Neha,
What I offered aren't big claims. They're just simple observations. And my basis for them? Your own comments in this thread demonstrating that you
don't understand Scripture, including your poor attempt at contextual analysis of Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees (as if His comments to them were the only ones that serve as biblical examples of my point, regardless).
As for respect, it's rather clear you didn't come here seeking respect. You people seldom do. You come here with an obvious bias against Christianity, with little more than thinly veiled vitriol, and it soon shows itself. You are little more than preachers who are afraid to put your own beliefs on the table, content to toss bombs from the sidelines. So believe you me, I would never accuse you of seeking respect.
And my own effectiveness? I'll simply continue to laugh and recognize that such a comment further proves my points.
The thing is, you see arrogance and a holier-than-though attitude and rudeness and such things. That's fine. I'm not interested in changing your mind or leading you to think otherwise. You won't be here very long. My interest is far more in the community of people who actually have been and will continue posting here. I've been here ten years. Some have been here with me all that time. Some less. But I know them, and they know me. More than that, they know your act. They know the kind of person who feigns a open mindedness and Perci's weak agnosticism but who is really debating from a very firm set of anti-Christian presuppositions that they're either ignorant of (and thus, lack self-awareness) or are too afraid to put themselves out in the open. They also know genuine people when they see them--people who don't believe, but who are really interested in why we believe like we do. Those people are treated with exactly the respect they give us. But those of you who come into our house and don't grant us the courtesy of getting to know us and getting to know our beliefs, well you get exactly what you provide. You don't and won't see that, but people like Rick and FL and K and Byblos and Ryan (and others, I just mention them because they're regulars who recently posted in this thread), they all see it, and that is quite enough for me. Take it however you like, but that's the way we all see you. And we're right about you.
So feel free to continue lecturing me. It's a tired act, one we've all seen ten million times before. I'll simply leave you with that great conclusion from the great American philosopher, Will Hunting, who said: "See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a ******* education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library! . . . At least I won't be unoriginal."
Have whatever last word you like.
----------------------------------
And Perci,
I appreciate your claim that you're merely a weak agnostic. I didn't remember you saying that, so I looked through your threads and forgive me if I missed it, but I never was able to find it. I did find where you gave something of a description of your position, saying:
- If I'm pressed for a label then I generally plump for agnostic, because I don't have an active belief in or against deities. I know that some would term this atheism, but that's a badge I tend to use for those who hold the - I believe unsupportable by current evidence - belief that there are definitely no deities. I don't hold much truck with fundamentalists of any stripe, especially not the shrill, un-nuanced kind a la Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham who tend to grossly overstate their cases and resort to personal attacks.
And again:
- Etymologically speaking I'm an agnostic atheist. A-theist because I lack an explicit belief, a-gnostic because I believe the answer to the question of whether deities exist is unanswerable in objective terms, at least with today's knowledge.
Label-wise I call myself an agnostic if people ask, because in common usage that word means someone who lacks a belief even though it is possible to be both agnostic and a theist.
I don't see here where you claim you are a weak agnostic, but, again, I'll take your word for it.
The problem, though, is two fold. First, I just don't see how there's much of a difference in a weak vs. a strong agnostic. As your own definition points out, an agnostic is not someone who just doesn't know that God exists (that would be mere ignorance) but one who regards the question as
unanswerable. That, however, is a positive position. It's not a mere "lack of" type thing. The point is just that whether you hold the position weakly or strongly, you hold it all the same, and it has to be defended all the same.
And that leads to the second problem. You're just as required to defend your agnosticism as we are our theism and an atheist their atheism. Obviously, someone who just hasn't come to a position doesn't have to defend their ignorance except for when they deny an argument (for either side), in which case you would need to defend your basis for objecting to the claim, and all too often, that defense shows that you aren't an agnostic after all, but, in fact, an atheist. For instance, consider the following argument:
- 1. If Jesus rose from the dead, then God exists;
2. All the evidence suggests that Jesus rose from the dead;
3. Therefore, all the evidence suggests that God exists.
Now, shy of a few people who want to claim ridiculous conspiracies (e.g., that Jesus was an alien), no one challenges (1), so the debate revolves around (2). But the real problem is not so clear, because when you actually start
having this discussion, you find two things. First, there is a huge unwillingness to accept (2) no matter how much evidence is given. Suddenly, these completely rational, open minded "atheists" and "agnostics" become historical pyrrhists. At a bare minimum, that suggests that they hold that God just does not exist, because, after all, if He doesn't then, Jesus certainly did NOT rise from the dead. There MUST be some explanation, even if they don't know what it is, to account for the evidence! But I hope you can see the serious problem there. The warrant for denying the full weight of the evidence is rooted in the claim that God does not exist, which is a position they've claimed not to hold and one they are certainly not allowed to argue from given their stated position. The second problem, then, is that they'll often say something along the lines of:
- i. Christians say Jesus rose from the dead;
ii. But dead men don't come back to life;
iii. Therefore, Christians are wrong and Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Again, (ii) is important, because it lies behind the insistence to find
any sort of position imaginable to avoid affirming (2) above. But what is the warrant for (ii)? How is it justified? If God exists, then how do we know that dead men don't come back to life? On the contrary, the claim is just the opposite, so this argument begs the question. (ii) can only be defended if one assumes that God does
not exist. And yet, that is the very position they claim they do not hold! Now, I would respect the atheist's argument against the resurrection who said something like this:
- 1. If Jesus rose from the dead, God exists;
2'. But God does not exist;
3'. Therefore, Jesus did not rise from the dead.
But how many atheists and agnostics are brave enough to make THAT argument? In my experience, none of them, because it would require defending (2'). Their "lack of belief" does not allow them to assert it,
even as they assume it as their only plausible warrant for countering (2) above!
So, perhaps you are a weak agnostic after all (whatever that is). Perhaps you're just merely ignorant of God's existence. But, whether intentional or not, your posts don't seem to suggest that's your position, and it is absolutely true that the vast majority of "atheists" don't hold that position. In fact, they hold the intellectually dishonest, cowardly position I've already described. They hold that God does not exist even as they eschew holding that belief (either intentionally, and thus they are deceptive, or unintentionally,and thus they lack self-awareness).
I'll let you decide for yourself how you fit into the above critique.
