Agnostic versus Atheist

[CHRISTINE77]

He was in charge… I am reminded of a time me and another man were doing the “you go first” in a situation. He stated “I wish a girl was here we wouldn’t be scared”

My intital reaction was why he would use a girl as a protector, but he pointed out we would be arguing over who goes first in reverse. See when we have a charge, we must no longer have our concerns in the same manner.

If I walk alone in the woods I am prepared to jump and run from a snake, if I walk with my son I am prepared to pick him up and place my body in the path of a strike.

In this case he held his wife. The element of protection does not form the same kind of fear as “I am going to die” so much so as acting in a way to do your best to save the other.

The same thing crossed my mind. I think you are right.

 

[PRmerger]

If I read that someone was in a desperate situation and didn’t find him or herself calling out to the God of their choice, then I have no reason to doubt whatbthey are saying.

You won’t find many people that are more sceptical than I am, but there has to be a reason for the scepticism. I don’t simply distrust everything. So if someone says they didin’t call for divine help, then that is acceptable to me unless a think that they have a reason for lying.

I would have to think that I was the only atheist alive and everyone else was just kidding themselves.

Sorry, but I am simply holding up the paradigm which has been posited to Christians.

It seems that there is curious paradigm being espoused here: “I will believe some things on faith but not other things”.

I think it has been proven, many times here over the years that atheists believe so very many things based on faith alone.

One has to wonder, then, why their standard is so peculiarly evidence-based when it comes to theology.

“I won’t believe unless there’s evidence that meets criteria A, B and C”.

“Oh wait. I believe that there are atheists in foxholes simply because someone told me so.”

Peculiar, no?

 

[Bradski]

Sorry, but I am simply holding up the paradigm which has been posited to Christians.

It seems that there is curious paradigm being espoused here: “I will believe some things on faith but not other things”.

I think it has been proven, many times here over the years that atheists believe so very many things based on faith alone.

One has to wonder, then, why their standard is so peculiarly evidence-based when it comes to theology.

“I won’t believe unless there’s evidence that meets criteria A, B and C”.

“Oh wait. I believe that there are atheists in foxholes simply because someone told me so.”

Peculiar, no?

Peculiar? No.

You are forever confusing accepting what people tell you as a given because there are no good reasons not to believe them and accepting things as a fact.

If someone tells me that they have not called on supernatural help in times of stress, the only reason I could doubt them would be to assume that they were lying for some reason.

If you want to doubt it, then please feel free. Although on whT basis you would do so is unclear. Maybe you think all atheists are not actually atheist. They only claim to be so until it is no longer suitable.

Needless to say, I am mildly annoyed at the implication as I’m sure you would be if someone called into doubt your beliefs.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

From a conjecture and naturally less provable point of view. If God, then theologically it is possible to stay an atheist. Just what happens after desth might not be pleasant.

I agree that whether someone can maintain a lack of faith during a time of crisis has no bearing on what awaits us after death (if anything). I don’t think anybody here has made that connection, certainly not anyone who says it’s possible to continue being a non-believer both during and after a tumultuous event.

That’s not the point of contention here. The question is whether that continuing atheism or agnosticism can occur in places like a foxhole. When given a list of 200 men and women who in the defense of their country and stating they’ve done just that, there are those who plug their ears, go all-in with obtuseness, and deny what these brave people state.

One can disagree with another’s beliefs or lack thereof (even finding it silly or nonsensical) while at the same time not try to undercut those beliefs by claiming falsely that they are not sincere.

 

[LethalMouse]

I agree that whether someone can maintain a lack of faith during a time of crisis has no bearing on what awaits us after death (if anything). I don’t think anybody here has made that connection, certainly not anyone who says it’s possible to continue being a non-believer both during and after a tumultuous event.

That’s not the point of contention here. The question is whether that continuing atheism or agnosticism can occur in places like a foxhole. When given a list of 200 men and women who in the defense of their country and stating they’ve done just that, there are those who plug their ears, go all-in with obtuseness, and deny what these brave people state.

One can disagree with another’s beliefs or lack thereof (even finding it silly or nonsensical) while at the same time not try to undercut those beliefs by claiming falsely that they are not sincere.

Fair points

 

[PRmerger]

Peculiar? No.

You are forever confusing accepting what people tell you as a given because there are no good reasons not to believe them and accepting things as a fact.

Hmmm…not sure what you’re referring to here, whether it’s for yourself only, or do you think this is what you’re saying to Christians?

 

[PRmerger]

If someone tells me that they have not called on supernatural help in times of stress, the only reason I could doubt them would be to assume that they were lying for some reason.

So you believe things which are unfalsifiable?

That’s…odd.

 

[PRmerger]

If you want to doubt it, then please feel free. Although on whT basis you would do so is unclear.

What the what??? “On what basis you would do so is unclear?”

I can’t even.

On the basis that there is…NO EVIDENCE for the claim that an alleged atheist did not call out to God in the foxhole.

That seems pretty dern clear to me.

And I am astonished, simply astonished, that this would even be a question for you.

Am I in la-la land?

Seriously!

 

[Bradski]

So you believe things which are unfalsifiable?

That’s…odd.

If you said that you had a cat called Tiddles, then I would have no realm to disbelieve you. Why on earth would I even begin to be sceptical? What basis would I have for even entertaining the possibility of you lying?

And that would be something about you that would be virtually unverifiable. I guess you could post a picture, get people to confirm it, send me an invoice from Main Street Cat Supplies Pty but why would you do that? What reason would I have to ask you for those things?

If someone tells you that they believe something or that they would or would not do something, unless you have a reasonable expectation that they are lying for some reason, what reason could you possibly give for doubting what they say. Irrespective of whether you think they have grounds for that belief or not.

If someone says that they think Trump would make a good president, then I personally think that they they have missed some medication, but I cannot say that I don!'to believe them.

You believe things without verification in any case. You are basing your opinion on the lack of a call to the Almighty on a story I have told you which you have accepted in order to make your point.

 

[PRmerger]

If you said that you had a cat called Tiddles, then I would have no realm to disbelieve you. Why on earth would I even begin to be sceptical? What basis would I have for even entertaining the possibility of you lying?

And that would be something about you that would be virtually unverifiable. I guess you could post a picture, get people to confirm it, send me an invoice from Main Street Cat Supplies Pty but why would you do that? What reason would I have to ask you for those things?

If someone tells you that they believe something or that they would or would not do something, unless you have a reasonable expectation that they are lying for some reason, what reason could you possibly give for doubting what they say. Irrespective of whether you think they have grounds for that belief or not.

If someone says that they think Trump would make a good president, then I personally think that they they have missed some medication, but I cannot say that I don!'to believe them.

You believe things without verification in any case. You are basing your opinion on the lack of a call to the Almighty on a story I have told you which you have accepted in order to make your point.

So, just to be clear: you believe in some things which are unfalsifiable.

And, I would like it to be clear: would you also permit others, (such as Christians??) to believe things which are unfalsifiable?

Yes?

We are agreed on this?

 

[PRmerger]

If you said that you had a cat called Tiddles, then I would have no realm to disbelieve you.

Ew. No. Just no.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

Peculiar, no?

Peculiar? No.

Clever.

Maybe you think all atheists are not actually atheist. They only claim to be so until it is no longer suitable.

I already addressed this. I am agnostic on this question.

 

[Bradski]

So, just to be clear: you believe in some things which are unfalsifiable.

And, I would like it to be clear: would you also permit others, (such as Christians??) to believe things which are unfalsifiable?

If anyone on this forum says they believe something, or disbelieve it, I will, without question, accept what they say. I do not necessarily agree with them and I may think their beliefs, or lack of them, are risible in extremis. But I will have no reason to doubt that they hold those beliefs honestly.

We are no talking about the veracity of beliefs. We are talking about the sincerity of those beliefs.

I do not expect anyone to have to ‘prove’ that they believe in God. It would be insulting for me to ask for such ‘proof’. I’d like you to grant the same courtesy to those who say that they do not believe.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I had often wondered if I would have a sudden reversion of my view of God were I to be near death. Yet when I was having a heart attack I never once thought about God at all…I thought about whether my will was up to date and of whether my life insurance was sufficient to provide for the needs of my family, but that was about the extent of the thought process.

 

[Bradski]

I had often wondered if I would have a sudden reversion of my view of God were I to be near death. Yet when I was having a heart attack I never once thought about God at all…I thought about whether my will was up to date and of whether my life insurance was sufficient to provide for the needs of my family, but that was about the extent of the thought process.

I think that PR needs more than personal claims. Were there any witnesses? Four preferably. Any written testimony that you didn’t slip in a quick prayer? Polygraph? Did it last for some time? You weren’t saving a small child from drowning at the time?

 

[PRmerger]

If anyone on this forum says they believe something, or disbelieve it, I will, without question, accept what they say.

Oh. If that’s what we’re discussing then, sure, I will loudly profess: Bradski believes that some men and women remain atheist in foxholes.

Now, surely you won’t deny me the right to say: I DO NOT believe that men and women remain atheists in foxholes until evidence is provided.

And please note: by “evidence” I mean the same type of thing as what has been demanded of Christians:

1. Corroboration that these folks actually were atheists (something preferably from their own hand, although 4 other witnesses attesting to their atheism would be sufficient. Date of this attestation must, of course, be prior to the foxhole incident).
2. Documentation that these men and women actually were engaged in a foxhole-scenario. (4 independent attestations would be great!)
3. Demonstration that they never questioned their belief in God (the classical God of the Philosophers), and that they remained steadfast in their atheism

and while I am not demanding this, it would certainly be icing on the cake:
Some man or woman who is willing to go to a horrific, painful death without recanting the fact that he witnessed this atheist in dire straits and yet remained fully cognizant and adamantine of God’s nonexistence because he, of course, could be lying about this.

But if he was willing to suffer torture and death without recanting, then, of course, I would know that he couldn’t be lying.

(Now there are some folks that I’ve been in discussion with in the past who have claimed, “Yes, sure. Some folks might suffer and die for something that’s a lie” so I suppose that this action could not be considered evidence.)

 

[PRmerger]

Oh. If that’s what we’re discussing then, sure, I will loudly profess: Bradski believes that some men and women remain atheist in foxholes.

And I will add: this belief is accepted based on nothing at all except for the fact that this testimony was read on a website.

I simply don’t understand such willingness to believe this…without a shred of evidence.
…yet there is such weirdly high degree of cynicism for the testimony for…other things. Things that have to do with Belief in God (the classical God of Philosophy).

 

[Aloysium]

Being in a foxhole is very different from being in an acutely dangerous situation like having a heart attack or hanging over a cliff. It involves chronic stress and a lot of time to deal with the reality of death. There is an opportunity to review one’s life and to deal with the loss. Appealing to God may be part of a bargaining process, in which we all engage in one way or another when we grieve. In either case, however, encounters with death highlight the indisputable mystery of one’s existence and frequently demand a review of one’s priorities. It is in that encounter with life, that many find God.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that PR needs more than personal claims. Were there any witnesses? Four preferably. Any written testimony that you didn’t slip in a quick prayer? Polygraph? Did it last for some time? You weren’t saving a small child from drowning at the time?

Hi!

I’m actually here in the room. Engaged in this discussion.

And, no, I wouldn’t demand that of him because I use Faith AND Reason (the Catholic mantra), and I have faith that what J said was true.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that PR needs more than personal claims. Were there any witnesses? Four preferably. Any written testimony that you didn’t slip in a quick prayer? Polygraph?

Yep. Pretty much.

(Kind of makes the atheistic demands for empirically based, reproducible, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating God’s existence seem…absurd, no?)