- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,307
I guess you didn't read the part where he said he's not agnostic.
I did I just made a small typo. I edited it right before you posted
I guess you didn't read the part where he said he's not agnostic.
I did I just made a small typo. I edited it right before you posted![]()
"What happens after death?"
I don't care, just hate to waste time with this question.
Remembers me of a naruto episode, Kakuzu said
"even hell runs on money" xD
that comment is completely irrelevant.
How can you love Agnostics and hate Atheists?
That's like loving bread abut hating butter.
And I know you're not Agnostic, but the fact that you hate one point of view and love the other doesn't make any sense. We're so closely bonded to each other that hating one and not the other doesn't make any sense.
All we do is publicize our disbelief in god, rather then shadowing it in uncertainty.
Agnostics are fence-sitters. Technically we're all agnostic to some degree - for example, as I usually say, I'm agnostic, leaning atheist (since I do not by any means think there is definitely no god, but I see it as being more likely that there isn't).I'm no scientist, but aren't those who are Agnostics believe that there is a God but that he doesn't interfere with human's?
If so, you can eat your bread and throw out the butter.
I'm no scientist, but aren't those who are Agnostics believe that there is a God but that he doesn't interfere with human's?
If so, you can eat your bread and throw out the butter.
But you can't find out, that's the point...Fence sitting seems like a weak stance. I can understand if you don't know, but isn't this something that people should strive to find out quickly? It's a matter of life and death. I just find some people sue it as a way out.
Fence sitting seems like a weak stance. I can understand if you don't know, but isn't this something that people should strive to find out quickly? It's a matter of life and death. I just find some people sue it as a way out.
I do not consider the people shadowing it to be agnostic.All we do is publicize our disbelief in god, rather then shadowing it in uncertainty.
This is why I do the above and consider you atheist. If we say that everyone is at least a tiny bit agnostic, then the group of agnostics becomes synonymous with the group of everyone, and becomes another synonym.Technically we're all agnostic to some degree
Everything happens, if you wait long enough.You can't know everything. there's some stuff that we'll NEVER know the answer over.
I think it's unhealthy to say that we cannot know, that it cannot be done. Of course, the naysayers wont stop the people doing stuff by their words alone. Where would we be today if we listened to the naysayers? We wouldn't be in outer space, the sky, across the ocean...
We might only be able to prove that god does not exist in time, if we truly find out the reason for creating matter. However, other than the circumstance that god actually shows up, there won't ever be a definite proof that god exists.
You've got that backwards. We may be able to find proof that he does exist, but to know that he does not exist, would, as Elenai said, require omniscience.We might only be able to prove that god does not exist in time, if we truly find out the reason for creating matter. However, other than the circumstance that god actually shows up, there won't ever be a definite proof that god exists.
Fair enough. I'm really opposed to organized religion in particular though.This is why I do the above and consider you atheist. If we say that everyone is at least a tiny bit agnostic, then the group of agnostics becomes synonymous with the group of everyone, and becomes another synonym.
If you're debating one way or the other, your are not agnostic. To be agnostic, you must debate that it is possible that God does or does not exist, depending on the original statement that you are replying to. It does no good to debate one possibility with another.
You've got that backwards. We may be able to find proof that he does exist, but to know that he does not exist, would, as Elenai said, require omniscience.
We may be able to search every inch of Pluto for a heart shaped rock, but no matter how far we search the cosmos, we can never be sure we didn't miss a spot, or that there isn't more beyond us that we don't even know about.
It would be pretty significant, to say the least.
Relevant to the original topic, it'd also be interesting to find a physical afterlife.
Think about what you just said.It's self-evident that he isn't right. Almost all logic and reason leads to him being wrong.
It's self-evident that he isn't right. Almost all logic and reason leads to him being wrong.
You mean that I contradicted myself? Whoops.Think about what you just said.
Huh?You just stated what we believe to be our point of view about you, you realize this right?
Not having a logical reason to think one thing is not a logical reason to think its opposite. I prefer cold-cut combos to ham sandwiches at Subway, but I do not dislike ham sandwiches.You just stated what we believe to be our point of view about you, you realize this right?
I mean what scyth said. People easily criticize the flaws in others' beliefs while assuming their own is infallible.You mean that I contradicted myself? Whoops.
Huh?
I've noticed this in a generalized form in debating anarchy and agalmics. When provided an alternative, people try to find flaws in the alternative, but will easily overlook the fact that the current thing they have has the same flaws.People easily criticize the flaws in others' beliefs while assuming their own is infallible.
I submit unto you a book: The Qur'an.I'd really like to hear some logical and rational reasons as to why anyone's belief is completely infallible, and definitely the way things are, period, end of story.
The cake is a lie. The robot got it, but I didn't. And what sort of robot eats real cake?I'd really like to hear some logical and rational reasons as to why anyone's belief is completely infallible, and definitely the way things are, period, end of story.
The cake is a lie. The robot got it, but I didn't. And what sort of robot eats real cake?
Hakeem said:I submit unto you a book: The Qur'an.
I then challenge you to find a flaw in it.
I didn't say mine was infallible, and I was talking mostly about the "life is only a dream", and "there is no such thing as death". If we don't accept existence, there's not a whole lot we can accept, so I feel it is self-evident that we exist.I mean what scyth said. People easily criticize the flaws in others' beliefs while assuming their own is infallible.
My reason is based largely on experience.Yes, there is no logic or reason to believe that Christianity is the real deal. No more logic or reason than there is to believe that anyone else is right. I'd really like to hear some logical and rational reasons as to why anyone's belief is completely infallible, and definitely the way things are, period, end of story.
You have to exist to dream.I didn't say mine was infallible, and I was talking mostly about the "life is only a dream", and "there is no such thing as death". If we don't accept existence, there's not a whole lot we can accept, so I feel it is self-evident that we exist.
Elaborate. The interesting thing about this argument is that people still apply it even though people of most opposing beliefs do as well.My reason is based largely on experience.
Didn't we just spend some huge amount of pages discussing the church?It would be easier for you to point out something in the Church, than for me to try and reason it's infallibility.
That's true. Then what exactly was he talking about?You have to exist to dream.
I can't possibly elaborate in this small paragraph.Elaborate. The interesting thing about this argument is that people still apply it even though people of most opposing beliefs do as well.
Exactly?!Didn't we just spend some huge amount of pages discussing the church?
This world, I imagine.That's true. Then what exactly was he talking about?
That has nothing to do with reality, but if it works for you then fair enough.I can't possibly elaborate in this small paragraph.
One thing I've found throughout my short life, is that I've been happier the closer I am to God. Perhaps this is brainwashing, or I just feel good about myself since I'm doing what I'm told is the right thing, but it's something that has kept me within the Church lately (among other things of course).
So why are you asking about it again?Exactly?!
Alright, what evidence does he have for his statements? I know they weren't meant to be taken literally, and he was trying to make a point, but I don't think he has a point since there's no evidence there.This world, I imagine.
I believe it has everything to do with reality. I think God is real, and the closer we are to him, the happier we will be, that's how he created us to be. For you, it's not reality, since you don't believe in God.That has nothing to do with reality, but if it works for you then fair enough.
brad, I think, asked me to reason why I am Catholic, or something. Since the Church has stated it's stance, and reasoning on almost everything, it would be easier for people to ask me questions, than for me to try and reason my belief as a whole.So why are you asking about it again?
Most things well known tend to be false.It's well known that Islam doesn't exactly champion women's rights.
What evidence do you have for your statements? None. That doesn't stop you from believing them.Alright, what evidence does he have for his statements? I know they weren't meant to be taken literally, and he was trying to make a point, but I don't think he has a point since there's no evidence there.
Then they do not exist, since that which is subjective does not exist objectively.I believe it has everything to do with reality. I think God is real, and the closer we are to him, the happier we will be, that's how he created us to be. For you, it's not reality, since you don't believe in God.
The Bible, and passed down tradition?What evidence do you have for your statements? None. That doesn't stop you from believing them.
Perhaps you're right. I hate using objective and subjective since they're such general, and to me, confusing words. I'll take it that objective truth is that which is discovered, not created (taken from Wikipedia).Then they do not exist, since that which is subjective does not exist objectively.
Neither of those are evidence.The Bible, and passed down tradition?
If they were completely accurate, then yes, it would prove it, but there is no evidence to show that they are, and thus no reason to state that they prove it. Objective truths are properties of objects, for example: hydrogen has one proton. Subjective truths are properties we give to objects, for example: iron is hard, or dandelions are yellow, as both of these words only mean anything in the context of the person who said them. Taking subjective evidence (experience, feeling, etc) and applying it to an objective fact (in this case, a property of the universe - the existence of a god) is obviously invalid.Perhaps you're right. I hate using objective and subjective since they're such general, and to me, confusing words. I'll take it that objective truth is that which is discovered, not created (taken from Wikipedia).
Isn't it arguable that Jesus Christ and the bible are objective truth to God? If Jesus really did live, and everything in the New Testament is true, then it wasn't something "created", it was "discovered", right?
I'll admit I'm a bit confused, I'll think about it some more.
Neither of those are evidence.
- If I say that I am right, that is not evidence that I am right.
- Many things have been passed down, and I'm sure you would agree the ones not pertaining to catholicism (like the old wives tales) are bullshit.
Ahh, that makes sense, fair enough.Why aren't they evidence?
Your first point doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
Your second point doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Sure, lot's of things passed down are bullshit, but you yourself insinuated that not all are. I consider it to be evidence therefore.
If they were completely accurate, then yes, it would prove it, but there is no evidence to show that they are, and thus no reason to state that they prove it. Objective truths are properties of objects, for example: hydrogen has one proton. Subjective truths are properties we give to objects, for example: iron is hard, or dandelions are yellow, as both of these words only mean anything in the context of the person who said them. Taking subjective evidence (experience, feeling, etc) and applying it to an objective fact (in this case, a property of the universe - the existence of a god) is obviously invalid.
Consider this example: if you had two cultures, one in which everyone was 'tall' and the other in which everyone was 'short' (relative to you) the first culture would consider you short and the second would consider you tall, though your height (the objective property) would in fact be the same. As such, subjective interpretation cannot be applied to objective properties (which is one of the major reasons why science is always approaching the truth, but never certain - even a diverse community agreeing on something may still not come upon the reality of that thing).
I'll go back then. You said: "That has nothing to do with reality..."
What exactly did you mean? Does reality only contain the objective?
Because of the points I gave.Why aren't they evidence?
Yes it does; I was referring to the bible. Just because the bible says it is the word of god does not mean it is the word of god. As such, the bible is not evidence.Your first point doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
If it's evidence, it's too weak to matter, due to the fact that we can both agree that stories passed down are no reliable source of information.Your second point doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Sure, lot's of things passed down are bullshit, but you yourself insinuated that not all are. I consider it to be evidence therefore.
Physical reality does. No matter what you believe, you won't ressurrect if consciousness is simply a chemical process. No matter whether god is "subjectively true" to you, s/he/it cannot affect anything due to the fact that it is not objective and thus has no relation to the world as we know it.I'll go back then. You said: "That has nothing to do with reality..."
What exactly did you mean? Does reality only contain the objective?