Agnostic versus Atheist

[Aloysium]

According to his sister, Steve Jobs’ last words were, “Oh wow, oh wow, oh wow.”
The wonder and mystery of existence, if it does not here and now shake us in our boots, it will when our time runs out. Being unconscious at the end, does no good. Better be prepared for that express train to the Divine. It’s coming for us all; we do not know when.

 

[Bradski]

According to his sister, Steve Jobs’ last words were, “Oh wow, oh wow, oh wow.”

Well, that settles it, I guess. Why wasn’t I told! But then again, hang on a minute…

Do we have empirically sound, peer-reviewed, reproducible data which confirms what he said?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that settles it, I guess. Why wasn’t I told! But then again, hang on a minute…

Do we have empirically sound, peer-reviewed, reproducible data which confirms what he said?

That’s not our paradigm, luv.

That’s yours.

Do you see how ridiculous it is to reject Pascal’s paradigm (paraphrasing):
“Two errors: to exclude empirically sound, peer-reviewed, reproducible data; to include only empirically sound, peer-reviewed, reproducible data”?

 

[PRmerger]

So…
Summary so far:

The theists make the positive assertion that there are no atheists in foxholes.
They provide no evidence to support this assertion
Bradski, Mike from NJ and others provide actual examples of atheists in foxholes
​

Do you have any proof that they were atheists? Something written by a witness giving corroboration that they were actually atheists?

And I’d like some documentation that they didn’t actually cry out to God at any moment during this alleged event.

Also, it would be nice to have some proof that they actually were in the foxhole–something by 4 other witnesses to the event.

Thanks.​

 

[inocente]

So…
Summary so far:
The theists make the positive assertion that there are no atheists in foxholes.
They provide no evidence to support this assertion
Bradski, Mike from NJ and others provide actual examples of atheists in foxholes
The theists present no evidence to discredit these claims
The theists then demand evidence for this evidence, despite the fact that the burden of proof is in fact still on them
One suspects that they would then demand evidence for the evidence for the evidence

A quick intrusion - the situation in a foxhole is a tiny bit like being in finals, where someone’s future depends on getting through the next few minutes. In final exams, even hardcore skeptics tend to wear lucky socks and put lucky rabbits feet and other charms on their desks, on the basis that it won’t do any harm and may possibly do some good.

So perhaps there is an occasional hardcore skeptic in a foxhole who holds on to the lucky rabbit’s foot his mom sent him, while earnestly praying to any and every deity that comes to mind, on the basis that it won’t do any harm and may possibly do some good. But it doesn’t indicate a rational sincere belief, merely that he’s scared witless.

 

[DrTaffy]

Do you have any proof that they were atheists? Something written by a witness giving corroboration that they were actually atheists?

And I’d like some documentation that they didn’t actually cry out to God at any moment during this alleged event.

Also, it would be nice to have some proof that they actually were in the foxhole–something by 4 other witnesses to the event.

Thanks.

So no actual response to the points made, just blind repetition of the behaviour being critiqued!

The positive claim is from your side, luv, frequently from you, and you have yet to give a shred of evidence. Others on our side have given good evidence, and the closest you can get to discrediting it is to demand evidence for the evidence?

 

[PRmerger]

So no actual response to the points made, just blind repetition of the behaviour being critiqued!

The positive claim is from your side, luv, frequently from you, and you have yet to give a shred of evidence. Others on our side have given good evidence, and the closest you can get to discrediting it is to demand evidence for the evidence?

It’s almost as if my demands were…absurd, no?

 

[DrTaffy]

A quick intrusion - the situation in a foxhole is a tiny bit like being in finals, where someone’s future depends on getting through the next few minutes. In final exams, even hardcore skeptics tend to wear lucky socks and put lucky rabbits feet and other charms on their desks, on the basis that it won’t do any harm and may possibly do some good.

So perhaps there is an occasional hardcore skeptic in a foxhole who holds on to the lucky rabbit’s foot his mom sent him, while earnestly praying to any and every deity that comes to mind, on the basis that it won’t do any harm and may possibly do some good. But it doesn’t indicate a rational sincere belief, merely that he’s scared witless.

…or that the rabbit’s foot is sentimentally reassuring because it came from his mom, just as an ‘oh God’ can be a figure of speech with no intent to refer to an actual God. Granted.

Also I can imagine lucky charms having a genuine effect due to some psychological benefit akin to the placebo effect, with no need to invoke the supernatural.

Which is all an aside from PR’s arguably hypocritical accusations of an atheist/skeptic double standard.

 

[DrTaffy]

It’s almost as if my demands were…absurd, no?

Your whole argument seems absurd and hypocritical. Your repeated claims that atheists have demanded this that and the other, while never ever managing to substantiate those claims are especially revealing.

 

[puzzledtoo]

“Oh wow, oh wow, oh wow.” This may simply be a case of him seeing what he believed to be true. I believe this is true for many of us on a daily basis- we see what we believe.

 

[ffg]

So…

Personal testimony, online or in a book or elsewhere, is evidence but not proof. One then weighs the evidence against the claim being defended to judge whether it is more likely that the evidence is false or misleading or that the claim is true.

On that basis I would say that the claim that there are no atheists in foxholes is well and truly disproven, especially as no evidence has been presented to support it, nor even to prove that the examples of atheists in foxholes are either false or at least suspect.

Likewise I judge that the ‘evidence’ (including things like logical proofs, as well as testimony) does not come close to justifying belief in God or a literal interpretation of the Gospel stories. Hence, I am atheist.

But I don’t claim to prove that there is no God, hence I am agnostic as well as atheist.

 

[DrTaffy]

Ah screwing up quotes, another reason I don’t typically cut up quotes

You were missing the ‘/’ in the closing ‘’

So obviously, why the difference?

It would seem to be a free personal choice to differ, not based on consistent logic.

My assertion was that one weighs the evidence against the claim being made.

For example, the claim that Bradski was in a road accident and did not, as claimed, suddenly start praying to God while in fear of his life, is a very reasonable one. For evidence we have Bradski himself testifying, we (sort of) know him and can judge his honesty and the chance that he is lying and/or wrong. He is not just an eyewitness, but the subject, and we are sure of what he said and can quiz him about details.

The only reason we are even discussing it is a completely unsupported assertion that atheists in danger of death suddenly start praying.

In contrast take the Gospels and the existence of God. The claims made are extreme - the dead rising, children being slaughtered en masse, water turning into wine and the existence of a sentient omnipotent entity without a physical body, space or time. We don’t know for sure who the authors were, whether any or all of them were eyewitnesses, if they were they probably didn’t write them down until decades after the events, three of them seem to be cribbing off eachother and there are numerous apparent inconsistencies and contradictions between each other and established history. We cannot quiz them on details. And religious subjects are extremely prone to distortion over such periods, much like issues such as UFOs and the supernatural. Oh, and the Gospels were selected from many others and show signs of having been edited since, so we are not even sure what the original said.

So vastly greater claim, vastly weaker supporting evidence, and excellent explanation for why the evidence might be false. Hence different conclusion.

 

[ffg]

You were missing the ‘/’ in the closing’

My assertion was that one weighs the evidence against the claim being made.

For example, the claim that Bradski was in a road accident and did not, as claimed, suddenly start praying to God while in fear of his life, is a very reasonable one. For evidence we have Bradski himself testifying, we (sort of) know him and can judge his honesty and the chance that he is lying and/or wrong. He is not just an eyewitness, but the subject, and we are sure of what he said and can quiz him about details.

The only reason we are even discussing it is a completely unsupported assertion that atheists in danger of death suddenly start praying.

In contrast take the Gospels and the existence of God. The claims made are extreme - the dead rising, children being slaughtered en masse, water turning into wine and the existence of a sentient omnipotent entity without a physical body, space or time. We don’t know for sure who the authors were, whether any or all of them were eyewitnesses, if they were they probably didn’t write them down until decades after the events, three of them seem to be cribbing off eachother and there are numerous apparent inconsistencies and contradictions between each other and established history. We cannot quiz them on details. And religious subjects are extremely prone to distortion over such periods, much like issues such as UFOs and the supernatural. Oh, and the Gospels were selected from many others and show signs of having been edited since, so we are not even sure what the original said.

So vastly greater claim, vastly weaker supporting evidence, and excellent explanation for why the evidence might be false. Hence different conclusion.

Thanks for the help, I think I’m just going to go back to not cutting up quotes. But it’s very nice to know what I missed. I appreciate it.

I was looking at the consistency (or inconsistency) of the logic, that would be regardless of scale.

But since you brought it up, the bold red gets me every time -

if the bold was true - there would be no Church.

Congregations / relationships / contracts / commitments - all fall apart on far smaller offenses than the core documents being contradictory.

That is pretty major.

I would hope that someone who thinks they see contradictions would consider that a silly claim for a 2000 year old entity (regardless of scale) without a very deep analysis.

An honest one would be to present contradictions to the holder of the source and get an explanation.

Certainly, all parties can know they are going to get an explanation because obviously the holder of the source is going to know what it (the source) means.

If God is, I can’t necessarily say that the claims in the bible are extreme. I mean, if there is a God, is there really an extreme thing to Him?

Perhaps what’s in the bible is not very extreme, just simply necessary for humans (assuming it’s from God).

Take care,

Mike

 

[Solmyr]

if the bold was true - there would be no Church.

Why not? The contradictions and inconsistencies are simply explained away… generally by saying that they are not contradictions, only “mysteries”.

Congregations / relationships / contracts / commitments - all fall apart on far smaller offenses than the core documents being contradictory.

They DID fall apart… look at the number Christian sects and factions.

I would hope that someone who thinks they see contradictions would consider that a silly claim for a 2000 year old entity (regardless of scale) without a very deep analysis.

They did, and the “explanation” is that they are wrong in their interpretation, they take something literally, when it should be taken allegorically. But the “correct” interpretation is never presented.

Certainly, all parties can know they are going to get an explanation because obviously the holder of the source is going to know what it (the source) means.

God is silent, and the church does not issue an annotated text where the “wheat” is separated from the “chaff”. The catechism does not do it. Is the Genesis to be taken in a literal fashion, with talking snakes, fashioning humans out of clay and then from “ribs”? If not, then what were the actual events that took place? The “original sin” is the central tenet of all Christianity… what actually happened then? If it is just a fable, then the whole shebang is based upon a tale? These are not irrelevant, unimportant questions.

As far as Jesus is concerned, this name was very widespread in that age. Crucifixion was a horrible, but not rare method of execution. Even if one accepts it, the supporting “evidence” of all the “miracles” which are supposed to establish his “divine nature” are summarily missing. No outside sources corroborate those miracles.

There is a general “excuse”, that the role of the church is not to interpret its basic “holy writ”, rather to evangelize and bring everyone to God. But for the skeptics the best tool would be an unambiguous enumeration of the ancient texts, along its proper interpretations.

---

Returning to the OP, I am amazed that many people still do not understand the difference between the concepts of “theism vs. atheism” and “gnosticism vs. agnosticism”. Theism are atheism are metaphysical terms, they pertain to the question: “what exists?”. Gnosticism and agnosticism are epistemological terms, they pertain to the question: “how do we know it?”. One is not supposed to use a microscope instead of a litmus test… just like physics is not chemistry.

That is why the “agnosticism” is NOT a third alternative to theism and atheism. How many times this has explained, I can’t even count the numbers. But some ignoramuses will bring it up again and again.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Why not? The contradictions and inconsistencies are simply explained away… generally by saying that they are not contradictions, only “mysteries”.

They DID fall apart… look at the number Christian sects and factions.

They did, and the “explanation” is that they are wrong in their interpretation, they take something literally, when it should be taken allegorically. But the “correct” interpretation is never presented.

God is silent, and the church does not issue an annotated text where the “wheat” is separated from the “chaff”. The catechism does not do it. Is the Genesis to be taken in a literal fashion, with talking snakes, fashioning humans out of clay and then from “ribs”? If not, then what were the actual events that took place? The “original sin” is the central tenet of all Christianity… what actually happened then? If it is just a fable, then the whole shebang is based upon a tale? These are not irrelevant, unimportant questions.

As far as Jesus is concerned, this name was very widespread in that age. Crucifixion was a horrible, but not rare method of execution. Even if one accepts it, the supporting “evidence” of all the “miracles” which are supposed to establish his “divine nature” are summarily missing. No outside sources corroborate those miracles.

There is a general “excuse”, that the role of the church is not to interpret its basic “holy writ”, rather to evangelize and bring everyone to God. But for the skeptics the best tool would be an unambiguous enumeration of the ancient texts, along its proper interpretations.

---

Returning to the OP, I am amazed that many people still do not understand the difference between the concepts of “theism vs. atheism” and “gnosticism vs. agnosticism”. Theism are atheism are metaphysical terms, they pertain to the question: “what exists?”. Gnosticism and agnosticism are epistemological terms, they pertain to the question: “how do we know it?”. One is not supposed to use a microscope instead of a litmus test… just like physics is not chemistry.

That is why the “agnosticism” is NOT a third alternative to theism and atheism. How many times this has explained, I can’t even count the numbers. But some ignoramuses will bring it up again and again.

I guess not everyone is as smart as you are.

 

[Bradski]

My assertion was that one weighs the evidence against the claim being made.

There’s an addendum to the story, Doc.

There was a French couple sitting next to us on the bus. They got picked up in a second group after the accident and taken to the local police station to make statements where we met up with them. They told us that after we had left, some priest arrived and he a few people prayed over the two guys killed. And would you believe it, the two men both climbed out of what was left of the car and were talking to the crowd. There was hardly a scratch on either of them.

Now I have no medical training, but I know for a fact that these men were definitely, beyond any doubt whatsoever, dead. I won’t go into details, but trust me. They were dead.

How unbelievable is that! I have no reason whatsoever to think that the French couple were lying to us and they both described what happened, individually, to both my wife and myself. And the details that they both gave us, separately, corresponded.

Now you all have a few things to decide.

1. Did the accident really happen. That is, can you trust Bradski to tell the truth in this regard?
2. Were the two men really dead?
3. Were the French couple mistaken?
4. Were they lying to me when they told me about the two men being alive?
5. Do I have the story confused (their English was very good)?
6. Am I lying about the second part of the story?

And maybe you can explain why you probably believe some of the story and why you don’t believe other parts.

 

[PRmerger]

Your whole argument seems absurd and hypocritical. Your repeated claims that atheists have demanded this that and the other, while never ever managing to substantiate those claims are especially revealing.

Shoot.

I really would have like to continue this dialogue.

sigh.

 

[PRmerger]

Personal testimony, online or in a book or elsewhere, is evidence but not proof.

Yes!

Except, for some reason, atheists do not accept the things “in a book” (that is, in THE book) as evidence.

One has to wonder why this double standard exists.

“I will offer evidence of atheists in foxholes in the form of personal testimony” says the Atheist.

And…

“It’s quite clear that “reliance on personal testimony” is a very bad paradigm” says the Atheist.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8534048&postcount=97

Incidentally, I appeal to that atheist poster’s statement: “How can one empirically investigate unfalsifiable, personal experience?”

Yep.

That’s exactly why I reject the “personal testimony” of these alleged atheists in foxholes.

I would like some evidence.

And, again, I quote from the aforementioned atheist:

“I am open to any kind of evidence.
Although I expect all evidence to be scientific, since that is the only kind that has yielded accurate results for the entirety of human history”
source: forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8569852

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There’s an addendum to the story, Doc.

There was a French couple sitting next to us on the bus. They got picked up in a second group after the accident and taken to the local police station to make statements where we met up with them. They told us that after we had left, some priest arrived and he a few people prayed over the two guys killed. And would you believe it, the two men both climbed out of what was left of the car and were talking to the crowd. There was hardly a scratch on either of them.

Now I have no medical training, but I know for a fact that these men were definitely, beyond any doubt whatsoever, dead. I won’t go into details, but trust me. They were dead.

How unbelievable is that! I have no reason whatsoever to think that the French couple were lying to us and they both described what happened, individually, to both my wife and myself. And the details that they both gave us, separately, corresponded.

Now you all have a few things to decide.

1. Did the accident really happen. That is, can you trust Bradski to tell the truth in this regard?
2. Were the two men really dead?
3. Were the French couple mistaken?
4. Were they lying to me when they told me about the two men being alive?
5. Do I have the story confused (their English was very good)?
6. Am I lying about the second part of the story?

And maybe you can explain why you probably believe some of the story and why you don’t believe other parts.

That’s the trouble with people who tell the truth sometimes and tell lies other times. You really can’t trust anything they say.

 

[Bradski]

That’s the trouble with people who tell the truth sometimes and tell lies other times. You really can’t trust anything they say.

Am I lying in recounting what the French couple said? If I am genuinely and accurately reporting what they said, does it lend any credence to what they said they believed they saw?

I have no reason to think that they would lie to me about such a thing. So should I trust what they said? If I do, should you my account?