Why do Christians pray to their god?

[BeRational]

Agrred, and I'd put the 'don't know' before the 'don't believe' in the process; you seem to be putting the 'don't believe' first.  I'd say that not having knowledge trumps not believing.

They are both equal.

You seem to want to avoid the fact that babies do not believe stuff at birth.

[Shaker]

Precisely, which is why I believe that infants are agnostic, not atheist.  They simply don't know.  Atheism is an action, in the same way that theism is.

What is the 'action' of atheism?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

They are both equal.

You seem to want to avoid the fact that babies do not believe stuff at birth.

I think he is using agnostic as a half way house between atheist and theist. He wants to put them in neither camp.

[wigginhall]

Most atheists are agnostic atheists, aren't they?   Certainly the ones I chat to, are.   There are gnostic atheists, that is, a 7 on Dawkins' scale, but I don't see all that many of them around.   

I think using 'atheist' about a baby is odd, since atheism suggests (to me) that one has thought about it and considered different views.   Obviously, a baby hasn't done that, but technically babies are atheists, that is, lacking a belief in God.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

yes I am an agnostic atheist, except where very specific claims about God are made such as from some YECs. Then I would go further along the Dawkins scale almost all the way to strong atheism and say that that particular God does not exist.

[jeremyp]

Precisely, which is why I believe that infants are agnostic

Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know if there is a god. How can an infant hold that belief if it has not yet developed a coherent idea of what God is? Or knowledge?

They simply don't know.

That's not the definition of agnosticism. If it were, we would all be classed as agnostics, since none of us know if there is a god or not.

Atheism is an action, in the same way that theism is.

Wrong and you should know why, given you have been told so many times the past.

[Shaker]

That's not the definition of agnosticism. If it were, we would all be classed as agnostics, since none of us know if there is a god or not.

See Alan Burns for a contrary opinion.

[jeremyp]

See Alan Burns for a contrary opinion.

Alan Burns has a strong conviction that there is a god, but he doesn't know it.

[Shaker]

Alan Burns has a strong conviction that there is a god, but he doesn't know it.

Indeed. That doesn't stop him from making precisely that claim, though.

[jeremyp]

Indeed. That doesn't stop him from making precisely that claim, though.

What he claims he knows is of no consequence to Hope's definition of agnosticism. His claim is that people who don't know God exists are agnostics. We both know that is an erroneous definition and it makes everybody an agnostic.No amount of claiming you know something makes it true that you do know the thing.

[Brownie]

Alan Burns has a strong conviction that there is a god, but he doesn't know it.

He believes it, he made a choice to believe it after being prompted to do so, whether by the Lord or by his unconscious.

Before anyone says that to make a decision like the one Alan made makes one impervious to any negatives, that is not true.  If one is of a constantly enquiring mind, that doesn't stop.  Also, according to Christian teaching (which non-Christians will not acknowledge), an area in which all negatives are 'swept out' - my paraphrase - will soon be invaded with doubts and fears.  We are human beings!

[Maeght]

Maeght, do you have evidence in support of this claim?  The problem is that I'm not sure that anyone knows how a baby's brain works at this level.  As ekim suggests, agnostic would probably be more realistic unless you are also willing to suggest that a baby is equally ascience - in the 'knowledge' sense of the word science.

Hope - what claim did I make exactly? I was pointing out that wjhat Sassy said supports the arguments of people who say babies are atheist. I didn't say if I was one of those people or not.

[Maeght]

Maeght, do you have evidence in support of this claim?  The problem is that I'm not sure that anyone knows how a baby's brain works at this level.  As ekim suggests, agnostic would probably be more realistic unless you are also willing to suggest that a baby is equally ascience - in the 'knowledge' sense of the word science.

As has been said, being agnostic isn't just not having knowledge but is a position taken about whether it is possible to have that knowledge, and I don't think babies have been able to determine that or not, do you?

[Maeght]

I think he is using agnostic as a half way house between atheist and theist. He wants to put them in neither camp.

Also using atheist as a belief that there is no God rather than a lack of belief in God.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Also using atheist as a belief that there is no God rather than a lack of belief in God.

Yes, you are probably right.

[Sassy]

Alan Burns has a strong conviction that there is a god, but he doesn't know it.

Can you prove that?

How by your opinion would he know there was a God?

In the light of faith and Christ's teachings explain why he doesn't know.

Christ said:
"23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

Now we see that Christ and God the Father dwell with the believer who keeps the words of Christ.
Prove what Christ said to be false for Alan. Or at least have the decency to admit (since you claim open mindedness) that Alan might indeed know there is a God.

[floo]

Anyone who claims god exists as a fact is a liar as there is no evidence to substantiate the claim! Of course it is just remotely possible it could exist, which begs the question why is it playing silly beggars with humanity?

[Sassy]

Anyone who claims god exists as a fact is a liar as there is no evidence to substantiate the claim! Of course it is just remotely possible it could exist, which begs the question why is it playing silly beggars with humanity?

People healed. Prayers answered. Jesus Christ rising from the dead. The things foretold in the bible happening.
The Jews came back to Israel.
King James Bible
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

We are definitely in the time of increase travel and knowledge.

Anyone like yourself, who ingnores the truth to make such untrue claims are fooling no one but themselves.

The truth is that without actually looking for any evidence you speak things you cannot even prove to yourself.

[floo]

People healed. Prayers answered. Jesus Christ rising from the dead. The things foretold in the bible happening.
The Jews came back to Israel.
King James Bible
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

We are definitely in the time of increase travel and knowledge.

Anyone like yourself, who ingnores the truth to make such untrue claims are fooling no one but themselves.

The truth is that without actually looking for any evidence you speak things you cannot even prove to yourself.

There is NO proof, you certainly can't prove any of your statements to be true.

[Sassy]

There is NO proof, you certainly can't prove any of your statements to be true.

So they were flying from all over the world to other countries in the time of Daniel?
And we have not had a massive increase in knowledge the last two centuries or so which has enabled all the modern changes for better living conditions. You really do make yourself look stupid sometimes, Floo.
The fact is what is written in Daniel is evident now. Just as he was told....

[floo]

So they were flying from all over the world to other countries in the time of Daniel?
And we have not had a massive increase in knowledge the last two centuries or so which has enabled all the modern changes for better living conditions. You really do make yourself look stupid sometimes, Floo.
The fact is what is written in Daniel is evident now. Just as he was told....

Does anyone understand this bit of Sass nonsense?

[Maeght]

Does anyone understand this bit of Sass nonsense?

I think she is saying that there are events foretold in Daniel which are now coming true and things in there which couldn't be known without divine knowledge. Not really true of course but to a believer it probably appears that way.

[floo]

I think she is saying that there are events foretold in Daniel which are now coming true and things in there which couldn't be known without divine knowledge. Not really true of course but to a believer it probably appears that way.

Hmmmmmm!

[ippy]

Hmmmmmm!

Some of us only come up to the edge Floo, if you're with me.

ippy

[Maeght]

Some of us only come up to the edge Floo, if you're with me.

ippy

I'm not.