Atheists / Agnostics. Could We Be Wrong?

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by racasan

 

No, they are not open to it or they would not be athiests. This is where the mistakes are made. Athiests are as certain there is no god as the religious are that there is.

One who claims to be agnostic is not so arrogant to believe they can know for sure either way.

This is another good point. But my problem isn't recognizing the possibility of an entity beyond our current comprehension level. My problem is ascribing deity to such an entity if it exists. In that sense, you would be correct that I am certain there is no god. But I don't see the arrogance in such a stance.

reply to post by AQuestion

You bring some food for thought, and some interesting points to the discussion.

I think the biggest issue here on this earth is how we treat one another.

I think we can definitely agree on this one.

Originally posted by spyder550
Your problem with atheism is - proving a negative - which is impossible. Therefore it is impossible to be an atheist. This is only a problem for someone who considers a super being.

One can be agnostic about the Tooth fairy - however the concept is so ridiculous that the question of the tooth fairy existing is not even considered (by anyone older that 6).

An atheist looks at the concept of a god as ridiculous as the tooth fairy.

Ask a christian about the existence of any of the 1 million hindi gods the thought of proving or disproving the existence of the gods would not be considered.

I believe the Hindi gods are real. Your point?

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by racasan

 

No, they are not open to it or they would not be athiests. This is where the mistakes are made. Athiests are as certain there is no god as the religious are that there is.

One who claims to be agnostic is not so arrogant to believe they can know for sure either way.

You seem to be of the belief that your doubts and pre-suppositions are the same for everyone and anothers anecdotal experiences are invalid because you believe the way you do.
I am sorry but you negate your own opinion as being anything other than yuour own opinion yet you seem to want to project it onto others. That is a very strange argument you are making.

reply to post by manna2


All I'm doing is defining different belief systems. I even provided links and quotes in a previous post to assist in the definition of some popular belief systems. What's your problem with that?

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

There could't be another explanation for your wife's health other than jesus? I don't want to push this thread to an argument but please just concede that you can't be certain.

I can be certain is was Jesus, the doctor even said it was a miracle. So there you have it. Bad gall bladders and bleeding kidneys with kidneystones do not just heal on their own tyvm.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


That does not mean it was jesus. I'm very glad your wife was ok though

The reason humans gravitate towards religion is that the human brain naturally believes consciousness is a metaphysical soul making decisions that can be rewarded and punished. It's probably partly evolution so that social animals can cooperate.

In my opinion anybody who believes in free will can't be an atheist, because that implies a metaphysical soul dwelling in metaphysical land.

Is there something that can never be measured or proven which nevertheless controls this world? What does the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics really mean?

Random doesn't mean anything to me, so I think there must be one or more metaphysical personalities controlling random events towards a purpose. Maybe one of those personalities is my own soul. Maybe there is only one personality for the entire universe like pantheism.

I don't know if that contributes anything to the discussion or not. It's just what I think.

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

That does not mean it was jesus. I'm very glad your wife was ok though

You are right. It was faith in Him that healed her.

Me thinks thou protests too much.
Why is your lack of faith a valid concern for those that have great faith? It offends you?

Have you ever heard anyone healed from having faith in Henry Weinstein?

What we do know is you aren't going to be healed in His name. That's the facts we can know of for sure, correct?
For you to question anothers faith based on your faith is the same as questioning their real name if they give it to you. What does it matter if you do not believe them? It only says something about you, not them. How does this escape you? Why does it offend you?

Could atheists and agnostics be wrong?
I was. but cannot say I had a strong belief against. I was still in the process of looking about,--- but theists were loosing the battle.

What if atheists and agnostics are wrong?
FMPOV they are but so are those who believe in a miracle working super God.

What is the consequence of being wrong from either the believer or non-believer camps?

Nothing.
Belief is not required by the Godhead.
Where the Christian God came up with all those needs is beyond me.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.
Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheeople where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Regards
DL

reply to post by manna2


I'm not saying you can't believe it was jesus, a belief in jesus or faith that jesus would heal her. Just that there are quite a few other options other than those which can account for her health.

reply to post by Greatest I am


An agnostic can not be wrong.

reply to post by manna2


From which of my posts in this thread do you draw the conclusion that you think this member's claim of faith healing offends me?

All I'm doing is saying it's not the only option, just the one they chose to believe.

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

An agnostic can not be wrong.

Can't be wrong about what?

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am



I find it hard to believe you don't know what an agnostic is but just in case:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable

en.wikipedia.org...Link

Agnosticism claims knowing is unknowable. Prove that wrong.

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

That does not mean it was jesus. I'm very glad your wife was ok though

Actually I think you might be right,I am pretty sure other religions have their own set of miracles happening to their followers,but then again I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I find it hard to believe you don't know what an agnostic is but just in case:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable

en.wikipedia.org...Link

Agnosticism claims knowing is unknowable. Prove that wrong.

That's different than how I've always thought about agnosticism.

I don't think it's impossible to know religious truths, but I don't personally know anything. The more religious truths a person claims to know, the more I doubt that person knows anything at all. That's how I define agnosticism.

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I find it hard to believe you don't know what an agnostic is but just in case:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable

en.wikipedia.org...Link

Agnosticism claims knowing is unknowable. Prove that wrong.

Being French I will not argue English especially with metaphyisics involved.
The Godhead I know has nothing to do with the supernatural so atheists and agnostics I usually get along with. Unless they disrespect my claim to apotheosis while I do not push for belief in something I have no proof to show for my experience.

You get the point on this one.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I find it hard to believe you don't know what an agnostic is but just in case:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable

en.wikipedia.org...Link

Agnosticism claims knowing is unknowable. Prove that wrong.

That's different than how I've always thought about agnosticism.

I don't think it's impossible to know religious truths, but I don't personally know anything. The more religious truths a person claims to know, the more I doubt that person knows anything at all. That's how I define agnosticism.

What is a religious truth?

I know you said you do not know any but what are we talking about?

Some kind of moral truism as what I will link you to or are you talking of proof of talking animals and God flooding the earth?

blog.ted.com...

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I find it hard to believe you don't know what an agnostic is but just in case:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable

en.wikipedia.org...Link

Agnosticism claims knowing is unknowable. Prove that wrong.

circle logic is not proof of anything, it's proof of nothing.
You are stuck in your own paradigm of thought pretending to no that absolutes do not exist.
My simple question is this, Are you absolutely sure?