cybercoma Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Actually, someone could be an agnostic atheist if they say that "I believe god exists, but I recognize that there is no evidence and no way of ever proving it.". I.e. the person is believing based on "blind faith". This is different than a person who both believes in god, and thinks "we have proof it exists" (i.e. is delusional). You would not believe in something if you thought it didn't exist. By believing in God, you're taking the position that you think God exists. Even if you truthfully reflect and say, "I don't really know." You don't know, but you believe in God. You simply can't believe in something if you don't know it exists. Your belief must be predicated on its existence. Whereas the absence of belief does not necessarily mean that you think that something doesn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Anyone who is reading this and is questioning their belief in God. Don't. It's obvious that the devil has control of their souls and is influencing their decision making skills. The devil comes to us all everyday but we must recognize that and know that it is indeed the dark prince. He is a crafty one and will disguise himself in all sorts of ways making the devil look harmless and fun. God and the devil speak to us everyday in subtle ways if we choose to listen we can hear them in the never ending battle for the souls of mankind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Anyone who is reading this and is questioning their belief in God. Don't. It's obvious that the devil has control of their souls and is influencing their decision making skills. The devil comes to us all everyday but we must recognize that and know that it is indeed the dark prince. He is a crafty one and will disguise himself in all sorts of ways making the devil look harmless and fun. God and the devil speak to us everyday in subtle ways if we choose to listen we can hear them in the never ending battle for the souls of mankind. Nice bit of troll work, Mr. Canada! What it all boils down to is the simple fact that we have no concrete evidence of any afterlife or Deity. That doesn't prove that there is none, just that there is no proof that there is. Faith by definition needs no proof. It is solely a matter of choice - to believe something or not. Many if not most humans choose faith, for a variety of reasons. For some its a comfort, for others it's easier than trying to figure out as much of the Universe as they can. Such a choice is deserving of respect but some folks of faith step outside of the lines. They think that they can force others to believe as they do with religious persecution or they think they can demand the respect of true Science by falsities like Intelligent Design. They can try all they want but the cold truth is that the Universe just doesn't care! The atheist has no more concrete proof or even evidence than the theist. Some of them seem just as militant. We all will die, sooner or later. At that point, we will either cease to exist or discover something new. If there is an afterlife, that still does not automatically prove there is some Intelligent Force behind it all. It just means that we will have discovered an afterlife! That too may be rooted in the natural way the Universe works. Me, I lean more towards the Church of Bill and Ted - "Be excellent to each other!". Still, I can't help but get frustrated sometimes with those churchgoers who interrupt my weekend morning to knock on my door. When I tell them I am a "man of science" they always try to prove their beliefs from what they think is a scientific perspective and always fail miserably, since in my 60 years of life I have not met ONE who knows anything at all of all but the most basic science! They will try to fight Darwin, who has been dead for over a century, but never Einstein and most definitely not a contemporary like Stephen Hawking. I suspect the bulk of them don't even know of Hawking, much less are prepared to debate with him. To me, they seem very presumptuous. Not for their circular arguments, where they make the claim that their Bible is the Truth because it says so in the Bible!. Rather, it's because if they are right and there is a God, in effect they are telling HIM how he made everything! I'm not sure if this would give a God a chuckle or offense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Actually, someone could be an agnostic atheist if they say that "I believe god exists, but I recognize that there is no evidence and no way of ever proving it.". I.e. the person is believing based on "blind faith". You would not believe in something if you thought it didn't exist. And I never said you would. By believing in God, you're taking the position that you think God exists. Even if you truthfully reflect and say, "I don't really know." But agnosticsm means more than just "do you think god exists". It is a belief whether you think god can ever be proven. Agnostic means you think that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. You don't know, but you believe in God. You simply can't believe in something if you don't know it exists. No, you can believe, but recognize that you'll never have proof/evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Agnostic means you think that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. No, agnostic is just the opposite of gnostic. Gnostic - Claims knowledge that an assertion is true Agnostic - Makes no such claim. Theist - Belief in deities Atheist - Absence of belief in deities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Interesting definition of "fiction/non-fiction", and not one that I've ever heard before. (Many people, myself included, use the fact that something is true or not as the dividing line between fact/fiction, not the author's level of belief.) Not saying its a "wrong" definition, just one that many people might not subscribe to. My definition of non-fiction may not be completely correct. I didn't bother to look up a definition, especially that late at night. However, my definition is certainly much more accurate than a fact/fiction divide. The problem with using the fact/fiction dividing line is that facts are not necessarily agree upon (and facts change as new information appears). One of my favorite non-fiction books remains "The Guns of August" although in the decades since it was written one of the major themes of the book has been shown to be wrong (The position that none of countries involved actually wanted war. Instead they just kind of stumbled along into a war that no one wanted, because none of them were not willing to back down. Documents released since that time have shown that in fact Germany wanted war, planned for war, and was planning on gaining significant power and influence through the war.). So is the book no longer non-fiction? Should its pulitzer prize for non-fiction be taken away? Of course not. There are tons of non-fiction books about climate change which range the complete spectrum. Obviously they all can't be fact as they come to completely different conclusions. The reality is that none of them are likely 100% factual, but they range from very factual to embarrassing trash. So what would be the dividing line? 100% factual? 90%? 50%? Who would determine how factual a book is? Many of them ignore facts that are inconvenient to their message, misinterpret and misuse facts, use things that are not facts as if they were facts, claim things about their opponents are facts when they are not and so on. Many of those books are believed by deniers on this site as being true. They are not. But the books are still classified as non-fiction. How could they not be? What regulating body is going to determine which facts are the correct ones? The simple answer is that the non-fiction classification simply does not mean that the words within such a book are true or factual. A non-fiction book can be 100% wrong about everything it says (See David Icke). Ah, but your definition of something being "non-fiction" is that they actually believe something "to be true".Sylvia Brown is a scam artist. I doubt she believes anything that she's put in any of her books. Anyone can see from her television appearances she maintains that she is giving information that she believes to be true, and she maintains that she believes that she has has the powers she says she has. She may go home and laugh her head off that people can actually believe the crap she spews. She may admit to herself and her close friends that she is getting rich defrauding people. Or she may just have deluded herself. It doesn't really matter. Her books are non-fiction. That does not mean that they are true or factual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 I hope it's working out well for you. Thanks. Living a reality-based life is working out very well for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Anyone who is reading this and is questioning their belief in God. Don't. It's obvious that the devil has control of their souls and is influencing their decision making skills. The devil comes to us all everyday but we must recognize that and know that it is indeed the dark prince. He is a crafty one and will disguise himself in all sorts of ways making the devil look harmless and fun. God and the devil speak to us everyday in subtle ways if we choose to listen we can hear them in the never ending battle for the souls of mankind. The Devil is in the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 No, agnostic is just the opposite of gnostic. Gnostic - Claims knowledge that an assertion is true Agnostic - Makes no such claim. Theist - Belief in deities Atheist - Absence of belief in deities The problem is, there are multiple definitions of agnostic, with minor variations that influence how it applies. For example, from dictionary.com: ...a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable... (There are other sources that give similar defintions) So its not saying "I don't know if god exists", its saying "I don't think anyone can ever have evidence/proof if god exists" (i.e. is unknowable). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 The Devil is in the details. Indeed. The devil speaks to us all everyday. That is the voice in your head telling you to hate Jesus and side with science. That isn't your brain, that's God and the devil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 The problem is, there are multiple definitions of agnostic, with minor variations that influence how it applies. For example, from dictionary.com: ...a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable... (There are other sources that give similar defintions) So its not saying "I don't know if god exists", its saying "I don't think anyone can ever have evidence/proof if god exists" (i.e. is unknowable). That doesn't matter in the context of the current conversation. Agnosticism is still about the existence of God, while atheism is about belief in God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 The question is "what is outside the known universe". A theist says "god", an atheist says "nothing", an agnostic says "who knows, I'm open to suggestions". On the contrary, most agnostics (in my view) are "open to suggestions within a cultural paradigm that I understand, and with which I"m already familiar." That is, few if any agnsotics say that the Roman panteon may well be true; rather, they say that the Judeo-Christian God, or Allah, or something else contemporary and popular, may be true. I think Atheism is a positive claim, i.e. "I believe in "NO-GOD"" Agnosticism is probably what we're really talking about.... ie. who knows ? who cares ? show me something... I still maintain that Bertran Russell had it about right; a few "positive-belief" self-described atheists aside, most atheists are also agnostic. That is, technically agnsotic, but for all intents and purposes, atheist. I seriously don't think there are faeries in Ireland. (And most Christians, Muslims, Hindus et al will agree with me, by the way.) But if proof is forthcoming, I have no problem whatsoever changing my mind. Zero problem. What I'm saying is that I have no horse in an atheist race. My atheism is not precious to me, and to be jealously guarded. If I see (or truly feel) God or gods...so be it. Awesome. Until then, I see no good reason to suppose they exist. And I see even less reason (far less reason) why self-described agnostics should favour organized religious beliefs over anything else. And yes, I certainly think that they almost universally do. (Doubtless some exceptions.) Why should they feel it's "open-minded" to limit themselves to cultural-belief practices as their "maybes," all while believing atheists are the ones being too rigid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Indeed. The devil speaks to us all everyday. You meant the government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) "1776 will commence again!!!!" "SUICIDE MASS MURDER PILLS!" "I'm sick of the same old script here, bud!" What a scholar. -k Edited January 10, 2013 by kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) What a scholar. -k His insanity reaches newer heights. Post Piers Morgan Debate. Edited January 10, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 There's a black helicopter outside his hotel room! Right there in the hall! GOSTHACKED! How can you watch this crap, Gost?! -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 The question is "what is outside the known universe". A theist says "god", an atheist says "nothing", an agnostic says "who knows, I'm open to suggestions". No thats not correct at all. An atheist doesnt say "nothing" he just says its not god. He doesnt claim to know any more about it than the agnostic besides thats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 No thats not correct at all. An atheist doesnt say "nothing" he just says its not god. He doesnt claim to know any more about it than the agnostic besides thats. Technically speaking, the "known universe" refers to that region of the universe which we can directly observe with telescopes. However, because the far reaches of the universe are causally disconnected and thus receding from each other faster than the speed of light, we cannot actually see the entirety of the universe. The oldest light is ~13.7 billion years old and thus we can see 13.7 billion light years around us. But the size of the universe is much larger than that, estimated to be perhaps somewhere around 150 billion light years across. If that estimate is anywhere close to right, then the "known universe" is less than 1% of the volume of the entire universe, and we will never see more of it than that (unless we develop faster-than-light technology of some sort). In fact, as the universe continues to expand, the portion of its volume that will be visible to us will continue to shrink. Therefore, what lies outside the known universe is just a lot more space, most likely not much different than the space inside the known universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 No thats not correct at all. An atheist doesnt say "nothing" he just says its not god. He doesnt claim to know any more about it than the agnostic besides thats. That's contentious. A true A-theist says 'nothing' otherwise what distinguishes him from an a-gnostic (not-knowing) ? If you think they're the same thing, then we agree anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Therefore, what lies outside the known universe is just a lot more space, most likely not much different than the space inside the known universe. Wow, it really shows how little we know. And within the observable universe, the matter we see only accounts for about 1/10th of what is really there. The so called Dark Matter. And we only recently became aware of its existence, because of the problem with gravity. As to your last statement, maybe it's all the same. Maybe not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 The question is "what is outside the known universe". A theist says "god", an atheist says "nothing", an agnostic says "who knows, I'm open to suggestions". There are several hypotheses as to what lies beyond our visible reach, but atheism is just a lack of belief in deities. Theism/Atheism is a statement of belief, Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. Question: Do you believe a god exists? Theist - Yes. Atheist - No Question: Does God exist? Gnostics answer Yes or No. Agnostics answer "I don't know" or "We can't completely rule it out" or "Probably not", etc. So I am an atheist and an agnostic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 There are several hypotheses as to what lies beyond our visible reach, but atheism is just a lack of belief in deities. Theism/Atheism is a statement of belief, Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. So you can be an Agnostic Atheist ? or Gnostic Atheist ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 There's a black helicopter outside his hotel room! Right there in the hall! GOSTHACKED! How can you watch this crap, Gost?! -k Well, to tell you the truth I can't listen to him anymore. Based on a recent hit by Alex and Co on a couple other sites I am involved with, he has proven to me that is is not exactly as he says he is. I have also been recently banned from the prisonplanet forums based on a spam-bot style email address. The email address I used is my gmail account I use for practically everything, and had only done about 500 posts. I found out I was banned when I attempted to log in a day or so after that hit. I did a video to my youtube channel talking about this hit. Other members in those communities have experienced the same thing, getting banned from PPF and other hit like stuff on other sites. Jones made himself look like a complete f*cking idiot the way he acted on the show with Piers. But watching other interviews Piers has done, he has acted the same way Jones did so, maybe it was a simple push back on him. In any case Jones has now been able to marginalize the whole truth movement by acting like a complete ass on CNN. So now anyone who classifies themselves as truth seekers are now going to be seen in a different light (like complete whack jobs) because of the way Jones handled himself on the show. I feel embarrassed that I followed him for some time thinking he was the real deal, instead, just another talking head puppet who wants to sell you something and is most likely cointelpro himself. Won't be long before we won't hear from him again. Many that have followed him are now really pissed off and want a piece of him. Many videos have been put out similar to mine and my concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 I feel embarrassed that I followed him for some time thinking he was the real deal, instead, just another talking head puppet who wants to sell you something and is most likely cointelpro himself. Wow. It's tough when somebody you believed in lets you down like that. Well, sorry to hear that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.