Atheists or Agnostics?

[AngelofJesus]

Let's discuss. I did not include protestants because they believe in the Bible. This is more about the two beliefs/unbeliefs.


The poll did not turn out right sorry. Can an admin fix it or just start another one?

Edited May 3, 2005 by AngelofJesus

[RandomProddy]

Atheists are easier than agnostics.

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='May 3 2005, 02:29 PM'] Atheists are easier than agnostics. [/quote]
because...

[Semalsia]

If someone says to me he's "agnostic" or "atheist", I can't know what he really means. After that I always try to find out more. People have so different views of what agnosticism and atheism are that it could really mean anything.

You can hear the "I don't believe in any religion, but I believe in some sort of God" type of agnosticism and the "God is a jerk" type of atheism. I would not call either of them atheist or agnostic, since they are both clearly theists.

I can't answer the question, though, since I don't have any experience in trying to convert people to any kind of theism. However, from experience I would make a guesstimate that those that call themselfs agnostics are more likely to hold the consept of God more of an actuality. Most agnostics probably hold the 50% chance of there being God, when as atheist thinks it's less than one in a googol or downright zero.

For this reason, an agnostic will also more likely want to listen and consider the theistic point of view.

Well, this is my impression of it.

Edited May 3, 2005 by Semalsia

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='AngelofJesus' date='May 3 2005, 11:32 PM'] because... [/quote]
Agnostics by nature are fence-sitters. Atheists are either going to be convinced or not, and in many cases there are locical fallaies in their reason for disbelief.

[Ellenita]

[quote]Agnostics by nature are fence-sitters. [/quote]

But some agnostics want to believe and just need a convincing argument, whereas atheists have made up their mind already.


Are atheists brave?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='RandomProddy']Agnostics by nature are fence-sitters. Atheists are either going to be convinced or not[/quote]

Though, I think that it would be easier to talk the agnostic off the fence than it would be to convince the atheist of God's existance.

[quote name='Ellenita']But some agnostics want to believe[/quote]

That's a good point. Atheists generally don't want have anything to do with beliefs or faith.

[Socrates]

I really don't know. Ultimately I think it depends on the individual and God's grace. And agnostic wouldn't necessarily be more likely to convert. People of strong intellect an opinion can change their minds, and many atheists have converted. I think atheists are more likely to be interested in finding the truth and reaching an intellectual conclusion. An atheist has a convicted opinon that there is in fact no God, and through reason, may change his conclusion if sufficiently convinced otherwise. Agnostics, on the other hand, are often people who want to avoid the issue, and are not particularly interested in finding the truth of whether or not there is a God.

[MichaelFilo]

My experience with both Athiests and Agnostics have led me to several conclusions supporting the greater opinion shared in this thread that Athiests are much easier to convince or at least talk to. Let me give some things I've realized about both groups through my many discussions with both :

-Athiests care more. Unlike Agnostics, they tend to care more about their position. They argue viciously, and quote like a block of error, but still, they do that. They have a position to defend, and naturally so, will.

-Agnostics tend to not care. They have no real position to defend except that God can't be proven or disproven. Essentially, that leaves a wide range of which side of the issue the agnostic will land on (more thiestic or athiestic). The problem is, their mid-way position makes them happy, and their character usually refelect their religious views, carefree, self-centered, liberal, worldly-equality folk. However, that is getting off track, but I'm sure discussing with the above stated sort will give you some idea of why dialouge is difficult.

-Athiests can be argued with until they see the Catholic Truth, and if they are open to the Truth, like a protestant can, or a Jew, or anyone else they will be open to the Spirit's work.

-Agnosticss can also be argued with, however, something always fails. Unlike the athiestic position, or the Catholic position, they are not used to extremes, and so they usually will return to their mid-way position and therefore are more likely to reject the spirit's work.

-Agnostics are more likely to see God's work in things. Athiests, for obvious reasons, don't.

In summary, athiests are more likely to listen to a good arguement. Curt F. on this board would be one of them. He is willing to change if he thinks he is wrong. Alex (whom none of you know) could not understand how God is omnipotent and we still have Free Will(that was his reason for unbelief), and when I explained how it is very possible that God is omnipotent and still allows us to have Free Will, he took it, but never made anything of it. Why? I can't say. My guess is that the mid-way position is pleasing in the eyes of society and so there is no reason to choose Faith or disbelief.

I'm rather tired, I hope that was conclusive.

God bless,
Mikey

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='May 3 2005, 05:39 PM'] Agnostics by nature are fence-sitters. Atheists are either going to be convinced or not, and in many cases there are locical fallaies in their reason for disbelief. [/quote]
agreed

[Nathan]

I don't spend a lot of time trying to "convert" non-believers (I feel that the Holy Spirit inspires individuals toward the Church; in other words, it is truly the work of God), but I would imagine that agnostics would be easier. At least they're open-minded enough to accept the possibility of a God.

But anyways, this "converting people" talk is silly (you sound like evangelical Protestants, frankly). I have yet to meet a Catholic convert who was actually "converted" to the faith by the words of another person, like a Jehovah's Witness or something. In the vast majority of cases, an individual's conversion comes through a personal interest, which is strengthened by reading about the faith on ones own time, which is deepened by eventually contacting a local parish and checking things out, and which is solidified by taking part in the Mass, RCIA, etc. It is a deeply personal journey, and that needs to be respected.

I know if I had some Catholic pestering me and trying to convert me when I was in the personal interest stage, it probably would have turned me right off to the whole thing.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Nathan

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nathan' date='May 4 2005, 06:58 AM'] But anyways, this "converting people" talk is silly (you sound like evangelical Protestants, frankly). I have yet to meet a Catholic convert who was actually "converted" to the faith by the words of another person, like a Jehovah's Witness or something. In the vast majority of cases, an individual's conversion comes through a personal interest, which is strengthened by reading about the faith on ones own time, which is deepened by eventually contacting a local parish and checking things out, and which is solidified by taking part in the Mass, RCIA, etc. It is a deeply personal journey, and that needs to be respected.

I know if I had some Catholic pestering me and trying to convert me when I was in the personal interest stage, it probably would have turned me right off to the whole thing. [/quote]
While the Holy Spirit ultimately must move people to convert, and thye must make this choice themselves, it is wrong to say that evangelization can or should not play a role.

My dad converted to the Church from protestantism after much arguing with his Catholic friends, who provided him apologetic material and Catholic writing to read. He, in turn converted my mom (also formerly protestandt.)

While it is true that people must make their own decisions, the idea that it is best to just leave unbeleivers alone to find the truth for themselves is wrong, and was certainly not the attitude Christ and the Apostles took!

[Nathan]

We must be tactful about these things, though -- very tactful. Like I say, if a Catholic came up to me and started trying to convert or evangelize me when I was just in the inquiry stage, I most likely would have been scared away from the Church... maybe for life. At that stage in my journey, evangelizing me would have been the worst possible thing to do. I am deadly serious. I simply wasn't ready for any of that.

So remember that.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Nathan

[MichaelFilo]

I am forth right. I give the Catholic doctrine. I tell them how it is. If you the Spirit moves you and you are open to Him, then you will listen, or ask. If you are not, you can find comfort in rejecting God and having a loving God who will give you what you want, to be seperated from Him and His love, His Truth, His doctrine, His Church.

We must work to convert the world, but always remember, those who love God will be attracted to the Truth, and those who love this world will be attracted to ease and a promise of false salvation.

Irrelevant, possibly. However, that is the style of evangilization I use, and I hope that it should reap more success. I should also note, praying for the person to be converted is a good idea. Coaxing them to say the Divine Mercy chaplet is very good for conversion. Jesus promised their conversion.

God bless,
Mikey