J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 2:30pm
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.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.
rmolin73
Posts: 4,278
Jun 13, 2012 2:32pm
Reps raw dawgin it
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 2:32pm
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.sleeper;1198714 wrote:I have a very high standard for what I consider a fact. If this bothers you, then I cannot help you.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jun 13, 2012 2:32pm
no, even if you do not have faith in himsleeper;1198718 wrote:Please stay out of my threads. Thank you.
http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?34704-sleeper-call-out-thread.&p=1198726&viewfull=1#post1198726
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 2:38pm
This is the definition of an agnostic: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.
[LEFT] a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty[/LEFT]
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 2:38pm
And this evidence is?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.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 2:39pm
One could quote anything from Harry Potter and it would be just as true as anything in the Bible.isadore;1198744 wrote:no, even if you do not have faith in him
Abe Vigoda
Posts: 164
Jun 13, 2012 2:40pm
On problem I always had. We have God and the son of God Jesus. Doesn't that make two Gods?
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 2:42pm
Don't forget the Holy Spirit!Abe Vigoda;1198759 wrote:On problem I always had. We have God and the son of God Jesus. Doesn't that make two Gods?
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jun 13, 2012 2:43pm
gosh a ruddies, the Bible is full of historical figures including Jesus himself, that would be a difference.sleeper;1198757 wrote:One could quote anything from Harry Potter and it would be just as true as anything in the Bible.
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
Jun 13, 2012 2:47pm
We have an isadore sighting. Shut the thread down and move on along people.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 2:48pm
You are using the lower definition (like the 3rd or 4th) for agnostic.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]
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.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 2:50pm
I'm not wrong. I have faith that I am right. Faith is all you need jmog, I learned that from the believers.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 2:51pm
So is the book The Davinci Code.isadore;1198763 wrote:gosh a ruddies, the Bible is full of historical figures including Jesus himself, that would be a difference.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Jun 13, 2012 2:53pm
this, shut it down.DeyDurkie5;1198770 wrote:We have an isadore sighting. Shut the thread down and move on along people.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jun 13, 2012 2:58pm
so you have abandoned your harry potter statement?sleeper;1198777 wrote:So is the book The Davinci Code.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 3:14pm
No. Using the bible to prove god exists is like using Harry Potter to prove Hogwarts exist.isadore;1198787 wrote:so you have abandoned your harry potter statement?
The analogy still stands.
Ironman92
Posts: 49,363
Jun 13, 2012 3:29pm
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
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
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jun 13, 2012 3:36pm
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.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.
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.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 3:39pm
That's like saying all birds fly except the ones that don't.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.
/O-trap'd
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 3:41pm
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.
Agnostics believe that there is no way of knowing one way or the other. It is possible to be both atheist and agnostic.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jun 13, 2012 3:45pm
no, the Bible deals with historical figures, Harry Potter does not, the analogy fails.sleeper;1198802 wrote:No. Using the bible to prove god exists is like using Harry Potter to prove Hogwarts exist.
The analogy still stands.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jun 13, 2012 3:45pm
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.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'.
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.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jun 13, 2012 3:48pm
Yes, historical figures like talking snakes and 900 year old men.isadore;1198832 wrote:no, the Bible deals with historical figures, Harry Potter does not, the analogy fails.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 3:48pm
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.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.
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).