AHH! Agnostics!

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeteZaHut
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PeteZaHut

Guest
I am at college now. My whole life, I have gone to Catholic private schools. I’ve been here for about two weeks. I have kind of formed a small group of friends, some of which are of Indian descent. I just learned tonight that they are Hindu. I have never met anyone who wasn’t either Christian or Jewish. Only one of the kids actually believes in Hinduism; the others claim to be agnostic.

Should I try to explain to them why it makes since to believe in God? I am more inclined to talk to the agnostics than the practicing Hindus because I don’t want to disrespect their faith.

I did allow myself to be pulled into a discussion with one of the agnostics. I used the arguments of reason, mostly the uncaused cause. I went through everything about when you go back far enough, you have to get to a beginning, or a supernatural being that has always existed. Then, he pulled the argument on me where he says just because we don’t know how something happened right now doesn’t mean we have to attribute it to a god. How do I combat that? Should I try to combat that, or just pray for him?
 
Trust to the Holy Spirit to guide you. Seek His help, rather than to rely heavily on your arguments. Pray very much for your friends and live a gospel witness to them with your life. Faith is not transmitted by argument but by grace, this is why prayer and gentle example is the best ‘argument’ you can make! Discussions can build on this gift when it is given.

God bless you for your sincere faith and for your desire for others’ to know and love God. 🙂
 
The Aristotelian and Aquinine arguments are alright for demonstrating that God, the uncreated Creator, The Causer who is not caused is “reasonable”, but thats as far as it goes.

I think you really have to get a handle on "Aut deus aut homo malus" (“Either God or a bad man”) that
  1. God exists
  2. Jesus is God
Yup, the Trilema/Quadlema/Quinlema. Either Jesus was and is Eternal God or he was a lunatic, liar, or REALLY bad teacher or guru. The one thing he could not have been was a “just a good man”
 
I would suggest a “This is what I believe” approach.

How does the phrase go, Preach by example, and when necessary, use words?
 
as a former agnostic, convert to the RCC after much study, try this. I often am asked what changed my mind and after much thought I believe that I came to the conclusion that I am to stupid to understand the concept of nothing. I also believe that anyone who believes that after this life there is nothing has a certain amount of self hate. Just some thoughts.
 
But, if they’re agnostics, then, they believe in a supreme being of sorts, right? They’re not athiests.
 
adstrinity said:
But, if they’re agnostics, then, they believe in a supreme being of sorts, right? They’re not athiests.
Click to expand...
I think, though I may be wrong, that agnostics admit that they don’t know and can’t know if there is a god whereas atheists don’t believe, period. I am close to the agnostic point myself but I think what keeps me from fully being one is that I do believe in the paranormal/supernatural, but then maybe they do too. I don’t think atheists believe in the supernatural at all. Anyway, I believe there is something, maybe many entities out there I just don’t believe in a one supreme “GOD”. Does anyone know for sure about agnostics? Maybe I am one and don’t know it? 😊
 
When I was growing up I told my mom I thought I was an atheist and she told me to tell people I was agnostic. I believe that originally it ment that they did not believe in organized religion. Some may still believe this but most I feel use the term as a more politically correct form of atheism. If pushed most of the time it will come out that they do not believe there is a god.
 
dprewett said:
When I was growing up I told my mom I thought I was an atheist and she told me to tell people I was agnostic. I believe that originally it ment that they did not believe in organized religion. Some may still believe this but most I feel use the term as a more politically correct form of atheism. If pushed most of the time it will come out that they do not believe there is a god.
Click to expand...
It has been pointed out elsewhere that there are atheists and theists; agnostics are merely believe that some sort of a “god” exists, but do not recognize that deity.

It has been my experience that most self-proclaimed “atheists” are really agnostics when pushed.
 
Does your agnostic friend believe in the “Big Bang Theory”?,if so, and this is what finally made me realize that there truly is God. Ask him where did the gases and dust come from that is said to have formed the planets.

The incredible balance of life could not have happened by mere chance. We have the Exact right amount of gravity to keep us planted firmly on the ground without crushing us as just one example. Study the human body and see how incredibly balanced every gene and chromosome is (and what happens when one is out of whack).

Its through these studies that I came to believe in God, with a little help from the Holy Spirit along the way.:rolleyes:
 
Newbie2 said:
It has been pointed out elsewhere that there are atheists and theists; agnostics are merely believe that some sort of a “god” exists, but do not recognize that deity.

It has been my experience that most self-proclaimed “atheists” are really agnostics when pushed.
Click to expand...
I guess the point I was trying to make is that agnostic like many other terms has come to mean many things and the OP should find out what induvidually they believe before discussing God with them. Like many things when someone says they are agnostic that does not mean there idea of it is the same as yours.
 
love4mary said:
Does your agnostic friend believe in the “Big Bang Theory”?,if so, and this is what finally made me realize that there truly is God. Ask him where did the gases and dust come from that is said to have formed the planets.

The incredible balance of life could not have happened by mere chance. We have the Exact right amount of gravity to keep us planted firmly on the ground without crushing us as just one example. Study the human body and see how incredibly balanced every gene and chromosome is (and what happens when one is out of whack).

Its through these studies that I came to believe in God, with a little help from the Holy Spirit along the way.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The existance of a creator does not automatically equate the existance of the Judeo/Christian God. Deists, for example, believe in god because of nature - the universe - which they believe was created by god - but they don’t believe in the J/C god. Most pagans belive one or more of the nature gods are responsible for creation. Again, not the J/C God.
 
Newbie2 said:
It has been pointed out elsewhere that there are atheists and theists; agnostics are merely believe that some sort of a “god” exists, but do not recognize that deity.
Click to expand...
No. Agnostics are those who do not know – that’s what the word means. Some agnostics hold that knowing by reason is impossible; others are more apathetic.

Aquinas, Aristotle, and Anselm will do you no good trying to convince an agnostic. We really have it easy: the burden of proof is on you, and so far the inductive assumption that God cannot be known through reason has been borne out as not one argument for God has been shown to be airtight.

Unless you can produce the divine itself to show us, you’re probably wasting your time.
 
Reason is insufficient to explain existence itself, and it never will be able to. God does explain it, and gives you a system of morality tested over the course of two thousand years. This alone does not prove the existence of God, of course . . .

It’s ultimately a total leap of faith, that’s what you have to understand when discussing these things with agnostics. You shouldn’t be trying to prove that God exists, but rather telling them why you’ve chosen to believe that He does. Explain to them how it’s helped your life, etc.

The most important thing is that being a Christian teaches you to be a good person; that should be your emphasis, imo.

Also all the agnostics I know say that they don’t know whether God exists or not; atheists actually say “God definitely doesn’t exist.”
 
i am agnostic. agnostics have a wide variety of differing beliefs when it comes to spirituality and god. what categorizes them is that they don’t take that leap of faith. they don’t assume. some just don’t find gods relevant in their daily lives. it’s like revolving
your life around the search of bigfoot or unicorns.
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
The Aristotelian and Aquinine arguments are alright for demonstrating that God, the uncreated Creator, The Causer who is not caused is “reasonable”, but thats as far as it goes.

I think you really have to get a handle on "Aut deus aut homo malus" (“Either God or a bad man”) that
  1. God exists
  2. Jesus is God
Yup, the Trilema/Quadlema/Quinlema. Either Jesus was and is Eternal God or he was a lunatic, liar, or REALLY bad teacher or guru. The one thing he could not have been was a “just a good man”
Click to expand...
That only works (as a knock-down argument at least) with people who accept the basic historicity of the Gospels. That’s why it worked for Lewis in the 1940s when most British people still had a reverence for Scripture and for Jesus but wanted to kid themselves into thinking they could read the Gospels to support a kind of ethical Deism/Unitarianism. It doesn’t work as well against someone who doubts the Gospels. It still has some force, because it seems fairly clear that whatever historical person lies behind the Gospels thought he was pretty unique–the other reconstructions of a “historical Jesus” are unconvincing. But a skeptic can still legitimately point out that we really know very little for sure about Jesus on a historical basis.

Edwin
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
The Aristotelian and Aquinine arguments are alright for demonstrating that God, the uncreated Creator, The Causer who is not caused is “reasonable”, but thats as far as it goes.

I think you really have to get a handle on "Aut deus aut homo malus" (“Either God or a bad man”) that
  1. God exists
  2. Jesus is God
Yup, the Trilema/Quadlema/Quinlema. Either Jesus was and is Eternal God or he was a lunatic, liar, or REALLY bad teacher or guru. The one thing he could not have been was a “just a good man”
Click to expand...

But why ever not ? 🤷 He fits rather tidily into Second Temple Judaism as an apocalyptic prophet who was taken to be the Messiah, was betrayed, crucified, & said to have been raised from the dead; & was then “written up” by his disciples.​

The trouble with quoting the gospels is that there is genuine uncertainty as to what exactly he said - there is every reason to believe that the episodes they are composed of have been edited & modified in the period between Jesus & the writing-down of the various gospels: as a comparison of them shows: Matthew has no Ascension; John & the Synoptics put the Cleansing of the Temple at different ends of the Ministry; there is disagreement between Matthew & Luke as to whether Jesus was from Bethlehem; John’s date for the Passion is not that of the Synoptics; John’s Jesus speaks in a way unlike that of the Synoptic Jesus, & is probably voicing the thoughts of the Evangelist.
 
To the OP: Your friend said that we don’t know yet what caused the universe, etc. You need to tell him that you are making a logical argument and that he was making a physical argument. That’s the difference. You are saying that, in principle, there must have been a first cause. If the universe is finite, as we have shown through science that it is, then there was something like a Big Bang, and that was in turn caused by something, etc. Just some advice if you want to use the first cause argument. Good luck in school!

God Bless

Jon Winterburn
 
Agnosticism is a position one can take when one is unable to come to a definitive conclusion that God exists or does not exist, usually because there is not enough evidence to justify either belief or non-belief in God, or there is no compelling argument that proves or disproves the existence of God. I think agnosticism is unjustified when one adopts it merely because of intellectual laziness or social convention, but it is respectable if you reach it after properly examining the arguments and evidence put to you by theists and atheists and after careful consideration, conclude neither side wins.

Alternatively, one may adopt agnosticism if one comes to the conclusion God is (if he exists) unknowable and beyond the powers of the human mind to know, or else the existence or non-existence of God is a question the human mind does not have the capacity to resolve. This ‘Kantian’ agnosticism is also respectable in my view, and close to my own viewpoint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top