Salvation for Fallen Humans & Fallen Angels (A Practical Guide)

[cuchulain]

2 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

The forum is here for honest conversation and discussion of varied opinions and outlooks in order for us to gain understanding of each other and our varied beliefs or lack of belief. If one does not think the discussions are honest, one must question why they are taking part.

Agreed.  I keep thinking that the atheist perspective needs represented to those reading so it's not too one sided.  But I find more and more that posters already have their minds set and merely agree with the position they like or attack the position they don't.  There are a few who seem to legitimately have an interest in sharing the board fairly but not enough, and now I find myself examining my own motivation for being here.  

[Dan56]

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

Do you seriously mean to say, that you can't tell the difference between -- Atheists don't believe in God --and --Atheists believe in nothing. ???

 

Re-read my post.... You intentionally added "Atheist believe in nothing"...  I have repeatedly clarified that "Atheist believe in nothing divine". So it seems you can't distinguish the difference between "nothing" and "nothing divine". Are you pretending to misunderstand or just being contentious? I even expounded on "nothing divine" to include that it meant "no deity or God/gods"! I'm beginning to think your baiting me, because I refuse to believe that you're that stupid.  Am I mistaken about you?

 

1 hour ago, Key said:

Above in red is the quote I referred. It is, itself, quite different from the quote in blue, also provided above, in that not only do you assume someone to be affiliated to one ideology over another, you also pinprick talking points as to why you feel they are, and by doing so in such way, as to form an opinion you think they are wrong and that the other ideology doesn't think the same way. 

 

I don't think the quotes contradict, the second is just an extension of the first.. "I believe you guys are extremely liberal because You expressed far left opinions (pro-abortion, hate Trump, etc) so I presumed your a Democrat from you opinions because it just seemed obvious." So I really don't understand why my observation is problematic for you? The liberal perspective doesn't necessarily make them wrong, its just as you wrote, an ideology that doesn't think the same way. But you are correct in that I was pinpointing the difference between liberal and conservative thinking.

[Dan56]

3 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

The forum is here for honest conversation and discussion of varied opinions and outlooks in order for us to gain understanding of each other and our varied beliefs or lack of belief. If one does not think the discussions are honest, one must question why they are taking part.

 

Your right, constant attacks aren't a discussion.. From my perspective, 3 others here don't discuss, they just look for reasons to be insulted, and they usually find them even when they don't exist.. Its sensitivity on over-load. But regardless, I'll continue to express my opinions, even though half the responses have no merit.  jmo

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

The forum is here for honest conversation and discussion of varied opinions and outlooks in order for us to gain understanding of each other and our varied beliefs or lack of belief. If one does not think the discussions are honest, one must question why they are taking part.

 

 

Why?  Yes.  Why?          

 

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:08 AM, Dan56 said:

Neither of us have "proof", we've just chosen to believe different things.. Its fine with me if you think your belief is more likely to be true, but please allow me the same courtesy. [...]

 

Hell no, my “beliefs” actually have a base i real world reproducible and empiric sciense (and actually provide the technology your using ATM to vent your ideas). Your beliefs are based in mythology (and would have kept us in the middle ages if it was up to fundamentalist christians).

 

Quote

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Hell no, my “beliefs” actually have a base i real world reproducible and empiric sciense (and actually provide the technology your using ATM to vent your ideas). Your beliefs are based in mythology (and would have kept us in the middle ages if it was up to fundamentalist christians).

 

 

 

 

I'm going to restate my position, in regard to the basic labels.  These are only statements of my understanding -- because Dan has muddied the waters yet again.  I am not about faith or belief.

 

1.  We have no objective, verifiable facts about God.  None at all.  Nothing.  There is no point in arguing, because in the absence of facts, all anybody has is opinion.  That is why I'm Agnostic.

 

2.  God could exist.  There is no good reason to assert that God exists -- or to believe that God exists -- but yes.  I repeat.  God could exist.  There is simply no good reason,  given the total lack of evidence;  to think that this is the case.  That is why I'm an Atheist.  Presented with compelling evidence, I am willing to reconsider.  Arguments are not evidence.  Scripture is not evidence.  As yet, I am not persuaded.  Threats of Damnation are irritating, but not relevant.  

 

3.  If God exists at all -- we have a God that neither helps nor hinders.  It doesn't matter whether or not God exists.  Even the question is meaningless and irrelevant.  That is why I'm an Apatheist.  I am willing to reconsider, given compelling evidence.  As yet, there is nothing.  There are things that I care greatly about.  I am not apathetic about everything.  Only the possible existence of deity.  What others choose to believe, is not my concern.  Most of the people that I'm fond of, believe in God.  I'm under no obligation to persuade them -- and I don't try.  It doesn't matter.

 

4.  I am Secular, because I am tired of silly, irrelevant, meaningless, arguments, about deity.  

 

There is nothing to argue about.  I respect those who respect me.  In particular, people who don't prattle on about "Atheists believe nothing.".  

 

 

 

Now, does anybody want to argue about the possible existence -- or non-existence -- of The Mighty Thor?  Or the other ancient gods?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

19 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Re-read my post.... You intentionally added "Atheist believe in nothing"...  I have repeatedly clarified that "Atheist believe in nothing divine". So it seems you can't distinguish the difference between "nothing" and "nothing divine". Are you pretending to misunderstand or just being contentious? I even expounded on "nothing divine" to include that it meant "no deity or God/gods"! I'm beginning to think your baiting me, because I refuse to believe that you're that stupid.  Am I mistaken about you?

 

 

I don't think the quotes contradict, the second is just an extension of the first.. "I believe you guys are extremely liberal because You expressed far left opinions (pro-abortion, hate Trump, etc) so I presumed your a Democrat from you opinions because it just seemed obvious." So I really don't understand why my observation is problematic for you? The liberal perspective doesn't necessarily make them wrong, its just as you wrote, an ideology that doesn't think the same way. But you are correct in that I was pinpointing the difference between liberal and conservative thinking.

You didn't get it, still.

And, no, I didn't say they contradict, but rather they presented different specifics of bias. And as they exists as separate posts, it isn't always clear that one would be an extension of the other.

As much as the ideologies of thinking differ, occasionally, as per individual basis, they may actually agree on some topics, ergo hatred of Trump, or even abortion. Which I was pointing out.

Again, in the way you stated this opinion in the first place, was to give an impression that liberals, or specifically Democrats, are wrong and/or immoral. An assumption created by another assumption, yes?

I am not offended in the least, but felt compelled to point this out, so as to present you an understanding of how what you said can be, and probably has already, been perceived by others.

If you feel this is an attack, then it was misunderstood by you. And on this exchange alone, I can see how others feel you twist context a bit. Sorry, just my view.

[RevBogovac]

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

 

 

I'm going to restate my position, in regard to the basic labels.  [...]

 

 

 

Thank you! Really appreciate it! Your's (and Cuchulain's and Key's) really contribute (to my own understanding and development), just wanted to point that (and my personal appreciation for it) out...

 

 

 

[Dan56]

7 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Hell no, my “beliefs” actually have a base i real world reproducible and empiric sciense (and actually provide the technology your using ATM to vent your ideas). Your beliefs are based in mythology (and would have kept us in the middle ages if it was up to fundamentalist christians).

 

 

I understand, your belief is in the science that has proven nothing except that your energy will continue and be transformed into some other form of existence. In a way, we aren't too far apart, as I believe the energy that sustains my physical existence will continue. The difference is spirit, soul, and consciousness. But just as a tree is altered to the energy of fire, all your essentially embracing is ashes, which is not much comfort to the dead tree.

 

3 hours ago, Key said:

You didn't get it, still.

And, no, I didn't say they contradict, but rather they presented different specifics of bias. And as they exists as separate posts, it isn't always clear that one would be an extension of the other.

As much as the ideologies of thinking differ, occasionally, as per individual basis, they may actually agree on some topics, ergo hatred of Trump, or even abortion. Which I was pointing out.

Again, in the way you stated this opinion in the first place, was to give an impression that liberals, or specifically Democrats, are wrong and/or immoral. An assumption created by another assumption, yes?

I am not offended in the least, but felt compelled to point this out, so as to present you an understanding of how what you said can be, and probably has already, been perceived by others.

If you feel this is an attack, then it was misunderstood by you. And on this exchange alone, I can see how others feel you twist context a bit. Sorry, just my view.

 

I see said the blind man.... I am conservative, so your correct, I'm sure others did get the impression that I was implying that the liberal agenda is wrong, and they would also be correct. That's just my opinion, and I'm sure others think the conservative agenda is wrong, their comments make that obvious, and that's all I was pointing out. Beyond belief or the lack thereof, its probably why we don't agree on much, the liberal and conservative point of views clash. However, I did not mean to give the impression that someone liberal is automatically branded immoral or that nonbelievers are immoral. What's moral to one person can be immoral to another (apples & oranges). There's an enormous difference in the thinking of someone who voted for Trump and someone who voted for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, just as there's a big difference in the thinking of those who accept or reject the bible.

 

I don't believe I deliberately twist context, but Q&A change and constantly alter the original topic, so I tend to stray. Its not to bait others or revert to a straw man's argument, but an effort to explain myself by illustrating a comparative example, which is inevitably construed as a diversion. I don't feel attacked, but do feel a couple other Christians have exited conversations because they felt their beliefs were ridiculed.

 

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

 

I'm going to restate my position, in regard to the basic labels.  These are only statements of my understanding -- because Dan has muddied the waters yet again.  I am not about faith or belief.

 

1.  We have no objective, verifiable facts about God.  None at all.  Nothing.  There is no point in arguing, because in the absence of facts, all anybody has is opinion.  That is why I'm Agnostic.

 

2.  God could exist.  There is no good reason to assert that God exists -- or to believe that God exists -- but yes.  I repeat.  God could exist.  There is simply no good reason,  given the total lack of evidence;  to think that this is the case.  That is why I'm an Atheist.  Presented with compelling evidence, I am willing to reconsider.  Arguments are not evidence.  Scripture is not evidence.  As yet, I am not persuaded.  Threats of Damnation are irritating, but not relevant.  

 

3.  If God exists at all -- we have a God that neither helps nor hinders.  It doesn't matter whether or not God exists.  Even the question is meaningless and irrelevant.  That is why I'm an Apatheist.  I am willing to reconsider, given compelling evidence.  As yet, there is nothing.  There are things that I care greatly about.  I am not apathetic about everything.  Only the possible existence of deity.  What others choose to believe, is not my concern.  Most of the people that I'm fond of, believe in God.  I'm under no obligation to persuade them -- and I don't try.  It doesn't matter.

 

4.  I am Secular, because I am tired of silly, irrelevant, meaningless, arguments, about deity.  

 

There is nothing to argue about.  I respect those who respect me.  In particular, people who don't prattle on about "Atheists believe nothing.".  

 

 

Now, does anybody want to argue about the possible existence -- or non-existence -- of The Mighty Thor?  Or the other ancient gods?

 

 

Just to say that I completely understand your position and its not my ambition to argue about non-existing facts. My only intent is to state what sways me to believe, because I think there is evidence, even though its not persuasive in the sense of being beyond doubt. As I've mentioned before, Agnosticism is the only absolute correct stance a person can take, because when push comes to shove, no one knows nothing. Its clear your all about 'absolutes', but as you wrote, "God could exist", and that's all I need to embrace and believe He does. I'm not here to be a source of contention or change minds, belief is a personal choice.

 

A couple points of confusion though.. Your wrote "That's why I'm Agnostic" and "That's why I'm an Atheist".. Is this conflating the 2 to be one in the same?

In regards to "Atheist believe in nothing", it occurred to me that Atheist don't 'believe' at all unless something is proven? So 'nothing' becomes irrelevant.

Very disappointed that your disparaging Thor, there's even been movies made about him, so its got to be true

 

 

[Key]

"...I was implying that the liberal agenda is wrong, and they would also be correct."

 

But you never said their "agenda", and no one stated an agenda. So, in that case you are wrong, except in your own opinion. Whether you state liberal or Democrat, you lump everyone together in a broad generalization that is virtually guaranteed to not always be true, just as someone might say the same of conservative or Republican. Additionally, it's a shame that a religious philosophy discussion had even become a political one to begin with.

 

However, since you stated differences in thinking in regards to voting Trump or AOC, I'm inclined to present the opinion that there was no thorough thinking in voting for Trump as opposed to AOC. (She speaks far more eloquently than he does, despite conservative arguments, as well. Yes, that is saying a lot, but she is also improving, while he isn't.)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I understand, your belief is in the science that has proven nothing except that your energy will continue and be transformed into some other form of existence. In a way, we aren't too far apart, as I believe the energy that sustains my physical existence will continue. The difference is spirit, soul, and consciousness. But just as a tree is altered to the energy of fire, all your essentially embracing is ashes, which is not much comfort to the dead tree.

 

 

I see said the blind man.... I am conservative, so your correct, I'm sure others did get the impression that I was implying that the liberal agenda is wrong, and they would also be correct. That's just my opinion, and I'm sure others think the conservative agenda is wrong, their comments make that obvious, and that's all I was pointing out. Beyond belief or the lack thereof, its probably why we don't agree on much, the liberal and conservative point of views clash. However, I did not mean to give the impression that someone liberal is automatically branded immoral or that nonbelievers are immoral. What's moral to one person can be immoral to another (apples & oranges). There's an enormous difference in the thinking of someone who voted for Trump and someone who voted for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, just as there's a big difference in the thinking of those who accept or reject the bible.

 

I don't believe I deliberately twist context, but Q&A change and constantly alter the original topic, so I tend to stray. Its not to bait others or revert to a straw man's argument, but an effort to explain myself by illustrating a comparative example, which is inevitably construed as a diversion. I don't feel attacked, but do feel a couple other Christians have exited conversations because they felt their beliefs were ridiculed.

 

 

Just to say that I completely understand your position and its not my ambition to argue about non-existing facts. My only intent is to state what sways me to believe, because I think there is evidence, even though its not persuasive in the sense of being beyond doubt. As I've mentioned before, Agnosticism is the only absolute correct stance a person can take, because when push comes to shove, no one knows nothing. Its clear your all about 'absolutes', but as you wrote, "God could exist", and that's all I need to embrace and believe He does. I'm not here to be a source of contention or change minds, belief is a personal choice.

 

A couple points of confusion though..

 

1.  Your wrote "That's why I'm Agnostic" and "That's why I'm an Atheist".. Is this conflating the 2 to be one in the same?

 

2.  In regards to  "Atheist believe in nothing",  it occurred to me that Atheist don't 'believe' at all unless something is proven? So 'nothing' becomes irrelevant.

 

3.  Very disappointed that your disparaging Thor, there's even been movies made about him, so its got to be true

 

 

 

 

1.  I wear a variety of labels.  I'm Human.  I'm a man.  I'm an American.  I'm a senior citizen.  None of them conflate.  In the same way, I am both Agnostic and an Atheist.  They do not conflate.  They answer different questions.

 

I am Agnostic.  I don't know whether or not God exists.

I am an Atheist.  I don't believe that God exists.

I am an Apatheist.  I don't care whether or not God exists.

 

Knowing, believing and caring are all different issues.  The questions that we ask, take us to different answers.

 

2.  Have you found yet another way to be irritating?

 

3.  The only reason that we are discussing your God -- is that your God is the favorite flavor of the moment.  There have been many gods down through the centuries.  Your God is the newest and most popular; but is otherwise not immune to the arch of history.  In history, patterns repeat.  Never quite the same way, but patterns repeat.

 

Gods have a time of popularity.  Over time, their religion becomes mythology.  The old gods fade away for lack of attention.  True, they never vanish.  Thor still has a following.  But people don't get worked up over whether or not Thor exists.  The old gods simply fade, from the center of their culture, into the background.  Religion fades into mythology.

 

You think that your God and religion are unique?  That the same fate won't overtake them?  It won't happen any time soon; but it will happen.  History shows us the future.  There is a lot of history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Dan, since you have had so much to say about Cultural dominance -- a little more information for you.

 

The Wheel turns.  The Pendulum swings.

 

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/03/22/nones-are-statistically-tied-for-the-largest-religious-group-in-the-country/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=44

 

 

Shall we discuss majority rights?          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, Key said:

"...I was implying that the liberal agenda is wrong, and they would also be correct."

 

But you never said their "agenda", and no one stated an agenda. So, in that case you are wrong, except in your own opinion. Whether you state liberal or Democrat, you lump everyone together in a broad generalization that is virtually guaranteed to not always be true, just as someone might say the same of conservative or Republican. Additionally, it's a shame that a religious philosophy discussion had even become a political one to begin with.

 

However, since you stated differences in thinking in regards to voting Trump or AOC, I'm inclined to present the opinion that there was no thorough thinking in voting for Trump as opposed to AOC. (She speaks far more eloquently than he does, despite conservative arguments, as well. Yes, that is saying a lot, but she is also improving, while he isn't.)

 

When I point out what most liberals support, I'm implying an agenda. Nearly everyone has an agenda, it not a bad thing as you suggest. I wasn't trying to get political, just making a general observation that people who have liberal moral standards are also inclined to be politically liberal. I'm aware that this is not always true across the board, because I know democrats who are Christians, oppose late term abortions, and the legalization of recreational marijuana. And it seems your the only one making it a political discussion by dwelling on it?

 

I totally disagree with your opinion of AOC? You may think she  speaks eloquently, but everything that Socialist says is crazy. Her "Green Deal" is off the charts, the girl lives in fantasy land. I'll acknowledge that Trump is an arrogant loud mouth, but I agree with most of his policies.. In any case, this is all  and probably belongs in another thread.

[Dan56]

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

I am Agnostic.  I don't know whether or not God exists.

I am an Atheist.  I don't believe that God exists.

I am an Apatheist.  I don't care whether or not God exists.

 

Knowing, believing and caring are all different issues.  The questions that we ask, take us to different answers.

 

2.  Have you found yet another way to be irritating?

 

I guess I am stupid, because I still don't get it? At first it seemed like "versatility" is your middle name, but to claim "I don't know whether or not God exists" and "I don't believe that God exists" in the same sentence seems contradictory. If you don't really know, you can't believe or disbelieve? It just seems illogical to me.

 

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

The Pendulum swings

 

According to the book I believe, I'm counting on the pendulum swinging

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I guess I am stupid, because I still don't get it? At first it seemed like "versatility" is your middle name, but to claim "I don't know whether or not God exists" and "I don't believe that God exists" in the same sentence seems contradictory. If you don't really know, you can't believe or disbelieve? It just seems illogical to me.

 

 

According to the book I believe, I'm counting on the pendulum swinging

 

 

In a religious context, the distinction between belief and knowledge may not be obvious.  So, for purposes of this discussion, we will change the context.

 

1.  I believe that I have the winning lottery ticket.  I know that I have the winning lottery ticket.

 

Before the lottery is drawn, all I have is belief.  My belief might or might not be correct.  After the drawing, I know whether or not I have the winning ticket.

 

2.  I believe that I can drink a pint of rum and drive safely.  The cop who pulls me over for drunk driving, knows that I am not driving safely.

 

3.  I believe that I have cooked a great meal.  The unfortunate friend who tastes that meal, knows that I am an awful cook.

 

4.  I believe that I'm a great plumber.  When the pipes all leak, everyone will know that I'm a lousy plumber.

 

When there is objective, verifiable fact -- the distinction between believing and knowing is clear.  In the absence of hard fact -- the distinction is not so clear.  Belief may be comforting.  Knowing is useful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Key]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

When I point out what most liberals support, I'm implying an agenda. Nearly everyone has an agenda, it not a bad thing as you suggest. I wasn't trying to get political, just making a general observation that people who have liberal moral standards are also inclined to be politically liberal. I'm aware that this is not always true across the board, because I know democrats who are Christians, oppose late term abortions, and the legalization of recreational marijuana. And it seems your the only one making it a political discussion by dwelling on it?

 

I totally disagree with your opinion of AOC? You may think she  speaks eloquently, but everything that Socialist says is crazy. Her "Green Deal" is off the charts, the girl lives in fantasy land. I'll acknowledge that Trump is an arrogant loud mouth, but I agree with most of his policies.. In any case, this is all  and probably belongs in another thread.

It may be splitting hairs, but you brought up liberal and Democrat with a sweeping generalization that I felt needed  have exceptions exposed. I have only dwelled on it due to you're not understanding that.

Btw, I said she speaks more eloquently than Trump. That's as far as I'll go on this tact.

 

I also find it head scratching that you haven't been able to grasp what Jonathan has been repeatedly explaining as to his stance on God or gods. I am not so refined in my knowledge of religion, yet I understood it.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

51 minutes ago, Key said:

It may be splitting hairs, but you brought up liberal and Democrat with a sweeping generalization that I felt needed  have exceptions exposed. I have only dwelled on it due to you're not understanding that.

Btw, I said she speaks more eloquently than Trump. That's as far as I'll go on this tact.

 

I also find it head scratching that you haven't been able to grasp what Jonathan has been repeatedly explaining as to his stance on God or gods. I am not so refined in my knowledge of religion, yet I understood it.

 

 

 

 

Thank you.  I try to be clear and methodical.     

 

I neglected to tie up the loose ends.

 

As an Atheist, I don't believe.  There is no claim to knowing.  I don't believe.

 

As an Agnostic, I know that I don't know.  It's an honest answer and objectively true.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

An addendum:

 

In the past, when I attempted to explain Agnosticism to Dan; he had an answer.

 

 

Revelation 3:15

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

Revelation 3:16

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

I am afflicted with memory.  This exchange was a small part of why I went on to being an Apatheist.  I figured that nobody could be confused by not caring whether or not God existed.

 

Seriously.  What possible confusion could there be?  No more arguing about the distinction between Agnostic and Atheist.  No more arguing.  No more confusion.  No more explaining the difference, between knowledge and belief.  Apatheist was the perfect label.  Not caring about whether or not God exists is idiot proof.  Or so I thought.  The idiots found ways.

 

 

 

One of our true believers demanded to know -- "What's the difference between an Apathetic Agnostic and a Pathetic Agnostic?"  The answer was -- "None."

 

Dan went off on a tangent about being "hopeless".

 

You know.  Life on this board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

13 hours ago, Key said:

It may be splitting hairs, but you brought up liberal and Democrat with a sweeping generalization that I felt needed  have exceptions exposed. I have only dwelled on it due to you're not understanding that.

Btw, I said she speaks more eloquently than Trump. That's as far as I'll go on this tact.

 

I also find it head scratching that you haven't been able to grasp what Jonathan has been repeatedly explaining as to his stance on God or gods. I am not so refined in my knowledge of religion, yet I understood it.

 

That's fine, I don't mind someone objecting to my generalizations, I've got to learn to include a disclaimer that there are always exceptions. And yes, nearly everyone speaks more eloquently than Trump.

 

I got the gist of what Jonathan was saying, he's both Atheist and Agnostic. I guess I just personally couldn't make a definitive conclusion (Atheism) while simultaneously claiming not to know (Agnosticism)? Its kind of like me being on a jury and deciding the fate of someone who's on trial for murder. There's no evidence to determine guilt, but juror Dan says, "Someone get a rope, just in case he did it".  Likewise, Jonathan has made an absolute determination, with no evidence to support his verdict, so I guess that's where the Apatheism come in?

 

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

Before the lottery is drawn, all I have is belief.  My belief might or might not be correct.  After the drawing, I know whether or not I have the winning ticket.

 

Yes, I understand the difference between believing and knowing.. The problem with your analogies is that atheist and agnostics have no belief in the first place. Neither would buy a lottery ticket because one wouldn't believe the lottery existed and the other wouldn't know if the lottery existed. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's fine, I don't mind someone objecting to my generalizations, I've got to learn to include a disclaimer that there are always exceptions. And yes, nearly everyone speaks more eloquently than Trump.

 

I got the gist of what Jonathan was saying, he's both Atheist and Agnostic.

 

1.  I guess I just personally couldn't make a definitive conclusion (Atheism) while simultaneously claiming not to know (Agnosticism)? Its kind of like me being on a jury and deciding the fate of someone who's on trial for murder. There's no evidence to determine guilt, but juror Dan says, "Someone get a rope, just in case he did it". 

 

2.  Likewise, Jonathan has made an absolute determination, with no evidence to support his verdict,

 

3.  so I guess that's where the Apatheism come in?

 

 

Yes, I understand the difference between believing and knowing.. The problem with your analogies is that atheist and agnostics have no belief in the first place.

 

4.  Neither would buy a lottery ticket because one wouldn't believe the lottery existed and the other wouldn't know if the lottery existed. 

 

 

1.  Definitive Conclusion? 

 

2.  Absolute determination?  You are not paying attention to my words.  You're making up your own crap.

 

3  Seriously?  Keep guessing.  Better yet.  Pay attention.

 

Your lottery analogy is beyond stupid.  You're trolling me.  This has to be outright baiting.