Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course I can. To say there is no proof of God as described by Christianity does not automatically negate the endless possibilities of the universe. What we know now is dramatically different from what we knew 6000 years ago. To even remotely suggest man has all the definitive answers in 2019 is incredibly closed-minded.
Jesus H Christ! What is wrong with you people?? It's not about KNOWLEDGE it is about BELIEF! I do not believe that gods do/might exist. That does not mean that I am negating the 'endless possibilities of the universe'. I might be wrong. Doesn't alter the fact that I do not believe that gods exist and so it must logically follow that I can't believe that they MIGHT exist. Here. Your mate VIC said it here..... whilst arguing that I should do what I was already doing.
Quote:
Very easily. You just accept that such things could exist, and then acknowledge that you don't yourself believe that they do.
Do you see how one can accept that one is wrong regarding the existence of gods (knowledge) whilst having no belief that they do or might exist (belief).
You are talking about knowledge. I am talking about belief.
No. We were both talking about the belief that there might be a god. I believe there might be one, but I don't believe there is. Simple.
Quote:
When you are driving around a blind corner, do you drive really slowly just in case there is a leprechaun sitting in the road? Of course you don't - and why don't you- because you don't believe they exist and you don't even believe that they might exist.
It isn't because I don't believe leprechauns exist that I'm not watching out for them. It's because I do believe they don't exist. So this may be your confusion. Not believing in the existence of gods =/= believing there are no gods.
Perhaps instead of us all being wrong and not understanding, it's your hot head not being willing to take the time to sit and read -- and really think about -- what other people are writing.
For someone that has, on two occasions now, had a flounce and swore to never again respond to my posts , you have an awful lot to say.
...and BTW 'argumentum ad populem' isn't always correct. Otherwise Christianity would be right wouldn't it.
If some people wish to erroneously decide it simply means ‘unsure’, as a few people on this board do, that doesn’t change the definition. But it’s hilarious you are now relating the term to computers and your ‘gold-plated Porsche.’ People use slang and chop apart the English language all the time.
They also use English (and the Greek) correctly. I write software that runs on all operating systems that can run a modern web browser. My software does not need to know what operating system it is, therefore it is OS agnostic.
You have no knowledge about my gold plated Porsche (actually you do, which was my original point). Which means you are agnostic about it (until you ask your self is this likely (hint, hint).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
Agnostic (Miriam Webster definition in its entirety)
-1. NOUN, 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 A GOD.
Words are used in slang, or erroneously, all of the time - but that doesn’t change a word’s definition. To suggest the term agnostic (a person who does not believe anything beyond material phenomena is proveable’) has anything to do with ‘general uncertainty’ pertaining to politics or a Porsche - is way beyond a nuance. It’s completely butchering the word.
Words cannot have different meanings when it’s in complete conflict with the original meaning. If the definition pertains to lack of knowledge based on the inability to measure beyond material phenomena - how could it also refer to someone who is ‘unsure’ about Harry’s gold plated porsche?
Sure, words evolve, that’s how slang is developed. Eventually, some of those words even appear in the dictionary. But that doesn’t change the standard, universal dictionary definition of the word (especially how it pertains in this forum). And in this particular case, the definition a few people wish to ascribe the word, completely conflicts with its universally recognized definition. For what purpose? So someone can ask if my agnosticism applies to his ‘gold plated Porsche’?
Which no one was doing. I was trying to demonstrate that your agnosticism may not be as agnostic as you think. Which requires you to think about your agnosticism (as you would about my alleged gold plated Porsche).
The purpose is so that one can state they do not claim to have absolute-knowledge, all the while posturing as if they do; it's a sweet spot for perpetual "debaters".
Although you like implying motives to people, it would help if you was actually correct once in a while.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
