Original Sin?

Dalex, I think a proper understanding of prayer is in order and we might need another thread. Throughout history God has been slowly teaching us and guiding us like a good teacher or a patient father. Moving us ever so slowly from the violent ancient world to the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Even after the Lord ascends the Spirit is sent so we are never orphaned and it is St. Paul who tells us this Holy Spirit will teach us how to pray. The thing we eventually grew up from is the idea that God was a genie in a lamp for us. This childish view of God gives way to a more adult approach to prayer, one where we are not under any pretense that God must conform His will to ours in prayer, but quite the opposite. We must conform our wills to God and prayer is where that loving and trusting relationship develops. This is not to say we can't and shouldn't petition God for certain things that in our limited understanding we think we need, but we must always remember one of the important lines of the Our Father, "thy will be done." While miracles still happen all the time I would hope we have moved past the time when we needed such miracles to believe.

Quote: Dalex

Athiesm is a decision made based on a lack of proof that god exists, alternate explainations for that which is presented as evidence, disbelief that some of the "evidence" is true because it can't be verified, disbelief of "evidence" because it goes against our understanding of the nature of the universe and how it has been shown to work. It is not a decision based on something other than evidence, it is a decision based on a lack of verifiable and believable evidence.

I would very much like to hear more about why you discredit the available evidence for God. I read your link that you posted and was thoroughly unsatisfied. For example, how does God go against our understanding of the nature of the universe and how it has been shown to work?

Quote: Evenbob

No evidence to base a decision on. Without
evidence, there is no decision to make. An
agnostic is just confused, he's really an atheist.

I disagree. An agnostic is confused, he or she is really a believer.

Quote:

The thing we eventually grew up from is the idea that God was a genie in a lamp for us.

Nice try. Shall I go and find (again) where Jesus
promises to give a believer whatever he asks
for in prayer? He says it outright. Pray to him
and he'll make it happen, just like a genie in
a lamp.

Quote: FrGamble

I disagree. An agnostic is confused, he or she is really a believer.

An agnostic is afraid to move in either
direction. He knows god is not real,
but he's been told he better believe
or else. So he sits on the fence.

Quote: Evenbob

An agnostic is afraid to move in either
direction. He knows god is not real,
but he's been told he better believe
or else. So he sits on the fence.

An agnostic is careful. He knows God is real, but has been told he better have scientific proof or else. So he sits on the fence.

Quote: FrGamble

An agnostic is careful. He knows God is real, but has been told he better have scientific proof or else. So he sits on the fence.

No, you have it backwards, as usual. Agnostics know
god is not real, but atheist is such a strong word they
take the easy way. If you know god is real, why would
you need evidence. Your explanation makes no sense.
You can't half believe something, you do or you don't.
Nobody says 'I believe in god but am an agnostic'.

No matter which way or pray or what you pray for has any difference been seen between a group that prays and a group that does not. People pray for real, measurable things to happen.
The stories about what to pray for or how to pray seems to have been written after all of the "ask and ye shall receive" verses - probably because people asked, and they did not receive. They had to explain that, and reinterpret the obvious meaning of the words. It then goes into not questioning god's will, and only praying for what god wants. There is that "don't ask questions" starting to rear its head.

Biblical miracles do not happen now. The kind where something seemingly impossible would be described, and then miraculously implemented. Not any more. Why not? The obvious answer is that they were just stories, attempting to get whoever they could convince to believe.

Quote: Face

I can understand that, because agnosticism is often defined as "not saying one way or the other". But that is not my belief. I do say that there is no god. I believe it as fervently as you do Christ. I just have issues with integrity and intellectual honesty. I believe with everything I am there is no god, but I cannot prove it. I cannot know for sure, and I know I cannot know. If I cannot know, then I must accept the possibility that there is. There is no other logical conclusion or stance to take.

There was an astronomer called Fred Hoyle who constantly came up with notions which were rigorous, well-reasoned, brilliant and wrong.

Other scientists paid attention to him because 1) he'd proved stellar nucleosynthesis(*) earlier on, and 2) his theories were well-reasoned, rigorous and brilliant. That is, they could not be dismissed for obvious flaws or mistakes, but rather very subtle ones. This forced others to take a hard look and find the flaw, or to confirm them (they never did). He didn't say things like "Well, gravity works like jam because there is a purple dinosaur eating lunch in the dark side of the Moon."

Hoyle's theories and hypotheses could be disbelieved, yet required proof they were not right. They were not mere assertions, they were not rationalizations based on ignorance and wishful thinking. That's very different from the claim that "My god is the real, one true god and you must follow my religion as set down in this very old, very outdated book full of errors and archaisms." Hell, even Christians don't all believe the same things the same way. Hardly indicative of a one true god running things.


(*)Stellar nucleosynthesis is the means by which heavier elements arise from lighter ones due to fusion reactions in the cores (nuclei) of stars.

Quote: FrGamble

An agnostic is careful. He knows God is real, but has been told he better have scientific proof or else. So he sits on the fence.

How's the Queen of Hearts these days?

Quote: Evenbob

No, you have it backwards, as usual. Agnostics know
god is not real, but atheist is such a strong word they
take the easy way. If you know god is real, why would
you need evidence. Your explanation makes no sense.
You can't half believe something, you do or you don't.
Nobody says 'I believe in god but am an agnostic'.

I'm toying with you a little and also pointing out that you again and again let your own version of reality creep into our discussion. An agnostic by definition does NOT know God is not real nor does he/she know God is real. You like to imagine what other people are thinking. If I would imagine like you I would think an agnostic who has not experienced God personally in their lives would know outright that atheism is not only a strong word but an incorrect one. You can't make the statement there is no God when there is evidence for God and none for the idea that there is no God. This is how you and I can say there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. There is no real evidence either exist and their are plenty of reasonable reasons they cannot exist. To know God is real you need evidence. For you to suggest that something can be real and have no evidence makes no sense, you are thinking like an atheist.

Almost every agnostic I have ever met will say almost exactly what you quoted, "I believe there is something but I am an agnostic."