Maybe. I’m a convinced atheist, but I’ll usually accept an offer of prayer as a well-intentioned gesture. Even if I feel like making a snide comment in return, the worst it would probably be is to ask “what would that do?”This will surely bring forth a fair distinction, for the atheist might, in general, be unimpressed with such an offer, while the agnostic might instead be better willing to appreciate the sentiment that may lie behind same.
They’re not really common, I think, but they’re out there. How rare they are would again depend on how broadly you (or they) would apply the label “agnostic.” I know some people who say that anyone who believes (or disbelieves) in God with anything less than abosulte, 100% certainty is some kind of agnostic. I think that definition is too broad to be useful.I’ve never known an agnostic, or heard of one, who prays.
I would disagree there. Speaking for myself, I do want to know God, if one exists.I think both the agnostic and the atheist share the common bond of not wanting to know God.
Why they don’t want to know God varies from one person to another.
I’ve tried that. And many variations of that, to no avail (so far).But the start of conversion begins with a simple prayer, not with a cerebral conviction.
“Lord, if you are there, give me faith!”
I’m curious, are you merely generalizing here or do you see all atheists as closed-minded?An agnostic is still open to reason and thinking.
An atheist has closed his or her mind.
About the “blaming God” thing, one thing to watch for is whether or not they’re speaking hypothetically: “if God exists, then God allowed this to happen.” They might not phrase it that way, though, but they may still intend it as an internal critique of your views, accepting God’s existence for the sake of argument, basically.Curiously enough, some atheists do blame God for the bad things. It’s really quite weird.
I hear this all the time from atheists. When I ask them what it would take to convince them God exists, they seem to demand nothing less than a personal meet-and-greet, as you might meet-and-greet any great potentate.I would disagree there. Speaking for myself, I do want to know God, if one exists.
Hmm. Well here goes: What if the “if” has to burn out. There are no ifs to the truth, to reality, to who it is that we are and wherein lies our Ground of being. There Is no if when we hurt. (And, it will really, really hurt.) It is real, as we are real, as is He who is the Source of our being - Love itself. The answer is nowhere but now and here, in that dot that skims the page giving light and meaning to the world. Ultimately, it is in the relationship with He who is the one love that fills all time and space in the brilliance of life eternal. Are you content with words and ideas? Can they ever suffice? We must look life straight in the eye. Who are you? Hunt it down and you will know that it was He who was always at your heels.. . . I do want to know God, if one exists. I’ve tried that. And many variations of that, to no avail (so far).
The evidence needed would depend on the God inquestion; some of them are more likely than others and would take less to convince me.I hear this all the time from atheists. When I ask them what it would take to convince them God exists, they seem to demand nothing less than a personal meet-and-greet, as you might meet-and-greet any great potentate.
What would it take to convince you? A miracle? That’s problematic.
Jesus performed many miracles in Jerusalem. They denied his divinity anyway and killed him…
I would reply (when I’m having a fit of theism) “I don’t know!”… comment in return, the worst it would probably be is to ask “what would that do?”
It is often the last.Is one wise to commit to that with which they are uncertain? Is uncertainty a result of a lack of will to seek answers, or is it more possibly a result of the discovery that each possible answer merely brings along with it a proportionately greater number of questions?
That’s usually an answer I’m happy to get when I’m talking to theists about these kinds of things. It not one I get very often, though.I would reply (when I’m having a fit of theism) “I don’t know!”
One often doesn’t find out, till years later.
Good to assume good of the many good atheists. A few who aren’t don’t invalidate your position because you are individuals.… Someone says “I don’t know” sounds like they have questions and not all the answers. Sounds like both are being honest-apparently brutally honest.
An atheist I would assume is taking responsibility for their actions by not blaming god or some diabolical being for their faults, how they behave or misbehave.
A “believer” may blame god for what is happening to them or others because they aren’t good enough. Some feel god is punishing them by making them sick or poor, etc… and if that isn’t enough they somehow feel that some diabolical being (satan or one of his minions) is always trying to get them to slip up and send them to hell. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions. …
My experience with atheists (having been one myself) is that there is no God to perform miracles; so if anything like a miracle occurred, the atheist would find some way to explain it away as a some kind of natural event for which science will someday find an explanation, or as a slight of hand trick, or as a delusional moment. If you don’t believe in God, there is no way you are going to accept anything as a miracle.Miracles would actually be good, not problematic.
That’s closed minded as in ‘they don’t agree with me’.I’m curious, are you merely generalizing here or do you see all atheists as closed-minded?
Some atheists disbelieve; some claim to disprove; some forbid others to believe.Agnosticism is more intellectually valid than Atheism in that it allows for proof of a God and really just says that they don’t know if there is a God. Atheism on the other hand, is as intellectually challenging as a belief in God. They are saying they can prove there is no God, an absurd position intellectually. …
Not exactly. As a naturalist, I would assign a low probability to a supernatural explanation when presented with a possible miracle, but I’m not so confident in my beliefs that I rule at any possibility of a non-natural explanation to a supposed miracle. Natural explanations (if any, and if they’re reasonable ones, anyway) would need to be ruled out to increase the likelihood of a supernatural explanation, but that’s not impossible. I have a few in mind that, if they happened to me, would turn me into a believer pretty much on the spot because I would think a natural explanation is that unlikely.My experience with atheists (having been one myself) is that there is no God to perform miracles; so if anything like a miracle occurred, the atheist would find some way to explain it away as a some kind of natural event for which science will someday find an explanation, or as a slight of hand trick, or as a delusional moment. If you don’t believe in God, there is no way you are going to accept anything as a miracle.
Unduly coercive? I find that difficult to accept in general, but I can’t accept it at all in my case. I’ve prayed - many times, with all the sincerity that I could muster - that whatever God exists would reveal itself to me, give me faith, show me the error in my reasoning or help me see the evidence I’ve overlooked, whatever it would take to make me believe. There would be no violation of my will in this case, because I want to believe, provided that a God actually exists.Remember too, that the miracles performed by Jesus were performed only for those who had the humility to believe. So there another reason God is not going to jump through any hoops to persuade an atheist, not to mention that it would be unduly coercive.
KTS, I think it is a part generalisation.…
An atheist has closed his or her mind.
Kind of a Catch 22 isn’t it…If you don’t believe in God, there is no way you are going to accept anything as a miracle.
Does this make you feel indignant, Charlemagne?I hear this all the time from atheists. When I ask them what it would take to convince them God exists, they seem to demand nothing less than a personal meet-and-greet, as you might meet-and-greet any great potentate. …
He certainly sounds indignant. So if we were visited by God, then why would that change? He must surely be even more indignant.Does this make you feel indignant, Charlemagne?
This is quite possible. I must admit that a miracle that might arise in my vicinity would most certainly be scrutinized to discount any natural possibility prior to conceding it to be of divine origin…yet some forms of miracles must certainly be possible that would meet such a standard. I possess several large aquariums so if, for a simple example, my fish were to form an altar in their tank and enact a Mass complete with aquatic homily and singing to tiny hymnals, I would certainly have more than sufficient proof for my needs…yet even so grandiose an event such as this is not necessarily required to meet my threshold.My experience with atheists (having been one myself) is that there is no God to perform miracles; so if anything like a miracle occurred, the atheist would find some way to explain it away as a some kind of natural event for which science will someday find an explanation, or as a slight of hand trick, or as a delusional moment. If you don’t believe in God, there is no way you are going to accept anything as a miracle.
My current standard for use in deciding whether to believe is to consider the net results of belief versus disbelief in our world of every day events…currently I remain undecided.Remember too, that the miracles performed by Jesus were performed only for those who had the humility to believe. So there another reason God is not going to jump through any hoops to persuade an atheist, not to mention that it would be unduly coercive.