Ask(Or Witness To) An Agnostic Anything!

[rocklobster]

You should definitely check out anything by C.S. Lewis. He makes great cases for Christianity.

[MomoAdachi]

RockLobster-I've actually read some of Lewis's fictional works(The Great Divorce and most of the Narnia series), as well as some excerpts from "Mere Christianity" and I can't say I'm a fan. He wasn't a bad writer, but I can't get into his style. I don't mean any offense to all you Lewis fans, but he's just not for me, sorry.

[minakichan]

Here's a rather simple one: What do you think of Christians, either in general or the ones you've met? Are they mostly a bunch of crazies in your eyes? In the same vein, what "secular" stereotypes of Christians do you perceive as true, and which, if any, do you perceive as false?

[Kamille]

I can understand needing proof about things, especially religion. The "only" reason I received Jesus as my Lord and Savior was that He saved me from suicidal depression. True, one could ask didn't people and circumstances save my life? The only problem with that is that the people who helped me and shaped my circumstances were linked to the Bible in some shape or form. Also, it was the idea of Jesus Christ that really changed my mind about things and got me wanting to live well. And after a while, I made the jump from believing in the idea of Christ to believing that He's real. Before I found Christ I had no religious affiliation. I guess I was more of a "religion - take it or leave it" kind of guy.

BTW - I LOVE your anti-hentai stance. Yes! Praise the Lord:jump:

[MomoAdachi]

Here's a rather simple one: What do you think of Christians, either in general or the ones you've met? Are they mostly a bunch of crazies in your eyes? In the same vein, what "secular" stereotypes of Christians do you perceive as true, and which, if any, do you perceive as false?

A bunch of crazies? I don't think that, but I have met some Christians(mostly my relatives and my dad's friends) who I didn't like at all as people, yet I've also met some very nice Christians(like all of y'all here:hug:!). I wouldn't be posting here today if I wasn't "Christian-friendly". Basically, I try to judge ppl as individuals and not lump them into categories based on personal belief, rather it be, religious, political, or whatever. My motto is "labels are for cans of soup, not human beings". I'm a firm believer in the fact that you can like and be friends with someone even if you completely disagree over certain things. After all, wouldn't the world be a boring place if everyone thought the same?
"Secular" stereotypes, hmmm, probably the stereotype that comes to mind as the most untrue with most Christians is that they don't like to have fun and have no sense of humor, where here at the CAA the atmosphere is extremely lightheard and fun.

[Scarecrow]

RockLobster-I've actually read some of Lewis's fictional works(The Great Divorce and most of the Narnia series), as well as some excerpts from "Mere Christianity" and I can't say I'm a fan. He wasn't a bad writer, but I can't get into his style. I don't mean any offense to all you Lewis fans, but he's just not for me, sorry.

I love his style Well I loved the Narnia books and The Screwtape Letters (sorry though I just can't get into his "Space Trilogy" set... I've attempted to read the first book twice and never quite finished either time)

With Narnia it's like hes an old grandpa telling a 6 year old a bedtime story. Gives them a kind of warm feeling. I never read the books till I was 21 though But they became my favorite book series. Didn't care for the movie much. While pretty faithful it lacked the warm storybook feel.

Read some of Mere Christianity and that wasn't really my thing either (though he makes some good points). There was one book that I really wanted to read of his, I forget what it's called though. Two Lovers? (no, not the 4 Loves) It was something based on a Greek Myth... anyway...

[Peanut]

Peanut-Well, murder is wrong because, well, how do I put this...it's just not humanistic or civilized to end someone else's life prematurely, it's also not fair to the family and friends of the person

Three more things:

1) You seem to think life has value. How did you come to this conclusion and what evidence do you have to support it?

2)What if the person being murdered is Hitler before the holocaust?

3) If you look at history, you'll see that culture changes. What we consider to be "civilized" is based off of our culture. For example, European settlers found Native Americans to be uncivil because, ultimately, they weren't European. So how can you justify or condemn any action on something which will change? Are we too believe that the Aztecs, who practiced human sacrifice, are murders because they don't share the same values of our culture? Shouldn't we avoid ethnocentrism and treat all cultures with respect, especially since we should treat others the way we want to be treated?

[MomoAdachi]

1) You seem to think life has value. How did you come to this conclusion and what evidence do you have to support it?

Well, hmm, you got me there, at the moment I can't think up a good response to that one. Congrats, you're an excellent debater. , and I mean that with only the upmost respect.

2)What if the person being murdered is Hitler before the holocaust?

3) Shouldn't we avoid ethnocentrism and treat all cultures with respect, especially since we should treat others the way we want to be treated?[/QUOTE]

Oh, certainly. I'm staunchly anti-racist and multiculturalist, and I'm sorry if civilized was a bad choice of words. Perhaps "ethical" or "humane" would be a better way of putting it.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Ethical or humane based on who? One culture might find child sacrifice ethical and human, while in your mindset, it may not.

Here's a question: What makes your moral decisions the correct one?

[Radical Dreamer]

Do you believe in absolute truth of any kind, or do you believe that truth is essentially relative?

Also, for a less serious question, what kind of Christian music do you like, if any?

[Sparrowhawk]

Hey MomoAdachi!

I attend a Christian university and apologetics is one of my favorite areas =) so if you want to discuss this, I would love to. I will post on here with some general ideas, but in depth discussions would probably be best with pm's.

Anyway, have you checked out Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ?" I hear it makes a great case and is more "user friendly" than Lewis. I personally have not read it and would love to read it with you(edit: by that I mean read it at the same time and send messages about what we thought of it, not literally read it with you of course, just thought I better clarify that just to avoid any appearnace of the contrary). I just have not read it because I love Mere Christianity by Lewis, which I would recommend you try to read altogether since it is actually a series of talks he had on the radio and therefore was meant to be presented together, and not read like an encyclopedia. His arguments build upon each other, so if you dont read the previous stuff the rest wont make much sense.

Lee Strobel actually has a whole series of "A Case for..." including Faith. I know of enough rescources that I could bring you plenty of evidence that definitely shows Christianity as very possible, but nothing is ever "full proof"

Here are some quickies...

1. All but one of the 12 apostles we can verify died a violent death simply because they refused to deny that Christ raised from the dead. Why would people let themselves be tortured and killed unless they KNEW it to be true?

2. The resurrection of Christ has never been DISproven, though it has been attempted every since people claimed it happened. 2000 years of being attacked and never defeated says something.

3. Hundreds of witnesses saw Christ after the resurrection.

4. As far as Christ being the only true God, he is the only religious figure in history who claimed to be God. Muhammed claimed status as a prophet, Buddha was an "enlightened" idividual, etc. While other people have claimed to be God, they have all been shown to be mentally ill where as Christ showed the opposite by...
Caring more for others than himself
Not being paranoid
Giving all glory to his Father rather than himself
Backed up his talk with miracles and behavior.

Hope thats a good start, I would love to have a chance to talk with you. It's not often people are actually open to hearing why we believe what we believe. I am used to being told to just shut up for being a "dogmatic narrow-minded Christian".

God bless you in your search!

[SnoringFrog]

2. The resurrection of Christ has never been DISproven, though it has been attempted every since people claimed it happened. 2000 years of being attacked and never defeated says something.

I don't think that the fact that something hasn't been disproved counts for much in most situations. No one has disproved the existence of leprechauns to my knowledge.


@Momo: Does whether or not any particular thing is associated with a particular religion affect your enjoyment or desire for it whatsoever?

[MomoAdachi]

RadicalDreamer-I've done before a bit of reading on the ol' relativity versus absolute truth debate, and I'm kind of "on the fence" about it. I'm heard arguments from both sides, and I'm not quite sure which I fully agree with. I'll have to give it more thought.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Shao Feng-Li-Hmmm, good question! I suppose there's just enough evidence for those things that I never really thought about it...

You have faith that there will be a dial tone what you pick up the phone, that your computer will power up when you press the button, that your knee won;t give out and let you fall down the stairs, that your lungs won't collapse and cause you to suffocate... Getting out of bed in the morning is an act of faith XD

Relative truth as opposed to absolute truth just seems terrifying to me...

(If I've got spelling mistakes, it's because I'm on IE X_x)

[Nate]

I'm not trying to derail the thread, not by any means, but I do feel the need to respond to this.

1. All but one of the 12 apostles we can verify died a violent death simply because they refused to deny that Christ raised from the dead. Why would people let themselves be tortured and killed unless they KNEW it to be true?

A thing is not true simply because a person dies for it.

If an atheist was executed for refusing to believe in God, saying "I know God does not exist, and I am willing to die for my belief" would that make it true? If it does not, then why is "I know Christ rose from the dead, and I am willing to die for my belief" more valid?

You can point to people giving up their lives for what they believe, but all that proves is they believed it. It doesn't make it true. People have died for false beliefs before...remember suicide bombers in Islam are very willing to die because of their belief in jihad.

2. The resurrection of Christ has never been DISproven, though it has been attempted every since people claimed it happened. 2000 years of being attacked and never defeated says something.

Invisible pink unicorns exist. Prove me wrong. Try for 2000 years and see if you can disprove invisible pink unicorns. Heck, try for 10,000 years.

Just because something cannot be disproved does not mean it exists.

3. Hundreds of witnesses saw Christ after the resurrection.

Hundreds of witnesses have seen aliens and UFOs. Do those exist?

4. As far as Christ being the only true God, he is the only religious figure in history who claimed to be God.

I don't have facts for this one yet, but I can almost guarantee that isn't true.

While other people have claimed to be God, they have all been shown to be mentally ill

Proof.

Caring more for others than himself

One could make the argument that this a sign of mental illness or at least self-loathing.

Not being paranoid

If he wasn't paranoid then why did He sneak, hide, and otherwise flee from the government?

Giving all glory to his Father rather than himself

But He and the Father are one, so giving glory to the Father WOULD be giving glory to Himself, if you believe He is God.

Backed up his talk with miracles and behavior.

No one has yet proved the miracles occur, which is why it's faith.

I am a Christian, and always will be. I believe firmly that Christ was the Messiah who died for our sins. However I am playing the devil's advocate here to show you that all your arguments are flawed. If this is the best we can come up with to defend our faith, well, no wonder she's an agnostic.

Momo, my question for you is, religion (Christianity in particular) has been shown throughout history to be the cause of, either directly or indirectly, many horrible atrocities and struggles for power. Now, I am aware you respect our beliefs, but my question is, do you personally feel, regardless of your respect for what we believe, that society would be better off without religion, and why or why not?

[MomoAdachi]

Do you believe in absolute truth of any kind, or do you believe that truth is essentially relative?
I guess I'm kind of "on the fence" of the whole relativity versus absolutes debate. I've read good arguments for both sides online, and I think I need to give it more thought.

Also, for a less serious question, what kind of Christian music do you like, if any?

I'm not familiar enough with the CCM scene to have an opinion as far as favorite artists/bands, etc., but I do really like some Christian-themed songs by otherwise secular artists. I love Ace Of Base, and their album The Bridge has a beautiful song called "Ravine", which the songwriter admitted to having a Christian message, for example. Also, I love traditional Christmas music, which often of course has Christian subject matter as well.

[MomoAdachi]

I am a Christian, and always will be. I believe firmly that Christ was the Messiah who died for our sins. However I am playing the devil's advocate here to show you that all your arguments are flawed. If this is the best we can come up with to defend our faith, well, no wonder she's an agnostic.

Momo, my question for you is, religion (Christianity in particular) has been shown throughout history to be the cause of, either directly or indirectly, many horrible atrocities and struggles for power. Now, I am aware you respect our beliefs, but my question is, do you personally feel, regardless of your respect for what we believe, that society would be better off without religion, and why or why not?

[B]<quote box fixed! ]

Well, I don't know if a society without religion would automatically be a better one, because there would still be thinks that divide us(race, gender, disability, culture, etc.), and maybe if there's no longer religious differences, other differences would be emphasized more, so my answer is short is not nesessarily(sp?), no.

[Danderson]

A thing is not true simply because a person dies for it.

If an atheist was executed for refusing to believe in God, saying "I know God does not exist, and I am willing to die for my belief" would that make it true? If it does not, then why is "I know Christ rose from the dead, and I am willing to die for my belief" more valid?

You can point to people giving up their lives for what they believe, but all that proves is they believed it. It doesn't make it true. People have died for false beliefs before...remember suicide bombers in Islam are very willing to die because of their belief in jihad.

Way to play devils advocate...........While u do state a valid point on this, I think SparrowHawks point on this issue was this:

When someone is willing to risk death for what they believe in doesn't it make others curious as to why they would do such a thing? The truth of the matter is that (besides the suicide bombers) their really aren't alot of ppl in our world today who would be willing to die for what they believe in...Except for Christians...
Who else would go to a completly foreign country hoping to share their belief in salvation from a man who died on a cross more then 2000 years ago, leaving behind friends, family, and almost all material belongings while risking rejection from society and even death?
By the worlds standards, who in their "right mind" would do something like that? If u didn't believe in a Creator and/or a Savior wouldn't that make you even curious enough to find out more for yourself?

Anyway, that's how I see it.....my 2 cents have been laid...Let's get back to the thread......

[Esoteric]

Read some of Mere Christianity and that wasn't really my thing either (though he makes some good points). There was one book that I really wanted to read of his, I forget what it's called though. Two Lovers? (no, not the 4 Loves) It was something based on a Greek Myth... anyway...

I believe you are speaking of Till we Have faces. it's based on the Greek myth of Cupid and Psyche. One of his better stories in my opinion...but that's off topic.

[GhostontheNet]

Ghostonthenet-I guess, if like they say something like finding Jesus's bones and being verified as his....

I think you grasped my point as would relate to possible negative evidences for Christianity. I don't think that you grasped my point about the possibility of negative evidences for the agnostic position. At its core, agnosticism makes three central claims:

1. There is insufficient evidence for the existence of God to merit belief in him.
2. On the other hand, there is insufficient evidence for the nonexistence of God to merit disbelief in him (atheism).
3. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.

So I guess what I wanted to know was, if you cannot concieve of any sort of good evidence for God's existence that could be found in any possible world, how could you be philosophically justified in accepting the first premise? What kinds of evidences would have the same effect of finding Jesus' bones for your agnostic position? Would you know good evidence for God's existence if you found it? Why? What is necessary to believe that a claim to truth is actually true?

[Radical Dreamer]

Nate, Danderson, if you want to continue that train of thought, take it to PM, please.

I'm not familiar enough with the CCM scene to have an opinion as far as favorite artists/bands, etc., but I do really like some Christian-themed songs by otherwise secular artists. I love Ace Of Base, and their album The Bridge has a beautiful song called "Ravine", which the songwriter admitted to having a Christian message, for example. Also, I love traditional Christmas music, which often of course has Christian subject matter as well.

I've never been a huge fan of CCM myself, but as for bands that have Christian overtones, just let me know if you want some good recommendations! XD There are plenty out there! XD

[Fish and Chips]

On the subject of martyrdom, a good deal of the original Disciples were persecuted and killed for their faith in Christ. I draw attention to this because even if all who died after had only their faith, the Disciples were not so "Handicapped." They lived with Jesus, served in his ministry, witnessed his death and, allegedly, his resurrection and ascension into Heaven.

Paul would later write that if Christ was not resurrected from the dead, then our faith is meaningless and we are to be pitied above all men. But according to those same scriptures, the Disciples were right at the scene. So while "They died for it, therefore it is true" doesn't necessarily carry a whole lot of weight, "The disciples died for it" does. They had front row seating. And if they didn't, why would they throw their lives away for something they knew was a lie?

[Dante]

I think "the good", as you put it, I think, if I understand your question correctly, is seeking to live a life of tolerance, kindness, and respect towards others, versus a selfish life not caring about others' feelings or thoughts or opinions

Very interesting, it should be noted though that the Good is an end in itself so you might want to modify that to, "The good is living a life of tolerance, kindness, and respect towards others, to care for the thoughts, feelings and opinions of others". Of course you might not as well, this is completely up to you. I had a rather good Ethics teacher at ASU, and we still communicate back and forth on the topic of The Good every now and again. He taught in his course that there were 10 properties of The Good that should be fullfilled if it is indeed the good. You might not agree with them, but I figured I'd drop them on here and then we can test things out. I'd have dropped it on before, but that would have taken the fun out of things and that would have meant that I was requiring you to agree with the list (which might not be the case). So heres my next question (a bit long but for the sake of the good no less ).

Q-

I think "the good", as you put it, I think, if I understand your question correctly, is seeking to live a life of tolerance, kindness, and respect towards others, versus a selfish life not caring about others' feelings or thoughts or opinions

How does your definition of the good qualify in the following properties of the good defined by my professor? Part 2, do you agree or disagree with the following list?

1. Continuing - (It should exist for all time)
2. Inexhaustible - (You can never run out of it)
3. Comprehensive - (It must cover every aspect of human life)
4. Inalienable - (Nothing (not even you) should be able to take it away from you)
5. Cooperate - (We should be able to achieve the good together)
6. Cumulative - (When more of it is gained, that much is added to what already exists (It adds))
7. Communal - (Everyone should be able to achieve it)
8. Fullfilling - (You must feel fullfilled by it)
9. Ultimate - (It should be ultimate, the final end in itself)
10. Transformative - (It must transform your life)

[Sparrowhawk]

Thanks Danderson for pointing out my intent =)

Momo, my offer still stands to look thru some apologetic material with you. And I hope that this does not derail the thread, but what I meant as a quickie will now have to be defended, as it was attacked in the forum.

<Take it to PM, guys. Danderson and Fish and Chips already defended what you said to a point, and that conversation is now over. --RD>

[rii namuras]

[color="Red"](I don't have any questions, but seeing as some people have been throwing out reading suggestions, I'd like to add this website to the list. The author is a friend of mine who is frustrated with the state of modern apologetics, and is at least an interesting read.)[/color]

[Dante]

Now I have to refute your remarks on the public forum (though I dislike it) for the sake of the other readers, especially Momo, who may thought there were no answers to your remarks.

I'd like to point out that its not precisely fair that you respond publicly to his attack on your argument when he himself is forbidden by the mods from responding in kind to what you say in the forum. As such I doubt he wishes to end the discussion here but has little choice.

[Sparrowhawk]

Yes, I realize that, I had not seen that post when I posted, but no more of that, I have apologized to Radical Dreamer and I now apologize to everyone involved here.

Back to the thread.

So Momo, have you always been agnostic? What is your background concerning your worldview?

[Peanut]

Well, hmm, you got me there, at the moment I can't think up a good response to that one.

Take your time, there is a way to prove that life has value.

Congrats, you're an excellent debater. , and I mean that with only the upmost respect.

Thank you for the complement.

Oh, certainly. I'm staunchly anti-racist and multiculturalist, and I'm sorry if civilized was a bad choice of words. Perhaps "ethical" or "humane" would be a better way of putting it.

Ethical or humane based on who? One culture might find child sacrifice ethical and human, while in your mindset, it may not.

Here's a question: What makes your moral decisions the correct one?

I second both of MSP's questions.

[MomoAdachi]

How does your definition of the good qualify in the following properties of the good defined by my professor? Part 2, do you agree or disagree with the following list?

1. Continuing - (It should exist for all time)
2. Inexhaustible - (You can never run out of it)
3. Comprehensive - (It must cover every aspect of human life)
4. Inalienable - (Nothing (not even you) should be able to take it away from you)
5. Cooperate - (We should be able to achieve the good together)
6. Cumulative - (When more of it is gained, that much is added to what already exists (It adds))
7. Communal - (Everyone should be able to achieve it)
8. Fullfilling - (You must feel fullfilled by it)
9. Ultimate - (It should be ultimate, the final end in itself)
10. Transformative - (It must transform your life)[/QUOTE

Hmmm...interesting list. I'd say that list is pretty similar to my definition of "the good", especially the comprehensive, fulfilling, and communal aspects. I probably agree about 80-90%, it's a little deeper than how I would put it. I've done some reading about philosophy and ethics, but I don't claim to be total expert on those fields.

[rocklobster]

Have you read the Summa Theologica? That definitely makes some good cases! (I actually read it myself--for fun!