HelenM

I don't know

Seriously though - to me, giving up my agnosticism would mean returning to certainty about things I'm not certain about.

So I still consider myself 'agnostic' although I don't say it very often, because I don't want to get into having to explain what I mean by it or deal with the negative knee-jerk reactions I'd be likely to get from various people were I to try to discuss it with them.

Feel free to call me a coward if you like...



take care
Helen

phlebas

In an unusual turn of events, this thread has evolved from RRP fodder into a reasonable discussion. So it would be reasonable of me to move it

Off to Misc. Religion Discussions.

MrDarwin

Here's what I don't get: if heaven is so great, and the earth is so awful, then when somebody falls ill or is injured in an accident, why do Christians pray for that person's recovery? Shouldn't they pray that the person die immediately and go to heaven?

Goliath

Helen,

No problem.

Well, I'm afraid it does. You asked, "would you see that as a well thought-out, meaningful, analysis of the implications of the atheist worldview?" Since there is no such thing as "the atheist worldview," you may as well ask "would you see that as a well thought-out, meaningful, analysis of the implications of groigulidlulsiu?"

Now this question at least makes sense. And my answer to it would be "no."

What do you mean when you say that a world view has "meaning?"

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

ashibaka,

What wasn't nice about it? I merely pointed out that atheism is not a worldview, and thusly, Helen's question (as originally stated) makes no sense.

Incorrect. Helen had asked "would you see that as a well thought-out, meaningful, analysis of the implications of the atheist worldview?" Since there is no such thing as "the atheist worldview," she may as well have asked "would you see that as a well thought-out, meaningful, analysis of the implications of gurgenfurrlkelblatzingding?"

Sincerely,

Goliath

ybnormal

Helen, I respect your not wanting to discuss that whole surprising thang there, but I followed this thread over here just to ask if there was a way you could expand on that "returning to certainty" comment. Sorry, but I found it rather intriguing. If you can't do it without going places you don't want to go, I'm cool with that and I'll let it go. I mean, you do have reason to expect me to be one of those "various people" you spoke of.

At first tho, I read it to possibly have two opposite meanings, but now I realize it probably means that you'd need that certainty to return to full faith, for lack of a better term. If that is indeed what you meant, then I understand and there's no need to respond, and FWIW, cowardice never entered my mind.

Brian63

It's true that atheism does not compose an entire worldview, but the mere mention of the phrase "atheist worldview" does not need to be interpreted in such a way that it implies that it does indeed comprise an entire worldview.

In other words, an "atheistic worldview" can refer to a worldview in which atheism is one component among many. It does not necessarily mean that atheism is the only component in that worldview.

Helen's point doesn't at all make less sense because she used the phrase "atheist worldview." She could have said "a worldview that incorporates atheism" and it would have meant the same thing, just slightly rephrased.

Brian

diana

Hi Helen!

I had a full response typed this afternoon, then tried to post, and got the "This thread is locked" message, so I backed out and lost it. Bummer.

When they harmonize them their end result is that works are important but salvation is by faith in Christ, not by works.

And if works are important, isn't salvation then by all of the variables? It seems overly simplistic to me to say "saved by faith" or "saved by works" when without any one of God's grace/faith/works can you be saved.

Have you read Janaya's thread re: since Jesus died for me, why am I not saved? Why is there a condition on it? (Or, that's my summary of it)

Good question! I wonder the same thing. It isn't, alas, unconditional...or is it? If he died for me, why should I need to believe anything? If somebody goes to the bank for me and pays off my truck note and I don't believe it happened, it's still paid off...isn't it?

It's possible to feel sorry for oneself that one is suffering the consequences of one's sin, without repenting over the sin, for example. I.e. a person can be upset they were caught stealing, which is not the same as being sorry that they stole.

True. But now that we've agreed that repentance means you turn from your sins, wouldn't that mean suicide (i.e., murder) is an indication that you never really repented in the first place, too?

Theologically speaking, nonbelievers do not have the power not to sin; but when a person receives Christ as savior, he/she is then born again of the Holy Spirit which means he/she now has power through the Holy Spirit to choose not to sin.

This is kinda an aside, but why wouldn't nonbelievers not have the power to not sin? Don't we all have the power to obey the secular law or not? So...provided God's law is internally consistent...why wouldn't it be possible to simply avoid breaking it?

This is a piece of Xn dogma that never made sense to me. That's why I ask.

He/she can still sin but now he/she also has the power not to sin, through the Holy Spirit.

So...magic? If not, I guess I don't follow.

Well, it is the 'not a True Christian' defense so that's why it looks like it!

The question is, is it valid or not?

Right.

The Not A True Xn argument just looks like a cop-out to me. Of course. But that's for those who believe this and argue it to explain, I think.

I know it certainly annoys me when a Xn asks another Xn what atheists think instead of going to the source for their answers. I try to pay the same respect, when possible.

d

HelenM

ybnormal

I think I meant what you last said...when I was [mentally] ill I was certain about all kinds of things and later realized I was wrong. After that kind of experience I'm hesitant to be certain about anything. Maybe that will eventually wear off if I stay well for a while. Or I suppose, even quicker if I don't . But I hope I'll never be 'unthinkingly dogmatic', at any rate.

That was how I should have asked it in the first place.

I was thinking of how some Christians think about not being a Christian - that life is pointless and hopeless and any non-Christian who doesn't see that is in denial/avoiding the truth.

Anyway, I don't think that way, myself. So I don't really want to discuss it any further because I don't feel comfortable that I can elaborate accurately on their POV.

Goliath

Brian63,

Helen originally asked something about "the atheist worldview." The word "the" in front of "atheist worldview" seems to imply either uniqueness (which is, as we agree, not the case) or a lack of precision (which atheist worldview?).

For example, a man might walk into a music store and say to the store clerk, "I'd like to buy the CD, please!" Of course, the only thing that the clerk can ask him is "Okay, which CD are you talking about?" After all, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of CD's in the average music store.

So, while the phrase "atheist worldview" is nebulous enough that the person uttering the words may or may not be implying uniqueness, the phrase "the atheist worldview" certainly seems to imply uniqueness, if not a lack of precision.

"An 'atheistic worldview,'" yes. Can the same be said of "the 'atheistic worldview?'"

Ah, but again, "the atheist worldview" is not hte same thing as "a worldview that incorporates atheism." The first phrase doesn't even make sense, whereas the latter does.

Sincerely,

Goliath