Actually (with no apologies to the former defense secretary), I have found nothing specific to be unsure about, other that being unsure I could be completely sure. Before that I was an atheist.
Lacking a belief in a deity (a-theism) is orthogonal to epistemological principles (a-gnosis). You’re an agnostic atheist, or a soft atheist, as the terminology goes.
Santa Claus. Give a reasonably intelligent child an example of a fable they are lied to about as being true and then reveal that its a hoax and the parallel to the Christian god becomes a little too easy to make.
Other factors I would think lie in the disintegration of the extended family and the community. When young people feel they are not valued by their peers and elders they will tend to not give a a rats rear about their rituals and customs.
I don’t know any atheist who is completely sure that there is no god.
Please allow me to introduce you to a Mr. Red Shirt…
Well, howdy! Pleased to meet you!
(Will Rodgers wouldn’t have liked me, either…)
A “learned theist”.
Is that something like a bible-trekkie?
No. It is just someone whom a few fundy atheists like to pretend don’t exist so that they can join their fundy theist counterparts in being supercilious regarding people with whom they don’t agree.
Well there are plenty of* learned theists* who think that Jesus alone is required for salvation.
And equating a learned theist with a Trekker may seem insulting, but obsession is obsession. The real bible nerds are fulfilling the same needs as a LOTR nerd.
Although, the LOTR nerd generally understands that his stuff isn’t real.
What’d you class Dante as?
Revelation 21:8 would nab Hemingway under two of the clauses unless one wants to propose that one must satisfy all requirements to undergo the second death. In which case the fiery lake would be conspicuously underpopulated.
I’d like to see some modern theology that people that are avowed atheists and unrepentant adulterers to their death are not due for hell though.
That is possibly true.
I have never encountered one. I have particularly never encountered one who would phrase the idea in the manner you have.
I strongly suspect that you could not name a “learned theist” who expressed the opinion that the named persons are definitely going to hell–barring, of course, your grabbing someone like Swaggart or Robertson and holding him up as your idea of a “learned theist.”
Bible-Trekies go to regular meetings. For which they often dress-up.
Bible-Trekkies can quote whole passages from their books. Some can even quote in Kling..errr..greek.
Bible-Trekkies fantasise about their books being real. Some actually hoping that an actual apocalypse would happen.
Bible-Trekkies usually have some bible-merchandising about the house.
etc, etc
Thousands of people’s lives have been transformed through faith in Jesus Christ. No one has been transformed by believing in Santa Claus which has been clearly established as a creation of fiction anyways.
Have you established 100% without a doubt that Christianity is complete fiction, a product of man’s creation? Where’s your proof? Oh that’s right, atheists don’t have to prove anything because that’s proving a negative! Such a copout.
It’s easy to prove that Santa Claus does not exist, but you can’t prove that God does not exist. That’s why the comparison fails miserably.
Have you established 100% without a doubt that Christianity is NOT a complete fiction, a product of man’s creation? Oh that’s right, Christians don’t have to prove anything because that’s proving a negative! Such a copout.
Ditto for Quetzacoatl, Thor, Mohammed, Vishnu…
It’s almost as if it’s the belief that’s transformative, and not any external entity.
Yet again, you do not understand basic logic. One does not shift the burden of proof to disprove a claim, a claim is under the null hypothesis as assumed-false until it is proven. You’re simply engaging in transparent special pleading; you would not, for example, claim that a mystery liquid in a syringe definitely cures cancer and we must produce extensive tests to show that it does not. When it is your god being gored, all of a sudden epistemology can take a back seat and someone must support the null hypothesis rather than you having to falsify it.
Of course, as it’s epistemologically impossible to prove certain negatives, such as “there is a magical entity beyond/outside of reality, causation and time who can neither be falsified or confirmed”, you’ve set up a very, very simple fallacy.Of course, Sagan dealt with that with a nifty parable, years ago.
Bullshit.
Santa uses themoptic camouflage so He’s undetectable and He possesses advanced teleportation and, more importantly, mind control technology. What’s more, those without faith cannot see Him even if He were standing right in front of them.
QED.
My daughter, who is four, has been transformed by Santa. She listens more and she is generally better behaved when we tell her that her behavior could land her on the ‘naughty list’.
Practically nothing is established with 100% certainty. I can’t be absolutely guaranteed that you exist - you could be a bot, for instance.
As to ‘proof’, again, such an epistemic standard is unrealistic. I do have an essay I typed up about why I don’t trust the new testament.
To prove Santa doesn’t exist? I’d like to see you do this. As to God’s existence, I suppose that all depends on the God.
You have claimed this before.
You were then under the mistaken idea that Santa Claus was invented in the early 1900’s.
I assure you he wasn’t, that’s just the modern image of him.
The modern, popular image was based on the Dutch Sinterklaas, or Saint Nicholas.
Saint Nicholas was a christian revamping of Wodan.
The feast of Saint Nicholas, as celebrated in Holland, Belgium and parts of Germany is the christianised version of the worship of Wodan, that has been going on for milennia.
Now prove Wodan doesn’t exist. No copouts.
I have presented enough evidence to at least suggest the possibility that Christianity is real. Can you do the same for Santa Claus, or your spaghetti monster? Can atheists for once bring something substantial to the table besides the arrogant, “convince me”? Nope because the reality is that you don’t know, and you don’t want to know.
And we have presented enough evidence to at least suggest that Chrisitanity is not real. Is our claim as plausible as yours?
No, you haven’t, this is the same Fallacy of Bifurcation / God of the Gaps argument you’ve been using all along. You act as if you poke holes in reality then whatever comes through simply must be your specific religious conception of the ‘supernatural’ Even if we were to accept your bogus claims about a patient rising from the dead, or some such, all you’ve done is to show that our understanding of the world is flawed. It does not follow from that point that Christianity is valid any more than it follows that there is only one God and Mohammed is His final prophet.
I do not expect you to grok this, however, as you’ve claimed that every single statement about religion/belief in general is an attack on your sect of Christianity in specific.