My mom doesnt accept me because i consider myself to be Agnostic, i just dont find the whole idea of god and what he does to be completely realistic, but on the other end i fell it is very possible. This is just a trait of my Gemini Nature i guess, but when i try to explain how i feel to my mother she yells at me and tells me to believe in god and read the bible and all of that crap -_-"
Atheism is still a guessing game, and is the religion of non religion. The chances of the universe being created from absolutely nothing, and in the extremely complex form it is without any intelligent or supernatural assistance is very particular, and also very unlikely.
Proud Agnostic. So Atheist seem to be really anti agnostic. You would think after thousands of years of being discriminated against you would not do the same as soon as you had the chance.
Good to see you are a nice person, at least you're not an atheist and put in so much time, money, and effort to try and prove something doesn't exist. There are many religions out there and they all seem to connect in some points of their books. However no one has a clue how everything was created in the beginning (not talking about how the earth was made) but what created the big bang itself, and what created the material to make the big bang, and stretch out billions of years before that....
Seriously what is wrong with agnostic atheist. Talking about big foot which we can observe as false as big foot is supposed to exist here in the natural world. The "default" belief would be false.
What about god/s? jehovah, allah, jesus, ra, zeus, odin? they may all be false but who is to say there is no truth in those stories. They are supposed to exist beyond our world of understanding which we can not observe. Who can we say for sure that this world is not a false projection?
Why does it matter so much that it is wrong for people to say "Hey, I just don't know what to believe"?
It is not like we have an agenda here to convert everybody to our "religion".
It is just healthier to not assume when we are in the dark. This world is a funny place when it comes to the "theory of everything" or the "ultimate knowledge".
The answer is 42. Query->"answer to everything" in wolframalphaDOTcom
@steverock85 First- agnostic atheist is absolutely fine. Second- be careful when you talk about the things you DON'T know- plenty of people in this world take advantage of the concession that fairy tales MIGHT be possible, and use it as an excuse to make baseless assertions.
'Second- be careful when you talk about the things you DON'T know- plenty of people in this world take advantage of the concession that fairy tales MIGHT be possible'
This is just shameless. Should I join the atheist club of "there is knowledge for everything" so other could not take advantage of the unknown?
Agnosticism is about the unknown! Not what is known. It will set back science for years if we take back up this approach.
@steverock85 why do you ignore the last part of my sentence? I think you are specifically avoiding the implication of agnosticism's vague concessions: people use it as an excuse to make baseless assertions and that's how you get religious fundamentalist wackos, crystal healing, homeopathy- all kinds of B.S. is peddled all across the world, with agnostics turning a blind eye to it. Instead of insisting that truth should be demonstrated and unknowns are just that- unknown, you let it all slide.
What you have to understand that OUR view has nothing to do what other believe!
I don't think lying we have answers and say we "know" god/s do not exist is going to convince any theist. It is important to teach critical thinking, but it is sarcasm if we then start to assume something when we know nothing. How can you apply your critical thought of something we can not touch, see or feel? Critical thinking only applies to THIS observable universe. Science does not deal with belief.
@steverock85 First of all, for the zillionth time- an atheist is simply one who does not believe in god. they can be agnostic (there's no evidence to believe in any gods) or gnostic (the claim there is NO god anywhere). many atheists make the correct claim that we can say that there are no gods like we can say there are no fairies- because both those mythical creatures are in the category of thing without any evidence. Oh, and science indeed does not deal with belief. it deals with reality.
@steverock85 and second of all- you keep coming back to that straw man of "touch, see, smell"- that's completely irrelevant. you can use any detector or sensor, as advanced as can be designed, to measure any effect of a hypothesis you claim should be real. anything that CANNOT be detected or predicted in ANY manner is a pretty story and nothing more.
'B.S. is peddled all across the world, with agnostics turning a blind eye to it. '
Stop generalizing agnostic people! Do you really think all agnostic don't care? Ho was Darwin bulldog btw? What most of us care is the freedom of thought. It does not matter if theist or atheist is over the other line.
'anything that CANNOT be detected or predicted in ANY manner is a pretty story and nothing more.'
If they don't force it, don't make money out of it, then why should I care?
On one hand you talk about bad people who fool others for money. On the other hand you talk about people who just believe. If I may then let me say that even if I am agnostic I AGREE that money should not be made out of ignorance of other people.
I however DISAGREE to label all believers as a cancer of society. No one can claim to have everything figured out. If you want to be better then don't force your views on others and learn to respect!
@steverock85 Believers aren't a cancer of society. As long as people believe myths without any concern for verifying them, there will be other people who take advantage of them. Not because it's supernatural- because it's not verified. Mind you, I'm not saying that preying upon gullible people happens ONLY because of superstition- all people can be fooled sometimes on some things - but it's sooooo much unfortunately easier with it.
'Mind you, I'm not saying that preying upon gullible people happens ONLY because of superstition- all people can be fooled sometimes on some things - but it's sooooo much unfortunately easier with it.'
I don't think you are understanding agnosticism. When you are agnostic you don't affirm the supernatural because you don't deny it!
If tomorrow god would prove his own existence then true agnostic would be less likely jump on the gun. It is not only about the proofs!
'I don't think you are understanding agnosticism. When you are agnostic you don't affirm the supernatural because you don't deny it!'
What I am saying is that we don't preach to believers that it is o.k. to believe everything you hear.
I don't go walking to other people and say they should go to this famous non-educated doctor who is known to grow hair on bald people. We have to rely on general accepted knowledge to get by. Agnosticism is not about being gullible.
If god would show himself then that would just be the beginning for any agnostic. What would be the nature of this god? How does he exist? Who created him? Are there other gods? Is this god holding something back from us? What is this world then? What game is this god playing?
It is the same with nothing. Are we from coincidence? Why did this coincidence happen? What coincidence made our coincidence? What is the nature of this coincidence?
I should clarify because you probably are going to miss my point anyway. I WAS atheist, I was anti-theist and I hated religion.
My mother and my father are believers. They believe in god but are not religious. They have never forced anything on me except to learn one jesus prayer when I was young to reside before I went to sleep.
When I got older I was the one bringing that up and kept telling then how it was wrong. It is not mine to claim they are wrong because I felt so.
New hypothesis would be labeled as false before any critical thought or observation would be made. Mathematician and scientist who might discover a new breakthrough theory about little known phenomena might be outright rejected by their professors of their own university because it "does not feel right".
History of science is written with this tale and it is good it has been growing out of it. It is NOT about god/s or what theist believe. It is the method of knowledge that matters.
Agnoticism FTW - our knowledge is limited and until it is proven one way or another, nobody is 100% sure. Also, spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive as many claim.. I find it amusing when people say "there are no such thing as agnostics" - really, then what are we? Certainly agnosticism is the most open minded viewpoint.
Face it, we are not atheist or theist. We don't think the "default" value of god existence or the truth of the proposition is false.
We think it is undetermined and are accordingly agnostic.
We don't say we lack or are without believe in god(that is a rejection), we are simply without belief in either case. I personally don't know what to believe. If I don't know, then how can you know what I believe?
@steverock85 but if you don't know what to believe, how exactly do you respond to people telling you what "Christ/Allah/Yahweh/Krishna" wants you to do/think/say/believe?
@steverock85 Great straw man argument... look at the difference between the influence of your question on my life (not a lot) and the influence of what I asked you on your life (potentially the entire meaning of your life).
"knowledge" and "belief" are just words. they imply the truth value we give to some information. lets skip the semantics, otherwise it just gets tedious. The whole idea is HOW you decide how true something is. This is why I asked "how do you respond to people telling you..."
It was not straw man because you have to be able to generalize what you are trying to say.
If it does not work in every case, that is we can answer one belief question with "I don't know" then that implies that there exist people who just don't know what to believe when god/s are asserted.
You never really answered my question but I did answer yours with something to think about. I don't know is my answer.
@steverock85 I am trying to FIND OUT what it is that agnostics believe. I'm asking you, Since you say you don't really know if there are gods, what do you do with that non-knowledge? What do you say to all the specific, blind-faith-based religious demands? Will you participate in religious rites appeasing spirits that you don't know if there's anything there? will you, for example, oppose marriage rights to certain people because some say some god, who only possibly exists, hates them?
@gshefer11 In other words, I think that what you believe is true determines what you believe is relevant. and what you believe is relevant determines how you act.
BTW I also say "I don't know", but follow it up with- and as long as it's not known if there are gods, and there's nothing to show that their probable, then I'm not going to worship them or endeavor to force the gods' supposed will on people.
In that sense, atheism IS agnosticism, just more decisive about the implications of "unknown".
@steverock85 but you are not being consistent. if you say that propositions have values of true, false, and also things like "highly unlikely", then why is a "god" proposition only true/false? I think that considering how powerful and meaningful gods are supposed to be, the fact that apart from uncorroborated legends we have not seen ANY evidence of their existence makes them "higly unlikely" propositions. not true, not false, but very very unlikely.
' if you say that propositions have values of true, false, and also things like "highly unlikely", then why is a "god" proposition only true/false?'
Good that you asked and there is a reason for this.
It is because we have nothing to measure how likely it is to be true or false.
There are many propositions that are like this. Do all humans see the same color?(yet to be known), does afterlife exist?(can not be known) Is schrodingers cat dead or alive?(yet to be observed)
I am not sure if it is knowable if we can see in the same color though. I just assume we can know this as it might be within our reach to observe. If we can prove the color black is the ultimate dark for everyone and the color white is the ultimate light, then we might be able to take it somewhere.
@steverock85 "we have nothing to measure how likely it is to be true or false"?? Religions have made THOUSANDS of assertions about nature and doomsday prophecies which have been proven not only false but ridiculous, gods' justice being ignored by real life. EVERYTHING in this life, when measured without emotional attachment to mysticism, shows NO CONTROL OR INTERVENTION.
And you say this has no impact on the likelihood of existence of all powerful deities that control the universe? come on man.
I consider the proposition "after life exist" as the parent proposition for "god exist".
If we could prove there is no afterlife then we have proof that there is no god.
We can not put any probability on something we have no data on however. It is easy to construct valid hypothesis from multiverse theory that we could exist within matrix projection universe or sub universe where some supreme mind makes our nature laws. Maybe when we die we escape this "fake"? projection.
@steverock85 You can avoid it all you want, but some unanswerable questions REQUIRE some pragmatic assumptions even though we don't have an 100% answer. and then you have to consider a certain concept that you keep running away from- LIKELIHOOD.
I ask you again- what does an agnostic do when some religion tells him "God says do/don't do X"?
"I ask you again- what does an agnostic do when some religion tells him "God says do/don't do X"?"
I will not bow to anyone, religion or not. Even though I will not bow to any religion does not mean I accept god idea is unlikely. We simply can not value this as there are infinity many possible answers. We can always ask how, why and when.
You think god idea is "very very unlikely"*, I don't, this is the difference between us.
Religion is not unbearable where I come from. Most are agnostic, then atheist, then theist.
We have had the first gay president and don't care how other choose to view their own personal life or what they have figured out. That is their business.
This freedom can not be made without respect to each other views. There are many who still don't get this though..
See "inherid the wind". It is a very good movie. You don't have to prove non-existence to reason with religious fanatics
Religion is not unbearable where I come from. Most are agnostic, then atheist, then theist.
We have had the first gay president and don't care how other choose to view their own personal life or what they have figured out. That is their business.
This freedom can not be made without respect to each other views. There are many who still don't get this though..
See "inherid the wind". It is a very good movie. You don't have to prove non-existence to reason with religious fanatics
Religion is not unbearable where I come from. Most are agnostic, then atheist, then theist.
We have had the first gay president and don't care how other choose to view their own personal life or what they have figured out. That is their business.
This freedom can not be made without respect to each other views. There are many who still don't get this though..
See "inherid the wind". It is a very good movie. You don't have to prove non-existence to reason with religious fanatics
@gshefer11 There is an association of agnostics so I respond for myself. Agnostic is free and NEVER thinks about God in this way. Religion? No way! Campaigning against God? What for? How do you measure the PROBABILITYof existence of other people? 50%, 30%? Based on what? All right. You arbitrate it according to the way you are conditioned. And the physical world? What is the probability of the existence of matter? How do you measure it? Your worldview is like those of the theists, indefensible.
@duubamg Religion? No way! Campaigning against God? What for? How do you measure the PROBABILITYof existence of other people? 50%, 30%? Based on what? All right. You arbitrate it according to the way you are conditioned.
@duubamg And the physical world? What is the probability of the existence of matter? How do you measure it? Your worldview is like those of the theists, indefensible.
@duubamg You are making up senseless questions instead of addressing the questions you don't want to deal with. The probability of ANY PROPOSITION being right or wrong is measurable if it is described as having an effect on the real world. If BigFoot were real, someone would have found body remains or a good photograph. If a god was real then the universe would follow the scripture's laws and justice (it doesn't). If souls existed we would have evidence (we don't). this means LOW PROBABILITY!
@gshefer11 A very simplistic way of looking at things, I suppose the atomic World does not exist as we can not see it? Sciences that had not been discovered yet did not exist *because* they were not yet discovered? Hmm... As for scripture, why presume that any "Holy book" should be some kind of guide book? We are not talking about organised religion per se but the existence of God and/or things beyond our current understanding.
@andy7666 You missed the point completely and then call me simplistic? the "atomic world" has MANY experiments that have results that decisively validate the standard model of particle physics, even though we can't see it! that was EXACTLY my point- that's a theory about something that is supposed to have effects on the REAL world, and it actually checks out! every time!
BigFoot, fairies, unicorns and ALL gods have lots of "stories" that say what and where they are, but absolutely ZERO evidence.
@gshefer11 Senseless? When you can’t comprehend a problem (solipsism, Berkeley’s philosophy, lack of certainty for causality (David Hume), etc.) you use to dub it senseless? If I can’t understand a given problem it is senseless to me but it will still exist nonetheless. You are trying to frame reality into the way you are conditioned. You are drowned in circularity. Sorry, we will never agree because you trust too much our limited 5 senses. (no offense intended)
@duubamg You keep talking about the things we don't know as if you know something about them that I don't. when it comes down applying your approach to real life- what do you do? someone tells you a fantastic story about a god that saved you 2000 years ago. Do you do what he tells you to do because it might not be false and who knows? What do you think all the nutjobs with fairy tales, crystals and gods are doing? Oh... they're framing reality too, but by making up stories! *facepalm*
@gshefer11 I certainly don’t know more than you do. That’s why I’m an agnostic not an atheist. I have no basis to be an atheist. Dealing with real life is in fact the most important outcome from the assumptions we establish for these unanswerable questions. As for religious people, I just don’t discuss with them. They are beyond help. Sometimes I cast some doubt if I am provoked by them. I throw skepticism everywhere I go against any believers, be them of religious nature or atheist.
@duubamg By your description, it seems to me that we are both agnostic atheists, and that emphasizing just the agnostic part of it is just political correctness. if you believe in gods, you are theistic. if you do NOT hold the opinion that gods FACTUALLY EXIST, then you are non theistic. if only there was a short, greek prefix for that... seriously- have you given a thought for the difference between gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist? they are not mutually exclusive.
@duubamg And the physical world? What is the probability of the existence of matter? How do you measure it? Your worldview is like those of the theists, indefensible.
@MyWorldView Don't be obtuse. There are a lot of legends and stories that MIGHT be true. you don't believe ALL of them do you? Well how do you tell them apart? which story is more true, and why?
Any atheist irritated enough to state that "there is no god" is stating it with no less or more certainty than "there are no unicorns". If you don't give a crap about what's true and only want to live in your fantasy world that's fine, but say it that way. That would at least be an honest statement.
@ITaukeiaho Psalm 23 "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; He makes me lie down in green pastures".... By definition that is an admission of being a sheep following some invisible omnipotent power who guides his followers. As an apathetic agnostic I wont rule out the possibility of a powerful extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional being, Therefore if "deities" were real it's a lot more than what some "holy" book claims it to be. A more important Q than who god, is where am I going in life.
@cadelaide I've watched some nde videos that explain God in a way, I don'y know what to make of it but it sounds interesting...as far as where someone is going in life, the truth...a one way road trip to death...there are two things in life that we have no choice and that is birth and death...everything in between these two points is what we choose to do...our own act of free will i guess...eh im a borderline atheist myself to be honest lol
The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. (- Agnosticism: The Battle Against Shameless Ignorance)
Both agnostic atheist and agnostic theist make this fallacy and are no better then their gnostic brothers.
Some people just don't want to have anything to do with this.
@ReclaimXmas - "What you're referring to by "personal proof" is actually called subjective interpretation and does not suffice as evidence for anything other than what it is: natural functions of the human brain." - Where does the ideas this person gets, come from? when totally original and not seen on TV or anywhere. And what made them have out of body experiences, or be able to talk to people who was dead, and get unknown information. No it does not serve as proof but it is proof to them.
@TheaDragonSpirit Agreed. What they subjectively perceive as proof for whatever they subjectively decide its proof for will likely frame their beliefs. The beliefs they then hold are not based on knowledge, certainty, provable concepts, or verifiable evidence but their own subjective perception thereof. It's well established that belief functions independently of knowledge.
Why then must the existence of something be known before I can disbelieve it exists?
@ReclaimXmas - arrogant. Why must a person prove to you something they know to be true. You think a rocket scientist has to prove to you that they know how to make a rocket fly... and when it flies prove to you how it works... and so on. You expect to much of other people. If he does not explain all you can do is believe he knows what he is doing and wont blow you up by accident. What you class as proof others don't. The point is just because you don't believe it doesn't make it a lie.
@TheaDragonSpirit "Arrogant. Why must a person prove to you something they know to be true."
They obviously only have to do this if they want the respect and acknowledgement of other people. For example, your rocket scientist would likely have to do quite a bit of convincing to get any customers. Maybe by doing some test trials without passengers to provide the evidence that serves to ground other people's belief that he in fact possesses some expertise in rocket design.
@TheaDragonSpirit "What you class as proof others don't. The point is just because you don't believe it doesn't make it a lie."
While true, that's not relevant to whether or not people should regard something as lies. If I value my life/health, I'd damn well better make sure that some clown claiming to sell me a ride in his home made rocket actually has expertise in rocket design and the way to do this is to start off believing that he is incompetent until there is evidence to the contrary.
@Gnomefro - who said he wanted you to ride it... he could just want to blow you up in to little pieces... doesn't need to prove out. Just blow you in to little pieces.
@TheaDragonSpirit Ultimately though, it comes down to the fact that without evidence we can't tell a reality where X is true from a reality where X is false. In the case of your rocket scientist we can't tell him apart from a liar. If we can't, then why on earth should we trust him? Seems to me a tentative rejection of his claims is what is appropriate. This is also how the scientific method works btw.
@Gnomefro - because his rockets worked... he press fire... and they fired. But does he actually know why they fire and how they actually work... whats inside them and so on... is it controlled... how do I know they will work... I don't I just have to believe they will. People trust and believe people with little letters... and so called qualifications. People believe a lot of things with out much proof. Proof is subjective to each person.
@TheaDragonSpirit Not only is it not arrogant, this is just a red herring. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "proof." That's some unrelated topic you want to shift over to. You're still pretending that I'm defending gnosticism, which I never have.
You still have failed to address how it's possible to be a theist and non-theist at the same time. You (and others) have failed to explain how lack of knowledge describes how you can't believe or disbelieve something.
@ReclaimXmas - "What you're calling "personal proof" can be anything, including delusion or hallucination." - true it could be... but that is up to the person to decide. They still would know and not just randomly accept belief. Just like a atheist could know that everything can be explained by biology and or environmental reactions. They both "know". But it doesn't make them right. No evidence I have seen has proved to me to be true.
@ReclaimXmas - watch?v=_m7WGxRs0mI - This explains why religion can be good even if people don't actually have spiritual experiences the actually essence of religious messages can be good. And you don't actually have to give any money... and you can go get free counselling off a priest without paying money... and wait for it... they do it for free... woo... manipulative that is. The Vatican however is another story... and you can argue that people don't think and just follow like pawns. False!
@TheaDragonSpirit Are you recruiting me for religious groups now? Wow this has taken a wild turn towards the ridiculous (not that it wasn't already futile). I totally agree that religious groups can do good things, arguments can even be made that delusion can actually be helpful in some situations. Unfortunately, they are capable of all the terrible things that religious groups are currently and historically known for as well.
@ReclaimXmas - What like lighting and thunderstorms... and killing in the name of god... which goes against there actual teachings and some manipulative prick just tricked some people in to doing something in the name of this religion... like say something the devil would do... come in the name of good face with a smile and hide there true motives. Not that am religious... or even believe that but the point is that most religions I have seen usually are against killing of any kind. Usually.
@ReclaimXmas - not sure what you mean here. I think that the Vatican is dangerous because they hide a lot of information and don't let people decide for themselves. Which is manipulative. Second I think there are a lot of spiritual related experiences people want answers for. Now some religions take credit... some just follow the indoctrinations, but each person usually relates it to a religion. But me personally I am agnostic. I personally think there could be a spiritual connection.
@ReclaimXmas - by spiritual connection you could also call it connection with the universe and forces in the universe that work with space and time and pass information back and though and not due to a god but some kind of spiritual energy or quantum mechanics and string theory. But that to me is still spiritual. Just not necessarily a God who is in full control of everything as some people would imply. I think will has a lot to do with a lot of life.
@TheaDragonSpirit I'm sorry. I'm not really interested in hearing about personal speculation and what it is specifically that you believe. You've completely strayed out onto some other tangent now. If you ever do come up with an argument for how it's logical possible to simultaneously be neither theist nor non-theist, you can always hit my inbox any time you like.
@ReclaimXmas - "If we could only believe what we could prove, there would be no religion." - That statement is wrong. Religion is not a problem. Let people believe. You think religion is a problem. I don't I think people who have a commandment that says don't kill then people who kill... are not following there own religion. Now you can know something and not be able to prove it to other people, this is when belief is created. Not just randomly accepting things. That's just agnostically hopeful.
@ReclaimXmas - "Belief doesn't require accurate explanations, reason, truth, certainty, or knowledge." - No... you have twisted this... belief does require personal proof. Just this proof is not always explainable to others. I have experienced, seeing from another life forms eyes. I can't explain or expect people to believe this. But it is true and I know it. It doesn't prove there is a God though it does prove there is something I don't understand to me.
@TheaDragonSpirit What you're calling "personal proof" can be anything, including delusion or hallucination. It does not have to be factual, repeatable, or experienced personally. Sometimes hearing a story from someone else is enough to convince someone to believe it. "it is true and I know it" and "it does prove there is something" are unsupported and gnostic claims. You are claiming something is certain. Still has nothing to do with theism until you decide a god is involved.
@TheaDragonSpirit Also, the term "personal proof" you are using should not be confused with the actual term "proof." What you're referring to by "personal proof" is actually called subjective interpretation and does not suffice as evidence for anything other than what it is: natural functions of the human brain.
@ReclaimXmas - You said evolution does not need intelligent design to exist. You can't prove that statement. Simple reason is if you go far back enough right beyond the beginning how did the egg get their for it then to evolve? So to say it doesn't need intelligent design is not possible to state because something can't come out of nothing now this doesn't prove something created it or some spiritually force created it or spiritually phenomenon, but it also doesn't prove independence is possible
@TheaDragonSpirit "how did the egg get their for it then to evolve" - shows a complete lack of understanding of evolution.
"something can't come out of nothing" - who's claiming it did? and what is "it"?
"but it also doesn't prove independence is possible" - or impossible. No one is attempting to prove that design is impossible, just unnecessary. Each component of biological evolution can be explained in all of it's parts without invoking the help of an intelligent designer.
' "Evolution just means God designed it." Is a gnostic and theistic claim. Is there evidence to support any one or anything designed evolution or that it needs intelligent design? ' - No you taken this out of context. I am saying that the theory of evolution does not disprove God... because this could just mean that God designed people to evolve. Just like programmers design software to be updated. Not complex to grasp. I have not had a strong spiritual experience so I can't say I know.
@TheaDragonSpirit I know evolution doesn't disprove god, I never said it did. I used it as an example of how even with evidence, disbelief is still possible. I didn't take anything out of context, or show trouble grasping an old familiar concept. The claim that evolution is only part of an intelligent design, is in fact a gnostic theistic claim. There's no evidence to support the claim, and evolution doesn't require intelligent design to function.
@ReclaimXmas - Part two: You either truly know there is no God in your heart and feel it... or you feel there is something spiritual and know it in your heart. Or you say I don't want to say I know anything for sure and are agnostic. Now this might be confusing to you being a agnostic person. But when you choose a side you actually know why.
@TheaDragonSpirit "You either truly know there is no God in your heart and feel it... or you feel there is something spiritual and know it in your heart."
This is a completely unsupported and logically fallacious claim.
I've restated this too many times already. I make no claims of certainty nor do I believe in any theistic claims. I'm an agnostic atheist.
You are sounding even more like a theist than you were before. Ever notice "agnostics" usually capitalize the word god?
@ReclaimXmas - Part One: "How many times do I have to repeat this. I know I'm agnostic." - Right then you are not atheist then. The end. You can't be both atheist and agnostic. That is my point. You can't say I don't know there if something spiritual exist like Gods. And I know there is no Gods and disbelieve it.
@TheaDragonSpirit "Right then you are not atheist then" False. Knowledge and belief function independently. (A)gnosticism and (a)theism are still not mutually exclusive. You have yet to make an argument showing that they are, other than obstinate denial.
"And I know there is no Gods" - same straw-man argument makes it's 700th appearance. When have I ever said I know there are no gods? How many times have I explained that I have made no such claim, but the exact opposite?
@ReclaimXmas - "I don't have to prove something right or wrong in order to believe or disbelieve it." - Yes, yes you do. Ha. You don't go 6 + 8 + 10 + 4364 = 4382, I just believe that is wrong why? Because I do, I don't have to show or explain that I worked it out. It's just wrong. Ha. You do have to show why you think it's wrong and show evidence if you can to prove it or at least theories that explain how it's wrong and how I could have come to a conclusion that is wrong.
@ReclaimXmas - Part two: But some are actually people having paranormal experences quite often and explaining them, they don't usually say God in the sense as a man on a cloud but the energy which is connecting with them. And even then God is a funny word for me to get, but again I am agnostic. To them it's some enlightened force passing them information. Personally that is universe to me not God.
@TheaDragonSpirit Yes, there are many forms of theism. Faith doesn't require a specific god any more than any other delusion does. Believing in the absence of evidence, for whatever the reason, is only belief. It doesn't require proof, evidence, knowledge or certainty.
@ReclaimXmas - Only a idiot would believe something with out some kind of proof. Not everyone would agree with what they class as proof and call it belief. But people who see ghosts... and actually know they saw a ghost, and are dam certain it was not a trick would fully believe that was proof. They just could not prove it to you. It requires your own proof. Not to be able to prove it to someone else... but at least explain your reasons for believing without showing proof.
@TheaDragonSpirit You aren't even disagreeing with me now. You're just saying that the fact people may believe something is true doesn't mean it was true. That's what I'm saying too. Belief does not require accurate "proof" or the ability to prove anything. If we could only believe what we could prove, there would be no religion. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.
@ReclaimXmas - Some people belief because they was taught too... but a lot believe because they have experienced something they either can't prove or others say that's not good enough proof and offer scientific reasons why this happened and how the brain made it up in that way causing them to experience it in this way. Like I said everyone has proof of KNOWING. They just can't necessarily explain it well or prove it to other people. Atheist usually would say they know it's mental chemistry.
@TheaDragonSpirit Exactly. Belief doesn't require accurate explanations, reason, truth, certainty, or knowledge. Belief and knowledge function completely independently. One may influence the other, but it doesn't have to be accurately. People are fooled all the time. Many people make a living off of that very fact.
@ReclaimXmas - Part one: "It doesn't have anything to do with proving them right or wrong it has to do with believing them." - Sort of... but I would of said this is because nothing paranormal has ever happened to you... then it would be a case of believing or disbelieving... and not looking for explanations. Science can only explain so much. Some religions are just bollocks these days.
@TheaDragonSpirit No. The occurrence of paranormal activity would only be evidence for the supernatural (assuming it actually happened and could be demonstrated as factual). This would obviously influence belief, but the knowledge itself is not belief. You could still disbelieve regardless of this new evidence. Knowledge and belief function independently. Belief does not require knowledge or accuracy.
@ReclaimXmas - "Theism is a claim. Well, there's many claims that are theistic." - No being Theist is a belief based on what you have felt or experienced. Being part of religion is because you believe it explains those beliefs or experiences. Some people are religious because they know there is god, and some because they was brought up to be.
@TheaDragonSpirit No, theism is a claim. The claim is that there is a god or gods. There are many different types of theism, what makes them theistic is the supernatural god portion. Being part of religion is because you believe it explains things, or you're just going through the motions because it's what your family does, or because it's the only explanation you've heard so far. The reason for the belief doesn't matter, the fact they believe is what makes them theists.
@ReclaimXmas - "No. You are acting as though belief and knowledge are the same thing. " - No I am not I am agnostic. Ha. Atheist who believe they know there is no god are doing this. Some have good reasons to believe this based on theories and some are just stupid. And some are actually agnostics in denial but prefer the label atheist. Possible because its trendy or they don't want to egotistically say I don't actually know. Evolution does not disprove God. Evolution just means God designed it.
@TheaDragonSpirit The way you keep mentioning trendy, things "atheists" commonly do, and the problem of people using labels differently than you do shows exactly what you're upset about. You still haven't made any argument for how agnosticism excuses you somehow from being either theist or not theist.
"Evolution just means God designed it." Is a gnostic and theistic claim. Is there evidence to support any one or anything designed evolution or that it needs intelligent design?
@ReclaimXmas - "You pretty much directly contradict yourself there." No I didn't I said there not tripping me. It's bugging me, because I try to get you to talk like a atheist and you keep saying I don't know. So it would be better if you said I am atheist and I will move on to a real atheist who actually has theories and actual real reasons to back what they say and not just the answer I DON'T KNOW. Tell me what theories do you have to show how the world got to be. Please explain in detail?
@TheaDragonSpirit You try to get me to say things that an agnostic atheist would say, because you wrongly think atheism is inherently gnostic. Atheists don't have to be gnostic. I don't have to be certain of the non-existence of gods in order to disbelieve unsupported theistic claims.
"Tell me ... how the world got to be..."
I don't know exactly how the world came to be, but I disbelieve the unsupported creation stories. Rejecting one claim doesn't require making another.
@ReclaimXmas - PART TWO: Second, the point is what have you experienced and what do you know about spirituality and what theories have you read or not read proving God or Proving how the world got here with out a God or something spiritual? If you can't answer this is why I believe in god... This is why I don't believe in God and theories I have red. Then really you are agnostic and fall in the I don't know category. Agnostic. You don't really know, and can't prove it either way.
@TheaDragonSpirit Again, you're still bent on trying to get me to prove things. You desperately want me to make some gnostic claim so you can show me how I can't be certain. I know I can't be certain. Belief does not require knowledge. Belief doesn't even require accuracy. If we had to be absolutely certain of all things before we could believe them, religion wouldn't exist. Things like faith, theism, fiction, and imagination, would not exist.
@ReclaimXmas - PART ONE: "(i don't know if there's ice cream) and atheist (I don't believe Joe's claim). " - Fuck what people say you jack arse. This is not about proving Joe or bob wrong. YOU TIT! Fuck what people have experienced. If Joe is a cock and doesn't know jack and you prove him wrong then that doesn't disprove anything. It just proves Joe is a cock.
@TheaDragonSpirit Yes it is. Theism is a claim. Well, there's many claims that are theistic. Being atheist or theist is directly dependent on whether or not you believe those claims. It doesn't have anything to do with proving them right or wrong, it has to do with believing them. I don't have to prove something right or wrong in order to believe or disbelieve it. Joe can be right or wrong and it doesn't matter, if I don't believe joe's claim, I'm an a-joe's-claim-ist.
@ReclaimXmas - "Some god might exist, but I haven't seen evidence for one, therefor I don't believe in gods as of now, and I currently meet the definition of atheist. " You contradict your self. Some God might exist is agnostic. You can't be unsure and then say I don't believe in God. Please make up your mind. Either you are unsure... or you are sure there is no God. Not siting on the fence by stating your both unsure and sure there is no God. Choose: Unsure... or sure.
@TheaDragonSpirit No. You are acting as though belief and knowledge are the same thing. They aren't. Belief and knowledge are not mutually exclusive. They both function independently. You either believe something, or you don't. If we lack knowledge or evidence for something, that may be why you don't believe it, or you may just believe it anyway. Even if there is evidence, you still might not believe. Some don't believe in evolution, even though there's all the evidence for it.
@ReclaimXmas - Here is agnostic Definition for you. Agnostic is someone who lacks evidence and therefore doesn't know for sure the existence of deities. "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
Atheists someone who DISBELIEVES in deities. Quote "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods".
@TheaDragonSpirit Exactly. I don't know if any gods might exist (agnostic) but I disbelieve in every theistic claim I've ever heard (atheist), due to the lack of evidence.
This isn't difficult. I can't say with any certaintly that there are no gods out there, but I haven't seen a reason to believe one is. I currently do not believe in gods, I'm currently an atheist.
It's possible I'll be struck by lighting tomorrow, you never know, but I have no reason to believe I will be.
@ReclaimXmas - the labels are not tripping me up it just bugs me when agnostics think there atheists. But you have not shown me any evidence to show there is no god. You have stated its more than what we can see... yet you don't realize that spirituality would be more than what you could see or possible even feel, but it could still be there.
@TheaDragonSpirit "the labels are not tripping me up it just bugs me when agnostics think there atheists"
You pretty much directly contradict yourself there.
"But you have not shown me any evidence to show there is no god."
Nor do I intend to. That's your straw man.
You are still acting like my point is "gods can't exist and I can prove it." I've never once said that, nor even implied that. I've actually said the opposite, several times.
@ReclaimXmas - To be Agnostic Atheist is like saying: "Thats like saying I don't know if there is any ice cream in the fridge as I have no evidence but I know there is no Ice Cream in the fridge." Atheist is the disbelief of any deities, Gods or anything spiritual. You either don't know or you know. How would you know? you would look at what people eat and make a valid reasoning as to being none, or you would look in all the fridges (spiritual places) and come to a conclusion. Some in a bowl.
@TheaDragonSpirit Wrong again. being an agnostic atheist is like saying, I don't know if there's ice cream in the fridge. That fridge has never been opened before and there's never been any reason to believe there is ice cream. Joe says there's Ice cream in there, but I don't believe him because he's just guessing. I'm therefor agnostic (i don't know if there's ice cream) and atheist (I don't believe Joe's claim). Joe could be right. I won't believe until i see the ice cream.
@ReclaimXmas - I am not struggling. You are struggling with the concept that many people can't be idiots and many people can't believe crap... which is odd from a person who claims to be atheist to not recognize that Agnostic Atheist is not correct. It means this: I don't know there is a God and I don't believe there is a God, at the same time. If you don't know how the feck can you not believe there is no God.
@TheaDragonSpirit Back to this "you're an idiot which makes me right somehow" strategy? Dictionary. Or use different words.
How can you not believe something you don't know? Same way you don't know what this story I have on my desk is about. You don't know what it is, so you have no reason to believe what your next door neighbor (who also doesn't know) says it's about. If he thinks it's about frogs, he knows just as much as you do about it. Does that mean you can't disbelieve?
@ReclaimXmas - Well that's why I think most atheists are idiots, who are over egotistical and can't handle saying they don't know something. Ha. But that's my personal view. If they have strong theories to back there reasoning I don't think there idiots then, but have come to a conclusion but a lot of atheists don't believe and deny anything spiritual or theist for the sake of it. Some because it's the current trend. Most of these are actually agnostic. But some feel they know there is no God.
@ReclaimXmas - You always need proof for a decision even if it's agnostic. I don't know because I have not got any evidence or strong theories to back a choice for theist or Atheist. Now it's your turn why do you believe there is no God?
@TheaDragonSpirit "You always need proof for a decision even if it's agnostic."
By this logic, religion is impossible.
"I have not got any evidence or strong theories to back a choice for theist or Atheist."
Atheism requires no evidence, or theory. If you're not a theist, you're a non-theist, a non-believer. If you don't believe in any god, you're an atheist.
I have not, and never will claim there are no gods or there can't be gods. That's your straw-man, not my argument.
@ReclaimXmas - There is no straw man. Just you in denial that you are actually agnostic and not atheist and trying to say there is not a defined standing point for being atheist... I think you find stereotypes come about because people tend to be doing these things... not all do but then not all people are wise, and think a duck is a bird. If you're atheist you either are sertain there is no God. Or you are agnostic.
@TheaDragonSpirit When did I deny that I was agnostic? I'm fully explaining how I'm agnostic (no knowledge of gods) and atheist (no belief in gods). These terms are by no means mutually exclusive. Your straw man argument is that in order to be atheist, you have to make a gnostic claim that god's can't exist. I have made no claim of certainty other than I am certain I do not believe in any gods. The fact I don't believe in any god makes me an atheist.
@ReclaimXmas - Ha... yeah but ducks are not eagles... to point at a duck and say it's the same as a eagle... because its a bird was the point. You missed it though and responded correctly. You can't grasp that not knowing or not thinking there is a God doesn't make you atheist. It just puts you in agnostic position. When you KNOW there is no God or are pretty dam certain, you would say I KNOW there is no God. Not show me evidence. That's why your agnostic.
@TheaDragonSpirit Did someone say ducks are eagles? Nope. Did I say a duck is a bird and an eagle is a bird therefor ducks are eagles? Nope. Agnostics are people who say they don't know about the existence of gods or that it cant be known. Atheists are people who don't believe in gods. You can be both at the same time. "I'm a bird" doesn't answer the question "are you a duck". The question is are you a duck or something else, we can see you're a bird.
@ReclaimXmas - You can't be agnostic & atheist. It's like saying I am a theist atheist. Its a oxymoron. You Can't say I don't know if there is a God, and not believe there is a God at the same time. You can be agnostic leaning towards atheist beliefs or theist believes. But you can't be both agnostic and atheist... this is just bollocks for I am a agnostic who romanticizes atheists. No you must be sure in your convictions. You can't grasp that you keep saying you don't know.
@ReclaimXmas - A duck can be a bird, but not a eagle. Even if it thinks it is a eagle it is not. A duck is a duck from the same species as birds... but it's still a duck even if it wants to be a swan. It can walk like a swan but it will always look like a duck, quack like a duck and be a duck... even though it believes it is something else.
@TheaDragonSpirit Well aware. What's your point? What if you repeatedly tell that duck to use a dictionary to look up duck? Maybe he'd get it then? Or would he continually pretend that his definition of duck and bird are the right ones and everyone else is using the wrong words? What if this duck is telling other ducks that they are birds and therefor not ducks because he has no idea what an duck is?
@ReclaimXmas - Now when you say I DONT KNOW, and need evidence this is agnostic. Not a magic side catagory. It's just simple you don't feel strongly enough to be atheist or thiest. so your agnostic. Which means to be in the state of not knowing, pretty much when you sum up the words meaning.
@TheaDragonSpirit Absolutely never claimed to create a side catagory. I've completely spelled out in explicit detail what I mean by my beliefs. This is another straw man you've created. I know strongly and with certainty that I do not believe in any god I've ever heard of. Some god might exist, but I haven't seen evidence for one, therefor I don't believe in gods as of now, and I currently meet the definition of atheist.
@ReclaimXmas - Look some people strongly belief so much that to them they know it is true. They might have a small amount of dought in there minds at times... and then you can say oh everyone is agnostic because at times everyone has slight amount of dought... NO! That does not make them agnostic. A Atheist will be 95% sure there is no God and disprove any evidence. BECAUSE TO THEM THEY KNOW BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE READ OR SEEN, USUALLY BASED ON THEORIES. Same with a Theist.
@TheaDragonSpirit I don't believe in a god because I've never heard any convincing evidence for one. I've never heard an argument for how gods are impossible. I've heard people's ideas on why gods are improbable, but not impossible. I have never seen or heard of any actual credible evidence for any gods, and I don't believe in any. Maybe a god will show up one day, or we'll find one. Until then I hold no belief in any god. A person who holds no belief in any gods is an atheist.
@ReclaimXmas - I have never seen a panda. Guess they don't exist... I have never felt what it feels like to die... guess death does not exist... "Just because you don't feel it does not mean it's not there." - Radiohead, There There: watch?v=7AQSLozK7aA&ob=av2e
- No you talk like a agnostic... a person who doesn't know if god is there is agnostic. Key is in the words 'DOESN'T KNOW'. Actually it's not just Gods but spirituality. Atheist KNOW there is nothing Spiritual.
My mom doesnt accept me because i consider myself to be Agnostic, i just dont find the whole idea of god and what he does to be completely realistic, but on the other end i fell it is very possible. This is just a trait of my Gemini Nature i guess, but when i try to explain how i feel to my mother she yells at me and tells me to believe in god and read the bible and all of that crap -_-"
ace6432 23 hours ago
I am an agnostic (near to an atheist) and proud!!!!!!! I AM PROUD OF NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!
Xxpearl123Xx 1 day ago
Atheism is still a guessing game, and is the religion of non religion. The chances of the universe being created from absolutely nothing, and in the extremely complex form it is without any intelligent or supernatural assistance is very particular, and also very unlikely.
TheKeeper421 1 day ago
Proud Agnostic. So Atheist seem to be really anti agnostic. You would think after thousands of years of being discriminated against you would not do the same as soon as you had the chance.
oldcrowedinboro 3 days ago
Good to see you are a nice person, at least you're not an atheist and put in so much time, money, and effort to try and prove something doesn't exist. There are many religions out there and they all seem to connect in some points of their books. However no one has a clue how everything was created in the beginning (not talking about how the earth was made) but what created the big bang itself, and what created the material to make the big bang, and stretch out billions of years before that....
tonythetiger1004 5 days ago
I'm an agnostic. There are many questions to ask. Nice video. :)
ZiriusASD 5 days ago
Seriously what is wrong with agnostic atheist. Talking about big foot which we can observe as false as big foot is supposed to exist here in the natural world. The "default" belief would be false.
What about god/s? jehovah, allah, jesus, ra, zeus, odin? they may all be false but who is to say there is no truth in those stories. They are supposed to exist beyond our world of understanding which we can not observe. Who can we say for sure that this world is not a false projection?
steverock85 1 week ago
@steverock85
Why does it matter so much that it is wrong for people to say "Hey, I just don't know what to believe"?
It is not like we have an agenda here to convert everybody to our "religion".
It is just healthier to not assume when we are in the dark. This world is a funny place when it comes to the "theory of everything" or the "ultimate knowledge".
The answer is 42. Query->"answer to everything" in wolframalphaDOTcom
steverock85 1 week ago
@steverock85 First- agnostic atheist is absolutely fine. Second- be careful when you talk about the things you DON'T know- plenty of people in this world take advantage of the concession that fairy tales MIGHT be possible, and use it as an excuse to make baseless assertions.
gshefer11 6 days ago
@gshefer11
'Second- be careful when you talk about the things you DON'T know- plenty of people in this world take advantage of the concession that fairy tales MIGHT be possible'
This is just shameless. Should I join the atheist club of "there is knowledge for everything" so other could not take advantage of the unknown?
Agnosticism is about the unknown! Not what is known. It will set back science for years if we take back up this approach.
steverock85 6 days ago
@steverock85 why do you ignore the last part of my sentence? I think you are specifically avoiding the implication of agnosticism's vague concessions: people use it as an excuse to make baseless assertions and that's how you get religious fundamentalist wackos, crystal healing, homeopathy- all kinds of B.S. is peddled all across the world, with agnostics turning a blind eye to it. Instead of insisting that truth should be demonstrated and unknowns are just that- unknown, you let it all slide.
gshefer11 6 days ago
@gshefer11
What you have to understand that OUR view has nothing to do what other believe!
I don't think lying we have answers and say we "know" god/s do not exist is going to convince any theist. It is important to teach critical thinking, but it is sarcasm if we then start to assume something when we know nothing. How can you apply your critical thought of something we can not touch, see or feel? Critical thinking only applies to THIS observable universe. Science does not deal with belief.
steverock85 6 days ago
@steverock85 First of all, for the zillionth time- an atheist is simply one who does not believe in god. they can be agnostic (there's no evidence to believe in any gods) or gnostic (the claim there is NO god anywhere). many atheists make the correct claim that we can say that there are no gods like we can say there are no fairies- because both those mythical creatures are in the category of thing without any evidence. Oh, and science indeed does not deal with belief. it deals with reality.
gshefer11 6 days ago
@steverock85 and second of all- you keep coming back to that straw man of "touch, see, smell"- that's completely irrelevant. you can use any detector or sensor, as advanced as can be designed, to measure any effect of a hypothesis you claim should be real. anything that CANNOT be detected or predicted in ANY manner is a pretty story and nothing more.
gshefer11 6 days ago
@gshefer11
'B.S. is peddled all across the world, with agnostics turning a blind eye to it. '
Stop generalizing agnostic people! Do you really think all agnostic don't care? Ho was Darwin bulldog btw? What most of us care is the freedom of thought. It does not matter if theist or atheist is over the other line.
'anything that CANNOT be detected or predicted in ANY manner is a pretty story and nothing more.'
If they don't force it, don't make money out of it, then why should I care?
steverock85 6 days ago
@gshefer11
On one hand you talk about bad people who fool others for money. On the other hand you talk about people who just believe. If I may then let me say that even if I am agnostic I AGREE that money should not be made out of ignorance of other people.
I however DISAGREE to label all believers as a cancer of society. No one can claim to have everything figured out. If you want to be better then don't force your views on others and learn to respect!
steverock85 6 days ago
@steverock85 Believers aren't a cancer of society. As long as people believe myths without any concern for verifying them, there will be other people who take advantage of them. Not because it's supernatural- because it's not verified. Mind you, I'm not saying that preying upon gullible people happens ONLY because of superstition- all people can be fooled sometimes on some things - but it's sooooo much unfortunately easier with it.
gshefer11 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gshefer11
'Mind you, I'm not saying that preying upon gullible people happens ONLY because of superstition- all people can be fooled sometimes on some things - but it's sooooo much unfortunately easier with it.'
I don't think you are understanding agnosticism. When you are agnostic you don't affirm the supernatural because you don't deny it!
If tomorrow god would prove his own existence then true agnostic would be less likely jump on the gun. It is not only about the proofs!
steverock85 6 days ago
@steverock85
'I don't think you are understanding agnosticism. When you are agnostic you don't affirm the supernatural because you don't deny it!'
What I am saying is that we don't preach to believers that it is o.k. to believe everything you hear.
I don't go walking to other people and say they should go to this famous non-educated doctor who is known to grow hair on bald people. We have to rely on general accepted knowledge to get by. Agnosticism is not about being gullible.
steverock85 5 days ago
@gshefer11
If god would show himself then that would just be the beginning for any agnostic. What would be the nature of this god? How does he exist? Who created him? Are there other gods? Is this god holding something back from us? What is this world then? What game is this god playing?
It is the same with nothing. Are we from coincidence? Why did this coincidence happen? What coincidence made our coincidence? What is the nature of this coincidence?
steverock85 6 days ago
@steverock85
Agnosticism approach is because we can always ask who, why, when because of this infinity paradox. It is unknowable because of those questions.
steverock85 6 days ago
@gshefer11
I should clarify because you probably are going to miss my point anyway. I WAS atheist, I was anti-theist and I hated religion.
My mother and my father are believers. They believe in god but are not religious. They have never forced anything on me except to learn one jesus prayer when I was young to reside before I went to sleep.
When I got older I was the one bringing that up and kept telling then how it was wrong. It is not mine to claim they are wrong because I felt so.
steverock85 6 days ago
@gshefer11
New hypothesis would be labeled as false before any critical thought or observation would be made. Mathematician and scientist who might discover a new breakthrough theory about little known phenomena might be outright rejected by their professors of their own university because it "does not feel right".
History of science is written with this tale and it is good it has been growing out of it. It is NOT about god/s or what theist believe. It is the method of knowledge that matters.
steverock85 6 days ago
Agnoticism FTW - our knowledge is limited and until it is proven one way or another, nobody is 100% sure. Also, spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive as many claim.. I find it amusing when people say "there are no such thing as agnostics" - really, then what are we? Certainly agnosticism is the most open minded viewpoint.
andy7666 1 week ago
Let's replace this moronic "are fairy tales impossible or not" with the more useful "are fairy tales likely or not?"
gshefer11 1 week ago
@gshefer11
Why do you guys keep disrespect this video?
Face it, we are not atheist or theist. We don't think the "default" value of god existence or the truth of the proposition is false.
We think it is undetermined and are accordingly agnostic.
We don't say we lack or are without believe in god(that is a rejection), we are simply without belief in either case. I personally don't know what to believe. If I don't know, then how can you know what I believe?
steverock85 1 week ago
@steverock85 but if you don't know what to believe, how exactly do you respond to people telling you what "Christ/Allah/Yahweh/Krishna" wants you to do/think/say/believe?
gshefer11 1 week ago
Comment removed
steverock85 1 week ago
@gshefer11
Do you believe I have hair or do you believe I am bald?
How would you answer this?
How does knowledge relate to this question?
What is the connection between knowledge and belief?
steverock85 1 week ago
@steverock85 Great straw man argument... look at the difference between the influence of your question on my life (not a lot) and the influence of what I asked you on your life (potentially the entire meaning of your life).
"knowledge" and "belief" are just words. they imply the truth value we give to some information. lets skip the semantics, otherwise it just gets tedious. The whole idea is HOW you decide how true something is. This is why I asked "how do you respond to people telling you..."
gshefer11 1 week ago
@gshefer11
It was not straw man because you have to be able to generalize what you are trying to say.
If it does not work in every case, that is we can answer one belief question with "I don't know" then that implies that there exist people who just don't know what to believe when god/s are asserted.
You never really answered my question but I did answer yours with something to think about. I don't know is my answer.
Who is really using straw man...
steverock85 1 week ago
@steverock85 I am trying to FIND OUT what it is that agnostics believe. I'm asking you, Since you say you don't really know if there are gods, what do you do with that non-knowledge? What do you say to all the specific, blind-faith-based religious demands? Will you participate in religious rites appeasing spirits that you don't know if there's anything there? will you, for example, oppose marriage rights to certain people because some say some god, who only possibly exists, hates them?
gshefer11 1 week ago
@gshefer11 In other words, I think that what you believe is true determines what you believe is relevant. and what you believe is relevant determines how you act.
BTW I also say "I don't know", but follow it up with- and as long as it's not known if there are gods, and there's nothing to show that their probable, then I'm not going to worship them or endeavor to force the gods' supposed will on people.
In that sense, atheism IS agnosticism, just more decisive about the implications of "unknown".
gshefer11 1 week ago
@gshefer11
You can not compere religion (some belief that is active) with belief (belief does not have to be active in religion).
I understand this is confusing but you are compering proposition we already know are false with something we are undetermined.
We can observe the world we live in, we already know some propositions are false before we assert them.
When we however assert something we have no leads on, or can not observe even a tiny bit of information, then there is no knowledge.
steverock85 1 week ago
@gshefer11
What I am trying to say is we can not compere the proposition "electrons have hair" with "god exist".
We know one is false or highly unlikely but the other proposition is not something we can observe if true or false.
This is why we have to understand what our limits are. This is what Huxley meant when he coined the word "agnostic".
There are some questions that simply don't have any truths and therefore can not be answered.(Not only question about god/s)
steverock85 1 week ago
@steverock85 but you are not being consistent. if you say that propositions have values of true, false, and also things like "highly unlikely", then why is a "god" proposition only true/false? I think that considering how powerful and meaningful gods are supposed to be, the fact that apart from uncorroborated legends we have not seen ANY evidence of their existence makes them "higly unlikely" propositions. not true, not false, but very very unlikely.
gshefer11 1 week ago
@gshefer11
' if you say that propositions have values of true, false, and also things like "highly unlikely", then why is a "god" proposition only true/false?'
Good that you asked and there is a reason for this.
It is because we have nothing to measure how likely it is to be true or false.
There are many propositions that are like this. Do all humans see the same color?(yet to be known), does afterlife exist?(can not be known) Is schrodingers cat dead or alive?(yet to be observed)
steverock85 1 week ago
@steverock85
I am not sure if it is knowable if we can see in the same color though. I just assume we can know this as it might be within our reach to observe. If we can prove the color black is the ultimate dark for everyone and the color white is the ultimate light, then we might be able to take it somewhere.
But it is only a weak hypothesis on my part.
steverock85 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "we have nothing to measure how likely it is to be true or false"?? Religions have made THOUSANDS of assertions about nature and doomsday prophecies which have been proven not only false but ridiculous, gods' justice being ignored by real life. EVERYTHING in this life, when measured without emotional attachment to mysticism, shows NO CONTROL OR INTERVENTION.
And you say this has no impact on the likelihood of existence of all powerful deities that control the universe? come on man.
gshefer11 1 week ago
@gshefer11
I consider the proposition "after life exist" as the parent proposition for "god exist".
If we could prove there is no afterlife then we have proof that there is no god.
We can not put any probability on something we have no data on however. It is easy to construct valid hypothesis from multiverse theory that we could exist within matrix projection universe or sub universe where some supreme mind makes our nature laws. Maybe when we die we escape this "fake"? projection.
steverock85 1 week ago
@steverock85 You can avoid it all you want, but some unanswerable questions REQUIRE some pragmatic assumptions even though we don't have an 100% answer. and then you have to consider a certain concept that you keep running away from- LIKELIHOOD.
I ask you again- what does an agnostic do when some religion tells him "God says do/don't do X"?
gshefer11 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gshefer11
"I ask you again- what does an agnostic do when some religion tells him "God says do/don't do X"?"
I will not bow to anyone, religion or not. Even though I will not bow to any religion does not mean I accept god idea is unlikely. We simply can not value this as there are infinity many possible answers. We can always ask how, why and when.
You think god idea is "very very unlikely"*, I don't, this is the difference between us.
*your own quote.
steverock85 1 week ago
@gshefer11
Religion is not unbearable where I come from. Most are agnostic, then atheist, then theist.
We have had the first gay president and don't care how other choose to view their own personal life or what they have figured out. That is their business.
This freedom can not be made without respect to each other views. There are many who still don't get this though..
See "inherid the wind". It is a very good movie. You don't have to prove non-existence to reason with religious fanatics
steverock85 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gshefer11
Religion is not unbearable where I come from. Most are agnostic, then atheist, then theist.
We have had the first gay president and don't care how other choose to view their own personal life or what they have figured out. That is their business.
This freedom can not be made without respect to each other views. There are many who still don't get this though..
See "inherid the wind". It is a very good movie. You don't have to prove non-existence to reason with religious fanatics
steverock85 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gshefer11
Religion is not unbearable where I come from. Most are agnostic, then atheist, then theist.
We have had the first gay president and don't care how other choose to view their own personal life or what they have figured out. That is their business.
This freedom can not be made without respect to each other views. There are many who still don't get this though..
See "inherid the wind". It is a very good movie. You don't have to prove non-existence to reason with religious fanatics
steverock85 1 week ago
@gshefer11 There is an association of agnostics so I respond for myself. Agnostic is free and NEVER thinks about God in this way. Religion? No way! Campaigning against God? What for? How do you measure the PROBABILITYof existence of other people? 50%, 30%? Based on what? All right. You arbitrate it according to the way you are conditioned. And the physical world? What is the probability of the existence of matter? How do you measure it? Your worldview is like those of the theists, indefensible.
duubamg 1 week ago
@gshefer11 There is an association of agnostics so I respond for myself. Agnostic is free and NEVER thinks about God in this way.
duubamg 1 week ago
@duubamg Religion? No way! Campaigning against God? What for? How do you measure the PROBABILITYof existence of other people? 50%, 30%? Based on what? All right. You arbitrate it according to the way you are conditioned.
duubamg 1 week ago
@duubamg And the physical world? What is the probability of the existence of matter? How do you measure it? Your worldview is like those of the theists, indefensible.
duubamg 1 week ago
@duubamg You are making up senseless questions instead of addressing the questions you don't want to deal with. The probability of ANY PROPOSITION being right or wrong is measurable if it is described as having an effect on the real world. If BigFoot were real, someone would have found body remains or a good photograph. If a god was real then the universe would follow the scripture's laws and justice (it doesn't). If souls existed we would have evidence (we don't). this means LOW PROBABILITY!
gshefer11 1 week ago
@gshefer11 A very simplistic way of looking at things, I suppose the atomic World does not exist as we can not see it? Sciences that had not been discovered yet did not exist *because* they were not yet discovered? Hmm... As for scripture, why presume that any "Holy book" should be some kind of guide book? We are not talking about organised religion per se but the existence of God and/or things beyond our current understanding.
andy7666 1 week ago
@andy7666 You missed the point completely and then call me simplistic? the "atomic world" has MANY experiments that have results that decisively validate the standard model of particle physics, even though we can't see it! that was EXACTLY my point- that's a theory about something that is supposed to have effects on the REAL world, and it actually checks out! every time!
BigFoot, fairies, unicorns and ALL gods have lots of "stories" that say what and where they are, but absolutely ZERO evidence.
gshefer11 1 week ago
@gshefer11 Senseless? When you can’t comprehend a problem (solipsism, Berkeley’s philosophy, lack of certainty for causality (David Hume), etc.) you use to dub it senseless? If I can’t understand a given problem it is senseless to me but it will still exist nonetheless. You are trying to frame reality into the way you are conditioned. You are drowned in circularity. Sorry, we will never agree because you trust too much our limited 5 senses. (no offense intended)
duubamg 6 days ago
@duubamg You keep talking about the things we don't know as if you know something about them that I don't. when it comes down applying your approach to real life- what do you do? someone tells you a fantastic story about a god that saved you 2000 years ago. Do you do what he tells you to do because it might not be false and who knows? What do you think all the nutjobs with fairy tales, crystals and gods are doing? Oh... they're framing reality too, but by making up stories! *facepalm*
gshefer11 6 days ago
@gshefer11 I certainly don’t know more than you do. That’s why I’m an agnostic not an atheist. I have no basis to be an atheist. Dealing with real life is in fact the most important outcome from the assumptions we establish for these unanswerable questions. As for religious people, I just don’t discuss with them. They are beyond help. Sometimes I cast some doubt if I am provoked by them. I throw skepticism everywhere I go against any believers, be them of religious nature or atheist.
duubamg 1 day ago
@duubamg By your description, it seems to me that we are both agnostic atheists, and that emphasizing just the agnostic part of it is just political correctness. if you believe in gods, you are theistic. if you do NOT hold the opinion that gods FACTUALLY EXIST, then you are non theistic. if only there was a short, greek prefix for that... seriously- have you given a thought for the difference between gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist? they are not mutually exclusive.
gshefer11 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@duubamg And the physical world? What is the probability of the existence of matter? How do you measure it? Your worldview is like those of the theists, indefensible.
duubamg 1 week ago
@gshefer11
I am a humanism. It does not matter if god/s exist because at least I know I have my own free will.
I am a human being. I will love my child, care for nature and animals, care for other human beings and like others to have the same freedom as I have.
We humans have conquered the world because we work together efficiently.
This should answer your question about my morals.
About my belief of god/s existence, then I don't know what I believe.
steverock85 1 week ago
Fence sitter
wenaldy 1 week ago
@wenaldy
Correction - "Proud" fence sitter.
MyWorldView 1 week ago 4
@MyWorldView if people didnt build the fences we wouldnt have to sit on them.
markieness 1 week ago
oh and btw:
agnostic = realistic and polite atheist
gshefer11 1 week ago
@gshefer11 - "agnostic = realistic and polite atheist"
Are you calling yourself unrealistic and rude ?
MyWorldView 1 week ago 6
@MyWorldView Don't be obtuse. There are a lot of legends and stories that MIGHT be true. you don't believe ALL of them do you? Well how do you tell them apart? which story is more true, and why?
Any atheist irritated enough to state that "there is no god" is stating it with no less or more certainty than "there are no unicorns". If you don't give a crap about what's true and only want to live in your fantasy world that's fine, but say it that way. That would at least be an honest statement.
gshefer11 1 week ago
what a whopping pile of arguments from ignorance.
"oh boo hoo, we don't know everything about everything! let's make up spirits and gods and imagine that they do know things we don't!"
gshefer11 1 week ago
2:00
WE ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO LOOK DEEP INTO IT, BECAUSE BY LOOKING, WE CHANGE IT.
sk8bow 2 weeks ago
There is but one flaw in this diatribe.
Atheism is a form of disbelief (dis- "away from" -belief).
There are two options when talking about beliefs: Being spot on (believing) and being somewhat away from it (disbelieving).
I disbelieve the existence of gods (thus making me an atheist). I also disbelieve their nonexistence (a baseless claim that bears no name anyways)
I don't know and am still searching for the truth (thus making me an agnostic), but the fact I don't believe remains.
Xgya2000 2 weeks ago
Agnostic=ignoramus
ITaukeiaho 2 weeks ago
@ITaukeiaho You can be a religious fanatic or an asshole. Or neutral, as in Agnostic.
cartmanfan102 2 weeks ago
@cartmanfan102 Agnostic=Atheist...is that better.
ITaukeiaho 1 week ago
@ITaukeiaho ignorant are people who follow the sheppard like mindless sheep
cadelaide 1 week ago
@cadelaide ignorant is lack of knowledge...following a "shepherd" does not make a person ignorant...sheep follow the "shepherd".
ITaukeiaho 1 week ago
@ITaukeiaho Psalm 23 "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; He makes me lie down in green pastures".... By definition that is an admission of being a sheep following some invisible omnipotent power who guides his followers. As an apathetic agnostic I wont rule out the possibility of a powerful extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional being, Therefore if "deities" were real it's a lot more than what some "holy" book claims it to be. A more important Q than who god, is where am I going in life.
cadelaide 1 week ago
@cadelaide I've watched some nde videos that explain God in a way, I don'y know what to make of it but it sounds interesting...as far as where someone is going in life, the truth...a one way road trip to death...there are two things in life that we have no choice and that is birth and death...everything in between these two points is what we choose to do...our own act of free will i guess...eh im a borderline atheist myself to be honest lol
ITaukeiaho 1 week ago
@ITaukeiaho Wow... Language FAIL
gshefer11 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Argument to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. (- Agnosticism: The Battle Against Shameless Ignorance)
Both agnostic atheist and agnostic theist make this fallacy and are no better then their gnostic brothers.
Some people just don't want to have anything to do with this.
steverock85 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReclaimXmas - "What you're referring to by "personal proof" is actually called subjective interpretation and does not suffice as evidence for anything other than what it is: natural functions of the human brain." - Where does the ideas this person gets, come from? when totally original and not seen on TV or anywhere. And what made them have out of body experiences, or be able to talk to people who was dead, and get unknown information. No it does not serve as proof but it is proof to them.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Agreed. What they subjectively perceive as proof for whatever they subjectively decide its proof for will likely frame their beliefs. The beliefs they then hold are not based on knowledge, certainty, provable concepts, or verifiable evidence but their own subjective perception thereof. It's well established that belief functions independently of knowledge.
Why then must the existence of something be known before I can disbelieve it exists?
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - arrogant. Why must a person prove to you something they know to be true. You think a rocket scientist has to prove to you that they know how to make a rocket fly... and when it flies prove to you how it works... and so on. You expect to much of other people. If he does not explain all you can do is believe he knows what he is doing and wont blow you up by accident. What you class as proof others don't. The point is just because you don't believe it doesn't make it a lie.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit "Arrogant. Why must a person prove to you something they know to be true."
They obviously only have to do this if they want the respect and acknowledgement of other people. For example, your rocket scientist would likely have to do quite a bit of convincing to get any customers. Maybe by doing some test trials without passengers to provide the evidence that serves to ground other people's belief that he in fact possesses some expertise in rocket design.
Gnomefro 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit "What you class as proof others don't. The point is just because you don't believe it doesn't make it a lie."
While true, that's not relevant to whether or not people should regard something as lies. If I value my life/health, I'd damn well better make sure that some clown claiming to sell me a ride in his home made rocket actually has expertise in rocket design and the way to do this is to start off believing that he is incompetent until there is evidence to the contrary.
Gnomefro 3 weeks ago
@Gnomefro - who said he wanted you to ride it... he could just want to blow you up in to little pieces... doesn't need to prove out. Just blow you in to little pieces.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Ultimately though, it comes down to the fact that without evidence we can't tell a reality where X is true from a reality where X is false. In the case of your rocket scientist we can't tell him apart from a liar. If we can't, then why on earth should we trust him? Seems to me a tentative rejection of his claims is what is appropriate. This is also how the scientific method works btw.
Gnomefro 3 weeks ago
@Gnomefro - because his rockets worked... he press fire... and they fired. But does he actually know why they fire and how they actually work... whats inside them and so on... is it controlled... how do I know they will work... I don't I just have to believe they will. People trust and believe people with little letters... and so called qualifications. People believe a lot of things with out much proof. Proof is subjective to each person.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago 2
@TheaDragonSpirit Not only is it not arrogant, this is just a red herring. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "proof." That's some unrelated topic you want to shift over to. You're still pretending that I'm defending gnosticism, which I never have.
You still have failed to address how it's possible to be a theist and non-theist at the same time. You (and others) have failed to explain how lack of knowledge describes how you can't believe or disbelieve something.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - "What you're calling "personal proof" can be anything, including delusion or hallucination." - true it could be... but that is up to the person to decide. They still would know and not just randomly accept belief. Just like a atheist could know that everything can be explained by biology and or environmental reactions. They both "know". But it doesn't make them right. No evidence I have seen has proved to me to be true.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - watch?v=_m7WGxRs0mI - This explains why religion can be good even if people don't actually have spiritual experiences the actually essence of religious messages can be good. And you don't actually have to give any money... and you can go get free counselling off a priest without paying money... and wait for it... they do it for free... woo... manipulative that is. The Vatican however is another story... and you can argue that people don't think and just follow like pawns. False!
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Are you recruiting me for religious groups now? Wow this has taken a wild turn towards the ridiculous (not that it wasn't already futile). I totally agree that religious groups can do good things, arguments can even be made that delusion can actually be helpful in some situations. Unfortunately, they are capable of all the terrible things that religious groups are currently and historically known for as well.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - What like lighting and thunderstorms... and killing in the name of god... which goes against there actual teachings and some manipulative prick just tricked some people in to doing something in the name of this religion... like say something the devil would do... come in the name of good face with a smile and hide there true motives. Not that am religious... or even believe that but the point is that most religions I have seen usually are against killing of any kind. Usually.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Yeah, I know what religion is.
It appears you have abandoned any desire to establish how gnosticism and theism are mutually exclusive.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - not sure what you mean here. I think that the Vatican is dangerous because they hide a lot of information and don't let people decide for themselves. Which is manipulative. Second I think there are a lot of spiritual related experiences people want answers for. Now some religions take credit... some just follow the indoctrinations, but each person usually relates it to a religion. But me personally I am agnostic. I personally think there could be a spiritual connection.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - by spiritual connection you could also call it connection with the universe and forces in the universe that work with space and time and pass information back and though and not due to a god but some kind of spiritual energy or quantum mechanics and string theory. But that to me is still spiritual. Just not necessarily a God who is in full control of everything as some people would imply. I think will has a lot to do with a lot of life.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit I'm sorry. I'm not really interested in hearing about personal speculation and what it is specifically that you believe. You've completely strayed out onto some other tangent now. If you ever do come up with an argument for how it's logical possible to simultaneously be neither theist nor non-theist, you can always hit my inbox any time you like.
I won't hold my breath.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - "If we could only believe what we could prove, there would be no religion." - That statement is wrong. Religion is not a problem. Let people believe. You think religion is a problem. I don't I think people who have a commandment that says don't kill then people who kill... are not following there own religion. Now you can know something and not be able to prove it to other people, this is when belief is created. Not just randomly accepting things. That's just agnostically hopeful.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - "Belief doesn't require accurate explanations, reason, truth, certainty, or knowledge." - No... you have twisted this... belief does require personal proof. Just this proof is not always explainable to others. I have experienced, seeing from another life forms eyes. I can't explain or expect people to believe this. But it is true and I know it. It doesn't prove there is a God though it does prove there is something I don't understand to me.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit What you're calling "personal proof" can be anything, including delusion or hallucination. It does not have to be factual, repeatable, or experienced personally. Sometimes hearing a story from someone else is enough to convince someone to believe it. "it is true and I know it" and "it does prove there is something" are unsupported and gnostic claims. You are claiming something is certain. Still has nothing to do with theism until you decide a god is involved.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Also, the term "personal proof" you are using should not be confused with the actual term "proof." What you're referring to by "personal proof" is actually called subjective interpretation and does not suffice as evidence for anything other than what it is: natural functions of the human brain.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - You said evolution does not need intelligent design to exist. You can't prove that statement. Simple reason is if you go far back enough right beyond the beginning how did the egg get their for it then to evolve? So to say it doesn't need intelligent design is not possible to state because something can't come out of nothing now this doesn't prove something created it or some spiritually force created it or spiritually phenomenon, but it also doesn't prove independence is possible
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheaDragonSpirit "how did the egg get their for it then to evolve" - shows a complete lack of understanding of evolution.
"something can't come out of nothing" - who's claiming it did? and what is "it"?
"but it also doesn't prove independence is possible" - or impossible. No one is attempting to prove that design is impossible, just unnecessary. Each component of biological evolution can be explained in all of it's parts without invoking the help of an intelligent designer.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
' "Evolution just means God designed it." Is a gnostic and theistic claim. Is there evidence to support any one or anything designed evolution or that it needs intelligent design? ' - No you taken this out of context. I am saying that the theory of evolution does not disprove God... because this could just mean that God designed people to evolve. Just like programmers design software to be updated. Not complex to grasp. I have not had a strong spiritual experience so I can't say I know.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit I know evolution doesn't disprove god, I never said it did. I used it as an example of how even with evidence, disbelief is still possible. I didn't take anything out of context, or show trouble grasping an old familiar concept. The claim that evolution is only part of an intelligent design, is in fact a gnostic theistic claim. There's no evidence to support the claim, and evolution doesn't require intelligent design to function.
What's your point with this?
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - Part two: You either truly know there is no God in your heart and feel it... or you feel there is something spiritual and know it in your heart. Or you say I don't want to say I know anything for sure and are agnostic. Now this might be confusing to you being a agnostic person. But when you choose a side you actually know why.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit "You either truly know there is no God in your heart and feel it... or you feel there is something spiritual and know it in your heart."
This is a completely unsupported and logically fallacious claim.
I've restated this too many times already. I make no claims of certainty nor do I believe in any theistic claims. I'm an agnostic atheist.
You are sounding even more like a theist than you were before. Ever notice "agnostics" usually capitalize the word god?
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - Part One: "How many times do I have to repeat this. I know I'm agnostic." - Right then you are not atheist then. The end. You can't be both atheist and agnostic. That is my point. You can't say I don't know there if something spiritual exist like Gods. And I know there is no Gods and disbelieve it.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit "Right then you are not atheist then" False. Knowledge and belief function independently. (A)gnosticism and (a)theism are still not mutually exclusive. You have yet to make an argument showing that they are, other than obstinate denial.
"And I know there is no Gods" - same straw-man argument makes it's 700th appearance. When have I ever said I know there are no gods? How many times have I explained that I have made no such claim, but the exact opposite?
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - You don't just go I disbelieve because I disbelieve. That's stupid.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - "I don't have to prove something right or wrong in order to believe or disbelieve it." - Yes, yes you do. Ha. You don't go 6 + 8 + 10 + 4364 = 4382, I just believe that is wrong why? Because I do, I don't have to show or explain that I worked it out. It's just wrong. Ha. You do have to show why you think it's wrong and show evidence if you can to prove it or at least theories that explain how it's wrong and how I could have come to a conclusion that is wrong.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - Part two: But some are actually people having paranormal experences quite often and explaining them, they don't usually say God in the sense as a man on a cloud but the energy which is connecting with them. And even then God is a funny word for me to get, but again I am agnostic. To them it's some enlightened force passing them information. Personally that is universe to me not God.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Yes, there are many forms of theism. Faith doesn't require a specific god any more than any other delusion does. Believing in the absence of evidence, for whatever the reason, is only belief. It doesn't require proof, evidence, knowledge or certainty.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - Only a idiot would believe something with out some kind of proof. Not everyone would agree with what they class as proof and call it belief. But people who see ghosts... and actually know they saw a ghost, and are dam certain it was not a trick would fully believe that was proof. They just could not prove it to you. It requires your own proof. Not to be able to prove it to someone else... but at least explain your reasons for believing without showing proof.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit You aren't even disagreeing with me now. You're just saying that the fact people may believe something is true doesn't mean it was true. That's what I'm saying too. Belief does not require accurate "proof" or the ability to prove anything. If we could only believe what we could prove, there would be no religion. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - Some people belief because they was taught too... but a lot believe because they have experienced something they either can't prove or others say that's not good enough proof and offer scientific reasons why this happened and how the brain made it up in that way causing them to experience it in this way. Like I said everyone has proof of KNOWING. They just can't necessarily explain it well or prove it to other people. Atheist usually would say they know it's mental chemistry.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Exactly. Belief doesn't require accurate explanations, reason, truth, certainty, or knowledge. Belief and knowledge function completely independently. One may influence the other, but it doesn't have to be accurately. People are fooled all the time. Many people make a living off of that very fact.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - Part one: "It doesn't have anything to do with proving them right or wrong it has to do with believing them." - Sort of... but I would of said this is because nothing paranormal has ever happened to you... then it would be a case of believing or disbelieving... and not looking for explanations. Science can only explain so much. Some religions are just bollocks these days.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit No. The occurrence of paranormal activity would only be evidence for the supernatural (assuming it actually happened and could be demonstrated as factual). This would obviously influence belief, but the knowledge itself is not belief. You could still disbelieve regardless of this new evidence. Knowledge and belief function independently. Belief does not require knowledge or accuracy.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - "Theism is a claim. Well, there's many claims that are theistic." - No being Theist is a belief based on what you have felt or experienced. Being part of religion is because you believe it explains those beliefs or experiences. Some people are religious because they know there is god, and some because they was brought up to be.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit No, theism is a claim. The claim is that there is a god or gods. There are many different types of theism, what makes them theistic is the supernatural god portion. Being part of religion is because you believe it explains things, or you're just going through the motions because it's what your family does, or because it's the only explanation you've heard so far. The reason for the belief doesn't matter, the fact they believe is what makes them theists.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - "No. You are acting as though belief and knowledge are the same thing. " - No I am not I am agnostic. Ha. Atheist who believe they know there is no god are doing this. Some have good reasons to believe this based on theories and some are just stupid. And some are actually agnostics in denial but prefer the label atheist. Possible because its trendy or they don't want to egotistically say I don't actually know. Evolution does not disprove God. Evolution just means God designed it.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit The way you keep mentioning trendy, things "atheists" commonly do, and the problem of people using labels differently than you do shows exactly what you're upset about. You still haven't made any argument for how agnosticism excuses you somehow from being either theist or not theist.
"Evolution just means God designed it." Is a gnostic and theistic claim. Is there evidence to support any one or anything designed evolution or that it needs intelligent design?
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - "You pretty much directly contradict yourself there." No I didn't I said there not tripping me. It's bugging me, because I try to get you to talk like a atheist and you keep saying I don't know. So it would be better if you said I am atheist and I will move on to a real atheist who actually has theories and actual real reasons to back what they say and not just the answer I DON'T KNOW. Tell me what theories do you have to show how the world got to be. Please explain in detail?
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit You try to get me to say things that an agnostic atheist would say, because you wrongly think atheism is inherently gnostic. Atheists don't have to be gnostic. I don't have to be certain of the non-existence of gods in order to disbelieve unsupported theistic claims.
"Tell me ... how the world got to be..."
I don't know exactly how the world came to be, but I disbelieve the unsupported creation stories. Rejecting one claim doesn't require making another.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReclaimXmas - PART TWO: Second, the point is what have you experienced and what do you know about spirituality and what theories have you read or not read proving God or Proving how the world got here with out a God or something spiritual? If you can't answer this is why I believe in god... This is why I don't believe in God and theories I have red. Then really you are agnostic and fall in the I don't know category. Agnostic. You don't really know, and can't prove it either way.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Again, you're still bent on trying to get me to prove things. You desperately want me to make some gnostic claim so you can show me how I can't be certain. I know I can't be certain. Belief does not require knowledge. Belief doesn't even require accuracy. If we had to be absolutely certain of all things before we could believe them, religion wouldn't exist. Things like faith, theism, fiction, and imagination, would not exist.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReclaimXmas - PART ONE: "(i don't know if there's ice cream) and atheist (I don't believe Joe's claim). " - Fuck what people say you jack arse. This is not about proving Joe or bob wrong. YOU TIT! Fuck what people have experienced. If Joe is a cock and doesn't know jack and you prove him wrong then that doesn't disprove anything. It just proves Joe is a cock.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Yes it is. Theism is a claim. Well, there's many claims that are theistic. Being atheist or theist is directly dependent on whether or not you believe those claims. It doesn't have anything to do with proving them right or wrong, it has to do with believing them. I don't have to prove something right or wrong in order to believe or disbelieve it. Joe can be right or wrong and it doesn't matter, if I don't believe joe's claim, I'm an a-joe's-claim-ist.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReclaimXmas - "Some god might exist, but I haven't seen evidence for one, therefor I don't believe in gods as of now, and I currently meet the definition of atheist. " You contradict your self. Some God might exist is agnostic. You can't be unsure and then say I don't believe in God. Please make up your mind. Either you are unsure... or you are sure there is no God. Not siting on the fence by stating your both unsure and sure there is no God. Choose: Unsure... or sure.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit No. You are acting as though belief and knowledge are the same thing. They aren't. Belief and knowledge are not mutually exclusive. They both function independently. You either believe something, or you don't. If we lack knowledge or evidence for something, that may be why you don't believe it, or you may just believe it anyway. Even if there is evidence, you still might not believe. Some don't believe in evolution, even though there's all the evidence for it.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReclaimXmas - Here is agnostic Definition for you. Agnostic is someone who lacks evidence and therefore doesn't know for sure the existence of deities. "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
Atheists someone who DISBELIEVES in deities. Quote "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods".
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Exactly. I don't know if any gods might exist (agnostic) but I disbelieve in every theistic claim I've ever heard (atheist), due to the lack of evidence.
This isn't difficult. I can't say with any certaintly that there are no gods out there, but I haven't seen a reason to believe one is. I currently do not believe in gods, I'm currently an atheist.
It's possible I'll be struck by lighting tomorrow, you never know, but I have no reason to believe I will be.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReclaimXmas - the labels are not tripping me up it just bugs me when agnostics think there atheists. But you have not shown me any evidence to show there is no god. You have stated its more than what we can see... yet you don't realize that spirituality would be more than what you could see or possible even feel, but it could still be there.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit "the labels are not tripping me up it just bugs me when agnostics think there atheists"
You pretty much directly contradict yourself there.
"But you have not shown me any evidence to show there is no god."
Nor do I intend to. That's your straw man.
You are still acting like my point is "gods can't exist and I can prove it." I've never once said that, nor even implied that. I've actually said the opposite, several times.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReclaimXmas - To be Agnostic Atheist is like saying: "Thats like saying I don't know if there is any ice cream in the fridge as I have no evidence but I know there is no Ice Cream in the fridge." Atheist is the disbelief of any deities, Gods or anything spiritual. You either don't know or you know. How would you know? you would look at what people eat and make a valid reasoning as to being none, or you would look in all the fridges (spiritual places) and come to a conclusion. Some in a bowl.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Wrong again. being an agnostic atheist is like saying, I don't know if there's ice cream in the fridge. That fridge has never been opened before and there's never been any reason to believe there is ice cream. Joe says there's Ice cream in there, but I don't believe him because he's just guessing. I'm therefor agnostic (i don't know if there's ice cream) and atheist (I don't believe Joe's claim). Joe could be right. I won't believe until i see the ice cream.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReclaimXmas - I am not struggling. You are struggling with the concept that many people can't be idiots and many people can't believe crap... which is odd from a person who claims to be atheist to not recognize that Agnostic Atheist is not correct. It means this: I don't know there is a God and I don't believe there is a God, at the same time. If you don't know how the feck can you not believe there is no God.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Back to this "you're an idiot which makes me right somehow" strategy? Dictionary. Or use different words.
How can you not believe something you don't know? Same way you don't know what this story I have on my desk is about. You don't know what it is, so you have no reason to believe what your next door neighbor (who also doesn't know) says it's about. If he thinks it's about frogs, he knows just as much as you do about it. Does that mean you can't disbelieve?
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - Well that's why I think most atheists are idiots, who are over egotistical and can't handle saying they don't know something. Ha. But that's my personal view. If they have strong theories to back there reasoning I don't think there idiots then, but have come to a conclusion but a lot of atheists don't believe and deny anything spiritual or theist for the sake of it. Some because it's the current trend. Most of these are actually agnostic. But some feel they know there is no God.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas -
"I use to be agnostic. And I KNEW there was no God..."
'I'll assume that's a typo.'
Correct I meant atheist.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - You always need proof for a decision even if it's agnostic. I don't know because I have not got any evidence or strong theories to back a choice for theist or Atheist. Now it's your turn why do you believe there is no God?
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheaDragonSpirit "You always need proof for a decision even if it's agnostic."
By this logic, religion is impossible.
"I have not got any evidence or strong theories to back a choice for theist or Atheist."
Atheism requires no evidence, or theory. If you're not a theist, you're a non-theist, a non-believer. If you don't believe in any god, you're an atheist.
I have not, and never will claim there are no gods or there can't be gods. That's your straw-man, not my argument.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - There is no straw man. Just you in denial that you are actually agnostic and not atheist and trying to say there is not a defined standing point for being atheist... I think you find stereotypes come about because people tend to be doing these things... not all do but then not all people are wise, and think a duck is a bird. If you're atheist you either are sertain there is no God. Or you are agnostic.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit When did I deny that I was agnostic? I'm fully explaining how I'm agnostic (no knowledge of gods) and atheist (no belief in gods). These terms are by no means mutually exclusive. Your straw man argument is that in order to be atheist, you have to make a gnostic claim that god's can't exist. I have made no claim of certainty other than I am certain I do not believe in any gods. The fact I don't believe in any god makes me an atheist.
BTW, ducks are birds.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - Ha... yeah but ducks are not eagles... to point at a duck and say it's the same as a eagle... because its a bird was the point. You missed it though and responded correctly. You can't grasp that not knowing or not thinking there is a God doesn't make you atheist. It just puts you in agnostic position. When you KNOW there is no God or are pretty dam certain, you would say I KNOW there is no God. Not show me evidence. That's why your agnostic.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Did someone say ducks are eagles? Nope. Did I say a duck is a bird and an eagle is a bird therefor ducks are eagles? Nope. Agnostics are people who say they don't know about the existence of gods or that it cant be known. Atheists are people who don't believe in gods. You can be both at the same time. "I'm a bird" doesn't answer the question "are you a duck". The question is are you a duck or something else, we can see you're a bird.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - You can't be agnostic & atheist. It's like saying I am a theist atheist. Its a oxymoron. You Can't say I don't know if there is a God, and not believe there is a God at the same time. You can be agnostic leaning towards atheist beliefs or theist believes. But you can't be both agnostic and atheist... this is just bollocks for I am a agnostic who romanticizes atheists. No you must be sure in your convictions. You can't grasp that you keep saying you don't know.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - A duck can be a bird, but not a eagle. Even if it thinks it is a eagle it is not. A duck is a duck from the same species as birds... but it's still a duck even if it wants to be a swan. It can walk like a swan but it will always look like a duck, quack like a duck and be a duck... even though it believes it is something else.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Well aware. What's your point? What if you repeatedly tell that duck to use a dictionary to look up duck? Maybe he'd get it then? Or would he continually pretend that his definition of duck and bird are the right ones and everyone else is using the wrong words? What if this duck is telling other ducks that they are birds and therefor not ducks because he has no idea what an duck is?
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - Now when you say I DONT KNOW, and need evidence this is agnostic. Not a magic side catagory. It's just simple you don't feel strongly enough to be atheist or thiest. so your agnostic. Which means to be in the state of not knowing, pretty much when you sum up the words meaning.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit Absolutely never claimed to create a side catagory. I've completely spelled out in explicit detail what I mean by my beliefs. This is another straw man you've created. I know strongly and with certainty that I do not believe in any god I've ever heard of. Some god might exist, but I haven't seen evidence for one, therefor I don't believe in gods as of now, and I currently meet the definition of atheist.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - Look some people strongly belief so much that to them they know it is true. They might have a small amount of dought in there minds at times... and then you can say oh everyone is agnostic because at times everyone has slight amount of dought... NO! That does not make them agnostic. A Atheist will be 95% sure there is no God and disprove any evidence. BECAUSE TO THEM THEY KNOW BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE READ OR SEEN, USUALLY BASED ON THEORIES. Same with a Theist.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit I don't believe in a god because I've never heard any convincing evidence for one. I've never heard an argument for how gods are impossible. I've heard people's ideas on why gods are improbable, but not impossible. I have never seen or heard of any actual credible evidence for any gods, and I don't believe in any. Maybe a god will show up one day, or we'll find one. Until then I hold no belief in any god. A person who holds no belief in any gods is an atheist.
ReclaimXmas 3 weeks ago
@ReclaimXmas - I have never seen a panda. Guess they don't exist... I have never felt what it feels like to die... guess death does not exist... "Just because you don't feel it does not mean it's not there." - Radiohead, There There: watch?v=7AQSLozK7aA&ob=av2e
- No you talk like a agnostic... a person who doesn't know if god is there is agnostic. Key is in the words 'DOESN'T KNOW'. Actually it's not just Gods but spirituality. Atheist KNOW there is nothing Spiritual.
TheaDragonSpirit 3 weeks ago