Prove it.isadore;1198832 wrote:no, the Bible deals with historical figures, Harry Potter does not, the analogy fails.
"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known"jmog;1198839 wrote: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).
Not true at all. But I don't believe anyone on this thread was really discussing the veracity of evolution.I Wear Pants;1198835 wrote: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.
I don't agree that the evidence is overwhelming. However, even if that was true, at one point in time the evidence was overwhelming that the Earth was flat. The evidence was overwhelming that we knew everything possible to know about physics (this is just before quantum mechanics and relativity were discovered). Matter of fact, there were serious talks back at that time of shutting down the patent office because "we have discovered everything there is to know/invent". Then Einstein came around. At one point the evidence was overwhelming that the Earth was the center of the universe.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.
You can PM me if you'd like so we don't derail the thread. But how is the evidence for evolution not overwhelming? We can literally watch it happen and have done so in countless published studies, we can see the fossil records, we can study DNA, etc, etc. It is overwhelming.jmog;1198852 wrote:Not true at all. But I don't believe anyone on this thread was really discussing the veracity of evolution.
I don't agree that the evidence is overwhelming. However, even if that was true, at one point in time the evidence was overwhelming that the Earth was flat. The evidence was overwhelming that we knew everything possible to know about physics (this is just before quantum mechanics and relativity were discovered). Matter of fact, there were serious talks back at that time of shutting down the patent office because "we have discovered everything there is to know/invent". Then Einstein came around. At one point the evidence was overwhelming that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Like you said, science is self correcting at times, but to be honest, science is not some unbiased system of knowledge. Scientific research is definitely biased and politicized at times. I wish it was not, but it is.
Ironman92;1198813 wrote: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
Gosh a ruddies, Jesus and John the Baptist is mentioned in roughly contemporary secular historical accounts including Flauvius Josephussleeper;1198844 wrote:Prove it.
Talking snake, 900 year old man, world wide flood, and Jesus being anything other than a man. Prove it.isadore;1198874 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, Jesus and John the Baptist is mentioned in roughly contemporary secular historical accounts including Flauvius Josephus
For example
“
And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned.:
“
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.”
http://www.josephus.org/
Oh. Can I write about a book about Hitler being a god since he existed in history? If it has historical figures it must be true!isadore;1198874 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, Jesus and John the Baptist is mentioned in roughly contemporary secular historical accounts including Flauvius Josephus
For example
“
And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned.:
“
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.”
http://www.josephus.org/
no that would be a false statement, there are people and actions in the Bible that are real, that happened as can be shown from historical accounts.sleeper wrote:One could quote anything from Harry Potter and it would be just as true as anything in the Bible.
You can show some of them are likely to have been real people yes. But none of the stuff involving god or miracles have any proof.isadore;1198895 wrote:no that would be a false statement, there are people and actions in the Bible that are real, that happened as can be shown from historical accounts.
Can you prove Hogwarts doesn't exist?isadore;1198895 wrote:no that would be a false statement, there are people and actions in the Bible that are real, that happened as can be shown from historical accounts.
gosh a ruddies I proved Christ and John the Baptist are real, can you prove that hogwart is?sleeper;1198903 wrote:Can you prove Hogwarts doesn't exist?
Well you didn't prove they're real, you just proved that there's some evidence that they were real.isadore;1198911 wrote:gosh a ruddies I proved Christ and John the Baptist are real, can you prove that hogwart is?
Yes.isadore;1198911 wrote:gosh a ruddies I proved Christ and John the Baptist are real, can you prove that hogwart is?
I can prove Hitler was real, does that mean he was god?isadore;1198911 wrote:gosh a ruddies I proved Christ and John the Baptist are real, can you prove that hogwart is?
hey guy, that was not the discussion about whether someone was proven to be a god or not. the discussion was if they existed and the evidence is various people in the Bible did.sleeper;1198916 wrote:I can prove Hitler was real, does that mean he was god?
there is evidence they are real as are their from contemporary accounts again read the account of flavius josephus about John the Baptist and in other records and archaeologyon other Biblical persons and deeds. divine, now that is personal interpretation.I Wear Pants;1198914 wrote:Well you didn't prove they're real, you just proved that there's some evidence that they were real.
Even if that was concrete proof they existed it doesn't prove anything else about them (deeds done, divine acts, etc).
I concede to this. That's fine.I Wear Pants;1198851 wrote:"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known"
You can be theistic and agnostic and atheistic and agnostic at the same time.
And you're an atheist of Odin I would assume.
which way is Jesus betting?Ironman92;1198933 wrote:I have a $40 bet with Jesus that none of you will be able to persuade the others no matter what.
Actually, that's Aristotelian logic, so ...sleeper;1198825 wrote:That's like saying all birds fly except the ones that don't.
/O-trap'd
Upside of collecting on the bet: You get $40 now.Ironman92;1198933 wrote:I have a $40 bet with Jesus that none of you will be able to persuade the others no matter what.
I'm thinking Jesus would just be trying to cover a spread on a bet like that.isadore;1198940 wrote:which way is Jesus betting?
Scumbag Jesus...knows he's going to lose a bet to you...O-Trap;1198947 wrote:I'm thinking Jesus would just be trying to cover a spread on a bet like that.
