"Tell me... do you read what you write? Do you know how retarded that was?"
If your referring to the title of the book and it being against my point, then you're wrong. My point is that atheïsm is a religion, which is made very clear in this book. I never said it promotes atheïsm or proves its the only true path of life. The book itself promotes Christianity as the religion which could best be believed as there is enough evidence for the Bible and Jezus. Thats what they think, I disagree with them on certain aspects of the book. Also, if you thought I was an atheïst and was trying to prove that atheïsts are right, then you're wrong. I am simply agnostic :)
I think you aren't an agnostic, you're a *beep*, is what you are. My point went right over your simple head. The mere fact that you think the title of a pro-religious book that supports your point means anything is retarded.
Agnostics are you atheists that have commitment issues, anyone that says anything close to "I truly don't know", or "It could really go either way.", is an indulgent *beep* that didn't pick up any scientific book to read.
"Also, if you thought I was an atheïst and was trying to prove that
atheïsts are right, then you're wrong. I am simply agnostic :)"
Question: If atheism is just disbelief in gods, then what is the difference between that and agnosticism?
Response: Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?
Unfortunately, no — agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable.
Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.
Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.
Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.
It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.
In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.
josef, i am a real agnostic. i believe that scientific research can never determine if there truly is a godlike being or not. i also think that a book written 2000 years ago isn't credible enough, at least not for me, to be 100% sure for myself that there is a godlike being or not.
im·be·cileplay_w2("i0043500")(mb-sl, -sl)
n.
1. a stupid or silly person; a dolt.
2. a person whose mental acumen is well below par.
3.
a person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age
of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree
of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. the
term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now
considered offensive.
well number 1 is right on, number 2 and 3 though...
everyone is agnostic... gnostism is about knowledge of god, no one can know god. you either have faith in such a being or you do not, people who claim to be agnostics are saying nothing. atheists, are both atheist and agnostic. theists are both theist and agnostic.
if people were gnostic the implications and point of faith goes out the window. christian dogma is hugely based upon faith.
and btw... faith to me is an excuse for when you cannot back up your claim when pushed.
"Being an atheist means that you do not believe there is a god, in other words, you believe there is no god."
Incorrect. Formatieduikier explained it properly.
"josef, i am a real agnostic. i believe that scientific research can never determine if there truly is a godlike being or not."
Science can never completely disprove anything. Scientists are well aware of this. In addition, according to the very definition, any supernatural powers or deities are just simply a non-factor. So it's not really much to say you don't believe that scientific research can prove if there is a godlike being--most intelligible people would.
"Well apparently my low mental acumen is still enough to read books, for
a religious opinion and know when someone(you!) is full of poop."
So what have you provided to the argument, other than to make it public knowledge that you didn't know what the terms actually meant? How exactly is atheism a "religion?" How confident are you that the author of the book you refer to has no agenda in mind, and not simply trying to lure believers into an "us versus them" attitude by feeding them straw men arguments and false dichotomies?
"atheists, are both atheist and agnostic. theists are both theist and agnostic."
I disagree; there are both theists are atheists who claim that it IS knowable that God does or does not exist.
Everyone is intitled to believe as they will. I do not try to force my beliefs on anyone else. What I do not understand is the venom coming form others because you choose to believe in God. I do not get angry when someone does not believe.
How does science explain the fossils that occur that pass through all layers of of each eras soil ? I know science can not prove everything, but I do not go around spouting venom at scientists.
Billy Graham said that he could not see the wind, but he could see how it affected the world around him. And that he could not see God, but that he could see how God affects everything in this world.
Oh and if you don't believe that I do not try and sway anyones belief system, ask any member of Dark Blood. For all the eras that I have known them and played with them as a team mate, I have never prosyltized them or pestered tehm about religion. I never even bothered Cobra when we were in the same KD. Live and let live people.
I have seen a reference to a fossil whale found in California that was alleged to have been buried and fossilized in a vertical position. The reference was by Ted Holden (medved@access3.digex.net) in article <3en2bc$q5j@access3.digex.net> that was posted in January of 1995. This post consisted of material from The Velikovskian that was posted by Mr. Holden at the request of Mr. Charles Ginenthal. So far I have not found anything else mentioned on other fossils, so I ammend my previous statement to fossil until I find other references.
Final post here. I do not seek debate. Live and let live. Enjoy life while you have it. Do not let negativity drag you down. Be at peace with everyone, if at all possible. Good luck to all. Enjoy this game, and have fun.
different positions for fossils, why are they found in akward positions?, etc ...
go to your library and look for something that explains tectonic movement ... look at how vulcanoes work etc ...
if you want to make statements, then get your facts right, and inform yourself, instead of just making a claim that is unsupportable/illogical/ignorant.
"Billy Graham said that he could not see the wind, but he could see how it affected the world around him. And that he could not see God, but that he could see how God affects everything in this world."
I dont usually take part in these because no one ever believes the other side. I believe in God, but do i believe in shoving it down someones throat, nope. You guys just need to stop arguring, the other is side is NEVER GOING TO BELIEVE YOU!!!
everyone is agnostic... gnostism is about knowledge of god, no one can know god. you either have faith in such a being or you do not, people who claim to be agnostics are saying nothing. atheists, are both atheist and agnostic. theists are both theist and agnostic.
if people were gnostic the implications and point of faith goes out the window. christian dogma is hugely based upon faith.
and btw... faith to me is an excuse for when you cannot back up your claim when pushed.
really? so you've never pushed the point of religion on someone else? Religious people have pushed their ideals on others for centuries hell Jesus did it. Your so called god did it. The floods in the story of Noah's Ark. Your god is not a tolerant one so why should his people be? Plain and simple tolerance for other religions is impossible people will always talk about their beliefs in a way to try to prove someone wrong. By all means I do not intend for it to seem as I am pushing my own thoughts onto anyone else. I understand what religion does for people. It gives hope it gives them a belief that there is a greater good out there. Something to live for. I've had friends die and I know it always give's their family comfort to hear that they've gone to a better place. Do I really believe it's some angelic place filled with everything amazing, no. But I believe that they go somewhere where they can be happy. Religion gives people hope when otherwise there wouldnt be any.
So to those that say that I do not look at both sides your completely wrong I understand both sides very well.
<3 you know my brain doesnt function at any level of comprehending or being able to put together a group of words that we call a sentence =D but I must say I finally see the light:
OH LORDY GOD LORD UP IN THAT BIG SHINEY HIGH PLACE WE CALL HEAVENS PLEASE PLEASE RENOUNCE MY NUBLITNESS AND WELCOME ME INTO YOUR ARMS OF REDEMPTION FROM MY OWN STUPIDITY!!!!!!! hehehehe couldnt resist flaming myself xD
Pushing someone Else's opinion to another person has always been a problem in religion. I mean what kind of friend would I be when what I know is that the person that doesn't believe in our religion and doesn't accept our God as their own will forever burn in everlasting torment.
It's just an analogy for me since I never really practiced Religion.
I see a lot of proof of God not existing. But have not seen one person even present the fact of his existance. I can very easily see wind. The fact it has no colour does not make it invisible...just harder to see. So I apply colour to that and hey presto, I can see wind. So whilest the god fruitcakes fail totally in presenting just one piece of evidence, I will continue to believe he does not exist.
4/10/2009 2:24:32 AMI
see a lot of proof of God not existing. But have not seen one person
even present the fact of his existance. I can very easily see wind. The
fact it has no colour does not make it invisible...just harder to see.
So I apply colour to that and hey presto, I can see wind. So whilest
the god fruitcakes fail totally in presenting just one piece of
evidence, I will continue to believe he does not exist.
A reason I think, why it is called faith. Seeing to believe is a very naive approach. The fact that the holy scriptures can never be proven any holy then any other book written by people, there is no proof. There isn't even any roof that God does not exist. You only see what you want to believe.
"A reason I think, why it is called faith. Seeing to believe is a very naive approach. The fact that the holy scriptures can never be proven any holy then any other book written by people, there is no proof. There isn't even any roof that God does not exist. You only see what you want to believe."
and you're talking about naivity? having faith in an illusion seems the right way to go for you?
My faith tells me that it is not an illusion. If your faith tells otherwise, it is not my problem as long as it doesn't lead to your misery and to others. Does the illusion of having no God suit you better?
We know it WASNT because of the colorodo river, as most geologists agree that the river has flowed out of the canyon only recently.
Furthermore, the side canyons are at an obtuse angle to the flow of a River, and too steep to be formed from the length of tributaries to said river.
How did the river manage to flow up and erode away from Kaibab Plateau? Water doesnt flow uphil!
If it was by erosion over millions of years, why dont we have more? There are many other old rivers, as geologists claim it to be.
One more thing, how could the Cave system, linking Dinosaur Caverns over 60 miles away, being over 1,500 feet from the surface, be able to form? This drainage type of system requires quite a large amount of pressure to form.
Lastly, Why are there sediment deposits on TOP of some of the mesas if it was by downward erosion?
Some geologists seem to point towards a singular event explains this. A Large lake in which a dam is breached has significant force. The cliffs to the East of the Area could have been the location of a massively high Lake, 2,000m above sea level, and very deep. The sediment loads at the bottom of the Colorodo river in the canyon seem to suggest this.
The Grand Canyon, in all its majesty, is indeed an enigma, but assuming there WAS a lake in the eastern regions that allowed such force in the water to blow apart the canon, and erode side canyons at Tangents to the river, how much water this really could have been is amazing. You can't really attribute it to erosion by the river. There would be more boulders at the botom of the steeper canyons.
Geology in and of itself is based on Faith. It was a dogma that arose in the 1960s, that at the time, roughly 20% of scientists agreed upon, but within 5 years nearly 90% believed in. To this day, we have only seen 20% of the ocean floor. Furthermore, the layer on which our "plates" slide is less than 10% the thickness of the plates themselves. Even more so, the radiographing we use to measure the depth of the crust is relatively deep, greater than the 200km previosuly accepted, to several thousand.
You can't make claims out of 1960's dogma that is not based on what is observable. Scientists can only make claims of what we see.
With the Grand Canyon I was simply asking a few points that contradict the given "fact" that everyone thinks it was carved out by the colorado river over millions or hundreds of millions of ye*beep*ach point seems to whittle away at that, not to mention madern evidence.
Once more, dont go off of the dogma that science teachers decades ago tought off of faith.
Yes, a belief proclaimed as true with absolutley 0 physical proof.
At least the people who have had their lives turned around have that as physical evidence to the power they claim God has. Too much of science is conjecture that alot of people believe on. Its an interprise that everyone wants a stake of, as they feel it gives them a sense of power, almost like the roman catholic church in times long past.
Humanity going out on a limb to look out for fellow man is physical evidence that something inside of us can turn us from the evolutionary instinct of self preservation. There is a reason you will never see two random squirells sharing nuts in the winter time. They look out for number one. Humans, at least those of us who miraculously break free of our human nature, are able to be compationate to complete strangers.
The institution of science is corrupt, and anyone who dissagrees with the consensus is snuffed out, much like an inquisition. There are many parralells between the Insititution of the church and the institution of science. Both were corrupt, but most of the believers were able to move past the instituion and put their faith into action to help people(e.i. smaritan's purse, Blood Water Mission, Southern Baptist Mission Board, etc).
You are exactly the kind of narrow minded biggot that ruins science. Not even looking at hard physical evidence because it goes against what your teacher tought you.
do you need a bedtimestory? they have a new bible now, somethingcreationismsomething, if you don't have it yet, i'm sure you would like that one, and it's full of proof and explanations, have fun with it ;-)
but isn't it always based on faith to believe in anything that you read, watch and even see with your own eyes. In the end, you are only left with yourself with what you will accept as real.
m
b
-s