Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Younger generation doubts god

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Younger generation doubts god
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:30 PM
sleeper;1198693 wrote:Agnosticism is not concerned with belief. It is concerned with knowledge and I have provided the root of the word to back my opinion that I am correct.
You are incorrect, agnosticism is the lack of belief either way, and the dictionary agrees. You wanted to change the definition of atheism because you didn't agree with it. When you gave your definition we showed you that this definition already fits agnoticism perfectly. At that point you want to change the definition of agnoticism just so you won't have to admit you are incorrect.
Jun 13, 2012 2:30pm
rmolin73's avatar

rmolin73

Senior Member

4,278 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:32 PM
Reps raw dawgin it
Jun 13, 2012 2:32pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:32 PM
sleeper;1198714 wrote:I have a very high standard for what I consider a fact. If this bothers you, then I cannot help you.
Based on the evidence of what you believe to be factual, I contend that you do not have a high standard for what you consider fact.
Jun 13, 2012 2:32pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:38 PM
jmog;1198738 wrote:You are incorrect, agnosticism is the lack of belief either way, and the dictionary agrees. You wanted to change the definition of atheism because you didn't agree with it. When you gave your definition we showed you that this definition already fits agnoticism perfectly. At that point you want to change the definition of agnoticism just so you won't have to admit you are incorrect.
This is the definition of an agnostic:

[LEFT] a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty[/LEFT]
Jun 13, 2012 2:38pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:38 PM
jmog;1198742 wrote:Based on the evidence of what you believe to be factual, I contend that you do not have a high standard for what you consider fact.
And this evidence is?
Jun 13, 2012 2:38pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:39 PM
isadore;1198744 wrote:no, even if you do not have faith in him
One could quote anything from Harry Potter and it would be just as true as anything in the Bible.
Jun 13, 2012 2:39pm
Abe Vigoda's avatar

Abe Vigoda

Call me stinky

164 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:40 PM
On problem I always had. We have God and the son of God Jesus. Doesn't that make two Gods?
Jun 13, 2012 2:40pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:42 PM
Abe Vigoda;1198759 wrote:On problem I always had. We have God and the son of God Jesus. Doesn't that make two Gods?
Don't forget the Holy Spirit!
Jun 13, 2012 2:42pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:43 PM
sleeper;1198757 wrote:One could quote anything from Harry Potter and it would be just as true as anything in the Bible.
gosh a ruddies, the Bible is full of historical figures including Jesus himself, that would be a difference.
Jun 13, 2012 2:43pm
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:47 PM
We have an isadore sighting. Shut the thread down and move on along people.
Jun 13, 2012 2:47pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:48 PM
sleeper;1198753 wrote:This is the definition of an agnostic:

[LEFT] a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty[/LEFT]
You are using the lower definition (like the 3rd or 4th) for agnostic.

If I said I was a believer, you would know that I meant a believer in God.

If I said I was a believer in the Indians chances of making the playoffs this year. Then I used the word in a different context with with a slightly different definition.

The definition of agnosticism as a world view is exactly what I said it was.

Is there multiple definitions of agnostic, yes, but not so much for agnosticism as a world view.

Once again, your skirting the issue to avoid admitting you are wrong.
Jun 13, 2012 2:48pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:50 PM
I'm not wrong. I have faith that I am right. Faith is all you need jmog, I learned that from the believers.
Jun 13, 2012 2:50pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:51 PM
isadore;1198763 wrote:gosh a ruddies, the Bible is full of historical figures including Jesus himself, that would be a difference.
So is the book The Davinci Code.
Jun 13, 2012 2:51pm
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:53 PM
DeyDurkie5;1198770 wrote:We have an isadore sighting. Shut the thread down and move on along people.
this, shut it down.
Jun 13, 2012 2:53pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Jun 13, 2012 2:58 PM
sleeper;1198777 wrote:So is the book The Davinci Code.
so you have abandoned your harry potter statement?
Jun 13, 2012 2:58pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jun 13, 2012 3:14 PM
isadore;1198787 wrote:so you have abandoned your harry potter statement?
No. Using the bible to prove god exists is like using Harry Potter to prove Hogwarts exist.

The analogy still stands.
Jun 13, 2012 3:14pm
Ironman92's avatar

Ironman92

Administrator

49,363 posts
Jun 13, 2012 3:29 PM
Dear Heavenly Father,

Please let this thread continue on for at least the rest of the month. Be with the troubled families in Butte and thank you for not being butt hurt. In Jesus name we pray.... Amen
Jun 13, 2012 3:29pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jun 13, 2012 3:36 PM
jmog;1198738 wrote:You are incorrect, agnosticism is the lack of belief either way, and the dictionary agrees. You wanted to change the definition of atheism because you didn't agree with it. When you gave your definition we showed you that this definition already fits agnoticism perfectly. At that point you want to change the definition of agnoticism just so you won't have to admit you are incorrect.
Most atheists are agnostic in that if you showed us some sort of proof of a god we wouldn't outright reject it. I'm atheist in that I have seen/read nothing that I think is convincing for any of the gods man has made up.

You're all likely atheists in the sense that you don't believe in any number of gods like the Greek ones, Odin, etc. I just take it one god further.
Jun 13, 2012 3:36pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jun 13, 2012 3:39 PM
I Wear Pants;1198820 wrote:Most atheists are agnostic in that if you showed us some sort of proof of a god we wouldn't outright reject it. I'm atheist in that I have seen/read nothing that I think is convincing for any of the gods man has made up.

You're all likely atheists in the sense that you don't believe in any number of gods like the Greek ones, Odin, etc. I just take it one god further.
That's like saying all birds fly except the ones that don't.

/O-trap'd
Jun 13, 2012 3:39pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jun 13, 2012 3:41 PM
Also, IWP's post is exhibit A of why we need the definition of atheism to be changed to "a lack of belief in gods". It covers both "I do not believe in god" vs "I lack belief in gods" instead of just the belief that "I do not believe in gods".

Agnostics believe that there is no way of knowing one way or the other. It is possible to be both atheist and agnostic.
Jun 13, 2012 3:41pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Jun 13, 2012 3:45 PM
sleeper;1198802 wrote:No. Using the bible to prove god exists is like using Harry Potter to prove Hogwarts exist.

The analogy still stands.
no, the Bible deals with historical figures, Harry Potter does not, the analogy fails.
Jun 13, 2012 3:45pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jun 13, 2012 3:45 PM
jmog;1198131 wrote:So anyone who questions the current 'modus operandi' in the scientific community 'skipped all of their science classes'?

I'm sure you don't feel that way about Capernicus, Galileo, Einstein, and even Darwin are all scientists who went against the current scientific 'consensus' and developed science that the scientific community now view as fact.

Einstein was so bothered by the fact that his theory of relativity and quantum mechanics is all about probability (not exact locations/speeds like Newtonian Physics was) that he spent years trying to 'fix' his theory as he was once quoted as saying "God doesn't play dice with the Universe".

The current scientific consensus of Einstein's day was so entrenched in him that it took him a VERY long time to even believe his own conclusions.

So, by design, science is to gain knowledge and truth about how the universe works, there are times when you have to balk at the current dogma/beliefs. And yes, I do mean both scientific AND religious 'dogmas'.
Yes but you do that when the evidence suggests that the widely accepted theories are wrong. No one has done that with the idea of Darwinian evolution. No one.

Evidence supporting a conclusion is the important thing. If you know of some proof or know of someone with some proof that refutes Darwinian ideas please publish it and collect your awards and millions. Questioning evolution isn't stupid but most people who do so sound really stupid. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

And some in this thread have brought up about subatomic particles and shit like that which we would have thought of as silly. Which is true, but then when technology advanced so that we could see and study them we accepted them. That's what's beautiful about science, it's self correcting which makes it almost the opposite of how most religions have worked.
Jun 13, 2012 3:45pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jun 13, 2012 3:48 PM
isadore;1198832 wrote:no, the Bible deals with historical figures, Harry Potter does not, the analogy fails.
Yes, historical figures like talking snakes and 900 year old men.
Jun 13, 2012 3:48pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Jun 13, 2012 3:48 PM
I Wear Pants;1198820 wrote:Most atheists are agnostic in that if you showed us some sort of proof of a god we wouldn't outright reject it. I'm atheist in that I have seen/read nothing that I think is convincing for any of the gods man has made up.

You're all likely atheists in the sense that you don't believe in any number of gods like the Greek ones, Odin, etc. I just take it one god further.
No, what you just described would be someone who converted from atheism to theism. Someone who is convinced or fully believes that no god exists to someone who does believe.

There is a fundamental difference between the two. Just like one can not be atheistic and theistic at the same time, one can not be atheistic and agnostic at the same time, or theistic and agnostic at the same time.

Just because you feel you could be swayed if 'proof' was shown doesn't make you agnostic, it just makes you somewhat logical.

I believe you would find most Christians the same way, if there was some "proof" that God didn't exist they would become atheists (as would agnostics for that matter).
Jun 13, 2012 3:48pm