, I will the first to admit that Christianity sounds, prima facie, a good idea. What’s not to like about what it teaches? But I have to believe WHAT to join up?

Consequently, one spends a fair amount of time looking for something that incorporates a lot of what is taught under the umbrella of religion that doesn’t …what can I say that won’t offend…

…require membership with rules with which one doesn’t always agree.

Hence atheist and humanist.

 

[Bradski]

Would you mind addressing the above post, Bradski?

It was the last one on the page, and sometimes I miss those when the dialogue continues on the next page.

Hasn’t this been done?

As was quoted, I said: ‘If what is written in the book, which you now don’t trust as a record of past events, is the only evidence for those events, then it becomes impossible to believe that they actually happened’.

We’re back, yet again, to matters which concern us directly or are incidental to how we live our life.

Parts of the bible are obviously true. There were actually places and people which are mentioned therein. You’d have to be an idiot to suggest that the bible is purely myth.

If someone says, in the bible, that there was a place called Bethlehem, then it doesn’t impact on me whatsoever. I could care less if a small village existed or still exists, in the Middle East. I will believe it unless there is contrary information presented. But if someone writes that people are raised from the dead and there is a concept called original sin, which requires an original couple and a deity sent His son to die for MY sins, then I might investigate further.

If I decide, on investigation, that these claims do not reach a point where I can say that they are in any way credible, that they are not proved beyone reasonable doubt (in fact, far from it) then all the other facts that are not supported elesewhere become equally tainted.

And now we are back to why you consider people who have actually fought in wars and have stated that they were and still are atheists and never wavered from that belief even in the most traumatic of circumstances, are lying.

 

[ffg]

Perhaps this little noodler will provoke some thought -

The fact is, a baseball game was played yesterday.

The meaning is not the fact, though it wouldn’t exist without the fact.

The meaning is more important to the affected today, than yesterday’s fact.

The fact is Genesis was written.

The meaning is not the fact, though it wouldn’t exist without the fact.

The meaning is more important to the affected today, than yester-years fact.

It seems like there should be some good discussion on meaning and its relationship to the written word in general and Word specifically. Probably from a high level at first.

If we were supposed to figure out the God puzzle without guidance, there wouldn’t be homilies at Mass and sermons elsewhere.

Take care,

Mike

 

[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.

I seem to recall the words of a certain poster, who said: “It is good for you to be here to learn from knowledgeable Catholics”… do you remember who it might have been? Ah, yes… I remember now… it was YOU.

 

[Solmyr]

Fact is bud, it’s you who has absolutely nothing to offer.

I was ASKING, not “offering”.

If you took the time and made a bit of an effort you would have read that Christianity stands on Love, eternal and at the very Core of existence.

You might not know it, but I used to be a Christian (not Catholic, though) and even when I was young, I had many questions. One of them is this present question: “is the story of the fall pure mythology”? Because talking snakes, magical trees, women fashioned from the rib of a man do not look like “facts”. If anyone would say: “all that is pure mythology without any reality behind them” that would be perfectly acceptable.

 

[Solmyr]

I will repeat, yet again…it is no problem to believe in things that are inconsequential and have no personal effect on you.

I am pretty sure your fingers will get very tired before your message gets through. PR considers all claims are equally significant and all claimants as equally trustworthy. All claims are “pre-filtered” by our existing knowledge-base and what we know about the people who offer up that claim.

Suppose that some people, equally trustworthy would come and claim that they all found a US legal tender on the street, with the following pictures on them:

1. George Washington
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Madison
4. Andrew Jackson
5. Woodrow Wilson

To accept a bill with George Washington would be easy. A one-dollar bill is trivial. The one with Jefferson is a bit more unlikely, since the two-dollar bill is rare, and very few people have them in their billfold. A bill with James Madison’s portrait would be very unlikely ($5000) and a bill with Andrew Jackson ($10000) would be even less believable. Finally, Woodrow Wilson’s portrait was on the $100,000 bill, which was not even in public circulation.

So, any rational person would demand actual proof for the existence of these high denominational banknotes, before even entertaining the idea that such a banknote was found on a busy street.

 

[ffg]

I was ASKING, not “offering”.

You might not know it, but I used to be a Christian (not Catholic, though) and even when I was young, I had many questions. One of them is this present question: “is the story of the fall pure mythology”? Because talking snakes, magical trees, women fashioned from the rib of a man do not look like “facts”. If anyone would say: “all that is pure mythology without any reality behind them” that would be perfectly acceptable.

I understand the desire for certainty. It is thought that knowing reality seems to make ‘decision making’ easier.

It seems that with God we have examples where this is shown to not necessarily be the case.

One example that comes to mind is Jesus feeding 5000 with scraps and ending with full stomachs and more food.

If I was in that crowd, I would hope I would not take long to move to certainty.

Rather than cheering up Jesus and locking in on certainty, the Gospel shows that many of those folks quickly turned after being a part of that day.

I think this shows that there is a great deal more to God than He ‘is’. He doesn’t want us to just know He is, He wants us to desire to be with Him, that’s a relationship.

Genesis to my knowledge, is all we have for data from which to start to learn about the relationship we can have with God. (There isn’t another version of Genesis)

The symbolism is quite interesting, for instance -

The rib is symbolic in that it is from the side of Man - a show of equality (not below, or above).

I think I would lean to an earlier point with regard to if the colorful writing in fact happened…

To God there are no miracles, so what He does with His creation is all possible, but most things God does are impossible for me to grasp.

That’s why I concern myself with the meaning that comes through the illustration. That’s the part I know is made for me, the intent.

Happy Friday,

mike

 

[Charlemagne_III]

:tsktsk: It is not what I would like… it is what can YOU offer… PR has already bowed out, because she has nothing to offer (what a surprise )… do you have anything? The point is that Christianity stands or falls on the idea of the “original sin”.

What facts would you refer to as proof of atheism?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To accept a bill with George Washington would be easy. A one-dollar bill is trivial. The one with Jefferson is a bit more unlikely, since the two-dollar bill is rare, and very few people have them in their billfold. A bill with James Madison’s portrait would be very unlikely ($5000) and a bill with Andrew Jackson ($10000) would be even less believable. Finally, Woodrow Wilson’s portrait was on the $100,000 bill, which was not even in public circulation.

So, any rational person would demand actual proof for the existence of these high denominational banknotes, before even entertaining the idea that such a banknote was found on a busy street.

Likewise, any rational person would demand proof that there is any banknote on the street that says “In no God we trust.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In the (Ana)baptist tradition there is original innocence rather than original sin. We are each born free of sin, but inevitably commit sins as we grow up. There is no collective fall, no transmitted original sin, we each fall individually. So we don’t baptist babies as there is nothing to forgive, and no need to think Genesis is an historical account instead of what it appears to be, which is a monotheistic version of Mesopotamian myths full of symbolism, some of which had meaning only to the original audience but much of which still speaks truths to us.

And you know all this on what authority? Your own?