Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 minutes ago, Key said:

Well, that was kinda interesting. Long winded for me, but interesting. 

 

In fairness, it's only an association at this point.  Not a causal relationship.  Much like the early research, linking smoking and lung cancer.  Still, it has to start somewhere.

 

 

The topic has drifted.  Still, let us remember that this thread began, as an attack against Agnostics.

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

2 hours ago, Key said:

Your question and answer, both in the same paragraph, Dan. Evidence is key to their acceptance of a conclusion.

Which means he knows but chooses to antagonise...

[Dan56]

22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Alright, Dan.  You want evidence?  Be careful what you ask for.  

 

 

That's evidence? Sounds like psycho-babble to me.. Claiming religious people have brain damage is preposterous.

 

7 hours ago, Key said:

Your question and answer, both in the same paragraph, Dan. Evidence is key to their acceptance of a conclusion.

 

Then where's the evidence that allows atheist to conclude no God can possibly exist? Its no more of a factual determination than believing there is a God.. My point being, whether there is or isn't a God is more founded in personal belief or opinion, rather than a conclusion based on tangible evidence. That's my opinion of course.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's evidence? Sounds like psycho-babble to me.. Claiming religious people have brain damage is preposterous.

 

 

Then where's the evidence that allows atheist to conclude no God can possibly exist? Its no more of a factual determination than believing there is a God.. My point being, whether there is or isn't a God is more founded in personal belief or opinion, rather than a conclusion based on tangible evidence. That's my opinion of course.

 

Wow.  You're still getting it wrong.          

 

Brother Kaman.  Yes.  I know it's dead.  I can see the flies and smell the rot.  I couldn't help myself.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's evidence? Sounds like psycho-babble to me.. Claiming religious people have brain damage is preposterous.

 

 

Then where's the evidence that allows atheist to conclude no God can possibly exist? Its no more of a factual determination than believing there is a God.. My point being, whether there is or isn't a God is more founded in personal belief or opinion, rather than a conclusion based on tangible evidence. That's my opinion of course.

Dan, atheism is not about belief, at all. It's about acceptance of evidence. As you say, no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't necessarily leave the option that He does, as there is no evidence of that, either. For an atheist, just as the label implies, they accept that God does not exist based on no evidence. They would not be atheist, otherwise, would they? No.

Again, as I said before, should evidence arise for them that He does, certainly their view would change.

 

I might also argue that the "evidence"  Jonathan provided to you is to you what you cite Scripture as "evidence" is to him. Perspective, you know?

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Key
Adding thought.

[Key]

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

In fairness, it's only an association at this point.  Not a causal relationship.  Much like the early research, linking smoking and lung cancer.  Still, it has to start somewhere.

 

 

The topic has drifted.  Still, let us remember that this thread began, as an attack against Agnostics.

 

 

 

Yes, but somehow they usually seem to get lumped together with atheist in an argument based on belief, inevitably. Regrettable.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Key said:

Dan, atheism is not about belief, at all. It's about acceptance of evidence. As you say, no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't necessarily leave the option that He does, as there is no evidence of that, either. For an atheist, just as the label implies, they accept that God does not exist based on no evidence. They would not be atheist, otherwise, would they? No.

Again, as I said before, should evidence arise for them that He does, certainly their view would change.

 

I might also argue that the "evidence"  Jonathan provided to you is to you what you cite Scripture as "evidence" is to him. Perspective, you know?

 

 

 

You have allowed Dan, to make things more complicated, than they are.  Many gods could exist.  A god could exist.  The God could exist.  At this time, there is inadequate reason, to think that such is the case.  Pending further developments.

 

A small point.  Proving that A god exists, would take us to Deism.  Advancing from Deism to Christianity is another leap.  It is not enough to establish that A god exists.  It would be necessary to advance, to proving that The God exists.

 

Dan makes no distinction between A god and The God.  At this point, I attribute this to his limitations.  It takes brains to make certain distinctions.

 

Since Dan operates by FAITH -- he will continue to miss the point.  Still, thank you for the effort.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Key said:

Yes, but somehow they usually seem to get lumped together with atheist in an argument based on belief, inevitably. Regrettable.

 

 

There is legitimate confusion over not knowing and not believing.  The more so, since living languages have words that shift meaning, over time.  I can live with it.  Thank you for your concern.

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

5 hours ago, Key said:

Dan, atheism is not about belief, at all. It's about acceptance of evidence. As you say, no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't necessarily leave the option that He does, as there is no evidence of that, either. For an atheist, just as the label implies, they accept that God does not exist based on no evidence. They would not be atheist, otherwise, would they? No.

Again, as I said before, should evidence arise for them that He does, certainly their view would change.

 

I might also argue that the "evidence"  Jonathan provided to you is to you what you cite Scripture as "evidence" is to him. Perspective, you know?

 

 

I understand that atheism is not about believe, and I understand that its the absence of evidence that causes them to reject the existence of God/gods. That was my basic point, that atheistic conclusions are not determinations grounded in evidence, which is no different than Christian conclusions not being grounded in tangible evidence.

[RevBogovac]

11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's evidence? Sounds like psycho-babble to me.. Claiming religious people have brain damage is preposterous. [...]

 

Please do not turn things around. That is actually proven fact. We have instruments that can actually prove brain damage. And brain damage has been statistically linked to religious fundamentalism. Facts. (Excuse me, but you are the one babbling from a book...). Now, how significant that link is, and if there is any causal connection is something for future scientists to prove or disprove, but it is still based on sound, scientific, empiric (so anyone can reproduce the facts and thus) evidence. But by all means, you just keep on "believing"... 

[Key]

9 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

There is legitimate confusion over not knowing and not believing.  The more so, since living languages have words that shift meaning, over time.  I can live with it.  Thank you for your concern.

 

You're welcome.

Though I, myself, am neither an atheist, nor an agnostic, since I do believe there is something more, but can't prove it, either, I do also believe others may choose what they do believe, as well.

It gets as much tiresome to argue the point for you, as it does for me to continuously read the same debate waged time and again across many threads with the same information circulated just as repetitiously supplied.

Much like many screws being continuously drilled into a board until their heads are stripped. Board is always there, the screws no longer make much difference to whether it is loose or secure anymore.

But somehow, I am always hopeful something will change. I guess I am more overly optimistic, than I am an analytical skeptic.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

You're welcome.

Though I, myself, am neither an atheist, nor an agnostic, since I do believe there is something more, but can't prove it, either, I do also believe others may choose what they do believe, as well.

It gets as much tiresome to argue the point for you, as it does for me to continuously read the same debate waged time and again across many threads with the same information circulated just as repetitiously supplied.

Much like many screws being continuously drilled into a board until their heads are stripped. Board is always there, the screws no longer make much difference to whether it is loose or secure anymore.

But somehow, I am always hopeful something will change. I guess I am more overly optimistic, than I am an analytical skeptic.

 

That's no problem for me.  Most of the people that I feel close to, have some kind of God belief.  I don't need others to agree with me.  The more so, considering how my own views have shifted over time.  Some people on this board, will remember when I advocated for Pantheism.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I understand that atheism is not about believe, and I understand that its the absence of evidence that causes them to reject the existence of God/gods. That was my basic point, that atheistic conclusions are not determinations grounded in evidence, which is no different than Christian conclusions not being grounded in tangible evidence.

 

So close.  Atheism is grounded in the lack of evidence.  Much like your conclusions.  Scripture is not evidence.

 

How strange.  If I say that there is no reason to believe in Sekhmet, the ancient Lion Headed Goddess of Egypt -- Nobody here would argue with me.  It is only followers of your God -- who expect me to believe without good reason.

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

21 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

That is actually proven fact. We have instruments that can actually prove brain damage. And brain damage has been statistically linked to religious fundamentalism.

 

So Christian fundamentalist have brain damage, but Christian Orthodox are fine? That's convenient, we all believe in the same God, but only some are labeled as brain damaged. I prefer to think fundamentalist are normal and the rest of you are screwed-up 

 

14 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

So close.  Atheism is grounded in the lack of evidence.  Much like your conclusions.  Scripture is not evidence.

 

How strange.  If I say that there is no reason to believe in Sekhmet, the ancient Lion Headed Goddess of Egypt -- Nobody here would argue with me.  It is only followers of your God -- who expect me to believe without good reason.

 

Yes, Atheist and Christians have no tangible evidence to support their conclusions, but Christians do have a collection of books that make sense to us. Sometimes something just rings true and not everyone needs it to be proven. 

 

And Jesus was flesh & blood, a real person with a divine message who promised eternal life, and then he proved it was real by raising from the dead.. That's something people can wrap their heads around. But a statue of a lion headed goddess? Not so much.

[cuchulain]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

So Christian fundamentalist have brain damage, but Christian Orthodox are fine? That's convenient, we all believe in the same God, but only some are labeled as brain damaged. I prefer to think fundamentalist are normal and the rest of you are screwed-up 

 

 

Yes, Atheist and Christians have no tangible evidence to support their conclusions, but Christians do have a collection of books that make sense to us. Sometimes something just rings true and not everyone needs it to be proven. 

 

And Jesus was flesh & blood, a real person with a divine message who promised eternal life, and then he proved it was real by raising from the dead.. That's something people can wrap their heads around. But a statue of a lion headed goddess? Not so much.

Mythology...unless you can prove it.

[cuchulain]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 12:23 AM, Dan56 said:

 

I understand that atheism is not about believe, and I understand that its the absence of evidence that causes them to reject the existence of God/gods. That was my basic point, that atheistic conclusions are not determinations grounded in evidence, which is no different than Christian conclusions not being grounded in tangible evidence.

Straw Man Again!!!  See, the atheist argument is that there is no evidence, so we don't believe.  YOU CHANGED IT to "the absence of evidence causes them to reject..."  I think you have no understanding of language, or you are deliberately misleading.  Reject is an active word.  It makes a claim.  We don't' believe, much like you don't believe in Zeus.  

 

But you know this.  You deliberately derail arguments in this manner so as to avoid the subjects you cannot answer.  It would be better to simply admit a lack of knowledge.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

1.  I prefer to think fundamentalist are normal and the rest of you are screwed-up 

 

 

Yes, Atheist and Christians have no tangible evidence to support their conclusions, .  

 

2.  but Christians do have a collection of books that make sense to us. Sometimes something just rings true and not everyone needs it to be proven. 

 

And Jesus was flesh & blood, a real person with a divine message who promised eternal life, and then he proved it was real by raising from the dead.. That's something people can wrap their heads around.

 

3.  But a statue of a lion headed goddess? Not so much.

 

 

1.  Of course, you prefer to think that.  So?     

 

2.                 Wait.  That was your argument?     

 

3.  Of course.  God hanging from a cross, is much better than an Egyptian statue.     

 

[Key]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

1.  Of course, you prefer to think that.  So?     

 

2.                 Wait.  That was your argument?     

 

3.  Of course.  God hanging from a cross, is much better than an Egyptian statue.     

 

To be fair, Jonathan, not all Christian churches have either a cross, or replication of Christ crucified displayed to pray or worship before. Some even hold that such imagery may become idolatry. Not all, just some.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Key said:

To be fair, Jonathan, not all Christian churches have either a cross, or replication of Christ crucified displayed to pray or worship before. Some even hold that such imagery may become idolatry. Not all, just some.

 

 

Yes.  Of course.  In specific context of Dan's last statement; it seemed a reasonable response.  Countless gods over countless generations -- and it's HIS god that I should accept on faith alone.  I found it irritating.

 

Why not the ancient and venerable Sekhmet?  Her worship goes back much farther than Dan's god -- and her mythology is quite interesting.  If we know what we are looking at -- her statue is rich in symbolism which is a wealth of theology.  The statue that Dan disdained as just a statue.  Oh.  Look.  Her worship is older than Dan's Books.  The Books that he's so proud of.

 

Watch.  Dan will have a snappy come back about how I "exploded" in "anger".  He will complain about how I "hate God".  His little games are so tedious -- and so predictable.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Straw Man Again!!!  See, the atheist argument is that there is no evidence, so we don't believe.  YOU CHANGED IT to "the absence of evidence causes them to reject...

 

Pretty much the same thing in my book... No evidence = absence of evidence... Your straining at gnats.

 

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You deliberately derail arguments in this manner so as to avoid the subjects you cannot answer.

 

Seems all you do is hurl accusations lately... I've tried to answer every question without diverting subjects... It may not be to your satisfaction, but subjects relating to faith don't have definitive answers, belief in God is not a concept you can reduce to a monkey-see monkey-do mentality. 

 

4 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

it's HIS god that I should accept on faith alone

 

I've never solicited anyone to accept my God, I've only stated reasons why I accept it by faith... Trust me, I'm keenly aware that your incapable of accepting anything by faith, you require indisputable proof, if you can't see or hear it,  you can't begin to fathom how it could possibly be true.. jmo