Why Are Theists Afraid of Agnostics?

[TheOldSchool]

Another branch of agnostic is someone who believes, or is close to believing, in God but cannot subscribe to organized religion. For example I was raised Catholic and if I ever participate in organized religion again I'd probably go back to that. But I don't believe that whether or not God exists has absolutely ANY impact on my or anyone else's life. If you look at the world everywhere that people are the most fervent about God and religion; those places are going up in flames.

Just because I don't think He has any impact on anything in this world doesn't mean I don't believe in an afterlife or that our energy somehow lives on. I don't think our consciousness is an accident and whatever it is that controls our consciousness, sure, I'll call that God. And Jesus should be an inspiration to us all and that's why I keep a cross above my bed.

I hope I didn't bore anyone to death with this one...

 

[Meriweather]

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

No, the title does not rise to the sensational; for me it stops at around quizzical. The atheists in my family are at the agnostic end of the scale. There is nothing fearsome about them. They want physical proof of God--and they want God to act, or reveal Himself in a certain way. They have set their standards for God, God does not meet those standards, so God may as well not exist. They admit they have little interest in knowing or drawing closer to the God who is.

Secondly, they kind of get a kick out of independently doing it all on their own. They don't need God as He chooses to be. If it turns out there is a God, they would still prefer that God left them to themselves.

They could get on board with a God who is mighty fire, powerful mover, and swifter than the greatest wind--but a God who can be found in the tiniest of whispering sounds arouses little interest.

Are you like 'my' agnostic atheists?

Not at all. I'm extremely curious to the origins or everything - whatever that may be: a mighty God or a subtle God or something else totally unexpected.

My standards for evidence for God are the basic standards for any evidence: it's definitive, it's irrefutable, it leads to God on its own and the presupposition of God doesn't lead the evidence to that conclusion. In other words, an unbiased examination of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Were I to be convinced that God exists, with the characteristics of the God of the Bible, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I would become one of those insufferable born-again types passionate about my new found existence and wanting desperately to share the good news with everyone.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

 

[RandomVariable]

You haven't been reading this forum lately I take it. Us theists have been pummelling everything and everyone who comes our way. Thanks for stepping up. You have a point to that catchy intro?

Excellent. I'm glad you're up to the challenge.

So my main point has to do with the nature of why beliefs are held, in particular beliefs in God. What makes you so sure that God exists that you BELIEVE it but not so sure that you KNOW it? I'm drawing a distinction here between belief and knowledge and about sufficient and valid reason for what one believes and for what one knows.

Uh, you might want try someone less, well, familiar with God. I'm happy to play though. I know God because I talk with him every day.

So then the question is, how do I know you aren't delusional about that? How do you show an unbeliever that just because you speak to Him everyday, God exists. That's hardly a convincing argument for any perspective outside of yours? Does He respond? Do you hear His voice? If so, how do you know you aren't hallucinating? How do I know you aren't hallucinating?

Oh my gosh! I have been stating that I talk to God I do not know how many times and that is the first time I have actually got questioned. I have absolutely no idea why not but all I can say is, About time!

There certainly a lot of questions in there. Let's see. Let's get back to the first question. Second question, does he respond. Yes. Hear voice. No. How do I know I am not hallucinating? (You actually asked that twice, understandably.) Wow, this is a tricky one. Here is one way. I have to constantly work at hearing him. It is not just like, "Wait, someone is talking to me." It is more like, "What, did you just say something?" "Did I just hear something?" I have to tune my ear to him. Reading the Old Testament has been the biggest help. He came to me so I do not know if this is generally true or an isolated incidence. I am blessed that he noticed me, unfortunately, fortunately maybe, he has not seemed to notice anyone else, at least not that I know of. That probably does not explain much but I will leave it at that and you can ask more questions where you find the biggest holes.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

However, there is some truth to it. Theists almost always label all unbelievers as atheists, either not understanding that agnostics also don't believe in their God or purposely or unconsciously leaving that designation out because agnosticism is unassailable.

Theists won't debate a self-proclaimed agnostic. I think for the same reason.

Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God. Atheists define themselves as either believing there is no God or not convinced there is a God. I think theists like to define atheists as making the positive claim that there is no God because that is a weaker position than the position that theists' claims are not convincing.

It's very telling. The weaker position relies on an unsubstantiated claim - really a claim that can not be rationally supported at all. A faith-based claim, if you will.

We've all heard that counter from the faithful that atheism requires more faith than theism. That doesn't work with agnosticism.

It seems as though we all recognize wherher consciously or unconsciously that agnosticism is the only rational position: that belief is irrelevant to the big questions of existence. That believing there is no God is just a irrational as believing there is. Well, not AS irrational.

There is no evidence for the existence of God, and, although theists would never admit it, lack of evidence IS evidence that supports that no God exists. It doesn't PROVE it, but it supports it.

Agnosticism is a refrain from belief. It isn't fence sitting. It isn't cowardice. Its an inability to be convinced by irrational arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and insufficient evidence. Its simply not finding convincing arguments for making a decision. Perhaps that requires a leap of faith. But truth doesn't require faith or belief - truth is truth whether one believes it or not. But to convince others of truth requires definitive evidence and to convince others to believe requires a desire to subjugate rationality for a misdirected attempt to substantiate your own beliefs.

This agnostic will wait for the evidence. Until then, I can't believe.

Maybe some self proclaimed apostle can answer that but as one of the millions of typical American believers I could care less, your choice is yours.
Otherwise, what's your point?

His point is that he cannot get himself to believe in God without empirical evidence.

His other point appears to me to be that he maintains it is a fact or truth that such evidence does not exist. I would in no way agree that to be a fact or a truth. I think the evidence is legion.

Which raises the question how two equally intelligent beings can be in total disagreement on the evidence. There, I suppose, are all kinds of reasons that may be the case. However, in my opinion more people refuse to believe because of pride or because of a fear of acknowledging God’s reality will make them feel more accountable for their actions or lack of action. Others are for some reason genuinely isolated from being able to comprehend no matter how much they may want to believe.

I suppose most Christians believe because it makes and sense and because they were told by reliable sources of its truthfulness and never questioned it, but gratefully accepted it. Still others, like myself, do not need faith or parental pleadings. The miracles are undeniable, and they are almost exclusively Christian in nature.

I know. I was trying to get him to respond. As for his lack of evidence supports his position claim...... Obviously his exposure to the scientific method is limited at best to make such a claim. Lack of evidence only means there is a lack of evidence, nothing more, nothing less, the wrong questions might be being asked, the tests poorly constructed, all potential variables not recognized, known or included, etc, etc, etc.
Basically there is no empirical evidence supporting or refuting God. If he's looking for it it's not there, the choice is his. essentually he's simply trying to justify his current position, maybe a backhand slap at fundamentalists or Christians in general, or trying to convince others of the "logic" of his claim/position. Heck, maybe all the above.

Lack of evidence can mean that there is only a lack of evidence. However, it can be applied to be lack of existence for something. There is no evidence of unicorns, for example. Does that mean we have not found any evidence for them or does that mean that there probable aren't any unicorns? Based on ALL of the evidence, it seems improbable that there are unicorns. Same with God. It doesn't prove there are no unicorns, and the same for God. Still, it doesn't support believing there are unicorns are God.

No, it simply means there is no known evidence of unicorns, again, nothing more, nothing less, anything else is pure supposition. Improbability, as used in your original premise has no basis as we are dealing with the pure application of the scientific method therefore everything is possible/probable until proven (empirically) to be otherwise.
By claiming improbability you have entered the realm of "faith".........

Yes, anything is possible. But not anything is probable. In Earth's gravity, drop a rock a trillion times. How many times would it float? Out of a trillion? Not many, if at all. The proposition of a rock floating is improbable. There is no evidence of floating rocks. Therefore believing that rocks float is irrational. Believing that they may float is being an agnostic. The fact that there is no evidence of floating rocks supports the proposition that rocks don't float. It doesn't prove it, but it does support it. Believing in floating rocks despite the lack of definitive proof doesn't make sense.

 

[Meriweather]

Another branch of agnostic is someone who believes, or is close to believing, in God but cannot subscribe to organized religion. For example I was raised Catholic and if I ever participate in organized religion again I'd probably go back to that. But I don't believe that whether or not God exists has absolutely ANY impact on my or anyone else's life. If you look at the world everywhere that people are the most fervent about God and religion; those places are going up in flames.

Just because I don't think He has any impact on anything in this world doesn't mean I don't believe in an afterlife or that our energy somehow lives on. I don't think our consciousness is an accident and whatever it is that controls our consciousness, sure, I'll call that God. And Jesus should be an inspiration to us all and that's why I keep a cross above my bed.

I hope I didn't bore anyone to death with this one...

You did not bore me.

God has made an impact on how I live my life. In the great affairs of the world, that does not equate to the impact of even a small feather. But it has made all the difference in my life.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

No, the title does not rise to the sensational; for me it stops at around quizzical. The atheists in my family are at the agnostic end of the scale. There is nothing fearsome about them. They want physical proof of God--and they want God to act, or reveal Himself in a certain way. They have set their standards for God, God does not meet those standards, so God may as well not exist. They admit they have little interest in knowing or drawing closer to the God who is.

Secondly, they kind of get a kick out of independently doing it all on their own. They don't need God as He chooses to be. If it turns out there is a God, they would still prefer that God left them to themselves.

They could get on board with a God who is mighty fire, powerful mover, and swifter than the greatest wind--but a God who can be found in the tiniest of whispering sounds arouses little interest.

Are you like 'my' agnostic atheists?

Not at all. I'm extremely curious to the origins or everything - whatever that may be: a mighty God or a subtle God or something else totally unexpected.

My standards for evidence for God are the basic standards for any evidence: it's definitive, it's irrefutable, it leads to God on its own and the presupposition of God doesn't lead the evidence to that conclusion. In other words, an unbiased examination of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Were I to be convinced that God exists, with the characteristics of the God of the Bible, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I would become one of those insufferable born-again types passionate about my new found existence and wanting desperately to share the good news with everyone.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

Does God not manifest His will in the physical world? If He does not, how can one who exists in the physical world know of a non-physical existence? And what does existence itself mean if something does not exist in the physical world?

 

[AVG-JOE]

No, the title does not rise to the sensational; for me it stops at around quizzical. The atheists in my family are at the agnostic end of the scale. There is nothing fearsome about them. They want physical proof of God--and they want God to act, or reveal Himself in a certain way. They have set their standards for God, God does not meet those standards, so God may as well not exist. They admit they have little interest in knowing or drawing closer to the God who is.

Secondly, they kind of get a kick out of independently doing it all on their own. They don't need God as He chooses to be. If it turns out there is a God, they would still prefer that God left them to themselves.

They could get on board with a God who is mighty fire, powerful mover, and swifter than the greatest wind--but a God who can be found in the tiniest of whispering sounds arouses little interest.

Are you like 'my' agnostic atheists?

I don't think that it's nearly that complicated. I think that if God is... and that is a really big 'if'... if God is, She's much bigger than ALL of the ancient stories, let alone any one or two of them.

I think that if God is, confining Him to an ancient story or two is insulting.

I think that if God is, He/She/It is NOT interested in the details of human history, and betting the one life that you know that you get on an ancient promise of 'Heaven' is a risk I'm not willing to take. There's better odds and more fun losing to a 'Vegas corporation.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Another branch of agnostic is someone who believes, or is close to believing, in God but cannot subscribe to organized religion. For example I was raised Catholic and if I ever participate in organized religion again I'd probably go back to that. But I don't believe that whether or not God exists has absolutely ANY impact on my or anyone else's life. If you look at the world everywhere that people are the most fervent about God and religion; those places are going up in flames.

Just because I don't think He has any impact on anything in this world doesn't mean I don't believe in an afterlife or that our energy somehow lives on. I don't think our consciousness is an accident and whatever it is that controls our consciousness, sure, I'll call that God. And Jesus should be an inspiration to us all and that's why I keep a cross above my bed.

I hope I didn't bore anyone to death with this one...

You did not bore me.

God has made an impact on how I live my life. In the great affairs of the world, that does not equate to the impact of even a small feather. But it has made all the difference in my life.

Well I suppose if he exists you could say he's made an impact on my life too as learning from the bible has influenced me and I try to do my best by people. But I don't believe in going to Church every Sunday and I can't justify judging people poorly who I think are good, such as gay people, because of my beliefs.

 

[Ringel05]

Maybe some self proclaimed apostle can answer that but as one of the millions of typical American believers I could care less, your choice is yours.
Otherwise, what's your point?

His point is that he cannot get himself to believe in God without empirical evidence.

His other point appears to me to be that he maintains it is a fact or truth that such evidence does not exist. I would in no way agree that to be a fact or a truth. I think the evidence is legion.

Which raises the question how two equally intelligent beings can be in total disagreement on the evidence. There, I suppose, are all kinds of reasons that may be the case. However, in my opinion more people refuse to believe because of pride or because of a fear of acknowledging God’s reality will make them feel more accountable for their actions or lack of action. Others are for some reason genuinely isolated from being able to comprehend no matter how much they may want to believe.

I suppose most Christians believe because it makes and sense and because they were told by reliable sources of its truthfulness and never questioned it, but gratefully accepted it. Still others, like myself, do not need faith or parental pleadings. The miracles are undeniable, and they are almost exclusively Christian in nature.

I know. I was trying to get him to respond. As for his lack of evidence supports his position claim...... Obviously his exposure to the scientific method is limited at best to make such a claim. Lack of evidence only means there is a lack of evidence, nothing more, nothing less, the wrong questions might be being asked, the tests poorly constructed, all potential variables not recognized, known or included, etc, etc, etc.
Basically there is no empirical evidence supporting or refuting God. If he's looking for it it's not there, the choice is his. essentually he's simply trying to justify his current position, maybe a backhand slap at fundamentalists or Christians in general, or trying to convince others of the "logic" of his claim/position. Heck, maybe all the above.

Lack of evidence can mean that there is only a lack of evidence. However, it can be applied to be lack of existence for something. There is no evidence of unicorns, for example. Does that mean we have not found any evidence for them or does that mean that there probable aren't any unicorns? Based on ALL of the evidence, it seems improbable that there are unicorns. Same with God. It doesn't prove there are no unicorns, and the same for God. Still, it doesn't support believing there are unicorns are God.

No, it simply means there is no known evidence of unicorns, again, nothing more, nothing less, anything else is pure supposition. Improbability, as used in your original premise has no basis as we are dealing with the pure application of the scientific method therefore everything is possible/probable until proven (empirically) to be otherwise.
By claiming improbability you have entered the realm of "faith".........

Yes, anything is possible. But not anything is probable. In Earth's gravity, drop a rock a trillion times. How many times would it float? Out of a trillion? Not many, if at all. The proposition of a rock floating is improbable. There is no evidence of floating rocks. Therefore believing that rocks float is irrational. Believing that they may float is being an agnostic. The fact that there is no evidence of floating rocks supports the proposition that rocks don't float. It doesn't prove it, but it does support it. Believing in floating rocks despite the lack of definitive proof doesn't make sense.

Again, you are applying the metaphysical to science to draw your conclusion. Gravity is an observable phenomenon and therefor a very poor comparison. You brought up empiricism then used the scientific lack of the empirical to postulate a conclusion. That goes against every aspect of pure physical science and the scientific method.
Based on pure science every unknown is possible/probable until empirically proven otherwise, choosing to "believe" something is impossible/improbable is, as noted in quotes, entirely faith based.

 

[Meriweather]

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

No, the title does not rise to the sensational; for me it stops at around quizzical. The atheists in my family are at the agnostic end of the scale. There is nothing fearsome about them. They want physical proof of God--and they want God to act, or reveal Himself in a certain way. They have set their standards for God, God does not meet those standards, so God may as well not exist. They admit they have little interest in knowing or drawing closer to the God who is.

Secondly, they kind of get a kick out of independently doing it all on their own. They don't need God as He chooses to be. If it turns out there is a God, they would still prefer that God left them to themselves.

They could get on board with a God who is mighty fire, powerful mover, and swifter than the greatest wind--but a God who can be found in the tiniest of whispering sounds arouses little interest.

Are you like 'my' agnostic atheists?

Not at all. I'm extremely curious to the origins or everything - whatever that may be: a mighty God or a subtle God or something else totally unexpected.

My standards for evidence for God are the basic standards for any evidence: it's definitive, it's irrefutable, it leads to God on its own and the presupposition of God doesn't lead the evidence to that conclusion. In other words, an unbiased examination of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Were I to be convinced that God exists, with the characteristics of the God of the Bible, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I would become one of those insufferable born-again types passionate about my new found existence and wanting desperately to share the good news with everyone.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

Does God not manifest His will in the physical world? If He does not, how can one who exists in the physical world know of a non-physical existence? And what does existence itself mean if something does not exist in the physical world?

Are you pure matter, or do you consist of body and spirit? Your body can leave physical signs, but without a body, what physical signs can your spirit leave?

Throughout scripture, we read of God communicating with various people in various ways. We just heard from Random Variable who also notes that God communicates with him. Many will not take his word for this, they will want evidence.

A rock exists in the physical realm, but it does not seem to be aware of its existence. Throughout time there have been stories of awareness (spirit) continuing after death.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You haven't been reading this forum lately I take it. Us theists have been pummelling everything and everyone who comes our way. Thanks for stepping up. You have a point to that catchy intro?

Excellent. I'm glad you're up to the challenge.

So my main point has to do with the nature of why beliefs are held, in particular beliefs in God. What makes you so sure that God exists that you BELIEVE it but not so sure that you KNOW it? I'm drawing a distinction here between belief and knowledge and about sufficient and valid reason for what one believes and for what one knows.

Uh, you might want try someone less, well, familiar with God. I'm happy to play though. I know God because I talk with him every day.

So then the question is, how do I know you aren't delusional about that? How do you show an unbeliever that just because you speak to Him everyday, God exists. That's hardly a convincing argument for any perspective outside of yours. Does He respond? Do you hear His voice? If so, how do you know you aren't hallucinating? How do I know you aren't hallucinating?

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

However, there is some truth to it. Theists almost always label all unbelievers as atheists, either not understanding that agnostics also don't believe in their God or purposely or unconsciously leaving that designation out because agnosticism is unassailable.

Theists won't debate a self-proclaimed agnostic. I think for the same reason.

Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God. Atheists define themselves as either believing there is no God or not convinced there is a God. I think theists like to define atheists as making the positive claim that there is no God because that is a weaker position than the position that theists' claims are not convincing.

It's very telling. The weaker position relies on an unsubstantiated claim - really a claim that can not be rationally supported at all. A faith-based claim, if you will.

We've all heard that counter from the faithful that atheism requires more faith than theism. That doesn't work with agnosticism.

It seems as though we all recognize wherher consciously or unconsciously that agnosticism is the only rational position: that belief is irrelevant to the big questions of existence. That believing there is no God is just a irrational as believing there is. Well, not AS irrational.

There is no evidence for the existence of God, and, although theists would never admit it, lack of evidence IS evidence that supports that no God exists. It doesn't PROVE it, but it supports it.

Agnosticism is a refrain from belief. It isn't fence sitting. It isn't cowardice. Its an inability to be convinced by irrational arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and insufficient evidence. Its simply not finding convincing arguments for making a decision. Perhaps that requires a leap of faith. But truth doesn't require faith or belief - truth is truth whether one believes it or not. But to convince others of truth requires definitive evidence and to convince others to believe requires a desire to subjugate rationality for a misdirected attempt to substantiate your own beliefs.

This agnostic will wait for the evidence. Until then, I can't believe.

Maybe some self proclaimed apostle can answer that but as one of the millions of typical American believers I could care less, your choice is yours.
Otherwise, what's your point?

His point is that he cannot get himself to believe in God without empirical evidence.

His other point appears to me to be that he maintains it is a fact or truth that such evidence does not exist. I would in no way agree that to be a fact or a truth. I think the evidence is legion.

Which raises the question how two equally intelligent beings can be in total disagreement on the evidence. There, I suppose, are all kinds of reasons that may be the case. However, in my opinion more people refuse to believe because of pride or because of a fear of acknowledging God’s reality will make them feel more accountable for their actions or lack of action. Others are for some reason genuinely isolated from being able to comprehend no matter how much they may want to believe.

I suppose most Christians believe because it makes and sense and because they were told by reliable sources of its truthfulness and never questioned it, but gratefully accepted it. Still others, like myself, do not need faith or parental pleadings. The miracles are undeniable, and they are almost exclusively Christian in nature.

So.... the unanswerable questions remain unanswered?


That's so... so... predictable!



To defending the right of every Monkey to be wrong!

`​

Thanks Avg. Joe, but no thanks. I can handle this on my own.

It's a public conversation, Bro', not a prostrate exam.

 

[Meriweather]

No, the title does not rise to the sensational; for me it stops at around quizzical. The atheists in my family are at the agnostic end of the scale. There is nothing fearsome about them. They want physical proof of God--and they want God to act, or reveal Himself in a certain way. They have set their standards for God, God does not meet those standards, so God may as well not exist. They admit they have little interest in knowing or drawing closer to the God who is.

Secondly, they kind of get a kick out of independently doing it all on their own. They don't need God as He chooses to be. If it turns out there is a God, they would still prefer that God left them to themselves.

They could get on board with a God who is mighty fire, powerful mover, and swifter than the greatest wind--but a God who can be found in the tiniest of whispering sounds arouses little interest.

Are you like 'my' agnostic atheists?

I don't think that it's nearly that complicated. I think that if God is... and that is a really big 'if'... if God is, She's much bigger than ALL of the ancient stories, let alone any one or two of them.

I think that if God is, confining Him to an ancient story or two is insulting.

I think that if God is, He/She/It is NOT interested in the details of human history, and betting the one life that you know that you get on an ancient promise of 'Heaven' is a risk I'm not willing to take. There's better odds and more fun losing to a 'Vegas corporation.

Yes, God is greater than any story, or all stories. On that point we agree. You might get me to agree that God is not all that interested in national histories as well, because I believe God (as a being of love) is more greatly in touch with individual histories. A nation is not animate, but individuals are.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You haven't been reading this forum lately I take it. Us theists have been pummelling everything and everyone who comes our way. Thanks for stepping up. You have a point to that catchy intro?

Excellent. I'm glad you're up to the challenge.

So my main point has to do with the nature of why beliefs are held, in particular beliefs in God. What makes you so sure that God exists that you BELIEVE it but not so sure that you KNOW it? I'm drawing a distinction here between belief and knowledge and about sufficient and valid reason for what one believes and for what one knows.

Uh, you might want try someone less, well, familiar with God. I'm happy to play though. I know God because I talk with him every day.

So then the question is, how do I know you aren't delusional about that? How do you show an unbeliever that just because you speak to Him everyday, God exists. That's hardly a convincing argument for any perspective outside of yours? Does He respond? Do you hear His voice? If so, how do you know you aren't hallucinating? How do I know you aren't hallucinating?

Oh my gosh! I have been stating that I talk to God I do not know how many times and that is the first time I have actually got questioned. I have absolutely no idea why not but all I can say is, About time!

There certainly a lot of questions in there. Let's see. Let's get back to the first question. Second question, does he respond. Yes. Hear voice. No. How do I know I am not hallucinating? (You actually asked that twice, understandably.) Wow, this is a tricky one. Here is one way. I have to constantly work at hearing him. It is not just like, "Wait, someone is talking to me." It is more like, "What, did you just say something?" "Did I just hear something?" I have to tune my ear to him. Reading the Old Testament has been the biggest help. He came to me so I do not know if this is generally true or an isolated incidence. I am blessed that he noticed me, unfortunately, fortunately maybe, he has not seemed to notice anyone else, at least not that I know of. That probably does not explain much but I will leave it at that and you can ask more questions where you find the biggest holes.

See, isn't this fun?! Debating is great! It's a great opportunity to put one's own positions to the test or to think more about those positions. To learn about one's self. I like learning.

You probably already know what my next question is: how do I know you aren't deluded or hallucinating? Everything you've written above is personal experience. And there is evidence in your response of potential bias on your part.

Everyone is deluded in someway, just watch American Idol auditions to see one kind of way that may manifest itself. People tend to believe things about themselves or about external reality that aren't true, or aren't exactly true. We want to believe that we are being as objective as possible, but bias is hard to recognize and delusion even more so. I think I'm really smart. Am I deluding myself? If I am, how would I recognize it? By having it shown to me in such a way that I can no longer deny that I am dumb or at least of middling intelligence? When confronted in such a way that I have to face a difficult admission that goes against everything I believe about myself, would I calmly accept it or refuse by further delusionment?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You haven't been reading this forum lately I take it. Us theists have been pummelling everything and everyone who comes our way. Thanks for stepping up. You have a point to that catchy intro?

Excellent. I'm glad you're up to the challenge.

So my main point has to do with the nature of why beliefs are held, in particular beliefs in God. What makes you so sure that God exists that you BELIEVE it but not so sure that you KNOW it? I'm drawing a distinction here between belief and knowledge and about sufficient and valid reason for what one believes and for what one knows.

Uh, you might want try someone less, well, familiar with God. I'm happy to play though. I know God because I talk with him every day.

So then the question is, how do I know you aren't delusional about that? How do you show an unbeliever that just because you speak to Him everyday, God exists. That's hardly a convincing argument for any perspective outside of yours. Does He respond? Do you hear His voice? If so, how do you know you aren't hallucinating? How do I know you aren't hallucinating?

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

However, there is some truth to it. Theists almost always label all unbelievers as atheists, either not understanding that agnostics also don't believe in their God or purposely or unconsciously leaving that designation out because agnosticism is unassailable.

Theists won't debate a self-proclaimed agnostic. I think for the same reason.

Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God. Atheists define themselves as either believing there is no God or not convinced there is a God. I think theists like to define atheists as making the positive claim that there is no God because that is a weaker position than the position that theists' claims are not convincing.

It's very telling. The weaker position relies on an unsubstantiated claim - really a claim that can not be rationally supported at all. A faith-based claim, if you will.

We've all heard that counter from the faithful that atheism requires more faith than theism. That doesn't work with agnosticism.

It seems as though we all recognize wherher consciously or unconsciously that agnosticism is the only rational position: that belief is irrelevant to the big questions of existence. That believing there is no God is just a irrational as believing there is. Well, not AS irrational.

There is no evidence for the existence of God, and, although theists would never admit it, lack of evidence IS evidence that supports that no God exists. It doesn't PROVE it, but it supports it.

Agnosticism is a refrain from belief. It isn't fence sitting. It isn't cowardice. Its an inability to be convinced by irrational arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and insufficient evidence. Its simply not finding convincing arguments for making a decision. Perhaps that requires a leap of faith. But truth doesn't require faith or belief - truth is truth whether one believes it or not. But to convince others of truth requires definitive evidence and to convince others to believe requires a desire to subjugate rationality for a misdirected attempt to substantiate your own beliefs.

This agnostic will wait for the evidence. Until then, I can't believe.

Maybe some self proclaimed apostle can answer that but as one of the millions of typical American believers I could care less, your choice is yours.
Otherwise, what's your point?

His point is that he cannot get himself to believe in God without empirical evidence.

His other point appears to me to be that he maintains it is a fact or truth that such evidence does not exist. I would in no way agree that to be a fact or a truth. I think the evidence is legion.

Which raises the question how two equally intelligent beings can be in total disagreement on the evidence. There, I suppose, are all kinds of reasons that may be the case. However, in my opinion more people refuse to believe because of pride or because of a fear of acknowledging God’s reality will make them feel more accountable for their actions or lack of action. Others are for some reason genuinely isolated from being able to comprehend no matter how much they may want to believe.

I suppose most Christians believe because it makes and sense and because they were told by reliable sources of its truthfulness and never questioned it, but gratefully accepted it. Still others, like myself, do not need faith or parental pleadings. The miracles are undeniable, and they are almost exclusively Christian in nature.

So.... the unanswerable questions remain unanswered?


That's so... so... predictable!



To defending the right of every Monkey to be wrong!

`​

Thanks Avg. Joe, but no thanks. I can handle this on my own.

It's a public conversation, Bro', not a prostrate exam.

I know, I just would like to keep things civil.

 

[Ringel05]

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

No, the title does not rise to the sensational; for me it stops at around quizzical. The atheists in my family are at the agnostic end of the scale. There is nothing fearsome about them. They want physical proof of God--and they want God to act, or reveal Himself in a certain way. They have set their standards for God, God does not meet those standards, so God may as well not exist. They admit they have little interest in knowing or drawing closer to the God who is.

Secondly, they kind of get a kick out of independently doing it all on their own. They don't need God as He chooses to be. If it turns out there is a God, they would still prefer that God left them to themselves.

They could get on board with a God who is mighty fire, powerful mover, and swifter than the greatest wind--but a God who can be found in the tiniest of whispering sounds arouses little interest.

Are you like 'my' agnostic atheists?

Not at all. I'm extremely curious to the origins or everything - whatever that may be: a mighty God or a subtle God or something else totally unexpected.

My standards for evidence for God are the basic standards for any evidence: it's definitive, it's irrefutable, it leads to God on its own and the presupposition of God doesn't lead the evidence to that conclusion. In other words, an unbiased examination of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Were I to be convinced that God exists, with the characteristics of the God of the Bible, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I would become one of those insufferable born-again types passionate about my new found existence and wanting desperately to share the good news with everyone.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

Does God not manifest His will in the physical world? If He does not, how can one who exists in the physical world know of a non-physical existence? And what does existence itself mean if something does not exist in the physical world?

According to teachings the physical is an extension of God and Gods will unfortunately or fortunately the Bible states God gave man "Free Will", man has horribly misused it.

 

[Meriweather]

Another branch of agnostic is someone who believes, or is close to believing, in God but cannot subscribe to organized religion. For example I was raised Catholic and if I ever participate in organized religion again I'd probably go back to that. But I don't believe that whether or not God exists has absolutely ANY impact on my or anyone else's life. If you look at the world everywhere that people are the most fervent about God and religion; those places are going up in flames.

Just because I don't think He has any impact on anything in this world doesn't mean I don't believe in an afterlife or that our energy somehow lives on. I don't think our consciousness is an accident and whatever it is that controls our consciousness, sure, I'll call that God. And Jesus should be an inspiration to us all and that's why I keep a cross above my bed.

I hope I didn't bore anyone to death with this one...

You did not bore me.

God has made an impact on how I live my life. In the great affairs of the world, that does not equate to the impact of even a small feather. But it has made all the difference in my life.

Well I suppose if he exists you could say he's made an impact on my life too as learning from the bible has influenced me and I try to do my best by people. But I don't believe in going to Church every Sunday and I can't justify judging people poorly who I think are good, such as gay people, because of my beliefs.

The Mass rejuvenates me, and I look forward to it. I attended Catholic school as well. I was never taught or told I should judge any person, which of course include gay people. I was taught to watch my own behavior.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Another branch of agnostic is someone who believes, or is close to believing, in God but cannot subscribe to organized religion. For example I was raised Catholic and if I ever participate in organized religion again I'd probably go back to that. But I don't believe that whether or not God exists has absolutely ANY impact on my or anyone else's life. If you look at the world everywhere that people are the most fervent about God and religion; those places are going up in flames.

Just because I don't think He has any impact on anything in this world doesn't mean I don't believe in an afterlife or that our energy somehow lives on. I don't think our consciousness is an accident and whatever it is that controls our consciousness, sure, I'll call that God. And Jesus should be an inspiration to us all and that's why I keep a cross above my bed.

I hope I didn't bore anyone to death with this one...

You did not bore me.

God has made an impact on how I live my life. In the great affairs of the world, that does not equate to the impact of even a small feather. But it has made all the difference in my life.

Well I suppose if he exists you could say he's made an impact on my life too as learning from the bible has influenced me and I try to do my best by people. But I don't believe in going to Church every Sunday and I can't justify judging people poorly who I think are good, such as gay people, because of my beliefs.

The Mass rejuvenates me, and I look forward to it. I attended Catholic school as well. I was never taught or told I should judge any person, which of course include gay people. I was taught to watch my own behavior.

Church works very well for many people. I'm friends with several. Good for you

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yes, God is greater than any story, or all stories. On that point we agree. You might get me to agree that God is not all that interested in national histories as well, because I believe God (as a being of love) is more greatly in touch with individual histories. A nation is not animate, but individuals are.

I said nothing about national histories... I specified human history.

 

[Meriweather]

Yes, God is greater than any story, or all stories. On that point we agree. You might get me to agree that God is not all that interested in national histories as well, because I believe God (as a being of love) is more greatly in touch with individual histories. A nation is not animate, but individuals are.

I said nothing about national histories... I specified human history.

I know, but human history usually covers communities or nations. Do you mean individual history, or are you thinking human history as a whole?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

No, the title does not rise to the sensational; for me it stops at around quizzical. The atheists in my family are at the agnostic end of the scale. There is nothing fearsome about them. They want physical proof of God--and they want God to act, or reveal Himself in a certain way. They have set their standards for God, God does not meet those standards, so God may as well not exist. They admit they have little interest in knowing or drawing closer to the God who is.

Secondly, they kind of get a kick out of independently doing it all on their own. They don't need God as He chooses to be. If it turns out there is a God, they would still prefer that God left them to themselves.

They could get on board with a God who is mighty fire, powerful mover, and swifter than the greatest wind--but a God who can be found in the tiniest of whispering sounds arouses little interest.

Are you like 'my' agnostic atheists?

Not at all. I'm extremely curious to the origins or everything - whatever that may be: a mighty God or a subtle God or something else totally unexpected.

My standards for evidence for God are the basic standards for any evidence: it's definitive, it's irrefutable, it leads to God on its own and the presupposition of God doesn't lead the evidence to that conclusion. In other words, an unbiased examination of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Were I to be convinced that God exists, with the characteristics of the God of the Bible, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I would become one of those insufferable born-again types passionate about my new found existence and wanting desperately to share the good news with everyone.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

Does God not manifest His will in the physical world? If He does not, how can one who exists in the physical world know of a non-physical existence? And what does existence itself mean if something does not exist in the physical world?

Are you pure matter, or do you consist of body and spirit? Your body can leave physical signs, but without a body, what physical signs can your spirit leave?

Throughout scripture, we read of God communicating with various people in various ways. We just heard from Random Variable who also notes that God communicates with him. Many will not take his word for this, they will want evidence.

A rock exists in the physical realm, but it does not seem to be aware of its existence. Throughout time there have been stories of awareness (spirit) continuing after death.

I believe Randomvariable. I believe any who states their beliefs or opinions until I find that they have lied.

Stories and scriptures aren't sufficient evidence on which to base my belief system. Nor are those things definitive evidence that there is something that exists outside of physical existence. Those are things which are subject to bias. They are not credible.

As to what I am: purely physical or something more? I don't know but nothing suggests I am more than my physical existence and its emergent properties.