tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post9165464193919154490..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Agnosticism is the Most Reasonable PositionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72615224541127847132010-04-05T08:00:51.365-04:002010-04-05T08:00:51.365-04:00So's geocentrism. It takes a lot of studying, ...So's geocentrism. It takes a lot of studying, knowledge, and researching to *finally* find out that neither the Earth, nor even the Sun itself, lie at the center of the Universe. -- Some people seem to confuse Ockaham's razor with comodity. It's one thing find the easiest solution to explain all the data without adding extra data; and quite another thing not to even bother to find out all the possible data in the first place.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33964531074420170492010-03-01T16:15:31.366-05:002010-03-01T16:15:31.366-05:00I love William Rowe's piece on Friendly Atheis...I love William Rowe's piece on Friendly Atheism and his approach. It seems to me more agnostic than atheist because he thinks that some can be rationally justified in holding to theism. Plurality and agnosticism is the best way to approach the world. It is the most fluid, the most unsettled, the most open way to go about learning and knowledge. While I think that there is more proof against the existence of God than for, I still am not an atheist. Because while the laws of probability favor one side over the other, nothing is ever certain....and all that other Hume stuff.....Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04932684723211958419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9281170758749144972010-02-21T15:38:26.816-05:002010-02-21T15:38:26.816-05:00Vincent,
Off topic question.
Do you believe what...Vincent,<br /><br />Off topic question.<br /><br />Do you believe what you post?<br /><br />Your defensiveness seems to project a childish level of cognitive dissonance.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63040985048371609982010-02-21T10:59:11.873-05:002010-02-21T10:59:11.873-05:00These are reasons why you've never been the &q...These are reasons why you've never been the "goto guy" for me. Your sloppy and your scholarship is quite poor. I'm still trying to figure out how you go so many to write a blurb for your book. They must have been paid.<br /><br />"I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."<br /><br />- Richard Dawkins' "Evolution", The New Yorker (September 9th, 1996)<br /><br />Read more at Suite101: The agnostic fallacy http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/atheism/106355/2#ixzz0gBcioyXd<br /><br /><a href="http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/atheism/106355" rel="nofollow">The Agnostic Fallacy</a> <br /><br />Agnostic is best defined as "noncommittal." There certainly are times when that is a wise position but to claim it's the "most reasonable position" on the topic of religion is laughable. I highly doubt that you understand the proper definition of atheist is either. You certainly don't understand the case for mythicism.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02571004784757870370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23522803177136973652010-02-20T19:18:34.228-05:002010-02-20T19:18:34.228-05:00Vincent the words atheisn and agnosticism have bee...Vincent the words atheisn and agnosticism have been endlessly debated. Words mean what I intend them to mean. Hopefully they communicate. Agnosticism in a weak or strong sense makes sense and is the way most people use it even if Huxley defined it as skepticism. Who tells me how to use words? No one but me. And they way I use them communicates since most people use it the way I do. It's like any word really. Church can be an organized group of believers, a religion, or a building.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78823395445800314242010-02-20T17:33:17.539-05:002010-02-20T17:33:17.539-05:00The Agnostic Fallacy<a href="http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/atheism/106355" rel="nofollow">The Agnostic Fallacy</a>Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02571004784757870370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81102538108088109752010-02-19T22:54:41.601-05:002010-02-19T22:54:41.601-05:00"I've never - ever - seen so much God tal..."I've never - ever - seen so much God talk than when I visit an atheist site."<br /><br />We are here to answer question and fully demonstrate that born-again Christianity has NOT somehow been debunked. Such assertions are nonsense and fail to deal with the real answers that are no where to be found between the pages of books which claim to somehow demonstrate that Christianity is irrational.<br /><br />There is NO philosophical contradiction in born-again Christianity! If there is an alleged one - then name it.<br /><br />It is because people are not in touch with contemporary systematic theology (which hasn't been published in response, except on the internet and is difficult to find)in the trenches of answering contemporary objections to theism<br />that people continue to remain in subterfuge regarding their own definitions and equivocation (which seems inevitable with the English language).<br /><br />Until we address the logical answers themselves (for objections/questions) we really are missing the eternal GLORY of God.<br /><br />That is the eternal Glory of Love together in Heaven (how can you have heaven without knowing how much God loves you, or what grace/mercy/protection is, or without knowing to never choose evil, or without knowing contrasts of pain/pleasure, or without knowing the logic of how eternal separation is multi-facted, etc.<br /><br />Without the temporary creation to deal with the real problem of evil (not in explaining it - but in how it is a danger to God's children without knowledge that has to be learned), and to demonstrate God's Self-Sacrificing Love, and to provide a system of stewardship and rewards, and a system of LEARNING cosmological principles, etc (the reason for the temporary creation is multi-faceted just as the reason for eternal separation (hell) is mutli-facted) - we WOULDN'T have a logical heaven.<br />The Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) is<br />needed to transform us by the process known as spiritual regeneration. Find out about it.<br /><br />Question everything. But when you question - don't just pray for protection...pray also that God's Spirit will help you to "see."Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9175535605431599212010-02-19T22:42:53.950-05:002010-02-19T22:42:53.950-05:00It's fascinating that people always label the ...It's fascinating that people always label the "Uncaused Cause" as 'God' rather than 'Goddess'.<br /><br />Of course, we could also refer to it as 'The Shadow Council of the Fae' or even 'That thing we don't know anything about'.<br /><br />Renaming Yaweh 'God' was probably one of the cleverest tricks that the apologists have ever pulled.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16929722353413887802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3832476526575305422010-02-19T22:36:30.940-05:002010-02-19T22:36:30.940-05:00By the present Christiain (as in NT) definition of...By the present Christiain (as in NT) definition of god -- all loving, all knowing, all powerful, etc. <br />All knowing is correct. "All loving" is imperfect terminology since God does not love satan and his demons, nor does God love money or things which are perishing.<br /><br />"All powerful" should be specified<br />as "All LOGICALLY powerful" in that God will not do actions which are Self-Contradictory in nature ..or illogical for Him to do (against His Holy Nature).<br /><br />"-- overwhelming evidence suggests that god does not exist."<br /><br />Presenting God incorrectly does not invalidate His Existence.<br /><br /><br />"This onmniscient, omnipotent being refuses to manifest itself if only to settle the question --"<br /><br />He became a Man approximately 2000 years ago.<br /><br />"and stop the incessant slaughter and related absurdity, worldiwide, year after year, in its name."<br /><br />Many things will be done in His Name...that doesn't mean God will NOT judge them as sin/disobedience.<br />Salvation is needed. Punishment is logical (unless you receive mercy/grace).<br /><br />"(The Bible conveniently works around this obviouis manifestation expectation with the claim that seeing god will simply kill you -- that's "all loving?")."<br /><br />The Glory of the Infinite Creator Manifesting Himself at a particular point of the universe that would consume you or kill you is irrelevent to whether God loves the creature (the vessel is physical and just a body that contains the spirit - imperfect in the English,btw) but perhaps the reason God DOESN"T display this glory is BECAUSE He loves the finite fragile/tender subject (human body).Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70938220881075764872010-02-19T22:19:16.949-05:002010-02-19T22:19:16.949-05:00"we're agnostic to an infinite number of ..."we're agnostic to an infinite number of imaginative things. Fairies, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, etc, etc... "<br /><br />This don't remove infinite regression as Uncaused Cause.<br /><br />This don't explain the Existence and/or creation of the universe.<br /><br />Some of these require matter to exist so they can not be the creators of all matter.<br /><br />These do not judge you perfectly for every wrong thing that you ever did in your life.<br /><br />These do not have a Holy Perfect Nature which is incompatible with your own.<br /><br />These are infinitely different when it comes to the "God concept" of an Infinite Creator.<br /><br />These are NOT concluded as a resutl of scientific observations (Information comes from Intelligence, complex mechanical working systems do not emerge without intelligence, IF-THEN algorithmic programming is clearly programmed, etc.)<br /><br />There is evidence that first leads us to agnostic theism. There is no evidence that leads us to conclude fairies, invisible dragons, tea pots in outerspace, or flying spaghetti and meatballs that have conciousness.<br /><br />These are folly.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25420216694268970492010-02-19T20:40:57.939-05:002010-02-19T20:40:57.939-05:00Terry, the question of God's existence is inte...Terry, the question of God's existence is interesting: it leads to a host of stimulating (and very hard) philosophical questions concerning the nature of knowledge, the existence of other minds, the possibility of an uncaused cause, etc. So are we obsessed? Maybe, but is is fun.Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43107960834495417682010-02-19T20:14:54.339-05:002010-02-19T20:14:54.339-05:00Terry, you're here on an atheist blog to let a...Terry, you're here on an atheist blog to let atheists know that they're obsessed with something. So are you the pot or the kettle?Chris Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07742083009211346119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59084075913879922922010-02-19T19:01:31.333-05:002010-02-19T19:01:31.333-05:00Depends on what you mean by agnosticism, and depen...Depends on what you mean by agnosticism, and depends on where one is coming from too. The idea of lapsed theism or weak agnosticism isn't very reasonable, Huxleyian agnosticism in my mind is. Though in terms of agnosticism, I'd contend that most atheists ARE agnostics - in the teapot agnostic sense. They can't prove the teapot isn't there, they just have no reason to believe it is.<br /><br />The position I like to advocate is ignosticism, because when people talk about deities in very nebulous terms and won't commit to anything, then the idea is so ill-defined that there's no point in considering it in the first place. But as soon as those who attribute design or emotion or action to a deity, then it comes into the realm of the meaningful and thus can be critically examined.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17361006490281083852010-02-19T17:02:29.644-05:002010-02-19T17:02:29.644-05:00Take my analogy out then.
Your obsession is stil...Take my analogy out then. <br /><br />Your obsession is still impossible to behold.Terry Melansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05783287206546218740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31739359336757579402010-02-19T16:59:23.943-05:002010-02-19T16:59:23.943-05:00Terry,
I will take your criticism of us atheists ...Terry,<br /><br />I will take your criticism of us atheists seeing that you have a blog dedicated to the Illuminati conspiracy (LOL). Are you Dan Brown?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80195397853515974942010-02-19T16:54:56.031-05:002010-02-19T16:54:56.031-05:00Does anybody else here Eric Idle speak when they r...Does anybody else here Eric Idle speak when they read Breckmin's posts. It is kind of funny.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7825804069182522372010-02-19T16:53:01.030-05:002010-02-19T16:53:01.030-05:00Terry, as soon as the Santa Claus brigade mobilize...Terry, as soon as the Santa Claus brigade mobilizes and begins to work toward a Santa-favoring government, to affect legislation and public policy in a way that is decidedly in favor of the Santa believers, to attend public events with signs chastising the non-Santa people, and to knock on your door every other week or so to proselytize you in the name of Santa, feel free to come back and join me in forming an a-Santa-ists movement. <br /><br />Really, you should be able to recognize this distinction on your own. It is just unbelievable that I'm having to point out to you why your analogy is so inappropriate.Chris Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07742083009211346119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64796472763417999422010-02-19T16:32:29.913-05:002010-02-19T16:32:29.913-05:00I've never - ever - seen so much God talk than...I've never - ever - seen so much God talk than when I visit an atheist site. Don't you guys get tired of it? It gives obsessed a new meaning. I don't rant and rave about Santa Claus and I stopped believing in him a long long time ago. <br /><br />There's got to be a psychological explanation to this phenomenon, or God forbid - a spiritual one. <br /><br />It's got a hold on you, in a bad bad way. God, that is. Or not God. Which ever you prefer to endlessly pontificate about. That dreaded syllable is an albatross you cannot break.<br /><br />Really, this post is just arbitrary. I could have commented on the incalculable reams of them, here, at this site, and in cyberspace ad infinitum. The mania is uniform and mentally all-encompassing.Terry Melansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05783287206546218740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38824431732428947972010-02-19T15:23:51.815-05:002010-02-19T15:23:51.815-05:00I do not see any philosophical difference between ...I do not see any philosophical difference between intelligent atheism and agnosticism. One cannot disprove that such a thing as God exists. That is no reason to say that one believes in such a thing. If one does not believe in God, one is an atheist. There is no reason to "choose" the "option" of disbelief. It is simply the default position given that the null hypothesis (that God exists) has not bee established.James Crofthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042592279426032365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73343288593307858362010-02-19T14:35:17.360-05:002010-02-19T14:35:17.360-05:00By the present Christiain (as in NT) definition of...By the present Christiain (as in NT) definition of god -- all loving, all knowing, all powerful, etc. -- overwhelming evidence suggests that god does not exist. This onmniscient, omnipotent being refuses to manifest itself if only to settle the question -- and stop the incessant slaughter and related absurdity, worldiwide, year after year, in its name. (The Bible conveniently works around this obviouis manifestation expectation with the claim that seeing god will simply kill you -- that's "all loving?"). Prayer has no particular pattern of success beyond what chance would also dictate. (One recent study found that prayer for recovering hospital patients may have a detrimental effect, particularly when the one recovering is aware that others are praying for them). Arguments for the existence of god are constantly found to be fallacious. The greatest problem atheists and agnostics alike face is the reality that those who think they know what god is thinking are dangerous. This requires a) a belief in a god, and b) a belief that one knows what that god wants, needs, or is otherwise thinking. Neither atheism nor agnosticism are capable of invoking any imaginary (aka religious) purpose in waging man's inhumanity toward man. In this sense, agnostics and atheists are far less dangerous to the survival of our species than are theists.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01099972347467175710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41649712502175735372010-02-19T14:24:11.209-05:002010-02-19T14:24:11.209-05:00@ JD Curtis
"I don't know about the &quo...@ JD Curtis<br /><br />"I don't know about the "most reasonable position" but agnosticism is a hell of a lot more reasonable than atheism.<br /><br />One cannot expect to have 1/10th of 1% of all of the knowledge that there is in the universe yet some will make an overall blanket statement "God does not exist". Amazing. How do you actually know that?"<br /><br />The same way that can you make the claim that agnosticism is more reasonable to atheism. Your position - if I understand - is that we have such a small amount of knowledge compared to what's available, therefore we can't make blanket (truth) statements. But, if this is true, your statement "agnosticism is more reasonable than atheism" doesn't hold up under the reasoning you've given. The axiom does not even pass it's own criteria, since it is also a blanket truth statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24282617157820757372010-02-19T13:12:26.084-05:002010-02-19T13:12:26.084-05:00Ken,
I firmly agree that everyone is an agnostic ...Ken,<br /><br />I firmly agree that everyone is an agnostic in the sense that no one has certain knowledge whether a god exists. I leave myself unsure whether it is reasonable to describe a staunch fundamentalist this way. While in my view they really don't KNOW that a God exists, they will nonetheless remain adamant that they do possess this certainty on the basis of "personal experience", which while I see as wholly inadequate for such a conclusion, they remain "certain". I guess from my perspective they are necessarily agnostic but from theirs, not.Chris Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07742083009211346119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74161280457724519222010-02-19T11:34:44.710-05:002010-02-19T11:34:44.710-05:00It really depends upon how you define the word &qu...It really depends upon how you define the word "know." If it means to know with absolute certainty, then I think everyone is an agnostic on the question as to whether some type of supernatural entity exists. Dinesh admitted that he was an agnostic in this sense. He said in the debate with you: "We can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt."<br /><br />However, Dinesh is also correct in saying that we can't live in a state of indecision. We have to act upon the information that we have. Based on the information that I have currently, I don't believe any supernatural entity exists. In that sense, I am an atheist. Can I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no deity or deities exist? No, I can't. Can a believer prove that one does exist? No, he can't. In that sense, we are all agnostics.<br /><br />So the real question becomes: is the existing evidence sufficent to believe that a deity exists? That is the point to be debated.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31278332679043387672010-02-19T01:33:37.996-05:002010-02-19T01:33:37.996-05:00"And it makes the greatest impact on the beli..."And it makes the greatest impact on the believer."<br /><br />Only to the believer who does not understand the huge problem with bent terminology and is not aware of the evidence that leads first to agnostic theism, then to Infinite Creator, then to Orthodox Monotheism, and then to born-again Christianity (through prayer and requesting God's Holy Spirit to open their eyes).<br /><br />No matter how many people John W. Loftus leads into subterfuge and contributes to their logical eternal separation...the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross is a great enough Sacrifice to forgive John Loftus of ALL of it...(when/if he repents) and all of the glory will go to God the Father and Jesus Christ alone...and not to anyone else here on earth.<br /><br />Question everything! But when you question, pray to the Holy Creator for "protection." Matt. 6:13.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23729963162988096442010-02-19T01:30:59.585-05:002010-02-19T01:30:59.585-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.com