Agnostic versus Atheist

[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.

There’s a logical problem here isn’t there?

Obviously Catholics also believe in original innocence. But if we don’t inherit the stain of original sin from our first parents, why do we inherit their suffering after being expelled from their idyllic Garden Home? The sins of the fathers and the mothers, as we all know, are visited upon their children. That is why Catholics believe the stain of that original sin must be washed away in the waters of baptism. No one has been born with original innocence since the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ himself. Jesus allowed himself to be baptized by John as an example to others, not because he needed cleansing because he had committed sins. No child needs cleansing for sins committed, but needs cleansing of the stain transmitted by Adam and Eve.

But of course none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What facts would you refer to as proof of atheism?

I’m pretty sure you already know this, but evident in the messages in this thread is that you and he do not agree with your usages of the term “atheist.”

 

[PRmerger]

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.

What is your explanation regarding the way we are then, if not Original Sin?

What’s your explanation for murder, rape, hatred? It clearly doesn’t benefit society to do these things, yet folks still do it.

Heck, we need an explanation for why we choose to sleep in rather than get up and help our friend move out of her apartment, which we said we would do. Why is your explanation?

(NB: it’s rhetorical only. No need to explain away the details of this particular example).

 

[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.

I have answered it many times: It gives me great delight to play the atheist to the atheist.

And I will add: I don’t believe their stories because I don’t have any evidence for their stories.

Is that an acceptable answer?

Does it sound vaguely…familiar?

Hmmm…

whynogod.wordpress.com/
atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/why-there-no-god-quick-responses-10-common-theist-arguments

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I await the evidence: corroboration (preferably something penned by the “atheist” of his atheism), documentation from 4 other witnesses that this individual was actually at the “foxhole”, and some empirical data that demonstrates that he never really cried out to God.

Until then, I won’t believe.

I don’t think the above are absurd demands, do you?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

So I am confused–written testimony IS, or IS NOT considered credible?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Yeah.

And maybe some other knowledgeable Catholics can help you out here.

And it would be helpful if you gained a rudimentary understanding of Catholicism before you post some more.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m pretty sure you already know this, but evident in the messages in this thread is that you and he do not agree with your usages of the term “atheist.”

Can you clarify?

If atheism demands proof for the existence of God, how can it be other than that atheism should not demand proof for the non-existence of God?

So long as anyone does not require proof to substantiate atheism, the best anyone can do is to allow that theism might be true and atheism might be false.

 

[Aloysium]

So I am confused–written testimony IS, or IS NOT considered credible?

It’s sort of like the first thing one learns in high school. Write an essay that agrees with the teacher’s position and a minimum number of references are required for an “A”. Argue for the other position and there is never enough evidence that will suffice.

 

[Bradski]

What is your explanation regarding the way we are then, if not Original Sin?

What’s your explanation for murder, rape, hatred? It clearly doesn’t benefit society to do these things, yet folks still do it.

Seriously? Every bad thing that happens is a direct result of two people searching for knowledge?

So I am confused–written testimony IS, or IS NOT considered credible?

Good grief…re-read posts 182, 187, 191, 194, 213, 222, 228. They implicitly and explicitly explain the reasons why some information is accepted and others not. I have been speaking of nothing else.

You appear to have placed yourself in a position where you say that claims which have an enormous impact on you are accepted at face value and claims which don’t affect you in the slightest come with a demand for verifiable data, witnesses and I don’t know what else.

Whether you want to ‘play the atheist’ or not, you are still obliged to give reasons for these demands. Or actually, perhaps not. We can make our own minds up about your reasons.

 

[Bradski]

So long as anyone does not require proof to substantiate atheism, the best anyone can do is to allow that theism might be true and atheism might be false.

I guess if I stick around long enough, someone will actually get it. Well done, Charles. Could you write that out so that we can definately say that it applies to you as well as just ‘anyone’.

Something like: ‘Theism might be true’.

And to save you asking, here’s my contribution: ‘Atheism might be false’.

Off you go…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

What is your explanation regarding the way we are then, if not Original Sin?

What’s your explanation for murder, rape, hatred? It clearly doesn’t benefit society to do these things, yet folks still do it.

Heck, we need an explanation for why we choose to sleep in rather than get up and help our friend move out of her apartment, which we said we would do. Why is your explanation?

(NB: it’s rhetorical only. No need to explain away the details of this particular example).

One consideration is that individuals essentially retain their animal natures, but having gained sufficient intelligence they have arrived at the ability to rationally suppress their more base desires…this is why in times of stress or difficulties an individual might allow themselves to be overtaken by such passions when the efforts to maintain their will might be under too great a strain to sustain.

 

[PRmerger]

One consideration is that individuals essentially retain their animal natures,

Really? It’s in our animal natures to prefer to stay in bed?

Every single animal I’ve ever encountered gets up at the crack o’dawn and is ready to play/prey/eat as soon as the sun pokes through.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Every bad thing that happens is a direct result of two people searching for knowledge?

…

They are representative of the capacity of human beings, since there were human beings.

They represent the furthest back humans can remember.

 

[Solmyr]

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

It would be rational to demand proof, if ANYONE would assert it. But no one does.

 

[PRmerger]

It would be rational to demand proof, if ANYONE would assert it. But no one does.

Not sure exactly what you’re saying here? Could you please re-phrase?

 

[Solmyr]

What facts would you refer to as proof of atheism?

This has also been addressed ad nauseam… Atheism is simply a lack of belief, nothing more. But IF atheism WOULD be an explicit utterance that “God definitely and positively does not exist”, even in that case demanding “proof” would be ridiculous. One cannot “prove” nonexistence.

Now to demand “evidence” would be a different issue. And the answer would be simple: “The absence of evidence (for anything, not just for God’s existence) is evidence of absence”. But this has also been pointed out many times.

 

[PRmerger]

One cannot “prove” nonexistence.

This is nonsense. It’s something you believe simply because you heard someone say it.

One can certainly prove nonexistence. As pointed out by the eminently gifted Christian apologist: I can say “No US Senator is a Muslim”.

That is: A Muslim member of the US Senate does not exist.

And I can prove that, too.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Every single animal I’ve ever encountered gets up at the crack o’dawn and is ready to play/prey/eat as soon as the sun pokes through.

If it were not up at the crack of dawn would you be as likely to encounter it?

I think of my cat which sometimes goes out at night and may be responsible for the occasional dead animal left ay my front door but is usually sleeping on the office or in some unknown location in the mornings.

 

[PRmerger]

If it were not up at the crack of dawn would you be as likely to encounter it?

I think of my cat which sometimes goes out at night and may be responsible for the occasional dead animal left ay my front door but is usually sleeping on the office or in some unknown location in the mornings.

I’d like some evidence, please, that your cat didn’t get up at the crack of dawn, do his business, and then go back to sleep.