My views

[AgnosticBoy]

My views on Christianity (I'm not a believer but I enjoy having a good understanding of a religious view):
1. Is Hell a place for eternal punishment?
2. Did Jesus come back from the dead - is his resurrection true?


Philosophical views:
1. What is the supernatural?
2. Do objective morals exist?
3. What is non-physical?

Political views:
1. My view on sexual orientation
2. My view on Trump's immigration policies

Why I'm not a Christian nor Atheist?
Why I'm not a Republican nor Democrat? (still working on this)

All of my views are subject to change.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

1. Is Hell a place for eternal punishment?
I lean towards Hell being a place for eternal punishment for those that are not believers. Matthew 25:46 specifically referring to non-believers going away to eternal punishment sealed the deal for me. Matt. 25:46 clearly says "eternal punishment". That would also be consistent with its parallel of "eternal life", unless someone wants to argue why "eternal life" literally means living in Paradise forever, while "eternal punishment" doesn't mean forever in the same context. My only doubt is Matthew 10:28 that talks about the soul being destroyed in hell. If something is destroyed then it would cease to exist.

I do believe that the biblical translators sometimes mix up Gehenna with Hell , but that alone doesn't mean that all mention of Hell is meant to be Gehenna. There are times when the Bible gives a description of "eternal punishment" , and in that case, the concept of Hell as an eternal punishment matches the description.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

2. Did Jesus come back from the dead - is his resurrection true?
While I don't have scientific level of certainty that it occurred, but I do accept that the resurrection happened based historical level of evidence. The way I look at it is that there is at least basic historical evidence, mostly in the form of witness testimony, reported by multiple independent sources, that Jesus died at one point, and then was found alive at a later point in time. That's all the evidence says in my view....And by evidence, I mean the type of witness evidence that we'd accept today or that historians accept for other accounts... details that anyone could witness for themselves if they were there, and stuff that's corroborated by multiple sources.

The reason I don't accept some of the skeptical explanations is because they leave out details of the story which makes their explanation faulty (it doesn't explain all of the data or it's conveniently selective on which data to include). Another reason is because some skeptics simply dismiss the resurrection because it goes against naturalism. In my view, being in line with metaphysical naturalism doesn't automatically make a story true or false when there is EVIDENCE involved. Evidence is evidence, whether it be for or against naturalism.

Read here for more details on my view:

Featured Thread 'A non-believer's case for the Resurrection'

Jun 14, 2024

Imagine that some event in the past is documented. It has multiple attestation, it has explanatory power, etc. Would not such an event be accepted as a historical fact by many, including historians? The answer is yes.

But, then let's say that the event is a supernatural one, like the resurrection of Jesus. Now all of the sudden, the event is not accepted despite having the same level of evidence. To show the absurdity even more, let's say that Jesus's resurrection had many different sources, even from rivals. Even the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate that sentenced Jesus to death says...

• AgnosticBoy
• Replies: 11
• Forum: Christianity (section 2)

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Edit: Added some points at the end....

What is the supernatural?
I view the supernatural as being a domain of existence that exists along side the natural world. In order for the supernatural to exist, there would have to be laws of nature, and those laws would not be absolute in that they don't apply in some cases. The supernatural would simply apply to phenomenon where the laws of nature don't apply.

Many assume that the supernatural involves the non-physical, but I believe it can involve BOTH the physical and non-physical. Many also assume that the supernatural is based on magic, but I believe it's entirely possible for the supernatural to operate under some laws and that these laws co-exist with the laws of nature.

How to identify the supernatural?
I think the main way would be dependent on how certain we are about our natural laws. If we know for sure the a human can't walk on water or come back from the dead in any natural way, then when it happens, that would be supernatural. Some skeptics may try to say that if a resurrection did happen, then that would mean that we misunderstood a law of nature. While being wrong or having an incomplete understanding about some law of nature is possible, but the extraordinary event (a resurrection) would still be valid if it did occur afterall. The only issue would be that we've mislabeled it as being supernatural.

But the one double standard here is when we have skeptics claiming that such events can't occur because they are not natural, but then as soon as they occur, they say it's natural. You can't have it both ways. This double standard might also be due assumptions about the nature of the laws - that they are absolute and unbreakable.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Do objective morals exist?

This is one of my favorite questions to answer. I tend to be skeptical of objective moral theories because they tend to not have good grounds for its ontology and epistemology.

When it comes to ontology, I question how objective morals would exist in the Universe. If the purpose of these morality is to preserve order and survival, then I would think morality needs to be consistent for all of existence. But what we have now are different things (humans, viruses, artificial intelligence, etc.) with different moral codes all interacting in the Universe, which leads to the question of who or what is supposed to survive and what decides that. We don't know that humans are meant to survive given the fact that there's so much natural evil in the world. We can follow the rules perfectly and suddenly get hit with a huge asteroid or some pandemic that wipes us out.

When it comes to epistemology, I question if we can reliably know what morals are objective vs. subjective (based on culture and opinion). I would think that there would have to be some objective or scientific way to discover such rules, but as it stands we don't have that. Some say that we can have a general consensus on some of the basic things like do not murder. I question even that because of what I've seen that politics can do to people, leading us to disagree on even the most minor of things. I've seen people argue over if such things are allowed when race is injected into the mix, and in other cases I've even encountered people (mostly Hamas supporters) justifying the murder of children and women.

Basically, I think what we have is just faith in objective morals. Despite all of this, I don't live life in some amoral way, but rather I try to form moral opinions based on what most or all sides could agree with. And of course, to keep myself from facing legal consequences, I follow the law. So rewards and punishment does help either way, as most want rewards and little to none want to be locked up in a cage. Just my two cents!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Why I'm not a Christian nor Atheist?

I don't identify with the Christian and Atheist label because i see both sides as being too polarizing and they carry too much philosophical baggage.

When it comes to the polarization, many from both groups act partisan where it seems that supporting their side matters more than getting to the truth. This sometimes have led to both sides not acknowledging the valid points of the other side as if the other side is always wrong. On many Christian and atheist dominated sites that I've participated in, there seems to always be an orthodoxy where questioning some established view is out-of-bounds.

When it comes to my other point, it just seems that each side is entrenched in some worldview, with the Christian side interpreting everything through the lens of the Bible and classical theism, while many atheists just seem bent on supporting metaphysical naturalism or materialism no matter what. I think in this case, worldviews can be a barrier to truth. As an agnostic, I want to be able to follow the evidence whereever it leads, instead of following it up to the point that it supports my worldview. I don't want to be restricted to by a lens or worldview. Now that's intellectual freedom!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What is non-physical?
The nonphysical can be anything that does not have any of the properties of matter. It does not occupy space, has no mass, etc. There is at least one example in my view of a nonphysical existence and that is conscious or subjective experience itself. Many philosophers have explained this ranging from the qualitative feels of conscious experience (the "what it's like" to feel pain) from the non-observability of consciousness. In the case of the latter, I think it is easier to demonstrate. For instance, hallucinations can be experienced only from the first-person point of view. If they existed in space and had other physical attributes than others would be able to experience the same thing.

For what it's worth, here's from ChatGPT:
Prompt: Are hallucinations nonphysical?
Response: Yes, hallucinations are typically considered nonphysical experiences. They involve perceiving things that aren't actually present in the external world, like hearing voices or seeing things that aren't there. These experiences can be caused by a variety of factors, such as mental health conditions (like schizophrenia), drug use, sleep deprivation, or neurological issues. Although hallucinations seem real to the person experiencing them, they do not have a physical existence outside of the mind.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

How does an independent (speaking for myself) think about voting?

To start off, I should say that I have a lot of dislike towards the major political parties because of their partisan and polarizing thinking/behavior, which is what drove me to become an Independent (was a former Democrat, was also a former Republican). So I often see voting as choosing between the lesser of two evils. When I'm choosing between candidates, I'm not choosing because I agree with every policy or character, but rather I choose based on whose policies I agree with the most. And a lot of times, policy overrides my factoring in character. This is probably one big reason why you find many independents being open to voting for someone as polarizing as Trump, whereas hardcore Democrats would probably see that as unthinkable.

I'm often undecided, and tend to hold out on my vote usually till the end. I look to the debates to inform me because that's where I see the ideas and policies really being tested and defended. Some go off of what candidates say and do during campaigning but I see campaigning as being largely marketing activity and it's unappealing to me.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What's my view on sexual orientation?

I think everyone has a sexual orientation that is their default or baseline. But contrary to current scientific thought, I believe that we can go beyond our baseline and learn to love and be attracted to anyone (any gender, animals included), anything (objects like cars, etc), and with any number of people or things involved (non-monogamy).

The obvious question is why don't people change their sexual orientation if it's changeable? Simple answer is that many don't want or care to change it, and it's also because of sociocultural conditioning, like morality, upbringing, etc. In other words, just because I can change to being gay doesn't mean that I want to nor that it's the right thing to do.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

My view on Trump's immigration policies

My view on immigration is that those that commit crimes after entering the US should be deported. But contrary to the views of many others, I am also in favor of deporting immigrants that aren't already established in the US or who just recently came in. Not deporting those who recently entered illegally would be open borders because that would be the situation of any new migrant and those who plan to enter the US in the future. I feel that some of the Democrat leadership are not being transparent on that.. The Dem leadership are hardly saying anything about what to do with the non-criminal undocumented migrants (leave them undocumented? Amnesty?) nor are they saying what to do with any new undocumented migrant that crosses the border and that doesn't commit crimes (let everyone in in just as long as they want to work?)

The only group I would want to stay are those that have not committed any crimes after entering the US, and that have lived here for years. These people have jobs, have responsibilities, and take care of their families. This is where I disagree with Trump's policies. Legally, he is in the right to deport all illegal immigrants, including the group I just brought up. Other countries would do the same which is why I don't see it as extreme. BUT, the problem is that Trump is not being transparent about this when he says he's only going after criminal migrants and then he ends up targeting established undocumented migrants. I also fault him and decades of poor leadership for not fixing the immigration system. There needs to be a better and faster immigration system that allows asylum to not be abused, to not allow catch-and-release, to hire more immigration judges, to address all of the immigrants who are already established in the US perhaps by offering amnesty instead of choosing the cruelest option, etc.