Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

[yankee_doodle]

Are you going to tell me that you were not insinuating that I was, as the emboldened parts suggest, bigoted, insecure, threatened by the mere presence of atheists/agnostics and/or targeting atheists, nor open to intellectual discourse?

first of all you wondered why non-theists were here. I told why I’m here; and most of my comments were broad characterizations (not personal remarks). As for the comments that essentially turns the question around, why would you (or the many other posters who do this) create threads that specifically target atheists or agnostics (and then wonder why we don’t immediately change our entire belief system, or are not suddenly memorized by your logic) … yeah that does seem to be a highly unreasonable expectation (to say the least).

 

[Oreoracle]

“Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait … this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, “you can’t prove a negative” is a negative — so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.”

skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05

LOL. Concepts like the Law of Identity are called “axioms”: they can’t be proven. Go ahead and try to prove that A=A without assuming it. I’m sure you’d be regarded as the greatest mathematician in history if you were to succeed.

 

[josie_L]

first of all you wondered why non-theists were here. I told why I’m here; and most of my comments were broad characterizations (not personal remarks). As for the comments that essentially turns the question around, why would you (or the many other posters who do this) create threads that specifically target atheists or agnostics (and then wonder why we don’t immediately change our entire belief system, or are not suddenly memorized by your logic) … yeah that does seem to be a highly unreasonable expectation (to say the least).

Did you or did you not insinuate me into your generalizations (since I am the one who opened the thread)?

 

[josie_L]

LOL. Concepts like the Law of Identity are called “axioms”: they can’t be proven. Go ahead and try to prove that A=A without assuming it. I’m sure you’d be regarded as the greatest mathematician in history.

LOL, I’m not the one who said it.

 

[yankee_doodle]

“Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait … this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, “you can’t prove a negative” is a negative — so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.”

skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05

but your approaching this all wrong. The law of contradiction cannot be applied to a discussion about theism, because neither side can prove their case conclusively enough to satisfy the opposing side. Therefore, it does become a matter of proving a negative (in a subjective sense).

Logically, can I prove that ancient Greek man did not see a pink elephant? I think it’s such an absurd claim (which requires such an absurd result) that I could, yet if an entire religion were created as a result I would probably never be able to prove it conclusively enough to satisfy worshipers of the pink elephant religion. In their minds (“subjectively”) I would be trying to prove a negative. In my mind (which is still subjective btw) it is a provable fact.

Now I would tend to agree with the logicians you cite that negatives can be sufficiently proven (at least in some cases). However, I bet once you fully understand the logical implications … you might not? I would say the pink elephant worshipers are demanding an absurd level of proof, like a video of the man standing where he was allegedly standing 3,000 years ago, obviously before video was invented, and footage of the sky to prove there indeed was no flying pink elephant. Frankly, I suspect even if I did provide such impossible proof, they would still say I failed to capture the part of the sky where the pink elephant was flying.

 

[Oreoracle]

LOL, I’m not the one who said it.

But you cited it to prove your point?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Did you or did you not insinuate me into your generalizations (since I am the one who opened the thread)?

I said what I said, sufficiently addressed your criticisms… now you can take it how you wish. I can’t control how other people think …

 

[josie_L]

But you cited it to prove your point?

I’m just repeating what the logicians say.

 

[geometer]

“Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait … this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, “you can’t prove a negative” is a negative — so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.”

skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05

That is a bunch of nonsense…

 

[josie_L]

I said what I said, sufficiently addressed to your criticisms… now you can take it how you wish. I can’t control how other people think …

I was making observations about my time spent with atheists/agnostics on this board, this was not an attempt to criticize as much as to make sense of why they’re here and why they argue with us and why they don’t or won’t or can’t open their hearts and minds to the possibility that God exists? You on the other hand criticized us -me.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I was making observations about my time spent with atheists/agnostics on this board, this was not an attempt to criticize as much as to make sense of why they’re here and why they argue with us and why they don’t or won’t or can’t open their hearts and minds to the possibility that God exists? You on the other hand criticized us -me.

You just take things personally from me I assume because you believe you know who I am (at least this is my take from your PM’s).

It seems to me you’re being hyper-sensitive. First you ask why can’t “we” (atheists/agnostics) be more open to god (which I assumed was your version of a god, since merely to be open to a god or higher power could mean anything, like maybe I believe in a giant spaghetti monster). I explained my objections to Christianity. You’re now saying you were personally insulted as a Christian because I simply answered your questions honestly?

The fact that you can’t see how absurd this is … seems remarkable to me.

 

[josie_L]

You just take things personally from me because you believe you know who I am (and I’m not acting like your buddy right now)? At least this is my take from your PM’s … am I on target or what?

Even if you aren’t the person I believe you to be (which I don’t believe) you have still acted very insulting towards me (I’m taking into consideration all the things you’ve said to me thus far).

 

[yankee_doodle]

I’d like some objective opinions (someone other than Josie please). Did my post on the previous page in response to the OP seem like a natural response from an atheist (which was intellectually reasonable), or more like a barrage of personal insults?

Maybe I’m wrong … but I’d like objective commentary if anyone wishes to opine here?

I personally believe I stated why I’m here on CAF & why I’m not inclined to give serious consideration to the Christian religion (or rendition of a deity).

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Hi Josie!

“Our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.” Plain and simple. Some come here to ruffle our feathers. (Well they can keep trying! ) But most are searching…and we all know what for. Let us work together to help them.

 

[NoWings]

I come here for the same reason I go to other forums. I have an amateur interest in apostolic Christianity, just like I have an amateur interest in other religions. I enjoy the debates and I like to learn.

I wish Atheists/Agnostics were open-minded to the possibility that God could exist, why can’t you be more open-minded? And even if you choose not to believe that any religion is true, why won’t you at least be a deist (there are many factors in my opinion that point to an intelligent designer)?

Agnostics are open to the possibility that God could exist. That’s why they’re agnostics and not atheists.

The trick is, how do I know that the Christian God is the correct and true path? What if the God of Islam is?

Why won’t I be a deist? Why should I? So I can look up at the sky to the God who made the world and went “meh” after he made it?

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Most of the atheists I know are the sort who are at least open-hearted about religion; I’ve yet to meet any yelling, screaming, vitriol-spewing stereotypic atheists/agnostics, and I know a lot who are interested in learning about and discussing religion on an intellectual level. That could be what brings them here. Plus, there’s always the atheists that are sort of like MacPhee in C.S. Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength”: they may not believe, and they may get snarky with the sort of people who preach at them or get mushy-sentimental about the faith, but they know good people when they see them and they’re loyal to them.

 

[josie_L]

I come here for the same reason I go to other forums. I have an amateur interest in apostolic Christianity, just like I have an amateur interest in other religions. I enjoy the debates and I like to learn.

Agnostics are open to the possibility that God could exist. That’s why they’re agnostics and not atheists.

You’d be surprised by how atheist-like some agnostics are, and of course there is the agnostic atheist label some posters on CAF parade which really confuses the heck out of me, so for the sake of brevity I worded my question by lumping the two together.

The trick is, how do I know that the Christian God is the correct and true path? What if the God of Islam is?

Only after you’ve opened your heart and mind to God and realize he exists will you find the answers to these questions.

Why won’t I be a deist? Why should I? So I can look up at the sky to the God who made the world and went “meh” after he made it?

I know some atheists/agnostics do not believe in the religious claims made about God yet they can believe in the possibility of God without any religious affiliation.

 

[PJM]

=josie L-I have met some nice polite (and some not so nice and/or polite) Atheists/Agnostics here at CAF, yet I’m still somewhat befuddled by your presence, for example, I don’t know why you seek to argue with us if you don’t have proof that God doesn’t exist and furthermore that Christianity is false? Moreover, I don’t appreciate the antagonism I sense from some posters, I don’t appreciate the lack of knowledge others have of our faith and yet feel duty bound to criticize it, I don’t appreciate that everytime we have something supernatural or unique that happens it’s chalked down to every conceivable (material) explaination except God (despite the evidence), I don’t appreciate moreover the fact that although some wish for signs you refuse to believe in the ones that have already happened . . . etc.

I wish Atheists/Agnostics were open-minded to the possibility that God could exist, why can’t you be more open-minded? And even if you choose not to believe that any religion is true, why won’t you at least be a deist (there are many factors in my opinion that point to an intelligent designer)? God bless.

***Reply

Lk. 6: 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. ***

***I find three basic catagories for athesist on this Forum.

Those who by flaunting their “unbleive” wish to be disproven.

Those who openly desire to be proven wrong

And those who simply enjoy what they think is intellectual and fun debate.

Faith is a gift offered to all, but refused by many. Such is the Will of God.***

Love and prayers,

 

[Ambrose]

One of the things I am convinced of as much as I am my Catholic faith. You **DON’T **convince people over the internet about the existence or non existence of God.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

One of the things I am convinced of as much as I am my Catholic faith. You **DON’T **convince people over the internet about the existence or non existence of God.

That’s why I just pray for everyone to be brought to the light.