|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:46 pm
Artto RurouniZakku Not when you have many reasons for believing in the fact. There is no way to disprove gods existence, whether you can out debate somebody, outsmart somebody. It's a question of philosophy and science. Science can't disprove his existence, but it can't prove it either. Philosophy merely uses long winded discussions. Agnosticism is about knowledge. I don't KNOW god doesn't exist. I'm an agnostic. Atheism is about belief. I don't BELIEVE god exists. I'm an atheist. So, I'm an agnostic atheist. There is no such thing, you are a weak atheist, there is no such thing as a agnostic atheist. That is a contradiction. TO be an agnostic, you can't be agnostic, and lean to a particular opinion.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:51 am
RurouniZakku There is no such thing, you are a weak atheist, there is no such thing as a agnostic atheist. That is a contradiction. TO be an agnostic, you can't be agnostic, and lean to a particular opinion. Did even read my post? (A)Gnosticism and (a)theism are about two different things, namely knowledge and belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:23 am
RurouniZakku There is no such thing, you are a weak atheist, there is no such thing as a agnostic atheist. That is a contradiction. TO be an agnostic, you can't be agnostic, and lean to a particular opinion.I hope you are joking. This bolded just made me crack up. You might want to re-read what you just wrote. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:44 am
Sorry, bad writing there. Yes, Artto, I read your post, it doesn't make true. Agnostic is a separation from the two beliefs, if you lean towards one belief more than the other you can not be an agnostic. To rumcdra, agnostics are agnostic because they have no opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:02 am
RurouniZakku Sorry, bad writing there. Yes, Artto, I read your post, it doesn't make true. Agnostic is a separation from the two beliefs, if you lean towards one belief more than the other you can not be an agnostic. To rumcdra, agnostics are agnostic because they have no opinion. You are misusing the word agnostic (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge). What you are describing is apatheism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:11 am
Yes, but to be truly agnostic, you can have no opinion, I stay out of debates over his existence, apatheism is where you have no opinion. I have an opinion, I just don't go forcing my opinion down trying to force them to believe what I do. Agnostics, hide their opinion, and stay out of the question of his existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 am
RurouniZakku Yes, but to be truly agnostic, you can have no opinion, I stay out of debates over his existence, apatheism is where you have no opinion. I have an opinion, I just don't go forcing my opinion down trying to force them to believe what I do. Agnostics, hide their opinion, and stay out of the question of his existence. Wait, wait. Now you're saying that not expressing your opinion makes you an agnostic? You're making less and less sense. And expressing your opinion, even debating it, arguing for it, is not "forcing people to believe it". You can't force someone to believe anything, belief doesn't work that way. You can only convince them. Or maybe we should all just shut up, so we don't hurt someone's feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:39 am
Agnostics choose to stay in the middle between the two main choices of theism and atheism. They don't share their opinion to they and convince others to believe what they believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:07 am
RurouniZakku Agnostics choose to stay in the middle between the two main choices of theism and atheism. They don't share their opinion to they and convince others to believe what they believe. Again, agnosticism is not about belief, and it is definitely not about sharing your belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:41 am
Now that is a cult. War is wrong yes everyone knows thats but what I think that big problem in the U.S is whether or not when we our are allies are attacked should we fight back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:24 pm
When did I say that they share their beliefs, I said nothing of the sort, in fact, I said the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:32 pm
RurouniZakku When did I say that they share their beliefs, I said nothing of the sort, in fact, I said the opposite. Ok, let me rephrase that. It's not about whether or not you share your belief. I thought it was clear the first time. And again, it's not even about belief. It's about knowledge. And if you want to have your own definition of agnosticism, be my guest. But it's still not the accepted one. You can call a cow a pig, but I doubt a lot of people would agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:52 pm
You know, its not an accepted belief, when the public thinks its a religion, and let me tell you, they do. Some of the few people I consider to be smart, believe in Agnosticism, not as knowledge, but as a belief. It's a belief of not knowing, but caring about the answer. There's a difference between the dictionary definition, and the publicly accepted definition. There's also how you consider Atheism as a belief, when they don't believe in anything, they know that god doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:54 pm
i personally believe that while God is always God,
people's understanding of the deity has had to evolve over time.
so "an eye for an eye" which sounds horrid to us
was really a big step up from the 7 eyes for an eye that had been the previous rule.
and people could understand and accept a warlike god but a peaceful one would be rejected as too wimpy.
it has taken many generations of painful education for humanity to realize that war is not ever just, that it is always hurtful.
then we look around and take another look, and lo and behold our deity was not really telling us to go kill after all.
usually God was saying "i will be with you in your battle" and we just thought it meant we could kill and be glad for it.
The New supercedes the Old, and the heart of our New Testament says "put away your sword", "love your enemies" "as you forgive so are you forgiven".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:05 pm
chessiejo i personally believe that while God is always God, people's understanding of the deity has had to evolve over time. so "an eye for an eye" which sounds horrid to us was really a big step up from the 7 eyes for an eye that had been the previous rule. and people could understand and accept a warlike god but a peaceful one would be rejected as too wimpy. it has taken many generations of painful education for humanity to realize that war is not ever just, that it is always hurtful. then we look around and take another look, and lo and behold our deity was not really telling us to go kill after all. usually God was saying "i will be with you in your battle" and we just thought it meant we could kill and be glad for it. The New supercedes the Old, and the heart of our New Testament says "put away your sword", "love your enemies" "as you forgive so are you forgiven". Yes, we're so progressive; finally, our society has found all the right answers and can really commune with God, whereas all other societies throughout history were handicapped by their cultural context and had to be fed well-intentioned lies...[/sarcasm]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
