Agnostic versus Atheist

[ThinkingSapien]

Please stop asking about my family. Invasion of privacy there.

Just an FYI, asking is not invasion. It seems beyond an exaggeration to label it as such. Now if he came into your house and read your journal or hacked into the computer to get the information then an invasion could be said to have occurred. It’s a personal question, but not an invasion.

 

[Aloysium]

Charlie’s got to let Sol in to have access to such personal information.
Charlie has a choice. When our choices are not respected, when the boundaries are violated, we feel humiliated and abused.
It goes back our sense of self and the trust we have in others.
Invasions, such as rape result in a breakdown of both.
Sapien would be correct in saying that this isn’t an invasion in that sense. But, let’s examine Sol’s comment, the one that elicited such a strong response, to which Sapien commented in a rather detached, pedantic way.

And how accurate was I about the family? Close? I think that you would have corrected me in no uncertain terms if I was wrong. You still can if I was…

Whether or not Sol realizes how he comes across to people, which may explain why he has been treated as he has in life, there is an underlying anger that the quote clearly demonstrates.
It’s hardly a friendly, inquisitive wanting to know someone, is it?
There a manipulative quality pressing the person to respond.
The fact is that what is personal, touching on our relationships with those we love is tied to intense emotion. A dragon sleeps, cradling the heart, awakening to devour those who threaten love.
Sol clear demonstrates himself to be an enemy, not so much to be feared but despised. It is his entire manner here, coming for no apparent reason but to inflict damage on people’s beliefs.

You want to know what is intrusion. It’s what I’ve just written. I wrote it thinking that sometimes people need to hear the truth.

 

[Cheiron]

With respect to the existence of God, what material difference is there between being an agnostic and being an atheist?

Your thoughts?

There isn’t that much of a difference. Agnosticism is generally understood as having doubt about God’s existence. I’m ofcourse open to the possibility that God exists, so perhaps technically I’m agnostic. But I don’t take the possibility of God’s existence into account when I go about my daily business. That’s why I prefer to describe myself as an atheist.

 

[Solmyr]

Charlie’s got to let Sol in to have access to such personal information.

I wonder what are you talking about? I did not make a comment to Charlie in the last 4 or 5 pages.

You want to know what is intrusion. It’s what I’ve just written. I wrote it thinking that sometimes people need to hear the truth.

I would not call it an intrusion. It is just factually incorrect. But that is fine - as long as you are willing to realize that you were mistaken.

 

[PRmerger]

He pretty much nails it.

Someone tell PR that one of the foremost (cough, cough) theologians has it in his top twenty. It’s in my top twenty as well. At number one.

Probably still not good enough, though. The reason being that it’s so bloody awfull of an argument. But easily the least worst in my opinion. Which, if memory serves, I was asked.

Yeah. When you present it as a caricature it’s unrecognizable to me.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no basic math here. No amount of “super - lollipops” can make up even for a millisecond of gratuitous suffering. These are incommensurables.

This ^^.



I think even a 5 year old would understand the basic math: “Wait, you mean that if I wait a teeny tiny second outside of Disneyworld as punishment, even if it’s for something I didn’t do [that way, it’s “gratuitous”], I get to stay in Disneyworld for days and days and days? Wow. Yes, please! I’m in!”

 

[PRmerger]

Just an FYI, asking is not invasion. It seems beyond an exaggeration to label it as such. Now if he came into your house and read your journal or hacked into the computer to get the information then an invasion could be said to have occurred. It’s a personal question, but not an invasion.

Just so you know, no one is under any obligation to answer any personal questions on a forum.

And no one should read anything into one’s refusal to answer such questions.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Just so you know, no one is under any obligation to answer any personal questions on a forum.

Yep, no one has a duty to answer or respond. Participation in these forums is voluntary and anyone can walk away, block, or refuse to interact at any time for any reason.

And no one should read anything into one’s refusal to answer such questions.

Ignoring some of the potential ambiguities that can come from usages of the word “should” I’ll just say that I won’t agree with you on this one. Sometimes not saying anything is making a statement; a statement from which inferences or hypotheses might be made. It’s situational and may be dependent on other factors and information in addition to the lack of response(s).

 

[Solmyr]

This ^^.



I think even a 5 year old would understand the basic math: “Wait, you mean that if I wait a teeny tiny second outside of Disneyworld as punishment, even if it’s for something I didn’t do [that way, it’s “gratuitous”], I get to stay in Disneyworld for days and days and days? Wow. Yes, please! I’m in!”

A 5-years old, who is WAY below the age of reason; who has no understanding of gratuitous and unfair suffering … might. After all, they are motivated by immediate reward and their attention span is measurable in seconds, or maybe minutes. If that is your “best argument”, the understanding of a 5-years old, then it is useless to talk to you.

People “above the age of reason” will disagree. If you perform / allow unnecessary, gratuitous suffering, then no amount of “super - lollipops” will make up for it. After all the “super - lollipops” would be there WITHOUT the unnecessary suffering. They will say: “why should I be exposed to suffering if it serves no purpose?”. And: “Are you some kind of psychopath, who gets satisfaction from seeing unnecessary suffering?”

---

Now, I will redirect your “attention” to the real question I presented. Do you realize that for atheists the “problem of evil” is nonexistent? I am really curious about it.

 

[PRmerger]

Ignoring some of the potential ambiguities that can come from usages of the word “should” I’ll just say that I won’t agree with you on this one. Sometimes not saying anything is making a statement; a statement from which inferences or hypotheses might be made. It’s situational and may be dependent on other factors and information in addition to the lack of response(s).

Absolutely not.

If someone asks me a personal question, such as, “I picture you as a doughy, pasty white Englishman–is this correct?”

and I do not engage…NO ONE should make any inference from my lack of response.

And that’s just one example.

Here’s another: I noticed that Solmyr has visited my Profile Page. Numerous times.

I could ask him, “Why did you visit my page? Are you fascinated by me?”

and his lack of response in this matter ought not be interpreted as indignation, embarrassment, or any other negative.

This is a thread about atheism and agnosticism, and personal questions have no place here.

 

[Solmyr]

Here’s another: I noticed that Solmyr has visited my Profile Page. Numerous times.

I could ask him, “Why did you visit my page? Are you fascinated by me?”

Here is a response to your hypothetical “non-question”. “Fascinated”, no. Interested, yes. I visit some people’s profile page, and neglect others. Just like I observe that some people visit my page. There is nothing to be gained by making assumptions based upon this fact.

 

[PRmerger]

Here is a response to your hypothetical “non-question”. “Fascinated”, no. Interested, yes.

Oh, yeah. I know.

 

[Bradski]

Fair enough.

I think, then, that the summary that Bradski provided is quite different–a caricature, really–of what Kreeft argues.

It is most definately not different. It is exactly the same. To repeat:

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

Was that too simple to follow? So let me put it another way. Paraphrasing Kreeft.

Belief in God is common to countless people over the ages. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this or they have not. It is plausible to believe that they have not. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.

In other words, so many people believe in God, then He must exist. It’s the least worst argument.mall you will find someway tomrejectbthat opinion - yet again - beacuse it’s not the one you wanted. Because it is such a bad argument.

‘No, Bradski, you should have picked another one. One that I can support. Thenone you gave is an awful argument that a child could demolish’.

It is, isn’t it. But again, if I were to try to convince someone that God existed, it would be the first one I’d use. Easily the best and most easily understood. But still a shocker.

 

[PRmerger]

It is most definately not different. It is exactly the same. To repeat:

Fair enough.

I stand corrected.

I asked for an argument for God’s existence and you gave one.

I’m still not fully ready to retract my assertion that you haven’t really studied the arguments for God existence.

I think you’ve looked at them in a cursory way, and you are definitely more familiar with them than the other atheists/agnostics on this forum, but that’s not the same thing as considering the arguments and digesting them.

 

[Bradski]

I asked for an argument for God’s existence and you gave one.

And isn’t it head and shoulders over all the rest. No need for philosophical word play or theological spoon bending. This is something that anyone, and everyone, understands. It’s why the vast majority of Christians are indeed Christians. Once it reached a critical mass, it became self supporting.

You started off as a Christian because you were brought up as a Christian. Same as Charles, although he is determined not to admit it. So was Augustine, so was the pope. So was, I’d be willing to wager, every Christian you know. Certainly all the ones I know.

If any of them were, at some later stage in life, to investigate philosophical or theological arguments for the existence of God, then how do you think they would react to those arguments? Arguments which are set out to confirm that which they already believe. Augustine et al are almost literally preaching to the choir.

So skip the theological and philosophical arguments. One, as far as I am concerned, they don’t work. And two, hardly anyone would be interested enough or cogent enough with the concepts to bother mulling them over in the first instance and three (this is the doozy), they are not required in any case. People believe in God without them. People are born into the religion.

So if someone doesn’t believe, then take them to St Mark’s Square. Show them the thousands upon thousands of devoted Catholics. Show them the architecture. The colonnades. Put some Bach through her headphones (maybe ‘Jesu, joy of man’s desiring’) and walk them through the Sistine Chapel and tell them to look up.

Let her soak in the history of the Catholic Church. The artists, the architects, the poets, the painters, the life of Christ in every panel, on every painting, in every aria, the Son of God moulded in marble at every turn. The men and women who devote lifetimes to a belief in Christ.

How could someone even contemplate that this is all for nothing? Centuries of sacrifice. Lives without number devoted to God. There must be something here. Surely, all these people cannot be wrong…

Look her in the eyes and ask that question. There’s no need for philosophical debate.

I’m still not fully ready to retract my assertion that you haven’t really studied the arguments for God existence.

That’s not my problem.

 

[PRmerger]

And isn’t it head and shoulders over all the rest.

I don’t find it to be.

No need for philosophical word play or theological spoon bending. This is something that anyone, and everyone, understands. It’s why the vast majority of Christians are indeed Christians. Once it reached a critical mass, it became self supporting.

This presupposes that these Christians haven’t examined their faith and are simply Christians by attrition.

I don’t know that to be the case.

You started off as a Christian because you were brought up as a Christian.

Yes. And then I “examined everything and held fast to what is true”

So was Augustine, so was the pope. So was, I’d be willing to wager, every Christian you know.

This is a tautology: everyone who is a Christian is a Christian.

And you can follow a whole lot of conversion stories here:

The Journey Home.

Many a searcher has come Home to the CC because of a robust intellectual journey.

If any of them were, at some later stage in life, to investigate philosophical or theological arguments for the existence of God, then how do you think they would react to those arguments?

Why, I think that they would come to a fuller understanding of the truth! What an odd question.

That’s not my problem.

Stop being so testy, luv.

 

[PRmerger]

If any of them were, at some later stage in life, to investigate philosophical or theological arguments for the existence of God, then how do you think they would react to those arguments? Arguments which are set out to confirm that which they already believe. Augustine et al are almost literally preaching to the choir.

I think a parallel here is your attitude towards immunizing your children.

You were immunized. Your wife was immunized. You immunized your children.

Just like millions of folks who didn’t get it a second thought except, “Will her arm be sore? She has volleyball practice tonight!”

What do you think would happen if “any of them were, at some later stage in life, to investigate the medical arguments for immunizations”?

What’s your answer to this?

It seems as if your argument is this: many folks believe in A, and have never really investigated A. Therefore A is really a myth.

(Now when A is religion, that’s your conclusion, but when A is immunizations, I’m pretty sure your answer is going to be, “Well, immunizations are good whether millions of people have simply accepted its goodness. That they are uneducated about it, and still go along with it is UNRELATED to whether immunizations are good.”

 

[Bradski]

This is a tautology: everyone who is a Christian is a Christian.

And you can follow a whole lot of conversion stories here:The Journey Home.

You are not contradicting anything I said. Which was that the vast majority of Christians are born into Christianity. No theological musing before making the call. No theological debate before classing oneself as a Christian.

Which means that almost everyone, at some point, has stated a belief in God (they say that they are, after all, Christians), without going through any process of checking the veracity of the belief whatsoever.

How many arguments did Kreeft give? What proportion of Christians went through a single one of them before declaring themselves as such.

I would hazard a guess that any who did so thought my best argument was good enough.

And not that I have the time or the inclination to watch an hour of someone talking about their search for meaning, isn’t the title of the series ‘The Journey Home’? That is, returning from whence you came? From where you started? Going back to becoming a Christian? Which is what all those guys on the videos were from Day One.

Still, nice that they eventually put some thought into why they were Christian in the first place. Them being Christian in the first place being my whole point…

I think a parallel here is your attitude towards immunizing your children.

Zero connection whatsoever. These immunisation arguments had a limited shelf life in the first instance. Trying to squeeze them and beat them into a shape to fit into all discussions isn’t working.

 

[PRmerger]

Zero connection whatsoever. These immunisation arguments had a limited shelf life in the first instance. Trying to squeeze them and beat them into a shape to fit into all discussions isn’t working.

Point remains: you immunized your kids because you were immunized. Your family immunizes. Your country immunizes.

You did about this much research:



But the fact is, whether one investigates or not, immunizations work.

QED

 

[PRmerger]

And not that I have the time or the inclination to watch an hour of someone talking about their search for meaning, isn’t the title of the series ‘The Journey Home’? That is, returning from whence you came? From where you started? Going back to becoming a Christian? Which is what all those guys on the videos were from Day One.

Don’t be too literal, friend.

“Home” simply means: where you belong.