Tag Archives: christians

Biblically Speaking

What makes someone an Agnostic and not an Atheist?

4 Comments

All,

I received this comment in a previous post, and thought it might lead to clarifying a distinction about atheists and agnostics.

Here’s the note:

If you want to talk to atheists in Texas, go to Austin. Specifically the Atheist Community of Austin, and their cable access show “The Atheist Experience” or their podcast “The Non-Prophets”. (And no, they aren’t paying me to advertise.)

All I can say, and someone may already have said it, is that your definition of ‘atheist’ is wrong. All an atheist is is someone who doesn’t believe in a god or gods.

Certainly someone who asserted that there absolutely was no god would fit the definition of an atheist. But the definition of atheist isn’t so specific as to apply only to those people.

Here’s my response:

morsecOde,

You are sort of making my point – it is about ‘belief’.

I think I’ve been fair in my postings [see My Favorite Conversation (ever) With an Atheist] about the distinctions in language on the term, but I’ll ponder the following critique:

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Below are links to a variety of references pages to help understand how atheism is defined and why atheists define it the way they do.

Now, with all that in mind, I suppose the question is what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? [http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm]

I’m thinking:

atheist = I don’t believe there is a god or gods [i.e. there is no God.]

agnostic = I don’t know if there is a god or gods [i.e. is there a God?]

My point is that, though many atheists believe they are atheists (which is fine, believe you are whatever you think you are), they are in fact agnostics.

So, what makes someone an agnostic and not an atheist?

Thanks,


Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

Power Politics and the Church?

Leave a comment

I wrote a paper a few years back I never published called CHINA IN A BULL CLOSET [considering Christians in politics :-)]  My thought back then was that politics is fine for the called individual…but that the over-arching call on all of us as believers is to be engaged in our faithful ‘witness’ and discipleship / mentoring toward Christlikeness.

I proposed the following passage as THE opportunity for Christ to tell us that we should really obsesses on changing the government as the Church’s role on earth…but He doesn’t.

See for yourself (Luke 13:1-5):

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. (ESV)

Galileans were His own countrymen…Pilate had killed folks in the act of worship (Clinton / Bush / Obama…haven’t been as bad as Pilate)…Christ re-focused on eternity.  My point is that there is perspective here for us…and the perspective is  l o n g – t e r m  !!!
Is it “You’re so heavenly-minded that you’re no earthly good”…or…”Your so earthly-minded you’re no heavenly good”…?
Grace and Peace,
Fred Lybrand
Biblically Speaking

If you grasp the insights in this book, you’ll understand FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE in such a way that you’ll never be tempted to judge anyone’s eternal destiny again.

2 Comments

OK…so, I want to shamelessly tell you about the power of sorting out the Faith/Works issue in keeping the Gospel clear, assurance solid, and judgmentalness banished.  It is all in Back to Faith (see www.backtofaith.com)

Here’s the beginning of Chapter 5 from the book to consider:

CHAPTER 5
The Cliché Is Pragmatically Invalid
If the arguments presented have been unpersuasive to this
point, consider that this one great weakness of the cliché is the
only real challenge needed to justifiably abandon it: The cliché is
pragmatically invalid. Pragmatic invalidity simply means that, in
any practical sense, the theology behind the cliché is useless, even
if it is true. Assume the cliché, “It is therefore faith alone which
justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone,” is true. In
other words, with the assumption that the cliché is valid, it is held
that one can indeed look at works (or the lack of works) and
determine something about the true nature of an individual’s
eternal salvation. Said otherwise, works prove faith. But can one
truly know if the works are authentic? Or, can the works be
hidden? Here a great problem appears, practically speaking,
because the true works arising from a true salvation are
indeterminable, and so the cliché is pragmatically useless. How
can one know for sure that the works seen in another are “because
of salvation,” rather than “in order to get saved?” To appreciate
this argument, one need only consider the distinction between fact
and theory.
A fact, in the simplest sense, is something that corresponds
to the actual state of affairs. Facts are those things which are
knowable and demonstrable and correspond with how things really
are. A theory, on the other hand, as used in this context, is an
unproved assumption. It parallels words like conjecture and
speculation when one speaks of theory in this sense. Obviously the
[This argument admittedly matches the correspondence theory of truth.
Ted Honderich, ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy [book on-line]

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, accessed 4 October 2006), 267;

available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d= 74362715;Internet.

Defined 6b: an unproved assumption: conjecture, c: a body of
theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject. Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary, 11 ed. (2003), s.v. “theory.”]

word of God does not contain theory, as such, but the factual
explanations from God concerning His will and revelation to
mankind. Whether or not one can demonstrate the validity of the
cliché as a biblical concept is not at issue. At issue is the
distinction between that which is provable and factual, in contrast
with that which is theoretical and based on conjecture.
If the cliché’s theory is true, then it is apparent that one can
look at works or lack of works to point to the genuine nature of
another’s saving faith. So the puritan Matthew Henry asserts,
Faith is the root, good works are the fruits, and we
must see to it that we have both. We must not think
that either, without the other, will justify and save
us.
The truth, however, is that scripturally speaking, believing
individuals can indeed lack works, while unbelievers can indeed
have good, albeit dead, works. Judas serves as a glaring example
of one whose works never betrayed him. When Jesus predicted
that one of the disciples would betray him, all were perplexed, and
no disciple stated, “Well, it is obviously Judas.”

Woe!

Fred Lybrand