Agnostic versus Atheist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
 
PRmerger said:
Point remains: you immunized your kids because you were immunized. Your family immunizes. Your country immunizes.

You did about this much research?..
Click to expand...
You get a fail on that. Epilepsy runs in my wife’s family. We did a LOT of research. I can’t believe anyone does it without investigating all possible outcomes in any case. Nobody put anything at all into my kids without me knowing the details.

Either way, zero connection to the matter in hand, notwithstanding that the example wasn’t relevant.
 
"There wasn’t really a time when I wasn’t an atheist. My parents are both atheists, so that’s how I was raised. "–Leah Libresco

Jennifer Fulwiler: “Born and raised in a skeptical home, which valued Carl Sagan more than Jesus, Jennifer developed an ardent atheism. She rejected God and joyously mocked religion.”…and then she converted to…Catholicism.

Melinda Selmys: “Basically, I was a young atheist. I had been raised as a liberal Anglican, but when I hit the age of reason I had questions about God and about faith.”…also a convert to…Catholicism.

(NB: “liberal Anglicanism” is essentially the same as “atheism” ;))
 
Bradski said:
You get a fail on that. Epilepsy runs in my wife’s family. We did a LOT of research. I can’t believe anyone does it without investigating all possible outcomes in any case. Nobody put anything at all into my kids without me knowing the details.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I can’t take that on faith.

And why would epilepsy cause anyone to question vaccinating one’s child?
Either way, zero connection to the matter in hand, notwithstanding that the example wasn’t relevant.
Click to expand...
Well, why don’t you answer whether this is your paradigm: many folks believe in A, and have never really investigated A. Therefore A is really a myth.

Yes? That is your position?
 
PRmerger said:
Oh, yeah. I know. 🙂
Click to expand...
That is encouraging. Now let’s see if you understand the following:

For an atheist the problem of evil is nonexistent.

Since it happened before that someone countered this by saying: “so, when your 4 years old asks you why his friend died in cancer, do you answer: that is not a problem”. Due to the rules of charitable behavior, I will swallow my off-the-bat reply. Instead of that I will explain it a little further.

For an atheist the philosophical problem of evil is nonexistent.

Hopefully you will understand the difference. If not, just ask. Ah, and one does NOT engage in a philosophical debate with a 4 years old - or anyone under the age of reason.
 
Solmyr said:
For an atheist the problem of evil is nonexistent.
Click to expand...
That is simply contrary to fact.

You have a problem in that you have no way to comfort your child when his cousin dies.

You just have to say, “It’s just the way it is. It’s not fair.”

#totallyotiose
 
PRmerger said:
"There wasn’t really a time when I wasn’t an atheist. My parents are both atheists, so that’s how I was raised. "–Leah Libresco

Jennifer Fulwiler: “Born and raised in a skeptical home, which valued Carl Sagan more than Jesus, Jennifer developed an ardent atheism. She rejected God and joyously mocked religion.”…and then she converted to…Catholicism.

Melinda Selmys: “Basically, I was a young atheist. I had been raised as a liberal Anglican, but when I hit the age of reason I had questions about God and about faith.”…also a convert to…Catholicism.

(NB: “liberal Anglicanism” is essentially the same as “atheism” ;))
Click to expand...
How does this even begin to counter what I have been saying?

The first is a classic example of my argument. It is nonsensical to simply state your beliefs as a function of your parents. If you are using this as an argument for how mind numbingly stupid it is, then you are only confirming what I have been saying.

At least, I assume that you are using is as an example of thoughtless acceptance. I’m not sure anyone suggested this is purely the domain of Catholics. It is idiotic whoever does it.

The second says that she ‘developed’ an atheistic outlet, not that she blindly accepted it (which would have been, as we both seem to agree, wrong).

And the third admits that he was ‘raised as an Anglican’ which is an example of my point. And again, using your first example, appears to be something you consider to be wrong.

All your examples run counter, not only to what you have been arguing, but to each other. Maybe you should clear the air and state whether blindly stating your beliefs based on nothing more than your accident of birth and/or your upbringing, is a good idea or not.

Or whether one should wait until some basic investigation has been undertaken before classing oneself as a believer or not, and then fine tuning it to a particular religion. And maybe, at some indeterminate point, a member of a particular denomination.
 
PRmerger said:
Well, why don’t you answer whether this is your paradigm: many folks believe in A, and have never really investigated A. Therefore A is really a myth.
Click to expand...
Are you reading my posts? It seriously seems not. That is a complete word salad mess. Do I really have to type this out?
  1. Many people believe and have believed in God. Billions of people, centuries, Vatican, ceilings, statues, painting, sacrifce etc.
  2. That is one of the arguments for a belief in God. One that theologians use.
  3. It is one of the least worst arguments for God, but one that is common to almost all Christians.
  4. It is a shockingly bad argument for God.
  5. None of the above has ANY relationship to whether God is a myth or not. It neither proves or disproves God. It has no influence of any other theological of philosophical argument whatsoever.
 
Here’s an article: Religion Runs in the Family
christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/august-web-only/religion-runs-in-family.html

Another report:
“Counting Flocks and Lost Sheep: Trends in Religious Preference Since
World War II”
By Tom W. Smith, Univerity of Chicago, hosted by umich.edu:
icpsr.umich.edu:8080/GSS/rnd1998/reports/s-reports/soc26.htm

Survey respondents were asked if they were raised in a
particular religion and whether they had ever switched to another
denomination or preferred no religion at all.
Table 29 of the study presents the percent of people raised in a
particular religion who reported currently being members of that same
faith:

Table 29

A. Major Religions

Protestant 90.4%
Catholic 82.3
Jewish 86.6
Other 70.5
None 45.4
 
PRmerger said:
You have a problem in that you have no way to comfort your child when his cousin dies.
Click to expand...
What the heck, let me waste a few more minutes to explain. The “problem of evil” has nothing to do with comforting a child. It is a philosophical problem where some Christian apologist attempts to reconcile the state of affairs with God’s alleged omnipotence and assumed benevolence.

Since atheists do not believe in God or his omnipotence / benevolence, this problem of philosophy is nonexistent for them. They don’t need to analyze it, they are not compelled to resolve it for you. And during the last two thousand years, not one theologian was able to come up with a solution. And most are willing to admit it.
PRmerger said:
5 year olds understand BASIC MATH, Sol.
Click to expand...
The problem of gratuitous suffering has nothing to do with basic math. Nor with 5 years old kids.
 
Solmyr said:
What the heck, let me waste a few more minutes to explain. The “problem of evil” has nothing to do with comforting a child. It is a philosophical problem where some Christian apologist attempts to reconcile the state of affairs with God’s alleged omnipotence and assumed benevolence.

Since atheists do not believe in God or his omnipotence / benevolence, this problem of philosophy is nonexistent for them. They don’t need to analyze it, they are not compelled to resolve it for you. And during the last two thousand years, not one theologian was able to come up with a solution. And most are willing to admit it.
Click to expand...
😃

That’s quite a lot of words to say: yes, there is no satisfactory answer I could give to my child.

Oh, and I added something to my Profile Page. You’re “interested in me”, so I just wanted to give you a heads up. 🙂
 
Bradski said:
How does this even begin to counter what I have been saying?
Click to expand...
They are examples of folks who studied their way into the Faith.

It counters this statements you made here:
Directly counters it, in fact.
Bradski said:
People are brought up as Christians and therefore believe in God. I personally know scores of Christians. In fact, when growing up, I didn’t know anyone who WASN’T a Christian.

And not a single one, to the very best of my knowledge, became a Christian because they studied theological or philosophical arguments. Not a single one. I literally didn’t know, or know now, anyone who could iterate a philosophical argument for God. I would put a lot of money on none of them knowing who Anselm or Aquinas was (with the exception of the clergy I knew).

Even those clergy,mInwould be willing to bet, came to Christianity via their upbringing. And THEN learnt the arguments that purported to uphold their existing beliefs.

So, yeah. Lots of people believe in God. Best argument there is. And whar a shocker…
Click to expand...
 
DaveBj said:
Basically, an atheist proclaims that there is no deity of any kind. An agnostic offers some variation of “I don’t know/don’t think we can know whether or not there is a deity of any kind.”
Click to expand...
Atheists see no “evidence” of God and thus do not believe. Agnostics may not see the evidence either but leave the question open. Perhaps they there also live as atheists with no beleif, religious practice or spiritual interest.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Atheists see no “evidence” of God and thus do not believe. Agnostics may not see the evidence either but leave the question open. Perhaps they there also live as atheists with no beleif, religious practice or spiritual interest.
Click to expand...
Please remember that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Many atheists simply say that some god or gods might exist, but they see no evidence which is sufficient for them. In other words they are agnostic atheists. Other atheists say that the concept of the Christian God is logically incoherent, just like a “married bachelor”, and that is why they don’t believe.
 
Solmyr said:
Please remember that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Many atheists simply say that some god or gods might exist, but they see no evidence which is sufficient for them. In other words they are agnostic atheists. Other atheists say that the concept of the Christian God is logically incoherent, just like a “married bachelor”, and that is why they don’t believe.
Click to expand...
Agnosticism in some cases is compatible with atheism but in other cases it is not. Agnostics can be completely neutral, that is, without belief nor disbelief.

I also question those atheists who tend to claim that they don’t know that God exists but then want to claim that their belief is reasonable or in other words their belief is based on rational reason x,y,z. What is knowledge (or a claim thereof) if not a belief based on evidence and reason? Why are some atheists afraid to take the next step and just claim that they KNOW the Christian God does NOT exist? Do atheists simply “not believe” the biblical stories about talking donkeys as opposed to knowing that it’s fiction? smh :rolleyes:
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Atheists see no “evidence” of God and thus do not believe. Agnostics may not see the evidence either but leave the question open. Perhaps they there also live as atheists with no beleif, religious practice or spiritual interest.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we can paint all atheists with the same brush but for the most part I agree with you. While many try to explain atheists based on the definition, I tend to go to the heart of the issue and explain atheism based on the behavior or actions of atheists. The behavior explains why some put some degree of difference between agnostics and atheists, and that is because agnostics tend to be more open to God than atheists in terms of behavior (in debates, in approach, in thinking, etc).
 
Solmyr said:
In other words they are agnostic atheists. Other atheists say that the concept of the Christian God is logically incoherent, just like a “married bachelor”, and that is why they don’t believe.
Click to expand...
That seems like that would be a slam dunk for the atheist.

No thinking person would embrace God if it was a logical contradiction.

Yeah–I think that this argument fails…there’s no logical contradiction that can be argued for God’s existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top