O
o_mlly
Guest
When pressed to present the positive in their disbelief, atheists seem to quickly morph into agnostics. Isn’t that something positive?
- Status
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1033
"We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. … This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”
Not exactly positive.
"We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. … This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”
Not exactly positive.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Atheism and theism are labels of beliefs or what someone is convinced of or not convinced of.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism are labels of knowledge. What someone claims to know about reality.
Gnostic Theist = Someone who believes/is convinced (positive claim that is challengable) of the arguments for the existence of the supernatural and claims to have direct knowledge (positive claim that is challengable) of the supernatural’s existence.
Agnostic Theist = Someone who believes/is convinced (positive claim that is challengable) of the arguments for the existence of the supernatural and claims to not have direct knowledge (not a positive claim that is challengable) of the supernatural’s existence.
Gnostic Atheist = Someone who does not believe/convinced (not a positive claim that is challengable) of the arguments for the existence of the supernatural and claims to have direct knowledge (positive claim that is challengable) that the supernatural does not exist.
Agnostic Atheist = Someone who does not believe/convinced (not a positive claim that is challengable) of the arguments for the existence of the supernatural and claims to not have direct knowledge (not a positive claim that is challengable) of the supernatural’s existence.
E
Exsanguin8
Guest
“[The new atheists] have no idea of the forces they’re trying to summon out of the ground and very little idea of the dangers of what they’re doing. If you drive God out of the world then you create a howling ruins.” -Peter Hitchens
S
STT
Guest
Isn’t your position agnostics?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Ah, the relatively novel and now wide-spread obfuscation that atheists use to assert that believing there is no god somehow does not create a positivist claim subject to proofing.
Most atheists, when educated on this, will default to calling themselves “agnostic atheists” which is often given as “the belief that there is no god(s), but there could be and I am unaware of them.” It provides absolutely no innovation not already encapsulated in classic agnosticism.
They’re simply trying to shift a burden of proof off their shoulders, as negatives are generally unable to be proven. Don’t swallow the bait. Just kindly let them know that if they think there is no god, that requires proofing. If they think there could be a god, then they have to explain how the metaphysical can exist without some metaphysical equivalent to the material “big bang”.
However, most “agnostic atheists” reveal their true colors when you ask them “So could Jesus’ dad be your unknown god?” They’ll usually balk in a very revealing way.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Analogy I like to use is a jar of marbles. There is either an even or odd number of marbles as the only possible response. But no one can study the jar of marbles. The theist is claiming there is an even number of marbles. The atheist is responding with, I don’t believe you are justified in making that claim. Does this mean the atheist is asserting they believe the answer is an odd number of marbles? No, No it does not. Because atheism and theism is about what people claim to believe or are convinced of about reality, not what they actually know about reality. Knowledge about reality is Gnosticism and agnosticism; to know or not know about reality. Knowledge is not the same as a belief someone holds. So the theist’s claim of an even number of marbles was presented and the audience listed to their arguments for why the theist believes there is an even number of marbles. If the audience doesn’t believe the theist is justified in making that conclusion, then the theist can label those people as atheist. There may actually be an even number of marbles, but no one can know that yet. How is not being convinced by someone’s bad arguments about a subject a bad or immoral thing? The thing still could actually exist or not exist, but that’s currently untestable and unverifiable at this point.
If you still can’t see why the statement you made of "“the belief that there is no god(s)” is not the same as “I don’t believe your reasons for belief in the supernatural are justified” same as, “I don’t believe your reasons for believing in an even number of marbles.” and that the later is not a positive claim at all, then there’s really no point in discussing this further.
O
o_mlly
Guest
That the number of marbles in the jar is odd or even is an accident of, more or less, one marble.
Both agree that there is a jar of marbles.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
And if you think most atheists shroud their convictions concerning the existence of some god with your proposed level of philosophical ambiguity, your closing is quite correct (emboldened).
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I’m sure you realize that some gods claimed to exist do not really exist, and you could not possibly be open to their existence. That is exactly the view of Catholics. So we are not so far apart.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Word salad, to me.
For instance, if “direct knowledge” means sense experience of the phenomena and “supernatural” means beyond sense experience then the above classifications using those terms become meaningless.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
You either believe there is a theos, there isn’t, or are unwilling to make an assertion of belief either way.
That is the classic trichotomy of theism, atheism or agnosticism.
The question is one of belief. “I don’t think there’s a god, but there could be” and “I think there is a god, but there may not be” are both encapsulated within the uncertainty of classic agnosticism.
Most who wish to divide agnosticism are atheists who fully understand that they also cannot meet the very same burden of proof they chide theists for failing to meet.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Many atheists believes the world would be a “better place” without religion … but they can never prove it so because the world has never been without religion.
Yet if you look at countries that have so very little religion it can hardly be detected, such as North Korea, you would not call them a “better place.”
And if you look at places where the leaders have persecuted every form of religion, such as Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia, and Mao in China, you would hardly call them utopias of atheism.
Yet if you look at countries that have so very little religion it can hardly be detected, such as North Korea, you would not call them a “better place.”
And if you look at places where the leaders have persecuted every form of religion, such as Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia, and Mao in China, you would hardly call them utopias of atheism.
E
Exsanguin8
Guest
The Crab Nebula cannot endow unalienable rights.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Who ever is making a claim about something have the burden of proof of justifying that claim. The default position is always to not believe someone until they have presented their proof. There’s just no way around that. The theist is presenting the idea that a deity exists, so it is up to them to present their proof. They are presenting the existence of C based on argument of A + B = C. If the audience does not believe the argument works, then it is up to the theist to take the feed back as to why the audience does believe the argument and see if they can meet the standard the audience is asking for. Not all claims of C require the same level of evidence. If the theist claims they have a dog, I would be fine just taking them at their word. If they claim they have a pet dragon, then I’ll need a lot more evidence than just their word. But in all cases the theist claiming to have a pet dragon or dog or that a deity exists have to present their proof, not the audience listening to their reasons. If there is not enough evidence to convince the audience, then they can be justified in not believing that is the case and walk away.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Yeah, I can’t let this foolishness stand.
The default is “uncertainty”. It is not “There is X” nor “There is not X”. The default is uncertainty. Any statement to the contrary the mind-blowingly incorrect. You can’t successfully navigate statistics nor Aristotelian logic in college without internalizing this concept.
I’ll repeat again:
The default assumption/hypothesis/stasis is “undefined” or “uncertainty”. It is not “no”, because that, in itself, is a positive claim which requires proofing.
S
STT
Guest
Yes.
I have yet to find a Christian that has not experienced God in their life.
And with that experience, they are effectively told the exact number.
V
victrolatim
Guest
To answer the original question:
Yes. An opportunity to evangelize,
Yes. An opportunity to evangelize,
- Status