# Agnostic or Atheist Interview



## Joshredsox27 (Mar 12, 2013)

I'm taking a philosophy class this semester, and one of our topics is world views.  I need to interview someone with an Agnostic or Atheistic worldview. I have 5 questions that could be answered in a sentence or 2 a piece. If this is you and you'd be willing to help please PM me. Thanks.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

Why a PM?  These guys aren't shy.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Why a PM?  These guys aren't shy.





You'd probably be able to get more than one response and pick and choose which satisfies the purpose of your assignment as well


----------



## Joshredsox27 (Mar 12, 2013)

Well for one thing I need a first name, and some people on this site don't post their names on the open forum.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 12, 2013)

Fire away, Josh.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

Joshredsox27 said:


> Well for one thing I need a first name, and some people on this site don't post their names on the open forum.



I say keep the questions out here in the open and let them PM you their names.


----------



## Joshredsox27 (Mar 12, 2013)

If you want to reply over open forum, ok. If not PM responses are great. Thanks to any who reply for your thoughts.


1. It is usually agreed upon that people accept a worldview because they think there are good reasons for thinking it is true. What are some reasons you think your worldview is true?  (If you deny the existence of absolute truth, why?)

2. One of the most troubling problems in the human experience is the problem of evil. How does your worldview explain the problem of evil, and what does your worldview suggest is the solution to this problem?

3. What is the meaning of life, and what are some reasons for thinking that your account of the meaning of life is correct?

4. Have there been any times that you have doubted what you believe? If not, why not? If so, what are some of the issues that caused you to doubt?

5. How much do you think your background (ex. family, experiences, education) influenced you concerning your beliefs about God and life (Positive or Negative)?

Thanks again for the help yall!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2013)

Joshredsox27 said:


> If you want to reply over open forum, ok. If not PM responses are great. Thanks to any who reply for your thoughts.
> 
> 
> 1. It is usually agreed upon that people accept a worldview because they think there are good reasons for thinking it is true. What are some reasons you think your worldview is true?  (If you deny the existence of absolute truth, why?)
> ...


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


>



me, too


----------



## Asath (Mar 13, 2013)

Down here?  Really?  Okay . . . 

First, my self-identification -- Athiest.
And so, to the 'Questions'--   

1. It is usually agreed upon that people accept a worldview because they think there are good reasons for thinking it is true. What are some reasons you think your worldview is true? (If you deny the existence of absolute truth, why?)

     Well, to begin with, it seems that all of these questions were formulated either by a self-interested, narrow-minded person who had already formulated pat responses to any answers, or by a yellow journalist who asks such questions as, "So, have you stopped beating your wife?"
     Anyway, the question is invalid.  Nothing at all is "usually agreed upon," least of all the premise of this question.  The premise is false, if only for the additional reason that most people have no "world-view," and the phrase itself is so vague as to mean anything one wants it to mean.  Apposing the wispy concepts of 'world-view' and 'absolute truth' is a conclusion, not a question, but just the same -- consider this: what is the physical location of your own 'world-view'?  If you had been born, by such accident as most of humanity has been, someplace other than in a free nation of laws and principles, to parents who were other than christians, and into economic turmoil and sectarian strife and ceaseless violence and a constant struggle for daily survival -- would that circumstance not constitute your 'world-view'?  Your circumstance would be the 'Truth' of the world as you know it from your elders, your teachings, and your conditions, there, as it is here.  Is yours a more fortunate, more prosperous circumstance, allowing greater freedoms?  Perhaps.  Is it, by that standard, or by any standard, superior?  More 'truthful'?  Think hard on your answer. 	
     My 'world-view' is simply that -- the world is filled to the brim with humans who all have a unique and different view of it, by virtue of the place they are and the circumstances they have experienced.  I think this is true because it is undeniably so.  The only absolute truths are those that can be demonstrated, and HAVE been demonstrated to apply equally to all people under all circumstances.  Nobody has yet floated off into space spontaneously, for example -- so gravity works for everyone -- our science can cure smallpox no matter who contracts it,  heat rises, the energy wave in an electromagnetic wave is perpendicular to the direction of both the electric field and the magnetic field no matter which sort of hat you wear, and a host of non-belief-specific things of that nature. TRUTH is verifiable.  For all.  
     Any 'view' that predicates the 'truth' of itself upon the blind acceptance of assertions made without evidence, and that requires 'faith' and 'belief' rather than offering solid results that are the same for all people under all circumstances is not a 'truth' at all, but a political system.  Those come and go.  We've seen them all before, and each is flawed and doomed to failure the moment they take themselves too seriously.
     Gravity will still be here long after the latest set of governments and religions topple, as all have, under the weight of their own arrogance.                


2. One of the most troubling problems in the human experience is the problem of evil. How does your worldview explain the problem of evil, and what does your worldview suggest is the solution to this problem?

     Really?  Personally I'm most troubled by the problem of one-dimensional assumptions which then demand solutions from others, or, more troubling, offer their own solutions to problems they invented.  Again, an invalid question, since first one would need to define 'evil,' which cannot be done.  
     If this is 'one of the most troubling problems in the human experience,' as the question assumes, without justification, then there ought to be a ready definition of 'evil' at our fingertips.  But this turns out to be yet another one of those very subjective things that is in the rhetoric of the speaker and in the mind of the beholder.  What was once considered 'evil' is now routine, and what is now considered 'evil' was once routine in other contexts.  
     'Evil,' as another mealy-mouthed device utilized as though it were an actual tangible object, is nothing more than a device used by the control minded to deify and rationalize their own current positions while demonizing and vilifying the thoughts of others.
     The 'problem of 'evil' is largely the problem of egomaniacs with a superiority complex constantly redefining 'evil' for their own purposes.  Tell us what is is, objectively, then ask again.  If you cannot tell us, definitively and objectively, then get over yourself.  Nobody gets to stand in a bully-pulpit of their own construction, and dictate terms to all of humanity.  In Saudi Arabia you get beheaded for stunts like that.  Unless, of course, you agree with THEIR definitions . . .     


3. What is the meaning of life, and what are some reasons for thinking that your account of the meaning of life is correct?

     Finally, an easy one.  The meaning is that you are here.  When you are no longer here, you will have no further need of the question.  Simple as that.  Life simply is.  Wishing desperately that there be more involved does not make that so -- wanting and inventing and posturing and writing empassioned treatises and conceiving of wishful outcomes and utopian eternities isn't worth the effort, the pain, the killing over the opposing idealistic nonsense, or any of the rest.  You are here.  So are they.  Get over it.  Besides, if one is so shallow and purposeless as to be unable to give their own lives meaning, then what responsibility is it of ours to lend you one?  Get busy, stand up, shed the robes of nonsense, and get on with it -- you only get one shot at this.  


4. Have there been any times that you have doubted what you believe? If not, why not? If so, what are some of the issues that caused you to doubt?

     You're kidding, right?  I was raised, by the accident of my own birth, as a proper, upright Christian -- a Catholic of the first order -- and from the day I was able to ask questions I doubted everything I was told that I was supposed to believe.  I was sent home from school and suspended for a week in the Second Grade.  Seven years old.  My transgression?  The nun told us that God created everything, all at once, in just seven days.  I raised my little hand, and asked, simply, "Sister?  What did He make it out of?"  (Blasphemy, apparently, was one of my earliest talents, before I even knew the word.)  Simply believing something because someone told me to do so has never been and still isn't sufficient cause.  I don't 'believe.'  Never have.  I observe and learn.  What is true is obvious, by this method.  


5. How much do you think your background (ex. family, experiences, education) influenced you concerning your beliefs about God and life (Positive or Negative)?

      Ah, to the heart of the matter -- the required 'minefield' question-- this question asks for a subjective expository confession, so that the panel of experts examining the responder might shake their weary, benevolent heads and sagely offer their worldly expertise in matters deeply probing and psychologically compelling, gently chastising the wayward and nudging them back onto the one TRUE PATH . . . 
     This is really a rather pathetic questionaire.  Can't you fellas do any better than this?  I have no beliefs about god.  If there WERE a god, it would be an established fact, not subject to belief, and there wouldn't be so many morons putting forward their own versions, as there have been since the beginnings of recorded history.  There isn't any debate, posturing, endless proselytizing, wars, jihads, factional strife, or television preachers soliciting millions of dollars from the believers concerning oxygen.  Perhaps that is because oxygen exists.
     For everyone.  
     That sort of thing messes you guys up, I realize.  If it is actually True, and genuinely fair, and can be demonstrated and proven, and EVERYONE has access, that closes your Temples up in a hurry. No more gravy-train for the exploiters of the Grand-Doubt in the Sky.  
     Do you really think that asking about a non-believer's background will reveal ammunition you can use to prove your position?  You can't be that naive.  To the contrary, it offers a rich playground of intangibles that can be exploited to refute and rationalize away.  This can be the only reason for asking. No Sale.
     So I answer, honestly -- Yes.  My experience, background, education, and ability to reason intelligently informs my certainty -- y'all have nothing to offer but repression and control-- your way -- endless excuses, rationalizations, vague threats on behalf of your presumed deity, condemnation of disagreement, demands for payment, dismissive condescension, and the endless thumping on the unquestioned authority of the single ancient Book (contradictory, disconnected, and largely nonsensical) from which you draw your asserted sovereignty -- and THAT is the actual definition of evil.
     Life, you see, is for everyone living.  Our way. I'm good with that.


----------



## Asath (Mar 13, 2013)

Tried to edit that last to put the paragraph breaks back in, but they won't hold for some reason -- sorry about the dense text blocks . . .


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

I'll sign my name to that!!!!!!!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'll sign my name to that!!!!!!!!!


Raa-Raa-Reeeee!


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2013)

Asath said:


> Well, to begin with, it seems that all of these questions were formulated either by a self-interested, narrow-minded person who had already formulated pat responses to any answers.....



I actually agree with this statement.  The questions do appear to come from a perspective.  I was scratching my head over why somebody would ask an atheist about the problem of evil.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I actually agree with this statement.  The questions do appear to come from a perspective.  I was scratching my head over why somebody would ask an atheist about the problem of evil.



It's still a problem they have to deal with, unless they are nihilistic, but I think those guys are just liars.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Raa-Raa-Reeeee!



Way to stay classy string


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Way to stay classy string



Take it easy bullet, I was just messin' with ya, that's why I added the  at the bottom.

If we can't disagree with each other and still  just say so.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2013)

Asath said:


> Down here?  Really?  Okay . . .
> 
> First, my self-identification -- Athiest.
> And so, to the 'Questions'--
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It's still a problem they have to deal with, unless they are nihilistic, but I think those guys are just liars.



They have to deal with evil in reality, but not philosophically.  It is the result of personal choices.  There is no "good God" to balance "bad things" against.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2013)

Asath said:


> I was sent home from school and suspended for a week in the Second Grade.  Seven years old.  My transgression?  The nun told us that God created everything, all at once, in just seven days.  I raised my little hand, and asked, simply, "Sister?  What did He make it out of?"



Interesting.....remove the "he" in your question, and you still have a logical dillemma.  Insert the "he" and the problem remains.

The nun should have said "nothing, I suppose."  It would appear you encountered a shallow thinker.  Anyway, I got kicked out of Sunday school for asking why somebody's else's God wasn't "the God" given that we declare there can only be "one God."  Which, by default, means "the God" is "everybody's God" whether they choose it or not.


----------



## Joshredsox27 (Mar 13, 2013)

Asath,

Thanks for the response! I think you misunderstand my intent, but that's ok. Honest responses are what I'm looking for.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

Josh you will learn more from the replies of the "believers" than you will from the non.
You will get your honest answers from the non.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If we can't disagree with each other and still  just say so.


I'll take that as a no.



bullethead said:


> Josh you will learn more from the replies of the "believers" than you will from the non.
> You will get your honest answers from the non.



Believers don't give honest answers in here?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'll take that as a no.
> 
> 
> 
> Believers don't give honest answers in here?



Believers give honest answers all the time in the AAA forum in general. You are all honest and sincere in most cases and I believe that you believe that what you are discussing is the truth as you see it.
In THIS specific thread Josh asked for some, one, any Atheists to answer a few questions and in return he has gotten a good honest answer from Asath followed by a video of old lady's clapping. And when I replied that Josh can use my name along with Asath's post because I agreed with what he said it was met with animated smileys as if i was some sort of cheerleader.
I'd share a beer, campfire, hunting lodge with all of you, I'd buy any of you lunch if we ever met in person, I'd let you sit in my favorite treestand and do a drive hoping to run a nice buck by you. I have no personal problems with any of you. But sometimes I am just not feeling the personal cracks(fruity pom-pom animations) that have nothing to do with the topic other than to wind a person up....with stick jabbing smileys at the end that somehow signal it is lighthearted. I take it as "poking the bear". Only nobody likes it when the bear wakes up.


----------



## Nicodemus (Mar 13, 2013)

Please keep the young man`s thread on topic.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 13, 2013)

Thanks Nic, and while I believe that the believers in here are being light-hearted, I have to say I agree with Bullet on this one. Both sides have strong feelings on these issues, so there is no need to stir the pot, even in good-natured jest. 

All that said, it wouldn't hurt for everyone to stay loose and not get their undies tied in knots, no matter what side of the fence you happen to be on.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> In THIS specific thread Josh asked for some, one, any Atheists to answer a few questions and in return he has gotten a good honest answer from Asath followed by a video of old lady's clapping.... But sometimes I am just not feeling the personal cracks(fruity pom-pom animations) that have nothing to do with the topic other than to wind a person up....with stick jabbing smileys at the end that somehow signal it is lighthearted. I take it as "poking the bear". Only nobody likes it when the bear wakes up.



I think you’re reading too much into my post.  The "old ladies clapping" was just a begrudging hat-tip to somebody I always disagree with but who never fails to bring his “A” game.

"Be proud of your enemy and enjoy his success."


----------



## Asath (Mar 13, 2013)

Sorry if I pushed that response a bit too far, and stirred up the nest of hornets here Josh.

But, honestly, you have my response in all sincerity, and now I ask for a similarly candid answer in return -- just what sort of 'Philosophy Class,' and in just what sort of school?

It is my experience that the pursuit of philosophy on the undergraduate level is an exercise in HOW to think properly -- employing logic and language rigorously, rejecting false premises, seeing immediately, with mathematical precision, the missed steps in a series of apparently connected statements that ends up falsifying them, and the like . . .  It has never been an education aimed at instructing one on WHAT to think.

This particular exercise you have been engaged to pursue seems to be exactly the latter, in a roundabout way, at the expense of the former, and I am curious about just what the original assignment may have been, as well as just who made such an assignment to his or her students, and at just which institution of higher learning.

Just asking for a bit of quid pro quo -- down here in the unwashed cellars of the forum where we are hardly noticed, and may air some of our dirty laundry without disjointing the tightly woven corsets or twisting the panties of the blue-nosed doctinaires.  (I promise that nobody will rat you out to your teachers, in other words -- you might have noticed that we're respectfully disrespectful of each other, of all things, and of just about everything other than the core principle that if you have ten people in a room, and nine of them agree, then you have eight too many people at the meeting . . . )


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2013)

Asath said:


> But, honestly, you have my response in all sincerity, and now I ask for a similarly candid answer in return -- just what sort of 'Philosophy Class,' and in just what sort of school?



I can't answer for him, but I encountered similar exercises in my undergrad philosophy courses.  It was more about worldviews.  I went to a particularly conservative Christian university.  I went to a local state university for grad school, but I was done with these type courses, so I didn't get to encounter the bias in the opposite direction.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2013)

Joshredsox27 said:


> 1. It is usually agreed upon that people accept a worldview because they think there are good reasons for thinking it is true. What are some reasons you think your worldview is true?  (If you deny the existence of absolute truth, why?)



First i would say some people keep certain word views for pragmatic reasons, rather than actually believing it's true. For instance, you might live your life as if free will existed, but still actually believe determinism is true.

Also, this is a VERY broad and vague question, so ill answer my best, but understand it'll be incomplete.

In terms of "how the world works" lean heavily towards a Naturalist - Empiricist worldview. Most of my justification is a mix of pragmatism and occam's razor. 

In terms of morality i'm an Secular humanism Voluntarist.. that's what i'm calling it anyhow! I stronglybelieve in property rights with the non aggression principle as a firm axiom. I believe in the NAP morally and practically.

As for absolute truth... that depends on the definition.

One rough thing about a question like this.. is that if i say "There are no absolute truths" I am making a truth statement... Is the statement "There are no absolute truths, an absolute truth? It's a bit paradoxical. Also there are degrees of "absoluteness". Is the truth universal for humankind? the earth? the universe? outside the universe? Without a more narrow definition i can't answer yes or no.



Joshredsox27 said:


> 2. One of the most troubling problems in the human experience is the problem of evil. How does your worldview explain the problem of evil, and what does your worldview suggest is the solution to this problem?



I see evil as a religious term for immorality. If not a religious term, a more flowery term.

As mentioned above, my moral worldview is to follow the non aggression principle (NAP) to violate the NAP is to be immoral. I see the solution is to defend property rights with justified force (hopefully non-lethal), and ostracize people who violate the NAP.



Joshredsox27 said:


> 3. What is the meaning of life, and what are some reasons for thinking that your account of the meaning of life is correct?



The meaning of life is to live. I think it's self-justifying. I find meaning in many different things, all of which i have to be alive to enjoy.



Joshredsox27 said:


> 4. Have there been any times that you have doubted what you believe? If not, why not? If so, what are some of the issues that caused you to doubt?



When I was younger there was a time were i wasn't as sure as I am now but any of my doubt was mostly socially related. Also death can be a difficult topic to come to terms with.. because i want to live, forever if i can. I know a lot of people say they don't want to.. but not me. I haven't got bored yet and cant see myself running out of things to do or learn. Also.. it wasn't doubt so much as a yearning for comfort.



Joshredsox27 said:


> 5. How much do you think your background (ex. family, experiences, education) influenced you concerning your beliefs about God and life (Positive or Negative)?



Heavily. What are we but a collection of experiences? My childhood was pretty awesome in that respect. There was no indoctrination (besides maybe hunting / fishing!) and my parents were generally very open about answering questions truthfully. In college I started reading more philosophy in my personal time, which cemented many of my beliefs (and changed some.. i used to be a bit of a relativist.) 

Also later i went from just ignoring religion, to disdain it as i saw it's influence on children and the world as a whole.


----------



## Joshredsox27 (Mar 14, 2013)

Asath said:


> Sorry if I pushed that response a bit too far, and stirred up the nest of hornets here Josh.
> 
> But, honestly, you have my response in all sincerity, and now I ask for a similarly candid answer in return -- just what sort of 'Philosophy Class,' and in just what sort of school?
> 
> ...



It's grad school intro to philosophy at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. The nature of the exercise is for me to examine my own answers to these questions and see what I really think. Also hearing your responses adds insight. As you alluded to before, pat answers don't help. No matter what we "believe" it influences the way we act. I've never posted in this section of the forum, but I thought I might get some good responses. Thanks again for taking the time, and putting some thought in.


----------



## Joshredsox27 (Mar 14, 2013)

Four,
Thanks for your answers bud! As for the indoctrination, some things aren't optional (hunting and fishing) . I can tell you've thought it through. Thanks for taking a few minutes to respond.


----------



## Asath (Mar 16, 2013)

"It's grad school intro to philosophy at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary."

I'm not sure what to say to that without perhaps offending everyone in sight.

Grad School?

My first thought is that a 'theological seminary,' of any stripe, already IS a manifestation of an applied philosophy.  If you consider for a moment the idea of religion in the abstract -- say, for example, the Mayans, or the Norse, or the polythiestic Greeks, or the Egyptian Sun cults of old -- then you can readily see and accept the idea that 'belief' in the gods of the moment is a human, philosophical construct.  Religion of any sort, because it is faith-based rather than fact-based, is a philosophy rather than a science.  On that basis, I would have to consider that the School itself is founded on the basis of the particular philosophy of the Baptist branch of Cristianity.  Even if one considered Christianity to be a fact, it would be equally the case that the Baptist branch is but one of many philosophical approaches to that presumed fact.  Imagine for a moment attending a school called the Egyptian Isis Theological Seminary, and you get my drift.  Religion IS philosophy.

My next thought, leading quickly from that, is that I've never in my life heard of a 'Grad School Intro' course.  Do you mean to say that you are five or six years into your course of studies, in Theology, before the very TOPIC of philosophy is introduced?  This school actually 'introduces' the idea of philosophy to students of THEIR OWN philosophy as a curious, survey-level, late-in-the-game offset?  I mean no harm to your choice of schools here, but it seems to me that someone accidentally put the educational curriculum in reverse order.  The Master's Degree level is hardly the proper time to give an 'Intro' to exactly what one has been studying for the previous four or five years at the University level.  It seems a bit like taking someone's money while they earn a Bachelor's Degree in Astronomy, then offering a Graduate level course called 'Intro to Galaxies.'

I'm a bit flummoxed here, by your answer, and feel I've been duped somehow.  Either this 'School' needs to be called immediately to task for deliberately cheating their students, or this entire thread is little more than disingenuous trolling and has no place among serious people.  I'm unable to decide which it is, and so leave the judgment of that to those more able to discern such things.

I state only that Master's Degree candidates do not normally pose such shallow and poorly constructed inquiries in good faith.  Were it posed by an undergraduate, a Freshman or even a Sophomore, it might be understandable, but at the Master's level this is simply mystifying.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 17, 2013)

Asath said:


> I state only that Master's Degree candidates do not normally pose such shallow and poorly constructed inquiries in good faith.  Were it posed by an undergraduate, a Freshman or even a Sophomore, it might be understandable, but at the Master's level this is simply mystifying.



DEpending on what his undergrad degree is in, it may be a prerequisite for the graduate program.  

For instance, my bachelor and masters degree are for accounting.  If I had a degree in literature, or some other non-relevant program, then I would have had to take multiple undergrad accounting courses before beginning my graduate studies.  

To the rest of your post, good point.  A theological seminary does present everything from one particular worldview.  However, for a person who wishes to be in the clergy, seminary is the way to go.  Churches these days want their preachers educated.  However, they are not looking for "liberal arts" majors, if that makes sense.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> A theological seminary does present everything from one particular worldview.



So do the vast majority of "Baptist" affiliated undergraduate programs as well.  Such an assignment given to a graduate program candidate is intentionally aimed at "vetting" the candidate.

The point made regarding the OP as likely having an undergraduate degree which is not of the same field as the intended graduate degree program is very valid.


----------



## Asath (Mar 18, 2013)

“The point made regarding the OP as likely having an undergraduate degree which is not of the same field as the intended graduate degree program is very valid.”

I gave that thought proper consideration, and my thought is that if the school cited had been someplace like, say, Georgia Tech, where a large variety of specializations are on offer, I’d almost buy it.  But the standards for admission to Master’s Degree level programs seldom allow one to suddenly change specialties, even at a university offering a number of paths.  One cannot spend four years earning a Bachelor’s Degree in English Literature, then be suddenly admitted into a Master’s program in Accounting, and be forgiven the need to catch up.  This doesn’t happen in the real world.

A Seminary, on the other hand, does not offer the possibility of earning a Degree in Accounting, or Astronomy.  It is a single-purpose institute.  One cannot apply to a Seminary with a degree in Art History from Penn State, and be granted an immediate slot in their Master’s Degree Theology  program, then be asked only to take some survey courses in the Seminary’s previous four year course of study in order to be qualified as a Master’s candidate.  That would just be silly, and would invalidate the entire process.

Unless, of course, they were in fact a silly group of folks, and unless they were so desperate for money that they were granting diplomas to anyone who submitted a negotiable check, preferably by mail, and after having filled out the questionnaire and drawing a reasonable likeness of ‘Binky’ as he appeared on the matchbook cover.

A Seminary has only one undergraduate degree on offer.  One may not major in something else for four years, then change paths and seek a Master’s degree in Theology at their purposeful institution with no further ado.  Theology is a fairly narrow specialty.

I’m merely observing here.

Speculations concerning far-fetch possibilities, and even factual observations, are of no value here, of course, and it remains for the author of the OP to set our ever-feverish minds at rest by explaining this problem, and causing us, thus, to understand.

I have no doubt that a proper explanation exists, which will rest our doubts and misunderstandings, and that such an explication will be forthcoming.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 18, 2013)

Asath said:


> A Seminary has only one undergraduate degree on offer.  One may not major in something else for four years, then change paths and seek a Master’s degree in Theology at their purposeful institution with no further ado.  Theology is a fairly narrow specialty.



Asath, I'm not so sure you follow here.....a quick search of the school's website offers a little insight into the variety of graduate programs offered...from an MA in Biblical languages to a M.div. in women's studies.  There is a huge difference.

An undergrad degree in youth ministry would likely put an individual on an appropriate track to get a M.div. in North American Church planting, but would also most likely place the candidate in the unfortunate position of needing tp meet certain prerequisites.

For instance (again), when I was in grad school, many of my fellow students with BBA's had to take undergrad accounting courses before beginning the advanced curriculum of the graduate program.  The generic business degree put them on the right track, but there was still a need for the few prerequisites.

And, I am also speculating.  However, I detect a certain level of indignation towards the op's education, so I feel compelled to offer contrary perspective.


----------



## Asath (Mar 20, 2013)

No indignation at all JB, and I'm sorry if my tone comes off as strident in the attempt not to overexplain.  I talk too much as it is -- as is often pointed out -- and sometimes trying to keep it compact causes things to appear overly severe and terse.  Mainly I'm just a bit mystified, as I said.

Aside the thought that accounting would be the very first thing a budding young preacher seems to be taught (tongue firmly in cheek), it still strikes me that the necessity for undergraduate prerequisites needs be satisfied at most schools prior to admission to a Master's program, not afterwards.  Some schools may have relaxed that requirement since the ancient times when I was in school, back when Plato himself enforced the rules. (Rather a shadowy figure, that Plato . . . ).  Yet it remains that theology itself IS philosophy, and if the topic of philosophy as a whole is being introduced at a Master's level then something fundamental appears wrong with this picture, as presented.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 21, 2013)

Asath said:


> No indignation at all JB, and I'm sorry if my tone comes off as strident in the attempt not to overexplain.







Asath said:


> Aside the thought that accounting would be the very first thing a budding young preacher seems to be taught (tongue firmly in cheek)



Actually, given the nature of the modern church, I firmly believe all who aspire to be head pastors should take multiple undergrad business courses, particularly accounting principles I & II, non-profit accounting, and some basic business / HR type courses so as to avoid messy mistakes when making employment decisions later on.  



Asath said:


> , it still strikes me that the necessity for undergraduate prerequisites needs be satisfied at most schools prior to admission to a Master's program, not afterwards.  Some schools may have relaxed that requirement since the ancient times when I was in school, back when Plato himself enforced the rules. (Rather a shadowy figure, that Plato . . . ).  Yet it remains that theology itself IS philosophy, and if the topic of philosophy as a whole is being introduced at a Master's level then something fundamental appears wrong with this picture, as presented.



I understand what you are saying.  Philosophy was a core class for my undergrad, which had nothing to do with religion.....but, I have to assume there is a rational explanation for a graduate student taking a entry level philosophy course.  

And, yes, religion is philosophy.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 31, 2013)

Asath said:


> Down here?  Really?  Okay . . .
> 
> First, my self-identification -- Athiest.
> And so, to the 'Questions'--
> ...



Well done Asath. No doubt that young man will recieve an A thanks to your input. I appreciated reading it (for once). It gave me great insight into your belief system. Thank You.


----------



## kpfister (May 1, 2013)

Joshredsox27 said:


> If you want to reply over open forum, ok. If not PM responses are great. Thanks to any who reply for your thoughts.
> 
> 
> 1. It is usually agreed upon that people accept a worldview because they think there are good reasons for thinking it is true. What are some reasons you think your worldview is true?  (If you deny the existence of absolute truth, why?)
> ...



I am replying as an Agnostic. Please let me preface my replies to the questions by agreeing with Asath and his assertion that these questions are stilted. Also, since you need a first name, mine is Kurt if more info is necessary please feel free to PM me. 

1.  I am unconcerned as to whether or not my worldview is true. True or False, my worldview works for me.  Why does it work for me?  Because it fits with my observations of the world. Good reasons for accepting something are in the eye of the beholder.  I don't deny the existence of absolute truth, I just don't concern myself with it. 

2.  Bad people do bad/evil things, sometimes bad people do good things, sometimes good people do bad things.  People have always done bad things and always will. I will deal with the problem by trying to protect my loved ones from bad things. The Catholic Church is generally a "good" entity.  It has however, been complicit in "bad/evil" acts.  There are shades of grey and an agnostic must be comfortable with grey. 

3.  The meaning of life?  The human race gives life meaning when we try to make ourselves better.  Life is short and to make things better for subsequent humans is the greatest meaning a life can have. 

4.  No. But an agnostic is neither theist nor atheist so the underlying meaning to this question is irrelevant to me.

5.  I was raised in a Catholic family that encouraged the development of free thought and common sense. I think that we are the sum of our experiences.  I have been fortunate enough to travel a lot from an early age and to see humanity from many viewpoints and have come away with this.  We humans are all good, and we are all bad. We are capable of great kindness and astonishing depravity.   All of this is possible whether there is a higher being guiding it all or not.  

I hope this helps your project. Feel free to pm if you need clarification or any illumination of my points.


----------

