Agnostic versus Atheist

[AgnosticBoy]

One can die for a belief because he has certainty it’s true; absolute certainty is not required.

Also, I am not sure that qualifiers such as ‘absolute’ crossed the minds of Jesus and his followers. Jesus simply said that he was the truth. If you’re a follower, then surely you have to believe the same. In terms of the truth that he was speaking of, it contains NO falsehoods.

I am quite certain that it’s absolutely wrong to kill someone for deviating from your belief.

I was actually making a reference to Christians as history shows. Many were/are willing to die for their beliefs, and at least back in history, they were willing to kill others who disagreed with their beliefs. People who think in terms of probability (as opposed to a black-and-white true/false thinking) do NOT behave in such authoritative ways.

Oh, I’m sure he has certainty that Jesus is God. Just not *absolute *certainty.

He accepts it as truth. Call it absolute certainty or whatever else, it is still a view that is accepted as being THE truth and Dr. Craig and his fellow Christians behave as if it was the most important truth.

I also appreciate you acknowledging that the Pope can be wrong, and as I said, even on doctrinal issues. So you’re against the doctrine of infallibility? Good boy (or girl)! Some are finally catching up to logical thinking.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m really skeptical that you wouldn’t know what gay supporters tend to argue although I suppose it’s wrong of me to assume that you are informed on the issue, both on the intellectual level and POPULAR level.

Just offer some examples of “gay supporters” who support your claim that they are “absolutely certain” of the source of homosexuality.

(Not sure why this is such a difficult question to answer, AB. You made the claim. Surely you have some reason for making this claim?)

 

[PRmerger]

I also appreciate you acknowledging that the Pope can be wrong, and as I said, even on doctrinal issues

Careful, AB. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned or suspended…

It is not permitted to misrepresent what a poster has said.

Thus, it would be wrong for me to say, “Oh, I am surprised that you believe the Pope is indeed the Vicar of Christ and that you were mistaken in so many of your previous posts! Thank you for admitting that!”

So be careful about what you represent as another’s post, ok?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It isn’t a matter of being right. However, the fact that we can be right or wrong is proof that we do not create the truth; we discover it out there.

As far as I can see, there is no one argument that will prove anything. We appear to create coherent systems of understanding and they fit or don’t what we intuit to be real, at least to some extent. It has been evident to me that Christianity and specifically Catholicism fits the bill better than any other.

It boils down to our connection with reality. Understanding is the intellect’s means of connection. But, it’s the heart that reveals the truth.

God is someone with whom we develop a relationship. How one descibes that relationship, to the other, might come across as a god-concept, merely a set of ideas. There is one God, but whatever to which we give ourselves, becomes our god, be it worldly success, possessions, power and pleasure.

I’m not sure I can prove the existence to God. What I can do is talk about what pointed me to God. And that was essentially, the existence of others and our capacity to connect. This may mean nothing to the reader, but it is what did it - someone asking me a simple question, “What is a soul?” I found myself incapable of formulating any sort of satisfying explanation for the reality of the soul who had asked. In time, I have found the most concise and comprehensive explanation, in Christianity. And, the way to implement, to express that truth is through God’s church. How does one argue, that the fact that there is an argument, proves the point. I am of course summarizing a long process filled with joys, suffering and, not the least part of which, is action.

We each have our path, which becomes one Way in love, to God. It is not a matter of being right but of being more loving.

I appreciate your insightful post! You are essentially saying that we can’t become convinced of God by thinking or reasoning about it, but rather we have to experience it. I apologize if I’m not understanding your statement completely.

An objection that I have is that I have not experienced God. I also have other objections, but overall I view the Bible and Christianity as being an incomplete picture of who or what God is. In terms of experience, I believe it is also limiting, like in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 where the apostle Paul talks about a possible out-of-body experience, just to conclude that he doesn’t know if it was really an OBE or not. This begs for there to be more to know or experience, and I see that other religions capture this. My theory for now is that all religions present a partial or incomplete truth but perhaps collectively point to an ultimate truth (God? Brahman?).

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Careful, AB. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned or suspended…

It is not permitted to misrepresent what a poster has said.

Thus, it would be wrong for me to say, “Oh, I am surprised that you believe the Pope is indeed the Vicar of Christ and that you were mistaken in so many of your previous posts! Thank you for admitting that!”

So be careful about what you represent as another’s post, ok?

So lets try this again. In a post, I specified in a rhetorical question that the Pope sees his DOCTRINAL teachings as being infallible (WITHOUT error or falsehoods). And your response to me was posting that the Pope can be wrong.

Just for the record, Does the Pope accept that his doctrinal teachings are absolutely true? In other words, they contain no falsehoods?

If yes, then why would YOU (including Dr. Craig) as a Christian follower, not hold your beliefs as being absolutely true, especially those that come directly from GOD and your Pope?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Just offer some examples of “gay supporters” who support your claim that they are “absolutely certain” of the source of homosexuality.

(Not sure why this is such a difficult question to answer, AB. You made the claim. Surely you have some reason for making this claim?)

Did you look up my reference from the documentary Religulous?

Keep in mind also my precise wording. I never said anyone said that it was absolutely true, but rather BEHAVED as if it was absolutely true. Although, as many have brought up to your attention, there’s no real significant difference or degree/qualifier for when someone is “certain”. We can even make this about “scientific” certainty if you’d like because Bill Maher seemed to have a lot of that.

What would be the distinct difference between behavior (expressing or debating/defending beliefs) based on absolute certainty and just plain certainty? No difference! Remember, ACTION or behavior often speaks louder than words anyways.

Now tell me, what would be the difference between behavior based on something that you’re not absolutely sure on and something that you’re absolutely certain of?

 

[PRmerger]

And to answer that…the least worst argument for why so many people believe in God is…that so many people believe in God.

Yes. It’s certainly ought to give an atheist pause.

And remember, it’s not only the current human population–you have to take into account the billions and billions of folks who have believed in a Creator since the beginning of human civilization.

That’s a whole lot o’ folks.

And while it’s true that numbers do not dictate reality, it should make you wonder how so many, many, MANY intelligent people have endorsed the idea of a Creator.

 

[PRmerger]

So lets try this again. In a post, I specified in a rhetorical question that the Pope sees his DOCTRINAL teachings as being infallible (WITHOUT error or falsehoods). And your response to me was posting that the Pope can be wrong.

Fair enough.

I was responding simply to your comment right here:

Does the Pope acknowledge that he could be wrong?

So, let’s talk about Papal Infallibility…and why Dr. William Lane Craig would NOT endorse such an idea.

Just for the record, Does the Pope accept that his doctrinal teachings are absolutely true? In other words, they contain no falsehoods?

Only when his teachings are on the issues of faith and morals and specifically invokes the charism of infallibility.

If yes, then why would YOU (including Dr. Craig) as a Christian follower,

Did you do some research and find that Dr. Craig would not embrace the dogma of papal infallibility?

not hold your beliefs as being absolutely true, especially those that come directly from GOD and your Pope?

As Bradski so trenchantly said, paraphrasing: let’s stop the talk of absolutes for the nonce.

We should just talk about whether something is true or not.

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Did you look up my reference from the documentary Religulous?

No.

If you’re back-pedaling, which it does appear you are, then it’s inutile for me to search for folks who claim they are absolutely certain they know what causes homosexuality.

You now are saying that they’re not actually claiming this, but only acting as if they were absolutely certain.

And if that’s your claim, I respond with:

Now tell me, what would be the difference between behavior based on something that you’re not absolutely sure on and something that you’re absolutely certain of?

I suppose the difference would be that of FAITH. All of us live our life with a mixture of certainty and faith.

It’s Believers who are honest about this, though.

Agnostic and Atheists live their life with faith, but seem to, peculiarly, eschew faith.

It’s so…odd to me.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

AgnosticBoy;13949111:

Just for the record, Does the Pope accept that his doctrinal teachings are absolutely true? In other words, they contain no falsehoods?

Only when his teachings are on the issues of faith and morals and specifically invokes the charism of infallibility.

And why would God’s own words not be taken as infallible truth, as well? Ask Dr. Craig that for me. You asked for evidence for my claims and there you have it. Although, I said that Christians behave as if their beliefs are absolutely true but I’ll revise that to say that they also accept that certain information as being absolutely true (God’s direct word and Pope’s infallible doctrinal teachings) which explains their behavior.

Did you do some research and find that Dr. Craig would not embrace the dogma of papal infallibility?

There’s no need for this since Craig believe Jesus was perfect and has spoken and taught things. He accepts that Jesus’ teachings are true back then, now, and in the future.

Now imagine conducting intellectual inquiry on metaphysics and other issues when you have all of these pre-established DOGMAs. This is precisely what separates Agnostics from Christians!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Agnosticism = approach matters by starting with no certainties or known certainties (scientific established fact, rational/logical justification) - w/ varying degrees of confidence based on the level of supporting evidence.

Christians = approach matters starting with certainties and then try to explain certain matters in terms of those certainties.

Atheists = many approach matters starting with certainties (non-Christian worldviews mixed in with some science) and then try to explain certain matters in terms of those certainties.

Seems that agnosticism has an edge. People usually respect that about us agnostics and find us more open and intellectually honest now compare that to how people view atheism and Christianity as being polarizing - no different than American politics. Both atheism and Christianity seem to always have a preset worldview that pervades their arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Agnostic Boy: could you please tell us what arguments you’ve considered for the existence of God?

Tell us, in your own words, what the argument is, and why it fails.

Remember, IF you are uncertain about God’s existence, it is the obligation of any seeker of truth to examine both sides.

I’d like some evidence that you’ve actually considered the arguments for God’s existence.

Right now, it’s similar to someone who’s unsure of whether to vaccinate her children saying, “Why do I have to look at the evidence that vaccines are safe and effective and necessary?”

 

[Aloysium]

. . . An objection that I have is that I have not experienced God. I also have other objections, but overall I view the Bible and Christianity as being an incomplete picture of who or what God is. In terms of experience, I believe it is also limiting, like in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 where the apostle Paul talks about a possible out-of-body experience, just to conclude that he doesn’t know if it was really an OBE or not. This begs for there to be more to know or experience, and I see that other religions capture this. My theory for now is that all religions present a partial or incomplete truth but perhaps collectively point to an ultimate truth (God? Brahman?).

I would say that of course you have experienced God; you simply have not framed in that way. In other words, you don’t realize it.
There can be no experience without existence, without a truth that is reality itself. You are here in relation to the entire universe.
But, we get caught up in our ideas and it is hard to see beyond them. They are necessary to get by day to day, the means by which we navigate our way through life.
The down-side is that they can become a sort of cognitive cage, which while protecting us from certain anxieties, can keep the soul from soaring, from seeing a bigger picture.

You may wish to pursue Catholic teachings. They may be incomplete, but that limit will never be reached.
The church is in fact complete in its potential to bring anyone who chooses, to eternal joy and life in communion with God.

St Paul does not describe what I would call an out of body experience. He describes a conversion, a life changing encounter with God.
This did not happen out of the blue but after a life-time of following teachings that had become divorced from the truth which is love.
I don’t know what an out of body experiences would be. We are our bodies.
However, because of our being spirit, we have the capacity to relate to the world through our sense, intellect, feelings and actions.
We could say that our existence requires an out of body encounter with what is other.
I suppose you mean that he had an experience that is beyond that of your normal day to day. I would agree with that.
I assume you are on the fence as to whether he is a liar, maybe psychotic or that there is more to existence than you imagine.

I would humbly suggest that what is incomplete is your understanding, rather than what the various religions teach.

 

[Solmyr]

Why don’t you offer what you think is the best argument for God’s existence, and why you find it wanting.

This is your “idée fixe” (of the month).

Let’s consider a parable. You go to a restaurant and order a dish. You find it inedible, due to excessive salt. So you send it back. Next time you order another dish, and it is burned. So you send it back again. The next one has too much spice in it. The next one is simply too bland… and so on. None of them is acceptable.

So you reject each dish for one reason or another… And then the cook comes out and starts to pester you, and demands that you explain WHY each dish was inedible. It is NOT the job of the patron to teach the “chef” how to cook.

It is ridiculous to demand: “but which one of those inedible dishes was CLOSEST to be edible?”

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It is ridiculous to demand: “but which one of those inedible dishes was CLOSEST to be edible?”

The “ideas fixe” for an hors d’oeuvre is pretentious and does not go with the rest of the meal. Yet again, this post, like others, isn’t even close to edible. Who would swallow this, really? The “parable” falls flat, no taste, needs a lot more work. This desert above, is not just off the mark, but tastes like it’s gone bad. This is one patron who feels obligated to teach the chef, if not for the benefit of other patrons but for the good of the chef himself, who seems to enjoy this pap. You can do better than this; put your heart into it.

 

[PRmerger]

This is your “idée fixe” (of the month).

Let’s consider a parable. You go to a restaurant and order a dish. You find it inedible, due to excessive salt. So you send it back. Next time you order another dish, and it is burned. So you send it back again. The next one has too much spice in it. The next one is simply too bland… and so on. None of them is acceptable.

So you reject each dish for one reason or another… And then the cook comes out and starts to pester you, and demands that you explain WHY each dish was inedible. It is NOT the job of the patron to teach the “chef” how to cook.

It is ridiculous to demand: “but which one of those inedible dishes was CLOSEST to be edible?”

I am really astonished that you have such a reaction to such a benign question.

Really.

You cannot even offer one argument for God’s existence which you have considered thoughtfully?

That smacks of fundamentalism and an absolute closed mindedness.

Imagine if there was an anti-vaxxer who couldn’t even offer a single argument for why vaccines are effective.

One could reasonably assume, esp when he was asked multiple times to offer some pro-vaccine arguments, “Why, this guy doesn’t even know the very basics of why immunizations are good, and yet here he is coming to a forum declaring that vaccines don’t work.”

An open minded person, who is thoughtful and educated, can offer the arguments of the contrary position.

That’s just basic good debate strategy I learned in 8th grade.

 

[PRmerger]

Agnostic Boy: could you please tell us what arguments you’ve considered for the existence of God?

Again, folks, here’s the question that’s being posed. ^^

It’s a rational, rather meek, vanilla question, no?

Not sure why not a single atheist/agnostic is not able to offer his version of the best classical arguments for God’s existence.

One would have to conclude that what is being rejected is something that hasn’t even been considered.

“I’m against vaccines but I don’t even know what the basic principle is behind vaccinating! I’m just against them because…autism.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Seems that agnosticism has an edge. People usually respect that about us agnostics and find us more open and intellectually honest now compare that to how people view atheism and Christianity as being polarizing - no different than American politics. Both atheism and Christianity seem to always have a preset worldview that pervades their arguments.

My experience is that agnostics also have a preset worldview that pervades their arguments. Why wouldn’t they? Everybody has a preset world view. It’s an inescapable condition of being human.

 

[Solmyr]

You cannot even offer one argument for God’s existence which you have considered thoughtfully?

I considered all 666 of them. Mene, tekel, upharsin (or ufarsin).

An open minded person, who is thoughtful and educated, can offer the arguments of the contrary position.

I am not interested in offering such arguments. The believers already did, and all of them were insufficient - for different reasons. Some were “over-salted”, others were “burned”. You question would be which dish is closer to be edible, the over-salted or the burned one is nonsensical. It is impossible to create a “better-to-worse” ordering.

But there is no need for “proof” or for arguments. Faith is sufficient. And faith is superior to reason - according to Catholicism. “Reason must be trampled underfoot” and “reason must be the handmaiden of faith”, said Martin Luther… who was a Catholic before he changed his mind.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Again, folks, here’s the question that’s being posed. ^^

It’s a rational, rather meek, vanilla question, no?

Not sure why not a single atheist/agnostic is not able to offer his version of the best classical arguments for God’s existence.

One would have to conclude that what is being rejected is something that hasn’t even been considered.

“I’m against vaccines but I don’t even know what the basic principle is behind vaccinating! I’m just against them because…autism.”

I have read through some of the common arguments for and against God’s existence and even arguments for and against social issues that relate to Christianity. Not only have I read through these arguments but I have watched/listened to these arguments being presented in debates between experts of the field.

With that said, the reason why I will not do as you requested is because it’s simply a bad approach or tactic on your part. You seemingly ask me questions that you already know the answer to. Part of my claim here has been that I have not encountered a foolproof argument for or against God’s existence. If you had a foolproof argument then you would’ve offered one rather than trying to shift the burden of proof to me. In fact, this shouldn’t have been a surprise to me seeing that not even the experts claim to have a foolproof argument when they’re pressed so why should I expect any different from you?