Why Are Theists Afraid of Agnostics?

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Ringel05]

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?

 

[turzovka]

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.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

Belief isn't a choice. I don't refuse to believe in God, I'm not convinced there is one. I don't choose to believe anything.

But that wasn't my main point. My main point is that believing in something without sufficient and valid reason is not a rational position.

But since you don't care...

 

[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.

 

[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 should've written instead of that there is no evidence for the existence of God, that there is no DEFINITIVE evidence for the existence of God.

One of the things I find repugnant about the argument that you have put forward is that some refuse to believe in God because of pride or an unwillingness to be accountable for their actions. It turns a debate based on a rational basis to something personal or emotional. And it's complete speculation.

Instead of addressing that further, I'll ask how you know miracles are undeniable and what about Muslim miracles or Hindu miracles or the same kinds of phenomena claimed by the other religions of the world? Why are they not as valid as Christian miracles?

 

[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?

 

[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 or God.

 

[RandomVariable]

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?

That was a very cool post.

 

[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?

 

[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?

That was a very cool post.

I appreciate the kind words.

 

[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?

​

What Would Jesus Shoot?

 

[AVG-JOE]

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!

`​

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[turzovka]

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 should've written instead of that there is no evidence for the existence of God, that there is no DEFINITIVE evidence for the existence of God.

One of the things I find repugnant about the argument that you have put forward is that some refuse to believe in God because of pride or an unwillingness to be accountable for their actions. It turns a debate based on a rational basis to something personal or emotional. And it's complete speculation.

Instead of addressing that further, I'll ask how you know miracles are undeniable and what about Muslim miracles or Hindu miracles or the same kinds of phenomena claimed by the other religions of the world? Why are they not as valid as Christian miracles?

I should've written instead of that there is no evidence for the existence of God, that there is no DEFINITIVE evidence for the existence of God.

Wasn’t necessary, because I know that is what you meant. Nor do I doubt you sincerely believe what you say.


One of the things I find repugnant about the argument that you have put forward is that some refuse to believe in God because of pride or an unwillingness to be accountable for their actions. It turns a debate based on a rational basis to something personal or emotional. And it's complete speculation.

Well, yes, it is speculation if we are addressing any individual’s disbelief. I would not venture to make such judgments, that’s unwise, if not forbidden. I was just suggesting my general suspicions as one or two of primary reasons some do not believe or refuse to believe. I also made clear there are other unrelated reasons some could be agnostic, including the possibility they sincerely want to believe but when they honestly look at the evidence it does not make sense or seem convincing. That is all well and good, in the sense God would fairly take that into account, in my opinion. I never call disbelief a death sentence.


Instead of addressing that further, I'll ask how you know miracles are undeniable and what about Muslim miracles or Hindu miracles or the same kinds of phenomena claimed by the other religions of the world? Why are they not as valid as Christian miracles?

Well, that would take a lot of words or recounting of the various miracles I have put up in the past for examination. The “angel” is in the many details of the event. One cannot do it justice by just posting a paragraph or two of the facts of the event or the eye witness accounts. Maybe later I will post one as a challenge once again, but most have heard them. What about miracles of other faiths? Well I believe some surely are of supernatural nature, which does nothing to support the agnostic’s case. Is it God or the evil one manifesting himself there?... I am not qualified to even surmise. But if pressed for an answer, I would say they are mostly of the Judeo-Christian G-d allowing some manifestation and greater purpose to believe in the higher being, even if they do not have it quite right. The Virgin Mary said there are truths and some good in most religions, but stay away from the cults.

So then to answer more directly why should Christian miracles trump Hindu or Islam ones, I would answer because for one, they do not stand on their own. There are myriad of other reasons and historical acts that support the Christian God besides miracles. There is the historical Jesus with no parallel in all of history. The movement’s nature was one of total peace and loving your fellow man and caring for him. Christianity grew enormously in a peaceful, witness way, not by the sword. One can very easily point to countless atrocities Christians may have done to their fellow man, but their teachings have nothing of that, and the charity and goodness Christianity has given to the entire world far dwarfs its sins. That has to be measured. I could give many other reasons what Christianity has done or represents that no other religion has or can measure up to, but suffice it to say, it is the total preponderance of evidence of all kinds that makes it the most reasonable answer and that which holds the total truths of God and clearest path to salvation. All can be saved, but God did not come down on a cross if it were not for the greatest of importance.

 

[Ringel05]

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".........