Agnostic versus Atheist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The argument against the existence of God that I see as having any potential merit would relate to the existence of evil. The others to my mind, fall quickly. But then, even this one, with the image of Christ on the cross, the question is transformed into wonder - a God who suffers with us, a God who had intended to keep this aspect of reality for Himself, for the salvation of a free creation, to bring back to life that which had perished, that is until we grabbed and ate of that fruit. God is Love and Paul outlines its features. We were called to love in the eternal first garden, and we continue to hear that appeal, although it has grown faint and now under dire circumstances, morphs into a demand.

Before we can ask what is evil, we must understand what it is. In a universe that is grounded in a loving act of creation, It involves a departure from that Centre. We disconnect from the eternal benevolent will, through acts that are unloving. With that, we depart from our eternal Home, the prodigal son. Evil includes something out there seeking to harm us, but it can be known intimately and fully as it exists within us. It is a potential, a choice to put ourselves first, that in surrendering we demonstrate our love; through our act, we participate in our creation as loving persons. Giving into what is sin, it takes hold and grows until the lust leads to greater and greater harm not only to others, but to our eternal soul. Suffering usually comes from the unwilling loss of something that was transient and never really ours. From money, power, honour and pleasure to our very relationship with God, it is all given, however hard we have worked to attain those fruits of existence. Like Job, what can we say but “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?" and "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know . . . My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” For those who do not recall the story, after Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord gave him much more than he had in every respect. And that’s the way it works, and even while we are here on earth. The aim is to know and love God. Jesus Christ has made it possible to know Him.

The answer to the question regarding the existence of God lies in the relationship we have with Him. How badly do you want to know Him?

Sent from my iPhone
 
Bradski said:
As I said, hardly anyone comes to Christianity (including you) via that route.
Click to expand...
And who else could we include? Let’s try a hypothetical. I love them…

An Italian woman marries an Iranian immigrant in Italy. They emmigrate to Argentina and she gives birth to a baby boy in Buenos Aires. They call him Jorge Mario Baraghani. She has converted to Islam and the child is brought up as a Muslim.

What are the chances of him becoming the head of the Roman Catholic church, I wonder.

Now, if Jorge himself has zero chance of becoming pope purely because of an accident of birth, then I think that satisfactorily covers everyone elses reason for their beliefs as well. Indeed, if Jorge were to log on to this forum purely from curiosity and you were to engage with him in conversation, he would have all the answers off pat as to why Christianity has it completely wrong.

PR, you and the pope have exactly the same thing in common. You started with a belief and then went on to look for reasons to back up that belief. Incredible as it sounds, you both found lots and lots!

I’m not sure about you, but I can’t find anything that would hint at him having studied all the major religions before coming to a decision as to which one was correct. Truthfully, if he had done that, I would be impressed beyond measure. As it is now, if I were to ak him what brought him to Christianity, then I’m pretty certain he’d admit that he was born into it.
 
AgnosticBoy said:
I don’t take any pride on being a fence-sitter nor do I intend on remaining one for the rest of my life if I can help it. All that would convince me and presumably most others is good evidence and/or logic for God’s existence.
Click to expand...
the evidence must be obtained in a twofold manner, by opening the heart along with the head.

Those who proclaim only the head being open to the evidence are never going to be convinced. The head is a truth seeker, but the head and the heart together double the power of truth seeking.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
the evidence must be obtained in a twofold manner, by opening the heart along with the head.

Those who proclaim only the head being open to the evidence are never going to be convinced.
Click to expand...
So you became a Christian AFTER studying the evidence. Is that a reasonable assumption?
 
Solmyr said:
There was a great poster I have seen a long time ago. It depicted a beautifully laid-out table, with crystals and china and silverware. On the plate there was a steaming pile of excrement. The caption said: “One billion flies can’t all be wrong! Why don’t you taste it, too?”

😃
Click to expand...
Because I’m not a fly? 🤷
 
Bradski said:
So you became a Christian AFTER studying the evidence. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Click to expand...
To qualify, I became a Christian after fully realizing that all the other options were dead ends. Atheism in particular.

There is no hope in atheism.

Faith hope and charity are central to Christianity.

Why in your opinion is atheism superior to Christianity?

Does it emphasize the positive or the negative.

Atheism says no god, no soul, no afterlife, no objective human values beyond my own preference.

So explain to me how atheism is positive and why I should be attracted to it when most of the atheists I know seem to be driven by anger.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Because I’m not a fly? 🤷
Click to expand...
No, because the number of proponents is not evidence that a proposition is true.

But I notice that you responded to a post which was NOT directed toward you, and carefully avoided responding to the one which was. Do you have a coherent definition of God? One, which might not be complete, but at least “partially” true? At least we could see that you know what you are talking about… You might not be right, but at least somewhat rational.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
To qualify, I became a Christian after fully realizing that all the other options were dead ends. Atheism in particular.
Click to expand...
So you didn’t start off life as a Christian. It was only after checkng out the other options.

Do you mind filling that out a little? For example, what did you class yourself as before you became a Christian? And what was it about the other options that turned you against them? And let’s skip atheism. That’s just a rejection of ALL other options.
 
Bradski said:
So you didn’t start off life as a Christian. It was only after checkng out the other options.

Do you mind filling that out a little? For example, what did you class yourself as before you became a Christian? And what was it about the other options that turned you against them? And let’s skip atheism. That’s just a rejection of ALL other options.
Click to expand...
When you are ready to answer my questions, I will be ready to answer yours.

No dodging please. :rolleyes:
 
Solmyr said:
No, because the number of proponents is not evidence that a proposition is true.

But I notice that you responded to a post which was NOT directed toward you, and carefully avoided responding to the one which was. Do you have a coherent definition of God? One, which might not be complete, but at least “partially” true? At least we could see that you know what you are talking about… You might not be right, but at least somewhat rational.
Click to expand...
The number of proponents does not prove a proposition, but the number of proponents suggests consensus and therefore likelihood as to the truthfulness of a proposition. At first Einstein’s relativity was regarded as absurd. But as more and more proponents caught on to it, it became increasingly likely to be true. Had no one else but Einstein advanced relativity, it might be a true, yet worthless, proposition.

No definition of God would you even entertain if it was Scripturally based, so I’ll settle for the moment on Einstein’s partial definition. Tell me why you think Einstein’s definition, as expressed in the next two paragraphs, is not even partially true.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” And again, on a later occasion, Einstein said “… everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.”
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The number of proponents does not prove a proposition, but the number of proponents suggests consensus and therefore likelihood as to the truthfulness of a proposition.
Click to expand...
Back to the “one billion flies” argument?
Charlemagne_III said:
Tell me why you think Einstein’s definition, as expressed in the next two paragraphs, is not even partially true.
Click to expand...
None of those two paragraphs are a definition. Not even close. They don’t even talk about god. Try again. I opened a brand new topic for that purpose. No dodging, please… 🙂
 
Solmyr said:
None of those two paragraphs are a definition. Not even close. They don’t even talk about god. Try again. I opened a brand new topic for that purpose. No dodging, please… 🙂
Click to expand...
You asked for at least a “partial” definition of Godt. Einstein offered a definition I consider to be partial.

He clearly speaks of God as a superior Spirit that governs the universe.

Now explain why you think Einstein is offering an incoherent definition of God.

While you’re at it, you might offer an explanation as to why atheism is coherent and theism is not. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Then you need to examine the evidence.

Give us, in your own words, one argument that you’ve found compelling, and why it failed.
Click to expand...
Everything that moves is moved by another.
A moves, therefore A is moved by B
There are three possibilities:
1.A is moved by B, B is moved by C, C is moved by D and …D is moved by A (Circular)
2. A is moved by B, Bis moved by C, C is moved by D, ad infinitum (infinite regress)
3. A is moved by B, B is moved by C and … C is moved by D (the chain terminates)
So 1 cannot hold because the cyclical argument is repugnant.
2 cannot hold because an infinite regress is repugnant.
Therefore 3 must hold. So the chain terminates at some point and we arrive at the unmoved Mover.
Why does this argument fail.
First of all, 1 and 2 although they are repugnant are possible. Gravity supplies the extra energy needed to keep the chain moving.
Secondly, for 3, I don;t see how God can be an unMoved Mover. At every Mass, God responds to the prayers, by coming down to earth and effecting the miracle of Transubstantiation. And God did come down from heaven and was made man 2000 years ago. God responds to our prayers. So God is not unmoved.
 
PRmerger said:
you do know that proposing that the universe extends in time infinitely in the past is logically absurd, right?
Click to expand...
No. I didn’t know that. I thought that mathematics was a logically consistent theory and that the assumption that time extends ad infinitum in the past and ad infinitum in the future presented no violation of any logical rule or law.
 
Bradski said:
And why point to Augustine as an example of someone who came to Christianity via a philosophical route only? His mother was a Christian when he was born for heaven’s sake and his father became one before Augustine was 16. That’s a very bad example indeed.
Click to expand...
What the…what??

This is a “very bad example indeed” because Augustine’s parents were Christian?

We’re giving examples and we have to consider the parents?

What about a spouse?
What about the neighbors?
What about his veterinarian?

Should those be factors too that we need to eliminate?

Me: Here’s another example of someone who studied his way into the Catholic Church.
Bradsk: Yeah, well his first wife flirted with becoming a nun in high school, so… That’s a very bad example indeed.

Me: Here’s another example of someone who studied his way into the Catholic Church.
Bradski: Yeah, well his neighbor was a priest, so… That’s a very bad example indeed.

Me: Here’s another example of someone who studied his way into the Catholic Church.
Bradski: Yeah, well his veterinarian was also a convert. And, let me tell you, they had some really sick pets so he saw her at least once a month for 2 years so… That’s a very bad example indeed.

Wow. Just wow.
 
Bradski said:
I know them all. They suffer in comparison to the one I gave. If I were presenting the case for Christianity, it would be the first one I’d use.

You can’t ask me for what I consider to be the best and then reject my answer.
Click to expand...
All I’m saying is that it’s no wonder you’re an atheist.

I would be an atheist too if the only argument I ever considered was, “Hey, there’s a whole lot of Believers in the world”.

I would be against vaccinating my children if I though, “Wow. The best argument for vaccinating is that the little goldfish family I saw in my grandma’s house didn’t live very long…and I’m 100% certain they didn’t vaccinate their offspring, so…”

Not sure why you’re so afraid to study the arguments.

One has to wonder what emotional attachment there is to this unexamined rejection.
 
Bradski said:
So you didn’t start off life as a Christian.
Click to expand...
You do know that everyone starts out life as a pagan, yes?

Some of us become Christians after a few months.

But NO ONE “starts off life as a Christian.”
 
Solmyr said:
Do you have a coherent definition of God?
Click to expand...
God is the necessary, transcendent, immaterial, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient creator of all that exists.

Pretty basic stuff.

Theology 101.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top