Alliance and the Agnostic Argument

Originally posted by Alliance
So over the 4th I was arguing with my friends. One came up with a proposition that I have been thinking about for a while. Our argument was unseccesful. I wanted to see if this generated some discussion here.

IDEA:

Agnositcs are the only rational religous position becuase when it comes down to it, there is no proof that god exists or does not exist.

When it comes down to it, athiests and those who are relgious are essentially both in the same error.

You make a good point according to human reasoning, but Scripturally speaking, God says He already has revealed Himself to you agnostics and that you willfully choose to suppress Him.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify His as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Romans 1:20-21

"...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."

Romans 1:19

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You make a good point according to human reasoning, but Scripturally speaking, God says He already has revealed Himself to you agnostics and that you willfully choose to suppress Him.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify His as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Romans 1:20-21

"...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."

Romans 1:19

I get a totally different meaning from those quotes. You and I should take care of the Earth, that is what I think that is saying.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
...So agnosticism can lead to happiness if an individual finds the purpose to serve in agnosticism, whatever that purpose may be.

You are correct, but there is no purpose in agnosticism. I could be wrong, maybe it was just not there for me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I get a totally different meaning from those quotes. You and I should take care of the Earth, that is what I think that is saying.

Agnostics claim "They don't know if God exists" those verses show "He has revealed Himself to them by the things (Creation) that He made so they are without excuse. That is the message here. No excuse. They know there is a God they choose to disregard the things He has shown them. It's that simple Shaky.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Agnostics claim "They don't know if God exists" those verses show "He has revealed Himself to them by the things (Creation) that He made so they are without excuse. That is the message here. No excuse. They know there is a God they choose to disregard the things He has shown them. It's that simple Shaky.

Perhaps not.

IMO, the purpose of this thread is to determine the status of God's existence via reasoning, especially reasoning about the absence of empirical evidence. So even if Scripture is legit (and we know your position on that), it is, as one might say, "inadmissible" relative to this particular discussion.

To insist that Scritpure is relevant in this thread suggests a lack of respect for this thread's purpose, a stance not in keeping with God's infinite tolerance and compassion.

Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps not.

IMO, the purpose of this thread is to determine the status of God's existence via reasoning, especially reasoning about the absence of empirical evidence. So even if Scripture is legit (and we know your position on that), it is, as one might say, "inadmissible" relative to this particular discussion.

To insist that Scritpure is relevant in this thread suggests a lack of respect for this thread's purpose, a stance not in keeping with God's infinite tolerance and compassion.

Great, so reasoning is only according to man's own opinions on this thread. Please post that disclaimer up front next time. Thank You. 🙂

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Agnostics claim "They don't know if God exists" those verses show "He has revealed Himself to them by the things (Creation) that He made so they are without excuse. That is the message here. No excuse. They know there is a God they choose to disregard the things He has shown them. It's that simple Shaky.

Maybe it is just like gravity. You don't have to believe in it to stick to the Earth. However I think that most agnostics are rejecting Christianity, not God or even Jesus. All they are saying is, we don't know. I was once an agnostic, but then I found happiness in the Lotus sutra. It is your beliefs that they doubt, but they will cherish the truth once they find it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe it is just like gravity. You don't have to believe in it to stick to the Earth. However I think that most agnostics are rejecting Christianity, not God or even Jesus. All they are saying is, we don't know. I was once an agnostic, but then I found happiness in the Lotus sutra. It is your beliefs that they doubt, but they will cherish the truth once they find it.

I disagree. It is the scripture they refuse. It is the God of the Bible they are rejecting. He says He has revealled Himself to them. That's the only point I am trying so hard to make here...

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I disagree. It is the scripture they refuse. It is the God of the Bible they are rejecting. He says He has revealled Himself to them. That's the only point I am trying so hard to make here...

No, you are doing a bad job at convincing people. Don't cast away your responsibility. They are rejecting you and your arrogance in believing that the bible is some kind of magic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, you are doing a bad job at convincing people. Don't cast away your responsibility. They are rejecting you and your arrogance in believing that the bible is some kind of magic.

Your right Shaky, please entertain my newly posted Thread. 🙂

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Your right Shaky, please entertain my newly posted Thread. 🙂

I did, and I hope you will still call me friend after you read it. I am your friend even though we do not agree. That is life...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I did, and I hope you will still call me friend after you read it. I am your friend even though we do not agree. That is life...

You are ok Shaky. I am still leaving the forum. I just wanted to wish you the best. There is very little hope here in my opinion or reasons for me to wast precious time here. A few might see the light but I think many have already went deep down the other road. Take care...

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You are ok Shaky. I am still leaving the forum. I just wanted to wish you the best. There is very little hope here in my opinion or reasons for me to wast precious time here. A few might see the light but I think many have already went deep down the other road. Take care...

Good luck. But remember, who did Jesus fellowship with?

However, I do believe there is hope in some of these people becoming Buddhists. 😆

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I disagree. It is the scripture they refuse. It is the God of the Bible they are rejecting. He says He has revealled Himself to them. That's the only point I am trying so hard to make here...

You just don't get it. The Bible as non-fiction is like any other religous text to you is non-fiction. 2/3 of the world does not reference the bible at all. You are in the clear minority. This is a pan-theistic forum. People of all religions are welcome. THis is not the "Chirstian Conversion Forum" This is not the "You must belive the Bilbe forum" Many Chistians don't even take the bible literally. Your opinon is in the vast minority and simply stating that your opinon is correct becuase it is correct is not going to change anyones mind about you.

This forum is about the discussion of religion in the context of plurality. If you don't believe religion is pluralistic, you are going to have some societal limitations when discussiong religion. This is not our fault.

THis thread was about a logical support/or denial of an argument. You don't have to participate. "My God says this: ____" does not mean you won the debate.

The biggest issues I see with religions are the following:

1) They are all based on some kind of sacred text, describing events and happenings where the deity/deities INTERVENED in the world – it may be the actual creation of the world, past prophets or Messiahs, destruction of cities or enemies, interferences with free will and choice and so on and so forth.
2) Today the world is strangely UTTERLY devoid of divine intervention. This raises the questions why this deity/deities have chosen to at one time intervene and now NOT to. Thereby the argument of “free will and choice” is nullified, because once this free will and choice did NOT exist, so either the deity/deities changed their minds and are then NOT omnipotent and do not warrant worship – OR they do not exist.
3) All the sacred texts were written by humans. All contain contradictions, scientific nonsense and passages that are – at best – open for interpretation. If the deity/deities in question were unaware of the confusion this can create and the atrocities that would be committed in the name of these sacred texts, again the deity/deities in question are NOT omnipotent and do not warrant worship – or they do not exist.
4) Religions require FAITH. Why? You must simply BELIEVE… Why?
5) Why do all-powerful omnipotent, omnipresent beings even concern themselves with our worship? Is this not a sign of arrogance?

The burden of proof rests on those making a positive assertion such as “this deity exists”. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
So to me, agnostics simply refuse to face the fact, that there is no proof of the existence of any goods/deities and live with “an open mind.” As an atheist I would be willing to change my standpoint if I was presented by any proof… Just as I would be willing to change my standpoint that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light if I was presented by proof.
So I do not really understand the standpoint of the agnostic.

Well it's easy, we agnostics just see that it is not the evidence that decides what is real, but what is in fact real is real.

We just admit to the fact that we don't know for sure, and I believe you actually realize that as well.

Originally posted by The Omega
The biggest issues I see with religions are the following:

2)Today the world is strangely UTTERLY devoid of divine intervention. This raises the questions why this deity/deities have chosen to at one time intervene and now NOT to. Thereby the argument of “free will and choice” is nullified, because once this free will and choice did NOT exist, so either the deity/deities changed their minds and are then NOT omnipotent and do not warrant worship – OR they do not exist.

My religion does not believe he stopped 😉 But I understand your position and can respect it. I won't bother responding because I believe you are stating your view, and I agree that there is little, if any, scientific tangible proof of the validity of religion.

I do view a tangible evidence is the various health laws, but they could have been common sense for the most part.

Here is ours, I will add comments of my own following:

D&C 89
5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.
6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.
7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.
8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.
9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.
10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—
11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.
12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;
15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.
16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—
17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.
18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;

5-7 Alcohol use, 6 qualifies the use of wine in sacrament - not fermented wine.
8 Nicotine
9 Our prophets say this is due to tannin and caffeine

The rest is fairly straight forward I think.

Research this out, it was earlier (1833) than science had shown most of it to be a good idea. I think it is a small evidence.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We just admit to the fact that we don't know for sure, and I believe you actually realize that as well.

I do as an absolute. But for my daily life to me the evidence is so one sided I feel I can say with some degree of confidence that athiesm is also an acceptable viewpoint.

But you do have to admit don't you the possibility of something not yet discovered????.........Even through sciences..

Lets look at the probalility that god exists.

0=god cannot exist, 1=god exists.

0 or 1 can never be achieved in this probablilty game given current information. Simply we dont know.

I'm a reductionist, I believe things can be represented by simpler testable systems.

If the actual probability that god exists is 0.1 or 0.00001, To me, thats close enough to 0 for a functional everyday basis. This is only acceptable if I admit that in the purest terms, atheism is not provable.